1988-02-22

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the text of diplomatic notes exchanged between Canada and the Netherlands. I am also pleased to table copies of a Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Israel, in both official languages, as well as in Hebrew.
These agreements will enable Canadian officials to gather evidence in the Netherlands and Israel, and both include the conditions recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes to ensure the obtaining of such evidence in accordance with Canadian procedures and safeguards.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3537, 332-3662 to 332-3677, inclusive; 332-3845 to 332-3849, inclusive; 332-3857 to 3323865, inclusive; 332-3870, 332-3880 to 332-3885, inclusive; and 332-3902 to 332-3907, inclusive.



XV OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride to report to the House of Commons the progress of the XV Olympic Winter Games in Calgary as well as a review of the preparations which led to making these games the most successful winter games in the history of the Olympic movement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: To begin with, the success rests with the fact that from the very beginning there was a partnership formed, a partnership between the federal Government, the provincial Government of Alberta and the City of Calgary, very much along with the private and corporate sector from coast to coast, all under the terrific direction of the organizing committee known as OCO '88. This partnership led toward preparing and developing the best facilities, the best organizations and the best infrastructure that any games have ever seen.
The commitment on the part of the Government of Canada was $200 million in non-tax revenue dollars, and I want to make that very clear. We have been able to raise those non-tax dollars from such events as the sale of commemorative Olympic coins world wide, an agreement with provincial lottery organizations, the obtaining of the seignorage from the circulating dollar coin and so on.
The biggest aspect of raising these funds is the sale of the Olympic commemorative coins. As a result of the tremendous respect of the Royal Canadian Mint, we are selling those coins in Japan, in the United States, in western Europe and all over the world. We are bringing those currencies into Canada to build facilities in Calgary, not only for these games but for the use by Canadians for generations to come. We are proud that we have been able to contribute as a federal Government toward the success of these games without costing the taxpayer one red cent. We have contributed toward the success of the games, but beyond that, as well we have contributed toward making a legacy which will go on for generations, leaving an economic benefit which began even before the games began.
Very briefly, before the opening ceremonies took place on February 13, the economic benefits of the preparation of the Calgary Olympics was an influx of new dollars, $1.3 billion, into the Gross Domestic Product of Canada. This not only affects Calgary and Alberta but the whole country, because

February 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers
obviously when preparing for the games one must provide services and products from coast to coast. Even before the games began, there was a benefit of $1.3 billion and the creation of some 27,000 person-years of employment. These facilities, which were constructed on time and under budget, are the best state-of-the-art technology facilities ever to be constructed anywhere in the world. They will be used after the games, not only by high performance athletes from Canada and around the world, but by the public at large because this is a people-oriented Olympics.
In fact, I believe that the success of the federal Government's involvement in the preparation of these Olympics was best summed up by the Auditor General, who very seldom has praise for anything, who in his most recent report concluded that the federal Government's financial management of its involvement in the Olympic Games was, in an unprecedented manner, well managed. In fact, he suggested that it was done in a brilliant fashion and that all Canadians can be proud of the accomplishment of the Government and the people of Canada in preparing the facilities for the games.
In addition to the federal Government's contribution of $125 million to the facilities it contributed another $45 million toward the organization of the games, also non-tax revenues, and most important, and for the first time, we have established from non-tax revenue sources a $30 million endowment fund. The proceeds of the endowment fund will be used to operate these facilities in the future so that there will be no burden on the taxpayer to operate those facilities after the games.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, that describes the preparation of the facilities and the games themselves. 1 have had the opportunity as a Canadian to participate in the Olympics, both as an athlete and as a television commentator for many years. One of the things which I felt was wrong in previous Olympics in other countries was that the spirit of the games was restricted to the host city. I felt it was very important to try to spread the Olympic spirit to every community across Canada.
When I presented that proposal to Cabinet it was unanimously supported and we came up with the Celebration '88 program in which Members from all sides of the House have participated with much enthusiasm. Celebration '88 leading up to the games gave every Canadian the opportunity to participate in some way, shape, or form in the Olympic spirit within their own communities. We developed an educational package for our youth which all the provinces distributed to the elementary schools. We developed with the communities at the community level special Olympic community events.
Most important of all, I suppose, are the ceremonies to recognize those people in every community who contributed in their way, be it as a coach, a sponsor, an athlete, a volunteer, or an official. This has given all of us in the House of Commons an opportunity to recognize individuals within our own
communities for the contributions they have made to sport and to the community based on the Olympic program.
The heart and soul of this program, of course, was the torch relay. 1 need not remind Members of the tremendous emotion which came from the hearts as Canadians came out on the streets to watch the torch go through their communities. I do not believe that in my lifetime 1 have seen such emotion pour out of Canadians from every walk of life as it did during the torch relay. That emotion, of course, has been carried into Calgary for the games. There is no doubt in my mind that the Celebration '88 program with the torch relay produced perhaps the most unifying effect that this country has seen in decades, if ever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: So the torch moved to Calgary on February 13 for the beginning of 16 days of celebrations that will live on in this country forever. It is not only 16 days of celebration of sport, Mr. Speaker, it is 16 days of celebration of culture, a celebration of the arts, a celebration of youth coming together from all parts of the world in harmony and in peace, all in the spirit of the Olympic movement. That is what the games are all about.
1 can say, as a former athlete and, more important, as a Canadian, that when the Canadian team walked into McMahon Stadium on February 13 my chest swelled out and my heart pumped a little faster. The pride and emotion of the
60,000	people in that stadium and the 1.5 billion people watching Canada through the eyes of television put Canada right on top of the heap worldwide and brought something into Canadian hearts and minds which was long in coming.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: When young Robyn Perry, the 11-year old Calgarian figure skater, ran up the steps to light the cauldron it was beyond words. That young Canadian was the symbol of the youth of the world, symbolizing what the Olympic spirit means, not only to sport and not only to Canadians but to the youth of the world.
The games began with a people-oriented event and as we approach the last few days of the Olympics we see that it is indeed a people-oriented Olympics. More tickets have been sold and more people have participated than in any previous Olympics. In fact, ticket sales have zoomed to well over 1.5 million. The highest level of sales prior to these Olympics was in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, four years ago when 435,000 tickets were sold. In Calgary over 1.5 million tickets have been sold and the events are jam-packed. The medal ceremonies every night in the downtown plaza attract an average of 50,000 people. The 70-metre ski jump was watched by over 70,000 people. The enthusiasm has spread to every corner of Calgary and is spreading to every corner of Canada and the world as well.
February 22, 1988

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate, on behalf of the Government of Canada and on behalf of Parliament, not only the organizers of the games but the thousands and thousands of volunteers who made this people-Olympics a reality. The volunteers come from every walk of life. The other day 1 was driven in a car by a volunteer who is a company executive whose salary is probably $250,000 a year. Yet, for the duration of a month, he volunteered his time and services to make the Olympics a success. Calgarians and Canadians have opened up their homes and their hearts to the world. We have shown the world that we can compete. We have shown the world the warmth, hospitality, enthusiasm, friendship, and generosity that Canadians are all about. Right now the world is envious of this tremendous success.
Finally, none of this could happen without the athletes. Our athletes have contributed so much of themselves in their young lifetimes. I speak as a former Olympian and I know that you give up all of your normal life as you prepare to represent, not only yourself-that is secondary-but your family, your community and, most of all, your country. The greatest Olympian Canada has ever had is Gaetan Boucher with his tremendous courage. We are so proud of him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: The spirit of Brian Orser and the determination of Karen Percy symbolize the Canadian athletes' commitment and spirit to compete on behalf of themselves and Canada. We are all very proud of their achievement and efforts.
Perhaps this is a little bit out of line with what we should or should not do in this place, but if 1 may through you, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to convey also our thanks and congratulations to the parents of these athletes. They have made it possible for them to give of their lives to the sport, to Canada, and to the Olympic movement. You happen to be one of those parents, Mr. Speaker, and we were very proud yesterday when your daughter, Anna Fraser, represented Canada so dramatically in the aerials in free style skiing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: We thank you for your efforts and I hope, sir, that through you we are able to pass our thanks and congratulations to all the parents of our Canadian athletes who are making us so proud.
I wish it had been my idea to come forward with the parents program that Labatt's, one of the official sponsors of the Olympic Games, initiated in order to bring the families and the parents of our Olympic athletes to Calgary. Labatt's, as well as all the sponsors associated with the Olympic games in Calgary should be congratulated.
If 1 sound a little emotional and a little over enthusiastic, it is because I am. I come from a country where many of our
Statements by Ministers
freedoms were taken away. My parents had the wisdom to choose this country which gives Canadians hopes and aspirations, opportunities and freedoms that no other country can match. It is because of these opportunities, because of these freedoms, because of these hopes and aspirations that we can share with the rest of the world the tremendous accomplishments that Canadians have brought to themselves, to Canada and the Olympic movement.
The spirit of the Olympics is the desire of mankind to come together in friendship and harmony in order to bring peace and a better understanding to all parts of the world. The Olympics is far more than just a bunch of skiers going down a ski slope, or a bunch of skaters skating in circles. It is through this Olympic spirit that we can make the world a better place, not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren.
The Calgary Olympics have contributed toward that goal. We as Canadians can be very proud of this tremendous accomplishment on behalf of peace and freedom everywhere around the world through the eyes of the Olympic Games.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I voice on behalf of the Official Opposition our congratulations and continued support to Canada's athletes participating in the XV Winter Olympics now being held in Calgary.

Mr. Speaker, it was Baron Pierre de Coubertin who in 1896 brought the world a proposal for restoring the Olympiads of Ancient Greece. As we all know, the first Winter Olympics were held in Chamonix, France, in 1924. At the time, the Winter Games were only a kind of mini-Olympics, but today, the Winter Games have achieved the same status as the Summer Olympics.

Mr. Gordon Douglas, a legislative assistant to one of my colleagues, was in France last week. He told me that he had the opportunity to see the Calgary Olympics through the eyes of the world and that the coverage and prestige of the Olympics was extensive and a compliment to us as a nation.
Half-way through the international games, all Canadians can be proud of the dedication, determination and sportsmanship exhibited by our athletes in competing against the world's best. The outstanding Silver Medal figure skating performance of Brian Orser of Penatanguishene, Ontario, was breathtaking to watch. The Bronze Medal downhill run of Banffs Karen Percy was equally breathtaking and the tens of thousands who turned out for the awards ceremony last Friday is a reflection of Canada's pride in her performance.
Mr. Speaker, occasionally I try to ski and, while I enjoy it, I do not do a very good job. I had very special admiration while watching a famous skier you know very well, your daughter

February 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers
Anna Fraser, who came in fourth in free style aerial skiing. As far as I am concerned, of course, she was No. 1.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I must say that as one who tries to ski I was somewhat green with envy in the hope that someday 1 could be able to ski one-tenth as well.
Canada's men and women curling teams won medals in their demonstration sport. The Gold Medal to the women's team and the Bronze Medal won by the men's team reflect Canada's continuing international domination of this very popular sport.
I want to speak briefly about the Best Ever fund, some $25 million that was injected toward assisting our athletes. Today I read a newspaper article which indicated that the funding had not been a success because, in the opinion of the writer, the results were not as they should have been. I want to respectfully disagree with that. 1 suggest that just keeping up with the other countries that are ever improving their own athletes-we have certainly kept up so far, with the best days yet to come- is a tangible measure that the Best Ever fund had and hopefully will continue to have in the future.
One should also outline the exceptional performance of our disabled athletes in the women's and men's giant slalom. They are indeed reasons for excitement and admiration by all of us.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in 1976 I had the privilege of being one of the bearers of the Olympic Flame. 1 carried the torch between Ontario and Quebec, at Cumberland, Ontario, when the Torch crossed the river into our neighbouring province. For me it was a very special privilege, as a Quebecer by birth and a Franco-Ontarian by adoption, to provide the link between the two provinces by carrying the Olympic Torch.
This year, like everybody else I put my name in for the draw for bearers of the Olumpic Torch, but I was not as lucky as in 1976. I can't say 1 lacked political pull, but I didn't have the luck of the draw, Mr. Speaker.
1 was lucky just the same, because the Olympic Torch stopped in my riding in Casselman, Ontario, and I want to thank the officials and directors of Petro-Canada for making it possible for my riding to take part in the Olympic Torch relay.
I would like to say a few words about Celebration '88. The Minister said earlier that many Members took advantage of this event to involve their communities in the program. 1 am one of those Members. In my case, Mr. Speaker, fifteen municipalities in my riding participated. I personally met with municipal authorities, and during the holidays, my senior assistant, Andre Tessier, met with all municipalities to encourage as many as possible to participate. In fact, especially thanks to the excellent work done by my assistant, a lot of these municipalities did in fact participate.
Saturday evening I was visiting the municipality of Planta-genet South, a very small one in my riding, where I had the
privilege, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of our country, of giving six Celebration '88 medals to local volunteers.
Mr. Speaker, volunteers have worked in our communities for decades. Today, thanks to Celebration '88, we have a way of expressing our recognition for the major contribution they have made. I therefore would like to congratulate the people who initiated the Celebration '88 Program, and if the Minister himself is responsible, 1 want him to accept my congratulations. If it was one of his officials, I hope he will transmit my congratulations to the person concerned, because Celebration '88 is an excellent program and one that was long overdue.
In addition to medals, Celebration '88 also gives Members a chance to hand out merit certificates. These are signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Member concerned. I have handed out about nearly 300 certificates in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, the names of the recipients being provided by the various municipalities. 1 must say it does not happen very often that my name and the Prime Minister's appear on the same document. When we realize 300 of these certificates have been handed out in my riding, it becomes an exceptional performance indeed. I want to congratulate the Minister on this initiative as well, because there are certainly more than six individuals per municipality who deserve recognition. So for the others, we have the certificates, which probably did not cost that much to make, but which are nevertheless a token of appreciation, by the various governments, of the work done by all these volunteers and all those who have been working for years to help their communities.
The Calgary Winter Olympic Games would not be the international success that they are without the hard work of the thousands of volunteers who have assisted. The Minister enumerated cases of individuals who have given up so much of their time. He has referred to company executives, for example, who took their time to participate as volunteers in the Olympics. Many individuals who participated as volunteers probably had to make tremendous sacrifices to do so. Some of them used hard-earned dollars that they could have used for themselves, but instead they chose to spend their own money in order to assist others and to participate in the Olympic movement. Those people deserve our congratulations indeed.
These men and women also deserve our congratulations for ensuring that the Calgary Winter Olympic Games are a meeting place of nations in friendly competition. They are indeed, as the Minister has said, the best Olympic games yet.

Mr. Speaker, I was Opposition critic at the time Parliament passed the Bill authorizing the Royal Canadian Mint to manufacture the Olympic Coin. I am proud that our Party supported this initiative, and I am delighted to see how successful this program has been.
February 22, 1988

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations, also on behalf of my colleagues, to the athletes, the volunteers, the organizing committees and the City of Calgary.

The only thing we can wish for and perhaps even pray for today and tomorrow is a bit of a cold snap and some snow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Olympics is a dream, a dream come true for the young athletes who are participating in the games. It is a dream come true for the world in that we are able to carry out an international activity in a co-operative spirit, and a dream come true for Canadians. We are hosts to the world and to the best in the world.

Today, we are proud to be Canadians.

We are proud to be Canadians.
1 want to mention three things about the Olympics. 1 want to talk a bit about the athletes and about the politics of the Olympics and I want to say a few words about Olympic journalism.
To one who has only recently adopted the practice of exercise, in fact in the last few weeks, the Olympics is an Everest that requires super human dedication, commitment and capacity to mount. I am inspired by the young people who are participating in the Olympics and by the young Canadians who are at the Olympic games. To be at the Olympics, simply to be there and to be a part of the games, is an attainment, the fulfilment of a dream. It is the culmination of a long process of dedication and of sacrifice by athletes and by their families. To be at the Olympics, whether one wins a medal, places high or low-simply to be there-is a world class attainment.
We have much to learn from these young people about setting goals of excellence and about attainment. Yet we also have winners. There are those who find themselves in the winner's circle. Karen Percy was our first medal winner. She broke through to make Canada a winner. Brian Orser performed at the absolute epitome of athletic excellence. Many others including Linda Moore, Penny Ryan, Debbie Jones, Lindsay Sparkes, Ed Lukowich, John Ferguson, Neil Houston and Brent Syme are participating. Canada and its athletes are in the winner's circle.
I want to say a bit about the politics of the Olympics. 1 heard the Minister say that the Olympics would not cost the taxpayers one red cent. Of course, as a taxpayer 1 am glad that no additional burden will be put on my shoulders, but I do hope that this does not mean that the Government is blind to a few other lessons that are to be learned from this.
Statements by Ministers
In this Olympics there has been an appeal for private dollars. I must say that that is a good policy, but experience has shown that this works with popular sports like skiing. However, what about the less well known sports, the sports which are yet to gain a popular following? Is there not here a role for public dollars? What about the long-term development that is needed in order to lay the base for Olympic performance? Who will pay for the facilities and the coaching when the camera lights are no longer shining upon the arena? I hope the Government is not blind to the fact that there is a role for public dollars and that there is a long-term developmental process that must be supported. 1 hope the Government will see this rather than simply be restricted by some sort of ideological blinders.
Another aspect of the politics of the Olympics has to do with the Lubicon Indians. I hope that when the television cameras have left Calgary the Lubicon will be remembered. As native people, we have a dream too. We have a dream of justice. We have a dream of being treated fairly. When the cameras are gone from Calgary the Lubicon must be remembered, and the federal Government and the provincial Government must act to resolve that injustice. The federal Government and the provincial Governments must act to resolve that injustice.
1 have another perspective on the Olympics which I want to share with Hon. Members. It is with respect to Olympic journalism. I have been surprised, shocked and hurt by some of the reporting I have seen concerning the Olympics. I have seen what I would call political reporting being transferred to the covering of the games. It is fair ball to savage the Government and to ask loaded questions before TV cameras of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It is all right to perform a hatchet job on Ed Broadbent, Brian Mulroney, John Crosbie or John Turner. I want to say that when it comes to our young athletes, they should be left alone.
I find it incredible when I see in the paper a picture of Karen Percy, who broke through at the Olympics to make Canada a winner, with a reporter saying, "She didn't win a second medal". What kind of reporting is that? Brian Orser performed at world peak, yet a reporter came up to him with the cameras on and said, "We have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that you won a medal. The bad news is that you came in second. What do you have to say?" That may be all right for the battleground of politics, but it is one shabby way to treat our Olympic athletes.
Gaetan Boucher is world reknowned for his achievements. What did the media do to him? They put his picture on the front pages and wrote, "How come he only came in ninth?" The man had enormous courage to compete, in light of the record that he has behind him. He had the courage to put his world record at risk. I say to members of the media, clean up your journalism. If you want to be rough and tough and ask loaded questions, stay in the political arena but leave the athletes alone. This is a celebration of excellence. It is a

February 22, 1988
Petitions
celebration of participation. Let's have a little civility in the treatment of our athletes."
The Olympics is a dream. It is a fulfilment of a dream for Canada. It is the fulfilment for the athletes who are participating. They are there because they have dedicated their lives to achieving a goal, that is, to get to the Olympics and then to perform there.
There is a lesson to be learned about winning and losing. Even if one does not achieve the gold, one has won because one has done the best that one could do. One has pushed oneself to the limit and grown and developed. That in itself is an achievement. That in itself makes one a winner.
Today, all Canadians celebrate the dream of the Olympics. Today we are proud to be Canadians.
Mountain district, McCord, Ferland and Mankota, Saskatchewan.
Whereas money had been allocated for the upgrading of branch line to hopper car standards, and whereas the Minister appears to be considering redirecting funds toward compensation for removal of these lines, and whereas the Wood Mountain line has been in the permanent network and was on schedule for upgrading in 1988, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the moneys so allocated are used for upgrading the branch line and that the schedule for upgrading be carried on as planned for the 1988 season.
This petition is signed by over 1,000 residents of southern Saskatchewan.



PETITIONS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians who indicate that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
They point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They point out that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between regions.
They state that the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed Mulroney trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of southern Saskatchewan along the Wood Mountain railway branch line. They are residents of the Wood
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
222, 233, 240 and 251.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	How many inmates in the federal correctional system have applied for an escorted temporary absence to (a) visit a dying member of their immediate family (b) attend the funeral of an immediate family member?
2.	In each case where the application was rejected, was this for (a) security reasons (b) cost reasons (c) other reasons and, if so, what reasons?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1(a) and 2(a) (b) and (c). The correctional service of Canada (CSC) does not keep information on escorted temporary absences that have been denied. Therefore, it is not possible to provide accurate data on applications. However, the following number of escorted temporary absences were granted:
Fiscal Year
1985/86 1986/87 1987 to Dec. 4
Illness in the Family
120
Death in the Family
189
In assessing a request for an escorted temporary absence, the CSC must consider the security of the public, the distance to be travelled, as well as staff availability. The Correctional Service is sensitive to such requests and makes every effort to grant escorted temporary absences. Inmates are informed in writing or the ressons for the denial of requests and they may appeal the Warden's decision.
February 22, 1988


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Has the government, or an agency thereof, developed standards or criteria for a safe container in which to transport plutonium in an airplane and, if so, what are they?
2.	If such standards do not exist, are they being developed and, if so, (i) by whom (ii) when will they be ready?
3.	Will standards or criteria be adopted from other jurisdictions and if so, from which jurisdiction(s)?
4.	What are the specifics of the standards or criteria under consideration for adoption?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows:
1. and 2. Yes, there are standards and criteria for the safe containment, during transportation, of radioactive materials including plutonium. These are minimum regulatory safety standards for all radioactive materials and can be augmented by other limitations, terms and conditions, depending upon the specifics of a proposed shipment.
Under the Atomic Energy Control Act, the AECB is empowered to regulate the transportation of "prescribed substances", which include radioactive materials like plutonium.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act also applies to all handling, offering for transport and transporting of "dangerous goods", by any means of transport. The AECB and Transport Canada jointly administer the regulation of the shipment of dangerous goods, like plutonium, through an Inter-Departmental Memorandum of Agreement on the Transport of Radioactive Materials.
The AECB administers the Transport Packaging of Radioactive Materials Regulations. These regulations establish the standards and criteria for the certification of packaging designed to contain plutonium for transport by any means of transport, including air. In any examination of the ability of a proposed container to meet the packaging performance standards of the regulations, the AECB is also empowered to consider any health, safety or security concern and to impose other limitations, terms and conditions on the use or the transportation of a package containing radioactive "prescribed substances".
Copies of the regulations are available, upon request, from the Radiosotopes and Tranportation Division, Atomic Energy Control Board, 270 Albert Street, Ottawa.
3. The above standards and criteria are based on those which have been developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Canada, as a founding member state, participates in the work of the IAEA in the continuous evaluation and development of criteria and standards dealing with the safe transport of radioactive material. At present, the IAEA is examining proposals dealing with shipments involving high consequence/low probability accidents; these proposals
The Budget-Mr. Charest
apply to shipments of radioactive materials, such as plutonium shipments by air and other means of transport.
4. There are no other standards or criteria, specific to plutonium, which are under consideration for adoption. However, there is a revision to some of the IAEA standards affecting radioactive materials. This revision has not yet been adopted internationally and the AECB is presently examining them for incorporation into Canadian legislation.


Mr. Nunziata: As a result of trauma caused by the loss of Air India Flight 182, how many (a) passenger agents (b) mechanics (c) flight attendants (d) baggage handlers (e) other airport workers at (i) Vancouver International Airport (ii) Pearson International Airport (iii) Mirabel International Airport underwent psychological counselling?
Hon John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport): Only workers in category (e) belong to Transport Canada. The counsellors for Transport Canada report that none have provided the inquired about services to Transport Canada employees.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Privy Council Office make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):
[Stage Direction]
February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Charest
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
And the amendment of Mr. Garneau:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following: This House regrets that the Budget
1.	Failed to redress the inequities of the tax system created by government policies put forward during the last three and one-half years;
2.	Failed to put into place a regional development policy to compensate for the high interest rate policy of the Government;
3.	Failed to put forward a credible plan to deal with the national debt that does not unduly punish lower and middle-income Canadians; and
4.	Failed to specify a Canadian approach for dealing with the instabilities of the international monetary system.
And the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cassidy:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House further condemns the government for introducing a budget that ignores the real economic needs of the country in which over 1.1 million Canadians are unemployed and eight out of ten provinces and the territories continue to experience employment and income disparities equal to those of the 1981-83 recession; for increasing the tax burden of average Canadian families to a level of $ 1,125 over the 1984 level through yet another increase in gas taxes; for failing to bring fairness to the tax system through the elimination of costly tax breaks and the introduction of a corporate minimum tax that would ensure fair and regular tax payment from those 60,000 profitable corporations that will pay no tax following Conservative tax reform; for maintaining a policy of high interest rates begun by previous Liberal Governments; and for failing to introduce a system of universal child care that would assist average Canadian families and create jobs.
Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Now, it is important to remember why we dwelt on such a change. And I am ready to go ...


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Bourassa.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Minister to say that the member of Bourassa is shaking his head approvingly ... or to suggest indirectly to the Canadian people and to my constituents . . . Yes, the Tory Minister is laughing.
I do not want to be misunderstood, because the Minister is one of my good friends, but I shook my head in a very negative way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, it is not a
point of order.


Carlo Rossi: 1 think that it is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You may be able to ask him a question or make a comment later. The Minister of State for Youth has the floor.


Carlo Rossi: It's not a question, Mr. Speaker. He's misleading.


Jean J. Charest: To clarify the matter, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Bourassa is right in pointing out that when I ... To put an end to that, Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to burden you with that clarification. Since it was I who said it, I have no intention of implying in any way that the Hon. Member for Bourassa agrees with my speech, or perhaps part of it. He will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, if he so wishes, that is his choice.
Finally, to return to where we were in 1984, there were references to changes. Let us recall the context then, and in the main it is still the context that is prevailing today.
In 1984, Mr. Speaker, the world around us witnessed many changes. I think we must first list those changes. The global economic axis was changing, moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific and this is one reality that had to be addressed in 1984. Then we had the increasing importance of the service sector in the global economy, representing as it does some 25 per cent of the global GNP, which is reflected in Canada in that, among others, 75 per cent of jobs in this country are currently in the service sector. This is quite a radical development, considering especially that in 1945, Mr. Speaker, only some 40 per cent of jobs in Canada were in the area of services, as compared to 75 per cent in 1986. So already in 1984 that was quite a radical change.
The Budget-Mr. Charest
In addition, there was the emergence of the newly industrialized nations. I am referring here to Brazil which, by way of an aside, is going through quite a dramatic period, but which anyway can be characterized or labelled as one of the emerging nations among developing ones. South Korea is another example, Mr. Speaker, of industrializing nations. There is also Japan's current importance as one of our markets.
Among those new realities, there was also the relative decline of the United States, because other industrialized nations were emerging and the American trade deficit was whipping up protectionist trends in the United States. And this is a reality that is of very close significance to us Canadians, because some 80 per cent of our two-way trade, meaning both exports and imports, are with the United States. So this is of some significance to us as a nation.
One thing is clear in all this, and 1 believe that everyone can agree, namely that we could not accept the status quo. There had to be a change, and this change had to be rather comprehensive. What we have accomplished during the last three years is quite noteworthy. I am certain that Members on the other side will tell us that they do not agree with such or such an initiative, but no one can deny the fact that this Government has made a number of very important structural changes.
Among other things, this Government has provided Canada with a new trade policy. This is the first time such a thing has happened since 1879, when Sir John A. Macdonald developed in this House what was then called the national policy. It is the first time since 1879 that the Canadian Government has attempted to develop a comprehensive trade policy on two fronts, first by pursuing our interests within GATT, and second by deciding to negotiate a free trade agreement with our neighbours to the South, the Americans, to try to provide some stability in our trading relations with the United States as they account for 80 per cent of all our exports.
This is a basic change for Canada. We also established a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology, recognizing the need for Canada to acquire, develop and apply new industrial technologies if we want to remain competitive, while keeping in mind the fact that Canada is an exporting country, even though other countries are more dependent on their exports for their Gross National Product. Everyone agrees on this point, including the Liberals, the NPD and ourselves. We all agree that we are an exporting country and want to remain an exporting country. We do not necessarily agree on the means to do so, but we do agree on the basic facts.
I therefore assume that we also agree on the industrial consequence of such a choice, this consequence being that we have to acquire and apply new technologies. This is why this new Department was created.
Canada being made up of regions, we also developed new regional economic development policies based in large part on

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Charest
the principle that the local people are always in the best position to manage their own economy and make their own decisions. This is why the federal Government decentralized its administrative machinery to manage its regional economic development programs. This was done in Western Canada. It was also done in Eastern Canada, in the Atlantic region. It was also done for Northern Ontario. We re-established the Laprade Fund in Quebec, and there is also the Eastern Plan.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country made up of regions, and so these very tangible and very real instruments have been made available to enable the regions to implement better management standards and look after their own administration.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, people are wont to forget a basic fact, namely that this Government has been sponsoring a new employment policy. The employment planning strategy was the result of the First Ministers' Conference held in Regina in 1985, a historic conference where the federal Government, the provinces, the private sector, labour unions and a host of interest groups in our society co-operated and reached a consensus on a new employment planning strategy geared to our country's current priorities.
We have three major priorities. First we concluded that from here on in we had to emphasize training under our employment programs, that it was no longer good enough to sponsor job programs only to keep people busy, that we had to take a further step and do more for these people by making training facilities available to them in an attempt to determine whether they would be employable. We wanted these people to look forward to regular work instead of going from job programs to unemployment benefits or yet other work programs.
Mr. Speaker, the second priority of the employment planning strategy was to concentrate on people who had been out of work for twenty weeks or more, because it stands to reason that they are the ones who find it more difficult to rejoin the labour force.
And, thirdly, Mr. Speaker, under the employment planning strategy, we have also sought other partners, because jobs creation should not be the concern of only one government in Canada, nor that of only one industry, but it should be the concern of all those involved, namely the private sector, the unions, the non-profit and public organizations at every level, whether municipal or provincial. That is why we wanted to include as many partners as possible.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, people have a tendency to forget that this Government has also administered this country along principles which are our own as Progressive Conservatives; hence our deregulation, privitization, tax reform and deficit control policies. That is a management strategy which properly reflects the philosophy of our party, a philosophy which we had clearly enunciated in 1984. Having received the full support of Canadian voters during the 1984 election, we performed exactly as we had promised.
In our opinion, it was important to administer the country along these principles for the following reason: In view of foreign factors which influence us and cannot be denied, as evidenced by the recent stock exchange crash.
Clearly, nobody can deny that events occurring outside of Canada have a serious impact on us. If Canada wants to meet head-on the new challenges confronting us, and occupy the place it deserves, if we want to solve the new problems, the Govenment's organization must be flexible enough to meet these needs. More than ever before, Mr. Speaker, people involved in business or trade unions at every level should develop the necessary flexibility to meet as quickly and efficiently as possible the challenges confronting us, which is not easy. The only way to do it as the Federal Government, on the basis of our Progressive Conservative philosophy, is to try to lighten the Government machinery to make it as flexible as possible. Some people will say to us: Well, the Government is opting out. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with such a conclusion. If the Government was in fact opting out, why did we produce, for instance, a national policy on child care? Is that the way a government willing to opt or back out behaves? Not at all, quite the contrary! My goodness, it seems to me an initiative as important as this one is evidence of a government's dedication to its citizens and its intention to make its presence felt. But instead of being inhibiting, of being an obstacle, that presence should rather facilitate change and allow to manage it better, and on a personal basis, leave individuals free to decide on their own without trying to guide them in their choices or impose choices on them.
Beyond all that, Mr Speaker, as a country, if we wanted to meet those challenges, we had to be able to prepare better for the great changes we are going through; we also had to bring reconciliation within Canada. It is with some joy, I think, that all Members of this House witnessed the signing of the Meech Lake Accord, debated it here, and were finally able to recognize the significance of the national reconciliation which we owe in part if not totally, I must say, to the efforts of the Prime Minister. It will no doubt remain one of his most magnificent achievements.
What is the purpose of all this? That question must be asked. We did all that. In 1984, we promised change-external factors are urging us on, we produced for Canada new policies on trade, investment, regional economic development, and employment. We achieved national reconciliation. But what was our goal? I think it is becoming clear that, for this Government, what we want for Canada is a new role in the world. What we are trying to do is redefine Canada's international role. We wish to achieve this objective in a context where Americans and superpowers generally are less powerful-not because they get poorer in absolute terms but because other countries get richer. Such a new balance would provide Canada, as a country, with an absolutely outstanding opportunity.
It would mean a stronger position for us to influence world affairs so that they reflect increasingly our Canadian values.
February 22, 1988

There are concrete examples of that. That will and those hopes and wishes have made it possible for us to hold the Sommet de la Francophonie. It is the Canadian Government and our Prime Minister who made that summit possible and the leadership role we have in that regard is by no means an accident. It is no accident either that Canada, which is a North American country, plays a leadership role in the Commonwealth. And it is no accident that we signed a free-trade deal with the U.S. while pursuing our leadership role within GATT. It is no accident, Mr. Speaker, that Canada and this Government have a new national defence policy that recognizes our commitment to NATO while emphasizing Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic. And it will be a great moment in our history when the Prime Minister welcomes the leaders of the Group of Seven nations next June in Toronto, which is now said to be a "world city"? At last, they got the same status as Montreal, if I may be more provincial in my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the fact that Canada plays a more important part in the world, and there is a reason for all that. Our underlying motivation is the following: as a Government and as a country on the everchanging world scene which gives us an opportunity to play a more significant part, we want to promote our own values, our own views about the environment for example, our great traditions of tolerance, social peace within our community, of justice and equity. In conclusion all this reflects how Canadians behave in their everyday lives: their stand on multiculturalism and bilingualism. This is part of our country, this is what Canada and Canadian men and women are all about. And by occupying a greater place in the world, with a little luck and a little conceit too, admittedly, we hope to make the world where we live in closer to our own image.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest). The Minister made reference to the positive program as far as child care is concerned that his Government promised. Indeed, there have been promises over three years, perhaps four, that there would be major action taken regarding the very urgent crisis in Canada and the need for many more licensed quality child care spaces for our children, particularly those of working parents. Yet in this Budget to which the Minister is supposedly speaking he really has not acknowledged that. Aside from doubling a very regressive tax measure, there is nothing in the Budget to show the Government's commitment to increased funding for child care spaces. This is a very desperate need.
Would the Minister explain and clarify that? His statement did not give the real picture. Why is there nothing in the Budget to begin making some impact on the child care crisis in Canada? I am talking about increased licensed quality spaces, with a decent rate of pay for care givers and affordable fees for children across the country?
The Budget-Mr. Charest


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can only presume that the Hon. Member may not have accepted the way in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has presented his Budget. The Minister acknowledged that the Government is not required, nor is it necessary to wait for a budget in February each year to act on certain specific issues. It is the approach of the Government to decide what issues merit some importance and some policy direction and to enter into consultations, do the ground work and present issues as they are ready. For that reason, maybe the Hon. Member should feel happy that the Minister of Finance did not wait until February, 1988 to put forward the child care policy that was put forward, which is a very substantial policy and means that we will be spending over $4.5 billion in four years.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: None of that money is in this Budget.


Jean J. Charest: The Hon. Member says there is nothing in this Budget. The Hon. Member, her Party, the NDP, the socialists, say that $4.5 billion is not enough money.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is not in the Budget.


Jean J. Charest: Maybe the Hon. Member has a fixation about budgets and rituals. She feels that something must be in the Budget for it to exist. I can only say to the Hon. Member that Canadians know the item will be reflected in their tax forms. There will be a $4,000 child tax deduction. That did not require the Minister of Finance to wait for some major day in February to put forward his policy. It is as simple as that. We have put forward our policy, consistent with the commitments that we made in the 1984 campaign on child care policy under the leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In 1984 we made a very clear commitment that we would strike a parliamentary committee, study the matter and make a proposal. We did exactly that. We came forward with a very substantial package.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Where is the money?
[ Translation]


Jean J. Charest: If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will review some aspects already announced that the Hon. Member seems to ignore, although he says the Budget did not contain anything new.
You do not have to put anything in the Budget if, for example, you already announced, a few month previously, a national strategy on day care. It includes a new fiscal aid to families with young children, which will cost $2.3 billion; an increase in the tax deduction, now up to $4,000 per child 6 years old or less, or with special needs; a gradual increase of up to $200 per year in income tax credit for children 6 years old or less, for low or medium income families, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody can say it does not exist, nobody can say it is not true.
The deduction ceiling of $8,000 for children more than six years old has been lifted, that deduction is $2,000 per child. A Canadian Day Care Act-the federal Government will spend

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Charest
up to three billion dollars. The new cost sharing agreement with the provinces will allow the creation of up to 200,000 quality day care spaces.
Mr. Speaker, when that program was announced I was home, in my riding, and during the television news, the Hon. Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, who represents the provincial riding of Saint-Franqois and is the Minister responsible for the Status of women, said publicly: it is a good program. The ball is now in the court of the provincial Government, we are pleased with what the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is proposing today.
She must have been satisfied, she probably did not complain the day after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented his budget in February, and-to say there was nothing-
Mr. Speaker, if she was then not complaining, I fail to see what the Hon. Member would have to complain about all of a sudden.
Mr. Speaker, an assistance fund for projects-


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is an abuse of this question period to talk it out and to allow for only one question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 think it was a very important question and a very important answer. When the Minister finishes, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for a very short question or comment. The Minister has the floor.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand my colleague is anxious to put a question, so I will be quick.
An assistance fund for special projects of about $100 million; an assistance fund to carry out demonstration projects, research, public education programs to improve the quality of services. To carry through projects centred on new needs in profit or non-profit child care. A federal financing share of 75 per cent in the provincial capital cost for non-profit day-care centers during the initial period-yes, but my colleague is shouting from the other side of the House: That is not in the budget! That is not in the budget!
All 1 can say is this: It is not in the budget because we acted on it before the budget. What do you want? Do you have anything against the procedure? For something to exist in your own mind must it absolutely be included in the budget? I am sorry, you will never be satisfied because, really, you will never be content, whatever we do. All I am saying is that all other Canadian men and women are pleased.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for my colleague.
I would like to know why he did not mention that his government's Budget has increased taxes for ordinary families,
for middle class families in this country, and that his government, since it has come to power, has increased taxes for families. Why has he not mentioned this? At the same time, the government has let large corporations free to pay no income tax; a large number of Canadian corporations pay no income tax.
Why does he leave this situation unchanged while at the same time making families pay more taxes?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre for his question, and I would like to commend him for his excellent French. Of all Members in this House I heard since I came here three years ago, he certainly is in my view one of those who made the most progress, to a very impressing degree. I sincerely commend him.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) mentioned it in his Budget, that as a result of the tax reform put forward by this Government, 850,000 Canadians will be completely eliminated from the roll of federal taxpayers. It therefore seems to me that this is one initiative of real significance to many Canadian taxpayers who, thanks to this Government tax reform, will no longer pay income tax, Mr. Speaker.
There you have a major part of your answer. Eight families out of ten, Mr. Speaker, will be paying less income tax as a result of the tax reform. Among those 65 and older, nine out of ten will be paying less income tax as a result of the tax reform.
It would seem that these are quite important answers to your questions. Thanks to the initiatives put forward by this Government, including tax reform, those people will be paying less tax, and the balance between individual and corporate taxpayers will be much fairer. But I would like to take a moment perhaps to make a brief comment, because I feel the Hon. Member is not giving the whole picture when suggesting that large corporations pay no tax, nothing at all. I would simply like to refer to one problem, which he no doubt will find is food for thought. How does he explain on the one side for instance his party's policy, that at least of some Members of his party who go to the constituency of my colleague for Abitibi and suggest that flow-through shares should be kept at all cost, the tax credit on flow-through shares that clearly favours people with income? How can they in the same vein blame us for taking action there and go on to say: People should pay more tax, or they are not paying enough! That to my eyes is an amazing contradiction. Perhaps he could shed some light on that!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to put on record some thoughts
February 22, 1988

with regard to this Budget and the Government. The Government promised fairness, honesty, and equity to Canadians and has not delivered. As many of the media commentators have said, this is not so much a Budget as an attempt by the Government to change the agenda of the country which has been unfortunately so absorbed with the many scandals and failures of the Government. It is attempting to convince Canadians that it is really not all bad and to praise itself in a pre-election period.
We are very disappointed, as I am sure most Canadians who have studied this Budget are, about the lost opportunities which have been epitomized in this Budget. The Budget will do nothing for average Canadians. In fact, it contains some regressive measures for them including an increased tax on gas which could cost families about $50 a year extra. In particular, it does nothing to try to deal with the very serious problems which still exist in ridings such as my riding of Vancouver East where there continues to be a very high incidence of poverty and a very high rate of unemployment.
We believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had a real opportunity to move to greater regional fairness, to stop the rise in interest rates which is a very major factor in our economic growth and development, and to make the tax system fairer, which is something the Government has been promising us over and over again. However, there is no attention paid to these things in this Budget.
The Minister also promised to implement the national child care program which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have been promising for years. If 1 sounded very angry when asking questions of the previous speaker, it is because 1 was angry. It is all very well to talk about promises which have been made as if they have been fulfilled. However, there is no child care for most families across the country right now. Nothing has been put forward in this Budget to help to increase the number of licensed quality child care spaces.
The Member can talk at great length about promises, but that does nothing for families with young children who have needed and been promised child care facilities for a number of years and will now obviously have to wait until after an election. This sounds to me like a lot of election propaganda again. Therefore, the Budget is very unfair.
One of the things about which we are particularly concerned is that it is really building two Canadas. You will recall that the Prime Minister warned us a year ago that "we are in the process of building two Canadas, one which is rich and promising and one which is under-developed and underemployed". Speaking of one who comes from an underdeveloped and under-employed region of Canada, and certainly from a constituency which has a high rate of unemployment, I could not agree more. I am very disappointed that during the Minister's last period in office-because he is on his way out, as is the Government-he has done nothing to try to fulfil promises of regional fairness.
The Budget-Ms. Mitchell
The Budget ignores the fact that unemployment in British Columbia, in seven other provinces, and in the North is still at the level which prevailed during the 1981, 1982, and 1983 recessions. Through one of the job development projects we recently did a study in my riding of Vancouver East. 1 sent the study to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). That study showed that in Vancouver East 27.5 per cent of those actively seeking work cannot find jobs. Not all of those statistics show up at the unemployment office, but that is the real rate of unemployment. That is an intolerable situation. I happened to mention that to a colleague of mine from a northern riding who said that there are communities in his riding within which the unemployment rate is over 50 per cent, particularly native communities.
We should have a policy of full employment. We should have a Government which will make this a top priority rather than only talking about how unemployment has gone down in central Canada. We should be working on full employment across the country. This Budget and the trade deal with the United States will not assist in this kind of equality.
The Government had an opportunity to correct unfairness in the tax reform Budget of last year but did nothing. The result is that the average Canadian family will be paying more than $1,000 in additional taxes than in 1984. I stress "families" because families are being penalized more than are those who do not have children. Only the richest 2 per cent of taxpayers will pay less. As a further consequence of this Budget, 60,000 corporations will continue to pay no tax. That group could have been paying taxes to provide revenue for the programs which are necessary, including a much more generous program for child care.
Nothing was done to reduce the interest rate levels which we think would help considerably to develop economic diversification and deal with unemployment. Canadians were looking for fairness but nothing is offered in this Budget to close the growing disparity between people in central Canada and in Canada's East, West, and North, and the disparities between rich and poor which will remain indeed they are increasing. I will expand on that a little later.
Are these the policies of fairness which the Government promised? If they are, the voters and citizens of Canada are sorely disappointed.
I would like to refer very briefly to a couple of analyses of the Budget which show that the rich have won control over Canada's tax system. I will not go into this in detail.
The Institute for Research on Public Policy said that the richest people in the country are the big winners, no matter how you slice it. They went on to say that 1988 personal income tax reform will increase the disposable income of Canadian taxpayers, with the biggest gainers in the top one per cent, but leaves the majority worse off than in 1984.

February 22. 1988
The Budget-Ms. Mitchell
Linda McQuaig did an analysis in her book entitled Behind Closed Doors. She looked at the total Conservative approach to tax reform and concluded, again, that the tax system keeps moving away from the ideals of fairness and equity and that, in fact, the system has created measures where the poor and middle class keep paying more tax while the rich end up paying less.
As critic for social policy, I want to focus on aspects of the Budget that have an impact on families. Average families have already suffered under the economic policies of the Government, particularly as they relate to tax measures. They have seen a considerable loss in family benefits, which 1 will explain in detail later.
They are still paying high taxes and have been hit hardest by the sales tax. Families raising children must buy many more consumer goods and spend most of their money for essentials. The sales tax hits family consumers much more than single or higher income people.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has made some profound statements based on their analysis and the analysis of the National Council of Welfare. They state:
One segment of the Canadian population which has not advanced during this government's term is families with dependent children . . . Families with children have lost ground compared with other Canadian households. The effects of partially deindexing all family benefit programs and tax credits in conjunction with tax reform measures will mean that a one-earner couple with two kids and an income of $30,000 will pay $1,439 more in total income and federal consumption taxes in 1990 than in 1984, after adjusting for inflation.
This is compared to a similar couple with no kids who will pay $979 more. What kind of equity is that?
The CCSD also stated that minimum wage workers under federal jurisdiction have fared particularly badly. This includes the working poor group who have lost about one-third of their income to inflation since 1980. The CCSD went on to say:
The 50 per cent increase in 1986 prevented the situation from deteriorating further but the federal minimum wage rate still rates second from the bottom compared with all provincial rates.
They go on to summarize:
Major new measures were not announced in the Budget. But continued deindexation hits families with children much harder than it affects adults without children. This is a most regressive way to raise revenue for deficit reduction.
The Budget also announced continued reductions in non statutory programs, amounting to $300 million. There is very little detail in the Budget Papers about what programs will be affected by this Budget reduction measure. Non statutory programs include very many small but important programs such as social housing programs, training programs, programs for women, as well as family support programs.
As pointed out by the CCSD, the benefits for a family of four have decreased and are about $300 less for low income families earning less than $20,000, about $900 less for those in the $30,000 income bracket and about $1,300 less for the middle income family. There is no question that there are
many hidden penalties in the Government's changes to family benefits.
The House will recall that the primary change to child benefits was the partial deindexation of family allowances. The House will recall the debate on that issue. The children were unable to organize the way seniors organized in order to reindex pensions, so the Government proceeded to deindex family allowances while re-indexing pensions.
The increase in the child tax credit will be partially deindex-ed, by 1988, however, so that the threshold level will go down, fewer people will be eligible for the child tax credit and the amount will decrease.
The reduction of the child exemption, which has also been deindexed is particularly hard on the middle income family. These are subtle changes which particularly affect average income families.
As far as low income families are concerned, tax reform has not alleviated the increasing poverty of these families. There should have been a major increase in the child tax credit and it should have been fully indexed.
The sales tax hits poor families very hard because they must spend most of their welfare income on basic essentials like clothing, food and rent.
While child poverty has decreased dramatically, the tax measures even for poor families means $300 less in child benefits. We need an income security reform program, which is something that none of the Government programs have addressed. 1 have attempted to raise this question of poverty with the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a number of occasions.
It is misleading to suggest that poverty has gone down. While poverty among elderly people has decreased because old age pensions have risen-a Liberal initiative incidentally- child poverty has increased. It is a deplorable fact that one in five children in Canada goes to school hungry. We cannot even obtain a food program in Vancouver in order to assist poor children. It is deplorable that this country should depend on institutionalized food banks as a way of looking after our children. This Budget does little to help the situation at all.
Let me discuss the impact of this Budget on women. A press release issued by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women summarizes this very well. It states that the Budget does not deal with child care needs. They are very concerned that the federal Government is placing emphasis on deductions rather than on credits. Of course, deductions favour those who pay taxes and completely exclude those who do not pay taxes. This means that poor families do not have access to this tax measure.
They go on to state that deductions give greater benefits to higher income earners, and are an inappropriate use of tax dollars for child care. We agree with that.



February 22, 1988

They raise a very interesting point which I do not believe has been brought up in the House, that the proposals contained in the Budget related to alimony and maintenance payments run counter to the Council's recommendations in this area. They state:
We see no reason why a non-custodial parent can deduct amounts spent in support of children, while a custodial parent has no such right.
Why should fathers-mothers in a few cases-who are usually the higher income earners receive all the tax benefits while the mother who is struggling and is lucky if she receives those maintenance payment, does not have any tax benefits. The CACSW recommends that child support payments should be deductible by the lower-income earner, the spouse who is assuming care of the children directly.
The CACSW also talks about the $300 million a year for non-statutory spending. It feels that this could hit women's programs particularly including programs that prevent wife battering. Job creation and labour adjustment programs for women maybe jeopardized as well. It talks about the fact that
850,000	low-income people will be taken off the tax rolls by tax reform proposals but the Government does not mention, nor did the Minister who spoke recently, that at least one million low-income Canadians have joined the ranks of taxpayers over the past six years as a result of the limitation on indexing of the tax system. Again, the poor people are paying taxes and the wealthy people and corporations are paying very little or none.
The CACSW is concerned about indirect taxes and particularly about future changes proposed to the sales tax which again will have a regressive impact on women. The heaviest burden will be put on those least able to pay.
Finally, 1 would like to concentrate my remarks on the question of child care. We all know how important this program is. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that this would be a major social reform of his Government and he said close to three years ago now that there would be a major investment of money into quality child care spaces for families who need child care and who need it at rates they can afford to pay. However, that is the part that seems to have been forgotten by the Government's child care proposal.
We hear about regressive tax measures. The tax measures in this Budget will double the child care tax deduction for those who pay taxes from $2,000 to $4,000. That is nice for people with those kinds of expenses. This helps higher-income people who pay taxes, families with two professional parents. However, what about single mothers and low-income parents who desperately need to get into the workforce and have no benefits at all? They have been left out of that scheme. There is not even a tax credit for them.
Another program that is costly to Government revenues is the token, almost insulting payment of $100 this year to a parent who stays at home. No one can tell me that the value of
The Budget-Ms. Mitchell
a homemaker who raises his or her own children is recognized by that. It would have been much sounder to have increased the child tax credit considerably for lower-income families.
As I mentioned to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we are concerned that the Government is losing some $210 million this year in tax revenues as a result of these regressive tax measures but there is nothing in the Budget that will fulfil the promise, and it is only a promise, to put money directly into child care services. That is the first priority. Even families with increased tax deductions will have no guarantee that they will be able to find licensed, quality day care spaces for their children. Even if they do find the day care spaces, the fees will be high and the wages paid to care givers will be atrocious. Child car workers in Canada are paid approximately $15,000 per year in many instances, and that is an absolutely deplorable salary for trained professionals who are doing one of the most important jobs anyone could do by helping to raise a generation of children.
We are very disappointed that the Buget reinforced the regressive measures again.


An Hon. Member:: Time.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member another half a minute if she would like to conclude.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think 1 have made my point. 1 would urge government Members to think of the children of Canada, the one in five children who are poor and the majority of young parents who are in the workforce or want to get into the workforce and need to work to survive but who do not have adequate care for their children and whose children indeed are at risk in many inadequate baby sitting arrangements.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I take note of the fact that Budget statistics indicate that corporate profits grew faster than other economic indicator. Corporate profits rose by 25.6 per cent over the last year. At the same time, corporate taxes rose by only 15.3 per cent.
I would like to know if taxes for average Canadians rose by less than their income rose. Are they being treated the same as corporations are being treated? Are there any Canadian families whose incomes rise more than their taxes?
The Budget indicates that 60,000 profitable corporations will continue to pay no corporate income tax. I wonder if my colleague is aware that in 1986, Alcan Aluminum made profits totalling $220 million but did not pay any taxes. Instead, it received a tax credit of $32 million. Does my colleague know that in 1986, Brascan, on profits totalling $187 million, received a tax credit of $2.3 million? The list goes on and on. I hesitate to read into the record all 60,000 examples.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. St. Julien
Does my colleague know of any families in her riding whose incomes have risen by more than their taxes have risen under the Conservative Government? Are families being treated the same as corporations?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has put onto the record some extremely significant figures. I hope he will expand on them when he makes his speech later in the day.
1 can think of only one kind of family in my riding whose incomes went up higher than their taxes did. Families on welfare might have gotten a few dollars per year more and pay no taxes at all. However, those families have used up all their income by the second week of the month and then have to line up at food banks because they have nothing to eat. Their children go to school hungry. I am sure there are not very many children of the management of Alcan and Brascan who find themselves in those situations.
If we had the income from fair taxes paid by 60,000 corporations, we could increase welfare rates and ensure that there are more child care spaces. We could ensure that children in Canada are not going to school hungry.


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be talking about the Budget, today. When we were elected, three and a half years ago, our greatest challenge was restoring financial stability and returning some credibility to the management of public finances. In 1984, the federal deficit and the national debt were out of control. The deficit was in excess of $38 billion, whereas three years previously it was only $14.9 billion. Over the same period, the national debt had doubled and was increasing at an average rate of 26 per cent per year. If we had continued at the same pace, it would be, today, $100 billion more than it is, which means $16,000 more for every family of four in the country.
Once the Government has lost control of its finances, everybody suffers. The interest rate applicable to mortgages, and consumer or business loans goes up. Confidence in the economy goes down, growth slows down and job creation decreases.
Mr. Speaker, our capability of providing the programs and services that Canadians need and want was in jeopardy. We believe Canadians want to leave their children and grandchildren a positive heritage, rich in opportunities, rather than a crushing debt and shattered expectations.
The only way to deal with that situation was to propose a short-term fiscal plan, providing for a sustained reduction of the deficit, and stick to it. That is exactly what we have done. We took a series of initiatives to put our finances in order by reducing federal spending and increasing revenues. Our first priority was to regain control of public spending.
In the four years before we came to office, program spending had increased at an average annual rate of 14 per cent, far in excess of the rate of inflation and enough to double spending in about five years.


An Hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Guy St-Julien: Since 1984, we managed to cut the average annual rate of increase in program spending to just 3.5 per cent, less than the inflation rate. We achieved this record because we have put in place a new, disciplined approach to the management of government and its finances.
We promised that we would each year cut the deficit. We have done so. We indicated that the control of expenditures would be the main source of deficit reduction. Such have been the case. For the current fiscal year, we predicted that the deficit would be cut to $29.3 billion and, according to the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson), that target will be met.
Mr. Speaker, we had promised to respond to the needs and priorities of Canadians in a fiscally responsible way. That is exactly what we did. When we took office in 1984, the country was in need of a sound financial management. This still is today and will remain in the future a foremost necessity. We must and will hold to our fiscal principles.
Firstly, we will reduce the growth rate of the national debt to that of the economy by 1990-91. Secondly, the annual deficit keeps declining steadily. In view of the forecasted decrease for 1988-89, it will be the first time ever since World War II that the deficit has declined four years in a row. Third, we are reducing Governement's financial needs to a considerable extent. Fourth, we are achieving most of that reduction through reduced spending and disciplined management.
With constant abiding by our fiscal principles and with structural improvements fostering economic growth, we managed to remain on the same financial course we have marked out since 1984.
Mr. Speaker, I would not miss that opportunity today to allude to a unique fact in Canadian history. That is the billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money the Liberals have wasted. In September 1987, the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Ken Dye, stated that because it took too much into consideration the political situation in Canada, the former Liberal Government had wasted, without any legitimate reason, billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money.
The Ministry of Finance was made aware, in early 1984, that something was going wrong with the fiscal deduction program for scientific research. That warning was issued several times in the middle of that year. But that Department did not move because the Government was to go on an electoral campaign.
Had the Department of Finance stepped in earlier, according to Mr. Dye, it could have saved considerable amounts of money, something in the order of billions of dollars.
February 22, 1988

That controversial fiscal deduction program thus became the most costly fiscal disaster in the Canadian history. When announcing that program, in 1983, the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Marc Lalonde, predicted that it would cost only $200 million to the Government.
However, the program that was cancelled by the Tory Government shortly after the elections reached $3,9 billion. Up to $1,9 billion of that amount may have been lost as the result of frauds. There were some frauds where businesses and individuals claimed deductions without proceeding with any research. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the program was to provide generous tax deductions to encourage companies and individuals to invest in research and development. According to Mr. Dye, the Department of Finance should have had some misgivings from the beginning when there was an avalanche of registration forms as soon as the program was enforced in January, 1984. However, Mr. Lalonde was confident that the program would be effective. In L'actualite of February, 1987, journalist Paul Morisset wrote: "It is the theft of the century." In October 1984, the Tory successor to Marc Lalonde, the Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, put a sudden stop to the whole matter. It was his first official act. However, it was already too late. In nine months, the bill had almost reached $3 billion, a tenth of the national deficit, enough to build more than 50 hospitals in Canada. According to the Minister of National Revenue, almost a dollar out of three was wasted, a billion disappeared through frauds and bankruptcies without being used for research.
Mr. Speaker, it was the worse fiscal fiasco in the history of Canada. How could such a disaster happen again? This question should be raised again at a time when Canadian taxpayers are filing their income tax returns and the government is launching its tax reform. I will give you a few examples, Mr. Speaker.
In Calgary, a businessman received $30 million; he bought two office buildings, a Jaguar and a 160-acre ranch before he vanished.
Another example, Mr. Speaker: in Kitchener, Ontario, half a dozen foreign businessmen got $2.5 million to build high-technology mini-submarines. They left with the money but without a forwarding address. The plans submitted to officials were drawings of submarines from the Second World War!
One last example, Mr. Speaker: in Montreal, the Department was investigating three companies implicated in dubious transactions totalling between $15 and $20 million and involving the same individuals. In this popular scheme, the whole building is claimed as an R and D expense while only one room out of 10 floors is used as a laboratory. Or a contractor erects a $4 million building, gets $8 million from the owner and submits a $30 million invoice for tax purposes.
Then there were some tax evaders who paid university professors from $5,000 to $10,000 to write serious-looking proposals. The bigger the projects, the more dubious they tended to be. But there were two big problems: first of all, the
The Budget-Mr. St. Julien
government was signing blank cheques. It was giving out tax credits without really checking and before research started. The claimant only had to fill out a short form. The Department of Finance officials wanted a flexible system free from red tape.
The other problem, Mr. Speaker, were the quick flips allowed under the program. In short, the investor paid the money and got half back the next day to make a 5 to 10 per cent profit in 24 hours without any risk! Three quarters of the money invested in the SRIC Program was used for quick flips.
In an interview, Marc Lalonde stated: "Obviously, there were some abuses ..." It is clear that the law was not tight enough. But out of $3 billion, $2 million went to research. I say: "Hear, hear!"
Mr. Speaker, it is not one but 1.9 billion that have been lost because of cheating. Who is responsible for all that mess? The Minister is always responsible for his programs, said Marc Lalonde himself. I never believed in blaming my officials.
From early June 1984, less than five months after the official announcement of the tax credit, he had more than enough evidence that the program was going off the deep end. He had the power to stop everything and to save hundreds of millions of dollars to the tax payers. He preferred to swagger.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that the then Prime Minister of Canada and present leader of the Liberal Opposition did not put an end to these tax frauds? Why is it that the Opposition parties do not ask today that a Royal Commission be created to examine these frauds? I will conclude here on these tax frauds, Mr. Speaker, since 1 could speak on that all day long.
To continue, Mr. Speaker, there is another budget related issue which is of great interest to me and to Northern residents. Last February 11, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said in this House: "1 have had the opportunity to visit-the area of Abitibi, of Val-d'Or, and I am always amazed at seeing that Members of Parliament for that region do not protest more vehemently against the decisions taken by the Minister concerning the elimination of flow-through shares." Unfortunately, the Hon. Member is misinformed about what 1 do. In any case, when he went to Rouyn-Noranda for the annual meeting of Quebec prospectors in 1987, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides arrived at night fall and left that very same evening. Where was he last December 20, when a meeting was organized to save flowthrough shares? I was the only federal Member of Parliament there.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1986, the Quebec Government lowered the maximum deduction from 166 and 2/3 to 133 and 1/3 per cent. This initiative, coupled with the minimum tax introduced in 1985, made mining inflation hedges less attractive, but the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and his Quebec Liberal colleagues have remained very silent about this cut back in Quebec.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. St. Julien
In any case, 1 am still working to maintain flow-through shares and I have made public statements on that issue both in Ottawa and in my own constituency.
The major difference between the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and myself is that he was in Abitibi only for a few hours, as a tourist.
In the Budget speech of February 10, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the following about regional development:
We are also implementing a new approach to regional development-
-in Canada and Quebec-
-an approach that will be more responsive to needs and priorities in the
regions. It will draw fully on the ideas and the initiative of people living in the
various regions as we work to achieve more balanced development across
Canada.
There is now a plan for the Atlantic region, one for Western Canada and one for Northern Ontario. The Government has also announced its intention to respond more effectively to the real development needs of remote and less prosperous regions in Quebec, For this purpose, an in depth consultation process will be undertaken with the people of the regions, representatives of local business and of the provincial Government.
I am very happy at the announcement made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) at a press conference in Sept-Iles on December 22 about the five-year economic development plan which the Mulroney Government will be implementing to stimulate regional initiative and eliminate once and for all regional disparities.
Indeed, until the mid 80s, Quebec peripheral regions had been neglected by the Canadian Government. The federal regional development efforts in Quebec were strongly concentrated on the more industrialized regions in the southwest region of the province. Eastern Quebec was the only outlying region whose development was managed under a distinct, multisectorial and multi-year program, based on the analysis of the strenghts and the weaknesses of the regional economy and on the determination of the most promising development lines.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, North West Quebec, the Saguenay- Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore, as much as the Gaspe- Lower-Saint-Lawrence and Magdalen Islands, had then and still have particular needs. Economic development there is more costly and more difficult to manage than elsewhere. These isolated regions, far from the marketplace with their scattered and very mobile population, their total reliance on natural resources whose development is subject to the fluctuations of international demand and foreign competition, allow us to look into the development problems common to those vast economic areas which represent close to 90 per cent of Quebec territory.
Therefore, as of the Fall of 1984, the new government team headed by the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mulroney) put the outlying regions of Quebec among its regional
development priorities. The sub-agreements concluded in 1985 under the Canada-Quebec Economic and Regional Development Agreement, although essentially sector-oriented, have led to major financial commitments in the outlying regions, particularly to enhance mining and forest development and to strenghten transportation infrastructure. Major national policies, such as the free-trade agreement with the United States, have created more favourable conditions for the development of Quebec resource areas. Ad hoc actions, such as the establishment of a federal penitentiary in Port-Cartier and financial support for the paper mill in Matane, were also intended to promote employment growth in those regions.
For this new plan to be realistic, Mr. Speaker, namely to overcome the regional development problems experienced in those areas, it should aim at accelerating long-term growth by mobilizing local entrepreneurs, by stimulating the development and the processing of our natural resources, by promoting excellence and technological development, by encouraging diversification of our regional economic stucture, by promoting the full integration of regions to Canadian and North American economies.
The new global plan will aim at four fronts: Eastern Quebec, the North Shore, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and Northwest Quebec. Each will have its own funding to ensure that development initiatives meet the needs of each area.
The plan would last a minimum of five years because a regional development effort cannot have any structuring and durable effect unless it is sustained and coherent. Previous experience clearly reflected that peacemeal and short-term solutions give poor results.
For each of the targeted areas, the development plan would be articulated around five major fields of operation in the master plan consistent with the major concerns of the Federal Government and of the area with regard to regional development, namely technological research and development, business development, the development of natural resources, of human resources and infrastructures.
too)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that when I arrived in Abitibi in 1984, the unemployment rate was about 22, 23 and 25 percent in my constituency as in most of the towns and villages. We now have the lowest unemployment rate ever, 6.6 per cent, unheard of! We owe that to both federal and provincial programs, to the two levels of Government, to the private sector, to our employers, and to all workers in our region.
We have to keep this economic renewal going, for we all recall that the rate had invariably hovered around 20 and 25 per cent in previous years. We did find a formula, we now have flow-through shares, a very complex matter as we all know, but I do not hold back in my statements in Ottawa or in my riding. Between now and June our Government will have to
February 22, 1988

take a much closer look and make a change, come up with a new formula to help our Quebec prospectors.
We also have a sector where two military bases are to be closed down, including one at Senneterre where people are experiencing troubled times. The federal Government and the Government of Quebec must synchronize their efforts to give additional assistance to Senneterre.
We know that our Government launched a community development program under which they were allocated $200,000 over the first two years to set up an office. And again recently, last week in fact, we earmarked $1.3 million to include both projects in the community development program.
In my riding we have three other projects, specifically in Amos, Matagami and Chapais-Chibougamau.
Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest we will have to work very hard to sustain such economic growth and keep unemployment down to 6.6 per cent. That is precisely what our Government will do to keep the economic renewal going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Questions and comments?


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Hon. Member stressed the problems we had with the former scientific research tax credit.
He knows perfectly well that this tax credit was introduced to help high tech companies that always have trouble obtaining risk capital.
The companies themselves asked for this kind of program to help them obtain the initial financing they require to develop new products.
As 1 said before, the Hon. Member stressed the problems that arose as a result of this program, and he failed to mention, or mentioned only briefly, that the program did help develop a lot of good research that will benefit Canadians and the Canadian economy, and will increase innovation in the private sector.
He may also be aware that companies are now asking for a similar program to be introduced, but with adequate controls. I don't know whether he attended the National Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation, where the private sector was very emphatic about the need for setting up such a program with the control mechanisms that were lacking in the former program.
However, I would like to ask a question about the Government's present program which was introduced by the Conservative Government, and I am referring to the refundable tax credit in the 1985 Budget. In fact, the tax credit as such already existed, but this Government increased the refund available under the program. The Hon. Member must know that the program is having quite a few problems because of very tight restrictions imposed by Revenue Canada. 1 may refer him to an article that appeared in Le Soleil on February
The Budget-Mr. St. Julien
16, under the heading: Revenue Canada discourages research. This was in response to a CP press release which referred to Revenue Canada's rigorous approach that was discouraging R and D in advanced technology.
The article followed a survey of 212 companies conducted by the Canadian Advanced Technology Association. The survey revealed that many companies had to wait for as long as twelve or eighteen months before receiving their tax credit refund. I am aware of some very serious situations where companies have had to close down because of the long delay involved in getting their refunds, and it is not just the delay but the incertainty about whether or not they actually will obtain a refund. In many cases, Revenue Canada will not accept the research expenditures incurred by many of these companies as such. There is some confusion about the definition of "research".
Is the Hon. Member aware of these problems? Could he inform the House what he intends to do to ensure the program meets the needs of Canada's private sector?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member for Laurier. The House is aware that he represents the smallest riding in Canada with an area of five square kilometers, and that I represent the largest of the ten provinces in Canada with an area of 740,000 square kilometers. In other words, there are 60,000 people in his riding, while there are 102,000 in mine.
But to return to the Hon. Member's question about the difficulties companies are experiencing when trying to get reimbursements for their research activities, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that after the 1983-84 scandal of the century, and I refer here to the article which Paul Morisset wrote in L'Actualite in 1987 about the shortfall of $1 billion.


Carlo Rossi: Who are you to talk about scandals?


Guy St-Julien: He mentioned the part played by lawyers and accountants:
There were other expenditures. The Department of National Revenue has indicated that some $350 million in honoraria were paid to lawyers, accountants and brokers of all sorts.
-that is to say-
These middlemen received in fees from 1 to 2 per cent of the value of the transaction, which were charged to the research companies thus reducing by as much their research and development budgets.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that when the time comes for allowing tax credits or shelters, it is important for the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue to investigate whether research activities have really taken place.
The newspaper continues in the same vein:
Auditor General Kenneth Dye, the taxpayers' watchdog in Ottawa

at the time-
-compared the Members of the House with a team of engineers trying to develop a car which is not a gas guzzler: "They think they have succeeded, but the engine seems to swallow up as much gas as before.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
They just cannot understand, until they discover a large number of very
small and well-hidden holes at the bottom of the gas tank. Much too often the
same thing happens with tax expenditures. Revenues are leaking, something
the Members of the House realize only when it is too late".
To return to the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that the Canadian Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should tell his officials to check every application for refunds thoroughly before authorizing them.
Because the tax shelter problem had reached a critical point in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, departmental officials had to carry out investigations to discourage abuses.
Mr. Speaker, you know what happened in 1983 and 1984. It is because of what happened then that we have to carry out investigations today-


Carlo Rossi: Investigate the scandals!


Guy St-Julien: To my Hon. friend who is urging us to investigate the scandals, I need only remind him of the greatest robbery of the century. We will hold a royal inquiry on this. But the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is right. We must carry out strich and precise controls before allowing any refund now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has the floor.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say that 1 welcome the opportunity to participate in the budget debate. The Budget which the Government has brought down really says a lot to Canadians. It tells us a lot about the Government's priorities and policies.
To any ordinary citizen the budgetary papers may look like quite a pile of paper. Of course half of it is in English and half is in French. Previous Budgets consisted of larger stacks of paper. It was very difficult for opposition Members to go through them in a matter of a few hours. Therefore, we have the lock-up which allows some of our representatives to be briefed for many hours.
This Budget is a flimsy one. This Budget does very little. This Budget shows that the Government is bankrupt of ideas. This is a "do-nothing Budget". This Budget is an excuse for a budget. This Budget is not really a budget.
Budget day just came along and the Government said, "Oh, we have to produce a budget. The Minister of Finance has to buy a new pair of shoes. He has to get his picture in the papers showing the good soles on his shoes and he has to say something". The Government managed to put together a speech which did not say anything. It talked about all the good things the Government has done. It painted a rosy picture of the economy. However, in the final analysis, this is no budget
whatsoever. It certainly does not respond to the concerns and needs of ordinary Canadians.
I have spent some considerable time meeting and talking with people in their homes. I must say that they delivered a message to me which I feel a responsibility to deliver to the House and to the Government. Canadians want to know if anybody is listening to them. They want to know if anybody will speak up for them. They would be curious to know if anybody on the government front-bench is speaking for them. In a nutshell Canadians have said, "Enough is enough. We are taking home less pay. You are increasing our taxes. You are a burden on our backs. Get off our backs; enough is enough".
1 want to touch on a few aspects of the Budget and to talk about taxes on corporations. I want to talk about Canadian families and I want to say a few more things about what the Budget tells us about Conservative policy and about the Mulroney Government's approach to Government.
First, with regard to corporations, I noted earlier today, and I want to note once again, that statistics from the Budget indicate that profits for Canadian corporations have gone up by some 25.6 per cent. I do not know any families in my riding whose income has gone up by 25.6 per cent. Most people in my riding and most Canadians across the country have a hard time getting an increase of 3 per cent. They get 4 per cent if they are lucky. Corporation profits have gone up by 25.6 per cent which is the biggest rise of any economic indicator.
Although I am a New Democrat, I do not begrudge corporations their profits. I must say though that when they do make profits they ought to be good corporate citizens and pay a fair share of the taxation burden which Canadian families have to pay. Why is it that when corporations profits go up by
25.6	per cent their taxes only increased by 15.3 per cent? What happened to the other 10 per cent? Which ordinary Canadian family can say to us "My income has increased by 25 per cent over the past year but my taxes have not kept pace?" The people in my riding are telling me that their taxes are going up faster than their incomes. They are fed up and they are saying "Get off my back, Brian Mulroney. We are sick and tired of farcical tax reform which promised lower taxes but is resulting in increased taxes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman again during his speech but I would like to bring to his attention that we call the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the Right Hon. Prime Minister and we call the Government the Conservative Government. The Government should not be headed by an individual's name. That point has been brought to the attention of Hon. Members before. The Hon. Member has been here long enough and he knows that he should not be doing that. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has the floor.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Chair and I know most Canadians call the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by
February 22, 1988

something other than his name, and I would not want to break with that habit.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) of the New Democratic Party are either supposition or fiction. They fly in the face of your admonition to him of a moment ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Exactly. This is why 1 bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre who has been a Member for a number of years that he should not do what he is doing. I recall that Mr. Speaker said "I think I am obliged to advise Hon. Members that in the last several days 1 have received complaints from both sides concerning the use of Hon. Members names instead of addressing them as they ought to be addressed in this Chamber". 1 would like the Hon. Member to comply with that request. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as the Right Hon. Member, and I will not repeat my earlier comment, at least in this context, even though it is based on fact.


Mr. Belsher:: Use the title or take a walk.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I hear over here "Use the title or take a walk".


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member who is now speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, the Member from Winnipeg North Centre, seeks repeatedly by his choice of words to refute the admonition that you gave to him from the Chair.


Cyril Keeper: It is not true.


Ross Belsher: It is.


Cyril Keeper: It is not.


Ross Belsher: It is. You just said it by your own words.


Robert Hylton Brisco: He wants to avoid the truth.


Mr. Horner:: There are three right hon. Members in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the point I made earlier. Corporate profits in this country have gone up by
25.6	per cent while their taxes have gone up by only 15.3 per cent. At the same time under Tory rule 60,000-not 60, not 600, but 60,000 corporations in Canada continue to pay no taxes on their profits. We are not saying that we should starve corporations, but we are saying that when corporations make profits as members of the community they ought to pay taxes.
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
I want to point out to Hon. Members who jump up to their feet on points of order that they ought to deal with this question. Do they know that in 1986 Alcan Aluminum on profits of $220 million, rather than paying taxes received a tax credit of $32 million? What ordinary Canadian family can get a deal like that? In the same year, Brascan, another Canadian corporation, on profits totalling $187 million paid no taxes but received a tax credit of $2.3 million. Brascan was given money. In 1986 Hees International, on profits totalling $117 million paid-guess what-no taxes. Power Financial earned profits of $132 million and received a tax credit of $1 million. The list goes on. While the profits of corporations mount, their taxes do not keep pace but ordinary Canadian families are being asked to pay more and more.
What Canadians want to know is just who is this Conservative Government listening to? Who does it care for? What does its policies tell us about who the Government is interested in and who it is serving? What are the priorities of the Government? The Government's actions speak louder than its words. Its actions indicate that it bows and scrapes when it comes to large and powerful corporations, large and powerful private interests, but when it comes to ordinary families, the Government lays on the tax burden. The Government does not hear the calls for help and relief from ordinary Canadians.
I do not know whether Members in this House know, or whether Members of the Government side know, but certainly the people in my riding know that the Budget which the Government brought down and the previous budgets it has brought down since its election have hit the middle-class family the hardest. Middle class Canadians have reached the end of their rope. We hear them saying "We have no more disposable income. Four or five years ago we used to have a few dollars in our pockets. We had some change and some discretionary income. That has now gone." The Conservative Government continues to raise taxes, continues to increase the burden, and still has not heard the pleas of ordinary Canadians for relief.
I want to quote a little documentation in this regard just in case someone may doubt what I have to say. I hope that the jolly Members on the other side will get up and join this debate and explain these taxation policies. The Canadian Council on Social Development says:
One segment of the Canadian population which has not advanced during this government's term is families with dependent children.
What is a family without children? Those are the people who have not advanced under the present Government. The Canadian Council on Social Development goes on to say:
Starting with the 1985 Budget and continuing through to the tax reform proposals, families with children have lost ground compared with other Canadian households. The effects of partially deindexing all family benefit programs and tax credits, in conjunction with tax reform measures, will mean that a one-earner couple with two kids and an income of $30,000 will pay $1,439 more in total income and federal consumption taxes in 1990 than in

February 22, 1988
1984, after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, a similar couple with no
kids will pay $975 more.
That certainly does not jibe with the music we hear from the Government which talks about income tax reductions. The reality is not the Government's rhetoric but rather that taxes are continuing to increase, particularly on the backs of Canadian families.
Why is that when Canadians' incomes are being held down, when they have a difficult time getting a 1, 2, 3, or 4 per cent increase, their burden of taxes continues to increase while at the same time corporate profits soar and their taxes lag behind the rate at which their incomes increase? Who is the Conservative Government interested in? Who is it listening to? Is there anyone on the front bench of the Conservative Government who is willing to speak up for ordinary families or are they all going to repeat the party line?
There is one other aspect of the experience of ordinary Canadians which 1 want to bring to the attention of the House and the Government. I will quote again from the documentation of the Canadian Council on Social Development to show a reality which this House must acknowledge and which ordinary Canadians know from their own personal experience by looking at their pay cheques. The document reads:
Trends in average wages and salaries between 1983 and 1987 also reflect the
lower pay attached to Canadian jobs. In real terms, workers today take home
on average $8.60 a week less than in 1983.
The income of the average Canadian family is dropping at the same time as the Government continues to increase the burden on Canadian families. It is the middle class family, the average Canadian family, which is being hit the hardest. Everyone is losing, whether they are poor, working class, or middle class, but the average Canadian family is being hit the hardest. It is time for this to stop. It is time for the Government to stop coddling the corporations while slamming the families of the country. It is time for some fairness in the taxation system rather than the sham of tax reform which the Government presents to the Canadian people.
I have one message for the Government which comes directly from my constituents, and that is, enough is enough, get off our backs. The Government is supposed to serve people and not to hurt them. Leave the average Canadian family alone.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in the one minute that I have I will tell the Hon. Member that the employees of Cominco Limited in Trail are very interested in the welfare of that company and in the profits. They are well aware of the massive deficit which that company carried into last year. They are also aware of the profits it made. They base their salary and wage demands in the bargaining process on profits of the company and not the losses.
That same company with that profit is now spending $260 million Canadian on a new lead smelter. It is spending $6 million on a two-part project for germanium. It is spending $28.5 million on other projects, all of which will do two things;
generate new jobs, and clean up the environment and useless by-products which were such a hazard in the past. There are two sides to every issue. This Member is prepared to give only one side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have eight minutes to reply after three o'clock. It being 1.37 p.m. I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.37 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, in December last the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a special tax reduction package for residents of northern and isolated areas. Several communities in the constituency of Cochrane-Superior are unable to claim these deductions on their 1987 income tax returns. I submit that the reason for their exclusion is extremely narrow in concept.
As the regulations now stand, they do not reflect the realities of northern Ontario. For example, there are communities which score high on points for geography, population, access, and they lack many services but because they are just a few kilometres short of the required 320 kilometres from a major centre they are out of luck. Surely a community which otherwise is over qualified for the tax reduction should not be left out in the cold because of a few kilometres.
Accordingly, I have asked the Minister of Finance to make distance a part of the point system. In this way, on the one hand the communities in question would be included, and on the other hand the system would not be open for abuse. 1 therefore urge the Minister of Finance to introduce the appropriate changes to the regulations without delay.



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Olympics 88 have brought plaudits from all over the world to Calgary, Alberta and Canada. The opening show and each event that followed were sparkling, scintillating, glittering, wonderful, miraculous, marvelous, prodigious, spectacular, fabulous,
February 22, 1988

thrilling, fascinating, beautiful, exquisite, enchanting and inspiring. A small boy clapping his hands and with shining eyes put it best when he shouted: "Boy! That was real cool!".
The hundreds of volunteers, the committees, the performers, the athletes and all others who contributed should share the glory and the credit. The athletes, men and women from all over the world, of all colours, religions and creeds, each competing for the Gold, thrilled us as winners and losers congratulated each other in real sportsmanlike style.
To the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), Mayor Ralph Klein, Frank King and all others who carried the responsibilities of this world event, Canadians say: "Thank you for the best Winter Olympics the world has ever seen".



FINANCE


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government recently released its comprehensive list of prescribed communities which qualify for northern residents tax deduction.
The result for many ridings is a complicated patchwork of have and have-not residents whose tax returns bear no relation to the principle of fairness and to the need for a northern tax allowance.
Northerners pay more for virtually everything, from gasoline and home heating fuel to transportation and cable television services. In almost every case, they therefore pay more in fixed taxes.
At the same time northerners do not have access to many of the public services accorded to residents in the south. Whether we speak of colleges or universities, subways and baseball stadiums, northerners do not receive the same benefits for their tax dollar. Northerners do not deserve to be sliced and diced into a checkerboard of so-called remote and non-remote communities. 1 call for the creation of a commission of inquiry to examine this matter, and I look forward to representing all my constituents before the committee.
However, the tax season is upon us. The only fair way to help northern taxpayers this year is to designate all communities in Tier 3 ridings as isolated and remote.



LE CERCLE NATIONAL DES JOURNALISTES


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 60th anniversary of the Cercle national des journalistes du Canada a la Chambre des communes et au Parlement du Canada. In honour of this event, tomorrow the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) will inaugurate the Cercle's mini-museum and an exhibition: "Aperfu: Phoenix sur la Colline" at the Public Archives of Canada, a photographic account of the Parliament Centre Block fire in February 1916.
Wednesday, plaques honouring the founders of the Cercle, The Citizen and Le Droit will be unveiled during a special ceremony. Former employees and representatives of the founding newspapers and former presidents of le Cercle will be among the guests.
The week's festivities will conclude on Friday and Saturday with a musical review of press and politicians over the years.
Mr. Speaker, sixty years of journalism in Ottawa, including radio and television as well as the written press, is something to celebrate. Congratulations to one and all!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, last week we heard that the last postal strike cost Canada Post $70 million. While the Corporation is trying to close down rural post offices and depriving thousands of Canadians of home delivery, Canada Post, thanks to its arrogant policies, spent a total of $70 million during the last postal strike alone, and it seems that a few months before, the first mail carriers' strike cost another $30 million. Mr. Speaker, $100 million was wasted on strikes that failed to solve any problems at all. On the contrary, the situation keeps getting worse, and labour relations at Canada Post have become extremely tense.
1 think the Government should recognize its responsibility and instruct Canada Post to treat its employees like human beings, to sit down at the same table and act responsibly. Mail delivery is everybody's business, Mr. Speaker, not just that of Canada Post. The Corporation should publish its figures so that everybody can see for themselves what is going on.

February 22, 1988



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, recently Canadians have learned that another extremely dangerous terrorist was admitted to Canada in 1977. The individual from Argentina is presently serving a prison term for drug trafficking.
What is of major concern is that this individual was granted refugee status by the Refugee Appeal Board, when this body had in its possession the evidence which made this individual inadmissible to Canada.
This is not the first time that this Board has made decisions which may be detrimental to Canada. One wonders how many other individuals who could severely jeopardize the lives of innocent Canadians have been admitted to Canada.
The Minister should undertake a review of all cases which were considered to be high risk, but were given approval by the Refugee Board. Remember that the terrorists know no boundaries, and that Canadians have already experienced terrorist acts. The Air-lndia tragedy is a reasonable example.
With the Olympics now in progress and the economic conference slated for June, a review is urgent. The safety of Canadians must always be the primary concern of the Government.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, today Scarborough City Council is standing up to Canada Post. It is saying no to the so-called supermailboxes in spite of implied threats of poor service.
Canadians want to know when the Government will stand up to Canada Post. We know that the Tory Government and Canada Post have embarked on a policy of eliminating door-to-door service in new areas. When will they turn to existing areas and eliminate service there? Are they building a case for eliminating door-to-door service in all urban areas? What happened to the concept of fairness? Why does one neighbourhood receive service while another does not? Why are senior citizens and handicapped people required to use these boxes rather than have mail delivered to their doors?
It is time for the Government to stand up to Canada Post rather than leaving the job to Scarborough City Council.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acquaint the House with a rather funny situation: Mr. Remy Trudel, who is Dean of Quebec University in Abitibi-Temis-camingue, has officially joined the NDP ranks in anticipation of the forthcoming election.
Moreover, while still exercising his duties, Dean Trudel spends his time travelling everywhere in Quebec as the big whig responsible for recruiting candidates for the socialist party. He should resign his position as Dean in Rouyn-Noranda. What is he waiting for? Is he not in a conflict of interest situation, Mr. Speaker? In his position as Dean how could he objectively analyze the university assistance programs implemented by the Government?
Mr. Speaker, is Dean Trudel using his generous expense accounts to travel everywhere in Quebec sowing the seed of socialism in our province? I suggest the Quebec Government should examine the current status-an embarrassing one, to say the least-of the Dean of Quebec University in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. If he wants to fight against the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, he should give up to someone not politically involved his comfortable and well-paid position at the expense of Quebec taxpayers.
The House is aware that the NDP is a political party which operates at both provincial and federal levels at the same time. The Socialists who are Members of the NDP are not in a position to give anybody a lecture on conflict of interests and honesty.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



STUDY SHOWING LEUKEMIA INCREASE IN PERSONS LIVING NEAR NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a British study conducted last summer reveals a higher incidence of leukemia and an increased number of leukemia-related deaths among children and young adults living near nuclear installations.
The National Cancer Institute in the United States announced that a similar study will be conducted there in the next nine months, to find any hot spots, or areas with an unusually large number of cancers.
A spokesman for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Mr. Mac Keillor, is reported to have said that no Canadian
February 22, 1988

research is being undertaken, that the British study is outdated, and that it has been refuted by other studies. This statement is disturbing, considering the fact that the findings of the British study are significant enough for the U.S. National Cancer Institute to conduct a similar study. We therefore urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to wake up and launch such a study in Canada because we cannot afford any delay.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in September, 1987, the federal Department of Agriculture changed the grading of beef carcasses so that a half inch of back fat lowered the grade from A1 to A2. Department meat inspectors have done a good job and have graded according to the new rules. It appears that the packing houses are taking advantage of both producers and consumers by charging retailers the same price for A1 and A2 beef carcasses.
The difference in price varies from five cents to eight cents per pound, or about $30 to $50 per animal. Packers do not pay for the hide, liver and other saleable parts of the animal. Surely the producers should get the benefit refunded to them if the meat packers are not going to pass this lower cost onto the consumers.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a long way to go yet before we know fully how to deal with the epidemic of AIDS. However, one thing is becoming clear. For a person who has AIDS or is knowingly a carrier of it, there should be a special duty to avoid communicating it to others.
In The Ottawa Citizen over the weekend, I read another story of a person with AIDS knowingly giving blood. I think it ought to be drawn to the attention of police departments across the country that criminal negligence is defined in the Criminal Code and well covers this type of situation in which wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons is shown. I would urge the police to use this section of the law to enforce a higher duty of responsibility on those who have AIDS or who are AIDS carriers than they presently seem disposed to use.
_____________________________12977



S. 0. 21 RAILWAYS BRANCH LINE REHABILITATION PROGRAM-OMISSION OF WOOD MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION

Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday elements of the 1988-89 rail branch line rehabilitation program were announced. Unfortunately no mention was made of the Wood Mountain subdivision, a 65-mile CP line between Ogle and Mankota in southern Saskatchewan.
Elevators on this line have been handling some four million bushels of grain annually. The alternative involves trucking grain distances of 30 miles or more over difficult terrain.
Many past studies, including the Prairie Rail Action Committee's, have supported retention and upgrading of the Wood Mountain line, as have the grain companies and the railway. As part of the permanent rail network, users have been led to believe that upgrading to hopper car standards would continue, some $3.4 million already having been spent for this purpose.
Area residents cannot help but be concerned with what appears to be a change of plans concerning this line. They ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to review this entire matter and to consider reinstating the Wood Mountain subdivision in the 1988 rehab program.



NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am required to rise in the House to point out how the federal Government is neglecting its responsibilities to our native people. I have often risen in this place before to complain of the housing that our native people are offered by the federal Government. My constituents and I are fed up with these conditions and we demand that they cease.
Native people in northern Canada live in substandard housing because of rules set by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These rules are entirely out of line with conditions in the North. They do not allow for the types of costs that occur in the North. The system does not offer the necessary flexibility to these isolated communities and there is simply not enough money available to correct the horrendous conditions that exist, or even to maintain what is already there.
Housing provided by the Department of Indian Affairs is deplorable, inadequate and a national disgrace. The backlog in needed houses ensures that the problem will not be solved in this century. Now is the time for action.
In Manitoba the provincial Government has been working hard to ensure that adequate housing is available to native

February 22, 1988
Oral Questions
people. Once again 1 call upon the federal Government to improve its commitment. It is time for the federal Government to act to correct this horrendous situation.



ETHNIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this month is Black History Month in North America. Many believe that blacks have been in Canada for only about 20 years. In fact the first blacks came to New France in 1628. Blacks were among the United Empire Loyalists who settled in Canada 200 years ago and they distinguished themselves in both the War of 1812 and the Upper Canada Rebellion. From 1820 to 1865, almost 50,000 fugitive slaves obtained their freedom in Canada by way of the famous underground railway.
The first black Canadian doctor was born in Toronto in 1837. A black Canadian woman published a newspaper in Chatham, Ontario, in 1850. A black Canadian served as a Toronto alderman for 13 consecutive years from 1894 to 1907, and a black Canadian lawyer was appointed a King's Counsel in 1910.
Today there are approximately 263,000 black Canadians. They did not just arrive. They have been Canadians for over 350 years and they continue to make an outstanding and growing contribution to our country.

[ Translation]



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker,
Treasury Board officials insist that language teachers should give every week up to 37.5 hours of instruction, thereby denying them any time to prepare their classes. Such a situation does not exist anywhere else in this country. In fact, this is a repressive measure against a professional group which is much too visibly involved with spreading bilingualism within the Public Service. This is a largely Francophone group the members of which are mostly women.
The Government claims that it wants to save money! There is nothing to say against that, for bilingualism, like the Treasury Board itself, will never be cost efficient. The greatest benefit we can expect from them is a greater measure of justice in Public Service job accessibility to reflect national unity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to know when and how the Government intends to introduce legislation implementing the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States. Last week representatives of President Reagan and leaders of the Congress agreed that American legislation on the deal would be drafted jointly by the administration and the Congress. Then in a letter from the U.S. trade representative and the Secretary of the Treasury to the leaders of the Congress dated February 17, the President's cabinet members said the following:
Obviously, the President cannot make an absolute guarantee that he will be
bound to legislation that has not yet been drafted, just as you cannot guarantee
Congressional approval of such legislation.
It is therefore obvious that neither the administration nor the Congress knows yet what will be in the legislation. Can I have a commitment from the Prime Minister that he will not try to push legislation implementing that trade deal through the House at least until Canadians have had an opportunity to see what the administration and the United States Congress come up with?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been eager for an opportunity to debate and oppose the legislation. Now he is apparently asking for some delay and that we not bring it forward. I suppose that would give an opportunity for someone to return from Washington to report back on the latest Liberal position in respect of this important trade matter.
I can tell my right hon. friend that the legislation appropriate to Canada is now being drafted and it will be tabled at an appropriate time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues indeed were in Washington last week getting more information from the Congress and the administration than we ever get from this Government.


PROPOSED U.S. OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we also learned that the American Congress is currently considering two versions of a massive omnibus Trade Bill that will have a dramatic effect on Canada. Nowhere in either version of this prospective legislation is there so much as a word exempting Canada from the protectionist provisions of that Bill.
Does the Prime Minister have a guarantee from the President or from the leaders of the Congress that Canada will


February 22, 1988

be specifically exempted from the American omnibus trade legislation? If he does not, what is the point of proceeding with that deal and implementing it in the House of Commons when the country can be dramatically affected in a negative way by this omnibus trade legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the predictions of cataclysmic events by the Leader of the Opposition very rarely occur, either predictions of economic growth or job creation in Canada. 1 suspect he will be equally off the mark in regard to trade.
We have our obligation, having concluded a sovereign agreement, to bring forward appropriate legislation, and we shall. The Americans have a similar agreement. It is my understanding that they shall do likewise,, and at an appropriate time my right hon. friend will be able to deal with the facts as opposed to speculation coming from one of his travelling salesmen in Washington.


John Napier Turner: It is because we want to deal with facts that we would like to know what is in that legislation as it is negotiated by the Congress of the United States and the President. We will want to know whether Canada will be exempted from the omnibus trade legislation. Without that the trade deal will not be worth the paper it is printed on. The Prime Minister knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMERICAN SUSCEPTIBILITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last November the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion committed the federal Government to establish a duty remission program for the textile industry.
Given the resolution adopted by the Conference of American Governors, now we know that the governors along with American officials and a number of American congressmen do not want the Canadian Government to help the Canadian textile industry because that will have an impact on the American industry.
Is the reason why we do not have a program to help our textile industry the fact that the Prime Minister is afraid to provoke a negative reaction on the part of the Americans?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Government has a number of programs in place to help the clothing and textile industry. We have been in discussions with members of the industry which pre-date the signing of the trade agreement back in October. These discussions are continuing in ways that will help the industry retain and improve upon its competitive position. When there is need for further announcements those announcements will be made.
Oral Questions


TEXTILE INDUSTRY-DUTY REMISSION PROGRAM
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he assure the House and the textile industry that the Government will go ahead and keep its promise to the industry to have a duty remission program to help it and its workers, even though going through with such a program will mean that the U.S. Congress will not approve the Government's trade deal?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can make the same comment as the Prime Minister has made. The cataclysmic, apocalyptic views of the House Leader of the Liberal Party are probably as well placed as those of his seat-mate. The Hon. Member should understand that there is provision within the free trade agreement for duty remission schemes.
As I indicated in my previous response, there have been discussions going on with the industry for a number of months, since well before October. Those discussions continue. When there is a need for an announcement to be made it will be made.


IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that even though the Government's trade agreement is not yet implemented our trade policies are already being made in Washington.
The majority report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on the initial version of the trade deal, a committee with a majority of Conservative members, recommended to the Government that it not proceed to implement its trade deal with the United States unless the Government was absolutely certain that Canada would not be subjected to the omnibus Trade Bill which remains under consideration in the U.S. Congress.
Why is the Prime Minister unwilling to accept the clear recommendation of a committee with a majority of his own Members and to give an undertaking at this time that the Government will not proceed with legislation to implement this trade deal with the United States until we are absolutely certain that Canada will not be hit by this omnibus trade legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have dealt with that question very specifically on a number of occasions. Both the Minister for International Trade, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, and myself have answered it very carefully.
I know that my hon. friend would like the free trade agreement-and this is clearly consistent with the desires that he and his seat-mate were expressing in Washington-to run into some problems elsewhere so as to relieve the Liberal Party of the obligation of taking a position in regard to it. I can

February 22, 1988
Oral Questions
assure my hon. friend that he will not have that luxury. We will bring it in. He will be forced to stand up and to vote either for or against, and the Canadian people will hold him responsible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TEXTILES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. There are 86,000 workers in the textile sector, and 80 per cent of them are women. In keeping with an article in the Canada-U.S. agreement, the Government promised job protection to textile workers. Would the Prime Minister assure the House of Commons today that the Government intends to honour this specific commitment?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that that is really the same question. The Hon. Member is coming at it from a somewhat different direction than that of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague, the House Leader. We have indicated quite clearly that we are continuing the discussions with the industry in helping it maintain and improve its competitive position and improve the ability of the industry to create jobs in Canada. Those discussions are continuing, and they involve a number of Ministers of the Government.
As I said in response to a previous question, when an announcement is ready to be made it will be made.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to pursue what the Minister has said and what he said earlier in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. He said earlier in Question Period that the Government had been negotiating a special arrangement before this deal was entered into. The Minister will know that since October the Government made a very specific proposal, one that the Canadian industry is well aware of, and about which the Minister who is directly responsible said in the House about two weeks ago is consistent with the terms of the agreement.
Since then, incredible as it may seem, it has been reported that the Canadian Ambassador in Washington has now joined with American Governors and a number of American Senators
in urging Canada to scrap this protective measure for our workers in the textile industry.
I want to ask the Minister, who apparently is answering either for the Prime Minister or for the Minister for International Trade today, to confirm the report that the Canadian Ambassador has made this request. Will he assure the House that that request will be denied and that the Canadian Government will adhere to its original commitment to the textile workers?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated quite clearly by including in the terms of the free trade agreement a provision which allows for duty remission schemes. That commitment is there, which is what I have indicated. A number of Ministers and myself are discussing it with the industry. It is a matter that is under discussion in order to try to improve and to assist the industry to maintain its competitive position and to create the jobs that both the Hon. Member and I are very much in favour of creating. Those discussions are continuing. As I have indicated, when there is a resolution of those discussions announcements will be made.


GOVERNMENT DISCUSSIONS WITH INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is frequently quite forthright in his answers, whether one agrees with him or not. He does answer the questions. But he ignored two specific questions that I put to him.
First, will he confirm that the Canadian Ambassador in Washington has requested that the Government scrap its proposal, which proposal has been discussed or outlined in detail to the Canadian industry? Will he tell the House whether or not the Canadian Ambassador has done that?
Second, will he assure us that the specific proposal with respect to the duty remission scheme which has been discussed since October will be kept in place so that Canadian jobs in this industry will at least be protected in a way that is consistent with the accord that the Government has negotiated with the United States?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that what we will be doing will be consistent with both the spirit and the terms of the free trade agreement. The Hon. Member is attaching a good deal of precision to the discussions that have been going on. I should say to him that we have not reached a stage where there is that degree of precision. There are a range of things that are being discussed.
As I have indicated, when we have reached some resolution of these discussions, then there will be an announcement.
February 22, 1988


AIRPORTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that major competing bidders on the Terminal 3 project at Toronto airport have raised serious questions about the fairness of the bidding process carried out by Transport Canada.
Both Ken Field of Bramalea Ltd., and James Bulloch of Cadillac Fairview have publicly raised questions about the $70 million in government loan guarantees made available to the successful bidder, Huang and Danczkay Ltd.
Given the serious nature of the questions that have been raised about the bidding process on a project worth $381 million, is the Minister prepared to put a freeze on negotiations to conclude a final contract with Huang and Danczkay pending a full investigation of the questions regarding the fairness of the bidding process carried out by Transport Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 look at the same newspapers as the hon. gentleman, and 1 have not seen any serious questions raised about the procedure. The procedure was one of the most open and aboveboard ever used by any Government in Canada.
A committee of permanent civil servants headed by Mr. Warrick, the former manager of the Toronto airport, was in charge of the call of the proposals for the whole procedure. They made a recommendation. Four groups put in proposals, and they recommended what they said was the best proposal, after their three weeks of analysis.
Everyone was given the same chance to make a proposal and to bid. They came to me then and I approved their recommendation. I did not go against their recommendation. I did not try to overrule their recommendation. I approved their recommendation. They had very first-class advice from private consultants, the Bank of Montreal, Monenco Associates, and so on.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 


John Carnell Crosbie: There have been no serious questions raised with me. There are no serious questions.
We have already gone before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport on December 17. The hon. gentleman was not there. This matter was discussed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am not the critic.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not care if the hon. gentleman is the critic or not, I am just saying that he was not at that meeting. The matter has already been before the Standing Committee on Transport. We are quite prepared to go back. The hon. gentleman can give as much innuendo as he likes, and dig as
Ora! Questions
much as he likes. He will find nothing in that decision that in any way can be attacked.


Ms. Copps:: That's what Sirois said.


ALLEGATION MADE BY UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDERS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, John Lundrigan, a former Newfoundland Conservative MP; Chester Burt, a former aide to the Minister of Transport; Paul Curly, a former national director of the Conservative Party, and Frank Moores, a former Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, now with a well-known consulting company in that town, all have one thing in common: they all acted for or represented the successful bidder, Huang and Danczkay, the bidder that received this $381 million contract from the Minister's Department.
Given that not opposition Parties, but the chairman of Cadillac Fairview, and a senior executive of Bramalea Ltd. have stated that they did not have information that was available to the successful bidder, and given the seriousness of that allegation on a project worth one-third of a billon dollars, does the Minister of Transport not believe it to be prudent, responsible, and appropriate to put a freeze on concluding the final contract arrangements with Huang and Danczkay and to make public all of the information that was given to all four bidders as part of the tendering process? Why will he not do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what group, except from what I see in the paper, had who representing them, because it did not matter to me a fig who they had representing them.
I met with all the developers on May 7, 1987. 1 said, "Don't any of you make the serious mistake of attempting to have a lobbyist approach me or anyone connected with this project".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, you can go to the developers and ask them.
In addition to the personages that the hon. gentleman mentioned, Falconstar, for example, which was a losing bidder, is led by Donald Matthews, a former President of the Conservative Party. Imagine how the hon. gentleman would be gesticulating and going on with trumped up fury if this proposal had been awarded to Donald Matthews, President of the Progressive Conservative Party at one time. They had Public Affairs International representing them, a consulting company originally started by a group of Liberals. We do not go around attacking them and character assassinating them simply because they at one time were Liberals.


GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOANS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport on the same subject. When Mr. Warrick appeared before the Standing

February 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Committee on Transport on December 17, 1987, the question was asked:
Are you telling me the firm that won is not supposed to receive any financial
help from the government?
Mr. Warrick answered:
Yes, sir. They are not getting anything from the Department of Transport-
A total of about $4 million in capital works is all we have committed to, and
that was the same for everybody.
I would like to ask the Minister, were all the four bidders, tenderers, or proposers made aware, before they submitted their proposals, that there would be government guaranteed loans available? Were they all told that, or not?


John Carnell Crosbie: That is certainly a very penetrating question, Mr. Speaker. The position is the following. Each developer, in the request for proposals that went out, was asked to deliver their financial plan. Each one of them requested certain comfort to be given to them in one way or another.
For example, here is one of the proposals that suggests that a pool of funds be created by an increase in the general terminal fees in all terminals in order to cross-subsidize the new terminal. We said no, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It's not the same, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, that was $5 million a year direct funds to them that the users would pay. It certainly was not the same. It was far worse.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's what you get when you privatize.


John Carnell Crosbie: Each developer asked for some form of comfort from the Government, and the loan guarantee arranged in this case was the least onerous. That is the professional opinion of the committee which I accepted, which Treasury Board accepted, which everyone associated with this has accepted, except perhaps some sore heads outside the House who did not win with their proposal and therefore go around behind people's backs making slanderous accusations.


POSITION OF DEPUTY MINISTER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he would advise the House if the application by the Deputy Minister of Transport, Mr. Withers, for an exemption from the conflict of interest guidelines has been approved, and just exactly what are those exemptions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. Ramsey Withers, this gentleman has just completed 40 years of highly distinguished service with the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Chief of the Defence Staff, Deputy Minister of Transport for the last five or six years, the soul of honour and
rectitude, but some people will stoop at nothing to try to get at the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just asked a question, that's all. What are you getting excited about?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Ramsey Withers has complied with every dot, comma, and full stop of the conflict of interest regulations. He had absolutely nothing to do with the decision with respect to the third terminal at Toronto airport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was not what I asked you.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was not on the committee. They made the recommendation. I approved it, Treasury Board approved it, and he had nothing to do with Government Consultants Ltd. before that time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Did he get an exemption?


John Carnell Crosbie: He has complied, I am informed, with the conflict of interest rules.
I would vouch for Ramsey Withers lock, stock, and barrel, any day of the year.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It relates to the troubled automobile industry, the largest industrial segment in our country.
Faced with a capacity of over-production in the near future, a decrease in sales to the United States under the Auto Pact, and the lack of a level playing field clearly setting out the rules of the game particularly between offshore manufacturers and North American manufacturers, may I ask the Minister when we might expect the national automobile policy which was promised to us before the end of December, 1987?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, many of the elements of the auto policy are already covered under the FTA. I mention here issues such as access to the U.S. market, the future of the Auto Pact, the future of duty remission programs, the common rule of origin, bilateral tariffs, and used cars. Those issues which still have to be dealt with are under consideration.
In the coming months, after consulting with the industry, I will be able to bring forth a comprehensive auto policy.
February 22, 1988


AIRPORTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to go back, with the Minister of Transport, to the so-called "soreheads" and "poor losers" who did not win the contract. One of them, Mr. Ken Field, is quoted as saying, far from what the Minister said in one of his answers earlier today about everyone being given the same chance, that he was told that this type of financial assistance, the $70 million loan guarantee, would absolutely not be available, yet it was to the winning bidder.
The simple question for the Minister is this. Is that correct? Was in fact a financial consideration available to the winning bidder about which the other three were not informed? That is the only question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know, but perhaps I do not make myself clear. In the request for proposals each developer was asked to put in his financial plan. In their submissions they each asked for some type of financial comfort.
The Wang and Danetsky group asked for a form of guarantee that would protect them against some unexpected loss because of general economic depression or something like that, flight landings at Toronto airport, which would mean that the project could not be viable, for a guarantee in that connection. That is what they asked for. Another group asked for a pooling of funds that I just mentioned and certain other things.
They were each invited to put in their financial plan. Mr. Field will have to defend for himself what he thought or did not think. That is in all the documents.
Tomorrow afternoon in Toronto, the committee in charge of this project is having a full session with the press or anybody interested, if they are really seriously interested, to go over the whole thing in complete detail. They will do that before the standing committee of the House of Commons.
Everyone was treated fairly and equally. Some were smarter than others. Some asked for a less onerous financial provision than others did, and the winning bid was one of those-was the least onerous.


FINANCIAL COMFORT QUERY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, when the Government decided that it was prepared to put some financial comfort on the table, were the other bidders, other than the successful bidder, told of the financial comfort that was available? Surely the Minister would be prepared to stand up and indicate clearly his answer, which seems to be no.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this arrangement, which is somewhat complicated as one might imagine with a 300-odd million dollar project, has
Oral Questions
been vetted not only by this committee of permanent civil servants, but by their financial consultants, the Bank of Montreal, Touche Ross, and so on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is a good deal. 1 am not saying that it is not a good deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then it went through my Department. It was approved by me, which I think should be noted. I did not approve it just lightly. Then it went to Treasury Board, where they went through it with a fine-tooth comb. They came to the conclusion that this was the best offer and that this guarantee was reasonable.
The guarantee is only to come into effect if there is a sudden, tremendous drop in landings of aircraft at Toronto airport. All of the last two years indicates that there is to be a tremendous increase, so the guarantee is never going to be needed, but it is there to give comfort to those who lend money to the project.
It was the least onerous of the four, as confirmed by Treasury Board, as well as by this committee. What more? Why do you keep asking?


TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the whole question of political interference by her Department.
The first item 1 would like to address concerns the serious allegations raised by the former Executive Director of Telefilm. Mr. Pearson's letter of resignation paints a disturbing picture of a vital cultural agency rife with infighting and political witch-hunts carried out by the Tory appointed Chairman.
What is the Minister now doing to put a stop to the gutting of this important cultural agency? Is she prepared to establish an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this mess?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the letter from the former Executive Director of Telefilm Canada. Perhaps I should just read from his letter, because he said: "I would wish to convey to you my sincerest appreciation for your support". Not once, have you, nor your senior staff, ever interfered in any decision, or decision-making process related to the administration of moneys".
He goes on to say: "I must also note for the record the distinguished contribution of your party in the area of film and television production. From September 1984, the Progressive

February 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Conservative government has lived up to their commitments to strengthen Canadian production with dedication and effort."
That is from the letter of the former Executive Director of Telefilm Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We could certainly look at other parts of the letter as well. I assume the Minister will be tabling the full letter at three o'clock.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TREATMENT OF DECISIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. It concerns another case of political interference by her Department.
The February 20 edition of The Financial Post details another example. Apparently Department of Communications officials, acting with the full knowledge of the Minister, have worked closely with Bell Canada Enterprises since 1986 to find ways to get around a CRTC ruling.
The Minister has now sought to overturn more CRTC rulings in 20 months-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has a question, which I think could be asked without reading extensively from the newspaper.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Minister has interfered with CRTC decisions more in 20 months than did all her predecessors in the last 20 years, my question is a very simple one. When will the Government and her Ministry stop interfering with CRTC decisions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think you will know that legislation provides for the Government to review, to adhere to, or to change decisions of the CRTC. That is in the legislation.
Any Government has that right. I may say, because the Hon. Member raised a question about Call-Net the other day, that once again we have reconfirmed the decision of the CRTC.


EXPORT OF CEDAR PRODUCTS-LOOPHOLE IN REGULATION
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade. It relates to the shake and shingle industry in my riding.
As a result of a request I made in the House of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 26, 1986, regarding a prohibition on the export of raw cedar logs, bolts, blocks, and blanks, the Minister for International Trade brought in an Order in Council in June, 1986.
Today, we find that there is a legal loophole in the Order in Council and that there is a serious threat to jobs in the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia.
My question for the Parliamentary Secretary is this. What action is being taken on this very important matter?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government. 1 can tell the Hon. Member that steps have been taken to ensure that the B.C. Government and federal controls are updated to control this practice.
These measures should be in place very shortly. What has happened is that some exporters have found the loophole in the Order in Council and are exporting blanks and boards to the United States and, in doing so, are also exporting jobs. We are stopping this practice immediately.


Gerry St. Germain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


TELEFILM CANADA
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, at Telefilm Canada there is a crisis of leadership, a crisis of credibility, and a crisis in financing. It is rather strange. Film producers are having trouble-


Mr. Speaker:: I have just refused a request for a supplementary question from a government member, and I would ask the Hon. Member who has now been recognized not to be overly long on the preamble and to put the question.


Sheila Finestone: Film producers are having trouble securing financing, while the Government has had no trouble raising and increasing the salary of the newly appointed Chairman, Mr. Sirois, from $13,300 to $64,225.
Last October the Minister received a detailed letter from Peter Pearson addressing the direct crisis as a result of intrusion into the administration, programs and spending by Mr. Sirois, the appointed new Chairman.
February 22, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Finestone: My question to the Minister is-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Is it true that she did not read the letter, as her staff has alleged? Was she at least aware of what the Executive Director, Mr. Pearson, was alleging with respect to gross interference? Didn't she think it was important to see-


Mr. Speaker:: It would seem that the Hon. Member has a list of questions. I will take the ones that she has put and invite the Hon. Minister to respond.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, certainly I saw the signed letter of resignation from Mr. Pearson. I responded to it and issued a press release at the same time.
May I also say that I agree with the Hon. Member that there was financial difficulty in Telefilm last year. We moved quickly to do something about it. In July of last year, Telefilm reported that it felt it would not spend its funds to the tune of $53 million. Three months later the Executive Director reported that Telefilm was overcommitted to the tune of $48 million. I may say it was because of that that the auditors were brought in, a new interim management team was put in place, and for the first time cash flow management systems have been put in place. I am very happy to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that fiscal stability and fiscal management have been restored to Telefilm.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is a direct whitewash.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Finestone: The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has proved that those statements about the $48 million were inaccurate. The Minister knows that, and the Minister has been trying to cover up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member can put her question without getting into an argument. Please put the question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the question is pretty obvious, seeing how on September 30 of last year there was-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister put an end to the rumours which are creating financial risk to this industry and creating a black mark against the name of someone who did not earn that black mark? Will she call for an investigation into the Telefilm financing, or does she plan to be judge and jury to the whole thing?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: course, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I would ever convince this Member but I would like to quote from a letter from the interim Executive Director of Telefilm Canada dated February 19, which reads:

-you will certainly be glad to learn that essentially most of the financial situation of the corporation will now be on a sound basis, and that management have been able to resume normal operations. This is why we are confident we will be able to complete with success the necessary review and restoration program so as to end the current fiscal year without unduly affecting next year's appropriations.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OFTHE FINNISH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: 1 wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Matti Ahde, Speaker of the Finnish Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last year when the Government changed the Patent Act to give multinational drug companies greater patent protection, the Minister assured Canadians and this House that drug prices would not be allowed to increase at a rapid rate. We now know that in Ontario	alone	since	January	1	some 1,100 drugs haveincreased in	price	at	an unacceptable rate.
What assurance will the Minister give to Canada's elderly, the sick and the disabled, that that kind of price gouging will not be permitted by the Government?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows or should know, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-22 that could cause the price increase in drugs. He is well aware of that. Even the most severe critics were aware of that. His attempt to show that these price increases in Ontario somehow relate to Bill C-22 is an exercise in mischief, as he well knows.
I should also point out that it is within the constitutional authority of the Government of Ontario to prevent those price increases from going through if it chooses.

February 22, 1988
Oral Questions
I should also point out that 55 per cent of those price increases that were higher than the cost of living were for generic drugs, not for brand name drugs. In addition, if the New Democratic Party had not filibustered Bill C-22, the Prices Review Board would now be in place exercising downward pressure-


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplemental. The Hon. Member.


PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS AND MANUFACTURERS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is just a load of nonsense. The Minister knows that we told the Government during the debate that there was nothing in the Bill to control prices yet the Minister did nothing about it.
Since it is the same brand name manufacturers which are now producing generic drugs to drive Canadian manufacturers out of business, what will the Government do to protect not only Canadian consumers but Canadian manufacturers and Canadian jobs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's first question was that prices have risen too high and that that is costing consumers. His second question that drug manufacturers are selling drugs at prices too low, and that that is harming generic companies. That was the substance of the Hon. Member's second question.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that some company or companies are engaged in predatory pricing then he ought to refer the matter to the director of the Combines Investigation Branch because that is an illegal activity.


An Hon. Member:: That is your job.


Harvie Andre: If the Member is making that accusation, let him make that accusation of criminal activity and let him defend it.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the serious problems with parole supervision in half-way houses.
The Minister knows that another dangerous inmate escaped from a half-way house on the weekend. That makes four dangerous inmates who have escaped from half-way houses in the last few weeks. Will the Minister immediately order that all dangerous inmates be returned to prison pending a full public inquiry into the operations of the National Parole Board and half-way houses?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, immediately following the first incident I ordered an inquiry under Section 12 of the Penitentiaries Act. This independent inquiry is being chaired by Miss Jane Pepino, a lawyer from Toronto, who is also chairperson of the Metro Toronto Police Commission.
I understand that the inquiry has been completed and the report is presently being typed. I expect that it will be given to me shortly and I will act on it in a very expeditious manner.


REQUEST THAT DANGEROUS PAROLEES BE RETURNED TO PRISON
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General knows that that particular inquiry is looking into one particular case involving inmate Stanton.
In view of the other escapes from half-way houses in Metropolitan Toronto, indeed, throughout the country, will the Minister immediately order all dangerous inmates-and I am speaking only of the dangerous ones-to be returned to prison pending a full public inquiry into the operations of the National Parole Board and all half-way houses in Canada, in order to ensure the safety and security of residents?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that I too am very concerned about the safety of residents in the area and generally citizens of Canada.
The terms of inquiry that were given to Miss Pepino's committee are extremely broad. They do not deal just with the escape from a particular half-way house but deal with a very broad range of matters, including the management of half-way homes and the kinds of people who should be there. I expect to receive that report this week and will act upon it very expeditiously.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I will ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East to ask a single question, followed by the Hon. Member for York East.


ABORTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. The B.C. Government has adopted procedures resulting in unequal access to abortion services in that province. The medical profession predicts an increase in infection, haemorrhaging, and even death, as a result. As well, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has called on the Government to ensure that all women have access to abortion and reproductive health services. In view of all that, is the Minister
February 22, 1988

now prepared to admit that the Canada Health Act is being violated by such unequal access, and what is he prepared to do about it?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me questions about this issue earlier and my answer remains the same. I say to her that she should cite not only one province with respect to the present situation. One could look at a whole range of provincial responses both before the January 28 decision and after.
The other point 1 would make, as 1 said earlier, is that members of the Cabinet are looking at various options-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Waffling again, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are not waffling. I think we should take the kind of responsible approach the Government is taking-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No guts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -rather than the position she takes which I understand is also opposed by some members of her own caucus.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns escapes from half-way houses.
One year ago last summer Parliament was recalled in order to pass a law to allow the National Parole Board to ensure that violent offenders could be kept in prison for the full length of their sentences. On four separate occasions recently violent offenders have escaped from half-way houses in Toronto. Will the Minister tell this House why Parliament was recalled one year ago if the law is virtually meaningless, and how can I and other Canadians be expected to have any confidence whatsoever in the National Parole Board?


Mr. Thacker:: The NDP and the Liberals filibustered it.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that indeed the provisions of Bill C-67 are being enforced. Approximately 350 inmates have been reviewed and approximately 25 per cent have been gated, to use the phrase, and kept in prison. Another 25 per cent have been let out on one-chance supervision. The provisions are being enforced and it is my belief that it is working extremely well.
The Budget-Mr. Keeper POINT OF ORDER


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF QUOTED DOCUMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I addressed to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) she quoted from a letter and I wonder if she is prepared to table it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was about to follow up the point by offering to table the letter in the House. I am glad to do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 12860) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 12883).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1.37 p.m.-

-there were eight minutes left in the question and comment period following the speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).

I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue the question and comment period.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was replying to a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has the floor.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was about to reply to a question when we broke for lunch. I am not sure that the Hon. Member is here now, but he asked that I address the question of Cominco with regard to my comments on taxes.
Budget statistics show that corporate profits grew faster than any other economic indicator in 1987. They were up by
25.6	per cent over the previous year. Corporate taxes went up by only 15 per cent. At the same time, while personal income was creeping up, taxes on personal income rose by a full 16 per cent. I then pointed out to my hon. colleague that in 1986 Alcan Aluminum received a tax credit from the Government rather than paying taxes on profits totalling $220 million. I then referred to other companies, including Brascan, Hees International, Power Financial, Xerox Canada, Total Petroleum, Wardair and PWA. The list goes on.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
1 assume from the question that my hon. friend was saying that Cominco made a profit during the years I referred to. Assuming the company made a profit, then I assume he is saying as well that they paid no taxes on that profit. I have no information in that regard and if my hon. friend does 1 wish he would table it in the House. If that is what he is saying, is he also saying that companies that make profits ought to pay no taxes, that that is the Conservative policy simply because those companies provide some employment?
1 am wondering if he is aware of the experience in South America over the last little while with respect to the production of nickel. While nickel prices are soaring, the company exploiting the resource in a South American country right now has said no to taxes. We give you jobs, they say, and that is enough. Is that the standard of corporate behaviour that my Conservative colleague is recommending for Canada? Does he expect us to get down on our knees to corporations just because they provide employment?
I just want to point out again that I did not mention Cominco, but I have mentioned other corporations that made millions of dollars and profits and paid no income tax while at the same time the burden of taxes on ordinary Canadians is increasing.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I suggested to him that the income tax mess on the corporate side started back in 1972 or 1973 when a Liberal minority Government, in bed with the NDP, developed policies based on a set of principles which have caused us increasing difficulty and deficits and so on.
My question is, how does the Hon. Member reconcile the attitude of his Party in Question Period today on the textile issue, which is consistent with Shirley Carr and the CLC's position, with his Party's policies on external affairs dealing with the same issue? How does he reconcile the contradiction?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say that my friend has failed to elaborate a contradiction. He has certainly left me, and I am sure most of those watching the debate today, completely baffled. We are consistent in our position of speaking up for ordinary Canadians. We are saying that Canadian jobs should not be put at risk because the Conservatives want a platform for the next election, the Mulroney trade deal. We are saying that while ordinary Canadian families are hit hard by tax increases, large corporations which make millions of dollars in profits should not go scot-free. We are speaking to the interests of ordinary Canadians. I ask the Hon. Member to do the same thing.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have such confirmation of the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We have been saying in our fiscal plan since 1984 that previous government policies, supported by his Party, produced an undue tax burden on individuals and far too little on corporations. This Budget addresses that concern. It moves us
one step closer to commercial corporations paying a fair share of tax.
I am absolutely astonished, given previous comments made by this Member of the House, that he has not read his own Party's policy documents relating to external affairs and the repercussions and implications for Canadian jobs of the position his Party is taking, specifically in the textile industry.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, happy that my colleague on the other side of the House is taking the time to read our policy statements on economic initiatives. I am sure that if he does that consistently he will be a much better informed Member of Parliament and may even make a positive contribution to this House.
I want to make it clear that the Budget which the Government brought down, as thin as it was and as do-nothing a Budget as it was, still managed to raise taxes to ordinary Canadians. In fact, because of the trade deal the Government negotiated with the United States and because of the loss of roughly $500 million of tariff revenues, the Government had to raise sales taxes in the Budget.
The Government is placing greater and greater burdens on the backs of ordinary Canadians. Ordinary Canadians are saying that enough is enough. They want the Government to stop putting the burden on their backs and to develop a fair taxation system. They want the Government to stop letting its friends get off scott-free, to stop letting the large corporations which make millions of dollars of profit get off with paying no income tax.
Even President Ronald Reagan has had the courage to impose a minimum income tax on large corporations. Why can a Canadian Government not assure Canadians that profitable corporations will pay some tax and that all of the burden will not be put on the backs of ordinary Canadian families?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would feel much better about the level of debate if the Member opposite would acknowledge that there will be a minimum tax on banks, as an example, something which his support of the Liberal Party over 15 or 20 years did not accomplish. Of course individual Canadians through income tax and sales tax are paying more tax. After all, after three and a half years of Conservative Government 1.25 million more Canadians have jobs today and are in a position to pay tax and buy things. Of course that produces more tax. Leave us in power for another 10 years and we will have two million or three million more Canadians with jobs in a position to buy things and pay tax and the whole country will be better off.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a one-minute rebuttal.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I resent this broad generalization that we support the Liberal Party. What kind of garbage is
February 22, 1988

this1? It is the Member's Party that supported the changes in the Bank Act moved by the Liberal Party. It is the Liberal Party which supports the Conservative Party on changes in the Bank Act. Stop this tomfoolery of saying that the NDP supports the Liberal Party. That simply is not true.
While the Member takes credit for jobs, let him also take credit for the fact that the weekly income earned from jobs is dropping and people are earning less. Let him also acknowledge the fact that taxes under his Government to ordinary middle class families have increased.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In that spirit of debate, questions and comments are now terminated.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am standing in my place today to address certain issues which were omitted by the Minister of Finance in his Budget, more specifically with regard to the homeless and those who live in inadequate housing. I have risen on several occasions in this Flouse to remind the government that in 1987, the International Year of the Homeless, over 100 000 people have slept in the streets in this fine country of ours. This situation is unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada and one where winters are so harsh.
Since the right hon. leader of the official Opposition has made me housing critic, I have been monitoring the results of policies put forward by this government, mainly because this Government had promised so much before the 1984 election. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, the Government's campaign commitment as stated in the manual for Tory candidates entitled "Pocket Politics '84", with regard to those who are the most in need in our country. In the area of social programs, the Conservative Government promised assistance to Canadians who are unable to meet their own needs. The Government's intentions were made even more interesting by the fact that it announced at the same time a new orientation of its efforts in the area of housing, to assist the poorest and the neediest. According to the new policies announced in 1985, the Government regrouped planning activities at the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation under three different headings: market housing, social housing and housing assistance. Actually, the Government also used this opportunity to transfer to provinces the administration of some programs, under the pretext that program delivery would be improved.
We in the Liberal Party always have had reservations as to the wisdom of that move. Indeed, my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) always questioned the move, and rightly so. What the Government did is not simply an administrative decision to improve program delivery, but as we now realize, it abdicated its responsibility as a Federal Government to exercize leadership, and to determine criteria and policies in the face of problems of a national nature such as the homeless.
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
The Government also imposed budgetary cut back on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to avoid what the Conservatives called wastage.
Before going any further, I would like to indicate it is the opinion of the Liberal Party that no further cuts should be made to the Corporation's operating budget. It is our view that any additional cut would jeopardize the Corporation's ability to fulfill its basic mandate.
This Budget is important also in that the Minister of Finance already informed the House of his intention to implement his famous tax reform. The reform's second stage could impact negatively on home building. New provisions for a yearly tax on land developers will lead to increased costs that will have to be borne by tenants and new home buyers. This is the view of a number of groups such as the Canadian Home Builders' Association who are concerned with that new tax, and more still by the way it will be implemented. At any rate, the Standing Committee on tax reform already has been made aware of that problem. This is an example of a counterproductive move by the Government.
This Budget is a clear statement that the Conservative vision of finance is loaded. Because we now see that the Government has not reached its goal of helping the most in need.
Let us pore over the results together. The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless was meant first to awaken us to that still serious problem in developing countries, but it had a boomerang effect in making us aware of the phenomenon in developed countries, Canada included, unfortunately. The Government's response, in 1987, was to organize studies and conferences on that phenomenon. That was done in September 1987. Six months later the Government has not yet solved the problem. It could at least show leadership and bring all parties around the same table, so they could acknowledge the report and make sure the federal Government will find someone to look after the homeless. The federal Government must take the lead and identify policies, responsibilities, the various levels of government and the necessary funding of various parties in that issue.
In the United States, two examples show that despite a budgetary deficit, it is still possible to put into place measures to solve the problem of the homeless. One example comes from the Government of the United States and the other from the State of Massachusetts. First, in the remarks of Congressman Lyndy Boggs before the National Social Service Conference of the American Salvation Army, we read the following, and I quote:
Federal level of response to homelessness has had an important and probably critical boost from the energetic urging of the new Speaker of the House of Representatives- representative Jim Wright of Texas. In the first days of the 100th Congress in January, he visited a shelter for homeless men in the District of Columbia, met with Mitch Snyder, the well known advocate for the homeless, and spoke out with urgency and compassion about the need to

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
act quickly in support of a bill that would provide $500 million for shelters and an additional measure providing emergency food aid.
The House passed that Bill, HR. 558, on March 5, 1987, by a vote of 264 to 121.

Everything is possible to those determined enough who also consider housing as a necessity of life. The Americans went even further. There is the following in that same speech, and I quote:

This Bill represents the fact that the federal government does have a moral and legal obligation to feed, clothe, and house homeless people who are in every community across this country both urban and rural.

That obligation does not seem to exist in Canada. There is more. The Chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr. St. Germain, added, and I quote:

-this is only a preliminary response and an emergency one at that. The failure of the Administration and the Congress to continue to provide the absolutely essential housing assistance to low and moderate income people has directly resulted in the homeless situation that we see in all our communities.

A few Tory Members must be thinking that this poor Liberal Member is making up stories and does not understand the need for deficit reduction. This same need for deficit reduction argument is also invoked in the United States. Fortunately for our neighbors South of the border, on the housing issue, good sense prevails, and we can understand that it is sometime necessary to forget about budgetary deficit when dealing with Canadian men and women who have no roofs over their heads.
Lyndy Boggs also stated:

The program cut-backs in recent years due to the federal budget deficit and policies of the current Administration have, I am afraid, contributed to the problem of homelessness. Other problems such as economic distress in certain parts of the country as well as widespread de-institutionalization of the mentally ill have also played a part in creating the problem we now face.
[ Translation]
Do you believe that the situation in Canada is quite different? It would be unwise to extrapolate and say: Such being the case in the United States, such must be the case also in Canada. There are several things in both countries which are different, including our social security systems which are quite superior to those in existence in the United States.
What should be emphasized here is the initiative taken by the House of Representatives which has clearly established the American administration's responsibility for homeless people in the United States, declaring at the same time: No matter the extent of our deficit, it is more important to provide a roof over the head of each American citizen.
The experience carried out in Massachussett is also quite convincing, because it demonstrates what can be done where there is a political will.
The Governor of that State had established a committee made up of people involved in providing shelters for the homeless to determine first how to provide emergency shelters to the homeless, and second how to develop strategies aimed at ensuring the social rehabilitation of the homeless in this New England State.
In the United States, there is, on the one hand, a federal administration which is faced with a huge deficit and, on the other, the State of Massachussett's Government which has no deficit at all. Both Government have decided to deal, together with the interested parties, with the problem of the homeless and to do so openly.
In Canada, during the International Year of the Shelter for the Homeless, various conferences were held, and funds for short term or emergency facilities were collected.
But if we do not address the long term problem, these measures will be nothing but band-aids which will not solve the problem. I am aware that it is difficult to address this problem, but nobody expects miracles. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) missed a fine opportunity to demonstrate to us that his Government has the political will to remedy the situation.
I do not question the need for the Government to reduce the deficit, but I feel there are items in the Budget which are more important than others, including the need for a home. The Government should behave like every ordinary citizen who makes cuts in his personal budget because of dicreased revenues. Such a citizen would reasonably cut such items as entertainment; he would put little or no money in his saving account; he would not change his car every year and would postpone his trip down South.
However, he would not forego the amounts needed for food, clothing and housing. He would not cut back on health care either since he has access to health insurance anywhere in Canada. He might cut back on food, find a less expensive appartment, pospone the purchase of luxury clothing items, but he would always make sure of having the strict minimum. But what does the Canadian Government do?
It says that, for all practical purposes, the budgetary deficit has to be brought down by all means available, and this includes ignoring the fact that 100 000 Canadians are homeless. The Government also ignores all the problems related to that fact.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is discriminating against the homeless. When our fellow citizens in Alberta were hit by a tornado and a few communities were razed to the ground, we immediately took action to help those who needed it the most.
1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there any difference between losing your home because of a tornado and losing it because of
February 22, 1988

a lay-off, family violence, a series of misfortunes or your inability to cope with them?
The result is the same: You find yourself without a home.
Why this lack of interest for the homeless? This issue is extremely important. There is no discrimination against the sick. If someone has spent his entire life smoking and having activities which were harmful to his health, will he be refused treatment because he was not careful? Of course not. When it comes to meeting basic needs, there can be no discrimination.
Yet, in its Budget, the Government hides behind budgetary cut-backs to justify what cannot be justified, its abandonment of poor Canadians whose only home is the street. They cannot even receive their welfare cheques as they do not have an address.
Mr. Speaker, is the Government as hard on itself as on the homeless? Apparently not. It applies a double standard. If we add everything up, we see the true face of this Government. If you add the $1.6 billion used to bail out the CCB and Northland Bank, the cost of the Estey Commission, the cost incurred in moving the jail to Port Cartier and, worst of all, the judicial expenses for the defence of a previous Regional Development Minister who keeps pretending he is innocent despite the evidence to the contrary, you readily realize that the Government is not working for the poor. On the contrary, the cuts made at the expense of the needy are used to finance the Government's gigantic blunders.
In fact, every social program in the housing area is under attack. Among the most striking needs is housing for the native peoples. In a press release commenting the last Budget, George Erasmus, head of the First Nations Assembly, stated that the non-statutary cuts of $300 million were geared to native people programs. These cuts did not affect the Defence nor the External Affairs budgets, which were exempted. Chief Erasmus took this opportunity to underline the fact that with a submarine costing $1 billion, the First Nations could build 16,333 houses, while creating 200,000 full time jobs on the reserves and house 68,000 persons there.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where do we place our priorities at a time of budget restraints? Is it to put a roof over the head of our fellow Canadians or to give us the luxury of a nuclear submarines fleet? I realize that while this comparison may look ridiculous to some of our colleagues, it points to the main question: Where are the true priorities of this Government that claims it wants to help those who need it most?
Now, who are the homeless? Who do we deprive of a roof over their head and of the possibility of reintegrating our society? They are mothers such as Mrs. Fleather Walker who was forced to place her two daughters with Toronto's Children Aid Society before going to the St-Michael Hospital to get psychiatric help. Mrs. Walker, a 30 years old woman who received no financial support from her husband, was living with her two little daughters in a 7 by 14 foot bachelor apartment. She was paying $400 a month for that bachelor
The Budget-Mr. Keeper
furnished only with a small desk, a chair and two small tables. The place was infested to such a point that cockroaches would crawl over the little girls' body while they were asleep at night on the floor. One can imagine the bad effect of such an environment on the health of those two children, one of which has now developed suicidal tendencies. Unable to afford a healthy home large enough for their needs and at an affordable rate, this family is now materially apart, mentally affected and on the verge of becoming homeless. And their story is one of the many paths to a homeless situation.
Let me remind the House that 22 percent of the homeless in Canada are women in a difficult situation. They are either old, head of a single parent family or sick. I would also point out that many homeless are persons with psychiatric problems who were released from institution for all sorts of good common sense administrative reasons which were to save us large amounts of money. But we only forgot one thing, that is to provide proper accommodations for them. Now they are left alone and distraught on the street.
Last Fall, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) talked about the case of a homeless woman who was attacked in the Jeanne-Mance Park in Montreal during the night, while sleeping. A few days later, she died as a result of her wounds.
Another example mentioned to the house by my colleague the Hon. Member for Bourassa was the case of Kenneth Ryan, 42 years old, who lived in Halifax and became homeless as a result of difficulties which he could not solve. He too was found dead early September, also victim of an attack apparently.
The homeless are at the mercy of everything. This is an aspect that we, Hon. Members, in the safety of our homes, cannot realize. Without fixed address, there is no welfare cheque, there are no walls to protect you from the wind, from the cold, from the rain or there is even less protection from individuals who will shamelessly rob you of the little you own.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) stressed in a statement he made in this House on September 15 last that 57 percent of the homeless in the province of Manitoba were natives.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) also mentioned the case of young homeless people. According to a study about young drifters in Montreal made in 1985, in the 18 to 30 age group, one in two had previously lived in a foster home or in an institution; 80.3 percent do not have any contacts with their families and are generally faced with two serious problems: alcohol and drug abuse as well as mental illnesses; 23 percent of those studied had already been hospitalized in psychiatric wards. There are many suicide attempts, and it is of course very difficult to keep a job in those conditions.
In an article published in the Mail Star, we learned of the plight of two teenagers without a home, Bill, 15 and Eric, 16.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Be Is her
They were fleeing from family problems and were lured by a possible job in a large center. We are told that Bill has not been sleeping for 36 hours and talks now with difficulty, which reveals extreme fatigue. Examples are numerous. All across the country, each case is more dramatic than the other.
Sometimes, government decisions have contributed to the problem, the renovation of popular neighbourhoods of Vancouver for Expo 1987 being a real example of that. Sometimes, people have had a hard life and could not or would not cope with it. In either case . . . Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that my time is over. I will conclude momentarily-
There are, clearly, in the problem of the homeless, things that the federal Government can change. Flomeless people and those who help them are not expecting miracles and are not asking much. They want the Government to show leadership in the coordination of policies and solutions, in bringing together, at the same table, all the people involved with this problem. We have to start talking to one another.
It is important to allow all the participants- municipalities, provincial governments, voluntary agencies, the homeless themselves-to seek and find the problems that can be solved and to do it as quickly as possible, before they become even more serious than they already are.
On January 25, 1987, the Liberal Caucus had the privilege to hear Theodore Sorensen who, for 11 years, wrote the speeches of John F. Kennedy. During the last 30 years, Mr. Sorensen had the opportunity to meet most American and Canadian leaders. That night he was asked to elaborate on what is leadership in a free society. He said that to be a good leader you did not have to be a good manager anymore, but also that it was not enough to be at the top to be a leader. He said, and I quote:
[DOT]	< 1530)

Effective political leadership is not a science but an art, requiring not calculation but judgment, not accurate measurements but wise choices.

1 wonder, today, whether it is wise to ignore the problem of the homeless and I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to think about that problem. 1 wonder why the homeless were ignored.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no more questions or comments, debate.
[DOT]	(1540)


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing amendments that have been put forward by members of the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition. The amendment put forward to the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the motion which is before
the House put by the Official Opposition, states that we have failed to put forward a credible plan to deal with the national debt. It also states that we have failed to specify a Canadian approach for dealing with the instabilities of the international monetary system. They regret this. 1 point out that this is part of their preamble.
The amendment put forward by the NDP condemns the Government for introducing a Budget that ignores the real economic needs of the country and for the elimination of costly tax breaks. Members of that Party state that the Government should be condemned for maintaining a policy of high interest rates begun by previous Liberal Governments and for failing to introduce a system of universal child care.
1 am very pleased to be able to speak in the House this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Budget recently tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance. This Budget clearly indicates that we are on the right track with regard to securing the economic renewal of Canada, a promise that was made in 1984 by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Members on this side of the House are proud of the statistics that prove that in three and a half years of solid fiscal management the Government has turned our economy around and has put Canada into the top spot among major industrialized countries in terms of economic growth and jobs. As Canadians, members of the Opposition should also welcome this news.
In our Agenda for Economic Renewal tabled in November of 1984 the Minister of Finance stated, "First, we must put our own fiscal house in order so that we can limit and ultimately reverse the massive build-up in public debt and the damaging impact this has on confidence and growth." It is obvious that we have followed through with this principle.
In the four years ending in 1984-85 the deficit rose steadily from $14.9 billion to $38.3 billion. This was an increase of 150 per cent in just three years. In contrast, in 1988-89, the budgetary deficit will have been reduced for the fourth consecutive year, declining to $28.9 billion. In 1989-90 the budgetary deficit will be down to $28.6 billion. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit will have been cut in half over this five-year period. We are still not satisfied, however, with what the deficit is going to be. There is much work that has to be done.
Of equal significance is the number of jobs that have been created in Canada as a result of increased confidence in the economy. Since the election of 1984 more than 1.1 million jobs have come about, and the unemployment rate has dropped to 8.1 per cent, the lowest level since September, 1981.
In my Province of British Columbia five times as many jobs have been created in the 40 months since we were elected than were created in total between the 1980 and the 1984 elections. The facts are clear-the Canadian economy has not looked this healthy in years.
February 22, 1988

Continuing on this path, the Budget includes a $300 million reduction in non-statutory spending by government Departments beginning in 1989-90. This will allow the Government to lower the deficit mainly through the control of expenditures.
In the most recent report of the Auditor General, Kenneth Dye stated that there have been significant improvements made in financial controls. He stated that the Government now has systems and procedures that provide essential financial controls. With expenditures by our federal Government exceeding $100 billion a year, protecting the public purse demands that the correct amounts be paid out to the intended recipients at the right time, he said. "A decade ago the Auditor General could provide no such assurance that this was happening. Today, I can do so," he stated.
The Budget reviews the fact that the average annual rate of increase in program spending has been cut to 3.5 per cent, less than the rate of inflation. When this is compared with the four fiscal years ending in 1984-85, when government spending increased at an average annual rate of 14 per cent, it is evident that we are on the right track.
From international comparisons of deficits, debt and interest payments it can be seen that there has been extremely promising news in controlling our deficit, particularly when we compare our figures with those of other OECD countries. Relative to the other OECD countries Canada has undertaken substantial actions to reduce its deficit in the last three years. The improvement in Canada's total government structural balance since 1985 exceeds that of the other countries. Our total government deficit as a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product in 1987 remained above the average of the G-7 countries.
At the federal level of government Canada has made extensive progress in reducing the deficit to GDP ratio. By 1988 this ratio is expected to be roughly equal to the G-7 average, in comparison to 1985 when the ratio was over two percentage points higher in Canada.
The word is out and the news is good. Canada's position in the international economic sphere is dynamic and well respected. An advertisement in The Sunday Times of London stated, for example:
Toronto: The fifth largest stockmarket in the world. For years it has been closed to overseas investors, but now, in the post-Liberal era, it is opening up and changes in political and economic conditions are now combining to create some of the most exciting growth opportunities in the world.
The Government has worked vigorously for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. Our trade agreement with the United States is a major building block in strategy to continue to strengthen our competitive position. As our largest trading partner and with a population of over 250 million, as compared to ours of just over 25 million, it is evident that access to this market by our goods and services will boost our economy and help to create a tremendous number of jobs in many sectors of the economy.
The Budget-Mr. Belsher
Our NDP friends have said that we are not doing anything about child care. Nothing could be further from the truth. 1 might add that the amendments to the Income Tax Act are proposed to implement the taxation aspects of our Government's new policy on child care. The maximum child care expense deduction will be increased from $2,000 to $4,000 for each eligible child who is under seven at the end of the year or who has a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment. In addition, the over-all maximum limit of $8,000 per taxpayer for child care expense deductions will be abolished.
With respect to the refundable child tax credits, as proposed in the tax reform, the maximum amount of this credit for 1988 is $559 per child. A new $200 supplement in respect of children six years and under for families with low and middle incomes, to recognize the contribution made by the parent who cares for the child at home, will be added to the refundable child tax credit, some $100 for the 1988 tax year and some $200 for subsequent years.
Prepayment of the refundable tax credit was limited to families whose net income did not exceed $15,000. Proposed amendments will increase this income level to a rate that is two-thirds of the threshold level. This means that for 1988 the threshold for basic credit is $24,090, and two-thirds of that is $16,060. Anyone earning less than this amount of net income will receive the payment. In other words, the level is being raised by $1,060.
For 1988 the prepayment will be $100, but in subsequent years the prepayment will include two-thirds of the $200 supplement. Also, in 1990 and thereafter the amount of the $200 supplement will be adjusted to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index greater than three per cent.
When we look at child care strategy we see that we are committed to spending $5.4 billion over seven years. We estimate that this will create at least 200,000 new child care spaces.
The proposed Canada child care legislation is a new costsharing program with the provinces to create 200,000 new, quality child care spaces. It will provide cost sharing for both non-profit and commercial child care. We are proposing this legislation to facilitate and to promote rapid development in the non-profit sector. It will be cost-shared to the tune of 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial.
Details of the federal-provincial financial arrangements will be negotiated with provincial and territorial Governments. The federal Government will work with the provinces to ensure the development and implementation of the necessary standards for quality in a jointly funded child care system.
Under the heading of new tax assistance to families with young children, over 1.3 million families with pre-school aged children will receive increased benefits through changes to the child tax credit or the child care expense deduction. For

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Belsher
families with receipted child care expenses there is an increased tax deduction of up to $4,000 per child for children six years and under or with special care needs. For low and middle-income families there is a phased-in $200 per year supplement to the child tax credit for children six and under. For children over six years the tax deduction stays the same at $2,000 per year. The limit of $8,000 on allowable deductions per family will be removed.
There also is a special initiatives fund in the child care strategy. There is an estimated $100 million to promote research and development in child care, for example, in rural communities and for special projects that should be tried out.
Why did the Government establish this child care strategy? It is because child care is a priority issue for the Government and for Canadians. The Government promised Canadians a comprehensive child care system that would meet the needs of our families.
Last year I sat on the Special Committee on Child Care which had a mandate to examine the issue of child care and provide the Government with an indication of the needs of Canadian families.
This strategy could lead to as many as 40,000 jobs in the child care field itself and offer substantial training opportunities for child care workers.
1 wish to take another few minutes to deal with cutting down loopholes in the tax system. 1 feel that the opposition Parties do the Canadian people a disservice when they fail to acknowledge the various things that have already been cut out. For instance, over the past three years a number of measures have been introduced to protect the integrity of personal and corporate tax systems. Some of those measures include the following.
The Government has put an end to the abuse of the scientific research tax credit, which cost the economy billions of dollars. The Government has eliminated tax shelters based on investments in yachts and recreational vehicles; eliminated the use of trusts to distribute investment income tax free; terminated the use of partnerships in corporate takeovers to increase tax deductions; introduced a minimum tax for high income individuals; and introduced measures which significantly restrict the ability of corporations to transfer losses and unused deductions.
There are still things that need to be done, but we are on the right track. Furthermore, the Government has said that there are income tax remission orders, but in an effort to enhance the accountability of those remission orders the Government has undertaken to do the following in the current fiscal year. It has undertaken to table in the House all income tax remission orders exceeding $20 million. The Government has also undertaken to provide periodic reports to Parliament of all orders and to publish all orders in the The Canada Gazette. This Government is not afraid to go to the people for accountability.
This afternoon it is my pleasure to say that I endorse what the Finance Minister has given to this House by way of his Budget address, and I deplore the two amendments put forward by the opposition Parties.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: As my colleague will know, I was listening particularly to his comments on child care in which we both have a great interest. The Hon. Member referred to the special initiative fund for child care for research and development. I wish to ask him, in all sincerity, if he is not disappointed that this is not in the Budget. Can he explain why it is not in the Budget? Since it is completely within federal jurisdiction, why is it not possible to have that money there now in order that we can see some action? In that manner, all the groups across the country from which we heard witnesses would not feel so disappointed that nothing tangible is happening to help get some things going in the child care field. This would allow some special projects. For example, the Hon. Member mentioned some in rural areas, disabled children, multicultural needs, northern developments and native communities that we know have such a need.
The Hon. Member talks as if 200,000 spaces over seven years would fulfil the need. When we looked at that very closely, our projections indicated that, even under the present situation with no intervention, there would be that many created. It is really a very small amount. It looks as if it could be several years in the future before there is any federal funding for beginning those 200,000 new day care spaces.
Is the Hon. Member not disappointed that there has not been any action in helping to create the type of supply that we heard over and over again was so urgently needed, and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised Canadians approximately three years ago?


Ross Belsher: I welcome the question from the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I know that she has a caring heart and wants to see the most done. However, I would point out to the Hon. Member that on December 1, 1987, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled his strategy report. He tabled a report of what he would be working with with each of the provinces. Those negotiations are presently taking place.
The Hon. Member is stating that, because there are no specific lines in this Budget that deal with child care, that that report is being ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the point that I am trying to get across.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Let's see the proof of it.


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member wants to see the money. We will be seeing the money come Wednesday when the spending Estimates are tabled.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made a commitment to the House. He has put in progress the line of communications of what he will be working with with each of the provinces and the territories. The Hon. Member wants to

February 22, 1988

see a line that states that $100 million will be attached to the special initiatives. That will come in time. Some of those will happen in the present year of 1988.
I can tell the Hon. Member that this program is well in hand. The tax measures themselves have already been introduced to the House for part of that $5.4 billion, and the remaining part of it will take place on a gradual scale. This is taking place.
I say to the Hon. Member that the opposition Parties do a disservice when they say to the Canadian public that because the Budget did not have a line that spelled that out, suddenly it is not being looked after. There was money in the Budget for growth, and there will be more expenditures than there were last year. I can assure the Hon. Member that she will see results in this year.


Alfonso Gagliano: I wish to take this opportunity to ask a question of the Hon. Member. Quite a few times in his speech he stated that the Government is on the right track. He also mentioned that the Canadian economy has not looked healthier for years. We still have an annual deficit close to $30 billion. Our national debt is 60 per cent higher than it was in 1984. We all agree that during the last six years there was a tremendous economic recovery. One does not have to be a statistician to add that something is wrong here. The economy was good for six years. Every Minister of the Government stands up in the House and says, "We brought the interest rate down". That is good. It means that it costs us less to finance our national debt. However, why is that not reflected in the reduction of the annual deficit? Every expert, after February 10, agreed that if there had not been a change in accounting methods, the annual deficit would have been $32 billion, as it was on March 31, 1984, just before the election.
We have had economic recovery for six years, and the national debt has gone up by 60 per cent. The national deficit, taking into account what I call creative accounting-


Don Boudria: Creative bookkeeping.


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, creative bookkeeping. We must remember that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said last year that instead of remitting payroll deductions once a month they must be remitted every two weeks, which automatically provided $1 billion. It did not change anything, but naturally the deficit looked good at the first of the year.
Could the Hon. Member tell the House what the Government did? I do not want him to say that they created jobs. Yes, they created jobs, but how many jobs did Canadians lose during that period of time? It is very nice to say that jobs have been created, but in 1974 there were 1.5 million unemployed people in Canada and today there are still 1.2 million unemployed. This means that with the economic boom, only 300,000 jobs have been created, but they are saying that they created a
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
million. I mean, two and two make four. Could we have a more concrete explanation from the Hon. Member?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes much ado about there still being one million people unemployed. I acknowledge that one million people are still unemployed, but the point is that one million more people are working now than were working three and a half years ago.


Alfonso Gagliano: They are not on the unemployment list. That is why.


Ross Belsher: No, the Hon. Member is trying to work the figures to suit his own means. There are more people working now than there were in 1984. Some 80 per cent of the additional money being collected through the income tax system is from more people being employed and people having higher wages.
We started from a point where we had a deficit of $38 billion.


Don Boudria: No, sir.


Ross Belsher: That was the 1984-85 year.


Don Boudria: You were in power most of that year.


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member will find-


Harvie Andre: It was based upon Lalonde's Budget.


Ross Belsher: The Budget had been tabled many months before we came to power. It was already in place.
Cutting expenditures is a difficult proposition. Nonetheless, we have been doing it. On every target the Minister of Finance has tabled in the House since the fall of 1984 he has delivered.
The Hon. Member was quite right when he said that the accumulated deficit is still growing. Yes, it is, but it is growing at a much lower rate than it was. By the middle of the 1990s our Minister of Finance is projecting that we will reach a balanced Budget. The carrying charges on the accumulated deficit will be about $30 billion this year.
Everything the Minister of Finance has mentioned in the House with regard to setting targets, he has accomplished. 1 am willing to side with a Minister of Finance who has already delivered five successive times. He has risen in the House and has given targets on which he has already delivered.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place enough years and have been through enough Budgets to know that faces might change but the direction of Budgets and the priorities in them have not.
My colleagues and I have called this a Budget of lost opportunities. What would happen if one were to grant all the claims of the Government and to say that all its claims were accurate, appropriate, and everything else? What would happen if one were to say that, even though it stretches

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
credulity? First we would have to take a look at what is happening in the economy across the country and at everything that needs to be done as a necessary investment on behalf of the people of the country and the country as a whole. We would also have to look at what has really happened over the last several years. We say that this is a Budget of lost opportunities because the Government has missed a golden chance to do that which needs to be done.
Everyone agrees that we need more employment and more revenues for the national Treasury. However, this administration and the previous one, at least in their last two years in office, were so hypnotized by the deficit that they proceeded to give it priority over anything else in the nation. They felt that a supreme effort had to be made to reduce the deficit.
We have been accused of being big spenders, debt loaders, and so forth. However, we must look at the history of my Party whenever it has been in government. We have always operated on the basis that every Government goes into debt most of the time, but we have always said-and we still say it-that a nation has different kinds of debts. There is constructive debt, what we have always called self-liquidating debt. There is destructive debt, what we call dead weight debt. Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to think for a moment, seeing as where you come from, that I am expounding some kind of Social Credit ideology. Far be it for me to say anything that would give credibility to that unlamented philosophy, but the fact of the matter is that when a nation goes into debt, the methods it uses to pay off those debts indicate its priorities.
Let us talk about the lost opportunities in the Budget. The Government had the opportunity to provide at least half a billion dollars a year more in housing of all kinds, even if it meant increased borrowings, which would have been constructive debt. As I have said repeatedly in the House over a number of years, in every city in the nation there is a waiting list as long as one's arm of people who need hospital beds, chronic care beds, and home care assistance. There are thousands of older homes of senior citizens that need fixing. There is a need for low income and co-operative housing. When one looks at housing, one realizes that it goes through the entire economy, all the way from the forest industry to the final forest products which are used in homes. It does not matter whether it is in the plumbing industry, the electrical industry or in all the other things that go into housing. The tens of thousands of people you put to work will start paying taxes. That is why we call it a self-liquidating debt. That kind of an investment-it is not a debt really but an investment- not only repays itself in a very short period of time, in two or three years, but it is a constructive kind of way to borrow and expend moneys on behalf of the nation as a whole.
In environment, we could put 100,000 young people to work starting yesterday with a few hundred million dollars a year just cleaning up our air and water. We have no right, none of us from any Party, as a nation to leave the kind of mess we are
leaving for others to clean up. The longer we take to clean it up, the more it will cost. Here is a constructive kind of debt not only to clean up the environment but which will put people to work who will pay taxes.
Let me come to municipal works. There are tens of thousands of needed necessary projects in the plans and desires of municipalities all over Canada, urban and rural. I do not mean luxury hotels and shopping centres; I mean necessary and needed public works, some of which are so dilapidated and worn out that they are becoming a disgrace in our communities. That is an investment, Mr. Speaker. It is not a loss or a straight out expenditure. Again, the federal authorities should be providing the leadership and getting the provinces to join in. A consortium of three levels of Government could put another
100,000	or 200,000 people to work who pay taxes, and the debt will liquidate itself. So much of our debt-as my hon. friend mentioned when he was speaking about the billions of dollars we have to put out just to service the present debt-is what 1 call a dead-weight debt, that is, moneys that are paid in interest charges.
In my own area of transportation, we need to invest $500 million to $1 billion per year over the next six or seven years. 1 think of urban transportation. I think of improvements to the St. Lawrence Seaway. 1 think of what is not happening and should be, and 1 think particularly about western Canada, but the same is true all over Canada in our railway industry. I was at a meeting of some 250 to 300 rural people, mostly farmers and their wives in Minton, Saskatchewan, a community in the riding of my good friend, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), who were fed up and angry about two railway branch lines that the Government has still not finished rehabilitating, even though those lines are guaranteed in the basic network to the year 2000. Some $11 million was spent a few years ago getting the job started, and another $14 million is needed to finish it. That puts a lot of people to work. It also lives up to a commitment by the Parliament of Canada, this Government and the previous Government, on railway branch lines in Canada, particularly in western Canada. In order for our railway operations to move faster and more efficiently, we have to deal with a mundane subject like the tens of thousands of level crossings where several hundred people get killed and a few thousand get injured each year. A few hundred millions of dollars in investment is needed there. It is an investment, not an expense. The fact that this Government and the previous Government have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars away, down the drain, refurbishing old worn out rolling stock for VIA Rail is terrible.
The Conservatives talk about bringing some sound business practices into Government. If you were to go to a banker and say, "I am going to start up this railway passenger corporation. 1 have no money. The youngest piece of equipment is 25 years old and some of it is 40 or 50 years old. I want some money to fix up the equipment and to operate a national passenger train service", every banker in this country would laugh you out of his office. But what does the Government do? It refuses to
February 22, 1988

order new equipment. Some of that equipment is to be refurbished for the third time since 1977. Talking about throwing good money after bad and talk about terrible business practices, that has to be it. I would not hire the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to run my chicken coop. If he calls that a sound business practice the way VIA Rail has been treated, then he does not deserve the portfolio of the Minister of Finance.
We have heard all the talk about employment and job creation and I have listened to government Members saying how many more jobs there are than there were four or five years ago. That is nice. But the Government would be in an even worse condition if that were not the case. Still, when you look at the whole country, unemployment in eight of the provinces is worse now than it was in 1984.


Alan Redway: It is not. Be honest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think the Government and the Minister of Finance have to be reminded that there is more to Canada than Toronto and parts of southern Ontario. When you look at the different regions of this country, the provinces and the territories, and what has happened to unemployment in those areas, these fellows have nothing to brag about.
The other thing is that we need to lower the interest rate immediately by at least 1 per cent. As far as I am concerned, I don't particularly care what the value of the Canadian dollar is compared to the U.S. dollar. In fact, I hope the Canadian dollar goes down to 65 cents or 70 cents versus the U.S. dollar. I would follow the practices of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Diefen-baker. They slapped on foreign exchange controls, and hundreds of millions of dollars were not moving over the Canadian and United States border overnight for someone to make a fast buck on foreign exchange speculation. We had foreign exchange controls during the Second World War, the Korean War, in the middle 1950s, and in 1961, and we can have them again.


Harvie Andre: And they failed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We can lower our interest rate, and if people who make a profit in Canada are not prepared to invest in Canada, then we should not let them ship the money out. It is as simple as that. If the country is good enough to make a profit in, it is good enough to invest in. This running off to other parts of the world is not what I call good citizenship.
This brings me to another item. The Government needs more revenues to reduce the deficit. I will repeat for about the twelfth time that there is a good, neat way to get some revenue, would you believe, of at least $3 billion a year? The amount of deferred corporation taxes on the books of Canada now is approaching $40 billion, spelled with a "b" as in Benjamin dollars. If you were to charge even a modest 8 per cent interest, which is lower than the bank rate, on those deferred taxes-
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin


Alan Redway: What would happen to unemployment in your riding if you did?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -you would not only pick up an extra $3 billion in revenue, you would be surprised how fast outfits like Inco, Canadian Pacific, General Electric and Bell Canada, all of whom owe $2 billion or more to the people of Canada which they will never pay, would start paying those taxes back.


Alan Redway: They would be laying people off.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is an interest-free loan, and I do not know how other Canadians can get an interest-free loan when they want to buy a home, start up a business, or keep their farm going.
The theory was that if you allowed these corporations to defer taxes they would reinvest that money in fixing up their plant, increasing production and creating more jobs. Great theory. We started deferring corporate taxes in the early 1950s, I think, during the Korean War, and we got lots of investment. Look at International Nickel and Canadian Pacific. They invested all right. They invested in Guatemala, Australia, Indonesia, and lots of other places. Oh, yes! If the Government is so anxious about the deficit, this is an area where it can raise some revenue.
The whole thrust of this Budget, the philosophy behind it and of every Budget I have seen in this place, particularly over the last five years, and most particularly since 1984, is what I call the bottom line syndrome; the so-called market forces and free enterprise principles; the market-place should govern. All that has done, as far as I can see, is to appeal to greed, selfishness, and mediocrity. It is the philosophy, imported from south of the 49th parallel, of: What is in it for me? How many fast bucks can I make and the heck with everyone else. If I can make a buck, I do not care. That is the philosophy behind this Budget and the four others before it.


Mr. Oberle:: Oh, you have that all wrong. That is Bob White.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They talk about bringing business ethics to government. What these Tories have never learned is that you cannot bring business ethics into government. Look at all the trouble they got themselves into with their so-called business ethics. A lot of businesses have ethics they have not even used yet, especially the good ones. The ones they do use may not be illegal but they are the kind of ethics a back alley tomcat would use.
In a nation with all the needs I referred to earlier in housing, transportation, the environment, and municipal works, just those four areas alone, we still have tens of thousands of people lining up at food banks. When I was a kid they were called soup kitchens. Now some Tory wants to get up and tell me how great things are! Like R. B. Bennett and "prosperity is just around the corner". Really, it is a disgrace and a blot on this

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
nation. Given the fact that tens of thousands of people are lining up at food banks and thousands of people do not have a home, we have no business sitting around here patting ourselves on the back, the Government or the Opposition. Let us get a fair tax system.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he was Leader of the Opposition, said on television to my leader, talking about a fair tax system: "You're right, Ed". That is what he said. We are still waiting. We have a system so intrinsically unfair that it will allow tens of thousands of profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes, and that surely means some kind of political chicanery, free enterprise robbery, and a betrayal of our nationhood. It is nothing less than that. If the Government does not put a stop to it, the day will come when another Government will. The people are not going to take that kind of nonsense any more. They do not deserve that kind of treatment, that kind of unfairness and lack of integrity and honesty, which is the opposite of what they thought they were going to get when they elected the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 was most interested in the Hon. Member's comments, particularly with respect to the deficit and his feeling that more money should be spent rather than that an effort be made to reduce the deficit. I happen to have read an article in one of today's papers, The Toronto Star.


Don Boudria: An excellent newspaper.


Alan Redway: That is right. The article is written by an economist by the name of Mr. Arthur Donner. To the best of my knowledge he has never been a great fan of this Government. I think I heard the Hon. Member and his leader quoting Mr. Donner with great vigour on occasion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Never heard of him.


Alan Redway: Mr. Donner has some interesting things to say and 1 would just like to read two or three of those comments and ask the Hon. Member a question.
First, Mr. Donner says that while most economists believe the Government should not need to balance its books in any particular year, nevertheless it should be able to do so over the longer term. He goes on to say that despite tax reform-and 1 think the Hon. Member was talking about a fairer system of taxes-Canada continues to have an extensive structural or non-cyclical deficit built into the system. That does not involve the question of putting people back to work and paying taxes and reducing the deficit. What that means is that there is just too much money being spent in relation to potential income.
Mr. Donner goes on and to say that the Canadian Government has gone about as far as it can go in controlling discretionary spending. If the structural deficit is to shrink further it will require additional taxes, perhaps via the soon-to-beintroduced national sales tax or via a reduction in transfer payments to provincial Governments or individuals. Nevertheless, he says, the structural or non-cyclical component of the deficit remains quite large. This issue will be on the political agenda of whatever Party wins the next federal election.
Bearing in mind that the Hon. Member seems to think his Party may very well win the next federal election-


Don Boudria: Don't exaggerate.


Alan Redway: -I would like to ask him whether or not he truly believes that the way to reduce that structural deficit, which is going to be on the agenda of whatever Party forms the next Government, is either to call in all those deferred corporate taxes or else nationalize a bank in accordance with NDP policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quotes a Mr. Donner. 1 never heard of him before.


Alan Redway: I am shocked. He is a well-known economist.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The fact that he does so proves my case. He made reference to balancing the Budget over the longer term.


Alan Redway: How long is your term?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We agree with that. 1 want to recite a little bit of history for my hon. friend.
In Saskatchewan we took over a Government that was bankrupt from a Liberal administration and before that a Tory administration. It was absolutely bankrupt and had a debt which we were never going to be able to get out of. We increased the debt in the first four years of office from 1944 to 1948. We increased the debt and took electricity to 60,000 farms. We brought in hospitalization and medicare. We rebuilt the whole highway system. We built hospitals and schools. We borrowed the money. We cancelled the seed grain debts and the farm relief debts and we put the people of Saskatchewan to work. By 1952 we had balanced Budgets and we had balanced Budgets every year thereafter. That was a bankrupt province.
We will have to clean up that mess for the third time. The Liberals got back in in 1964 and we got back in in 1971. We had to clean that mess up again. Now the Tories got us in debt in spades in Saskatchewan to the tune of $2 billion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a question of the Member who just made a very eloquent speech. He was sort of getting carried away at the end but I want to congratulate him on his speech.
My question pertains to rural Canada. I invite the Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Miss Bourgault) to pay attention because we will ask questions later. The Province of Saskatchewan has the highest concentration of rural residents of any province in the country. What does the Member think of the
February 22, 1988

five-cent-per-litre or twenty-three-cent-per-gallon tax increase on gasoline since 1984? People living in rural communities, including those in my riding, in western Canada, and in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, have to pay the gasoline tax. There is no TTC, no Metro, no OC Transpo or any such method of transportation in the rural communities. In order to get to work or to go to the doctor, whether you are a farmer or anyone else, you have to pay the tax when the fuel is used for a motor vehicle driven on the road.
Could the Member also comment on the tax on rural Canada which is also called the tax on long distance phone calls? In rural areas across Canada in order to phone the doctor, the farm machinery dealer and so on, one has to make long distance phone calls. This unprecedented tax on free speech is now in the order of 10 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will have one minute to respond.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, one minute is a lot for the Chair to ask of me. I have always thought that sales taxes were mostly in the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities. There has been a fair amount of invasion by the federal authority. Although we have always had some federal sales taxes and excise taxes at the manufacturers' level we are now into sales taxes at the retail level by the federal authority. Surely that is an area in which the provinces and municipalities need funding for roads, streets, and other things which they must build and maintain. 1 would personally rather see an export tax on the export of energy resources from Canada.


Don Boudria: You can't do that with free trade.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That has been sold out as well, but that would seem to me a proper place. They are our resources that are worth so much to us. That is an area in which revenue could be picked up.
There is a vast difference, not so much in what the taxes are but in what they are for. If the Government expended the revenues from a sales tax on gasoline on rebuilding the TransCanada Highway or providing toll free ferry services on the East and West Coasts and the nation as a whole shared in the cost of transportation, I would see some point in it. If federal taxes on gasoline were being spent on transportation by way of roads and ferry services one could forgive the national Government. However, the Government taxes gasoline, not for those services but to reduce the deficit and pacify the Yankees while we all pay.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, when you were a boy did your mother ever give you advice? I will bet she did, Mr. Speaker. My mother used to give me advice too.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Not enough.


Alan Redway: When I was a boy she used to give me advice, and even later on she used to give me a lot of advice. I always listened carefully to what she had to say. I do not know what
The Budget-Mr. Redway
sort of advice your mother gave you when you were a boy, Mr. Speaker, but I will never forget one of the things that my mother said to me. She said that I should never, never accept the job of Finance Minister of Canada if it were ever offered to me.
She said that because she honestly believed that if I became the Finance Minister of this country I would be very much disliked. Actually, she used a somewhat stronger word than that and that is because that is the way she felt about it, as did her friends and most other people.
She was not talking, of course, about our present Finance Minister. She was thinking of some of the former ones such as Mr. J. L. Ilsley, Mr. Douglas Abbott, and Mr. Walter Harris, who in our household was known as "Six-buck Harris". Those are the sorts of Finance Ministers about whom my mother was thinking when she gave me that advice. She was not thinking about the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) because she did not know him. She passed away before he became the Minister of Finance.
It is interesting that, in spite of those comments which my mother made to me, which have always stuck in my mind, the present Minister of Finance seems to hold a great deal of respect in this country, unlike so many of his predecessors. That is in spite of the fact that he has now been the Minister of Finance for three and a half years. As you will recall, he brought down an Economic Statement in November, 1984. He brought down a Budget in February, 1985, a Budget in February, 1986, another Budget in February, 1987, and a Budget in this year, 1988. That is four Budgets by my arithmetic. There has been the Economic Statement and four Budgets. On top of that he brought out a White Paper on tax reform and an actual tax reform package.
Normally that sort of thing done by one person in the job of Finance Minister would get a lot of people upset. With all those shots that he has had at the taxpayers of Canada, if my mother's advice was correct, just about everyone in this country would be hopping up and down mad at our Finance Minister by this time. However, that is not the case. In spite of all that, he is still a very highly respected person. Daily we read fine comments about him by all sorts of commentators. As a matter of fact, just over the noon hour my French teacher had me read some passages from the Quebec press, en francais, and some fine things were said about our Minister of Finance. That suggests to me that there is something different about the present Minister of Finance from the kinds of Finance Ministers we have had in the past.
That is also quite surprising when one considers the problems that faced the Minister of Finance when he came into office. He had to deal with an economic situation in September, 1984, in which unemployment was extremely high.
I recall the time when I was campaigning during and before the 1984 election, knocking virtually on every door in my

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Redway
constituency. If there was one thing that struck me more than anything else, it was that virtually everyone at every door 1 knocked was touched in some way by unemployment. There was either someone in the household itself who was unemployed, or a relative, neighbour or friend who was unemployed. Virtually everyone to whom 1 spoke when I campaigned throughout 1983 and 1984, was touched by the economic recession which was its worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Since September, 1984, there has been a very substantial change. 1 need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment rate across the country has fallen very substantially, from some 12 per cent down to 8.1 per cent. While I am concerned about the economic situation in Canada as a whole, I suppose it is quite natural that I be more concerned about my constituency where we have gone from a dreadful unemployment situation which approached that of the Great Depression to a condition of virtual full employment. The unemployment rate in my constituency in Metro Toronto is around 4 per cent and perhaps lower. Traditionally, economists have said that an unemployment rate of around that figure is virtually full employment, because there are always people who change jobs no matter how good the economic times.
That situation of virtual full employment in my constituency in Metropolitan Toronto is quite evident when one visits any of the businesses or looks in any of the store windows. Inevitably one finds help wanted signs in those businesses or sees help wanted advertisements in the papers throughout the area.
1 do not suggest for a moment that this is a general condition across Canada, but it is a very substantial step forward and one for which I think the Government can take an enormous amount of credit.
This situation has not developed as a result of the Government creating jobs in itself. It has been brought about by the creation of a climate in which the private sector can create those jobs. In his address the Minister touched on a number of reasons why the private sector has been able to create those jobs. He referred to the deregulation that has taken place in energy, transportation, and financial services. He referred to the new Competition Act, modernizing our combines investigation laws that had not really been dramatically changed for some 20 or 30 years. The Government brought in the new competition laws, which again helped to set the climate for creating jobs and bringing about that dramatic change in the unemployment situation.
In addition, there has been privatization of many of the Crown corporations and undertakings. During the weekend we heard about problems in Manitoba where the Crown corporation administering automobile insurance has been accused of not operating fairly or properly. People are saying that this proves that Governments really should get out of the business of being in business and should leave that to the private sector. If that is the case under an NDP Government in Manitoba, it
makes sense that the privatization that has taken place so far has also helped stimulate the economy.
Another area which has helped to set the climate for an improved economic situation is the change in investment policy through Investment Canada. We are looking forward to the tax reform package that the Minister of Finance presented to the House a few months ago. That is one aspect of the economic situation that has changed dramatically as a result of the policies of the Government and the Minister of Finance.
Inflation is another consideration. Prior to the 1984 election there was galloping inflation. During my days of municipal Government at that time, inflation was rising dramatically. I recall that we had to contemplate paying inflation bonuses to our employees to make up for that inflationary rate because we knew that they could not afford to exist on the wage rates they were being paid before that inflationary rate suddenly started to take off.
I recall that when we wanted to give an inflationary bonus to unionized workers in our municipality there was a great problem with management just giving that inflationary bonus without actually negotiating with the union. The unions were upset that management should be giving a raise to their members without actually having had a say in that as well. This is what happened prior to 1984 during that dramatic period of wildly escalating inflation.
The situation has changed since the Government has been in office. While inflation certainly has not disappeared, it has become stable, at a greatly lower rate compared to what it was in the years prior to 1984. We now have the promise of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement which will help to hold down prices and the inflation rate. For the first time a federal Government is implementing a positive policy that will deal with inflation and help to hold down prices. This is something for which people on fixed incomes have been crying for years.
I constantly receive calls and letters from senior citizens in my constituency complaining about even a modest increase in the inflationary rate we have now as compared to that in the early 1980s. I get these letters and complaints all the time. Now for the first time we have a Government which is taking some positive initiative to counteract that inflation rate through the free trade agreement.
We have heard in the House this afternoon about what the deficit situation was like prior to 1984. We know that when the Government took office, between everything the Government took in in the way of revenue and everything the Government paid out in the way of expenditures, there was a shortfall of almost $40 billion. As my colleague in the NDP said, that is "billion" spelled with a "b". That is a lot of money. That deficit has not been eliminated. No one is suggesting that for a moment, but the annual spending deficit is now at least $10 billion less than when the Government took office.
February 22, 1988

You and 1 know, Mr. Speaker, how hard it is to cut back on our own expenditures and to balance our own books when they get out of whack. We know very well that it ain't easy to cut back expenditures by $10 billion.
If we had continued with the economic policies we had prior to 1984, we would be in a state, as we were prior to 1984, of economic chaos. Many people ask what that has to do with the Government. Times are relatively good now. Things have improved, unemployment is down, inflation is down and the deficit is down. What does that have to do with the present Government?
People who ask that question, including the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP, are the people who say: "Look, this is just a world trend we are following here, Canada is just tagging along on the coattails of everyone else. The Government has not done anything to create the situation, it has all happened on its own". However, you and 1 know, Mr. Speaker, that every single economic indicator in Canada shows that Canada is the leading industrial nation now. Our economy is the leading economy in the industrialized world. We are not following anyone. In fact, we are dragging everyone else along. We are the leaders. Some of that has to be due to the policies of the Government and of the Minister of Finance, and I think it is quite clear that that is the case.
Having said all that, one would wonder if I had not been trying to prove that my mother was wrong when she said that everyone dislikes Ministers of Finance and one should never be a Minister of Finance. On occasion we all hear people saying that we would be better off if we did not have some of the policies that had been followed during the last three and a half years. For instance, we have heard senior citizens say that they should have more money in their pockets, their pensions should be bigger and the economic policies that have been followed have had a bad effect on senior citizens. I was thinking about that too, and I just wondered what has happened to senior citizens over the last three and a half years. 1 wondered whether or not the Minister of Finance has been awfully tough on senior citizens.
I am not saying that all senior citizens are doing well, but when I thought about it, 1 thought, first, that the Old Age Security, the one that starts at age 65-you are a long way from that, Mr. Speaker, and you will not qualify for that for a long time-continues to be fully indexed. That has increased every year since the Government has been in office. Senior citizens who are receiving Old Age Security benefits certainly have more money in their pockets now than they had back in 1984.
Then I thought of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That is the one that provides for those who have no income or limited incomes, and that too continues to be fully indexed. All of those senior citizens who receive Guaranteed Income Supplement payments are receiving more money now than they were in 1984.
The Budget-Mr. Redway
Then I thought of the spouse's allowance, the one that is geared to income. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government introduced an extension of the spouse's allowance. On top of that, there were improved benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, improved benefits under the Canada Assistance Plan, increases in the New Horizons grants, new senior citizens housing, particularly in my riding, and new benefits for veterans and for veterans' widows.
When 1 look at all of those things, I have to think that although I believe my mother has always been right, if she looked at the performance of this Government and of the Minister of Finance today, I think she would have to admit as well that the record has not been too bad at all, in spite of the fact that this has been a period of restraint.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I usually do, to the comments of the Hon. Member. His comments are usually entertaining and I often find myself agreeing with his kind of easy going way of putting forward the facts. However, I was following his comments very closely today and I must admit that I detected what I considered to be several factual errors in his presentation, errors which 1 feel ought to be pointed out to the Hon. Member. I think he ought to have the opportunity to-


Ross Belsher: Are you saying his mother wasn't right?


David Berger: Perhaps his mother wasn't right, that's correct. There were several factual errors in his presentation which I feel duty bound to present to the Hon. Member and ask him to reflect upon.
First, I recall that he said that prior to the 1984 election, Canada had experienced a period of galloping inflation. I think the Hon. Member would probably agree with me that that statement really requires a bit of qualification. I do not think it is entirely correct to say that just prior to the 1984 election, which is perhaps what the Hon. Member was implying, we had experienced a period of galloping inflation. It is true that in 1981 and 1982, Canada, like many other countries in the world, had experienced a period of galloping inflation. We had to raise interest rates in Canada to very high levels and, again, this was not something that was particular to Canada but it was common to many countries in the OECD, the United States, Great Britain, France, West Germany and the like.
In 1982 or 1983, the previous Government introduced the policy known as the six and five policy. Its goal was the reduction of inflation to 6 per cent in the first year of the policy and 5 per cent in the second year. As I recall, and I would put it to the Hon. Member, those targets were not only met but were exceeded to the point that in 1984, the rate of inflation, for probably the first eight or nine months of the year prior to the current Government taking office, had come down to below 5 per cent. I think it was four per cent or something in that neighborhood, if I am not mistaken.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mrs. Finestone
A second error, if I may call it that, in the Hon. Member's presentation was when he referred to the fact that every single economic indicator shows that we are among the leaders. It is true that Canada's economy has performed very well in the past several years. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his speech indicated that we were in the sixth year of an economic recovery period. That in itself indicates that the recovery began prior to the present Government taking office. But one indicator which the Minister did not refer to in his speech was the indicator that is known as the percentage of the GROSS National Product spent on research and development. It is sometimes referred to as the GERD to GNP ratio. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is in the House. Perhaps he could add a few words to this debate.
The GERD to GNP ratio, or the gross expenditures on research and development as a percentage of GNP, has come down in Canada since the last election. We are moving up toward the target that had been set by the previous Government of 1.5 per cent of Gross National Product. Again, the figures from Statistics Canada indicate that since the last election this indicator has dropped to approximately 1.3 per cent. It was getting close to about 1.4 per cent prior to the last election. I suggest to the Hon. Member that these are several areas in which he might wish to qualify, perhaps, the statements that he made during his presentation.
To conclude I would like to say that what we are probably seeing is a situation in which, superficially, our country is basking in a period of economic growth. I ask myself serious questions about what kind of a country we are preparing for our children and our grandchildren 10, 15 or 20 years down the road if we are not taking steps to invest in research and development which will provide us with the kind of competitive economy that we need to compete in a global market.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the questions of my hon. friend. I have to say that my mother lived through the Great Depression. One thing that she knew about was a devastated economy. If there was one lasting impression that she conveyed to me it was those impressions of a devastated economy during the 1930s.
The Hon. Member talked about the inflation rate and the unemployment situation prior to the 1984 election. He talked about how the former Government dealt with inflation. He is quite right, that Government certainly did deal with inflation. It dealt with it in such a way that it raised interest rates to 20 per cent or more. It bankrupted an enormous number of companies. The result of that was massive unemployment. It is this unemployment from which we are still struggling to recover.
The message that I have been trying to get across is the message that my mother conveyed to me. I wish to convey that message from her to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of the House. This sort of thing is unacceptable. We need a
Government and a Minister of Finance who know how to manage the economy properly. If there is one thing that can be said about the last three and a half years it is that the Minister of Finance and the Government have been doing just that, managing the economy properly. Thus we do not have either skyrocketing inflation or great depths of unemployment. What we have is a balanced and stable rate of inflation. We have a growing employment situation. That is good economic management.
You seem to be giving me the message, Mr. Speaker, that I should wind up my remarks. I would like to comment further on the other part of the Hon. Member's question. If you would like to recognize me after the next speaker has finished, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on debate.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak to the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which he tabled on February 10. I must say that if Canadians are wondering what this Budget does for them as individuals and as families they will have to look long and hard. It is not surprising that the only measure that comes quickly to mind is yet another tax increase by the Government. This time I refer to the 1 cent per litre on gasoline to take another $300 million out of our pockets. I am sure that this increase bothers most Canadians as it bothers me when we go to fill up our tanks. The Budget will no doubt be remembered in history as a do-nothing Budget, although being able to refer to it as the last Conservative do-nothing Budget is somewhat comforting. No matter what one calls it the truth remains that despite the many significant challenges facing Canada the Minister of Finance had surprisingly little hesitation to say on budget day that Conservative policies and initiatives have worked and that holding the course was his plan of action as though there was nothing at all that he and his colleagues needed to do. Unfortunately, this is the wrong view of what is happening out in the real Canada. The Conservatives seem to be looking out of a rose-coloured window pane. I suggest most of it is centred on central Canada. They fail to see the numerous challenges facing us as a nation. The Government would do well to open the window and to peer out across the land to see what is really happening.
I put forth a challenge to the Government here today. I challenge it to do some checking and to take note of the many needs facing the country instead of sitting back with that everything-is-fine attitude it demonstrated so clearly in the Budget, proposing no new action plans to help those who need help, including relief and housing needs for low income families, displaced workers, illiterates or people in need of job skills retraining. I do not know where the Government went or
February 22, 1988

with whom it consulted to discover that on budget day all it had to do was stay the course.
However, I put it to the Minister of Finance that his Budget was inadequate. Staying the course is not good enough for Canadians. Just buying nuclear submarines certainly will not answer the needs that we see in our society. Canadians expected more from their Government, more than mere attempts at cutting the deficit to please Bay Street, while placing the burden of the deficit battle on the backs of families and middle-income earners. Canadians have a right to better treatment than that.
One of the few actions the Government did take in the Budget was the writing of its own report card. However, as one would expect from a youngster permitted to write his or her own report card, he or she would probably tend to stretch the truth, play up the good news and downplay the bad news. In the same way I am afraid that the Minister of Finance has fallen victim to the same type of trap.
For example, the Government was quick to take credit for a fairly healthy economy, yet it failed to take notice of, or to take the blame for, the unequal distribution of the economic upturn among the different regions of the country. We still have widespread unemployment. The 1.1 million people who are unemployed are concerned, as are those who are underemployed.
The Budget also went to great lengths to paint a rosy economic future for Canada but, alas, in the days since the Minister of Finance put his brush to the canvas to paint this rosy scenario and take credit for having created it Canadians have seen a far different picture. Representatives from some of the nation's largest and most respected financial institutions have expressed serious misgivings about the Government's dreamy economic scenario.
As 1 mentioned earlier, the Budget contains the Conservative's pursuit of a lower deficit by placing an increased burden on individual taxpayers and families while thousands of corporations pay little or no tax whatsoever.
The Tory attempts at cutting the deficit on the backs of Canadians began not long after they came to power. 1 am sure that we all remember well the summer of 1985 when seniors were forced to descend upon Parliament Hill and confront the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about his plans to remove inflation protection from their pensions. I would say that there is one rosy view that we can all take from that, and that is the fact that "grey power" is now in, and it is to the peril of any Government if it does not listen. From that point of view there is a rosy picture for all of us who are approaching those senior years.
An attack on income security for seniors, that is how the Conservatives have taken up the challenge of fighting the deficit, by showing complete disregard for the type of income
The Budget-Mrs. Finestone
security for seniors that a nation such as Canada, with all its wealth, has long held to be a basic tenet of our social fabric. Those seniors who have been planning and preparing for their retirement years in order that they can live all of their lives in comfort as planned were damaged by the Government.
It was no surprise that seniors reacted strongly to this early item on the Tory agenda. It came out of nowhere, and fortunately it was beaten back. Yet it stands to this day as a symbol of the Government's lack of sensitivity and compassion for Canadians at all points on the income ladder.
Since coming into office the Tories have hit Canadians with dozens of new taxes. It reminds me of something that Adam Smith said which reflects the Tory view of who should shoulder the tax burden in this country. Adam Smith concluded that, "There is no art which one Government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the people". Draining money from the people, how about that for a Conservative epitaph!
The facts speak for themselves. Today individual Canadians pay a greater share of the total tax bill in this country than they did when the Conservatives came into office, while corporations pay an even smaller share of the bill. It's that simple; it's that unfair.
Unlike its campaign promise not to raise taxes, the Government has seen fit to hit Canadians with more than $22 billion in new taxes, and then claim that it was its own ingenious management of Government that led to a lower deficit.
Let us take a look at the tax bill that the Tories have sent to Canadians since they came into office. It began with three consecutive increases in the sales tax. Starting from the word "go" in October, 1984, probably even before the first set of Ministers had found their offices, the Conservatives hit Canadians with their first tax bite which would, with subsequent increases, take another $3 billion from Canadians.
The Tories have extended the tax on candy, soft drinks and snacks. The cost to Canadians is $460 million. To this, one can add another $60 million for increased paint and wallpaper tax. Imagine what this tax did to the redecorating bills at 24 Sussex! This adds up to another $0.5 billion out of the pockets of Canadians.
As we were reminded in the latest Budget, there have been the Tory taxes on gasoline. There have been three increases here as well, one for $900 million, another for $450 million, and one more for $450 million. As if that were not enough, there was another increase of $300 million in the latest Budget. The grand total for the tax on driving, the gasoline tax, is $2.1 billion.
At least another $700 million was taken by the Government by increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
Then there is the tax on talking, which came quietly into effect on January 1, 1988. Long distance telephone charges are

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mrs. Finestone
now subject to a 10 per cent tax. The cost to Canadians is $945 million.
Let us not forget the tax changes either, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have not been able to forget the deindexing of the whole tax system. The bill for that is $635 million. Killing the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, which had helped so many young Canadian families get their start, was at a cost of $105 million to those families.
Temporary income surtaxes earned the Government $1.7 billion. A change in the tax treatment of dividend income earned the Government another $300 million.
These taxes that I have mentioned are only a sprinkling of the dozens of tax grabs by the Government, which total more than $22 billion from average Canadians, individuals, families, and seniors.
I feel that once again 1 should mention these tax grabs alongside the fact that so many thousands of corporations in this country are still paying no tax. It does not take long to see who the friends of this Government truly are.
If it is true that Canadians often vote from their pocket books, they will surely remember how the Government has treated them the next time that they go to the polls. If they do not, they might get what they deserve.
So far I have spoken only about the taxes that the Government has introduced. What we do not have the numbers on as yet are the costs to taxpayers of one of the worst of the Tory tax proposals, a tax on food. In my view, the idea symbolizes the cold-hearted Conservative view of Canada that nothing is sacred in the deficit battle, not even food. That can be divided between the edibles and the inedibles, and I still think that it is reprehensible.
The tax on food met with significant opposition from many sectors of our society because of its regressiveness. This tax would cost the same to a $200,000 a year person, for example, the bank president we heard so much about from the Prime Minister as it would to a senior on a fixed income, or a single parent family. The idea is ludicrous. What were the Conservatives thinking about when they came up with that particular tax?
Fortunately, the Government did see the light and it rejected the idea outright. It took an awful lot of reading into the record here in the House, and a lot of noise outside for the Conservatives to be sensitized to this inhuman approach. With its mere suggestion of a tax on food the Government demonstrated its insensitivity to the needs of Canadians across the income spectrum.
It has taken a good deal of time to sample the Government's record of increasing taxes on Canadians. From the pockets of hard working Canadians more than $22 billion has been taken by the Minister of Finance. On February 10 the same Minister stood in his place and told the House that all the Government needed to do was to "stay the course". That does not sound to
me like a plan of action. Staying the course certainly will not help the 3.7 million Canadians who are living below the poverty line in this country, nor will it bring any comfort to the
851,000	families existing below the poverty line. The suggestion of staying the course and offering no plan of action is an affront to the many Canadians who have a right to look to the Government for leadership. I am truly saddened by the Government's inadequate response to the despair being experienced in this country. I suggest again that the Government wake up to the reality of the difficult situations in which so many Canadians find themselves.
The Government has, with little hesitation, drained billions of dollars from the pockets of Canadians. Yet after 3.5 years in office it found it in itself to deliver a do-nothing, stay-the-course Budget with no new initiatives or measures to assist the needy who are among us.
While on the subject of taxes, I would like to take this opportunity to address the Government's tax reform package. If we drop all the optics, we know that Canadians have yet to see the whole tax reform package. Some would say that what we have seen so far is the good news on tax reform, although I would argue that one has yet to see the bad news side, the national sales tax. What we have seen so far is the Minister of Finance offering to return to Canadians $5 billion over the next five years under his tax reform plan. What Canadians will remember is the $22 billion that the Government has already taken. In my books a reprieve of $5 billion on an increase of $22 billion sounds an awful lot like a tax grab and not a tax reform.
1 would like to suggest that there exists a real world out there, the challenge facing many Canadians and challenges that the Finance Minister saw no need to address in this Budget. I am sad to say that we have been treated with a cavalier indifference since the Conservatives came into office. Poverty is at the heart of most of our social problems in Canada: ill health, crime, poor housing conditions, and family violence. The Government cannot continue to say that the poverty gap will be closed as economic conditions improve. The "trickle down" theory of economic growth simply does not work in the world in which we live. I would add that, when we speak of the poor in Canada, we are not referring to the unemployed alone. Indeed, we must also consider the working poor to be part of this category. It remains a fact that well over half of Canada's poor families do earn an income.
We need a program to address the serious needs of the working poor, a program of income supplementation for families who were hit hardest in the Government's 1985 Budget and tax reform package by the deindexing of family allowances, the reduction of the threshold level at which parents become eligible for the child tax credit, and the slashing of the child exemption.
February 22, 1988

This do-nothing Budget also marks the passing of another missed opportunity for the Government to introduce its long promised older workers' adjustment program. It has been two years since the previous labour adjustment benefits expired. With each passing day we have displaced workers facing growing despair. Many of them are unfortunately falling into the discouraged worker category of people who have given up looking for jobs because they believe none are available. The 1.2 million figure for unemployed people is certainly not a true reflection of all those who are unemployed. I call upon the Minister of Finance to go back to the drawing-board and find the missing pieces of his Budget, the ones that will address the problems of the chronically unemployed.
We need a strategy in Canada which incorporates job skill training, income supplementation, and tax credits, all tied to job creation. The Government has failed to fulfil the leadership role Canadians had every right to expect. It demonstrated this failure no more clearly than in the Budget of February 10.
The Minister failed to address a very significant area in his Budget. Since the Conservatives took office in 1984, the youth of the nation has been sadly neglected. This is unacceptable, for we all know that our young people are our most valuable resource. It is an undeniable truth that expenditures on their behalf are investments in the future not only of our young people but of our nation. Despite a huge influx of young people into the job market, the Conservatives have slashed and cut when it comes to programs aimed at giving them a boost.
Cuts to Challenge programs stand as a symbol of the Government's inattention to the needs of our youth. In 1985, $3 million was cut from the program, leaving a $205 million allocation. This is a lot of money, but obviously the program had come to be considered very worth-while. However, the very next year, 1986, there was an additional $17 million cut to $186 million. By 1988 we had seen plans to cut it back another $6 million to $180 million. The real irony is that in all the time since the Conservatives came into office the demand for this kind of youth program has only increased.
What is worse is that the cuts to the Challenge programs are but one example of the low priority the Government has placed in the future of our young people. I could give other examples, such as the 1985 freeze of the Canada Student Loans Program and a cut of $5 million; the cancelling of the Young Workers Exchange Program and a cut of $3 million; and the 29 per cent cut in the funding of on-campus Canada Employment Centres for students to $4 million to which soon to be graduates and summer students look for help and information about where to find jobs.
What is completely incomprehensible is that we have not likely seen the end of bad news for youth programs, for indeed one of the few commitments of the Minister of Finance in his Budget was a further $300 million cut from programs. We have yet to see where they will hit but, if the record shows us anything, youth programs are certainly not safe from the Conservative wield of the axe. These youth cuts symbolize in a
The Budget-Mrs. Finestone
straightforward manner the Government's unwillingness to help directly our youth get off to a strong start. Its attitude seems to be: let the market-place take care of that. I say again that that is just not good enough for Canadians, not only young Canadians but every Canadian who wants to see our youth develop.
One thing included in the Budget was the Government's detailed plans for a national child care program. We in the Official Opposition fully support the fundamental idea, that is, the provision of more child care spaces for Canadians across the country. However, there is a great deal of concern among experts in the field of child care that the Conservative child care proposals will actually result in less money going to child care over the next seven years than would have been available had the Tories taken no action at all. They argue that what the Government has labelled as an increased commitment to child care is in fact a hidden long-term capping of child care expenditures. To be honest, they have called it much worse, but I need not repeat those kinds of words in this place.
These concerns may very well reveal that the Tories have found their perfect public policy-package initiatives that actually cut program spending but find a way to gift wrap the package in grandiose style and try to make it look like an increased commitment.
In participating here today in the budget debate, I cannot help but wonder what Canadians are thinking about the Government, a Government that swept into office in 1984 promising not to raise taxes but has overseen the largest tax grab Canadians have ever known. I hope Canadians will remember that the present Minister said on behalf of his Party, while sitting on this side of the House, that they would cut spending and not raise taxes, that tax levels in Canada were already too high. The Prime Minister repeated those promises soon after the 1984 election. I am sure Canadians are wondering where all this good will has gone and what has happened to the promises. These words and promises are coming back to haunt the Conservatives, and well they should. Canadians will not soon forget the Government going back on its word, and its failure to live up to the commitments it made before the election.
I take this opportunity to point out today that many Canadians are feeling a sense of unease and frustration about the Government's record, a record which will establish the Government in history for its failure to show strong, credible leadership on the many challenges facing us as a nation. Nothing was clearer than when the Minister stood and said: "We will stay the course".
It is appalling that a modern Canadian Government, after three and a half years in office, taxing Canadians more than they had ever been taxed before and fighting the deficit on the backs of families and middle-income Canadians, can come forward with a Budget with no pledge of action for addressing priorities such as the income gap between the rich and the poor and regional disparities.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Daubney
1 suggest that there are real challenges out there, and it is too bad the Minister's Budget has not dealt with them.


Mr. Aithouse:: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Hon. Member for Westmount (Mrs. Finestone) mentioned that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had called this a "stay the course" Budget. I could not help but look at the Budget Papers, particularly Table III on page 88 of The Fiscal Plan, whereby this "stay the course" Minister has increased sales and excise taxes from some $12 billion when he became Minister to the current level of $19 billion. He has increased personal income tax from some $26 billion or $27 billion to more than $37 billion. Unemployment insurance contributions have gone from something in the area of $7.2 billion to $9.5 billion. However, the Minister has stayed the course on corporate income tax, which is still somewhere in the $9 billion range.
Does the Hon. Member have some comments about this since it seems that the Minister kept his promise at least to his corporate friends? Could she perhaps tell us why he was unable to stay the course and had to raise taxes by some 15 per cent to 30 per cent for people who are simply wage earners and pay income tax or ordinary consumers who must pay great increases in sales tax?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker. 1 think I addressed that issue in my comments. It becomes pretty obvious that the Minister and the blue Tories looked at the upper income level, treated them with great favour, and forgot about the rest of the people out there who put some confidence in them and obviously put them into power, thinking that they were going to undertake proper corrective measures. Unfortunately, I guess they were cheated with their choice of government.
During a very good era of economic prosperity, world prosperity, Canada has been a leader due to some very careful planning over a long period of time. Businessmen plan ahead. The Government has just spread the net very wide, picked up large numbers of people to pay taxes who never paid them before, and found ways to gouge middle and low-income people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) a very short question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for my very distinguished colleague and 1 want to congratulate her for her remarks in so doing. She is an expert on communications matters as the opposition critic. Will she further expound on the issue of the 10 per cent tax on long distance telephone calls? Does she agree with me that this tax is particularly unfair to rural Canadians who have to make long distance phone calls for such basic things as phoning hospitals, doctors and other very important calls? Does she not agree with me that this tax is totally unfair and reprehensible?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me a short response. This is another smoke and mirrors action. The Government supposedly reduced taxes and then increased them. Yes, Canadians of all stripes, particularly those in outlying areas, will suffer as a result of this tax on talking.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate this afternoon on a Budget which demonstrates that the long-term plan laid down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November, 1984 is working. His policies were right then and the Government's policies are right now.
In 1984, the Government brought to office a vision for a stronger, more prosperous Canada now and into the next century, a vision that was rooted in our belief in Canadians themselves, their capacity to innovate and produce, their desire to excel, and their determination to build greater opportunities for the future. To make this vision a reality, we set out our agenda for economic renewal to transform the economy so that it could meet the challenges of a more competitive world. We have put in place a wide ranging series of actions that complement one another. We have revitalized the private sector and positioned Canada's economy to meet the challenges of international competition in the 1990s and beyond. We have restored fiscal responsibility by reducing the deficit and cutting the growth of the national debt. We have implemented priority programs and we have helped regions and sectors hurt by unexpected developments in the world economy.
The driving force behind productive growth and job creation is a dynamic private sector. To encourage this dynamism, the Government has taken far-reaching measures to modernize the regulatory environment for business. We deregulated the energy and transportation sectors. We opened financial markets to global opportunities and stimulated greater competition in financial services. We have modernized our competition policy, our copyright and patent legislation, providing better protection for the public interest. We also privatized some Crown corporations where it was clear that public ownership of part of the market-place was no longer justifiable or necessary. We created Investment Canada to encourage and welcome investment capital from abroad and to keep Canadian investment capital here, investment that is creating jobs for Canadians.
The Government has also taken far-reaching measures to reform the federal tax system. We are making the tax system fairer for individual Canadians and we are making it more effective in supporting growth and job creation. We are creating a system that helps our businesses and industries to compete in the world. On January 1 our reforms to the personal and corporate income tax systems went into effect. The key to these reforms is our belief that lower tax rates are the best possible tax incentives for productive activity. For individuals, three federal tax brackets are replacing ten. To make the system fairer we are converting personal exemptions and many deductions to tax credits. We are reducing and
February 22, 1988

eliminating many special tax breaks that permit upper income earners to avoid paying their fair share. The results are compelling. More than eight out of 10 households will see their personal income tax reduced. About 850,000 lower income Canadians will have their income tax reduced to zero. Almost nine out of 10 Canadians aged 65 and over will have income tax reductions. The vast majority of families with children will pay noticeably less personal income tax. For the corporate sector, many special tax breaks are being eliminated or reduced to permit lower tax rates. This will mean that the corporate tax system will be more competitive with systems in other countries. There is much more to be done, Mr. Speaker, and we will replace an archaic federal tax system with a new system that will be effective in supporting growth and job creation.
We have been working with the provinces and others to develop the most effective means of implementing this new system, particularly the opportunity to have an integrated national sales tax. So far, our progress with the provinces has been encouraging, but we have more work to do.
Another key element of our strategy for the 1990s is to secure improved access to world markets for Canada's exporters. We are working, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to resist the forces of protectionism wherever they are found. That is why we worked so vigorously for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our free trade agreement with the United States is a major building block in the Government's strategy to strengthen Canada's competitive position in the world and to enhance the prosperity of our people. The free trade agreement will provide greater opportunities for economies of scale in Canadian production and marketing. It will encourage greater productivity and stimulate innovation. It will lead to a more efficient and lower cost Canadian economy.
The economic benefits of the free trade agreement will start to be realized shortly after its implementation on January 1, 1989. Consumer prices will continue to decline, expanding the purchasing power of Canadians. Investment in plant and equipment will expand as Canadian firms move to take advantage of their enhanced access to the huge U.S. market.
The phase-out of tariffs in the free trade agreement will not only mean lower consumer prices, they will give our industries an advantage over the rest of the world in the U.S. market. They will allow integrated North American industries to become more competitive against overseas competition. They will also end a major barrier to value-added processing prior to export, something we sought in the last round of GATT negotiations. The agreement also achieves important new progress in the area of government procurement by expanding the opportunities for suppliers of goods to government markets. The further opening up of government procurement means a new $3 billion market for Canadian business, with the potential for further liberalization in the GATT or future bilateral negotiations.
The Budget-Mr. Daubney
I would like to say a word about productivity and how it relates to the free trade initiatives, to the economic performance of the country and the economic leadership of the Government. As you know, Mr. Speaker, improvements in productivity brought us the surplus which transformed the western world from agrarian to industrial and then to postindustrial society. In our periods of most rapid productivity growth, government services and our personal wealth increased the most rapidly. Since 1973, a period which coincides with the growth in the Canadian deficit from zero to its current levels, Canadian productivity grew very slowly. The result? A sharp jump in unemployment; increased levels of poverty in the country, specifically in the regions; slow growth in personal income, and growing pessimism about our ability to compete with the rest of the world.
If Canada is to increase its national wealth, we need to go beyond our own borders, to sell our services and our products to the rest of the world and to make a profit on the deal. Canadian business cannot, with our small population and fragmented domestic market, grow quickly enough to create the new wealth we need as a nation. Because our markets are small, per capita production in Canada has not matched that in the United States. American industry, of course, can afford to specialize and invest in huge production runs. By the nature of the size of our domestic markets, Canadian productivity begins with a disadvantage, and that is why our output per worker has traditionally been lower than that in the United States.
Can Government help increase productivity? I think the answer to that is yes. It will not do it, however-and I think the record is clear on this-by coddling Canadian industry, by providing it with endless protection against the reality of world competition.
Canadian workers are generally productive, but Canadian managers have tended to be unimaginative and cautious, turning to Government for protection at every ripple in the international economic system. Canadian manufacturing managers in the past have seen threats where they should have seen challenges and opportunities.
There are things the Government can do to improve our economic performance and our chances of creating new wealth. I think the Minister, in his budget speech, spoke about our record of accomplishments to date, a record of which we can be proud. Free trade is part of that record. It is one opportunity, and only an opportunity in my view, not a sure thing, for Canadian industry to improve its productivity. Our productivity is at present 9 per cent behind the American level. If we had unrestricted access to the American market, making use of the same economies of scale which have given them an advantage over us in the past, the best of our companies would be much better off. There is good reason to believe that our productivity and per capita wealth would exceed American levels.

February 22, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Daubney
I want to return briefly to the free trade agreement which is such an integral part of this Government's economic strategy. 1 want to refer in particular to the energy sector where we have secured access for our hydro, uranium, oil and gas exports to the lucrative U.S. market. This is a critical step, as you would know as an Albertan, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring our own energy security. After price, economies of scale made possible by secure access to the U.S. market are the most important factors in allowing us to develop our huge hydro, tar sands and frontier resources. If we do not develop those supplies, we will be the ones who are increasingly reliant on offshore supplies.
In other areas of the agreement we have built on the GATT Standards Code, attacking some of the most devious non-tariff barriers to trade like artificial health standards. We have also created greater certainty for Canadian and U.S. investors. We have retained the right to review significant direct invest proposals. Current restrictions in key sectors remain. The special status of our cultural industries has been entrenched. Perhaps just as important, our own investors will be protected from potential U.S. restrictions. That is clearly important when you consider the extent of our own investment in the U.S. In fact, few Canadians understand that for the past decade we have invested $3 in the U.S. for every $1 invested here by Americans. At the current rate, that means we will soon have as much invested in the U.S. as they have up here, despite the fact they are 10 times our size.
Even more important for future investment patterns is the greater access for Canadian-made goods made possible by the agreement. Increased access for Canadian imports will limit the need for our companies to jump U.S. trade barriers and set up shop in the U.S. We believe it will also allow third country investors to contemplate Canada as the location for their North American facilities.
The economic record of the last three and a half years is one of which we can be proud. The Canadian economy is growing stronger, more dynamic, and better able to compete. In those three and a half years since we set out our agenda for economic renewal, our progress has been dramatic. Over-all, we have done better than any of the other major industrialized nations. We have been number one in economic growth since 1984. We have been number one in employment growth. More than
1,150,000	jobs have been created since we came into office. The great majority of those jobs are full-time in occupations with above average salary levels. The unemployment rate today is the lowest in six years. Economic and employment growth last year was more evenly balanced among the regions. Mortgage rates are three percentage points lower, saving home owners $1,200 a year on a $50,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years. Housing starts have reached a 10-year high. Business is confident. The pace of investment has increased sharply. Consumers are confident. Consumer spending has continued to grow steadily. We have built a solid record of progress, a record of how our policies and initiatives have worked in building the framework for the economic success we now enjoy.
For 1988 the economy is on course for a sixth consecutive year of expansion. The outlook for 1989 is even more encouraging. Canadians have good reason to look forward to the next decade with confidence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 84(6) and put forthwith any question to dispose of any subamendment which is before the House.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Lewis, has moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
In amendment thereto, Mr. Garneau, seconded by Miss Nicholson (Trinity), has moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House regrets that the Budget
1.	failed to redress the inequities of the tax system created by Government policies put forward during the last three and one half years;
2.	failed to put into place a regional development policy to compensate for the high interest rate policy of the Government;
3.	failed to put forward a credible plan to deal with the national debt that docs not unduly punish lower and middle income Canadians; and
4.	failed to specify a Canadian approach for dealing with the instabilities of the international monetary system."
In amendment to the amendment, Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Mr. Riis, has moved:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House further condemns the Government for introducing a budget that ignores the real economic needs of the country in which over 1.1 million Canadians are unemployed and eight out of ten provinces and the territories continue to experience employment and income disparities equal to those of the 1981-83 recession;
-for increasing the tax burden of average Canadian families to a level of $ 1,125.00 over the 1984 level through yet another increase in gas taxes;
-for failing to bring fairness to the tax system through the elimination of costly tax breaks and the introduction of a corporate minimum tax that would ensure fair and regular tax payment from those 60,000 profitable corporations that will pay no tax following Conservative tax reform;
-for maintaining a policy of high interest rates begun by previous Liberal governments; and
-for failing to introduce a system of universal child care that would assist average Canadian families and create jobs."
All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the amendment to the amendment will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
February 22, 1988

The Budget


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members. The House divided on the amendment to the amendment
Ellis
Epp
(Provcnchcr)
Fennell
Ferland
Fincstonc
Forrcstall
Frctz
Fricsen
Gagliano
Gauthier
(Mr. Cassidy), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 310)
++YEAS
Members
Althousc	Harris
Benjamin	Keeper
Blackburn	Mitchell
(Brant)	Murphy
Broadbcnt	Parry
dc Jong	Riis
++NAYS
Girard Gottselig Graham Gray
(Bonavcnture -ilcs-dc-la-Madcleinc)
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grisc Halliday Flamilton Hardcy Hawkes
Robinson	hccs
Waddell	Hicks
Young-14	Hockin
Horner Hudon James Jardinc Jcpson Johnson
Members	(Bona vista-Trinity-
Conception)
Kcllchcr
Kcmpling
Killcns
Kindy
Ladouccur
Landry
Lanthicr
La Salle
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay MacLcllan Malone Mantha Masse
Mazankowski McCain McDcrmid McKenzie McKinnon Mcrrithcw Mitges Moore Nicholson (Trinity) Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nunziata Obcrlc O'Neil Oostrom
Pcnner
Pietz
Prud'hommc
Ravis
Rcdway
Reid
St. Germain St-Julien Schcllcnbergcr (Wctaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowcn Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton) Turner
(Vancouver Quadra)
Van Dc Wallc Vankoughnct Wilson
(Swift Current Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Wincgard-126
Allmand
Andre
Belshcr
Berger
Bernier
Bertrand
Blais
Blais-Grcnier
Blouin
Bosley
Boudria
Bourgaull
Bradley
Brisco
Caccia
Caldwell
Cardiff
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon Souris) Clifford Coates Collins Copps Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jcan)
Crofton
Crosbic
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotrct Desjardins Desrosicrs Domm Duguay Duplessis Edwards


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.11 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 23, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers