1988-02-24

[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 24, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am not accustomed to standing in the House and saying nice words about the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister of Transport. However, today I think it is only reasonable, as I stand here holding the Transport Canada estimates which include some $17 million for the Corner Brook Harbour Development Project for the development of a container terminal, to say to the Minister of Transport on behalf of the people of western Newfoundland that we thank him for including this $17 million in Transport Canada's estimates.
Before I get carried away, I hasten to point out that this project was originally announced in 1983-84 by the previous administration, at a cost of $14 million at that time. It was subsequently put on hold. I am not cynical about the fact that it is back in the Estimates in an election year. We appreciate this project. Corner Brook has seen the start of two new container services. We have had a booming fishing industry. We need this kind of harbour development soon.
In 1984 we spent $370,000 doing the design and engineering work. Therefore, if Treasury Board approves these expenditures, there is no reason why this project cannot get under way soon. Then I shall truly say after the next election, when I am sitting on the other side of the House and perhaps looking at the Minister for St. John's West sitting over here: "Thank you for your help with this Liberal project. It was time that it got under way".



ABORTION


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have received hundreds of letters from constituents who are deeply troubled by the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion. One woman writes:
I can't imagine women being so ecstatic about being able to kill their young, as demonstrated at the court's decision with the most dangerous man in Canada-Morgentaler.
Another woman laments:
1 am truly disgusted with our so-called justice system. If I don't speak for those thousands of unborn little babies, who will? Our society has now reached its lowest level possible: eliminating our own kind.
Another woman asks:
What sort of nation will this become if we allow the courts to pave the way for human destruction? If we are allowed to murder the helpless unborn, what will be next? The crippled? The sick, the-elderly?
I strongly encourage all Hon. Members of this House to review their position on this very vital issue. It is our responsibility to protect the lives of an overwhelming portion of a future generation.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the budget Estimates which were made public yesterday clearly show that the Government of Canada is not concerned, nor committed, to fighting regional disparities. There can be no justification for a $70 million cut in the budget of the Cape Breton Development Corporation when unemployment in Cape Breton is running well above the national level.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) loves to get up and speak about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the money he has put into Atlantic Canada. The reality, however, is that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a facade. He is cutting back federal moneys for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, taking that savings and putting it into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He then has the nerve, the audacity, to say that all this ACOA

February 24, 1988
money is new and old programs will not be affected. What a sham!
Cape Bretoners are not buying the wheeling and dealing of this Prime Minister. He is not fooling anyone, just himself, as he will find out in the next federal election.



OBITUARY TRIBUTE TO QUEBEC FEDERATION OF LABOUR PERMANENT DELEGATES

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that we have learned of the accidental death of four Quebec Federation of Labour Officials: Guy Perreault, Director general, QFL Construction, Claude Proteau, Assistant director, Federation provinciate des ouvriers en electricity, Jean-Claude Sureau, of the Association nationale des travailleurs en tuyauterie; Gaetan Boucher, of the Association des mecaniciens industriels.
As these union officers died while performing their duties, we wish to offer our sympathy in this House to QFL President Louis Laberge, as well as to the families and friends of the victims. We also wish to offer our condolences to relatives and friends of the pilot and copilot, Jean Verriere and Gary Gadouas.



POPULARITY OF OPEN HOUSE CANADA PROGRAM

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, since our Government came into office, in 1984, we have given great thought to the welfare of our youth, and this concern is expressed in the importance we attach to the programs conceived for them.
Moreover, Open House Canada, a very popular program, offers our young Canadian men and women exchange, travel and exploration opportunities within Canada, all year long.
From September 1984 to December 1987, the Progressive Conservative Government granted more than $115,000 under Open House Canada Programme in my Quebec-Est riding.
Indeed, through that program, the Government shows the importance it ascribes to the cultural and social development of our youth. We do invest vast amounts of money to guarantee our young people a most promising and enriching future.
Young Canadians can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the Progressive Conservative Government works hard for them. We must not forget that besides our support measures, there is
the free trade agreement that will secure all we have already and create hundreds of thousands of jobs for young people.



PESTICIDES


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this week the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry will be hearing the first witnesses in an examination of alternatives to chemical pesticides. The committee is responding to the concerns expressed by Canadians over the heavy dependence on chemical pesticides in forestry, agriculture, urban settings, and around the garden. Chemical pesticides pose a threat to the users, those downwind, those who rely on surface and groundwater, birds, animals, fish, and wildlife in general.
Central to this issue is the system that we have to regulate new and existing pesticides in all their applications, which dates back to 1972. Clearly, the system is in need of being overhauled and modernized.
Therefore, we urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to launch a full and public review of the legislation and regulations affecting pesticides to determine the changes that should be made to protect health, the environment, and our water.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, this month marks the seventieth anniversary of the independence of the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. For barely a precious two decades these three small nations took their proud place among Woodrow Wilson's democracies- until their very existence was brutally crushed in the cynicism of the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Since 1940 the three Baltic peoples have withstood two invasions, post-war deprivation, deportation and retribution. Now, despite some improvement in creature comforts, they are subjected to constant loss of political liberty and daily attempts at Russification and, on this anniversary, with Soviet troop movements.
The spirit of freedom lives in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Finding expression ranging from peaceful demonstrations through pamphleteering to self-immolation.
February 24, 1988



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, why do members of the Government continue to avoid the truth about the New Democratic Party's support for Atlantic regional development and western diversification? Why do they make scurrilous comments about votes on Estimates in the House when they know that members of this Party have no direct opportunity to reply?
They know that in those Estimates they hid the legal bills for the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in the amount of $650,000, a person who has been cited for 14 separate counts of breach of conflict of interest guidelines of the Government. To pay his legal bills was abhorrent to the people of Canada. The Government did not have the courage tc have a separate vote for this matter. It hid it in about $3 billion of Estimates for general programs, including the Atlantic Opportunities Agency and the Western Diversification Office.
Will they say we are also against old age pensions which were included in these same Estimates? The people of Canada are on to their hypocrisy. They know that the Government has failed in regional development and can only strike out against the Opposition.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: THURSDAY, Jan. 28, 1988 will go down in the history of our country as 'Black Thursday', a day on which the Supreme Court 'sentenced countless unborn babies to death by abortion'.
These words, with which I concur, were issued by the assembled State Deputies of the Canadian Knights of Columbus.
I believe that the unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception. The decision of the Supreme Court, with two judges dissenting, does not change the law of God. We need strong legislation in accordance with biblical teachings to protect the lives of these innocent babies, 60,000 of whom were murdered in the womb in Canada last year.
I urge the Government to make it illegal to use abortion as a birth control measure. That will give thousands of unborn babies a chance to live, and it will bring glory and triumph to our nation.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the forty-fourth session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission is now in progress in Geneva. On the agenda there are several resolutions of immense significance to aboriginal peoples in Canada and throughout the world.
These resolutions call for draft international standards on the treatment of indigenous peoples; the establishment of a study into treaties between nation-states and indigenous peoples; and the designation of the year 1992 as the International Year of Indigenous Rights.
Unanimously passed and recommended for approval by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, these resolutions are supported by aboriginal peoples in Canada and throughout the world.
Despite the enormous achievement passage of these resolutions would represent for indigenous peoples and indigenous rights, the Government of Canada is actively campaigning against them. Instead of grasping the opportunity to play a world leadership role, Canada is being obstructionist. Canada should stop its nit-picking and get behind these resolutions. This message should be communicated without delay to the Canadian officials who are in Geneva today.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the chief organizer of the socialist party in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Remy Trudel, says that his criteria for being in politics are; honesty, honesty, honesty.
Two of his assistants, also political organizers in Abitibi, Mr. Michel Lemyre and Mr. Donald Houle, use and encourage others to use, for their phone calls, the code number given to another honest socialist, whose life is transparent and beyond reproach.
Mr. Speaker, in the provincial political organization of the NDP, in Abitibi, not only the telephone code number of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is being used, but its use is also encouraged.
This is a dishonest use of taxpayer money by the socialist party. Is that the honesty of the socialist chief? How is he going to explain that to the House, today?

February 24, 1988
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: In
the absence of the Minister of Communications, I have a question for-


An Hon. Member:: Anything else you want to talk about?


John Napier Turner: There will be a lot of
things we want to talk about. I will wait for the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
This government's policy on film and on Telefilm Canada is marked by a lack of direction, incompetence, abuse of expense accounts, mass resignations and political interference. In short, it's a complete disaster.
Mr. Speaker, in the last two days in the House, the Minister made misleading statements, incorrectly quoted the wrong source about Telefilm Canada's debt and tabled only part of the Executive Director's letter of resignation.
Yesterday in the House, the Minister stated that the Canadian Film and Television Association fully supported Mr. Jean Sirois as Chairman of Telefilm Canada.
Will the Minister confirm today that, in fact, the Association's Chairman, Mr. John Ross, has asked for Mr. Jean Sirois' resignation?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I heard from the President of the Canadian Film and Television Association and he had indicated both their ongoing concern about the problems with Telefilm, and their desire to get those problems corrected.
They raised the question of reorganization within Telefilm and asked me to ensure that there would be consultation between Telefilm and the film industry. I have undertaken to do that. Those consultations will be under way tomorrow with a letter that will be sent out from Telefilm inviting their proposals with regard to appointments.
I would mention, Mr. Speaker, that the appointments to date are of a temporary nature, they are for a limited period of time, until the naming of a full-time executive director of Telefilm.


ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S LETTER OF RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister was in great close touch with the Canadian Film and Television Association. Yesterday she said that the association approved Mr. Jean Sirois; today she admits that she received a letter and a notice from the President asking for the resignation of Mr. Jean Sirois. I am sure the House will be impressed by her very close contacts with the industry.
The Minister was advised by the Executive Director of Telefilm in his letter of resignation-and I am talking about the full letter of resignation which the Minister did not table- that Jean Sirois, her Conservative patronage appointee as Chairman of Telefilm, and I am using Mr. Pearson's words, "had engaged in expense account abuse, had helped arrange for financing for Hollywood movies instead of Canadian produced films, and had overstepped his mandate by providing financing for a film being made by a prominent Conservative in Quebec City".
The Minister was also provided with a legal opinion from the Department of Justice suggesting in strong terms that Mr. Sirois was overstepping his mandate as Chairman. What actions is she going to take about all these allegations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Leader of the Opposition that if he has specific charges to lay, he should stand on his feet and lay them, and he should not resort to smear and innuendo as is his wont and the wont of his colleagues. He does that time after time. If he has any charge to make regarding impropriety, or anything of that nature, he can be sure it will be followed up, as I followed up with the financial difficulties of Telefilm to see that those financial difficulties had management plans established and had interim management personnel put into place so that once again we could say that Telefilm is a success story.
If he doubts for one minute that I have been in touch with the industry, I will quote once again from the letter that I received. It says-


John Napier Turner: Which one?


Ms. Copps:: Which one?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: From the President of the Canadian Film and Television Association. It says: "Telefilm Canada is a success story and will remain a crucial part of the success of the Canadian film and television industry, and the membership acknowledges your role and your staffs assistance in the gains we have made", and that is dated February 19.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister would be willing to table that letter. We are talking
February 24, 1988

about the complete letter, the full letter, not an edited version of it.
The allegations I was bringing to the attention of the House and the Minister were not my allegations. They were the allegations of the former Executive Director of Telefilm, Mr. Peter Pearson. 1 would be perfectly willing to table that incomplete letter rather than the abbreviated version that the Minister tabled yesterday.


INTRODUCTION OF FILM DISTRIBUTION LEGISLATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not only has the Minister allowed Telefilm to become almost a total mess, and not only does the Canadian Film and Television Association want Mr. Jean Sirois, a Conservative patronage appointee, to quit as Chairman, but the Government's over-all film policy is now being dictated by Hollywood movie moguls.
Why is it that the Minister allowed tax changes to be made at the request of American film producers? Why is it that she has not yet presented her legislation on Canadian film distribution in the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


An Hon. Member:: What did you do when you had the chance, John?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A free trade sell-out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, for the last 40 years the film industry in this country has been pressing various Governments to introduce legislation that would ensure that the Canadian film market is a separate entity for film rights. For 40 years, Mr. Speaker, it has been attempting to get that inequity corrected.
For most of that 40 years a Liberal Government was in office, and not once did they ever address the problems of the Canadian film industry in this country. Not once. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be bringing in legislation to deal with that inequity.


EXPENSE ACCOUNT ALLEGATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has received Peter Pearson's letter of resignation and since she heard from Michael Spencer through Mr. Musgrove, why has she not investigated the documents which were offered to her about Chairman Jean Sirois and expenses in his expense account as well as his interference in the
Oral Questions
awarding of tens of thousands of Telefilm dollars to his Quebec City friends for the big show Rendezvous 871


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again I say to these Hon. Members that if they have specific charges to lay imputing wrongdoing, why do they not have the courage to get up on their feet and do so? They are not satisfied. They want to smear and they want to create innuendo.
I have taken it upon myself to ensure that auditors were sent in to look at the differences in the financial situation of Telefilm Canada which were reported to us. At one point there was a lapse predicted of $53 million. Subsequently there was an over commitment predicted of $48 million, a difference of $100 million. I wanted to ensure that that situation was dealt with and, as a result, auditors were brought in, a new management team was put into place, and new management systems were introduced for the first time so that now Telefilm can be put on a substantial basis.
1 say to the Hon. Member that I am pleased Telefilm has been able to get itself out of the mess that it found itself in last year and I regret that the Hon. Member continues to try to undermine it.


REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN BE SUSPENDED
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the important issue here is how to get help for feature films and for TV programs from the banking and financial institutions. That is what the Minister has failed to settle in this whole matter. The Minister is the one who is incompetent and the Minister is-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put a question.


Sheila Finestone: Will the Minister suspend Chairman Jean Sirois now, name a new executive director, and launch a full investigation into what has been happening at Telefilm Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that nothing has been done with regard to funding for Telefilm Canada. We added $33 million a year for five years, a total of $165 million to the Telefilm fund so that any number of new Canadian films could be made. 1 want to assure you, Sir, that I am very proud of what has happened.
Un Zoo La Nuit which has won international fame has been funded by Telefilm Canada. I've Heard the Mermaids Singing has been funded by Telefilm Canada. Anne of Green Gables has been funded by Telefilm Canada. All of these great films, all of these great series, has been funded by Telefilm Canada. I happen to be very proud of what Telefilm Canada has done and 1 regret that the Hon. Member wants to try to destroy it.

February 24, 1988
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


SALE OF SHARES TO PUBLIC-PRESS REPORT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A few years ago a Conservative Government announced its intentions to privatize Petro-Canada. That same Government lost a subsequent federal election.
According to news reports today, the present Conservative Government is about to move in that direction once again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Having heard his quaint voices from the past behind him, and considering that in the 1984 election there was no mandate for privatizing Petro-Canada, not a single speech made by the Leader of the Conservative Party in the 1984 election mentioned this, and considering that Petro-Canada is desired to be kept in the public sector by Canadians today, will the Minister comment on this press report and assure us that this abominable course of direction will not be taken by the Government?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first I may remind the Hon. Member that the Canadian Socialist Party, better known as the NDP, is probably the one that suggested creating a Crown corporation in the oil sector, and it has never won an election. Its suggestion never brought it to power, Mr. Speaker.
I repeat that the Prime Minister, when leading the Opposition, made not a single reference to privatizing Petro-Canada during the 1984 election campaign.
Since certain U.S. Senators and Governors have recently objected to the Canadian tradition of having public-sector involvement in the economy, and specifically since Senator Baucus in a recent speech called such intervention a form of subsidy, will the Minister now admit that one of the real reasons the Government is about to re-run this old policy that is unacceptable to Canadians is recent pressure from the United States to do so? Will he admit that?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Socialist Party is welcome to visit the riding of Frontenac at any time-before, during or after the election campaign-to discuss whatever he wants, including Petro-Canada.
As for the stand taken by certain U.S. senators or private citizens, I am not in the habit of taking orders from other countries.
* *
*


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
[Stage Direction]
Second, this Government has a mandate to guarantee a market in the energy sector. Since 1984, this Government, in accordance with its mandate, has instructed Petro-Canada to operate on a commercial basis, and Petro-Canada has been doing just that, for the greater benefit of Canadians and Petro-Canada customers, since 1984.
Third, this Government also announced it would introduce a policy to privatize Crown corporations that are not considered to have a major policy role in Canada.
Fourth, since Petro-Canada is already operating on a commercial basis, we can conclude there is no major political role for Petro-Canada.
That is why, although the Cabinet has yet to make a decision at this time, the question of Petro-Canada is still being examined, both in my Department and in other government agencies.

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Minister will keep that up and will say all the things outside the House in the subsequent election campaign that he just said inside the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, ! did mention that there was no commitment to privatize Petro-Canada in the last election campaign, but 1 do have, from the Conservative policy campaign book of 1984, a statement which 1 would ask the Minister to comment on to see if he will maintain this. With reference to a Conservative Government, the handbook said:
We will adopt market sensitive pricing for exported natural gas, while
ensuring that Canadians always pay less than their American neighbours-
That was from the Conservative Party campaign commitment of 1984.
In light of the free trade agreement the Minister has entered into with the United States and recent policy statements, will he explain why the Conservatives have completely abandoned their commitment to Canadians to have lower prices?


Mr. Nystrom:: Lyin' Brian, lyin' Brian.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Shields:: We know where you got that one Eddie, from Bob White.


Mr. Riis:: It's out of your handbook.
February 24, 1988

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I want to observe that often the Chair, in the exercise of common sense, chooses not to hear something. However, just a moment ago there was a remark which was clearly unparliamentary. I, of course, do not know who the Hon. Member was who made it and I am not interested in finding out at the moment. However, 1 am interested in making it clear that that remark was absolutely and utterly inappropriate and it did nothing to dignify these proceedings.
I would remind Hon. Members that when they do not have the floor and an open mike is available, however strongly they may feel they should not make their comments into the microphone of another Member when they are using language that is clearly inappropriate to this place.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can inform the Hon. Member that as far as export prices are concerned, the Socialist Party is hardly in a position to criticize, because that same Party wanted to prohibit all energy exports. This Party was elected on a specific platform, but it was also elected to protect the interests of Canada, including the interests of the Western provinces. As far as our energy policy is concerned, 1 think the leader of the Socialist Party should go to Alberta and talk to the people out there. He would realize that this Government's energy policy promotes the interests of Alberta, and that Albertans are well aware of this, Mr. Speaker.


PETRO-CANADA FINANCING OF PROJECTS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Government said that it would privatize Petro-Canada. It did not do it. Then it said it would wait until the market was right and it never was right. Now it is saying it will privatize it when it needs money for energy projects. This really tells Canadians that they have to accept privatization or they do not get those projects.
Why is the Government coercing the Canadian public into accepting something they do not want, something that will be devastating for this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 1 wish the Liberal Party would explain what is so bad about privatizing Petro-Canada. Second, I would like to point out that the present Government will make a decision about privatizing Petro-Canada when it believes it is in the interests of Canada and Canadians to do so.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with privatizing Petro-Canada is that if one share of Petro-Canada is sold to the private sector, it can no longer be used as an instrument of public policy. There is no way whatsoever it can be used for public policy.
Why is the Government destroying the National Energy Board? Why is the Government bent on privatizing Petro-Canada, completely abandoning the Government's role and the investment of the people of Canada in the energy sector?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's position. T always thought that asking Canadians to own shares in Petro-Canada was hardly against their interests, and in fact, this is exactly what the Quebec Liberal Party is doing with its privatization program. It goes to show that Quebec has two Liberal Parties, the Socialist one in Ottawa and one that favours private enterprise in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.


EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Energy. I would ask the Minister how he can rise in the House of Commons and claim there is no connection between this sellout of Petro-Canada and the trade deal with the United States when, in fact, one can see everything through the connections in pricing and through the connections in elimination of the control of our natural resources in the future. Why is the Minister prepared to sell out Petro-Canada and also tie it to the United States in a trade deal?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Socialist Party has one obsession, both in the House and outside, and that is the United States. This Government does not have that kind of obsession. It feels that Canadian policies for Canadians can serve both the interests of the United States and those of Canadians, because when we are talking about trade and the exchange of products between countries, we are talking about the interests of consumers and producers.


CANADIAN INDEPENDENCE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of the future of Canadian independence in the energy field. Why is the Minister prepared to sacrifice this instrument of Canadian initiative, Canadian potential,

February 24, 1988
Oral Questions
Canadian policy, in order to get a trade deal that will not benefit anyone in this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr, Speaker, the Opposition is running out of issues to harp on. 1 can assure you that the policies and decisions of this Government with respect to Petro-Canada are formed and made here in Ottawa, by a Government elected by Canadians. Second, if the Government decides we should ask Canadians to buy shares in Petro-Canada and thus generate capital for mega-projects that will guarantee security of supply for Canadians, this will harm the interests of the NDP, not the interests of Canadians, Mr. Speaker!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In the course of a study made Across the country, the National Farm Products Marketing Council realized that the table and seed segments of the potato growing industry face rapid and wide price fluctuations as well as uncertainty for the future. Could the Hon. Minister reassure our farm producers and tell them that, along with principal officials and the provinces, you are currently developing a strategy for the creation of a potato marketing agency that ensure stability and profitability of the markets, supervise quotas and bring long term growth to this whole area.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. As he will realize, at the request of the industry 1 instructed the National Farm Products Marketing Council to carry out a study and a series of hearings and report to me. That process has been completed and the report advises that we proceed in two stages. Stage one is to establish the agency with all of the powers under the Act, Section 23, with the exception of those powers to supply and manage.
I want to assure the industry that we will be working very closely with it and the provinces to work out a plan that would indeed include supply management. I hope that would be possible in the not too distant future.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sergio March! (York West): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration and concerns the actions of the Government in the never-ending saga of this convicted terrorist which is embarrassing Canadians, pitting one Department against the other, and showing new low levels of incompetence, even for that Government.
Since the Government organized Mr. Mohammad's voluntary departure, can he finally be open with Canadians and explain how the plan was bungled, why Mr. Mohammad was prohibited from continuing his journey beyond London, England, and why the Minister failed to resolve any last minute difficulties by involving the Department of External Affairs rather than keeping it in the dark?
[ Translation]
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I was quite clear about yesterday's events. I will repeat what I said for my colleague's benefit. First, we were approached . . . The Government had always clearly stated that it would facilitate Mr. Mohammad's departure whether it is voluntary or through a deportation order, as we are doing now. Mr. Mohammad contacted CEIC officials and his lawyer suggested a voluntary departure based on deals and procedures that they themselves arranged. The Government is only facilitating Mr. Mohammad's departure from Canada with security measures and a certificate of identity. My hon. colleague will have to admit one thing unless he is against Mr. Mohammad's departure . .. But this would not be the first time his Party has conflicting positions. However now that Mr. Mohammad is back in Canada, for whatever reason he had, we are going on with the deportation procedure and the Government will not rest before he is out of the country.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, the reality remains that this episode has been one giant comedy of government errors, incompetence and bungling. Canadians want to know when it is going to come to an end.


REPORTED LACK OF VISA TO ENTER ANOTHER COUNTRY
Sergio Marchi: My supplementary is directed to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. If the problem in London, England, was the lack of a proper visa or other document, can the Minister inform this House what precise actions he or the Government took to overcome that shortcoming? In fact, is the Minister telling Canadians that he was unable to arrange one single and simple visa? Is this a priority or not, and is the Government capable of completing a plan from start to finish without it ending up a charade from one coast to the other?
February 24, 1988


Benoît Bouchard: Mr Speaker, what the Government has tried to do is to make sure that Mr. Mohammad could leave the country as soon as possible. This is surprising coming from the Liberal Party when we have been trying for eight months to pass legislation to deal expeditiously with smugglers. Take a look at the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker ... They never have a definite position. For goodness' sake, let us know what your position is!


ROLE OF CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I appreciate his attemps to solve the conflict between Mr. Mohammad and the Immigration Appeal Board in a way acceptable to both parties, and I hope that in spite of the comments attributed to him in The Globe and Mail today, the Minister will not blame either Mr. Mohammad or his counsel for the failure of that project.
My question to the Minister is this: Would the Minister confirm, in relation with the comments attributed to Mr. Saleh by The Globe and Mail, that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has, in communicating the news to the media, stopped that project?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the travel arrangements were as set out by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. They were made by Mr. Mohammad and his lawyers and friends. They were discussed with my colleague, the Minister. The RCMP provided protective surveillance. CSIS was not involved in any way whatsoever with the travel arrangements or this particular case.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REPORT ON FAILURE OF PROJECT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since it has been alleged by Mr. Saleh that CSIS failed to keep its part of an agreement, and in view of conflicting suggestions in the media, will the Minister of Immigration, the one who was attempting to produce a positive result in this difficult situation, undertake to report as soon as possible to this House on why this humane project failed?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I have essentially answered this question earlier when I mentioned that Mr. Mohammad had decided himself of the steps taken by him and his advisers to leave the country. The reasons why he did not
Oral Questions
succeed have nothing whatsoever to do with the Government action but result of steps taken by Mr. Mohammad himself.
And I believe that in all that has been said yesterday by his counsel and by concerned witnesses, no mention was ever made of any government responsibility.
As for the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I have never said ... I have never blamed Mr. Mohammad, his counsels or his advisers.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, are you sure the cameras come down to this corner? As I started to say 24 hours ago, before I was interrupted, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning Air Canada's policy on overseas air fares.
I think the Minister is aware that Air Canada announced air fares that provide a fare of S388 for those flying from Toronto to London while, at the same time, the fare from Halifax to London is $488. I do not have to tell the Minister what a concern that is to people from Atlantic Canada. We know that air Canada should be committed to equality in its policy across Canada. Will he investigate this discrepancy and report to the House as soon as possible? In the meantime, will he instruct Air Canada to exercise some fairness in airline policy?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Hon. Member because the situation with respect to fares from Newfoundland to London, England, is definitely unfair as well.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Do something about it, then.


John Carnell Crosbie: What are we going to do about it? The thing is, Mr. Speaker, that no one can understand airline fares. Why I should be expected to understand them, is beyond me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if questions do not always elicit information, that one certainly received a frank response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 24, 1988
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ST. LUCIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Stevenson King, Minister of Community Development, St. Lucia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns Terminal 3 at Pearson International Airport. Yesterday in a briefing by the Minister's officials in Toronto, one key element was left unsettled. Officials indicated that the bidders expected to be permitted some financial comfort from the Government. Two of the bidders deny this. Documentation was furnished to the bidders when they were preparing their proposals and officials did not make that documentation public.
If the Minister wants to support the argument that financial comfort was available, why will he not make these documents public so that Canadians can see exactly what the developers were told about the arrangements?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto the committee in charge of this project gave a full explanation which I am told satisfied everyone who was there except the Hon. Member, who was quoted in the paper as saying: "We continue to be suspicious about the whole affair".
It is impossible to quiet the suspicions of the Liberal Party about anything. They have no policy, no program, no principles, and no decency. All they try to do is spread suspicion about everything. This is one project where even their best efforts will not get anybody suspicious about anything.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the officials would not make public the documents which they claim indicate that financial comfort was available. Two of the people who got the documents deny that they contain that assurance about financial comfort. Why will the Minister not settle it by making them public?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman wants to tell us who it was in these two development companies, to whom they spoke, and so on. The officials have stated the fact that all proposals
called for persons interested to disclose their financial plan. They were all invited to do that.
As far as the documents are concerned, once the ground lease is signed with the winning developer whose bid was found by the committee and Treasury Board to be significantly superior to all others financially in both net present value and rate of return to Transport Canada, and after all conditions precedent are met, I see no reason why these documents should not be made available to the Standing Committee on Transport or other responsible authority.


TELEFILM CANADA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister for Communications.
Yesterday she indicated that Mr. Jean Sirois, chairman of the board at Telefilm Canada, had the confidence of the industry. Today we find that Mr. John Ross, a major spokesman for the industry, has asked for Mr. Sirois's resignation.
My question is simple: Does the Hon. Minister still have confidence in Mr. Jean Sirois?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I referred to a letter that I had received from the President of the Canadian Film and Television Association. I quoted from it and will do so again. He wrote to me saying: "We share your distress over recent attempts to make political mileage out of, what for us, was old news". He went on: "We have been working with Jean Sirois in trying to get everything ready for a new Executive Director". I have quoted from this letter and will be very pleased to table it at three o'clock.


ALLEGATIONS MADE BY FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the Minister still has confidence in Jean Sirois. Has the Minister read the letter that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition? It is a letter from Mr. Pearson in which he says there is strident aggressive intervention on the part of Mr. Sirois, and he makes allegations that the expense accounts would not bear public scrutiny. He said that Mr. Sirois criticized some of the staff for being "rouge". These are not our allegations, but the allegations in the letter.
What will the Minister do about this mess? Does she still have confidence in Mr. Jean Sirois? Is she prepared to refer this to a committee of inquiry to get to the bottom of it?
February 24, 1988


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the other day I quoted from the letter from Mr. Pearson. I quote to the effect that he said, among other things: "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 Conservative Government has lived up to their commitment to strengthen Canadian production with dedication and with effort".
That is what was in the letter that I tabled the other day in the House and from which I quoted.
If the Hon. Member has charges to make against anyone in the organization whatsoever, bring them forward to me and I will see that they will be investigated. However, allegations, smear, and innuendo do not constitute the basis for investigation. Surely the Member would want to stand in his place and make the specific charges to which he seems to be alluding. I can assure him I will follow them up.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I begin by thanking him and his officials, as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his officials, for their interest and concern in the case of a Nova Scotia person by the name of Bruce Curtis who is incarcerated in a New Jersey jail.
The Minister will know that Canada and the United States signed a Transfer of Offenders Treaty which has subsequently been ratified by the state Government of New Jersey. Will the Minister explain to the House why there is such delay in New Jersey by Governor Kean with regard to releasing Bruce Curtis so he may come to Canada and be incarcerated in a Canadian penal institution?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 can advise the Hon. Member and Members of the House that his facts are quite correct. Indeed, the treaty was passed by our two countries and has been implemented by the State of New Jersey. Under the terms of that agreement, both the State of New Jersey and the federal Government would have to agree to the transfer. We have no objections whatsoever and we are prepared to facilitate it, but, first of all, New Jersey must make the decision to agree to it. We are awaiting its approval, which we hope will be forthcoming.
Committee Reports


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister must be aware that the assurances being sought by the state Government, particularly Governor Kean, are beyond the provisions of the treaty. In essence, what they are attempting to do is amend a consummated legal binding treaty signed by Canada and the United States.
Will the Minister undertake to the House that he will make representations to the United States Government to have it live up to the provisions of the treaty it has signed and agreed to? Will the Minister come back to the House and give us an accounting as to why it has been so long that this young Nova Scotian has been incarcerated in a New Jersey jail?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that, under the terms of the agreement, we are in no position to force the State of New Jersey to agree to this exchange. However, I can advise the Hon. Member that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on October 29, 1987, and February 8, 1988, wrote to the Governor of New Jersey requesting implementation by the State of the provisions of this agreement. I am hopeful that these letters written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will bring forth a favourable response from the State of New Jersey.


POINT OF ORDER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned during Question Period that I wished to table a letter from the President of the Canadian Film and Television Association.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages.
This report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the tenth draw which took place on February 9, 1988.

February 24, 1988
Introduction of Bills


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION ACT
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney ) shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Martin Brian Mulroney: for leave to introduce Bill C-114, an Act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Sheila Maureen Copps: for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (surrogacy arrangements).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In brief, Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to make it illegal for anyone to make a profit out of either arranging or participating in surrogacy arrangements. It is a first step and I would hope that we would have a chance to debate this Bill at some point in the near future.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions this afternoon pursuant to Standing Order 106.
The first petition is from a number of constituents who point out that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. They believe that the proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and thereby undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to now dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a number of residents of central British Columbia. They point out that the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, with attendant water licences, was sold outright to UtiliCorp United Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri, in the United States. They point out that Canadians are expressedly prohibited from similar outright purchases in the United States by U.S. law, and the 8,673 consumers in the West Kootenay Power and Light Company service area have signed a petition protesting the sale.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to pass a law requiring majority ownership by Canadians of electrical utilities, dams and water licences so that Canadians citizens will be afforded protection of their sovereignty equal to that enjoyed by citizens of the United States.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has been sponsored by the National Anti-Poverty Organization which states that the Canadian Council on Social Development estimates that more than 100,000 people
February 24, 1988

were homeless at one time or another during 1986 in Canada, that an increasing number of young people, women and entire families have joined the ranks of the homeless despite a healthy Canadian economy, and that the number of affordable dwellings for low-income people is dwindling constantly and soup kitchens and emergency shelters are only temporary measures, not permanent solutions.
Therefore the petitions call upon the Government of Canada to act immediately to establish the necessary measures to ensure that homeless and poorly lodged Canadians, first, live in adequate and healthy housing, and, second, have access to a variety of rehabilitation programs in order to reintegrate into Canadian society.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the City of Winnipeg. They state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and pleasure to present three petitions. One is signed by citizens of the Queen City of Regina. Another is signed by other residents of Regina, Swift Current, and Chaplin, Saskatchewan. The petitioners include citizens of the wonderful Town of Abbey, Saskatchewan, where, Mr. Speaker, you will be happy to know I was station agent years ago.
Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and that 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 jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, the petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege to table a petition signed by residents of Bowmanville, Oshawa, Janetville, Whitby and Chelmsford, Ontario.
The petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate whatsoever from the Canadian people to
Petitions
conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and, further, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
They state that the proposed 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.
They therefore call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling petitions signed by residents of Saint-Romuald, Saint-Jean-Chrysostome, Saint-Hyacinthe, Granby, Roberval, Saint-Elenri, Taillon, Levis, Charny, Lauzon, Montreal and the vicinity, Swift Current, and Gerald, Saskatchewan.
These 182 signatures are in addition to those on other petitions I presented earlier, a grand total of 32,368 signatures. The undersigned are aware that since 1974 the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations allow the installation of self-inflating bags for private car drivers, and that this device would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to make it mandatory to install inflatable bags in the front seat of passenger cars and adjustable shoulder seat-belts for passengers on the back seat.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan concerning Bill C-54.
The petitioners indicate that they are concerned that pressures exerted by various permissive minority groups may cause the Government to water down and weaken this legislation.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Bill C-54 which will make it illegal to manufacture, import, sell or rent pornographic material as defined in the Bill. They call upon Parliament to pass the Bill without dilution in the belief that it gives recognition to the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young people who are most vulnerable to exploitation in this area.
I have five additional petitions on the same topic from residents of Shaunavon, Swift Current, Herbert, and Vanguard, Saskatchewan.

Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
February 24, 1988


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE The House resumed from Tuesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
And on the amendment of Mr. Garneau:
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 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."
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in the time I have remaining to me from yesterday I wish to spend a few minutes talking about the contents of the petition I presented to the House today. It dealt with homelessness in Canada and the inability or the unwillingness of the Government to bring forward any type of concrete policy to deal with this very serious social and economic problem. Certainly, in the course of numerous Budgets presented by the Government, including the last one, there has not been one provision that would alleviate the serious problem facing some estimated 100,000 Canadians who are homeless, and the thousands of others who are living in inadequate housing.
To illustrate that point The Toronto Star ran an article on homelessness in Metropolitan Toronto. It adequately describes the crisis that exists in that urban centre. Indeed, it could very well apply to major urban centres across the country.
It is pointed out in the article that in Metro Toronto alone some 20,000 people a year check into the various emergency hostels around Metro, filling each of the 2,500 beds every night of the year. Many more low income people stay in hostels, but they have been living in inadequate quarters. Some 10,000 or more people in Metro spend more than half their incomes on rent, with some spending as much as 70 per cent. According to data at the federal level, about 100,000 low income renters in Metro are desperate for decent housing which they can afford. Some 42,000 of these people are single.
I have addressed this question several times in the past in the House. I have urged the Government to do a number of things. The co-op housing sector is an alternative form of housing which many people could utilize. The co-op housing sector has provided housing for people in the disabled community, or for people on a fixed income. It has been filling a void in the housing market. Yet the Government has done absolutely nothing to encourage more construction of co-op housing. In fact, if anything, the Government has gone out of its way to restrict the limited effectiveness that the co-op housing movement has made. It could probably be argued that the coop housing movement has probably done too good a job. The resistance to Government providing additional moneys for affordable housing is coming from the private development industry.
I would recommend to anyone in the House to read yesterday's Hansard at page 13071. In the last several months the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has raised questions on homelessness, not only in York East but in Metro generally. The Hon. Member made a very strong and compassionate argument as to why the Government should be involved in developing affordable, decent housing.
In response to a question from the Hon. Member for York East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) made what I could only consider to be an astounding and incredible statement. He is actually speaking on behalf of the Government, enunciating policy on behalf of the Government on housing matters. The Parliamentary Secretary said the following:
Is the Hon. Member asking the Government to get into the Financing of the housing industry? I suggest to him that there are some financial institutions that would express concern about a Government heating up the market too much with easy money by getting into the housing industry. That would not solve the problem in Toronto. If it becomes too easy to Finance, the market could be heated up even further.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to suggest, if not actually state, that if a person could not find decent housing in
February 24, 1988

Toronto perhaps he or she should consider moving to places like Winnipeg, Montreal, or Moncton.
The Parliamentary Secretary further stated:
The Government has been involved, through CMHC, in what is called social
housing programs where there is a subsidy for those individuals.
That is the financing through transfer payments to the provinces, Mr. Speaker.
The Parliamentary Secretary further stated:
That also comes under somewhat of a misnomer because it is called
affordable housing.
I do not know where the Parliamentary Secretary gets his ideas about how society has been provided affordable housing over the years. Governments at all levels have had a long history of being involved in constructing affordable housing, for very good reasons. It not only fills a social need, it is also a major creator of jobs in this country. For every one job that is created in the housing construction, there are an estimated three to four additional jobs created in industry in providing the materials and the other goods that go into housing. Housing not only involve some type of action on the part of Government to fill a social need, it is very much an important part of our economy. When the Parliamentary Secretary ignores that, and makes those kinds of stupid statements, it is far beyond me why he is in that job-it totally escapes me. He would be better transferred to something that he knows something about, because he certainly does not know anything about housing or its place in the economy of this country.
Yesterday I spoke about how the Government had managed, through successive Budgets, to look after those who have, and to take even more away from those who have not. Rather than improving a situation, the Government has actually made it worse.
Much of the debate on this Budget has centred on regional disparities. The Government has argued that indeed it has been concerned about disparities in the various regions of Canada, particularly in the West and in the Atlantic provinces. But what the Government has not spoken about is what it has been doing to the transfer payments to those provinces, which has put them in a bad situation.
I see that you are signalling that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to pursue this matter at some other time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this has been a day full of activity in the House and, despite the distractions of other matters, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak during this Budget debate. I believe it is the role and the duty of the Opposition, our critic, the very capable Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), and the Leader of the Opposition to address what, after all, is the most important item on any parliamentary calendar, the review of the expenditures and the review of the taxation policies of a Government. The reason that Parliament is a
The Budget-Mr. Turner
Parliament is to debate the initiatives of the imposition of tax and the expenditures of a Government. No greater purpose do we have.
Without any reflections on any area of the House, I rather regret that in this televised age during a debate of this importance we have so few Members contributing to the deliberations before Your Honour.
The speech delivered in this House on the afternoon of February 10 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), carried live by television across the country, was not a Budget. It was the longest single free time political broadcast in Canadian history. Just as we would expect from the Government, it did not meet minimum Canadian content rules. The Minister was too busy plagiarizing, particularly some of Ronald Reagan's old nautical rhetoric. He announced proudly to the House of Commons and the country that we are "staying the course". That is great if you are rich enough to own a yacht. It is great if you know where you are going and can get there on that yacht, but for the millions of men, women, and children who are living close to the poverty line in this country, staying the course means lining up once again at a food bank, lining up for shelter, hoping for food to get by, or hoping for some money for clothing. There are fewer and fewer opportunities in this great Tory world symbolized by the Minister of Finance.
For the people who cannot afford to stay the course, the Government is using another one of President Reagan's discarded theories; that is the trickle down philosophy. If you throw money at the wealthy by way of enough tax write-offs, by way of enough tax incentives, by lower tax rates, then over a period of time enough money will trickle through the fingers of the rich to fall into the grateful hands of the poor and those less able to pay their way in this country.
Over the break I was reading a little Darwin and a little Malthus. This was a Darwinian Budget. This was the survival of the fittest theory. The Tory theory is that if you leave the disadvantaged alone, you will force them, the handicapped, the aged, the unemployed, and the homeless, to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, as if there was a moral issue in being unemployed, or something wrong in being handicapped. What the Minister did not tell us in his speech is that even here the Government put a tax on the bootstraps.
The Minister's speech was less a plan for the future than a very selected recapitulation, regurgitation of the Government's record since 1984. It was a free time political broadcast at the expense of Canadians, at the expense of parliamentary time. It was a dry run for the next election campaign. As speeches go, it was very dry indeed. The Minister gave us his own version of the economic Olympics, a series of charts, graphs, studies, and numbers by which he attempted to show that the country is doing better than any other of the industrialized world. As a diversionary tactic it is an impressive step. One must admire the public relations skill. It paints a pretty picture. If the whole story were in the Minister's documents, it would be very appealing, indeed, for Canadians. The fact that it is now being

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Turner
distributed, thanks to the Canadian taxpayer, at public expense across the country, as part of the Government's propaganda machine, is not entirely irrelevant to the Minister's purpose. However, the speech and the documents do not tell the whole story. It is not the complete picture, at all, of what the Government has done since it came into office.
I had the honour of addressing McGill students a few months ago in Montreal, in the Stephen Leacock Building of McGill, named after one of the famous professors of that great institution and a great Canadian, one of our leading authors, probably the most naturally funny man we have ever had with intelligence in the country. He used to say that a half-truth, like half a brick, is always more forcible as an argument than a whole one; it carries further. I heard a corruption of that Leacock story one time, that a half-truth is like a half a brick; it is easier to throw and it hurts just as much when it lands. Anyway, the Minister is following that advice to the letter.
For example, in his speech he boasts that as a result of tax reform, 850,000 Canadians have been taken off the tax rolls, do not pay any more taxes. That is the first half of the brick. As the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has pointed out in his speech and in other interventions in the House and elsewhere, the Minister failed to mention the other half a brick. He failed to mention that in the last three and a half years under this Minister of Finance more than one million Canadians have been put on the tax rolls. Even with this phoney tax reform, we are still 150,000 people worse off in terms of taxpayers than we were when the Government took office.
As a result of the Minister's Budgets, the total tax bill over the life of this Government, including direct and indirect personal taxes, will go up, as my colleague has indicated, by an average of $1,200 per year per person, year after year. The Minister's argument is a couple of bricks short of a full load, but, as they would say down on the farm, it sure was a full load. It is certainly not the total story.

In his haste to claim the credit for the country's economic growth for himself and his Government, the Minister of Finance, probably inadvertently, included a very interesting fact in his speech, namely that Canada's economy started growing again in 1982 under a Liberal Government. It means that all this talk about inheriting a bad situation from a previous Liberal Government was just that, according to the Minister's speech, because he now realizes that our economic rebirth started in 1982 under the Trudeau administration.
Whatever the Minister may say about jobs created by the Conservatives, we have yet to get back to the employment levels we had before the recession. As the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) pointed out, our unemployment rate is still above the level of 7.5 per cent, where it was before the 1981-82 recession. Our economic growth has been
uneven. The unemployment rate in our disadvantaged regions is still at unacceptably high levels. In Newfoundland, it is still 17.4 per cent, and in British Columbia the unemployment rate is 10.1 per cent.

As my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides has pointed out, the average earning for Canadian workers, after allowing for inflation, is now lower than it was in 1984 when the Government took over. Take-home pay in constant dollars is now lower than it was when the Government took office.
Let us take another example. The Government has not only given us more taxes, and 1 will get into that in a minute, but more debt-the deficit and the national debt. The Minister said in his most stately and stentorian voice, as he looked earnestly up into the camera-his coaches were having him on for this document which no doubt is being sent across the country, videotaped at Canadian expense to every area of Canada-"We have restored fiscal responsibility by reducing the deficit and cutting the growth of the national debt". That is not even half a brick.
Here is a Government which has collected $22.5 billion more in taxes from Canadians in three and a half years by increasing taxes, yet in the same period it has managed to lower the deficit by only a token amount, an amount which my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides has pointed out was mostly arrived at by juggling the books, playing games with numbers, a little hidden accounting here and there, a few little caches to set aside for the election, rather than real decreases in the deficit or the debt.
Indeed, one of the largest accounting firms in the country. Peat Marwick, in its newsletter analysing the Budget, said that there is an element of sleight of hand to the tune of nearly $4 billion in the Minister's deficit projections.
In the meantime the national debt has grown astronomically under the Government. Here again the Minister goes out of his way to blame past administrations for his problem and for the level of the public debt. Why is it that the total response of the Government, still after virtually four years in government, is that it is always somebody else's fault? Why won't somebody on the other side of the House, beginning with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Minister of Finance, say: "Hey, we goofed; yeah, we made a mistake"? It is because they have no backbone, no integrity, no honest approach with Canadians.
Let us look at the national debt. Has it gone down under this Government?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: No. Has it been substantially reduced?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
February 24, 1988


John Napier Turner: No. It has increased by 66 per cent since the Government took office. Let us go through the numbers.


Mr. Layton:: It is a straight carry-over.


John Napier Turner: I am sorry that my friend from the West Island of Montreal did not hear my speech yesterday. He might have learned something. We were looking for his presence. He would have added a little comic relief to the afternoon.
In the 117 years of Confederation prior to 1984 when the Government took office, successive Governments incurred a total national debt of $178.6 billion. Then came the Minister of Finance, a knight in shining armour, some latter-day participant of the round table. He was going to smite that debt with his sword like it had never been smitten before, but like the round table of Prince Arthur, that commitment turned out to be a complete myth. After three and a half years the Minister's armour is not nearly so shiny. Instead of reducing the debt, thanks to this Minister and this Government, it has gone up to $293.4 billion, an increase of $116.6 billion or 66 per cent in the last three and a half years.

In other words, in three and half years the Minister has managed to accumulate more debt than all his predecessors were able to accumulate in over a century. Not bad! He is responsible for 40 per cent of the total debt incurred by Canada since Confederation. Forty per cent of the total public debt since Confederation in only three and half years! That is a record! He deserves a gold medal. He should come to Calgary with me this weekend, and I will give him a gold medal. Because of his record, he also deserves a silver and a bronze medal, as the champion of public debt since Confederation.
This Finance Minister has accumulated more debt than most of his predecessors put together. It will probably be an interesting detail to add to his biography, but it is a crushing burden on future generations of Canadians.

The Minister is also the leading candidate for a medal in the double back flip. I do not know whether you have been watching the free style skiing, Mr. Speaker, but there have been some great performances; Canadians are doing very well. The Minister showed a lot of style. We got a double back flip. We remember when he was at the top of the hill in 1984, standing with the Prime Minister and saying that he was going to get at that deficit and he was not going to raise taxes. He was not going to raise taxes. He was going to lower expenditures. That was a solemn commitment. It was one of those sacred trusts. Off they went and the Government has been back flipping ever since on that particular promise to Canadians. Although that event is closed, I think I can strike another medal just by way of supplementary for the Minister's personal library giving him credit for that bit of downhill acrobatics. I can get into the downhill, of course, Mr. Speaker.
The Budget-Mr. Turner
The Government has been going downhill for the past three and one half years as well.
Let us go through some of the numbers. The very first thing the Minister did in office was to slap a 3 per cent surtax on income. He had a special 5 to 10 per cent sale tax on the very wealthy. He removed that tax, preferring to hit low and middle income Canadians, and he came up with the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. In the last three and a half years there has a been an orgy of Tory taxes. In three and a half years the Conservatives have raised the excise tax on gasoline by 5 cents a litre or 23 cents a gallon. A sales tax increase on gasoline add another 1 cent per litre in this Budget or 4 cents a gallon, for a total increase of 27 cents a gallon on gas since the Government took office.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is not here. I am surprised he has not objected. In that great Budget of his in 1979 when he lost the confidence of the House, and the people of Canada rejected the Conservative Government under leadership of the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), he was only up to 18 cents a gallon. He was a piker. He did not know in the House this afternoon what has happened to airline fares between Newfoundland, London and Toronto. That does not surprise anyone in the House, but that he should allow his successor, the Minister of Finance in the Conservative administration, to beat his great record of 18 cents and get up to 23 cents a gallon, well, that is our Minister of Finance and that is a real record.
There is virtually no aspect of Canadian activity on which the Minister has not either increased tax or added a new one. I am not at all convinced that this Government will stay in power too much longer. Its time is numbered but it would like to tax other things. I do not want to speculate, however.

In addition to very substantial increases in the tax on gas which, because of the regressive nature of these increases, hits low-income citizens hardest, especially those who must use a car to get to work, the Government has increased the federal sales tax three times in three and half years: from 9 per cent to 10 per cent; from 10 per cent to 11 per cent; and from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. And sales tax has been extended to goods on which no sales tax was paid before.
Again, low and middle income Canadians will be paying a disproportionate share of this regressive tax.

The Minister promised tax reform. Tax reform under this Minister has become a fraud. He promised to change the sales tax. He said in last year's Budget that the "federal sales tax is unfair and inefficient. It is a silent killer of jobs''. Those were his words. The only change he has made has been to increase it. He is like a doctor who knows that a certain drug is harmful but, without knowing the reason, keeps giving you an increased dosage hoping for a cure. We must add to that the taxes on

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Turner
alcohol and tobacco, which the Minister has raised four times, and the 12 per cent tax which the Minister has imposed on paint and wallpaper. Under the Government, even fixing up your house has come under his scrutiny and has become more expensive. There are new taxes on air travel. The Government does not confine itself to merely raising taxes on adults, like some schoolyard bully, the Minister has reached into the lunchboxes of schoolchildren right across the country and put a tax on soft drinks, candy and snacks. What a terribly perverted imagination the Minister has.
Just when the widowed grandmother, say in Winnipeg, thought she had saved up an extra bit of money to make a long distance telephone call to her grandchildren in Toronto, the Minister slapped a 10 per cent tax on all long distance telephone calls. My colleague, the Eton. Member for Laval-des-Rapides showed me the numbers in the lock-up. That tax will collect about $870 million this year and it will be a billion dollar tax within 12 months. To the people who have to stay in touch, those who are vulnerable, those who cannot get out and who are kept in their homes by sickness or age, the telephone is the only way they can keep in touch in a mobile country with children and grandchildren across the country. They are trapped and penalized very heavily by this increase in tax.

These taxes are hidden, they are sneaky. You don't really notice them until you get the Bill. They are practically invisible. But the sneakiest tax increase of all was the deindexation of personal income tax.
The Minister keeps quiet about this. He didn't even mention it in his Budget this year. It is a very simple decision that will cost Canadians billions of dollars more annually, but he kept quiet about it. And here again, low and middle income Canadians will carry the heaviest burden, while the wealthy will pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of capital gains.
When I was Minister of Finance, we indexed our tax system to avoid penalizing low and middle income Canadians and to protect them against the impact of inflation on our progressive tax system.
By eliminating this protection against inflation, the Minister, in an underhanded and cowardly fashion, is putting an invisible tax burden of billions and billions of dollars more each year on the people of this country, and Canadians must realize this.

The gap between rich and poor widens in this country. Just take a look at the tax results under the four Budgets presented by the Minister. Canadians are looking for answers. They are asking themselves, why is this disparity so great? Why is the gap widening? Why is the situation getting worse? I want to tell Canadians that they need look no further than the Government sitting opposite. They need look no further than
the Government which has misled the people, deceived low and middle income Canadians with phony election promises.
The Government decided long ago which side of the gap it was on. It was not on the side of the working poor, the single parent, the old age pensioner or the young couple. It was not on the side of the farmer, the fisherman or the unskilled labourer earning about $5 an hour. No, the Tory message of this Minister of Finance in four successive budgets is this. If you are rich, you are okay; if you are not, you will pay.
This Government has increased taxes faster and higher, $22.5 billion more in three and a half years, than any Government in Canadian history and that includes the Governments of Canada which had to preside over two world wars in which this country was involved. This Government did all that after solemnly pledging to Canadians that it would do no such thing, that the Government would not raise taxes through the personal commitment given by the Prime Minister to the Toronto Canadian and Empire Clubs in August 1984 just before the election and a commitment given by his now Minister of Finance in the same month. This country is littered with the broken promises of this Government, promises which have been torn up; they are not torn up by me-there is only one document I am interested in tearing up-but by the very Prime Minister and the Ministers who make them.

Who can forget the attacks the Government made against old age security and family allowances, after having heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) solemnly declare social programs were sacred and untouchable? Who can forget the bankruptcies of Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank which cost billions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers, after having heard him promise us he would manage the affairs of the nation with competence? Who can forget the billion dollars sunk in the Gulf-Reichmann affair and the $200 million spent for the takeover of the Bank of British Columbia by the Hongkong Bank? No wonder the public debt is rising so rapidly under the present administration!
Who can forget the promise the Prime Minister made of giving us an honest government, after having seen Ministers resign one after the other because they were involved in all kinds of scandals? The only thing the Government did more often than promise us better conflict of interest guidelines is break its own present code of ethics.
Where was that famous commitment to put an end to patronage appointments? Instead, the Government has been turned into an employment agency for the Tory faithful.
I suppose it will be quite natural that, despite the importance of the subject before Your Honour this afternoon, the media this evening will focus on the new legislation introduced by the Prime Minister on conflict of interest. We will look at it
February 24, 1988

in a constructive way. It seems to duplicate legislation tabled in the Ontario Legislature. It will involve every Member of Parliament. There are tremendous gaps in it. It has nothing to do with the process of letting government contracts. It has nothing to do with the process of letting government advertising. It has nothing to do with the process of making senior appointments, this patronage game that the Conservative Government under the Prime Minister has turned into a new art form. It has nothing to do with registering lobbyists, the type of lobbyists who succeeded in obtaining the bid for Terminal 3 in Toronto.
We will look at the situation constructively, but nothing in that legislation will in any way impress the Canadian people, except they will feel that it is last minute death bed repentance. They will feel that this conversion to public ethics is too late. They will not be confused by feeling that any Government can codify public conduct, public ethics, a public feeling for what is right and public judgment when the Ministers of this Government cannot comply, no matter what are the conflict of interest guidelines.
To say that this Government has not lived up to the expectations it itself created is the understatement of the decade. By all indications, it intends to approach the next election the same way it did the last. I would only caution the Prime Minister and government Members to remember the old saying when next they go before Canadians, "Once bitten, twice shy". When I went to high school in this town, we had a teacher of English who used to say to us, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". The Canadian people will not be fooled twice. They will render the proper judgment to the Prime Minister and his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Canadians do not like being misled. They do not like being told that someone intends to do one thing and then does the exact opposite. This is true not only of politicians and Governments. If one pays a plumber to fix the sink, one does not expect him to tear down the garage. If one buys an airplane ticket to Vancouver, one does not expect to end up in St. John's, Newfoundland. If one buys a car that advertises 40 miles to the gallon, one feels a little disappointed if it only gets six miles to the gallon.
When a leader of a political Party, before an election, as the Prime Minister did, says that free trade affects our sovereignty and we will have none of it, Canadians expect at the very least an explanation of why the Prime Minister changed his mind. Before the election, in the Prime Minister's mind, it was a totally untouchable subject, something which would so damage our sovereignty that it was not even to be discussed. Yet only a few months later, this same Prime Minister said that it was the only solution to all our economic difficulties. It became the Government's excuse for inaction.
Our young people, looking for adequate training programs, looking for jobs and for a better future, were told to wait for
The Budget-Mr. Turner
the trade deal. The Atlantic, the Gaspe, northern Ontario, the western provinces, the territories, Vancouver Island, those areas facing economic hardship, were told to wait for the trade deal. Our farmers and fishermen were told to wait for the trade deal. The whole country was put on hold waiting for the trade deal. Then when it was finally unveiled it was a shock.
The centre-piece of this Government's economic plan, in fact its only economic plan, is nothing less than the biggest sell-out of Canadian sovereignty since confederation. We waited for three years for the Government to come up with a national economic strategy and now we find that, as a result of the proposed agreement between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, all the important and big decisions will be made in Washington.
My Party and 1 opposed this deal, 40 to zip, here in the House of Commons when that motion was presented in the House of Commons before Christmas. I opposed this deal because in integrating our economy and society more closely with that of the United States we are dramatically limiting our ability to make our own choices for our own future.
The Government calls it a free trade agreement. It is not a free trade agreement. Some industries are in, some industries are out. It is a selective trade agreement. One must examine it as one would any other agreement.

Just like any other contract! What did we get, what did we give up? We did not get secure access to the American market. Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, read the text, read the agreement itself! Article 1904.2 specifically provides that American protectionist legislation still applies, whether we are talking about the past, the present, or the future. And the jurisdiction of the binational tribunal is not to raise objection against American protectionist laws but only to rule whether the law has been fairly applied with respect to Canadian exports.
So we did not gain secure access, secure access to the American market. If it were only a matter of lowering tariffs, good! We support that approach with the United States and with other countries. Over the past 40 years the Liberal administrations have managed to reduce tariffs from 40 down to 4 per cent-ten times more than the Conservative Government has been able to achieve through this agreement with the United States! But there is more to it than a trade deal and lower trade barriers, it is more like giving up control over our economy, over our investments, over our financial markets, over our energy policy, over the mechanisms we have to monitor our agricultural policy, maintain our culture, protect our automotive industry, everything has been abandoned and we have won precious little as a result of this agreement. That is precisely why, after scrutinizing the agreement, we are adamantly opposed to it, and not for philosophical reasons either.

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Turner

This is not a trade deal, it is the sale of Canada Act. I urge Hon. Members on all sides of the House to read the agreement. When I listened to the Prime Minister's speech, I wondered whether he had ever seen the document. Clause after clause, article after article, talks in terms of free market forces. We are in favour of the free market. We believe in competition. We believe in enterprise. We believe in rewarding success. However, I want to remind Hon. Members that this country was not built solely on free market forces. This country deliberately, since confederation, resisted the continental forces drawing us north and south by building a country east and west.
We brought British Columbia into confederation by building a railway. We built an airline, we built a broadcasting system, we built a national highway and we built a pipeline because we wanted to resist pure market forces and remain Canadians. Free market forces never gave us public education. Free market forces never gave us public transport. Free market forces never gave us the best public hospital and medical care system in the world.
We have not been an ideological people, we have been a practical people and we believe in a mixed economy. When private capital and private enterprise has not been able or willing to achieve a legitimate public objective, then we have believed that the Crown and the state has a legitimate part to play in the infrastructure of Canada.
I want to say one final thing about market forces. If we were to rely on market forces completely, it would mean that the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec, parts of Ontario and western Canada would be turned into one great national park. If we were to rely completely on market forces, the people of Atlantic Canada, western Canada and northern Canada would be centred in three cities, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. That is the kind of country we would have.
It is only because we have resisted pure market forces that we have built a public infrastructure. This country, under Liberal administrations, has believed in equality of opportunity. It has believed that no matter where one lives, where one is brought up or where one dies, one has the same equal opportunity to a job, to a good education, to training and retraining and to a secure retirement. That is the kind of country we built. We built it not on pure market forces, as symbolized by this agreement, we built it on a spirit of Canadianism which gives us equal opportunity across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We did not hear from the Minister of Finance in his statement-that is all it was, a dry run for an election-about what role Canada was playing in
the world. We did not hear about what position we were going to take on Third World debt or the position we were going to take at the IMF or the World Bank about refinancing that debt. We did not hear about the fact that the U.S. has become the largest debtor nation in the world, no longer in control of its own currency. We did not hear that the largest creditor nation is now Japan. The largest banking nation is now Japan. The three largest banks in the world are now Japanese. The Minister did not tell us how Canada was going to contribute to dealing with that avalanche of Third World debt, trade deficits and public debt.
I have called for a new Bretton Woods Agreement where Canada would exercise some leadership and sit down with the other industrial nations of the world to see how we can achieve real monetary reform, better reconcile our fiscal policies, how we can better reach out to the Third World to share the opportunities for a decent life. We did not have a paragraph or two about that, just the blandest words about what our responsibilities as Canadians ought to be. Nothing about achieving a new world economic order that would give us some assurances in the future that trading barriers will continue to come down. Nothing about world currencies achieving some stability or that Canada had something constructive to offer, as we have always done on the international plane. All the Minister and the Prime Minister are settling for is being a junior partner with the U.S. We have a good international role to exercise and we should be exercising it.
A trade deal is no substitute for an economic strategy. In the four Budgets we have seen from the Government the only strategy has been to raise taxes on low and middle-income Canadians and reduce support for those most in need. All these self-styled architects for a better tomorrow on the government side have done is give Canada a blueprint for a Tory Canada. The Tory vision of the future sees a Canada with an even greater widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, a gap that abandons our disadvantaged regions to the whim of market forces, a Canada that abandons our farmers, fishermen, miners and lumber workers, a Canada that dismantles our youth training and educational programs and, again in yesterday's Estimates, our research and development. It is a Canada where we eliminate our retraining programs for older workers, a Canada that constantly cuts back on research and development funding instead of increasing it, a Canada that sells out its sovereign ability to make its own economic, political and cultural decisions, through a so-called trade deal with another country. It is a vision of this country devoid of hope and bankrupt of ideas. It is not a vision that we share. That is why we reject this latest Budget. That is why we reject the Government's trade deal. That is why Canadians are going to reject the Government as soon as they are given an opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 24, 1988


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker . . .


M. Rossi:: It is no longer interesting, 1 am leaving!


Pierre H. Vincent: Such comments show that the Opposition is afraid to hear the plain truth.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate on the Budget since it has been tabled and when I hear what Hon. Members opposite have to say, and I have just heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) speak, it strikes me that the Opposition has not made one single positive comment on the Budget, on what the Government has achieved over the last three and a half years. Not a single one. And this same Leader of the Opposition who prides himself on being fair, honest, open to all Canadians, does not even have the decency to recognize what this Government has done over the last three years and a half. Mr. Speaker, that is what is called speaking from both sides of one's mouth. And in Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Speaker, people do not like that!
The Leader of the Opposition said earlier, as he had said before, that we had increased personal income tax by 68 percent since we came to power.
Mr. Speaker, as you well know, numbers can be made to say anything. I will simply say that according to his method of calculation he increased taxes by 76 percent during his years as Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, once again according to his own calculations, it is clear that he is juggling with numbers. And it is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the Liberals did for 20 years. There is a reason why we found ourselves burdened with a $200 billion national debt and a $38 billion deficit in 1984. A deficit we successfully reduced by $10 billion-that is right, $10 billion-in three years.
And how did we manage this? Again, the Leader of the Opposition says we increased taxes by I do not know how much, $22 billion or $24 billion. And his backbenchers who never have anything to say and remained silent when they were in office now act tough and dare say it is true.
Mr. Speaker, they should have made themselves heard when they were in office instead of sitting on their hands.


Mr. Rossi:: Ask your organizer what he thinks of you!


Pierre H. Vincent: Look how mean one can be, Mr. Speaker.
Talking seriously and not about those Liberal backbenchers who never do anything, we have reduced the deficit by $10 billion in three years and part of that reduction comes from the tax increase we have all been subjected to.
But the bigger part of the deficit reduction, that is 80 per cent, Mr. Speaker, comes from two sources: from cuts made in
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
the governmental system and also, something the Leader of the Opposition overlooks entirely, from something called the creation of more than a million jobs. There are a million people who are paying taxes instead of receiving unemployment insurance. That is how we get to have supplementary revenue and how we have succceeded in lowering the deficit. But that is ignored. The Opposition counts that as rubbish.
But that is not rubbish, it is the reality in 1988, when we look at the Budget and especially the tax aspect of what was tabled with the Budget, the rules concerning associate corporations.
Mr. Speaker, what a trick many corporations were using, something like the scientific research tax credit that we terminated.
Although the Liberal Opposition regularly blames us for taxing low income people and not taxing corporations, for three and a half years, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we have been plugging the majority of loopholes in the Income tax Act. This was one, and we closed it.
We also dealt with corporate control, which made it possible to use lower corporate tax rates.
Concerning personal income tax, concerning child care expenses, the level was $2,000-we raised it to $4,000 without setting a maximum, because there was an $8,000 ceiling. That used to be the rules under the Liberal Government. We changed that! A couple earning less than $16,000 can now get $559 a year per child in refundable tax credit, plus $100 in 1988 and $200 in 1989, if no child care expenses were claimed.
The seizure powers of the Department of National Revenue have been changed in order again that Canadian taxpayers do not have to suffer when a seizure is made without notice.
The sales tax has been changed to make it more consistent with the realities in 1988, while keeping in mind there will be a second stage in which major changes will be made.
I was mentioning earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in 1984-86 the deficit, that is as you know the amount of money the Government spent in excess of its revenues during a given year, was $38 billion. This year, Mr. Speaker, it is down to $29 billion. This means that over three and a half years, we succeeded in reducing by $10 billion the Government's annual expenditures.
The leader of the Official Opposition stated earlier the national debt has increased. That is true, Mr. Speaker, it has increased. The level was $200 billion when we came to power. But who was responsible for raising it to $200 billion. Certainly not us, because that was the level we found when we were elected to power.
It is important to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the level of the national debt had increased 150 per cent from 1980 to 1984. That is really something! Speaking of percentage, that one is hard to beat! Under this Conservative Government, for the first time since 1945, we have been able to reduce the

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
deficit four years in a row! That is an achievement, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition never mention. That is too painful for them, it hurts too much.
My colleague for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), who was a mayor in his riding before being elected to the House of Commons, knows what it is to manage, and his positive comments on the Budget prove it.
Debt servicing, Mr. Speaker, was $22 billion in 1984-85. In 1988-89 we will have to pay $32 billion worth of interest on their debts, not ours. However, Mr. Speaker, their debts are, unfortunately for Canadians, the debts of all of us. It is because of this-I won't use any unparliamentary language, Mr. Speaker-unfortunate administration of the previous Government that we now have this huge debt, and interest charges amounting to $32 billion on the debts of our predecessors.
You will note that despite this $10 billion increase in interest payments over three and a half years, we have been able to reduce the deficit. It means, Mr. Speaker, a difference of $20 billion in three and a half years. And they dare tell us, on the other side, that we don't know how to manage! Mr. Speaker, our policies are just and effective. We applied to the government the same principles of sound management Used by private companies and municipalities.
The federal government owned, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, lands and buildings that it was saving for some unknown reason. We sold them. Sound management is using the goods we need and getting rid of those we don't need.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking earlier about a "vision of the future". What can be the vision of that party which has at least three opinions on every major issue, Mr. Speaker? Whether it is national defense, free trade, child care or the Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of Liberal Members have voted against it. And, believe it or not, among those were a lot of Members from Quebec. So, when I hear about a "vision of the future", I think that the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister have a definite vision of the future. And that vision could be summed up in three words: quality of life. Quality of life, Mr. Speaker, for my constituents of Trois-Rivieres, for the people of Quebec and for all Canadians. And of course, Mr. Speaker, for your constituents as well.
And what does quality of life mean, Mr. Speaker? We cannot have quality of life in Canada or in any other country if people are out of work. It's priority number one.
Mr. Speaker, in three and a half years, the Conservative Party, along with the private enterprise-and not against it as was the case under the previous government-has created 1 200 000 new jobs. That is where the quality of life starts, through job creation. Development programs at the social and cultural levels have been increased, as well as regional development programs, at the same time as the deficit was reduced.
As far as social development is concerned, transfer payments to the provinces have increased by 2.7 per cent. Comparison
between the years 1984-85 and 1988-89 shows $701 million more for insured complementary health services; $117 million more for post-secondary education; $837 million more for social welfare services, for a grand total of $2.9 billion more in 1988-89 than in 1984-85. Mr. Speaker, Old Age Security shows an increase; the Guaranteed Income Security: close to $1 billion has been added; Spouse Allocation shows an increase of $275 million; $178 million more will be spent under the Canada Student Loans Act; $200 million more are set aside as special measures to increase employment opportunities for welfare beneficiaries; transfer payments to territorial governments will amount to $330 million; grants and contributions to regional and economic development, in order to support the industrial and regional development are $868 million higher than in the 1984-85 Estimates, Mr. Speaker. The National Research Council gets $78 million more. Payments to railway companies reach another $140 million. External Affairs will get $779 million. Yet, Mr. Speaker, someone comes and tells me that the Government has done nothing, that it has no vision for the future!
Mr. Speaker, the figures speak by themselves. In all areas, there have been reasonable increases responding to the needs of Canadians, and I have not mentioned the national strategy concerning child care. There is research and development for which the Prime Minister has made very interesting announcements in January. The Universite du Quebec at Trois-Rivieres has positively and publicly supported the announcement of the Prime Minister. It considers that initiative to be an excellent one and it is prepared to cooperate with the federal Government in that respect. I am not the one who says it. The Opposition will never mention it.
The federal-provincial agreements in a host of sectors are not, like before, strictly pertaining to resolve conflicts between federal and provincial governments.
Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition talked about economic growth. Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fastest economic growth of all countries since 1984. He was talking about 1982. In 1982, we had interest rates of 22 per cent and he is telling us that it was then that we had economic growth. In 1982, we were paying interest rates. But since 1984, Canada has had the fastest economic growth and is also in the lead, which is as important if not more important, Mr. Speaker, for employment growth.
Once again, independent agencies are making that kind of decisions. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, just said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had no international vision. Mr. Speaker, for 15 years, the Liberal Government tried to make Canada a member of a renowned group called the Group of Five which is now the Group of Seven of which the most industrialized countries of the world are part. The Liberal Government attempted to have Canada as part of that select group, Mr. Speaker. That is what we would call going "international". And you know as well as I do
February 24, 1988

that the Liberal Government failed during all those years. The Conservative Government came to office in 1984, Mr. Speaker. And guess what happened. Canada is now a member of this group of the seven most industrialized countries in the world. That is what I call a vision of the future, Mr. Speaker, and that is also what I call "going international". We don't merely have a few words on paper as we used to previously, but actions have been taken, positive and specific actions.
For the last three days, we have been hearing about the one cent a litre increase on gasoline, among other things. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that even despite of some increases in price, gasoline is still cheaper than in 1984 when the Liberals were in power. And that is not all! What is even more astounding and shows how that party can be vicious in its comments and how forgetful they have become, Mr. Speaker .. . and I won't even mention the 18 cents a gallon, in 1980, those 18 cents that they doubled when they came back to power. But I just want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that for a little over 10 years the average percentage of federal taxes on a gallon or a litre of gas has ranged from 17 to 20 per cent, and this covers the period when the Liberals were in power. Yet, with our increase of one cent a litre, the tax makes up 20 per cent of the price of a litre of gas. That means, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberals were in power, we had the same tax percentage than we have now; yet they have the gall to criticize us, with their arms thrown up in the air and monstrous outbursts, when the situation was worse when they were in office, Mr. Speaker.
You are indicating to me that my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to conclude by saying that in 1984, government expenditures increased by 14 per cent each year, I repeat by as much as 14 per cent a year, Mr. Speaker. Such was the financial management of the Government before the Conservatives took over: Government expenditures were increasing by 14 per cent a year. Today, Mr. Speaker, the rate of growth has been reduced to 3.5 per cent. This is good management, this is how you should govern a country and manage public finances brilliantly and logically while taking into account, as I have already said, the needs of the Canadian people, for instance as concerns child care. What the Canadian public needs before anything else, Mr. Speaker, is a better quality of life, and for this, we need a reasonable economic growth and proper job creation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the Hon. Member. In his speech he made it quite clear how proud he is of the Budget of the Conservative Government. I would ask him to comment on the views expressed by the Canadian Council on Social Development which includes among its members, virtually all Governments, federal, provincial and municipal, and all voluntary agencies concerned with all aspects of welfare. In its analysis of the Budget the council states there is no provision for increasing
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
aid to Canadian families living below the poverty line, although the number of such people is now 851,000, up from 745,000 in 1980.
I would also like the Hon. Member's comments on recent reports that 20 per cent of Canadian people are functionally illiterate and that the percentage in Quebec is higher than the national average. That means that these people, for the rest of their lives, unless steps are taken so that they can become literate, can only look forward to either being on welfare or having the most menial and poorly paid jobs. Does the Hon. Member not think that a country as wealthy as Canada should be able to find the funds to start addressing these two problems which are so glaring and so obvious to anyone who wants to look at the realities of life in Canada?
[ Translation]


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to reply to the Hon. Member opposite. There is always room for improvement, but this Budget is part of an ongoing process. If I told you, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget is perfect and that the public financial picture is perfect, you would not believe me, but I would not say such a thing. This Budget continues what we began three and a half years ago.
The Hon. Member speaks about the poor, but as I mentioned earlier, we have increased our support for all social development programs. Additional amounts have been allocated to these programs. It is perhaps partly, even though not totally, the fault of the Socialist Member if the party now in the Opposition spent foolishly what should have been spent to help Canadians when it was in power.
Before I was elected, on September 2, 1984, the party opposite approved a few million dollars in projects which the local people did not want. The Liberals introduced the scientific research tax credit in their last Budget. That cost all Canadians, whether poor or rich, a few billion dollars. What are a few billion dollars? They knew what would happen. However, these few billion dollars simply disappeared; they were not used for any scientific research, and they are no longer available for scientific research or to increase our support to those who need it, as the Hon. Member was saying. This money is no longer available to pay the interests on the debt. We have to live with that.
If tomorrow morning the Hon. Member lends his credit card to one of his friends and for 20 years the same friend every year goes over the limit and does not make the payments, after 20 years, our good friend and colleague on the other side of this House is going to have a bill exactly similar to the debt of the Federal Government. He is going to say: I have no money left, I have to pay off that debt. When his better half, his wife is going to ask him for money, he will answer: I cannot give you any because the chum I gave my credit card to for 20 years, during all that time he charged on it amounts of money exceeding what I could earn, and I am completely fed up. This

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mrs. Collins
is where the problem is, Mr. Speaker, and this is what the Liberal Party did with the country's credit card!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member to explain his support for his Government and the Budget when the facts are that, through increases in sales taxes, excise taxes and income taxes, the average Canadian family will pay in 1988 $1,000 more in taxes than it paid in the year before his Government took office, while at the same time 258 high-income earners who earned more than $200,000 in the last year for which we have records paid no income tax at all. A number of the largest corporations, the most profitable in the country, either paid no income tax at all or, even worse, received a tax credit despite the fact that they made tens of millions or several hundred millions of dollars in profits. Where is the justice for that type of situation continuing to exist?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am disappointed with the question of my colleague on the other side of the House. Such comments are an incentive for Canadians not to carry their fair share of the tax burden.
Mr. Speaker, it is not true to claim that hundreds of thousands of companies do not pay taxes. That is not true.
We did away with practically all tax loopholes. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, 1 am a tax lawyer. We did plug a few loopholes, because loopholes we had before, that is true.
Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member makes that kind of remarks he fails to tell the whole story.
Some companies do not pay taxes, true enough, but why not? Because they incur losses and under the law-like you, Mr. Speaker, like any other Canadian citizen-they are allowed to file a statement to that effect. The following year any Canadian is entitled to write off losses against income in that year. Mr. Speaker, that is the law, and the law is fair.
If I report a loss in any given tax year it is only normal that I be allowed to write off that loss against my income the next year.
From that standpoint, Mr. Speaker, it is true that some companies do not pay taxes, but that privilege is not extended through their entire corporate life, there has to be a specific reason why they do not pay taxes in any given year.
In my riding there are a few companies which did not pay taxes in 1986, and I am pleased about that because they account for 200 jobs. They posted a loss for the previous year, Mr. Speaker, but they did manage to keep those 200 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, if a company makes a profit the following year, I think it has the right to write off losses and continue to expand, continue to reinvest in the company, and continue to
create jobs and maintain sound economic activities. We all hope that today will be better than yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, the same principle applies in the case of individuals who do not pay taxes. Now that a minimum tax system has been set up, no longer are there any people who do not pay taxes, except for those who have incurred losses, supported charitable organizations, or made alimony payments. These are the only three reasons why a high, middle or low income earner will pay no income tax.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Opposition stopped misleading Canadians with all sorts of statistical data. We do not even know where they are taken from and they are not always true. They scare the people, they mislead them and also encourage them not to carry their fair share of the tax burden, Mr. Speaker.
We live under a system where all citizens must pay their taxes, Mr. Speaker, and you know as well as I do that between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of the money paid to the Government in any given year is returned directly or indirectly to the Canadian people, through interests payments, transfer payments to the provinces, old age security pensions, unemployment insurance, etc.
Only 20 per cent of the revenues of the State are used to administer the country, the remaining 80 per cent are returned to Canadian men and women. Mr. Speaker, 1 think that we are paying for that and the cost is high at that level.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Budget. It is the third time in the last four years that I have had such an opportunity following the presentation of Budgets by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). When the Budget was presented a short while ago one of the reactions that I received in my community in British Columbia was that it was boring. I tend to agree. In fact, I was quite pleased that it was boring because that is part of our over-all plan.
We have got away from the idea that every Budget should be full of new tax measures and all sorts of changes. We all wait until February, which is not necessarily the best time of the year, to make such changes. What we have done as a Government is to have introduced programs when it was appropriate throughout the year. A budget document comes forward now on a regular annual basis rather like a state of the nation summary in terms of our economic progress and with some adjustments, as we have seen in this year's Budget.
I see the Budget in terms of "steady as she goes". It is consistent with the plan of action that we set out in November of 1984 when the Minister of Finance produced his paper on economic reform.
I will not speak today about the other pillars of our policies which we have enunciated over the last three and a half years. I refer to the pillars of national reconciliation, constructive
February 24, 1988

internationalism and social justice. 1 will not talk about the accomplishments that we have made in these three areas. 1 will not refer to the Meech Lake Accord, the Commonwealth Conference, the international summit which is coming up and, in the area of social justice, the many changes we have made to the Criminal Code. I will not refer to affirmative action or the whole gamut of items which have increased the quality of life for Canadians. Today I will talk about economic reform.
When we took office three and a half years ago we set that as an important priority. We all recall the situation that the economy was in at that time. When we look at the changes that have occurred in three and a half years and when we consider the sound fiscal management which the Auditor General has given recognition to we see that it is really quite a remarkable record.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was speaking about 30 minutes ago he made some allusions to the Olympics in Calgary about which we are so proud. We are proud of those Canadians who have won medals for us, Brian Orser, Karen Percy, Linda Moore of North Vancouver who won the gold medal in women's curling, and Sylvie Daigle who won a gold medal yesterday in the women's short-track speed skating. These are outstanding Canadians, as are all the other Canadians who have been participating in the Olympics. They have instilled a sense of pride in us all.
It is important to recognize that Canada deserves a gold medal too since Canada is first in terms of economic growth. Indeed, we have been first each year over the last few years. We have placed well above most other industrialized nations. Real output growth has been estimated at 3.8 per cent in 1987. A statistic such as this may sound dry. What does 3.8 per cent mean? We all know that it translates into jobs. It means that families are enjoying a better quality of life, more security and that our young people are getting jobs. It means that some of our older people are able to stay on in the work force. So it seems to me that in this couple of weeks in which we are giving out gold medals for outstanding achievement in athletics the Minister of Finance should also receive a gold medal in recognition of Canada being number one in economic growth. Since Canada is also number one in terms of job creation he should be made a double medal winner. These achievements seem to me to deserve a gold medal.
We have all heard the statistics. Over 1.1 million jobs have been created since our Government took office. Some 486,000 jobs were created in 1987 alone. The majority of these jobs are full-time jobs in occupations with above average wage levels. As the Minister responsible for the status of women stated in her speech the other day, it is interesting to note the number of women who have filled the new jobs created over the past 3.5 years, and that 55 per cent of those jobs for women have been in the administrative and the professional areas. That means that they are in and going into the higher income areas. A terrific amount of change and advancement of the economy is occurring throughout the country.
The Budget-Mrs. Collins
As a result of that, we have seen the unemployment rate drop down to 8.1 per cent. That is the lowest it has been since September, 1981. The economic and employment growth last year were also more evenly spread throughout the country. That is something that we all feel strongly that we want to achieve.
In terms of the other indicators, inflation declined to 4.2 per cent by the end of 1987. It averaged only 4.4 per cent for the year as a whole. We all know the story of interest rates which means that mortgages have gone down by 3 per cent. To the person holding a mortgage of $50,000 on a house it means $1,200 less per year in mortgage payments. When you take all of those factors together, it is really an outstanding accomplishment which touches every man, woman, and family throughout the country, that indeed they are better off as a result of the Government's initiatives.
In light of the comments of the Leader of the Official Opposition what has happened is interesting. The plan that we presented in 1984 was to create a positive environment in which the free enterprise system could flourish, in which small business could develop, and in which the entrepreneurial spirit would grow in this country. We as a Party believe in the individual. We believe in the free enterprise system.
My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in his comments stated that "We don't know about that". What he was saying sounded to me as though the Liberal Party does not seem to believe much more in the free market system and would want to intervene. Probably they want to bring back the NEP which this Government got rid of because of its horrendous impact on the economy of western Canada. That Party would probably want to bring back FIRA, which indeed created fear in the hearts of potential investors and turned them away. This Government got rid of that.
We are now seeing the positive influx of investment dollars, particularly in British Columbia, which is well above the national average and which means so much for the ordinary Canadian. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition not only wants to tear up the free trade agreement, he wants to bring back an era that, in my mind, would lead to despair in the hearts of Canadians across the country.
1 wish to turn to the control of the deficit. In my constituency of Capilano I receive a lot of questions on that subject. I met with some groups over the past two weeks to talk about the Budget. I am constantly asked, "What has your Government done to deal with the deficit?" People are very concerned about it. They know that in their own households if they spend $4,000 or $5,000 more each year than they are bringing in, they will soon be in trouble with their friendly banker. When they see the government deficit rising or seeming to be as it was prior to 1984, and out of control, it is a cause of considerable concern.

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mrs. Collins
We know that in 1984 the federal deficit, the national debt, was out of control. That year the deficit was up to S38 billion, up from $14.9 billion three years before. In those last three years of Liberal Government that debt had gone from under $15 billion to $38 billion. In fact, it had gone up at an average rate of 26 per cent per year.
There was not a smidgen of evidence from the Leader of the Opposition of what policies he or his Party would have initiated to control that deficit. If that had continued in the spendthrift way, the public debt today would be more than $100 billion higher than it is. That would have meant the equivalent of $16,000 more for each family of four. We had to turn the ship around. We had to deal with that when we came into office. Of course, we all know that that is not an easy thing to do. Our record of accomplishment has been significant, because it has been part of a plan that we have set out and stuck to.
We have seen the deficit of more than $38 billion when we took office fall to a projected $28.9 billion for the coming fiscal year. It will be the first time since 1945 that there has been a decline in the annual deficit during four consecutive years. The projections of the Minister of Finance as put out in the Budget Papers, are that the decline will continue over the next four to five years.
In dollar terms the deficit has been cut by one-fourth. But relative to the GDP, the Gross Domestic Product of this country, it has been cut in half in nearly a four-year period. By 1992-93, a few years from now, given our present plan of action, the deficit will have been cut to $19.5 billion. It will actually have been cut in half in dollar terms and by two-thirds relative to GDP. We have seen the prospect, as the Minister of Finance has told us, that during the later period of 1990s, if we can hold to this pattern, there is the possibility of not having an annual deficit. That would be something which I and my colleagues on this side of the House would certainly welcome.
We have been able to do this without harming economic growth. As I have already indicated, we have seen economic growth of over 3 per cent in 1987, projected to around 2.7 per cent in 1988-89, and in the year following that at 3 per cent. That is nice and steady, easy as she goes. That will mean increasing jobs, increasing economic activity during each of the next two years. The finance committee, on which I sat, heard some witnesses who were economists, and certainly some of those witnesses have borne out those projections.
Government spending has fallen from 25.7 per cent of GDP when we took office to 22.5 per cent in 1988-89 fiscal year. It will fall further in 1992-93 to 19.4 per cent. That means that as a percentage of our economy, government spending will be cut by more than one-quarter. We all know there is not always a lot of room. We know that we are committed in our transfer payments to provinces and individuals. There is not a lot of room to manoeuvre there. We have had to have very serious reviews of regular government spending programs, to make some changes, to make some reductions which Canadians have
asked us to do. As the Minister of Finance announced in the Budget, there will be a further $300 million reduction in government spending in the discretionary programs in the upcoming year.
That is a solid record over the past 3.5 years which shows that we have been able to bring spending under control and bring the deficit under control. We are certainly in good shape to meet the challenges of the 1990s.
I would like an opportunity to talk a little about my home province and some of the implications of this Budget and our economic proposals for British Columbia. Over the past few weeks I have often heard comments from the other side of the House that it is all very well, but this economic growth and prosperity is limited to a circle around southern Ontario or Metropolitan Toronto. If one listened to that, one would think that somehow British Columbia was in terrible shape. I am very pleased to reassure my colleagues. The Investment Dealers' Association in its recent report indicated that the stories of our demise have been grossly exaggerated. In fact, in the report there are some very exciting statistics. The association sees the growth rate in British Columbia being over 3 per cent for the coming year, which would be above the national average. In fact, if one looks at what has happened over the past year, one sees some very exciting changes.
The number of people employed will rise by 2.5 per cent. We already know that unemployment in British Columbia has declined, on the average throughout the province, from 15.1 per cent to 10.1 per cent, a drop of 5 percentage points. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District it has dropped even further, to about 9.3 per cent.
We see that mining exploration in British Columbia has risen. The Investment Dealers' Association estimates that 1987 will show a record level of $125 million.
Capital investment, which I mentioned before, continues to exceed the national average at 21 per cent in the past year or up to $6.2 billion. That compares with a national increase of 8 per cent. People are really seeing the opportunities and advantages available in the British Columbia economy, and they are making investments which the Government encourages and supports.
The association also indicated that the outlook for the rather depressed coal industry in British Columbia would improve, in anticipating an increase in steel production world-wide.
Sometimes people do not think of manufacturing in British Columbia, but manufacturing shipments have increased significantly in the last two years. They have increased three times faster than in the rest of Canada. It is estimated that shipments increased to $22.9 billion in 1987, up from $20.6 billion in 1986.
Perhaps these are facts of which many of my colleagues are not aware. They show the dynamism of the British Columbia
February 24, 1988

economy in which 140,000 jobs have been created in the last three and a half years, five times as many as were created when there was a Liberal Government. We have seen total unemployment fall by 60,000 since 1984, as opposed to an increase in unemployment of 120,000 during the terms of the last Liberal Government.
I think it is always interesting to bring some of the other indicators to the attention of the House. Retail sales or consumer sales-people buying things-have risen by 13 per cent in the past year. It is much more than the general rate of growth. In fact it has risen by 36 per cent since the last election.
Turning to housing starts, when we have housing starts we have a very vibrant demand for lumber products. In 1987 housing starts were up by 40 per cent compared with 1986, up by 64 per cent compared with 1985, and up by 92 per cent compared with 1984. This means that many more people have homes and new accommodations. There has been a lot of activity in the construction industry as well as in the purchasing of furniture and appliances which go along with housing starts.
I could go on and on, but I will deal with a final indicator. When I read the local newspapers. The Vancouver Sun or the Province, I look through the help wanted pages and often the ones associated with the business pages. I remember a few years ago pretty slim pickings. We always wonder what we are going to do when we retire from politics and keep an eye on those ads to see whether there are any good jobs out there. I did not see many over those years, but since September, 1984, help wanted advertising has been up by 90 per cent, compared with a 53 per cent drop during the Liberals' last mandate. There is a real job demand for people out in British Columbia. I just wanted to bring some of those matters to the attention of my colleagues.
Many things have occurred during the last three and a half years. I will not have the opportunity to talk about them all. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the free trade agreement. In my constituents' minds-and we have had a lot of discussion about it-it will be the key to future economic growth with its opportunities to export. The Government is encouraging them to take advantage of Asia-Pacific markets. The new programs, the increase in our offices in that area, and the Asia-Pacific initiative which we have been funding along with the province, all offer some very imaginative approaches.
We see some tremendously exciting things happening such as tax reform, bringing in a fairer and more equitable system, reducing taxes for eight out of ten households, and eliminating taxes for 850,000 low-income Canadians. That too is important.
Surprisingly enough, the opposition Parties opposed the international banking centre for Vancouver. There is a great deal of excitement about it. The Budget, as part of a plan of economic renewal, along with all other activities of the Government, will provide new opportunities for Canadians and
The Budget-Mrs. Collins
new security for Canadians. I am proud to award the gold medal for performance to my colleague, the Minister of Finance


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is quite right to be awarding the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the gold medal, particularly on his control of the deficit and his handling of the public debt. We see from the Budget Papers that the public debt, during his tenure, has increased by close to $100 billion. The public debt is now making up, according to his own papers, 51.8 per cent of the Gross National Product each year, as opposed to 44 per cent when he took over the job. He has in fact set new standards for public debt, standards which have not been exceeded since the years of the Second World War when we were trying to finance a war.
I wonder if that is what the Hon. Member had in mind when she was speaking in praise of the Minister's handling of the public debt, since he has carried public debt to the highest level the country has ever known, having contributed more than 30 per cent to the accumulated public debt in his brief three and a half years.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would be pleased to respond to that question and to explain once again that we are dealing with two issues-the annual deficit and the accumulated debt. First we had to get a handle on the annual deficit of $38 billion.
Perhaps my hon. colleague has some suggestions about how to reduce that to zero without having an adverse impact. Perhaps he was going to raise taxes. Perhaps he was going to totally eliminate social programs and transfer payments. Let us be realistic about it.
What the Government has done is to reverse that tide to bring down the annual deficit, to slow the rate of the growth of the debt.
Perhaps my hon. colleague would be interested to know that that net debt doubled from 1981-82 to 1984-85. Then, reflecting the smaller deficit, the growth in the public debt slowed appreciably. In fact, it will decline to 10 per cent in 1988-89, compared with an average of 24 per cent in the years coming up to 1984-85.
I am sure my hon. colleague has read the plans that have been put out. With the deficit as a percentage of GDP, reducing from 8.6 per cent in 1984-85 to 2.6 per cent in 199293, we will, over a period of time, also see the net public debt reducing as a percentage of GDP.
It will take some time because we cannot suddenly change the whole thing, but the direction is right and the policies are right and consistent with that.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is enthralled a bit by figures, but I would like to ask her what she is prepared

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Harris
to tolerate. I heard her say that she expects the growth in the economy to be "slow and steady as she goes". I also note that in 1987 the unemployment rate through the year in British Columbia was 12 per cent and that that, in fact, as in seven of the other provinces across the country, was equal or higher than the levels of unemployment that prevailed at the time of the 1981-83 recession. There has been some improvement since the average for 1987. Even if-and this is unlikely-the unemployment rate were to stay at 10 per cent, I find that an unacceptable level of unemployment for British Columbia, which is my native province, or any other province for that matter.
Is the Member saying that it is okay to go slow and steady, to have economic growth and more or less just enough to keep unemployment from rising? It is expected to rise from the December levels during the course of 1988, according to the Finance Minister's statement. I am really surprised that the Hon. Member should become so insensitive to the impact of unemployment on her native province of British Columbia that she would be prepared to say that it is okay to tolerate a continuing level of unemployment at the level of 10 or 12 per cent in the Province of B.C.
Perhaps I have misunderstood. I certainly did not find in her speech any indication that there is a commitment to bring unemployment in British Columbia to full employment levels of perhaps 4.5 per cent, nor did I hear from the Finance Minister that there is any commitment to a real policy of full employment that will not just cover Mississauga and downtown Toronto but will also cover the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia. Is the Member committed to full employment? If so, why is she prepared to tolerate a Budget that will keep unemployment at around 10 per cent in British Columbia from now until the 1990s?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my colleague. Perhaps he was not listening when I told him about the report which came out recently from the Investment Dealers' Association which indicates that employment will rise by 2.5 per cent over the next year. It is anticipated to be 1.3 million out of a total labour force of 1.5 million. It has been this Government's policies over the past three and a half years which have seen the reduction in unemployment in B.C. from 15.1 per cent down to 10.1 per cent. That is 5 percentage points based on the kinds of programs we have implemented and the kinds of tax policy we have had.
In addition, and I am sure my colleague is aware, I am sure he has been listening to what has been going on around this House, the Western Diversification Program will have $1.2 billion over the next five years. That is a special program to address the special needs of western Canada, including British Columbia. I have been involved in all sorts of very exciting and interesting proposals from the private sector which sector will look forward to taking opportunities whether through loans or different kinds of assistance and to creating jobs with that kind
of program which the Government put in place to redress some of the difficulties in the western provinces and B.C. I think the economy in B.C. has been performing well, but unemployment has not come down as much as it has in other parts of the country.
The Western Diversification Fund is in addition to the over $325 million in economic regional development programs which are for the provinces in forestry areas, small business, science and technology. In addition to the science, research and investment programs which the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) has introduced, there are all sorts of programs, including programs from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard).
I look at my own riding and the implications of the job strategy program which is for women who have been unemployed and out of the workforce, and through a relatively small expenditure we are giving them the skills and the confidence to get back into the workforce. I met a young woman the other day who had taken advantage of our program, the team program. She is a university graduate who had been out of work and she is now linked up with an employer with tremendous success through some of the initiatives under the job strategy that we have.
Then there is the introduction of the entrepreneurial program, which has been a particular advantage for British Columbia. We have certainly benefited from the new investment and jobs which that program has created. If you took every Minister across the front benches of this Government and the kinds of initiatives which they have introduced you would find that they have all worked to the advantage of ensuring economic performance for British Columbia and to jobs for British Columbians. It is the kind of record about which I am proud and which we will continue in the rest of this mandate.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, in preparing my remarks for this Budget debate, I asked myself what the people of St. John's East looked for in a Budget of the Government of Canada. My conclusion was that the people of my riding expect to see two things. First, they expect to see honesty. Second, they expect to see fairness.
When I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the House brag about the economic performance of the country since 1984, particularly in two areas, the area of interest rates and the area of jobs, I asked myself why he did not admit that both of these categories of economic performance are not to the credit of his Government but, in fact, are factors which resulted from the recession that we were as a country a part of as was all of North America. We came out of that recession coincidentally with the election of the Conservative Government in 1984. But the recovery had started before that. The cyclical nature of the economy is such as we all know, recessions occur, the economy bottoms out and things come back again. Small children in Newfoundland know that the seasons change, that the tide comes in and the tide goes out.
February 24, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what you always said.


Jack Harris: I will get to that in a minute. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is interested in what happened when the tide went out on the Liberal Government in Newfoundland. I hope he will listen carefully to the story I am about to tell.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will.


Jack Harris: We all know in Newfoundland that as the tide comes in and the tide goes out, one year is good for fish and the next year is bad. These things change. They are not changed by the Government, they are changed as a result of nature, and in the case of the economy they are the result of economic cycles.
The interest rates, for example, were very high in 1983-84, but they are lower now. We have heard many speakers, including the Minister of Finance, claim credit for that. They were also high in the United States and they are lower now. I suppose if the Minister of Finance and some Conservative back-benchers want to claim credit for that, they can claim credit for the low interest rates in the U.S. as well. Most Canadians know that these interest rates are part of a worldwide economic phenomenon and are not to the credit of this Government.
We hear about jobs, but again these jobs are claimed to have been created by the Government. 1 think most Canadians know that the Government did not create those jobs. We have seen the economy of central Canada in particular boom while most of the rest of Canada has not participated in the economic revival. When we look at the issue of fairness, Mr. Speaker, we also look at interest rates and jobs. We see the Governor of the Bank of Canada recognizing that interest rates in Canada are at a low rate but that there is now upward pressure. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says he will not decrease the rates because he is concerned about the economy in Ontario overheating. The people of Newfoundland and the people of the Atlantic region are suffering not from over-heating but from the cold wave which this Government has allowed to continue in Newfoundland's economy and in Newfoundland's unemployment rate.
When we look for fairness we also look at taxes and the phoney tax reform which the Government has introduced. When we look for fairness, we have to ask ourselves who benefits and who loses by these reforms. When we examine the details, we see that it is the poorer people, the people with families and the people earning minimum wages whose taxes are increasing and it is the wealthier Canadians who can afford to pay more taxes who are benefiting from this supposed tax reform.
When we look for fairness, we also look at how the Canadian economy spreads the wealth it has, the economic opportunities, employment and the share of the national income. Even
The Budget-Mr. Harris
the C. D. Howe Institute has recognized the unfairness of economic prosperity in Canada. It has said that unemployment rates in Ontario and Quebec in 1986 were near pre-recession levels in 1980, while elsewhere in the country they ranged from 40 per cent above 1980 levels in the Atlantic provinces to 150 per cent higher in Alberta.
When we look at economic progress, I think we have to leave out the recession. We should compare the current situation with the situation before the recession of 1980. Having gone through a recession and now back into a period of relative prosperity, the situation vis-a-vis central Canada and the Atlantic provinces and particularly Newfoundland is worse now than it was before the recession. That is what we mean when we talk about regional disparity. It is the difference between the situation in Newfoundland and the situation in central Canada. That difference is getting wider, it is not narrowing as we would have hoped and expected.
There is an increase in the disparity between the unemployment rate in Ontario and that of Newfoundland, not a decrease. That is a serious indictment of this Government's programs and policies.
We are not dealing just with statistics, these are real people who are suffering. In 1981, 26.9 per cent of unemployed Canadians were heads of family units. That number increased to 30 per cent in 1986, the last year for which we have figures. The unemployment rates and the disparity between the rest of Canada and Newfoundland are just statistics, but the reality is that the increasing numbers of unemployed are heads of family households.
We also know from Newfoundland statistics, from Statistics Canada and from the National Council of Welfare that the percentage of families living below the poverty line is in fact increasing. In Newfoundland in 1985, it was 20.7 and in 1986, it was 21.2.
The number of unattached individuals, those who are not members of families, whose incomes are below the poverty line, has increased from 45 per cent in 1985 to 49 per cent in
1986.	We look at those indicators and ask ourselves if we are making progress or if we are going backward. The unalterable conclusion is that we are going backward. The disparity is increasing, the level of poverty is increasing and the percentage of people who are forced to live in unacceptable circumstances is increasing and not decreasing.
What kind of fairness is there when we look at what has happened in Newfoundland since Confederation in 1949? At the time of Confederation, in 1949, the earned income of Newfoundlanders as a percentage of the Canadian national average was 48.8 per cent. Earned income per capita is a valuable indicator of the comparable wealth and earning capacity of the people in an economy. That gap has narrowed slightly. In November of 1987, the per capita earned income of Newfoundlanders was 55 per cent of the national average. In the 38 years of Confederation, the disparity has been narrowed

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Harris
by 6.7 per cent. However, let me tell Hon. Members when that happened. That did not happen over the whole of the 38 years.
The Minister of Transport might be surprised to learn that that gap was narrowed between 1949 and 1971 when the tide went out on Mr. Smallwood's Government and the tide came in on the Government of which the Minister of Transport was then a part, having also been a part of the tide that went out a couple of years earlier. The narrowing of the gap had all occurred by 1971.
What has happened since then? The figure has not changed. It is now exactly the same, give or take .2 per cent, as it was back in 1971. For 15 or 16 years, Newfoundland's position has not improved. These were years of a Conservative Government in Newfoundland and, for the most part, a Liberal Government in Ottawa. If we are to use that as a measure of our progress, if we have progressed by reducing the disparity by 6.7 per cent in 38 years, how long will it take Newfoundland to reach the national average of earned income per capita? It will take a further 288 years. That is the measure of the progress we have had in the last 38 years. In fact, from 1971 to 1988, we have had no progress, none at all.
It is not surprising, having heard those figures, that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in its August report called regional disparity in Canada notable for its starkness in 1986. This is the same report that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was bragging about in the House in late August and September. He did not emphasize that point. It came upon the Opposition to remind the Prime Minister that his Government had failed in that area.
Neither is it surprising, having heard these figures about the situation of Newfoundland, that the Economic Council of Canada would call regional disparity and the unevenness of growth in the regions of Canada the most serious economic problem the country faces. What has been the response of the Government?
Considering the magnitude of the total problem and the size of the Government's expenditures, the Government has in a miserly way provided $200 million for four provinces, and I have to put it that way because we cannot really divide it up. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will provide $200 million per year over five years. I worry about what will happen to Newfoundland in those five years.
1 think it is possible that the Minister of Transport must have been asleep during the first six months of ACOA's operation. The Province of Newfoundland obtained from the programs that were being looked after by that agency in that six-month period a total of $6 million. Yet New Brunswick received in excess of $20 million, and Nova Scotia in excess of $45 million, and Prince Edward Island received $4.2 million. Not that we in Newfoundland begrudge the people of New Brunswick their industries or enterprises, that amount of money. We are very pleased to see that they will receive that kind of money. We realize they need that kind of development. However, the agency which is supposed to ensure fairness does
not follow that principle among the four provinces where it carries out its programs.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is welcomed, indeed supported by this Party, as the Minister of Transport well knows.


John Carnell Crosbie: So you are going to vote against it.


Jack Harris: It was supported by this Party at second reading, although we have some serious concerns about its make-up.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why did your Member, Mr. Orlikow, say you are going to vote against it?


Jack Harris: Mr. Orlikow speaks for himself.


John Carnell Crosbie: Exactly. You all speak for yourselves.


Jack Harris: We supported the legislation at second reading and we support the agency because it provides a new opportunity for regional development. Yet we have serious concerns about the Government's commitment as demonstrated by an amount of only $200 million for a problem of a very serious nature.


John Carnell Crosbie: Only? That is a doubling. Where would you get the money? Your colleague was just complaining about the interest cost on the national debt. Where would you get the money?


Jack Harris: We see the Government giving very scant attention to the most serious economic problem facing this country. The Government has a little nest-egg in its Estimates of $2.5 billion. There is some money that the Minister might ensure goes to regional development in Atlantic Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Jack Harris: I hope he does. Everyone knows we need it. Where will we get the money? The Minister acknowledges that the money is there. We have to make sure that it goes where it is needed, and that is into regional development for Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland.
In summing up the situation with respect to this Budget, we see first an acknowledgement by social agencies, critics, writers and analysts across the country that this Budget does not provide fairness through tax reform. For example, as the Canadian Council on Social Development said, families with children have lost out as a result of the Government's policies. Starting with the 1985 Budget and continuing through the so-called tax reform proposals, families with children have lost ground compared to other Canadian households. This is the effect of partially deindexing family benefit programs, tax credits, and the tax reform measures.
February 24, 1988

Persons making the minimum wage will have their taxes increased by 25 per cent in the period 1984 to 1990. That is a 25 per cent increase in taxes for people who live on a minimum wage. That is the kind of policy the Government has pursued. That is not fair to the average Canadian. The only ones who really benefit from tax reform are the wealthiest Canadians, those who earn over $100,000 a year.
It is not fair to Canadian families, it is not fair to the regions of Canada, particularly Newfoundland, to have to endure a disparity which has not got better since 1971. It is during times of prosperity that we look to the Government to introduce these programs. Do not wait until we are back into a recession and say we cannot afford it. It is now, when there is a sense of prosperity across the nation, that we look to the Government to say that now is the time to spend the necessary money to ensure that regional disparity is reduced or eliminated.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions. The hon. gentleman neglected to mention in his remarks this afternoon the efforts the Government is making to help overcome regional disparity. He neglected to mention that on Monday a new federal-provincial agreement was entered into with Newfoundland, signed by myself, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon), the Premier of the province and the provincial Minister of Fisheries. That agreement deals with the inshore fishery and contributes $60 million to the well-being of the roughly 30,000 inshore fishermen of Newfoundland. There has never been a similar agreement signed to assist the inshore fishermen.


Ms. Mitchell:: What is the question?


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a prologue to my question. That money is all new spending, contrary to the bleatings and blitherings and, might I say, false statements of the NDP in Newfoundland.
The hon. gentleman might tell me why it is that the leader of his Party in Newfoundland, Mr. Peter Fenwick, consistently misinforms the public? He tells what can only be described as falsehoods and makes false statements such as the one quoted in the evening Telegram of February 24 where it said that about two-thirds of the funding in the five-year agreement was old money for the continuation of existing programs. That is a completely false statement. Every cent in the agreement is new money which will be spent in the year starting April 1, 1988. Why would the leader of his Party in that province make such a completely false statement and try to fool the people into thinking that this is a repetition of money already spent on existing programs?
I want the hon. gentleman to answer another point. How can he complain about a lack of attention to regional development in the Atlantic provinces when we have increased spending in the Estimates for ACOA? Why does his Party support the legislation with such faint praise? In fact, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said his Party was going to vote against the legislation. As a matter of fact, the NDP did
The Budget-Mr. Harris
vote against spending on regional development earlier in this session. Why did the hon. gentleman not acknowledge the fact that ACOA will be spending $306 million, I believe? I do not have the figures right before me. Some $200 million of that is new money for new programs and $106 million is going to be spent on programs which were earlier administered by DREE. Even with respect to those DREE programs, spending in Atlantic Canada this year is going up from $196 million to $228 million when you take into account the ACOA programs which they have taken over and those still left with DREE.
Why did the hon. gentleman not mention and congratulate the Government on the increases in regional development spending in Newfoundland? When we came into power in 1984-85, spending under those programs had gone down or diminished to something in the order of $42 million a year or less. Our spending this year is between $66 million and $70 million, which is an appreciable increase, and totally ignores the money that has been spent under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Why did the Hon. Member fail to mention a number of new expenditures in Newfoundland, including the just completed flume tank? That is not a fume tank like the fume we hear from the Opposition, but a flume tank. As a matter of fact, on Monday the Premier of the province and I jointly started the operation of the flume tank at the marine institute, $8.5 million expenditure to make the marine institute one of the leading educational institutions-


David Orlikow: On a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman is rising to apologize for attacking the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, is it permissible under our rules for the 10-minute period for questions and comments to be taken up by one Member? Surely the Minister can enter the debate and make his own speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no doubt that the Minister has a lot to say. I would ask him to conclude so that we can give a chance for the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) to reply.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I accept that as a fair point. I thought the hon. gentleman was going to get up and withdraw his opposition to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which, as I understand it, he said in debate his Party would vote against. Perhaps he is ready to make a confession that he was wrong.
Let me conclude by asking my colleague to acknowledge that there has been a great increase in the attention paid to Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador in the last

February 24, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Minaker
three years. Give us some credit. I would appreciate his help in getting the Government to do even more.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport has demonstrated why many people in Canada wonder whether they always hear the whole truth from the Government.
The Minister talked about the $60 million deal signed in Newfoundland on Monday. He did not tell us that $42 million comes from Ottawa and $18 million from Newfoundland.
We heard about the $1.05 billion for ACOA, 1.05 billion times. We will probably hear it another 1.05 billion times. What we need is some progress.
We all acknowledge that the previous Government ignored Newfoundland, and that expenditures for regional development in Newfoundland decreased rather than increased over the years. We acknowledge that the Government may have replaced some of that. We know that the Minister likes to make announcements in Newfoundland, and sometimes makes each announcement several times.
I am concerned about making progress with the economic indicators for Newfoundland as compared to the rest of Canada. Again we must question the integrity of the Minister's statements when he says that we voted against moneys for regional development. He did not say that this was a $3 billion expenditure which included $650,000 in legal bills for the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who was cited with 14 counts of conflict of interest. I suppose he would suggest that we voted against Estimates for old age pensions and therefore are opposed to old age pensions. It is comments like that by the Minister and other members of his Government which Canadians have come to expect, disregard and abhor.
The real problem with the Government is that it does not tell Canadians the real truth about what is happening in Canada. The Government announces a million dollars here or $10 million there but does not talk about the lack of progress in reducing regional disparity.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of short and succinct questions. The leader of the Hon. Member's Party in Newfoundland, Peter Fenwick, continually misrepresents the free trade agreement and makes the most silly statements about it. The free trade agreement will be a tremendous benefit to Newfoundland.
Why does his leader in Newfoundland think that he can get away with stating that two thirds of the $60 million funding in the five-year fishery agreement is old money, and not new money that will be spent on new marine service centres, fishery facilities, improvement of fishermen's boats and their gear, aquaculture, and a series of other programs that will be carried out over the next five years?
Why does he allow his leader of the provincial Party in Newfoundland make statements that are not only silly but
completely false? The correct figure is $60 million, $42 million federal and $18 million provincial. Will he correct the record with respect to his provincial leader's statement that: "About two-thirds of it seems to be scraping up moneys that have already been in existence and just sticking them in a big pile to try to impress us"? What kind of a rational criticism of this program is that statement?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as the Minister of Transport has been with his question.
I may be able to enlighten the Minister slightly with respect to the comment to which he refers. I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland was trying to inform the people of Newfoundland that the money that was announced on Monday does not represent any increase from the level of spending that was taking place before. For example, in the last several years the level of expenditure which has been made in Newfoundland to upgrade fish marine centres and upgrade boats was not substantially increased. That is the point the leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland was making. The announcement made by the Minister, the Premier of Newfoundland and others who gathered to sign the agreement on Monday was a little bit of smoke and mirrors in suggesting that this was $60 million that had never been spent before. It was implied that this was new money over and above what the province had expected to receive or had spent in the last several years.
Again, we are dealing with the Government making a $60 million announcement. The Minister finally admitted that only $42 million of it comes from his Government. We are making some progress with the Hon. Minister, but we must recognize that the leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland is informing people about the real impact of this $60 million. It is that much of that spending had been taking place for years anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to take part in this debate, as short as it may be due to the vote to take place in five or ten minutes.
I think it is important to point out that we have a formula that is working. As a professional engineer, I know that when one has a formula or design which is beating the opposition and, in this case, leading the free industrial world in economic growth, one does not change the plan. You may fine tune it, but you do not change it radically as the Opposition would like to do.
I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his objective, which he stated on March 10, 1984, when he was Leader of the Official Opposition. He said at that time: "We
February 24, 1988

are going to create a new economic environment in Canada by making it clear to everybody that it is the private sector, not the state, that is the driving force of the economy". I say to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) that that is exactly our formula. It is to create an entrepreneurial spirit so that people will want to invest money in our country and, by so doing, create jobs.
How did we do that? We did it with the reform of the regulatory system and the tax system, by securing and enhancing access to world markets for Canadian goods and services in the United States and other parts of the world and by controlling the Government's deficit. These four major policies which we have implemented since September, 1984 have worked and have worked very well.
I want to say again to the Hon. Member for St. John's East that governments do not create jobs. Private enterprise creates jobs and it takes the credit. However, the Government does create an atmosphere and a stability so that people will want to invest in our country, and that is exactly what is happening. There have been 1,150,000 new jobs created since we took office in 1984. We lead all other countries in the world in our percentage of economic growth and reduction of unemployment. These are the facts. The formula is working. We are leading the rest of the world.
I would like to comment on what the alternatives might be if this formula were not used. What would the Opposition do? We know what the Liberal Party did when it was in power. It left our country literally bankrupt. There was record unemployment and record highs in interest rates. Why would anyone in his right mind think the Liberals, if they were ever to come back in power, would change? What would the socialist New Democratic Party do? It does not even look at private enterprise for economic growth. It likes to develop state-owned items.
The Opposition attacks us on regional development. I would like to to know what a Liberal-NDP coalition Government would do with the National Energy Program? Would they bring it back and ruin western Canada again? We know where they stand on free trade. They would rip the agreement up. Canadians recognize that three million jobs in Canada are directly or indirectly related to export of goods and services to the United States, yet the Opposition would ignore a free trade agreement which would secure and expand that access, creating new jobs.
What would the Opposition do about defence? We have the Air Command Centre in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. It is an integral part of the economy of our area. What would happen if the New Democratic Party as a government pulled out of NORAD or NATO? The budget which is controlled by the Air Command Centre in my riding is $507 million. It has control of the operation of 22,000 military personnel, a total of some 30,000 when one counts the civilian personnel. Obviously, not all of these people are located in my riding, but one can readily see the impact that defence has in western Canada and
The Budget-Mr. Minaker
in other regions of our country. The New Democratic Party has the idea that it is cheaper for us to be against NATO and on our own. In other words, we would control the northern warning system on our own. I believe the United States at the present time budgets something like $3 billion a year towards this system and the NDP would have us pick that bill up. What would the Opposition do if there was an attack on our country? Would they not allow the Americans to fly over our country in order to protect us? The NDP policy of withdrawing from NATO and NORAD is nonsense.
These are the types of things that the people of Canada will be looking at at the time of the next election. In my opinion as a member of the committee on finance for the last three and a half years, the policies of the Opposition would be disastrous for the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please! It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 84(7), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment before the House.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke-Centre), seconded by Mr. Lewis, moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Garneau, seconded by Miss Nicholson (Trinity), moved the following amendment:
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 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."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being 6.13 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers