1988-03-24

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, two copies of the Annual Report of the Canadian International Development Agency for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3867, 332-3918 and 332-4114.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
The report deals with the proposed multistage sales tax that was set out in the White Paper on tax reform. The committee has done a great deal of work on this tax reform paper, including its visit to New Zealand and its fifteenth report.
At this stage, the committee feels that until the Government has completed its negotiations with the provinces for a national sales tax, it would not be appropriate to continue working on the White Paper. The committee states that the Government must give a very high priority to this negotiation for a national sales tax. The consultations that affect parties and the operational detail of that multistage sales tax is urgent in the commercial affairs of the country.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the fifty-seventh report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on the appointment by Order in Council of Mr. William H. Neville and Mr. Michel Doyon as administrators of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The Committee considers that the appointees have the requisite qualifications and skills to perform the duties of their position.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today which has been signed by numerous residents of the Hamilton-Wentworth region. The petitioners wish to point out to the House that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada affecting approximately 1 per cent of the population. The petitioners believe that a method of prevention and a cure can be found, but only through larger research efforts.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts relating to schizophrenia will, in

March 24, 1988
Order Paper Questions
the future, be commensurate with the seriousness of the illness in Canada.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from a number of residents of Alberta who are concerned that Bill C-72 will set a dangerous precedent by banning unilingual Anglophones and other cultures.
They call upon Parliament to cancel Bill C-72 so that unilingual people have a chance for a position in government.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petition was signed by a number of Montreal residents who would like the Government and, more specifically, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), to consider with the requisite fairness, understanding and dispatch the lot of 2,000 Turkish men, women and children living under the threat of deportation by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard).


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, once again from a number of citizens who are concerned about the increase in incidents of crime associated with knives in all major cities across Canada, including murder, robbery, and sexual assault.
They call upon the federal Government and Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places.
Exemptions from this ban would only include those who use knives as part of their legitimate work or when they are carried for religious purposes.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from what must be just about every living soul in the communities of Elgin and Mapleton in my constituency of Fundy-Royal.
They implore the House to restore dignity and honour to the country by bringing forth legislation very quickly so that the rights of the unborn can be protected.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions relative to the Government's signing of a trade deal with the United States.
The petitioners feel that the trade agreement negates the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty, that it would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, that it would undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States, and that it would threaten hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament dissolve and that the people of Canada have the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), since today is the final allotted day the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of supply Bills.
In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the supply Bills be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-EFFECT OF INCREASED TAXES Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond) moved:
That this House condemns the Government for imposing increased taxes, both directly and indirectly, against Canadian consumers and for its abject failure to protect the best interests of Canadian consumers, as evident in, among other things:
1.	the high cost of prescription drugs;
2.	the inadequacies of postal services;
3.	the high cost of gasoline;
4.	the upward spiral of personal taxes;
5.	the increase in inspector fees in the agricultural sector;﻿March 24, 1988
[Stage Direction]
6.	the imposition of user fees for Atlantic fishermen;
7.	the Government's acquiescence to sky-rocketing bank charges;
8.	the failure of the Government to protect 67,000 investors affected by
the Principal Group collapse; and
9.	the unnecessarily high interest rate policy of the Government.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-*
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would just like to point out to the House that the form of the motion is very much like an omnibus Bill. It may make for an interesting debate, but we can anticipate similar kinds of Bills in the future from the Government, particularly related to free trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is a point of order-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -and I do not think the Hon. Member will have a point of order.
I think it will be debatable and that we can look forward to a very exciting debate today.


Mr. Dingwall:: Canadian consumers have a tradition of being fair-minded individuals who, on numerous occasions, have been prepared to make sacrifices in view of the public interest. However, they have demonstrated that they do not like unfairness. They do not appreciate unfairness, and they certainly do not appreciate when a national Government purposely sets out to be unfair to them and to their interests.
We have seen that, as a result of the high cost of prescription drugs. We have seen the inadequacies of the postal services. By the end of 1988, between 350,000 and 400,000 Canadians will be without door-to-door mail delivery, having to make do with the so-called supermailboxes. According to current new housing projections, by 1990 the figure will rise to well over 500,000. Also there is the high cost of gasoline, which has risen roughly 23 cents per gallon since the present administration assumed office in 1984.
We also see an unprecedented proliferation of personal taxes on individuals across the board, so much so that they are in excess of some $22 billion.
Of course we have seen the increase in inspector fees in the agricultural sector as it affects people in Prince Edward Island, particularly those in the potato industry. The past four years have been particularly tough for P.E.I. potato farmers. Markets and prices have been better this year, but they are still recovering from their earlier problems.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was especially insensitive when he decided to increase inspection fees on P.E.I. potatoes bound for other provinces and beyond. In fact, inspection fees have risen from 3 cents per hundredweight in 1987 to 6 cents this year, and by 1990 the fee will be 15 cents per hundredweight.
Supply
We have also seen the imposition of user fees for Atlantic fishermen. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has started to charge even higher fees in some instances for the use of wharf space and facilities. For inshore fishermen who have not caught much fish, these additional charges become what is best known as an enormous burden.
The Government's apparent acquiescence to sky-rocketing bank charges is another example of unfairness being delivered to the Canadian consumer. The Government has failed to take appropriate action with regard to the collapse of the Principal Group. The 67,000 Canadians who invested in these particular companies have not received any assistance from the Government of Canada. Of course, the unnecessary high interest rate policy of the Government of Canada at the present time affects many Canadians and many consumers across the board.
I have outlined a number of major concerns for Canadian consumers, many of which will be touched upon today by myself and by other Members of the House. I would hope that we would give some consideration in a very sincere way to the plight of Canadian consumers, particularly those who were given assurances some time ago by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), and I say this with great sincerity, who has now acquired the name given to him by most individuals of the Minister responsible for the corporate sector. He is no longer the champion of the cause of Canadian consumers. What better evidence do we have than the plight of Canadian consumers and their outrage at the increased cost of prescription drugs?
It was said on numerous occasions in this House when the Bill was being debated in committees of the House as well as of the Upper Chamber, that with the passage of this Bill would come the additional high cost of prescription drugs. The Minister, in his wisdom, on September 6, 1986, -this is the Minister responsible for Canadian consumers-said:
There is absolutely nothing in this Bill that will cause drug prices to go up by a penny.
That was the Minister speaking on September 6, 1986. But the evidence is quite the contrary. The Globe and Mail had something to say. I will quote from the article so that Members will have an opportunity to refer to it later in the debate: It reads:
The prices of more than a thousand pharmaceutical drugs have risen faster than the Consumer Price Index in the past six months. Many of these are brand-name drugs whose manufacturers have given assurances that increases will not exceed the CPI.
Lawrence Archer, a spokesman for the Ontario Health Ministry, said yesterday that 1,099 drugs are more than 5 per cent costlier on this month's price list than they were last July, while the CPI rose by 4.4 per cent. This number makes up almost half the total provincial formulary.
In a few cases drug prices rose by 100 per cent and in one case the increase was 250 per cent, Mr. Archer said. He would not release the name of the drugs in question ...
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada which represents the large multinational drug companies, pledged that drug price increases

March 24, 1988
Supply
would not outstrip increases in the CPI when it lobbied successfully last fall for
increased patent protection for brand name drugs...
Let us look not only at what the Ontario Ministry of Health has said about the high cost of prescription drugs since the passage of Bill C-22, but let us look at a study of five companies which belong to the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. I should say at the outset that of the five, Merck Frosst, one company in Canada, which seems rather convincing from my perspective, had reduced the cost of its prescription drugs. This was a study done in the period from January, 1987 to January, 1988. Its prices are based on the manufacturers' published price list. Out of the five, I say to the Minister opposite, one company reduced its prices. The others, however, have had substantial increases. Smith/Kline Company produces Dyazide tablets and the price has gone from $ 14.23 to $15.65, a 9.9 per cent increase. The cost for 100 tablets of Dyrenium has increased 16.6 per cent. For two milligram tablets of Stelazine there is a 17.5 per cent increase. For 200 mg. tablets of Tagamet the cost is up by 10.02 per cent. Those are Smith/Kline products.
Then we come to Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Canada) Inc. Again, from January, 1987 to January, 1988, for 500 milligrams of Alertonic, the price has risen from $14.25 to $17.25, an increase of not 2 per cent, not 3 per cent but 21 per cent to the Canadian consumer. Then for 100 tablets of Bentylol Dospan the price has gone up from $19.55 to $25.20, an increase of 28.9 per cent. So much for the commitment of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. So much for the words in September, 1986 that drug prices would not increase in Canada. With the same company in the same time frame, for 50 Clomid tablets the price has risen from $165 to $211.15, an increase of 27.97 per cent. For 12 mg. Tace capsules, the price has gone up from $24.40 to $36.60 for a mere increase of 50 per cent. That is utterly shameful.
Another company which had its drug prices reviewed was Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., in the same time frame as the other companies. We have a drug here called Innovar and its price has risen from $119.10 to $145.40 for an increase of 22.08 per cent.
What about Sandoz Canada Inc.? For eight tablets of Ancasal the cost was $4.70 cents. It is now up to $6.38 for an increase-this is the fairness for Canadian consumers who were not going to pay one more cent as a result of the passage of Bill C-22-of 35.7 per cent.
I think that is clear and unequivocal evidence that Canadian consumers have been given a snow job by the Canadian Government. The Canadian Government, being apprised of these facts, is sitting back and doing absolutely nothing.
The Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations says that from March, 1984 to February, 1985 prescription drugs which it handled have increased by 17.5 per cent. From March, 1985 to February, 1986 there is a 13.6 per cent increase. It is just not evidence that the Opposition is taking into the House of Commons. This is information prepared by
Canadians who are directly involved in that particular sector of our economy. I find it to be rather appalling that the Minister has chosen to do absolutely nothing.
In the Upper House, a Bill has been introduced in order to try to give some teeth to what is known as an imperfect, if you will, but at best, a prices review board. The Minister wrongly blames the Opposition for delaying the passage of Bill C-22 and thereby the establishment of the Drug Prices Review Board provided for in the legislation, he says, to control drug prices. Bill C-22 increased patent protection which was given to brand name manufacturers retroactively to June 27, 1986. You would think that that retroactivity would apply to the Drug Prices Review Board which would or may review the price of a drug. The answer is that it does not apply to the Drug Prices Review Board.
My colleagues in the Upper Chamber are attempting to make amendments that would perfect a piece of legislation which has a very strong effect on Canadian consumers. There we have the unfairness which was predicted by opposition Parties, by the United Church, by the Royal Canadian Legion, by consumer groups and by senior citizens across Canada.
The collapse of the Principal Group of companies and the
67,000	investors who have lost in many instances their life savings is but another example of the Canadian Government's refusing to accept responsibility or refusing to become involved in what is none other than a national disgrace. I do not have to remind you, Sir, as a very able representative from the Province of Alberta, how these investors feel at this time. However, the response of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been: "Well, it's not my problem. I didn't do it, the devil did it. Don't come to me, I'm not responsible. I don't want to be involved. That is a provincial matter".
I say to the Minister that that is a cop-out. The Minister knows that only too well. In his hands, he has a report from the CDIC, but he says, and I applaud him for this, that he cannot publish the report of the CDIC because that would breach confidentiality and, as a Minister of the Crown, he could not do that. I understand that argument. I do, and I have said that to the Minister. He does not wish to acknowledge that, but I have.
I have also said to the Minister that the interest of the public carries more weight than the confidentiality of a particular company or companies, because there are 67,000 Canadians who have lost their life savings. The paramount action the Minister ought to take is to make that report public so that Canadians may see what information the CDIC had and what it did with that information. That would send a signal to the financial community that the Government of Canada will not tolerate those companies, which may be in a minority but which cause Canadians to question both the ethics and the integrity of many financial institutions.
March 24, 1988

The Minister will rise and do a step-dance, the twist, the limbo and all sorts of dances to try to put it on the Alberta Government. He will try to put it on the need for new federal regulations, etc., etc., but the fact is that the Minister and the Government had an opportunity, and still have an opportunity, to help Canadian consumers who were affected by the collapse of the Principal Group.
As recently as yesterday, we heard of the taxes that Revenue Canada is forcing these Canadian consumers to pay. I am happy to read in the paper that the Minister will be making a decision on that within a very short period of time.
The litany of things that the Government has done to Canadian consumers goes on and on. I know that there are some in this House who are intimately concerned and have voiced their concerns over bank charges. I do not want to say anything about the snarky letter I received from the Royal Bank of Canada on March 22, 1988. I do not want to talk about the contents of that letter in which the author admits that there are bank charges and that there is a charge of $85 for the signing of mortgage renewal documents. The Government seems, by its conduct and its lack of action, to acquiesce to sky-rocketing bank charges.
If the Minister does not think that this is such a serious issue, let me tell him about a letter from the Royal Bank of Canada dated December 14, 1987, addressed to an individual and signed by a manager of the Royal Bank of Canada. The manager says in the letter that effective November 1, 1987, the bank began levying a charge for providing information via the telephone to its clients. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the Royal Bank, as of January 1, 1988, is charging Canadians for information on their accounts that they may seek by telephone? It is charging $5 a pop.
Of course, the Minister sits back in his Gucci office, wonderful surroundings, and says: "Oh, well, let the consumers have it". There is the fairness that Canadian consumers are getting from the Government.
What about the tax increases that have affected Canadian consumers from coast to coast? There has been an unprecedented number of new taxes imposed on Canadian consumers.
I	think it is worth mentioning, for the benefit of Hon. Members, that sales taxes went from 9 per cent to 10 per cent on October 1, 1984. They were upped again from 10 per cent to
II	per cent on January 1, 1986. Again they were upped on April 1, 1986, from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. Sales taxes have gone up from 9 per cent to 12 per cent.
What has this great Government which has so much concern for Canadian consumers, done? It has extended the sales tax to candy, soft drinks, fast foods and snacks. It has increased from 8 per cent to 12 per cent the tax on paint and wallpaper, and the Tory tax has even taken a new twist. The Tories have now gone after toys for kids.
Supply
The Minister laughs. I know that you are not laughing, Mr. Speaker, because you know that the unfairness of these measures will be brought to bear in the next federal election.
I have already mentioned the increases in gasoline taxes, that of 23 cents per gallon over the last four years. The taxes go on and on. I know that there are many more Hon. Members in the House who will want to participate in this debate, so I will sum up.
It has been clear, since September of 1984, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has devoted his time and his energy to promoting and enhancing the corporate interests of Canada to the detriment of Canadian consumers. We have seen it with prescription drugs, with bank charges, with inspectors' fees, with wharfage fees for Atlantic fishermen, with unprecedented tax increases, and with the lack of concern for the 67,000 investors affected by the collapse of the Principal Group of companies. That is a summary of my argument, and I would hope that the Government would assume its responsibilities for consumers as it has assumed its responsibilities for protecting and enhancing corporate interests. It is high time the consumers got a fair shake.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Hon. Member a question about the apples and oranges comparison he was making on drug prices at the beginning of his speech. The 1987 prices were compared to the 1988 prices. Would the Hon. Member tell me if he was comparing the manufacturers' level of 1987 with the retail level of 1988? If he was, he was misleading the House by saying that there has been an increase, because the increases would be calculated on a different basis.
Second, would the Hon. Member confirm that the report he is quoting containing these misleading indicators was commissioned by Senator Haidasz, a Liberal Member of the Senate? Could he confirm too that the 1987 prices he quoted contained no federal sales taxes but that he quoted a 1988 price which included sales tax?
Finally, a number of the drugs he mentioned are now off patent, and the generic companies could copy them if they wanted to. That point, of course, was made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) a few days ago. Can he confirm that he heard that from the Minister?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there were several questions there. To alleviate the fear and ooziness in the Minister's mind, I would be happy to show him a copy of the report I referred to. The report deals with pricing from January, 1987, to January, 1988. The prices are based on the manufacturers' published price list. Yes, the report was prepared with respect to the impact of the proclamation of Bill C-22 on drug prices. It was prepared for Senator Stanley Haidasz by two pharmacists. As soon as I give it to the Hansard people the Minister will have an opportunity to read it at his leisure.

March 24, 1988
Supply
With respect to the high cost of prescription drugs, I want to remind the Minister that we said very clearly in committee and in this House that drug prices would increase, not only brand-name drugs but generic drugs. The reason is, and the Minister ought to focus on this, that the brand-name companies would have a period of exclusivity for upwards of 10 years. The only way the generic companies could maintain their viability in the short term was either to lay off people or to increase their prices. We do not agree with it but that is what is happening. It is happening not only to generic drugs but to brand-name drugs as well. We told the Government, and witnesses told the Government, that that is what would happen if it tried to move from the old system to one involving exclusivity for the brand-name companies.
The Minister also referred to certain comments that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made in the House. Yes, I am well aware of those comments. I am also well aware of the undertakings that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs gave to the committee, to Parliament, the committee in the other place, and Canadians generally that prescription drug prices would not increase one red cent. That was his September 6, 1986 statement.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention and that of the Hon. Member that the motion speaks to the abject failure of the Government to protect the best interests of Canadian consumers because of its unnecessarily high interest rate policy, among other things. Over the last few weeks I have been pressing the Government to bring interest rates down from the current bank rate of 8.5 per cent or so and mortgage rates of 10.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent. I believe they are unnecessarily high. However, I have a recollection that under the Liberal Government, of which the Hon. Member was a supporter, interest rates went up to 20 per cent and to 22 per cent, and mortgage rates hit 19 per cent or 20 per cent.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he agrees that interest rates are unnecessarily high at just over 8 per cent for T-bills and 10.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent for mortgages. If so, why did he not speak out in the early 1980s at the time his Government arbitrarily imposed a tight money policy and applied monetarism with the utmost rigour to the point at which farmers, small businesses and consumers were forced to the wall? People across the country lost their homes because they could not afford the high interest rates. Where was the Hon. Member then and why was he not speaking out in order to bring those interest rates down?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to be able to respond to a question from the NDP.


Mr. Blaikie:: Be nice, Dave.


David Charles Dingwall: They are the ones who-


John Kenneth Gormley: Ask Howard Pawley.


David Charles Dingwall: Precisely. I guess you could ask Howard Pawley a number of questions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Give us your answer.


David Charles Dingwall: I will respond to the Hon. Member. There is no question that interest rates now as well as at the time he referred to are and were unnecessarily high. The Hon. Member may have been here, and if he was not, he may not be aware of the fact that at that time we had a world-wide recession.


Mr. Nickerson:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. Members may wish to try and poke holes in that, but the fact remains. We saw it in the energy sector and we saw it in interest rate policies not only in Canada but in the U.S. The Government is now preaching that we are in a position of economic strength. Yet we see the spreading to Canada of the unnecessarily high interest rate policy in the U.S.
The Hon. Member may be trying to take credit for things he may or may not have brought up on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not recall if he did, although I accept his word. Hopefully he will accept my word that my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides also raised that point on the floor of the House of Commons. The Hon. Member ought not to-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not when the Liberals were in power.


David Charles Dingwall: He was not a Member then. The Hon. Member ought not to speak with a forked tongue.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his brilliant and most remarkable speech, especially the part about drugs, since as he said so aptly, at the time the legislation was considered in the House, everyone expected some very substantial increases. He made it clear that not only did this happen, but it happened faster, and more ruthlessly.
I have another example. I received a telephone call this morning in my riding office, about a woman who is planning to adopt a young Mexican boy. Immigration Canada says it will charge her $185 to open a file. There is a whole series of similar charges which, added to the ruthless measures I mentioned earlier, will put an incredibly heavy tax burden on consumers generally.
The Government's reaction seems to be: Don't worry. We are going to solve all our problems with free trade which will provide the framework for substantial improvements at the consumer level.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is: Does he feel that free trade will eventually bring about improvements for the Canadian consumer?
March 24, 1988


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised a number of important issues. In many instances the cost of prescription drugs is borne by provincial Governments. That is why, if you check the record, you will find that numerous provinces, although not all, have objected to the thrust of Bill C-22. Clearly, in their mind and in the minds of others the Bill caused an unnecessarily large increase in the cost of drugs. They will have to deal with that either through new taxes or through cutting back on health services.
I have often, in committee and in this House, given Nova Scotia as an example of the problem. That small province may have to pay upwards of $25 million in excess costs because of Bill C-22. The province will have to go after the taxpayers in some form to recoup that money.
With regard to the free trade agreement and how that will affect Canadian consumers, I think we have seen evidence of that already. If we have to be on a level playing field with our friends to the south, we will have to pay more in some areas. There is, though, a historical argument that free trade and the lessening of tariffs will provide benefits to Canadian consumers.


Thomas Hockin: Yes.


David Charles Dingwall: Does that mean, however, that we are going to lose jobs as a result of this? The answer is very clearly yes. Therefore, the effect on the Canadian economy is negative.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. This debate is about the interest of Canadian consumers. The resolution is a bit of a mishmash and it is difficult to know what the focus of the Hon. Member's motion is. George Bernard Shaw once apologized to someone to whom he was writing a letter saying that he was sorry that he did not have time to write a brief letter and would, therefore, write a long letter.
This is a lengthy motion which shows a lack of focus and clarity of thought on a question of real importance to Canadians in their role as consumers. He tried to argue that in nine different policy areas there is some unreasonable burden placed on the consumer, and I will address those in my formal remarks.
We do not have in this debate a speech from the Liberal Party which can be taken credibly because of the record of that Party and indeed of the Hon. Member on consumer issues. The voting record of the Hon. Member shows that he has quite consistently overlooked great opportunities to defend the Canadian consumer.
For example, he voted against increased competition in the air and rail transportation sector by voting against Bill C-18 in the second session of this Parliament. He voted against
Supply
increased competition in extra provincial trucking by voting against Bill C-19 in the second session of this Parliament. The Hon. Member had an opportunity to do something about consumers' rights on the pharmaceutical issue. He spent a great deal of time speaking about that today but he did not answer my questions, and I hope you noticed that, Mr. Speaker.
When I made the point that he was comparing apples and oranges, he avoided answering that directly. He is comparing one year with the sales tax with another without sales tax, and one year at the manufacturers' level with another at the retail level. It is misleading to quote statistics which do not have a common base. Perhaps when the Hon. Member has an opportunity to ask me questions he will respond to that question which I put to him and to which he did not respond.
The Member had a chance to vote for a Drug Prices Review Board when we brought in Bill C-22. This federal board will be in place to exercise a downward pressure on all drug prices, not only generically copied drugs. This is a huge venture on behalf of the consumer, but he voted against it.
The Member also had an opportunity to vote for the compensation of the uninsured depositors of two western banks, but he did not do so. He voted against the privatization of Teleglobe Canada. The sale of that Crown corporation has resulted in significantly low rates for overseas telephone calls.
I am suggesting that the Hon. Member is not always as alert to interests of consumers as he likes to assert he is. Indeed, his Party is not, and I can therefore understand why he has some difficulty in being alert to their interests.
His comments today invite deliberate and careful answers from me. However, this does give me occasion to talk about the consumer in a wider context than these picayune little details that he raises in his motion. Quite frankly, the failure of the Opposition to mount a coherent case against the Government's economic policies is evident every day in this House, and this failure could hardly be better illustrated than by the grab-bag of items before the House today. The idea seems to be that what you lack in the quality of criticism you can make up for in quantity.
This just does not work because the Government's economic policies have worked from the day we came into office, are working today, and will continue to work for the good of Canadians in every part of the country. I can say that with every conviction because our policies are working. It is very difficult to find any economic indicator which affects the average Canadian as a consumer which is not immensely better year over year and immensely better than it was five years ago.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Like the unemployment rate in Newfoundland?

March 24, 1988
Supply


Thomas Hockin: The unemployment rate in Newfoundland is a good example. It, too, has improved year after year since we have been in government.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It's at an intolerable level, and you know it.


Thomas Hockin: Noting the range of subjects which the motion has grouped together you will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, that some specific areas will be discussed by other speakers for the Government today.
To begin with, let us be clear about the Canadian consumers referred to in the motion. Contrary to the impression which the Hon. Member tried to leave, they are not some special interest group with particular interests separate from those of everyone else. All Canadians are consumers. More to the point, their present and future well-being as consumers depends directly on the ability of the Canadian economy to produce new jobs and to produce higher incomes and new economic opportunities now and in the years ahead. Consumers are not only people dealt with by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but are consumers in the wider sense which I just mentioned.
The kind of negative thinking which is reflected in the motion before us today was soundly rejected by Canadians in September, 1984. Instead of approaching government this way they wanted a positive new approach to the economic challenges facing Canada. That is exactly what the Government has provided. We did not do this in an ad hoc way. We made clear to the Canadian people how we were going to proceed. We laid it out clearly in the agenda for economic renewal in
1984.	It is there for everyone to see.
Often governmental statements of that nature under Liberal Governments did not mean anything, they were mere cream puffs with very little substance and certainly not followed through seriously by the Government. In this case the agenda for economic renewal is truly a blueprint. The governmental engineers have gone to work with it and have built an edifice which is very impressive. We have stuck to our program, and the results more than bear out the success of our policies. In every instance the consumer wins.
As an example of how the consumer wins, in 1987 real growth in gross domestic product reached 3.9 per cent, a growth rate higher than that of the United States. That was the third consecutive year in which growth was in that range. That is a tremendous performance.
Interest rates, too, have been stable at three to four percentage points below the levels reached in September, 1984. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) reminded the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) of this. Interest rates are much lower today than they were in September, 1984. Real interest rates are also down substantially in the same period, to the benefit of the Canadian economy as a whole and of Canadians in their role as consumers. Nothing is more difficult for consumers to cope with than high interest rates, and we have brought them down.
The typical five-year mortgage rate is a good example. It is now 11 per cent down from 14.25 per cent in 1984. What could be more relevant to a consumer than that? This represents a saving of $1,400 per year on a $50,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years. Is the Hon. Member against that kind of action on behalf of the consumer? Consumers are also homeowners. Houses needed to be built so that they can have a choice. Housing starts are up from 135,000 in 1984 to 246,000 last year, which is the highest annual level for housing starts since 1977. Nothing could be more important to consumers than that figure.
Of course, consumers must be employed. The unemployment rate is down to 8.9 per cent in 1987 from 11.3 per cent in 1984 when we took over from the Hon. Member's Party as Government. It was down even further, to 7.8 per cent in February of this year. In response to the interjection by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, the unemployment rate is down in all provinces, which is good news for Newfoundlanders as well as people from all other provinces.
The decline in the unemployment rate reflects a tremendous achievement in job creation. February is the seventeenth consecutive month in which full-time employment increased. Since September, 1984, 1.213 million jobs have been created. That is what we have accomplished for Canadian consumers.
The growth in our gross domestic product in recent years has put us in the top rank of leading industrialized nations. In fact, people who study Canada are impressed with what they see. The latest survey of business investment intentions is a good example. While such news may not make the front page, it is astonishing that Canadian business is planning to increase its investment in plant and equipment by an extraordinary 17.3 per cent this year. Usually increased investment intentions are up by 2 per cent or 3 per cent, if at all, over the previous year. This is the largest real increase in private sector investment spending in nine years. We have achieved those results because we took the necessary action to ensure a positive environment for job creating growth and investment.
We have made substantial progress in deficit reduction and controlling the growth of the debt, thereby reducing the burden on the consumer who must ultimately pay the bills.
In anticipation of what might be said by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, I should remind the House what happened under an NDP Government in Manitoba with regard to debts and deficits. The NDP often tells us that we should increase government spending for one reason or another. However, we hear very little about how they would raise the revenue to do it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why do you not talk about Saskatchewan first? Then we will talk about Manitoba.


Thomas Hockin: I often hypothesize about what they would do if they were in power.
March 24, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I trust that on a day like today, when we have had a national prayer breakfast, we would be able to wait until the Hon. Minister has finished debate. We will be able to have questions and comments after the speech. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hoc kin).


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, these are sensitive matters to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, but they must be discussed. In Manitoba, spending has increased from 18.5 per cent of GDP to 21.3 per cent, relative to the size of the economy. If the NDP Government in Manitoba had simply held spending growth to the rate of nominal economic growth, the present revenue structure would now yield a $250 million surplus rather than a $334 million deficit.
We hear talk about the NDP Government being the protectors of the consumer. The Crown corporation in that province which provides automobile insurance has acquired a $60 million operating deficit, which has led to premium increases of between 18 per cent and 112 per cent to the consumer in Manitoba. That is what an NDP Government delivers. Government automobile insurance in Winnipeg is now more expensive than private sector insurance in Ottawa. That is a very important fact to keep in mind when the NDP rises to defend the consumer. Last December, the NDP Government wrote off $185 million in Crown corporation losses by Order in Council. This is not shown on the government books as either a government expenditure or as a Crown corporation loss.
Provincial government revenues in Manitoba have increased by 94 per cent over the past seven years, more than twice the 42 per cent increase in consumer prices that have occurred over the same period. While there is supposed to be an NDP Government in power to protect the consumer, there is no protection whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine what would happen if that kind of laboratory experiment were applied by the NDP at the federal level.
We have fostered a healthy and receptive climate by controlling the deficit. We have brought it down for four years in a row by controlling the growth of debt and reducing the burden on consumers who must ultimately pay the bill. It is the consumers of Manitoba who will have to pay the bill for what the NDP Government did there.
We have fostered a healthy and very receptive climate for private sector investment, a fact which the opposition Parties have neglected to acknowledge. We know that the private sector is the engine of growth in the economy, not the Government.
We also reduced the burden of government intervention through deregulation. While that may not interest the Opposition, it is a very important step in order to let fresh air blow through the economy and protect the consumer.
We established a new policy to promote the development of science and technology. We are encouraging innovation. We
Supply
have made regional development more sensitive to local needs. Through a combination of responsible fiscal, monetary and economic policies, the Government has provided a stable framework for economic progress, which has been of tremendous value to Canadians in their roles as consumers.
We have undertaken a major reform of the tax system. This is being done with Canadian consumers in mind. Our tax system will now be better balanced and fair. Previous Liberal Governments never did anything in terms of establishing a comprehensive and coherent way to make the tax system more balanced and fair.
As a result of our action to reduce tax rates and broaden the tax base, 85 per cent of all households, or 9.7 million, will see their tax reduced. Moreover, 850,000 lower-income Canadians will have their taxes reduced to zero.
As a result of our changes our tax system will lose many of its complicated deductions and its elaborate system of tax brackets. Lower personal income tax rates mean that Canadians will keep more of every additional dollar of earnings, which is perhaps the big message in tax reform. People will now be able to keep more of what they earn so that they can go into the world as consumers with more to spend. That is the purpose of tax reform. Tax reform means more money to save or spend as the consumer sees fit.
Tax reform also means that corporations pay more while individuals pay less. This is not mentioned by the Opposition, but it is a very fundamental reform. We can implement a more progressive tax system that is more efficient and can better encourage the productive economic activity on which all Canadians depend for economic well-being.
This first stage of tax reform is designed neither to increase nor to decrease revenues. In the same way, reform of the sales tax system will also be fiscally neutral. This is important if we are to succeed in the highly competitive international market. Obviously, the over-all thrust of tax reform is in the interest of Canadians as consumers.
Let me turn to the financial institution sector about which the Hon. Member raises questions. I know he is interested in the financial institution sector. Because we had a number of Bills passed at the end of the last session, I think it is important for me to remind the Hon. Member of Bill C-42 and Bill C-56. They speak to the concerns he raised today. The Hon. Member was not there to vote on them, and I am sorry he was not because in fact he would see that we have set up a CDIC which can play a much greater role in our financial system.
We have also established a supervisor of financial institutions who will be able to make our system far more efficient and fair to the consumer and to Canadians when they look for credit or want to deposit. Above all-and this is very important for Canadians as consumers-these two Bills will make the system safer so we will not have these Principal Group

March 24, 1988
Supply
kinds of disasters. The Hon. Member knows that the Principal Group is made up of 127 companies, only one of which is federally insured through CDIC. He wants to tar the federal Government with the brush of all 127 companies, and that is irresponsible.
CDIC has paid out to depositors, and the Code inquiry is looking into the appropriateness of what went on. The CDIC is sharing information with it and will share more. If the Hon. Member does not believe that CDIC should have some confidentiality prerogatives, then he should have voted against Bill C-42, but he did not. Confidentiality provisions are not onerous, but there has to be some because individual and business relationships with financial institutions are generally understood to be confidential.
In conclusion, Canadian financial institution reform, by making the system safer, by making it more competitive, is very good news for the Canadian consumer. It is the most important news any Minister in charge of that dossier can deliver to Parliament. I am very proud of that and very proud of what the Government is doing with its over-all spending and tax record. That is the over-all answer, the truly appropriate conceptual answer to this resolution, which is a kind of a mishmash of miscellaneous ideas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Minister's time has expired. I would just like to say that I did give the first speaker additional time and the Minister was also given additional time. I will now recognize Hon. Members on questions and comments.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and I can disagree on various points. I disagree emphatically with the concept of the Drug Prices Review Board within Bill C-22 and, quite correctly, voted against it. However, if the Minister believes in the effectiveness of this board, would he answer the question as to why the period of exclusivity is retroactive for brand-name companies to June 27, 1986, but the retroactive provisions do not apply to the Drug Prices Review Board? Why the difference, if the Minister believes so sincerely in the Drug Prices Review Board?
Second, with respect to sales tax increases, can the Minister explain to Canadian consumers why $3 billion in additional sales taxes is good for the Canadian consumer, and I mean the increases of October 1, 1984 of $1 billion, on January 1, 1986, another $1 billion, and on April 1, 1986 another $1 billion? Would he also tell the House about the benefits to Canadian consumers in paying upwards of 23 cents a gallon more to drive their cars since 1984? Would he explain to Canadian consumers how this is of benefit to Canadian consumers?
Finally, while the Minister is on his feet, he ought not to misrepresent the suggestions that Members of Parliament have made. The Minister knows only too well that I have requested a copy of the CDIC report on the Principal Group. I am not suggesting, and the Minister knows that very well, that all confidentiality with regard to financial institutions be
breached. I have never suggested that. But I have said to the Minister that in this particular instance, because of 60,000 Canadians losing their life savings, is it not in the good public interest of this country that that be made public so Canadians can see the involvement of the federal Government? Thus far the Minister has said no, but I would like him to comment on that third point as well.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Hon. Member on the question of CDIC and the Principal Group is a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack. He says he is in favour of confidentiality but in this particular case he is not in favour of confidentiality. Is that what he is saying? What is the principle that guides the Hon. Member, the notoriety of a current predicament? Does that always override the principle of confidentiality?
I do not understand the Hon. Member's point. If he believes that confidentiality should be in place in some instances and not in others, could he tell me when he would discriminate against one and lean towards the other? My position is clear. There should be some confidentiality, but the CDIC should try to participate with information as much as it can, publicly and on a confidential basis, with inquiries such as the Code inquiry in Alberta.
Second, my understanding on the Drug Prices Review Board, and the Hon. Member can correct me if I am wrong, is that the Drug Prices Review Board is looking backward. It is not just looking forward. It is looking backward retroactively. I do not know where he gets that argument. I checked with the Minister before coming to the debate today. It is confirmed. It is looking backward as well as forward. Therefore, the point the Hon. Member makes is wrongly based unless I misunderstood the over-all thrust of what he was saying.
Finally, the Hon. Member asked about federal sales tax revenues in the last two or three years. A large part of those revenues has come from the growth of the economy which has led to increased revenues. This is the wonderful thing about growth, about jobs and about increasing investment. If one compares the period in office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) from 1984 to 1988 with the period during which the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance, one will Find that revenues taken by the federal Government, proportionately, were much greater under that Liberal administration than they have been under this administration.
I really do not know the basis on which the Hon. Member has made his complaint about revenues. They are lower than they were under the Liberal administration of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition when he was Minister of Finance, plus the fact that a large part of the increased take from federal sales tax comes from the growth of the economy.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was astonished to hear some of the statements made by the Minister. He suggested that provincial revenues had gone up very sharply in Manitoba and
March 24, 1988

that that was of itself wrong, ignoring the fact that under his own administration, federal revenues have gone up for a number of reasons, including substantial tax increases put into place by the Conservative Government. Those increases include three increases in sales tax, and sales tax revenues have in fact doubled under the Conservative Government since 1984.
I find the speciousness of the Minister's comments rather demeaning, and I am sorry to hear him make those particular comments. However, perhaps I can focus on a couple of things. In the first place, the Minister says he has not heard anything different from the New Democratic Party. The Liberals can speak for themselves with respect to economic policy, but what he has heard from the New Democratic Party is that we believe that full employment is as important an objective of economic policy as economic growth, the control of inflation and regional development. In fact, those things all fit together.
What has been lacking from the previous Government and from the present Government is, of course, a commitment to making full employment as important an objective as what the bankers, financiers and right-wing pundits tell the Government it ought to do.
Part of this resolution deals with the issue of bank charges. I listened with some concern to what the Minister had to say. He talked about great faith in the market system which brought us the crash last October. He talked about competition and he argued that the private sector was the engine of the economy. There is, in his view, no particular role for Government. I could contest that at some length, but what I would point to is his conclusion that this is the over-all answer to the concerns raised in the debate. For those consumers who have been concerned about bank charges, about the way they feel they have been victimized by increases up to 100 per cent in the last three or four years in charges levied by the bank for different services, his answer is: "Let them eat cake", because as far as he is concerned, the market system will short them out.
I suppose that I should applaud the courage of the Minister for sending out average consumers from coast to coast to do battle with Canada's multi-billion dollar banks and the banking system. Frankly, I think that is a rather unfair type of competition. If the Minister really cared about the consumer, he would be seeking to ensure that there was some force by which consumers acting collectively could receive a fair deal when the banks are ripping them off.


Thomas Hockin: I am very happy to respond to the Hon. Member's points and questions, because I did not have an opportunity to elaborate further on the question of bank charges raised in the motion.
Bank charges are being looked at carefully by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. The Hon. Member is a member of that committee. I
Supply
am looking forward to that report. I would like to receive it quickly in order that we can act based upon it.
With that report in mind we will act, and the role of Government will be pivotal to the way we act. We will not leave it totally to competition. The Hon. Member knows that the competitive part of our answer to bank charges is an important part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He is backing down, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Hockin: I am not backing down at all. The Government itself will have to act and it has acted before. There are a whole series of proposals-


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is like Saul on the road to Damascus.


Thomas Hockin: -for disclosure, for elaborating on the role of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with regard to regulating financial institutions. There is a superintendent not simply to keep competition buzzing along, which is great, but also to help to protect Canadians as consumers. As a matter of fact, the superintendent is doing an excellent job. We also have an interdepartmental committee looking at this before we receive the bank service report in order that we can respond very quickly when we receive the report. I think that the Member will be very happy with the way in which we will respond when we receive the report.
The role of the Government is essential in the protection of depositors and policy holders in a world where there is a market system or a centralized economy. It is absolutely central, and there is not very much difference about that. Where there is a difference of opinion between the Hon. Member and myself is in the importance of this new competition that I am insinuating into the system through our Blue Paper changes. Let me give the Hon. Member an example.
It was not too long ago that the big banks stated that they could not have variable rate mortgages. The Hon. Member knows something about mortgages. He has been involved in that issue. A humble trust company in my home town brought in variable rate mortgages. Three months later the banks found a way to bring in variable rate mortgages. A small trust company gave leadership to the whole system and the banks got on board. That is what we are going to bring into the economy, based on my reforms. After my reform is passed, insurance companies will be able to make consumer and commercial loans; trust companies over a certain size will have the total capacity to do the same. As a result, banks will have a great deal of competition. I know that that is not the total answer, but it is an important part of the answer for the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Gagliano:: The Minister spoke at length on the tax reform. In the past three and a half years the Government has received from consumers more than $20 billion in taxes. Next week Canadian consumers will pay a one cent per litre tax increase on gasoline. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what that will do to the consumer.

March 24, 1988
Supply
My question is specifically related to the loss of value of properties due to the installation of supermailboxes. I am sure the Minister is aware of the Ontario Municipal Board ruling that supermailboxes installed in front of a house reduce its value. As a matter of fact, a citizen in the Municipality of Pickering had his or her property tax bill reduced because of that. Is this policy of the Government to stop delivering mail door-to-door to new subdivisions, and installing supermailboxes not affecting consumers at large? Canadians who invest their savings in a new home are now seeing values reduced because of the government policy of installation of supermailboxes. Not only do they receive second-class service, but also the value of their house and their investment is being reduced.


Thomas Hockin: I am glad that the Hon. Member has interjected with this question. I feel very strongly about this whole question of postal service and the Canadian consumer. I know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) does also.
If the price of stamps has to be doubled in order to have door-to-door delivery on a regular basis, the Canadian consumer will be up in arms. Our position is that the Canadian people want a responsible approach to Canada Post. They want postage stamps to be reasonably priced, and they want good service. When Canada Post reaches the stage of balancing its budget, which it will do shortly, we will then be in a position to make many choices on behalf of the consumer, such as, for example, if we want more service, if we want cheaper service, or if we want to make certain policy departures. The Government believes that those departures should not take place until the budget is balanced. The whole initiative of the Government on behalf of Canada Post has been excellent for the consumer.
In respect of the municipal example quoted by the Hon. Member, a reporter asked a resident of Pickering about this issue. I gather that it is the Town of Pickering that has decided to sue Canada Post and the federal Government for the use of supermailboxes. The following is what one resident, Muriel Beckett, had to say: "There are a lot of people around here that have a fire hydrant on their property. They have the electrical boxes too, so it is a trade-off. You get one or the other. I really don't think it will affect the property or the value of the property very much either".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to say all the things I would like to say in this debate over a very comprehensive, one might say unfocused, motion coming from the Liberals.
I note the double entente and the confusing messages delivered by the Government, as we witnessed in the speech given by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). He thumps himself on the chest and states that the private sector
is the engine of the economy. When one presses and starts to say that that engine is rolling over average Canadians, forcing people to the wall, and it is not being fair to poor consumers, suddenly the Minister states that we have to direct it a bit, and Government has to step in in order to play a role.
Most people who understand the Canadian economy know that we have a mixed economy in which there is an important role for the public sector, for the co-operative sector, and for the private sector. There is nothing wrong in saying that. But I find that this cant that comes forward from time to time from Progressive Conservatives is a little sickening. Generally, it seems to be directed at the New Democratic Party, a Party which has no problems at all in acknowledging that the private sector has a role, the public sector has a role, and there needs to be a co-operation between the different elements of our society if we are going to have a society which is just, equitable, effective, competitive, and fair to all of its citizens and residents.
I ask the Hon. Minister of State, does he really think that a society that is fair only to the rich and the powerful is the type of society Canadians want to achieve?


Thomas Hockin: That is cant.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister would say "No, of course not". He would state, "I want to be as fair to the widow in Newfoundland as to Conrad Black and to the other people who finance my Party in Toronto, and places like that".
In practice, the Government acts otherwise. That is one of the problems we have had with the Government over the last three or four years. That is not to say we did not have problems with the Liberal Party as well, and that the Liberal Party is not having its problems with itself. This resolution speaks to the inadequacies of postal service. It was the Liberal Party that created Canada Post, which is currently responsible for postal services. This resolution speaks to the high cost of gasoline. It was the Liberal Party that put the sales tax increase into the 1984 Budget which was implemented by this particular Government. The resolution speaks about the Government's acquiescence to sky-rocketing bank charges. That increase in bank charges did not begin after September 4, 1984; it began back in 1981 and 1982. Who was in power then? The Liberals were in power, Mr. Speaker.
The resolution also speaks to the unnecessarily high interest rate policy of the Government. I have challenged the Government on this issue. I have raised it again and again. However, let us not forget that 11 per cent mortgages are a heck of a lot better than the 19 per cent mortgages which prevailed when the Liberals were in power.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) ignored my question when I pointed out that he did not raise the interest rate issue in 1982 and 1983. It was the New Democratic Party which was raising the issue at that
March 24, 1988

time. Back-bench Liberals were mute while their own constituents were being forced out of business, were losing their homes, were losing their jobs, et cetera. I suppose time heals many things.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond agreed with me that interest rates were unnecessarily high six years ago, but then he said: "Well, we had a world recession at that time but we do not have a recession now". If we had a recession back then, what the devil was the Government doing imposing interest rates which the Liberal spokesperson on consumer affairs now admits were unnecessarily high? Why the devil did they not bring them down? I suppose that is a question which must be answered in the next election.
Also a question about economic and financial management needs to be raised, not just about the Conservative Party but about, the Hon. Minister of State for Finance will be glad to know, the Liberal Party itself. I should like to quote from Mr. Jeffrey Simpson's column today wherein he said: "The Liberals are stone broke. They face a deep and worsening financial crisis". He indicated that the Royal Bank, long a mainstay of the financial drives of the Liberal Party to maintain itself in power, has refused to extend its line of credit, and that the Liberal Party's corrective measures have invoked extreme controversy and differences of views within the Party to the point that the President of the Party is likely to be forced out, or forced to resign, or may in fact even lose a nomination. He also indicates that the Liberals are not yet sure how to get through the next six months without a crisis even more serious than the one of three weeks ago when the Party came within a whisker of not being able to meet its payroll.
The New Democratic Party has been giving a great deal of thought to how Canada needs to be governed and how the economy needs to be managed should we be called upon to form the Government after the next election. I want to say that a Party which does not even know how it can manage through the next six months is not displaying the necessary fitness to run the country again after the 1988 or 1989 election.
If I could turn my attention to the Minister of State for Finance, the Canadian Export Association and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association are increasingly raising questions about the high interest rate policy of the Government. Let us make no mistake that that is what we have. It was not created by the market system on its own. It was created by deliberate monetary policy being carried out by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and under the authority of the Government. The Government cannot wash its hands of that, because weekly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) meets with the Governor and he has the power to tell the Governor to bring down interest rates.
I am not sure whether or not the Governor blinked this week in terms of his annual report. He had the good grace not to mention zero inflation rates as his objective in his annual report. I thought there was some significance to that. He
Supply
indicated in his press conference that he was no longer prepared to confront or to seek confrontation with the Government in power. Nonetheless, we are also told that the Governor and the bank will continue to let interest rates rise on the treasury bill auction which they manage. Therefore they are bringing the bank rate up which, as the Minister of State for Finance knows, affects short-term interest rates in general and influences the inflow of money into the country.
Rather than acting, as the bank can, to bring interest rates down to a more reasonable level relative to world rates, particularly rates in the United States, the Bank of Canada is continuing to push up those rates. Instead, it is selling Canadian dollars wholesale in the exchange markets, to the point where we have doubled our foreign exchange reserves of U.S. dollars that have been tendered in return for Canadian dollars over the last year. By selling those Canadian dollars, the bank has prevented the exchange rate from going absolutely through the roof. However, now exporters are saying that it is bad enough at 80 cents because it is tougher for them to sell and to compete in Canada against imports. However, if the dollar goes up to 82, 83, or 84 cents, they will be facing a very serious situation.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is now lending its voice to the concerns of New Democrats in saying, as I say now, that interest rates should be brought down by 1 per cent or more over a three-month period, a gradual decline which would allow for monitoring and adjustment if problems develop. I am pleased to have the support of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on this particular question.
I point out to people who are in business and people who are concerned about Canada's trading relationship with the United States that in the course of just three months or four months we have seen an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the United States which has more than equalled the tariff cuts that the United States is committed to make over a 10-year period in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement signed last October.
If the trade agreement over 10 years is meant to be giving
100,000	or 150,000 jobs to Canada-and we do not know whether or not it is true-we will have a reverse move, which will lose 100,000 to 150,000 or more jobs to Canada, and all the benefit of the trade agreement will be wiped out. If the Government wants to be consistent, it should be keeping the dollar around 76 cents and moving ahead with the trade agreement. Instead, it gives with one hand, supposedly, and takes with the other, which can cause serious harm as far as the country is concerned.
A Government which is in fact concerned about the way in which a country is developing would look at the fact that the economy is somewhere at the full employment level in the area immediately around Metropolitan Toronto. There are jobs available; they are not necessarily good jobs, but there are jobs available. The unemployment rate is down to as low as 3 per cent to 4 per cent in certain areas. However, the idea expressed

March 24, 1988
Supply
by the Governor of the Bank of Canada that he must jam on the breaks every time the Toronto regional economy gets too hot seems to be unacceptable to average Canadians in most parts of Canada.
We should be talking about seeking means by which additional credit can be made available to areas like Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, northern British Columbia, and northern Quebec. Currently that is not the situation and there are excessively high rates of unemployment, but economic development and job creation are simply not applied that far.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in his attack on the banks, the Liberal Party critic chose to ignore the fact that his Party depends very heavily on contributions from the banking sector.
In 1984, donations to the Liberal Party by the banks equalled donations to the Conservative Party. The Bank of Montreal gave $75,000 to the Liberals; the Bank of Nova Scotia gave $70,000; the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce gave $70,000; the Royal Bank gave $75,000 to the Liberals; the Toronto-Dominion Bank gave $70,000; and the National Bank of Canada gave $30,000 in political donations to the Liberal Party of Canada.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives received about $35,000 from each of the Big Five. The Liberals received $35,000 from the Bank of Montreal, $35,000 from the Bank of Nova Scotia, $37,000 from the Bank of Commerce, but apparently nothing from the Toronto-Dominion Bank and nothing from the Royal Bank. I imagine that was because they had gone too deeply into debt.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a Party that has remained friends with the banking sector. After all, the banks contributed $350,000 to the Liberal Party in 1984. Mr. Speaker, if they are returned to power, do you think the Liberal Party will stand up for the banks or for the average consumer? I think the answer is obvious.
I would like to deal with this question of bank charges. We are talking about a lot of money. In the last year for which we have figures, 1987, it is estimated that the direct bank charges for deposit accounts, safekeeping and payroll processing increased by about 20 per cent, to a total of $1.1 billion by the five chartered banks. If you bring in foreign exchange revenue, credit card fees, loan fees, securities commissions, bankers acceptances, letters of credit, guaranteed fees and other items, we are talking about a total of $4 billion which the banks collect annually. They are running amok in terms of the ways these fees have been increasing. For example, over the last five years, at a time when the economy was expanding at about 5 per cent and at a time when the banks were bringing in all kinds of new machinery to increase productivity, the Bank of
Commerce had a compound growth rate in its service charges to consumers of 17 per cent per annum. In 1983 it charged consumers $126 million, and in 1987 it charged them $235 million. The total of these fees now exceeds the profits that have been shown by the five chartered banks before the special provisions for Third World write-downs made back in 1987. This means that people are finding themselves paying every time they turn around at the chartered banks.
I have the figures here about increases in general for all the banks from 1982 to 1986. The Toronto-Dominion Bank increased its bank service charges by 75 per cent, the Royal Bank by 101 per cent, the Imperial Bank by 74 per cent, the Nova Scotia Bank by 81 per cent and the Bank of Montreal by 116 per cent.
If you look at the year over year increases for different services, Mr. Speaker, you will find that these charges are going up by 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 50 per cent or 100 per cent, and the consumer hardly knows where to turn or what he or she can do about it.
I have a letter here written to my friend, our spokesperson on unemployment insurance, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). This letter is from Winnipeg. It reads, in part, "Why was the bank deducting $1 off my account each month because the balance was below $200"? When the person went to the bank and asked it to do something, the bank said it would drop the charge if the person increased the balance in the account to over $200. Someone else was hit not once but twice for personalized cheques in one month just a few months ago. The cost was $8.06 a whack despite the fact that for years previously as a senior citizen, the person had never been charged for cheques. This person says, reflecting the anger existing out there-this is a senior citizen from Calgary, Alberta,-"the bastards are ripping me off'. This is somebody in their sixties or seventies. It is strong language but it shows how people feel about the treatment.
I have another example of cheques returned NSF. The service charge was $13.50 on a $75 cheque for Visa with the Bank of Commerce. A cheque for $50 was returned and a service charge of $13.50 was imposed. What it demonstrates, of course, is that if you are a small consumer then the charges are particularly onerous. If you are wealthy, you bounce a cheque and you pay $13, that is bad enough, but $13 on a $10,000 draft is something different than $13 on a cheque written for $50 or $100 by someone who has a very small income.
I think it is interesting to note in the figures that we have here just how much the cost of doing business can differ for a standard package of different services from different financial institutions. The Ottawa Citizen in January this year did an estimate and it found that the annual cost of a series of chequing and savings transactions for a typical Ottawa consumer would range from a low of $154 for someone at the CS Co-op up to $234 at the Scotia Bank; $258 at the Royal Trust and $276.20 at the Bank of Montreal. I bank with the
March 24, 1988

Bank of Montreal because it is close, by but perhaps I should reconsider that particular situation.
What I have found, and it makes me angry as a consumer myself, is that I get hit with these little charges here and there. It is $3 to put a cheque in on a monthly basis in order to keep my line of credit from getting out of sight. When I went to talk to the bank it said, "Oh, we are awfully sorry". The bank took the charge away. I am a Member of Parliament. I can find someone to talk to. The banks have to listen to me because they will possibly hear about the matter here in the House of Commons. But a constituent of mine living in Dalhousie ward is not in that position at all. A constituent of mine living in Dalhousie ward may feel that he or she has no choice but to spend as much as $20, $30 or $40 at a cheque cashing service because they cannot establish the ability to cash the cheque in a Canadian chartered bank. We have seen the collapse of the CCBs.
The Minister looks puzzled. The consumer protection agencies have been trying to bring this matter to the Minister's attention, but the Government has not been prepared to act on that front at all. That kind of action should be outlawed, and I believe that that should be a protection for the consumer. I believe that the chartered banks have the privilege to print money, the privilege to make billions of dollars in profits, the privilege to get by year after year without paying any tax at all, thanks to the privileges given to them by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The least the banks should be prepared to do is to cash a Government of Canada cheque or cash a welfare cheque from some average, ordinary Canadian or pensioner living on a small income and not force that person to go down that street to a cheque cashing service where he is ripped off, paying $5, $10, $25 to cash a cheque to put some bread on the table to feed the family or pay the rent.
That is reality and why I believe it is wrong, as the Minister said, to trust the market system alone. For God's sake this is a compassionate society, or it was until the Progressive Conservatives came to power. This is the Party that tried to deindex the old age pensions and tried to drive down the pensions of old age pensioners by 3 per cent year after year. This is the Party which deindexed the family allowances. In other words, it balanced its deficit not by taxing Conrad Black but by taking money away every month from families with children in this country. That is abject exploitation of average ordinary Canadians.
I realize, in talking about these things, that we are talking about the forthcoming election. In the forthcoming election I will be talking to my constituents in Ottawa Centre saying, "Do you want a Party that is prepared to give substantial tax cuts to only one group?" Only one group has tax cuts under tax reform, Mr. Speaker. The people who will be paying less in 1988 than in 1984 under the Conservative Government's tax reform are those with incomes of over $100,000 a year. The average family in my riding will be paying more than $1,000 in taxation after the Conservative Government tax reform than they were paying before. I am going to tell them that. No
Supply
doubt the Government will turn around and say, "Look at all the people we took off the tax rolls". But the Government forgets that these people were taken on the tax rolls first before they were taken off.
As far as my Party is concerned, we think that issues like this are substantive and important public issues. We believe that, yes, there is a cause and a case for Government to be involved in working at the social organization of our country to have a compassionate and a caring society. That is why we fought for medicare, full employment, hospital insurance, an adequate network of benefits for people who through bad luck cannot look after themselves. Most people really believe that. The banks should not be exempt from that.
I would like to see an ombudsman protect average Canadians in the banking system the way it is done in the United Kingdom. I would like to see local advisory committees established in every community with whom the banks would have to consult from time to time on the nature of their services. I would like to see a government prepared to stand up for average Canadians and not just for wealthy Canadians.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have some very brief questions for the Hon. Member. An NDP Member of the Manitoba Legislature said on February 12, talking about the Manitoba NDP Government: "I am afraid government philosophy tends to be: if it moves, then tax it, if it doesn't move, then put a tax on it. That is the perception people are getting out there when they see all of these taxes, some of them regressive". That was an NDP Member speaking about the NDP Government.
I think that Member was referring to the provincial sales tax rate which had been increased from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. A flat rate tax on net income and of course the payroll tax were brought in. Does the Hon. Member believe in a flat rate tax on net income and does he believe in increasing sales taxes as has been done in that province under an NDP Government?
Second, the Hon. Member talks about his Party's commitment to full employment, and that is an important objective. Does he dispute the fact that 1,213,000 jobs have been created in Canada since September of 1984? I want him to answer that, because that is a statistic we are quoting and I was wondering if he disputed it.
Finally, a columnist in the Winnipeg Free Press said that it is getting harder and harder to find anyone who is poor and that since the Finance Minister of the NDP Manitoba Government is opposed to taking big tax bites from the poor, everyone has suddenly become rich. I want to ask the Hon. Member what is his definition of poor and what is his definition of rich? I need this information to respond in the next few months.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Hon. Minister was quoting the former NDP Member of the Manitoba Legislature who in fact decided, in an act of disloyalty to his

March 24, 1988
Supply
Party, to vote against it on the Budget. He decided to break his word to the Premier of Manitoba. Having promised that he would vote for the Government on the Budget, he then changed his mind without giving any advance notice. There is a very real question as to whether or not he had been bought off. He certainly indicated that he is open to offers from the Government if the federal Conservatives are prepared to pay in gratitude for the fact that he provoked the Manitoba election.
I would also point out that one of the reasons the New Democrats have been in power in Manitoba for 17 of the last 20 years, I believe, has been specifically because of its commitment to full employment and its capacity to provide honest, sensitive and caring Government in that province. I would point out that during the course of the recession, Manitoba consistently had the lowest rate of unemployment of the provinces, and that was because of the commitment to maintaining employment and creating jobs, which was the number one priority of the Manitoba New Democrats when they came back to power under Howard Pawley about six or seven years ago.
That Government has displayed a great deal of courage on a number of other issues, including the issue of official languages. I regret to say that the Hon. Minister's friend and colleague, the leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, defied his own leader's position on official languages and did everything he could to exploit the language issue. I think Manitoba voters were right to see through him at the time.
Yes, there have been some sales tax increases in the Province of Manitoba, as I understand it, but I would point out that in terms of over-all levels of employment, the Minister himself has said that it is harder and harder to find anyone who is poor in Manitoba. I suggest that that is also a tribute to the job that has been done by the Manitoba New Democrats in the time they have been in power.
Yes, I accept that, according to Statistics Canada, there has been an increase of some 1.2 million employed Canadians over the last three and a half years. Statistics Canada also points out, of course, that there are still some 1.1 million Canadians who are out of work today. The Government's own projections in the Budget indicate that unemployment through 1988 will rise rather than fall from last December's level.
In addition to the 1.1 million Canadians who are registered as being unemployed, we can talk of the further 500,000 Canadians who are natives on Indian reserves who do not have jobs but are not counted, people who are on welfare because they cannot get jobs and people who are discouraged and have dropped out of the labour force. On top of that, there is a further group of something like 500,000 Canadians, and probably more, who are working part time but are not doing so voluntarily but simply because those are the only kinds of jobs available to them.
That suggests to me that though we have had some progress, largely because of the spill-over of the American economic
upsurge into Canada, the Government has only been doing a little better than standing still. We need a very high rate of employment-creation in Canada for demographic reasons, as the Hon. Minister is very much aware, and we have an awfully long way to go before we achieve regional equity and bring unemployment rates down to the 4 per cent or 5 per cent level in every region of Canada. That, of course, is what we should be aiming for rather than tolerating the Bank of Canada putting on the brakes.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I don't have much time to analyse the speech by the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party, but I must say that while I was listening to his speech, which was very interesting, I was reminded of the time several years ago, before 1976, when the Parti Quebecois was in the opposition. It is easy for the New Democratic Party to criticize since it never formed the Government. But if we were to analyse the record of certain provincial governments, and I am referring to the Parti Quebecois in Quebec and the New Democratic Party in other provinces, the results would be very interesting.
But I would like to get back to federal matters, Mr. Speaker. Last fall during the postal strike, every day the New Democratic Party, like the Liberals, asked the Government to prohibit the hiring of scabs. However, when the New Democratic Party was asked whether it was prepared to pass antiscab legislation, it did not have an answer, and said it would have to consider.
The Hon. Member said in Quebec City that if the new Government was formed by the NDP, he was prepared to cancel the frigate contracts for New Brunswick and give them to Quebec. A week later, his leader came to Montreal and said no, he wouldn't do that. And as far as party financing is concerned, we can assume the New Democrats are just as noncommittal. My question is this: Have they taken a position on legislation that would prohibit the hiring of scabs? What is their position on the frigates? And what is their position on party financing? Is the New Democratic Party prepared to turn down contributions from the unions?


Michael Morris Cassidy: About the anti-scab legislation, it is clear we need this kind of legislation at the federal level, and that is our Party's policy.
As for the frigates, Mr. Speaker, it was not a week but two hours later that my Leader clarified the statement I made by mistake. I admitted my mistake. My Leader stated our policy. A New Democratic government would respect the contracts now in effect and the people of New Brunswick would be given that assurance. No question. I made a mistake, but just the same, I wonder what the Liberal Government in Quebec has done about the problems in the shipyards. There are some real problems there which I was addressing, but I agree that the answer is not to reverse decisions on existing contracts but to provide for a fair policy on sharing future contracts among the shipyards.
March 24, 1988

As for changing the legislation on political contributions, I just want to say that my leader has come out in favour of a reform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The floor is free.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, a ceremony will be held in Latvia tomorrow, March 25, to remember the victims of Stalinist deportations. The Helsinki '86 Human Rights Group of Latvia has called on all Latvian citizens to commemorate victims of the mass deportations of 1949 by laying flowers at the Statue of Liberty in Riga at 1830 hours, that is 10.30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, tomorrow.
On March 25, 1949, a mass round-up began resulting in the deportation of over 43,000 individuals from Latvia. The action was part of Stalin's forced collectivization by the physical removal of independent farmers and destruction of the traditional rural base of the country. These mass deportations, which struck all three Baltic States simultaneously, were considerably larger than those of June 14, 1941, commemorated this past summer. If indeed the U.S.S.R. authorities allow the ceremony in Riga to proceed peacefully tomorrow, we will have seen a concrete example of glasnost.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on November 9, 1987, the Polish Government arrested and imprisoned Dr. Kornel Morawiecki, leader of the Polish Opposition Group "Solidarnosc Walczaca", or "Fighting Solidarity", a non-violent underground organization.
Morawiecki had been in hiding since the imposition of martial law in 1981. During the last six years he devoted his
energy to the creation of this movement whose goals are democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. The only crime of this brave Polish patriot is his dedication and commitment to the pursuit of these goals, and his unlawful arrest is clearly a violation of the letter and spirit of the Helsinki Accord to which Poland and Canada are both signatories.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to use every means at their disposal to secure the release of Kornel Morawiecki from his illegal imprisonment.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is undermining and discrediting Canada's refugee status determination system and our legal obligations to the UN. Last week the Minister moved to deport 40 Turks out of the backlog of 46,000 refugee claimants, whereas this week the same Minister indicated he is prepared to start a new administrative review to clear the backlog. It is grossly unjust to deport some now and later allow others to stay through administrative review.
Today we learn the Minister will in a few weeks fire about 10 of the most highly qualified and competent members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. Among them are Susan Davis, formerly a protection officer in Canada with the UN High Commission for Refugees; William Barton, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN and liaison with the UNHCR; and Yvon Beaulne, formerly Canadian Ambassador with experience in the UNHCR. Such people have proven expertise and judgment in refugee matters. They are being dumped, evidently to be replaced by Tory hacks who will assist the Minister to expel refugees. Shame on the Government for its campaign against refugees.



FISHERIES


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, only six days ago I rose in the House of Commons to condemn the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), who caused great damage to the sport fishing industry in British Columbia, for failing to consult with the industry before changing the rules for salmon catches. Since then I have received at my constituency office, subsequently forwarded

March 24, 1988
here to Ottawa, 3,000 cards of support from British Columbians living on Vancouver Island.
All of these British Columbians call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to "reject the proposed punitive regulations of your Minister of Fisheries, Tom Siddon, against the recreational chinook fishery in the Strait of Georgia", and demand that the Prime Minister "abandon these proposed regulations immediately and have your Minister of Fisheries consult with the recognized sport fishing representatives to develop a proper management plan for the Strait of Georgia". I will be sending these 3,000 protests from British Columbians to the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Considering that this week alone the Minister has angered the entire Province of Nova Scotia by handing out improper lobster licences, that 14 of 15 members of his Lobster Advisory Council have resigned, and that he has failed to protect the fish processing industry on both coasts and ignored the deep concern of thousands of his fellow British Columbians in the sport fishing industry, I would suggest that the Prime Minister find himself a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern about the manner in which applications for Canada Pension disability benefits are processed. They are rejected at the first level as a matter of course and further appeals are very time consuming and frequently result in injustices to claimants. I am advised that the text outlined in the Act is the source of the problem, but that is only partly the case. The process is also faulty.
I therefore urge the Minister to consider changing the test prescribed in the Act so that disabled Canadians unable to work may receive the benefits to which they feel entitled. I also urge that an end be put to the routine rejection of applications at the lower level of assessment. It is time for this unworkable legislation and process to be changed.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell Hon. Members of the unfortunate and unwanted
consequences resulting from the passage by this House last August of Bill C-85 which ordered striking railway workers back to work.
This legislation is now being used by the CPR to intimidate non-striking workers by the threat of fines of up to $1,000 a day if they refuse to cross picket lines. The CPR uses those provisions written into Bill C-85 as a way to intimidate its workers regardless of their collective bargaining situation.
There is no great emergency facing the railways today. There is no certainty that non-striking workers will be fined for refusing to cross the picket lines of a legal strike. The only certainty is that the CPR is using any means it can to keep operating.
This is a clear CPR strategy to divide its work force. It won't work, but the House of Commons should realize that this action is a direct result of the use and misuse of the passage of Bill C-85.

[ Translation]



PROGESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the general assembly of the Quebec wing of our party will be held next weekend in Montreal. Over 1,000 delegates from all regions of Quebec will participate in this major political gathering. For two days, they will debate and adopt resolutions following an unprecedented democratic process for a federal party in Quebec.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1987, the Hon. Monique Vezina set up eight political commissions and ten regional panels, bringing together over 2,000 active party members throughout Quebec. More than 225 resolutions were adopted. The Commission on the Environment and Natural Resources alone, of which I am the chairman, has received 60 proposals, which very clearly shows the commitment of our members to matters related to the environment and our quality of life.
In closing, I would like to thank all Quebec Party members who took part in this political reflection exercise, in this unprecedented democratic process, and who will help to make the Progressive Conservative Party the strongest Party in Quebec, the Party with the clearest options and the only federal Party to be truly devoted to the interests of Quebecers.
March 24, 1988



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, after 18 months, the employees of the Education Group of the Public Service Alliance of Canada are still in conflict with the Treasury Board.
The last meeting between management and the union was held on January 13, 1988, and nothing has happened since. This group of federal Government employees has been without a contract for 18 months, since September 1986. What is at issue is not money or wages, but the work load of the teachers.
Under the terms of the Government offer, language teachers could spend 37 1/2 hours a week teaching for 20 consecutive weeks without any time allowed during their workday for course preparation. Under these conditions, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the teaching and the performance of the teachers would certaintly deteriorate. We have to wonder whether the Conservative Government has a hidden agenda as concerns the teaching of our official languages.



THE YUKON


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the privilege, along with five colleagues from the government side of this House, of visiting the Yukon and the vigorous, vital Yukoners. The six of us spread out to 14 communities from Old Crow in the north to Carcross in the south, and from Beaver Creek in the west to Watson Lake in the east. We met with over 30 delegations ranging from native band leaders to Yukon Chamber of Mines.
Yukoners are for free trade. Like other Canadians they crave facts, not fear and fantasy. Yukoners are disappointed about Meech Lake seeming to diminish their prospects for provincehood, but they are cheered by the consistent record of the Progressive Conservative Party since John Diefenbaker that we will bring the Yukon to provincehood when Yukon declares itself ready.
Yukoners of all origins and occupations want an early and just settlement of land claims issues. We southerners, without judging the merits of the issues, urge them on and wish them well.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Hyundai decision yesterday by the Anti-Dumping Tribunal increases the serious pressure hitting the auto industry in Canada. The real losers as foreign producers expand here are the Canadian parts producers. The Big Three have a commitment to 60 per cent Canadian content. Hyundai and the Japanese producers have no such commitment. Therefore, as they expand market share, Canadian parts producers and their workers lose out.
It is up to the Government to make all producers play fair by passing a Canadian content law for the auto industry that says 60 per cent applies to all significant auto sellers.
O)
Some 20,000 to 40,000 skilled jobs are at stake. I call on the Government to move urgently for the sake of fairness.



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) will be receiving on March 28 next in New York the Gold Insigne Award granted by the Pan American Society for his exceptional contribution to the strengthening of relations among countries of the Western hemisphere, for Canada's recent efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in Haiti and for his support to the Arias plan aimed at pacification in Central America.
The Pan American Society is in the United States the main forum in the United States where issues are discussed having a vital interest for countries of the western world.
The Gold Insigne Award has already been awarded to the American Presidents Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy and to Latin American leaders Miguel de la Madrid of Mexico, Raoul Alfonsin of Argentina and Napoleon Duarte of El Salavador.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for all Canadians and for the Prime Minister of Canada to be conferred that prestigious award.

March 24, 1988



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, now, with the coming of spring, what do we hear and read? The Post Office is set to double supermailboxes.
Imagine an 80-year old lady going through the snow and cold next winter to pick up her cheque, and handicapped people going in a wheelchair to pick up their cheques at a supermailbox. How can the Government do this to Canadians? Why does it not order Canada Post to stop installing supermailboxes?
Rather than create second-class citizens, the Government should create first-class citizens. The Minister responsible for Canada Post should order Canada Post not to install those boxes and to give door-to-door service to Canadians. That is the service they deserve, first-class service for first-class Canadians.
* *
*



PAN AMERICAN SOCIETY'S AWARD


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) joins a select group of international dignitaries when he accepts on behalf of all Canadians the Pan American Society's Gold Insigne.
The award is given annually to the Government which has made an outstanding contribution to strengthening relations amongst western hemisphere countries.
All Canadians can be justifiably proud of their international reputation for humanity. Having won the Nansen Medal last year, we are now doubly qualified to play a greater role in international relations. No doubt our own multicultural heritage has enabled us to achieve these lofty awards. I congratulate the Prime Minister and all Canadians. Canada's reputation abroad is growing steadily and, as we near the next decade, I do not think there has ever been a better time to be a Canadian.
*
* *
way CPR is using Bill C-85 to intimidate and scare workers, to force them into situations where they feel they must come into conflict with their fellow workers on the picket lines.
There was a situation in Winnipeg yesterday where someone in a car took a run at the picket line, injuring one person. These situations can be traced back to the legislation the Government brought in and to the Government's lack of willingness to say clearly to the CPR, this House, and Canadians that this was not the intent of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to implement back-to-work legislation. The CPR has no right to use it to intimidate workers as it is doing.
I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) will get up in the House today and say so.
* *
*



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Liberal fortunes in Manitoba seem to be improving. One of my constituents wrote: "Dear Felix: Sorry I have not written to you for a while, but I have been busy attending the provincial Liberal nomination meetings. Just as an observer, you know".
He went on to write that "these Grits held one of their nomination meetings in a phone booth. For Burrows constituency they had only three people, the candidate, the mover, and the seconder. In Inkster constituency they nominated a mailman only to find out later he was not even a Party member.
"The meetings get more interesting, Felix. In Kirkfield Park a Liberal was acclaimed in the basement of her house. They just held a coffee party to decide who should run.
"For the Assiniboia riding 11 people attended the meeting but no one knew the fellow who was running. The mover of his nomination had to stop halfway through to ask him his name.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and others who are concerned about the
"Felix, is this the groundswell of Liberal enthusiasm that the papers keep talking about? Is this the Party that the TV news says Manitobans are showing strong support for?
"Well, Felix, I think I will quit going to any more of these Liberal meetings, otherwise they might soon declare me Party Leader."
March 24, 1988

[ Translation]



CORRECTIONAL SERVICE


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important question, a promise the Government had made to Correctional Service employees, namely prison guards.
With respect to the pension plan, the Government had promised Correctional Service staff that they would be entitled to benefits similar to those enjoyed by the Armed Forces and the RCMP.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board officials have put everything on hold. We believe the Government should seriously consider the proposition whereby prison guards who want to retire ought to be entitled to the kind of benefits now available to the Armed Forces and the RCMP, but this suggestion has been rejected, and for totally unacceptable reasons.
The President of the Treasury Board refuses to see them, refuses to talk to them .. .


An Hon. Member:: Is this a question?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is not a question, but a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21. The Solicitor General agrees with them and says: Yes, I agree. You have a good suggestion, but Treasury Board will not go along.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board: Is he prepared today to meet with representatives of the federal employees' union at the Correctional Service and offer or give them what they are asking for, an adequate pension plan, while keeping in mind the important work they do, the stress under which they have to work and, given all these considerations, find a solution to this question?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, four years ago this week, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition and preparing for the 1984 election, made his first election promise before the Montreal Chamber of Commerce when he said that he would double funding for research and development before the end of his first term.
Oral Questions
Since the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are now preparing for the next election, I wish they would explain why funding for research and development in Canada dropped from 1.37 per cent of GNP in 1984 to 1.29 per cent today.
The Prime Minister promised to double funding for R and D but it has dropped instead.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House how the Prime Minister could again break the first promise he made in the last election campaign?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not broken the promise, as suggested by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Quite frankly, the Prime Minister has taken a very vigorous interest in this particular issue by establishing his own National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, with which he meets on a regular basis and which reports directly to him.
The report given to him back in December, with a number of recommendations, has indeed been acted upon-such things as the reorganization of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, with greater emphasis on science and technology; InnovAction; the generous R and D tax proposal; increased funding for research, $1.3 billion, an unprecedented amount of money, has been allocated for research and development which was announced in January; the establishment of centres of excellence, and Canada scholarships programs. I could go on and on.
What I think is important is that there has been a partnership organized with the private sector, with the university community, and with Governments to address this very critical problem together. I think a lot of progress has been made in a co-operative fashion.


ADVISORY BOARD'S REPORT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the Advisory Board on Science and Technology and the report in December which the Prime Minister, until today, tried to keep secret. It was summarized today in the Toronto Star. An amazing fact which appears in the report, but which was not printed in the Toronto Star, is the unbelievably bad record of the Government in support of industrial research and development. The $1.3 billion mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister is recycled money and it is not destined for industrial research and development.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that in that report not published today in the Toronto Star, direct government support for industrial research and development on a per

March 24, 1988
Oral Questions
capita basis is 50 per cent more in West Germany than in Canada, 240 per cent more in the United Kingdom than in Canada, and nearly 300 per cent more in the United States than in Canada? Those figures appear in the report of the Prime Minister's own committee, kept secret until this morning.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm those figures?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a number of actions had been taken as a result of the ongoing work of the advisory committee.
I must say and remind the hon. gentleman that all Liberals do not share his view. Stuart Smith, a former Leader of the provincial Party, said that "The Prime Minister has identified himself with this issue and that's very important in this country. There's a cultural change that's going to take a long time but I think this meeting helps because people will hear the same messages over and over".
I could quote Larkin Kerwin. I could quote Roy Wood-bridge, the Canadian Advanced Technology Association President, who stated that the conference was an "exercise in consensus-building and profile-raising".
In so far as the Member's comparison with West Germany is concerned, 1 am reminded by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, that Canada has the best tax regime of any major industrialized country for the support of research and development and science and technology.
Clearly we want to encourage the private sector to work with Governments and with the university communities in order that we can address this very critical job and get on with Canada becoming a leader in science and technology throughout the world.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: think that Dr. Stuart Smith was encouraged because the Prime Minister, for the first time, had identified the problem for himself.
In any event, what we are talking about here is industrial research and development by way of direct grants from the Government. We are not talking about a tax policy.
At the same meeting in December that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to, he criticized Canadian business for what he termed a poor record in research and development, while at the same time he had in his hands by that time a report from his own advisory group that his own Government's record was pathetic.
Before blaming the Canadian business community, why does the Prime Minister not improve his own Government's record? Does the Prime Minister have any intention of keeping that promise of doubling research and development, or is he going
to recyle that 1984 commitment once more in a phoney way to the Canadian people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman is interested in the record, and if I can indulge the time of the House to put the record squarely before the right hon. gentleman, may I say the following. On August 19 the InnovAction program was allocated $11 million for 1987-88 to matching funding of $7 million over four years; Federal Microelectronics Strategy, $90 million over four years; Canadian Manufacturing Advanced Technology Exchange, $3.5 million over seven years.


John Napier Turner: That is recycled money that you are talking about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Granting Councils' Matching Funding (University Research) $3.4 billion over five years; Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, $7 million over four years. There are various federal-provincial science and technology programs.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the two Ministers of Immigration 1 direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the confusion and chaos created by those two Ministers.
Not only is the Quebec Minister of Immigration charging that the federal Government violated their verbal agreement, but we also have a situation where members of the federal Ministers' own staff are giving conflicting statements, where federal immigration officials out in the country do not know what is the federal position, and where there are two standards depending upon whether one lives inside or outside the Province of Quebec.
Rather than blame everyone else for their shortcomings, will the Deputy Prime Minister now take his responsibilities seriously and precisely outline the federal position and decision taken on the entire issue facing Turkish claimants?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is on government business this afternoon, I will be happy to take notice of the question of the Hon. Member.
I also point out to him that he may find some answers to his questions as far as the Turkish situation in Quebec is concerned if he had a look at the Cullen-Couture agreement.
March 24, 1988


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, not only are the two Ministers of Immigration not here while the storm is brewing, but we have a member of Cabinet who says that he will take notice-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that ordinarily Hon. Members do not comment on the absence or presence of other Members or Ministers.
I believe that the Hon. Minister just said that the other Ministers were involved in government business, and I think that should be accepted.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CANADIANS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following question once more: Since all Canadians are aware that even if the Government were to push Bill C-55 through at top speed today, with all its serious shortcomings, it would still have to deal with the problem of the Turks and 40,000 refugee claims which are still pending. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether aside from the question of the Turks, he is finally going to show some leadership and tell Canadians how the Government intends to deal with this tremendous backlog and restore the confidence of Canadians in our immigration system and refugee status procedures?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question under advisement on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. My colleague is not in the House today owing to previous Government commitments.
However, I note that for the first time, the Hon. Member for the federal Liberal Party of Canada has raised the possibility of adopting Bill C-55 in one day, which is a brand new development. I assume he must have talked to Liberal Senators in the other place. I think he should remember that since Bill C-55 was tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker, 10,000 refugees have been added to the list, through the fault of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. And now they have the nerve to blame us for this situation!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Just a moment ago he attempted to justify the Government's lack of leadership in research and development programming.
Oral Questions
The report says that Canada's weakness is serious today and that it could be disastrous for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in years to come. Specifically it points out, in comparing Canada with seven other countries, that we are at the bottom of the list of a total of eight.
Instead of trying to keep the report secret, why does the Government not release it and immediately live up to its commitment to double R and D spending?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had outlined a number of initiatives taken since the Prime Minister established this advisory board. The fact of the matter is that much has been done-federal-provincial science and technology subagreements, for example, with Quebec, $100 million over five years; British Columbia, $20 million over five years; New Brunswick, $28.5 million over five years; Canadian space program, the Radarsat program, and the Biotechnology Research Institute, $80 million over three years; biotechnology strategy, $11 million per year; the Canadian Institute for Industrial Technology, $5.1 million; the Centre for Optic Research-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I could go on. If that isn't action, I don't know what is.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE REFERRED TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, first the Deputy Prime Minister knows that most of that list of programs existed before Christmas when the report came down. Second, he also knows that most of what he is talking about is recycled money. Third, taking that list into account he knows that the people who wrote the report said Canada was second from the bottom, second from the bottom I say again, in terms of government funding for research.
Having said that, I would like to ask the Minister why will he not do a constructive thing and table the report in question, and have it referred immediately to a committee of the House that could report back for concrete action during the life of this Parliament?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member talks about new money or old money, I am reminded of the charge that he made when the Prime Minister announced the first billion dollar farm cash pay-out to the farmers of western Canada and other parts of Canada who suffered the disasters of the price war that was going on at that time.
The hon. gentleman found out that it was new money, as it was this year, and we are talking about new money here, $1.3 billion-

March 24, 1988
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: That is all new money?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which the Prime Minister announced in January. I know that billions of dollars do not mean much to the Hon. Member, but as far as the science and technology community is concerned $1.3 billion is a lot of money and I am sure it will be well used.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Minister to produce the list he just read out and show how much on that list is new money. I tell him in advance that the majority of it is not new, and he knows it.


INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have another question concerning economic competition, particularly with the United States. The Premier of Quebec has suggested another approach to meet the need for lower interest rates. Yesterday, the Premier of Ontario suggested the same need for Canada. A few minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced another increase in interest rates. My question to the Minister is this: Why do business people in Canada have to pay higher interest rates than in the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this is a rerun on the questions that we have had over the last few days that are basically the same. I can only give the Hon. Member the same answer.
The facts are we have a very strong economy in this country. If the Hon. Member doubts that, I can give him the statistics but he knows full well the statistics-


Some Hon. Members:: Give him the statistics.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will give him a few just to remind him. We have seen job creation in the first two months of this year continuing at the record levels we had last year.


John Edward Broadbent: What has that got to do with the question?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member asks what does that have to do with the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The facts are that when an economy is strong the interest rates in the country go up because of pressure on money and because people are looking for money to invest in new things. With an increase in investment spending per cent this year-


An Hon. Member:: Why the spread with the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -which is up two and a half times over the level of last year, it puts upward pressure on the cost of money. The cost of money is interest rates. That is why interest rates are strong.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday in response to questions regarding the appalling state of security at Canada's airports, the Minister of Transport promised to call on the presidents of Canada's national airlines and have a tough talk with them. The House does not object to that, but we have heard those kinds of tough words before from this Minister and his predecessor and nothing has changed.
The Association of Investigators and Guard Agencies of Ontario wrote the Minister on February 22 recommending an independent assessment review of security at Canada's airports, independent of the Minister and independent of the airlines. The Minister wrote them back a letter which the Association received just his morning, and said no.
How can the Minister say to this professional association: "I do not believe that the formation of a 'task force' such as you have described is necessary at this time"?
What will it take before the Minister finally does the right thing and cleans up the security mess at Canada's airports?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept the statement that the security system at Canadian airports is appalling. That is just simply a silly and an irresponsible statement to make. We have come to expect silly and irresponsible statements from that hon. gentleman.
With respect to the letter to which the Hon. Member refers, he seems to have his hands securely on the postal system. He gets copies of letters before I even receive them myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to appoint any further task forces on the security system at the airports. That was done in 1986. I am myself reviewing the security system at airports with airline presidents next week. When I come to a conclusion, the hon. gentleman opposite will certainly know about it, as will the Standing Committee on Transport which has recommended that certain steps be taken.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT ASSUME DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIRPORT SECURITY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer leads one to wonder whether the Minister is running his own Department. I referred to a letter which the Minister wrote in response to a letter of three weeks ago. I am holding the Minister's letter with the Minister's signature saying that, no, there is no necessity for any independent review of what is happening at Canada's airports.
March 24, 1988

I am asking him if he stands by that. What is at stake is not the Minister's reputation, the airlines' reputation, or the security agency's reputation, but public health and safety.
The Minister knows there is a problem. Will he move now beyond talking to airline presidents to have the Department of Transport take over direct responsibility for security in Canada's airports? Will the Minister do that? He knows that it is the right thing.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis would like security procedures in the Liberal caucus improved a bit-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -so that his back would be protected when he turns around.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I was asked the same question yesterday by the Hon. Member for Regina West. The Hon. Member is simply repeating an NDP question. I refer the Member to yesterday's Hansard for the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Benjamin:: Which you didn't give.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A few days ago the Minister in charge of the Western Diversification Fund said in the House of Commons committee that many of the proposals he is now receiving for assistance are being reviewed by officials at the Department of External Affairs to make sure that they are consistent with the free trade deal signed between the United States and Canada.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. His Government and the Prime Minister have time and time assured us in this House that the free trade deal would not affect regional development. If that is the case, why are proposals for western diversification being referred to External Affairs bureaucrats to make sure that they are consistent with the free trade deal? Why is that the case?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member will understand, he probably already understood
Oral Questions
before he asked the question, that if, prior to the signing of the free trade agreement you were caught cheating there was an ability to countervail, and even after signing the free trade agreement if you are cheating there is the ability to countervail.


An Hon. Member:: Cheating?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There is nothing new. It is making sure, Mr. Speaker, that the actions taken by the Government are consistent with actions taken in the past.


REGIONAL DECISION MAKING QUERY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the next thing we will see is a reference of these applications to the ITC in Washington if this continues.
The Minister said: "Together we will ensure that decision making about the West is decision making by the West". What kind of regional decision making is it when these applications are now being systematically sent to the Department of External Affairs to make sure there is no violation of the free trade deal? I want to know what kind of regional decision making that is when the Minister has to have approval from the bureaucrats across the way at the Lester B. Pearson Building?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: First, Mr. Speaker, the premise which the Hon. Member puts that they are being systematically sent there is completely false. Applications are not systematically sent. If there is assistance by the Government of Canada that would cause countervail, that assistance has to be reviewed. It was so before the free trade agreement and it is so after the free trade agreement.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement. It is complying with laws and assuring that people who receive assistance from the Government of Canada are not found to be countervailed by the Americans. It is very simple. We want to make sure that the borders that are open and the agreements that are consistent, including GATT, are honoured by Canada. That is all.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OHIO CONGRESSMAN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tony Hall, Member of the United States House of Representatives from Ohio.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 24, 1988
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF BADEN-WURTTEMBERG LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Rudolf Decker, Member of the Legislature of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX REFORM
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Over the last three weeks, your department has made intensive consultation with prospectors, geologists, brokers and with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerning the impact of the tax reform on flow-through shares in Canada. My question to the Minister is as follows, Mr. Speaker: When will this consultation be completed and when are we going to know the results?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has continued to express a very strong interest in the question of flow-through shares. I would like, though, to broaden one aspect of the preamble to his question.
Our consultations with the industry and with others relate not just to the impact of tax reform but to the impact of changes in the stock market and the impact of changes in the taxable position of the larger mining companies. All of these have impacted on flow-through shares.
Right now 1 am reviewing the results of the consultations we have carried out, and I would probably be discussing some of these things further with representatives of the industry before any decisions will be taken.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that the President of Air Canada last week announced that the corporation is about to make a decision concerning the replacement of the 727 fleet with 34 new aircraft. The Minister will also know that 488 jobs at the Air Canada maintenance facility in Winnipeg are involved in the maintenance of the 727s.
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question. Will he give us an assurance and a guarantee that, whatever replacement aircraft Air Canada decides on, the maintenance work will stay in Winnipeg, that the new aircraft will be maintained and overhauled at the Air Canada facility which is a part of the city of Winnipeg's aerospace industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely cooked up, hypothetical question because of an election in Manitoba, one must presume. There has been no suggestion by Air Canada, not even a breath of a suggestion by Air Canada, that it has any plans to change its maintenance practices in Winnipeg or elsewhere.
The Air Canada board of directors and management will presumably in the next several weeks be recommending what kind of aircraft they may be ordering in order to upgrade the aircraft fleet that is used in Canada. We do not know what the recommendation will be. The board has not approved any as yet. Already the hon. gentleman is up, for purely political, scurvy reasons, alarming people in Winnipeg unnecessarily with silliness and scurrilous suggestions.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the only thing scurvy is the behaviour of the Minister. We are talking about 488 jobs that are at stake. We are talking about Air Canada's decision-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put a short supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEED CONTINUANCE OF BASE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is simply this. I want to know why it is that the Minister and the Government refuse to give the guarantee for which I asked that the maintenance base for Air Canada will continue to be in Winnipeg. Why will the Minister not give that guarantee? Does he have a secret plan up his sleeve?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that every Member who has an Air Canada facility in his district, town or city rise to make the same request. That will show how ridiculous, juvenile, and politically hypocritical the actions of the hon. gentleman are today. They are pitiful and piteous.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CULTURE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State about the labour dispute at
March 24, 1988

the newspaper Le Droit, which continues to threaten the future of that only French-language daily in the National Capital.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are all grounded.


Lloyd Axworthy: Coming from the biggest blimp in Parliament, that is quite a comment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are we interrupting you, Michael?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I never got started.


Mr. Speaker:: The Eton. Member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Last week, in the House, the Minister gave me assurances. He said: "The matter is under consideration." If the Government is serious about helping to settle this labour dispute, why were no contacts made with journalists, strikers or the union? How can the Minister help resolve the issue if he does not do anything to communicate with those concerned?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as there are labour aspects implied in the Hon. Member's question, I think he might want to direct it either to the province or the Minister of Labour. With respect to any participation or involvement, I do not think I can fruitfully add anything to what I mentioned to him in the House the other day.


BILINGUALISM IN NATIONAL CAPITAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister said: "If we can (assist), we will... The matter is under consideration." Why do you not really intervene to save the only French-language daily in the capital of a bilingual country? Is the Minister committed or not to bilingualism in the National Capital?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned the Hon. Member is about the matter, and other people are as well. It will not get any better with him yelling at me or at anyone else.


FINANCE
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that people living in communities bordering isolated areas eligible for the northern deduction feel unfairly
Oral Questions
excluded from receiving this benefit. Can the Minister tell the House when a commission to look into this matter will be established and whether the commission will visit border communities to hear the views of the people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the continuing interest the Hon. Member has expressed in this particular matter, but as he has indicated, the question of where the border line should be between those communities which receive the benefit and those which do not is obviously a very difficult issue with which to deal. That is the purpose of the commission.
We are consulting actively with people who might be members of such a commission. I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that there will be travel by the commission to those communities that are affected and it will be open to advice from representatives from the areas involved.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. Last July the Government of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Newfoundland. Perhaps I could get the attention of the Minister of Justice because this is also a question of justice.
The memorandum of understanding that was signed with regard to the Inuit land claims has still not gone to the federal Cabinet. If the Minister of Indian Affairs is serious about giving native people more self-government, why has it not gone to Cabinet? Why is he holding up the land claims negotiations? When will he start giving them more self-government and more self-determination?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern on behalf of his constituents. The Province of Newfoundland, as of early January or late December past, brought out its comprehensive claims policy. I have asked for and received clarification of that policy.
I have had discussions with the Government of Newfoundland and with the Labrador Inuit as to their impression of the policy and we are hoping to be able to reach an agreement and proceed with the mandate. Once the mandate and the bilateral issues have been decided between the province and the ILA, we will be able to proceed with negotiations.


REQUEST THAT TRIPARTITE NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, not only has there been no information coming from the Government of Canada but there has

March 24, 1988
Oral Questions
been no consultation from the Government of Newfoundland, as I understand it. The Labrador Inuit have nothing on paper with regard to the memorandum of understanding between the two Governments or consultation with the province.
I ask the Minister again, why is it that the three parties cannot sit down together with written documents on the table to start those land claims negotiations so that they can get greater self-government and greater self-determination?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, once Canada and Newfoundland have reached agreement on the bilateral issues, we will proceed with the mandate. At that time tripartite negotiations will be undertaken. I would hope that, if things proceed as they should, by late spring or early summer we would be in a position to commence meaningful tripartite negotiations.
I draw to the Hon. Member's attention the fact that this claim was first recognized and accepted by Canada in 1978. Since that date the Party which he represents has been in control of comprehensive claims for a greater period of time than has this Government.


TOXIC MUSSELS-REQUEST THAT PERSONS AFFECTED BE COMPENSATED
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will recall that as a result of the poisoned mussel fiasco last November the Government took the appropriate action to compensate some of the mussel growers involved, as well as the seafood industry generally on the East Coast. However, it seems to have forgotten the real victims of this fiasco, those who were actually poisoned. One of those individuals is Louis Beaudry of Roxboro, Quebec, who suffered permanent health damage as a result of the poisoning. He now has to pay out of his own pocket significant personal health care costs.
Has the Government considered providing some compensation to those people who were the real victims of the poisoned mussel fiasco?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be of some assistance. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is of course out of the House on business. I will raise the representation of the Hon. Member in this specific case, as well as the general question, with him when he returns.


PRICE PAID BY CONSUMERS FOR NATURAL GAS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The recently released natural gas price monitoring report states that for the the year November, 1986, to October, 1987, in the last month of that year, October, 1987, Canadians paid more for Alberta natural gas through long-term contracts than did the Americans. Members of the Government, including the Minister for International Trade when she was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, promised Canadians they would not pay more for Canadian natural gas than Americans.
Why has the Government broken yet another promise, this time to natural gas consumers?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is absent on government business. As you know, there was an agreement between the provinces and the federal Government on natural gas pricing where we wanted to make sure the free market system was assured. For the sake of accuracy I would prefer that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reply to the question.


PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the situation is getting worse because the Government is steadily destroying the protection for natural gas consumers in this country. When is it going to keep its promise? Why is it treating Canadians like second-class citizens in their own country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a totally false allegation and the Hon. Member knows it. The National Energy Board is the regulatory agency and protector of the public interest. It will do its job. The Hon. Member, in making that allegation, is not only doing an injustice to the industry but also to the NEB.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell them how much gas prices have dropped since we got rid of your regulations.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is the Americans who are getting most of the benefit.


AIRPORTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns another matter in the operation of Canada's airports. The security services were brought up yesterday. There is now the
March 24, 1988

matter of the provision of Sky Cap services. I warn the Minister we also have the refuelling services coming up so he can get ready for that.
Will the Minister dispense with the contract provided to All Cap Baggage Services Incorporated and make arrangements with the individual Sky Caps at Pearson International Airport to make sure that they get at least the minimum wage plus their tips, and that he bill the airlines for any cost to the Department?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, neither the Department of Transport nor the Government has given a contract to All Cap Baggage Services Incorporated, nor anyone else, in connection with baggage services at Pearson International Airport. The position is that the provision of porter services, if there are to be any, is the responsibility of the airlines which operate at Pearson Airport. If there is a dispute between the employees of that company, if they are employees, and its management, then it has to be dealt with in the normal way. I believe there have been applications made to the Canada Labour Relations Board in that connection.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary, please.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE SKY CAP SERVICES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister now, under the auspices of the Department of Transport, take over the provision of Sky Cap services and bill the airlines proportionately for the cost of those services? Will he take it out of the hands of the airlines which try to get by on the cheap, forcing these people to pay $80 a week to buy a job handling baggage for customers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for many years now the provision of porter services at airports has been assigned to the airlines to deal with. It is up to them to employ a system satisfactory to the public, indeed satisfactory all around. I am not going to intervene in this situation at the Toronto Airport. It is a matter for the airlines and the people with whom they contract. That is the way it is and that is the way it has been.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION EXTENDED AREA TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The recent CRTC decision on rate rebalancing did not address extended area service. Why is it taking so long for the CRTC to expand extended area service to the Yarker exchange as well as other areas which are being treated in an unfair manner?
Oral Questions
Will the Minister encourage the CRTC to make a decision on extended area service soon and therefore ensure that universal telephone service is a primary goal for everyone?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question and his interest in this very complex issue of extended area service. This question has also been raised with me by the Hon. Member for York-Peel and the Hon. Member for Cambridge, and a number of other Members.
As you may be aware, Sir, this question is before the CRTC. A decision has been delayed, I am informed, in order to allow consumers to make their representations about its potential benefits. The CRTC is, of course, a quasi-judicial body with an arm's length relationship with the Government, but I understand, and I am sure the Hon. Member will be glad to know, that the decision on extended area service should be reached before the end of June.


NATIONAL REVENUE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I hope he will concur that Revenue Canada's demands for Principal Group investors to pay taxes on money they no longer have, or in some instances have not received, is both repugnant and obscene.
Can the Minister assure this House that Revenue Canada will not demand any moneys whatsoever from these investors who are now financially ruined and, in some cases, psychologically scarred?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have considerable sympathy with the advocacy of my colleague. I must remind him that yesterday in the House my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, set out that the Government's position is that we will be looking at this very carefully to see whether some equity might be possible. When we have something to report we will be pleased to announce it.


DATE OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the Minister's response. However, on behalf of many of those investors, could he indicate to the House clearly and succinctly when a decision will be announced?
The Minister must be aware that the uncertainty with which these individuals are confronted, in view of the fact that they

March 24, 1988
Business of the House
have lost, in many instances, thousands of dollars, is becoming very serious. Will the Minister give us a fixed date today as to when an announcement will be made to the benefit of these investors?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, again we are very sympathetic to the circumstances involved here. I cannot give a precise date. I can only reiterate that we have considerable sympathy for the situation. This is not the first such instance which has occurred, as my colleague knows. The situation is serious and we will be sympathetic to the plight of the individuals because of the very difficult circumstances in which these people find themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that there will be two further single questions, one from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor followed by one from the Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the decision which has been taken with regard to Hyundai by the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, which will hurt many parts producers right across the country, will the Minister ensure that his Government brings in legislation to give 60 per cent Canadian content rules and regulations to all parts of the industry rather than only to a certain segment of the industry?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation. I remind the Hon. Member that this particular situation has been resolved very satisfactorily under the circumstances. The provisional duty paid by Hyundai will be repaid, and I will undertake to study the Hon. Member's request.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Canada Post, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. With spring just around the corner, Canada Post has announced that it is putting in place 9 000 new superboxes, thus doubling the number already in place.
I have a simple question, Mr. Speaker. Canada Post has carried out a cost study on door to door mail delivery. Could
the Government undertake to table this study as soon as possible so that we could get first-hand information on these costs, rather than having the Minister tell us that the cost is $1,3 billion while it is $36 million according to Canada Post?
We would like to know who is telling the truth. Give us the figures!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Post Office was in the House. I guess he had to leave since it is after three o'clock. 1 will take that question as notice.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I would like to ask the customary business question of the Government House Leader. While he is at it, since we are due to recess next Wednesday, maybe he would be kind enough to tell us what the business of the House is likely to be until we break for Easter.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, due to a great deal of cooperation from my colleagues in opposition we have been able to put together a schedule which will accomplish a fair amount of business.
Tomorrow we are going to deal with Bill C-52, known as the Coasting Trade Bill at report and third reading stage. Immediately after Question Period, during Routine Proceedings, we expect that there will be a debate on a motion for concurrence in the third report of the Transport Committee.
On Monday, March 28, we intend to call Bill C-117, the Excise Tax Act, at second reading. At 3 p.m. on that day we will call Bill C-67, the Animal Pedigree Act, for report and third reading stage. That will be backed up by Bill C-118, the customs tariff Bill, at second reading.
On Tuesday, March 29, we will call Bill C-30, the National Parks Act, at second reading, and resume any unfinished business from Monday. The back-up Bill to that will be Bill C-110, the trade tribunal Bill, at second reading.
Next Wednesday will be an allotted day. There is an understanding among the Parties that there will be no vote requested.
There have been discussions among the Parties, Mr. Speaker, and immediately after any comments which the opposition Parties may have on this schedule I would seek unanimous consent to revert to Motions to allow the Member
March 24, 1988

of Parliament for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), the Chairman of the Committee on the Peace Process in Central America, to move a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John W. Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that it has struck a special committee with regard to this subject. Yesterday's news being of such a positive nature, members of the committee unanimously asked me to seek the consent of the House for the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Members for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) and the other members of the committee including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
That whereas this House supports the Esquipulas II Peace Plan for Central America and has struck a Special Committee to give expression to Parliament's interest in the success of the plan, we commend the Government of Nicaragua and the other parties to the conflict in that country for their commencement of negotiations and their achievement of a ceasefire.
Further, we express strong support for the continuing success of the negotiations and for a permanent resolution to the conflict in Nicaragua and urge that parties from outside the region refrain from any activity that would disrupt this process.
Finally, we declare that progress in these negotiations should serve the broader objectives of the Esquipulas II Plan, to promote peace with justice in Central America.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTED DAY, S. O. 82-EFFECT OF INCREASED TAXES The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That this House condemns the Government for imposing increased taxes, both directly and indirectly, against Canadian consumers and for its abject failure to protect the best interests of Canadian consumers, as evident in, among other things:
1.	the high cost of prescription drugs;
2.	the inadequacies of postal services;
3.	the high cost of gasoline;
Supply
4.	the upward spiral of personal taxes;
5.	the increase in inspector fees in the agricultural sector;
6.	the imposition of user fees for Atlantic fishermen;
7.	the Government's acquiescence to sky-roketing bank charges;
8.	the failure of the Government to protect 67,000 investors affected by
the Principal Group collapse; and
9.	the unnecessarily high interest rate policy of the Government.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate to condemn the Government's policy with respect to the Canada Post Corporation.
During the past two years, Canada Post has increased the price of stamps twice, had two postal strikes and may possibly have a third, and has substantially reduced services, thus creating two classes of citizens in Canada: those who get their mail delivered at home and those who have to brave the elements and go to the infamous superboxes to pick up their mail.
The problem is a Conservative Government that has reversed the mandate and priorities of Canada Post. This Government is to blame for the disastrous state of our postal services today.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a good country to live in, but it is a vast territory that often defies the laws of nature and reason, and a country rich in cultural, linguistic and regional diversity. To stress the need for satisfactory communications, it is often said Canada was built along its railways. In fact, at the time of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, when we became a nation, the Government set itself two goals: To protect and defend our country and to deliver the mail.
Of course, this was in 1867, and at the time, communications went by mail. Since then, technology has made spectacular progress, but the fact remains that postal services are still essential to all citizens of this country.
I don't think there is any question about it. Everyone realizes that public transit is an essential service, although many people never take the train or the bus. But everybody gets mail, Mr. Speaker.
In 1981, when the Liberal Government set up the Canada Post Corporation, it recognized that the postal service is an essential service. It is not a whim nor a luxury but a basic service to be made available to all Canadians.
Therefore, it is in that spirit that the Government had given Canada Post a mandate including three equally important aspects as follows: first, Mr. Speaker, to stabilize relations between employer and unions; secondly, to improve the postal service and thirdly to reduce the deficit.
From 1981 to 1984, Canada Post Corporation adequately carried out its mandate. It took some steps forward in reducing

March 24, 1988
Supply
its deficit. It improved labour relations. The Liberal Government appointed union representatives to the board of directors to provide a link between the Corporation and the workers and to promote social peace. That is the problem at the Canada Post Corporation. The situation has reached a point where if an employee forgets to punch out at noon, he is suspended three days without pay. The incredible fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government has exerted so much pressure on the Canada Post Corporation that the employees are no longer inclined to work. Such is the basic problem and this why we expect that the mail will not be delivered on time, Mr. Speaker ...
Therefore, the Liberal Government had then recognized that a coalition should exist between employer and unions, that an efficient management was necessary to give a better service to Canadians and we did so.
During the 1984 election, the Conservatives promised the moon, but once in power they threw off the disguise. They became true Conservatives over again and started slashing services. In this way, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in 1986 decided that for Canada Post Corporation the priority was no longer to deliver the mail, but to balance the books in no time, whatever the impact on service.
In the United States, Mr. Speaker, they took 14 years to balance the books. Here in Canada, a country as vast as ours, with our kind of remote areas and a small population, we want to reduce the Post Office's deficit over five years. Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker! That approach is not rational, and Canadians have to pay for it.
When Canada Post Corporation was established, the Liberal Government had a policy of offering community letterbox service to residents in new projects until home delivery was available. It was a temporary service that in no case was to become permanent. But in 1985 a Conservative Government, anxious to cut costs at any price, forced Canada Post Corporation to permanently set up the superbox system.
This means that since 1985, no new homes got home delivery nor have any hope of ever getting it. In 1986, following the Minister of Finance's statement, the Government just created two classes of citizens: one that gets home delivery and another that must go fetch their mail in a box. By 1991, Mr. Speaker, nearly one million homes and two million Canadians will be served by superboxes. But those superboxes are a second-rate service for second-rate citizens. How can the Government force an 80-year-old widow to get out at minus 20, 30 or 40 degrees temperatures to go and fetch, in a frozen superbox that will not open, an Old Age Security pension cheque that may not even be there because oftentimes postmen, on account of the snow, cannot deliver the mail. Mr. Speaker, this is unfair, irrational and discriminatory.
In the case of rural areas, the Government also intends to use collective mailboxes at major intersections and to close about 5,000 rural post offices within the next five years. What a lack of vision, Mr. Speaker, what a lack of understanding of
the community fabric of Canada! Everyone knows that the post office is still a gathering place in our villages and small towns. It often becomes an information centre for all citizens. It is where people go to look for social services and to ask for information on such matters as tax returns, scholarships and job applications; the postmaster often becomes a resource person. The federal Government is present everywhere, and the post office remains a familiar place where the Government takes on human dimensions. It creates a link with the community. It is a unifying force which gives a feeling of belonging to the community and to each of its members.
What I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, is not romanticism or poetry or a politician's dreams, but the basic truth. As evidence of that fact, I have here a letter sent to the president of the Canada Post Corporation by the mayor of the small community of Trinity Bay, and with your permission, I would like to quote from it. The mayor of Trinity Bay says: "If the few businesses which we have and on which we rely for our survival stay here, it is because we have services such as the post office. Centralization for economy's sake must not be pushed to such an extent that it jeopardizes the existence of small communities ... We urge you to find means to keep our post office, even if doing so would mean sharing with others certain of the most costly aspects of the postal service. For us here, sharing is a matter of survival, and we know something about it. For God's sake, do not help to destroy us!"
Mr. Speaker, Trinity Bay is certainly not important for the powerful Conservative Government, but we, Liberals, are well aware of the fact that there are thousands of communities like Trinity Bay in Canada. Indeed, over 2,500 communities in Canada do not even have a bank, only a post office. How can there be any thought of removing this link with the rest of the country? We, Liberals, understand that it is our duty to protect the character and the way of life of these communities and to serve them adequately. The Conservatives are obsessed by the Canada Post Corporation. Yet, it costs less to operate it than other Crown corporations of the same size, 60,000 employees.
In 1985-86, the Government paid to the Canada Post Corporation $180 million, or 6.2 per cent of its operation budget. Never, since the establishment of the Canada Post Corporation, has the Government provided it with more than 12 per cent of its budget.
In fact, over a three year period, more specifically from 1982 to 1985, the Government's share of its financing was reduced from 10.3 per cent to 6.3 per cent. This represents quite a valuable improvement, especially at a time when services are being increased instead of cut.
The Minister claims that home delivery would cost $1.3 billion and that to maintain it, the cost of a single stamp would have to be increased to 60 cents. The Minister is grossly exagerating, for according to Canada Posts' own data, $500 million-these are the figures for 1988-over a five year
March 24, 1988

period would be enough to replace the superboxes with home delivery.

Yesterday we read in the newspapers that the Post Office is set to double the supermailboxes. "Canada Post plans to resume the installation of its controversial supermailbox in the hopes to nearly double their number by the end of the summer". Then we hear that: "Town plans to launch suit after supermailbox cut". The Ontario Municipal Board recognized that a supermailbox installed in front of a home reduced the value of the property and the municipality reduces the tax bill. Now the municipality wants to sue the federal Government for its loss of tax revenue. What are the savings of the federal Government in installing the famous supermailboxes?

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation must fully assume its mail delivery mandate. It is the Government's responsibility to re-establish the mandate of 1981 which included improving its labour relations, increasing its productivity and reducing its deficit.
Canadian men and women want their mail to be delivered to their door every day of the week. They want an efficient and unified service which is the same for everybody. What would people say about a postman who would deliver the mail only on one side of the street? That is exactly what this Tory Government is trying to do. In my own riding, there are people living on one side of the street who are having their mail delivered at home, while those on the other side must get them from the superboxes. Yet, these people pay the very same taxes. Which proves that the Government has created with these superboxes two classes of citizens not for a little while, but for ever and ever.
Canadian men and women want also to keep their rural post offices open because they feel they are practical and useful, and because they are part of the social communication network of their community. We also want to keep the rural post offices open, because they represent a privileged link with citizens who are often isolated.
Instead of closing the post offices, the Government should enhance them by offering consumers postal related products such as greeting cards, correspondance and wrapping paper.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, all citizens worthy of the name are first class citizens. We are all equal. We pay the same taxes. We all have to buy a 37 cents stamp to send a letter. We are all entitled to the very same services, including mail services.
Of course, we all agree on the need to balance the budgets, whether it is that of the Canada Post Corporation or of any other organization. But the way to do that is not to reduce services or raise the price of a stamp to 60 cents, as the Minister claims. Management has to be creative, dynamic and competitive, they have to come up with novel and modern ways to boost revenues.
Supply
Studies have revealed that Canada Post would considerably increase its revenues simply by advertising on its trucks or at post office entrances. Some people claim that commercial advertising would tarnish the corporate image of Canada Post, but this is a specious argument because public transit systems have shown that trucks, buses or shelters can carry advertising without having a negative impact on the corporate image.
It is simply a matter of making sure that such advertising is in keeping with clear and relevant quality standards.
Private sector interests are acutely aware of post office goodwill and they know this is the way to boost their sales.
Mr. Speaker, the Government rejects progress. It rejects dynamism and fresh ideas. Its only solution is to reduce services. How can anyone be so blind?
Everywhere else in the world they find new ways to continue to serve people. Here in Canada the only way we have to solve these problems is to reduce services.
We must also set our sights on new technologies, new services which are getting ever more profitable such as electronic mail and mail advertising or direct mail.
According to a study by McLeod, Young & Weir, Canada is now eight years behind the United States in the use of sophisticated forms of direct mail.
In that case, the volume of direct mail handled by Canada Post will have to increase by about 115 per cent annually over the next eight years in order to reach the present level of distribution per capita in the United States.
By the same token, this would mean an impressive increase of revenues from third class mail. Indeed, from $300 million that it is now, Canada Post could increase its turnover in that area to $600 million. That is an extra $300 million annually. That in itself would be enough to balance the books at Canada Post Corporation, get rid of superboxes, keep our rural post offices and deliver the mail to all Canadians on time.
That is, Mr. Speaker, what should be done to settle those problems once and for all. I am glad to see the Minister in the House and I hope he will give some consideration to my comments and sit down with Canada Post Corporation to settle these problems once and for all.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) deserves our thanks and congratulations for the remarkable account he just gave of this very serious problem.
I wish as well to pay tribute to him for all the work he has accomplished these past few months regarding this important issue.
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out what seems a rather unusual and all the more positive element, in that in his speech, the Member also suggested some solutions, some answers to the problem.

March 24, 1988
Supply
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must add that I, myself, have had repeated opportunities to realize, in my own riding, the extreme importance of door-to-door daily mail delivery. I even decided for the sake of experience to follow in the steps of the rural postman during a few days, while he delivered his mail along concession roads, some very remote, and in the small towns vicinity, only to find out that as soon as he leaves an envelope or a newspaper in the mailbox, it is a matter of seconds before they are picked up. Not too many such experiences are required to understand how essential this service simply is and to know that cutting or reducing it would bring some very drastic consequences. And here, 1 am not particularly referring to elderly people.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: I know that he is an accountant. I am also aware that in his trade, anything called a deficit is obviously a matter of great concern. I also know that he has carried out several studies on the subject and I ask him the following questions: Does he think it possible not only to not cut services but to increase them and still make profits or at least enable the Corporation to balance its budget?
What we have seen for some months is the creation of a whole series of new businesses which I assume are making astronomical profits delivering mail.
Thus, in the light of all that, I ask my colleague if, according the him, Canada Post Corporation can balance its budget while maintaining and enhancing its present services in some other areas.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for his compliments and his question. Mr. Speaker, because we are limited I ran out of time and I was unable to deliver part of my speech.
Last January, Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada advised all employers that as of January this year any remittance of payroll deductions bearing a postage stamp dated the fifteenth and arriving one or two days after will not be considered and therefore a penalty will be imposed pursuant to the Revenue Canada statute.
Now in answer to the question of my colleague, yes, Canada Post can continue to provide essential services, keep rural post offices open, and deliver mail at the door instead of through superboxes without unduly increasing postage, and all this is possible, Mr. Speaker, because good service will definitely increase the volume of business, as we saw in the latest financial statement for 1986. There were no strikes between 1981 and 1986, so both revenues and business volume went up. In other words, the business community and people generally had begun to rely on Canada Post.
But then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave out his marching orders: the purpose of the whole exercise is not to provide better service or improve labour relations but to cut down the deficit, period. As a result of these orders the climate
and service automatically deteriorated, and we are definitely going to pay for that because revenues will now begin to go down.


John Kenneth Gormley: I wish to take part briefly in this discussion with the Hon. Member regarding postal service, and his particular reference to the supermailboxes. By way of a brief preamble, I was wondering why the Hon. Member ignores what is largely a suburban reality in many parts of the country. If one looks at the demography and the working trends in urban Canada today, I wonder as most responsible people should in this debate, if one has door-to-door delivery in those brand new subdivisions, how many people are at home at 9.30 or 9.45 in the morning to pick up mail, cheques, and valuable correspondence that would otherwise be left in the mailbox beside the door for the rest of the day? Is the proposition that people should walk 600 feet to a supermailbox to pick up their mail, an impossible task for the demography of the new suburban neighbourhoods which are usually young, working couples? One should also look at the fact that this is not a deprivation of service; these are subdivisions that were not there before. They often and usually have young couples who are moving into or building a new home.
In 1977 when I lived in Saskatoon, all the new subdivisions, under the former Liberal Government, did not have door-to-door delivery extended. In 1977 the Liberal Government stated that the cost to do this was clearly excessive to Canada Post.
In light of the millions of dollars that it would cost to extend door-to-door delivery in new suburbs, in light of the fact that supermailboxes are a secure way of having mail service in new subdivisions, which is exactly what happens in the small town where I live, where we always have to go to the Post Office to use our lock boxes and in light of the fact that to provide door-to-door delivery would result in a stamp costing approximately 65 cents, I wish to ask the Hon. Member if he can assure people in my constituency that the Liberal Party would indeed restore full door-to-door delivery at a cost of millions of dollars and at a cost of a 65-cent stamp. Would the Member give us an answer? I know his time is drawing short. It need not be a long answer. The question simply is, will the Liberal Party in the next election state that it will provide door-to-door delivery to all new subdivisions? Yes or no.


Alfonso Gagliano: I know that my time is short, but I wish to say that the Hon. Member outdid the Minister because the Minister mentioned a 60-cent stamp and the Hon. Member is now up to 65 cents. I do not know if the Hon. Member is doing better or worse, but I hope that he checks his figure. Each day it increases by five cents.
I wish to correct the record. The Hon. Member was talking about the Liberal policy in 1977. It was in 1974 that the policy was clear on the communities-
March 24, 1988


John Kenneth Gormley: You are skating on awfully thin ice.


Alfonso Gagliano: If you listen carefully perhaps you will learn something. Communities with 2,000 or more points of call always received door-to-door mail delivery. One only has to come to my riding and check the records. A future Liberal Government, yes, will return to the policy of giving Canadians door-to-door mail service for communities with 2,000 or more points of call. That was the previous policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now concluded. On debate, the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. spokesman for the Liberal Party talk about the commitment of the Liberal Party to door-to-door delivery for communities with 2,000 doors or more. What the Hon. Member is saying is that the Liberal Party agrees with this second-class policy. There will be two classes of Canadians, those who live in communities of 2,000 or more who will receive door-to-door service, and second-class citizens, according to how the Liberals describe the class of citizens, of people who do not live in those communities. What is so wonderful about that division? What will the Liberals do to those who live in a community of 1,950 doors? They will say: "That's too bad. You are second-class, you are not going to get door-to-door delivery". That is the absurdity of the type of statement made by the Hon. Member.
The Party with which the Hon. Member is aligned, when it was in power and when the Post Office was not a Crown corporation but a Department of Government, put a freeze on door-to-door delivery. It was done for a very good reason, because the world is changing. When I grew up there was door-to-door milk and bread delivery. Shopping was basically done on foot. Corner grocery stores were everywhere for one to purchase one's groceries. In those days something less than 20 per cent of married women worked. The family and the living circumstances were entirely different than today. Today, in the majority of families, both spouses work. The living style is to have two cars, to live in the suburbs, which is the areas wherein people are serviced by group mailboxes. The pattern is that there are not even sidewalks in recognition of the fact that people travel by car and park in the driveway or garage. They shop in the evenings in shopping centres. The Post Office is changing its delivery methods to reflect that new reality.
It strikes me as being a little ironic that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party consider themselves the more progressive parties. They call us the "dinosaurs". We are prepared to acknowledge that society is changing and that that should be acknowledged in the services. These "progressive" Parties say: "No, no, no. If it was good enough in the 1940s and 1950s, it is good enough today. No change. Keep it the way it is". They are the reactionaries. Their policy on the Post Office is to go back to the days when we lived on streets that had sidewalks and narrow lots, and when mama stayed home.
Supply
Let us go back to those days and let us not go forward to the new era. That is fine. If they as Parties wish to project to the people of Canada that it is their intention to have door-to-door delivery, or to instruct the Crown corporation to do that, then in all fairness they have to answer the question as to where the money will come from.
The fact is that five years is the period of the corporate plan. To bring in door-to-door delivery to every home now serviced by group mailboxes-and we are not talking about rural routes or general delivery-over the next five years, the fact is that it would cost an additional $1,300 million and thereafter $400 million per year in operating costs. The figures are there.
It is all well and good to sit in opposition and say: "What is $400 million or $ 1 billion compared with the potential votes we can get by making this promise?" They can sit there and say: "It is peanuts. What we are talking about here is votes. We don't worry about silly little things like $1 billion or $400 million per year of extra costs".
Well, that translates into a 60-cent stamp. An Hon. Member was saying that the Post Office should look for a growth in business. How would it grow in business if it raises the cost of a stamp to 60 cents? Just normal economics tells us that if it raises the cost of delivering a letter, it will have less letters to deliver. According to Economics 101, raise the price and demand goes down. One does not get more business by raising the price; one gets less business.
It is an irresponsible suggestion. I can understand that it is tempting. We have unions out there funding organizations such as RAM, Residents Against Mailboxes, which are petitioning and invoking images of elderly and handicapped people struggling through snowdrifts trying to get to their mailboxes to pick up the mail and being denied the luxury of having mail put into the boxes on the sides of their houses. They are traditional techniques used in politics, propaganda techniques, but I think one would underestimate the intelligence of Canadians to play that card too frequently and with too much prominence.
I think Canadians realize that the world is changing. I think anybody who looks around at our society recognizes that if you do not get milk delivery or door-to-door bread delivery nowadays, you have to find some way to get your groceries and it is not too difficult at the same time to get your mail. Indeed, the Post Office has a policy for the handicapped or people who are simply unable to leave their homes. In fact they can arrange to have door-to-door delivery. Again I do not think those images invoked in the propaganda war will be too believable.
If the Liberal Party wants to put forward the proposal that it is preferable to spend that extra money, $400 million per year, in order to have door-to-door delivery everywhere, if that is its priority, I think it is legitimate to put it to the people of Canada and let them decide. However, it is not legitimate to

March 24, 1988
Supply
suggest that somehow it can be done with no cost, that somehow we can wave a wand and make it disappear because we cannot. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It has to be paid for.
If it is the decision of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party that rather than spend $400 million on day care, education, or science and technology, those resources or that amount of money is better spent on door-to-door delivery of mail, that is their decision. They should put it before the people in all honesty and let them decide. This is what democracy is all about. However, to try to imply that there is no cost associated with these promises is dishonest at the least. As I indicated, it assumes a degree of ignorance on the part of the people of Canada which I do not believe is there. They will be able to see through that kind of posturing and behaviour.
The motion with which we are dealing today is a real potpourri. It sounds like the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) is blaming the Government of Canada for everything from poor postal services, to high prescription drugs, to the cost of gasoline, to acne. I understand that there is an outbreak of chicken pox in the day care centre in the Confederation Building. I guess that must be the Government's fault too and should be included in the motion! They seem to think that everything they deem to be wrong with Canadian society is due to the Government.
When we talk about the Post Office, one gets the impression sometimes from listening to the Opposition that until September, 1984 Canada Post was one of the best, smoothest running organizations in the world, certainly in Canada. One gets the impression that the mail got through on time all the time, that everybody got door-to-door delivery, that labour relations were sweet, that everything was hunky-dory, and that it all fell apart in September, 1984 when we were elected to Government. Of course that is absurd. In 1983 the Post Office was running a deficit of $500 million. It was borrowing $500 million. It is still there in the debt. It kept borrowing in those days. It will be paid for by future generations. The Liberal policy was very simple- "Let future generations pay for the cost of delivering a letter today". That was the kind of deficit in 1983, and all people did not get door-to-door delivery; a $500 million deficit and no door-to-door delivery in new suburbs.
Some progress has been made. This coming fiscal year the Post Office will make a profit for the first time since 1971-72. It will be a small profit but a profit. Productivity has been going up for the last three years in the Post Office at the rate of 3.5 per cent per year. Business has increased by 23 per cent. Indeed, the over-all expenditures of the Post Office over the last couple of years, and projected into next year, have increased as a result of three roughly equal measures: There has been a business increase, more volume; there has been an increase in the cost of stamps less than the cost of inflation; and there has been an increase in productivity. The Post Office is more efficient. It is making significant progress, and an honest Member of Parliament would acknowledge that.
Is there a lot left to be done? Yes, indeed there is, but current management is working on it. If only we could stop beating on them through this political process, stop the immature games that are being played at the political level all the time, and give them an opportunity to continue to make progress, we might see the day where this Crown Corporation was viewed by the majority of Canadians as one which is providing a good service at reasonable cost. It is a fair thing and a possible thing to look forward to. However, the temptation to play political games, make wild accusations, and so on is simply too overwhelming for too many people.
I guess that I am running out of time, but I would like to deal very briefly with one issue raised by the sponsor of the motion today, the one concerning prescription drug prices. Bill C-22, which we finally got through Parliament after the greatest of resistance by the Opposition Parties, is in place and is paying off. I have a little 20-page brochure here talking about the research and development commitments that have already resulted from Bill C-22-hundreds of millions of dollars. Today there are thousands of young Canadian scientists working as a result of Bill C-22, and Bill C-22 has not caused the increase in the price of any drug in Canada by a single penny. Anybody who claims otherwise is not telling the truth or is ignorant, not telling the truth because they are lying or not telling the truth because they are ignorant. However, such is the case of these people who were bitter about losing this battle. They keep raising these phoney studies about supposed price increases. We had one the other day from a couple of pharmacists from Toronto who said that the price of drugs had risen. The Toronto Star featured the study. The matter was raised in the House. A Senator raised it in the other place. Accusations were made; for instance, that Bill C-22 has caused the price of drugs to rise.
The study is a very interesting one. First it made comparisons by using last year's wholesale price versus this year's retail price. It looked at last year's price without federal tax versus this year's price with federal tax. It looked at drugs that were wholly manufactured in Switzerland and Germany. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Swiss franc and the German mark have gone up in value relative to the Canadian dollar. The study recommended that people look at the outrageous increase in price. In terms of the Swiss franc and the German mark, there was no increase whatever. Because of currency changes there was an increase in Canadian dollars, but none of this has anything to do with the patent system or Bill C-22 which changed the patent system. But that does not stop these lovers of truth and honesty from blaming currency changes on Bill C-22. It is absolute absurdity.
I can understand a political arena where from time to time people do things like that. It is less understandable to see some of these guardians of truth in information dissemination in the fourth estate making these kinds of claims in print as some,
March 24, 1988

only some, did, Mr. Speaker. That is less acceptable but again it is something that we need to deal with.
I guess the ultimate absurdity is the failure to acknowledge that if the opposition had not delayed the Bill, filibustered it or had not played silly games, we would now have in place the Drug Prices Review Board. The board would have the capability of looking at prices of all drugs and making reasonable and rational assessments as to whether price increases were appropriate or not appropriate and could take remedial action or exercise downward pressure on companies that might attempt to introduce drug prices in excess of the cost of living.
To do everything possible to delay the implementation of that Drug Prices Review Board and then to scream bloody murder when the Drug Prices Review Board is not there to me is hypocrisy at the least, if not worse. I could go on. Perhaps it is unnecessary because one of the great things about being a Canadian with our well educated and intelligent population is the comfort it gives in knowing that by and large people can see through most of this nonsense. Even when you have Members of the Opposition making crazy claims about Bill C-22 and about post office costs, supermailboxes and so on, in the end the public is intelligent enough to see the accusations for what they are, propaganda at best and outright deceit at worst perhaps. Since people can see through that, it is not that much of a concern on the part of the Government. It is something we need not get overly concerned about. While a motion like this gives us an opportunity to fill a day's debate in the House of Commons, nobody is fooled by the nonsense indicated in the motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Minister give me an answer to a question which my constituents frequently ask? I have several thousand new homes in the suburban part of my constituency. Many of the residents in these new homes call or come to me and say: "Before I lived in this new home in the suburbs where I have to get my mail from the supermailboxes, I lived in an older part of your constituency and I was getting door-to-door delivery. I moved into this new house in an urban area. The house costs more, it is worth more than the old house and I am paying much higher municipal taxes than I did before. My wife and I are working. We are paying much more in income tax than we did before. Why can I not get the same door-to-door mail service as I did when I lived in the old part of Winnipeg? Why am I treated as a second class citizen?" Frankly, I have no answer for them. I would like to be able to tell the people how the Minister would answer that question. Why do we have two classes of citizens in the cities of Canada, class one which gets door-to-door service and class two which has to depend on supermailboxes?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, actually there are four classes. First, you have classes of citizens who pick up their mail at general delivery in urban environments or in rural environments, small towns and villages. You have classes of citizens who go to the post office to pick up their mail at lock boxes.
Supply
You have classes of citizens who get their mail through rural route delivery systems. There are classes of citizens who get their mail door-to-door and you have classes of citizens who get their mail through group mailboxes. That situation has been in place for over 100 years, since the Post Office has been in existence. There has never been a time in the history of the Post Office whereby the majority of people got door-to-door delivery. It was always a minority of people who received postal services door-to-door. There is a bit of an illusion that somehow we are changing from what had been an historic situation. It is not true.
The Hon. Member talked about the difference between the downtown older neighbourhood and the new suburban areas.


David Orlikow: Not downtown.


Harvie Andre: We have changed patterns. The older neighbourhoods built in the 1940s and 1950s was at a time when mostly the wife did not work but stayed home. If there was a car in the family, that was all there was, public transport was used and the way of living was different. Most streets had sidewalks. People walked a lot. Shopping was done at local stand alone stores and shops.
It may have escaped the notice of the Hon. Member, but in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s things changed. Shopping centres came into existence. New suburbs opened up. Lots were bigger. People moved to the suburbs for the benefit of a bigger backyard. Most of these neighbourhoods do not have sidewalks because people do not walk. We see mainly two car families now. Shopping is done at shopping centres where people buy their groceries, pick up their dry cleaning, and it is done in the evening. Both partners work in most families now. We have changed. The world has changed.
The Post Office was trying to change in keeping with those changing patterns. The Hon. Member is suggesting that what was good for the 1940s and 1950s, and the lifestyle that most Canadians lived in those days ought to be retained for the 1980s and 1990s. For a reactionary like the Hon. Member, I can understand that, but the fact that the Post Office will adjust and adopt to modern lifestyles and the way we live today should not be viewed as such a shocking and terrible thing. It is certainly inaccurate to describe this situation as having first class and second class citizens in it. There has always been several ways of delivering the mail. There is today. There has been those differences for over 100 years. Undoubtedly there will continue to be in the future.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question, but before I do, I would like to tell him that perhaps he was on the opposition benches for too long. He was playing the kind of game that he accuses us of playing now when he was in Opposition. I would like to remind him that his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), said before the election that he would never increase taxes, that increasing taxes would be wrong. Indeed, in three and a half years, the

March 24, 1988
Supply
Minister of Finance took away over $22 billion in taxes from consumers.
During Question Period this afternoon, the Minister was temporarily absent, so I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) if the Minister could release the figures he was talking about to justify the $ 1.3 billion cost to Canada Post. I called Canada Post and was told that in 1986 figures, it would cost $360 million and in 1988 figures, $500 million for a five-year period. Who is telling the truth here?
Why does the Minister not defend his own figures by releasing them so that Members of the House and Canadians in general could know exactly what he is talking about? Why is he talking about a 60-cent stamp when he does not want to release the figures showing that a 60-cent stamp would be needed?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, before answering that, I want to say that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), just pointed out that for over 30 years she walked to the post office to pick up her mail and she does not consider herself a second-class citizen as a result of doing that. People who have had that personal experience have to dismiss the accusations of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) may be referring to certain figures that were in an editorial in The Toronto Star which supposedly had a different set of figures. That is nonsense. The figures I have quoted to him are in fact from a study the Post Office gave me.
The Hon. Member asks a valid question. Should those figures be made available? Yes, they should, and I will see if I can get them in form to do so.
Very soon, in the not too distant future, the Post Office will be called before the Standing Committee on Government Operations in defence of the Estimates and its corporate plan. That would provide a splendid opportunity for interested Members to go over in detail with senior management of the Canada Post Corporation all of these items. They are there and I have seen them. I have seen the slides and I am sure senior management will bring the slides to the committee so that the Hon. Member can have these numbers verified.
The Hon. Member asks a legitimate question and he will be provided with those numbers. However, I would ask him something in return. If he gets those numbers and they verify what I have indicated, which is what has been indicated to me by Canada Post Corporation, will he commit on behalf of his Party to state, if the Liberals are still in favour of it, that they are in favour of putting in door-to-door mail delivery everywhere where group boxes are now used and they are prepared to have the price of stamps rise in order to pay for that? He shakes his head in the negative. There is a man who says that he wants honesty and openness. Does he want openness? Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
We will give him the figures. Will he commit to have the integrity to give them to the people of Canada as he goes around making promises? Will he tell them how much those promises will cost and how they will be paid for? He is still shaking his head in the negative. At least he is proving that he is a genuine Liberal. He is in the right Party. Never tell the people the truth or they may not elect you, that is what Liberals think.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Minister and it involves the truth. I wonder if he would look into this matter for me and get me some facts and figures.
The kind of society he has been talking about is urban Canada where people go to supermarkets and are able to buy stamps at the same time as they buy groceries. He is not talking about rural Canada or northern Canada. There is another society in which people are hurting, are unemployed and need what comes in the mail. Small businesses and individuals need the mail and they are not getting it.
I just talked to representatives from the post office in Labrador City. Seventy-nine bags of mail destined for Labrador were left in St. John's today. The Minister wants us to commit to an increase in the price of stamps, but the service that is being given by Canada Post, particularly in rural and northern Canada, is absolutely abysmal. Why should we go for an increase in the price of stamps when that kind of service still exists?
Unemployed people need their cheques. Small businessmen are getting things in the mail that they need to survive. Would the Minister find out for me why 79 bags of mail destined for Labrador City were left in St. John's today? This is a specific example of the kind of service the post office is giving. If we can get the facts on that, maybe one of these days, if service improves, we can agree to an increase in the price of stamps.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) makes a valid point. It is interesting that in that connection, there is an innovation that the current management of the Post Office has brought in. It is incredible that this is an innovation because I would think that such a system would have been there for some decades, but it is only within the last three years that Canada Post Corporation has had the ability to answer the question the Hon. Member has raised, why the mail did not go on.
Incredible as it seems to me, up until three years ago, the Post Office operated almost as 11 separate little organizations. There was no central control. There was no ability at headquarters in Ottawa for anyone to know where the mail was at any one time because the mail would come into one of those 11 places, say Calgary, to be sorted. The stuff that was to be delivered in the Calgary area was kept and the rest would be sent to wherever it was to go, to the East or to Vancouver. However, no one at headquarters knew how much mail had
March 24, 1988

been sorted in Calgary, how much had been sent off, where it was at any one time or what was happening.
Now there is a control centre in Ottawa, and I would recommend that Hon. Members take an opportunity to visit it if they have a chance to do so. That control centre is connected to all of the sorting facilities around the country. All of the airline information and the trucking transportation information is there. It is a modern facility and at any one time, the Post Office knows where the mail is.
Why did the mail not get from St. John's to Labrador City?
I do not know. Has there been a storm there? If the airline does not fly, it cannot get the mail there. The Post Office has the same problems everyone else in Canada has when travelling in winter. Sometimes the airlines do not fly and sometimes existing methods of transportation do not work, but at least today someone in Ottawa has the ability to phone St. John's and ask why that mail did not get to Labrador City, give someone hell and hold someone to account. That is a new innovation. If that did not happen already today, I will make that inquiry and whoever is responsible ought to have a good explanation as well as a plan to make sure that it does not happen in the future.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that I heard his remarks. I gave the Hon. Member 23 or 24 minutes plus 12 or 14 minutes for questions and comments and I thought that because it was the Minister who spoke, Hon. Members would want to ask more questions of him. That is why I extended his time for a few extra minutes.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) a very simple question. I asked him to explain to the people who live in the cities and suburbs of Canada why some of them get door-to-door delivery and others have to depend on supermailboxes. The Minister, of course, talked all around the subject. He brought in the question of the kind of service there is in rural and northern areas, a separate question all together.
The fact is that city people resent the fact that they do not get the same service in the suburbs as they got when they lived in the inner city. The Minister had all kinds of explanations for these differences including the fact that there are no sidewalks in areas where there are new housing developments. A resident of Calgary must have been watching this debate because she called my office to point out that the suburban sidewalks are not built not because they are not wanted but because the municipalities cannot afford them. She thinks, and I am quoting from the message we got, that the Minister is quite ignorant on this subject and she is very angry with him.
Supply
I want to spend a few minutes on what has happened to the price of prescription drugs in the last half of 1987. The Minister spent part of his time berating those who claim that prices have gone up in the last year much more than the increase in the cost of living would have permitted. Supposedly Bill C-22 would have prevented that. He said those who were making that charge were either lying or were ignorant of the real facts. Here are the real facts as given to the people of Canada by responsible government agencies.
The Government of Ontario found that the price of drugs in its drug plan, and we are not talking about a few drugs but more than 1,000, rose faster than the Consumer Price Index for the six months before the 1987 year end. Some prices went up by 100 per cent and one went up by 250 per cent. Was there anything that could be done about this? Of course. Although the Drug Prices Review Board was set up only in December of 1987, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) said this morning that the board has the authority and the ability to go back five years in determining whether unfair prices have been charged. Why doesn't it do just that?
I have another illustration of what has happened. The Manitoba Government looked at the prices of generic drugs in that province for the last half of 1987 and found that they had actually gone down by 1 per cent. If they went down for generic drugs, why should they have gone up as they did by so much for so many of the brand-name drugs? Why does the Government not try and explain this disparity in more correct ways rather than heaping scorn on those providing the information? It is an old device for Governments to shoot the messenger because he brings bad news rather than deal with reality.
Why is the Government not encouraging the Drug Prices Review Board instead of heaping scorn on the Opposition? It is not just opposition Members of Parliament, it is all consumer groups, seniors, labour organizations and others who warned what would happen if Bill C-22 passed. If necessary, why is the Government not bringing in amendments to give the board the power to roll back prices when they increase by more than the inflation rate? Instead, the Government pretends that nothing is happening, the board is not working, and the Opposition is responsible for the delay. That is not going to fool anyone. The results will be seen in the next election, and I do not expect to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs back in this House as a Member of Parliament after the next election.
I now want to deal with the problem hundreds of thousands of people have in their dealings with banks. Bank profits are huge. In 1987 the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had a profit of S387 million. For Scotia Bank it was $381 million. For the Bank of Montreal, $413 million. For the Toronto-Dominion Bank, $528 million. For the Royal Bank, $541 million. What taxes did they pay? Based on past experience, very little. In many cases no real taxes were paid because the banks have been able to take advantage of our tax system

fact, it is not saving money at all. The banks are increasing their charges continually.
The banks are doing this in part to recoup the losses on money which they lent to Third World countries including Mexico and Brazil, at very attractive rates. They were getting upwards of 20 per cent interest some years ago. They were very happy to make those loans and earn that revenue through the high interest rates charged, particularly since in those years with a Liberal Government the tax system permitted and encouraged them to pay virtually no taxes at all. The banks deny this, but allow me to quote from the business publication Financial Post. In the December 21, 1987, issue an article by Philip Mathias entitled "Nickel-and-diming" says:
Just why fees are rising is a bone of contention. Critics say banks are squeezing consumers in an attempt to recoup some of the money they expect to lose on their colossal loans to Third World countries and Dome Petroleum Ltd.
To digress, Mr. Speaker, there is something very strange in our tax system when Dome Petroleum, which has lost hundreds of millions of dollars and has received huge loans and grants from the federal Government is able, when being sold, to pay its president several million dollars severance pay. Many of Dome's workers would be happy to receive that kind of sympathetic treatment from Dome Petroleum and the Government of Canada, but they are not getting it.
Mr. Mathias goes on to say:
Bankers hotly deny this assertion. Instead, they talk about a "user-pay" philosophy, which unbundles individual bank services and makes the customer who calls for a service pay for it.
Both explanations may be correct.
Service charges started rising rapidly in the early 1980s, a timing that fits neatly with the Third World loans and big corporate lending theory. (Bankers, however, say this is only a coincidence.)
Also, in 1982, it dawned on four big Canadian banks that $3 billion lent to Dome Petroleum was not going to be recovered easily.
They should have known that long before. It continues:
The recession of 1981-82 induced corporations to pay down bank loans rather than borrow. Competition among the banks to lend increased sharply.
At the same time, high interest rates made the cost of loans prohibitive. The banks found it difficult to maintain the traditional 3 -point spread between interest paid to lenders and that charged to borrowers. The top lending-out rate came down.
Spreads have still not recovered fully.
The banks have tried to retaliate.
They did not do this by going after the large and profitable corporations. They did it by going after the ordinary little Canadian who really cannot afford these charges and does not have the knowledge, expertise or time to shop around for cheaper financial services. That is the only advice the present Conservative Government will give ordinary Canadians, but it is always ready to defend corporations and individuals in the highest income bracket.
The banks argue that they are providing better service now to their customers. The automation of many of their services
Supply
should have kept the cost down, but the productivity savings in terms of lower labour cost and overhead are not being passed on to the consumer.
Many credit unions have no service charges at all in return for minimum deposits which also earn interest. Are the chartered banks less efficient than some of the smaller financial institutions? Obviously not. But the credit union represents ordinary people and cares about them. The banks have a captive clientele. They are not interested in looking after ordinary Canadians but in looking after the accounts of large corporations and wealthy individuals.
The advice of this Conservative Government is to shop around and let the buyer beware. Canadians are being criticized for not doing what they should, but most of them are unable to take the Government's advice because they do not have the information needed.
Today, the Minister of State for Finance said that he wants to hear from the Finance Committee. He is aware of the obligation of the banks under the Bank Act. Therefore, why does he have to wait for the recommendation of that committee? The Minister of State for Finance or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should tell the banks what they are required to do under the provisions of the Bank Act.
The Minister is doing nothing about it because he is not interested in the consumer. The Government is not interested in the small business community, the Consumers' Association or in poverty groups such as the National Anti-Poverty Association, all of whom agree that until the banking committee makes its report there should be an immediate freeze on bank charges. The Government will not do it because its priority is to protect those in whom it is interested, which includes the banks. That is not surprising when one considers the kinds of donations made to the Conservative Party by the major banks.
This motion, and the way the Government has failed to deal with the banks, certainly tells Canadians where the Government stands in terms of trying to protect the interest of ordinary Canadians.


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


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) for bringing this motion to the House today. It is appropriate to review the Tory tax record at this time and consider how the Conservative philosophy and policy has impacted upon M. et Mme tout le monde, as they say in Quebec.
The Tory philosophy seems to be: "Reach out and tax someone". Since they came to office, the Tories have hit Canadians with dozens of new taxes. I am reminded of something that Adam Smith said, which I believe reflects the

March 24, 1988
Supply
Tory point of view about who should shoulder the tax burden in this country. Adam Smith said: "There is no art which one government sooner learns from another than that of draining money from the people". I would suggest that phrase "draining money from the people" has a Conservative epitaph.
Rather than giving itself credit, the Government should be thankful that it came into office at a time when increased growth and an improved economy was taking place throughout the world. Despite being the benefactors of this improved situation, the Government has reached into the pockets of individual Canadian taxpayers to make the biggest tax grab in our history.
The Government's record of taxation reveals that it is showing an increased insensitivity toward lower and middle income families in Canada. Let us consider the tax increases the Government has seen fit to impose on Canadians. In 198485, there were personal income taxes in the amount of $29.3 billion, corporate taxes in the amount of $9.4 billion, and sales and excise taxes of $13.7 billion. In 1988-89, personal income tax will amount to $45.4 billion, $12 billion for corporate income tax, and $24.3 billion in sales and excise taxes.
By the end of the 1989 fiscal year there will be $16.1 billion in personal income tax, an increase of 55 per cent. Corporate tax will amount to $2.6 billion, which is an increase of 28 per cent. Sales and excise taxes will be $10.6 billion, for a 77 per cent increase. When we consider that the sales and excise taxes apply to everyone, whether one is earning $200,000 or $10,000, I suggest that this fact alone indicates the insensitivity and unfairness of the Government.
Furthermore, when we consider the particular areas in which taxation has been levelled, we can see the gross insensitivity of the Government. The fact that there is a 55 per cent increase in personal income tax and only a 28 per cent increase in corporate income tax shows that there is a sense of affinity for the corporate sector. It simply proves the Government has not been fair. Although the Government campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes, it has seen fit to hit Canadians with more than $22 billion in new taxes, to which can be added another $7 billion in future taxes.
The Government has claimed that the lower deficit is due to its ingenious management of the economy. I suggest that the Government's fiscal management has been incredibly poor because there has been an increase in the over-all per capita deficit. The per capita deficit has risen to $300 billion, from $7,000 per capita in 1983 to $12,000, a 60 per cent increase. During a time of high prosperity, the Government's poor management and poor judgment has resulted in that increase in per capita deficit.
These tax increases began with three consecutive sales tax increases, beginning in October, 1984.
The Conservatives hit Canadians with their first tax bite from 9 per cent to 10 per cent, which would subsequently go up to 12 per cent in hidden sales taxes. If one adds it all up, it comes to $3 billion, just in those hidden sales taxes. What that meant was that when men and women went to shop for new clothes, shoes for their children to go to school, food for their homes, the general everyday living, the cost was higher. The Government, through hidden taxes, had increased those costs by $3 billion.
I sometimes think that White Christmas was never on the Government's mind. It imposed a tax on candy, soft drinks, snacks. The cost to Canadians was $460 million, and one can add to that the $60 million which was added in taxes on paint and wallpaper. What kind of incentive is that for homeowners to improve their property? It was certainly a disincentive. I suggest that although it may have been hard on the redecorating bills at 24 Sussex Drive, it was equally hard, if not much harder, on the pocketbooks of ordinary Canadians.
I think we should be reminded that in this latest Budget the Tories put an incredible additional tax on gasoline. The first tax was worth $900 million. There was another tax of $450 million. There was one more additional tax of $450 million. If that was not enough, we have now had an increase of 23 cents per litre, which is close to one dollar per gallon for gas since September of 1985. This new tax of one cent a litre will come in April 1 and the Government will recover $450 million from that.
I would suggest we consider that $2.1 billion the Government is pulling in on that gas tax. I think there is a gas pipe that leads directly to the revenue treasury producing money for the Government to spend in all kinds of ridiculous areas. I wish they would increase spending in areas that are important to Canada.
I think we should consider the impact on workers who drive to work. The impact on their daily lives has been very significant. I think it is very unfair.
There was $700 million taken in by the Government from the increased tax on alcohol and tobacco. It is nice the Government is looking after our health and well-being, but some of us like those little luxuries and I think it is a little unfair. Then, of course, there is the marvellous tax on talking which quietly came into effect on January 1 of this year. Long distance telephone charges went up. They are now subject to a 10 per cent tax and the cost to Canadians is $945 million. Because of the strange way the lines are drawn for local and long-distance calls, many families will have to pay that additional tax every time they call their doctors or their dentists and-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It does not apply to residential phones and you know that.
March 24, 1988


Sheila Finestone: It does not apply to my residential phone when I am phoning from Hull up into the Outaouais?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It does not apply to residential phones.


Sheila Finestone: That is very interesting. I am glad the Minister has clarified that. We will just say that the tax is only costing $945 million for long-distance business calls. I am glad to hear that.
We must not forget the income tax changes. Canadians have not been able to forget the direct cash withdrawal from the pockets of consumers. I suggest that in those income tax changes, we have had the deindexing of the whole tax system. That small bill comes to $635 million on which we will add another 3 per cent next year and another 3 per cent the year after that. It goes on ad nauseam. The Government killed the Registered Homeownership Savings Plan, which certainly was a help to young people buying their first homes. That cost families $105 million.
We then had the elimination of the tax abatement clause. It added some very nice cash into the pockets of the Government. That is where the Government collects money and then holds it and sends it back to you without bothering to pay you interest. That will cost $650 million. That is not bad. There is also the temporary 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtax on high-income earners. However, that was only in effect from July 1, 1985 to December 31, 1986. There must have been a big lobby that told the Government to stop that. That only cost us $500 million.
There were the changes in tax treatment of dividend income which brought in another $300 million. There was a change in spousal exemptions. Those are the married benefits. It is a small amount of money, only $20 million. That is what the Government thinks about the role of the spouse within the family.
As I mentioned, all these taxes I have talked about, the sprinkling of these dozens of tax grabs by the Government, from individuals, families, senior citizens, total $22 billion. We should compare that with the fact that many corporations in this country still do not pay taxes and there is $1 billion of outstanding taxes to be collected from these corporations, on which Revenue Canada has not followed up. Why is it not doing its job? I think that $1 billion might offset some of the other things which I find rather regressive.
It does not take long to figure out who are the friends of this Government. If it is true that Canadians often vote with their pocketbooks, they surely will remember this Government on the way to the polls. So far I have spoken now just with respect to the hidden taxes and the overt taxes. What about the new tax treat the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is planning for us? We do not have the amount it is going to cost the taxpayers with respect to the new sales tax the Government intends to introduce after the next election. I would suggest that one part of that is a horrible Tory proposal. Fortunately, the Minister backed off on the tax on food but it took a whole brouhaha. It
Supply
took weeks of questioning in this House before the Minister rose and clarified that he will not tax perishable foods in the new sales tax. He will tax wax-paper, Saran Wrap and soap, all the things one uses to run one's home, but not one's food, according to the Minister of Finance.
There was an unfortunate leak that occurred when the Committee on Finance came back from New Zealand. There seemed to be some indication that it found that a tax on food was a good idea. It then withdrew that proposal. I would hope that never again will those words "tax on food" come forward and that that idea is rejected out of hand.
For the Government to put its hand in the pockets of working Canadians to the extent of $22 billion is a pretty sad situation. The Government says it is staying the course. Staying the course will certainly not help the 3.7 million Canadians who are living below the poverty line, nor those women whose revenue has fallen even further below the wages of men, nor the homeless, those people who are living on the streets, and those people who are going to the food banks.
I would suggest that staying the course and offering no plan of action is an affront to the many Canadians who have a right to look to the Government for leadership. I am truly saddened at the inadequate response to the despair that is being experienced in this country. I strongly recommend that the Government take a good look at where the real problems are and start addressing some of those serious concerns in this country.
If the Government is going to drain $22 billion in the largest tax grab in the history of this country, it should use some of that to help in job retraining, youth access, or for elderly people and their concerns, their access to the market, and their dislocation. Over three and a half years there have been many places where the Government could have done something constructive instead of a do nothing, stay the course Budget with no new initiatives or measures to assist the needy.
I think that the concept of free trade will cost Canadians very dearly. Has the Government forgotten that the consumer of this country is also the voter? I was going to address the question of bank charges and the incredibly huge charges that are hidden. 1 hope that the Government will move in that regard in order that people can have choices. If the Government would insist that there be open and full disclosure, we might well have signs up in the banks. Then we could do some comparative shopping and the bank charges and bank rates might be more open to general society.
If what is happening under free trade is looked at very carefully, the Canadian consumer will pay for this free trade initiative. For only the removal of the tariffs it will cost $1.5 billion this year, $1 billion next year, and $2 billion the year after. That wipes out the half of one per cent growth per year that we are supposed to have. How will we pay for that? I think that we will have to find someone to pay for additional

March 24, 1988
Supply
unemployment insurance premiums, someone to pay for additional training. There is a whole series of things of great concern: the number of jobs lost, the protection of certain industries, the number of industries that state that free trade might be good, "but not for me, exempt me", whether it is textiles, apparel, furniture, food processing, or chickens. I think there are areas of very serious concern.
I would like to suggest that the Government reorder its priorities, otherwise we will walk to the polls and tell it how we really feel.


Mr. Binns:: The Elon. Member for Westmount speaks so sincerely that Canadians may be tempted to believe her. I am amazed that she would have the gall to misrepresent so many basic things. I was immediately taken aback when she had the nerve to tell people that we have driven up the price of gasoline in this country since taking office.
When I was elected in 1984, the price of gasoline in my Province of Prince Edward Island was in the vicinity of 56 cents a litre. Today that same litre costs 48 cents. A quick conversion of approximately 8 cents a litre works out to approximately 36 cents a gallon. If one fills the tank and it is only 10 gallons, that is a saving of $3.60. If it is 15 gallons, that is a saving of $5.40 every time one goes to the pumps. That is a big saving.
Through the National Energy Program, the Liberal Government not only drove the price of gasoline up for every Canadian, but it ruined the whole oil industry in this country and set us back by years. Thank goodness our Government has done some things that have begun to turn this around.
The other thing that the Government has done in relation to gasoline is continue to rebate all the excise tax and sales tax to Canadian farmers. Many of the same things have been done for fishermen and for primary producers.
In the Province of Prince Edward Island the price of fuel not only affects the cost of gasoline, but it affects the cost of electric power. We buy power under a fuel clause in an agreement with the Province of New Brunswick. Every time that gasoline or fuel increased in the country, our price of electricity increased. Turning on the switch became a very expensive proposition.
In the same manner as we dropped the price of gasoline by getting rid of the NEP and returning to some rational order, we have also dropped the price of electricity to Prince Edward Island consumers. Those are two major areas where the Government has done much for the average person.
The Hon. Member talked about interest rates. I recall when interest rates were 22 and 23 per cent, bankrupting farmers, fishermen, and small business. The country was in ruins. Unemployment was rampant all over the place. We were wondering where it was going to end. Of course, it ended with the defeat of the former Liberal Government, and we started to restore some order.
My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) moved quickly to bring down interest rates to farmers. Under the Farm Credit Corporation, interest rates dropped by a matter of policy by 4 per cent from 16.75 per cent to 12.75 per cent. One can imagine the thousands of dollars that one move alone would save a medium to large size farmer in this country. It is quite astronomical. Because of the Government's policy, interest rates have come down right across the board. That means that homeowners and small businessmen are saving thousands and thousands of dollars that they otherwise would have had to pay out on mortgage payments, and so on.
I did not plan to rise, but I just could not take it any longer. I am sure that Canadians did not believe the Hon. Member when she was speaking. I am sure they would not want to return to the Liberal Government of a few years ago where the country was on a collision course because of high interest rates, high unemployment, bankruptcies, and continued economic problems and woes from one end of the country to the other.


Sheila Finestone: First, I wish to advise my hon. friend that I am not the Member for Westmount. I am the Member for Mount Royal and quite proud of that. I am pleasantly surprised to think that I have gall; perhaps guile but not gall. I do not think that I was showing too much nerve. I thought I was telling the direct truth. I would like to ask the Hon. Member to please read his Minister's tax Budgets. In case he cannot read, the Minister imposed a 2 cent per litre tax on September 3, 1985, and a 1 cent per litre tax on January 1, 1987, the first increase bringing in $900 million, the second increase bringing in $450 million, and 1 cent per litre on February 19, 1987, bringing in another $450 million. In case the Hon. Member does not look or does not know because this is a sneaky, hidden, indirect tax, there will be an additional 1 cent per litre increase as of April 1 of this year. I suggest the Hon. Member watch the pump. When the Hon. Member adds up $450 million, $450 million, and $900 million, the total is $2.1 billion added on to the tax bill of someone who knows what he is talking about and goes to the pump. First, I wish to advise the Hon. Member about that.
Second, the Hon. Member is very excited about how well he is doing in the supplying of energy either through oil or through hydroelectricity. That is great. The only thing the Hon. Member has forgotten is that he has given away our sovereign right to make some decisions around energy in this free trade deal. The Hon. Member ought to return and look at that too.
When the Hon. Member is talking about the farmers, I think he forgot about the marketing boards and the fact that farmers will have one heck of a job under free trade when they have to reconcile the marketing board, and the Canadian environment of snow six, seven months of the year, against the Americans south of the border with nice, warm twelve months a year grow-my-own products.


John Kenneth Gormley: I was moved and generally enthralled by the level of debate by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs.
March 24, 1988

Finestone) and the very thoughtful remarks of my colleague from Prince Edward Island. I felt that I must be moved to participate in some small part of this.
I wanted to ask the Hon. Member a little more about the question of taxation in terms of gas and generally the question of energy policy. The Hon. Member will know that in terms of deficit reduction-and this involves the obscenely high deficit that the Government inherited and the high national debt-it is being ratcheted down by using, roughly, a 70-30 formula. Some 70 per cent of the deficit reduction is being done by the Government simply taking less in contracting, and 30 per cent is being done by higher taxes.
If the Hon. Member considers the removal of the National Energy Program, the deregulation of natural gas and crude oil, the concurrent drop in world prices, even with the taxes which she as a Montreal Member of Parliament so greatly laments, and the free trade agreement that will indeed make Canada stronger and more secure in its energy supplies, how can this member of the Liberal Party stand in her place as an architect of the National Energy Program and purport to speak to Canadians or on behalf of Canadians in the oil and gas issue?
In terms of what is happening now to energy policy in Canada, will she concede that Canada's energy supplies in future are indeed more promising and the future considerably brighter under this Government and what we have done for western Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on a short rebuttal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it will be a very short rebuttal. The Hon. Member is totally unaware of world history. He has forgotten about the Arab boycott. He has forgotten that this is a finite resource. He has forgotten that his long-term thinking is going to put the country into a very serious position which is not in our best interest over the long term.
He can be very happy that world oil prices are where they are at this moment. Let him come back here in 15 years and tell me if he and his constituents do not wish that the NEP project was back in place.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was very disappointed to hear not just lies but enormous lies in the speech made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Sheila Finestone: Really?


Pierre H. Vincent: The Hon. Member says: Really? I will mention one. She said we increased taxes by $22 billion. I am not surprised her Leader can't count, because he was once
Supply
Minister of Finance and we know what the consequences were for this country, but I think it is really too bad the Hon. Member for Mount Royal can't count either, and frankly I am disappointed.
The $22 billion represents an increase in this country's revenue that is partly due to the fact that more Canadians are working. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understand that when Canadians work, they pay taxes, and when they pay taxes, the country's revenues increase.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal were comparing two years. According to them, since revenues increased by $22 billion, it follows that taxes increased by the same amount. Mr. Speaker, if taxes had actually increased by $22 billion, this means that every Canadian would have paid $1,000 more in either 1986 or 1987, whichever year she wants to take as an example.
So this really amounts to lying to Canadians, what the Hon. Member for Mount Royal said earlier. And then she had the nerve to tell us the national debt has increased. The national debt did increase, Mr. Speaker, that is quite true. It was ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see the Hon. Member for Mount Royal seeking the floor. I remind her that this is debate, not questions and comments.


Sheila Finestone: I realize that, Mr. Speaker. I was just curious to know if one is allowed to call someone a liar in this House, when in good faith a debate has taken place and my observations were well-founded. They may have been in error according to the views of this Member.

But these were certainly not lies, and I did not lie to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If that was indicated, I would hope the Parliamentary Secretary would retract the statement. I did not take it that way. However, if that is so, he knows that under our rules it is not acceptable and perhaps could retract it.


Pierre H. Vincent: Supply
also means that during the year in question, it had the nerve to spend $39 billion more. We came to power, Mr. Speaker, and we managed to reduce the annual deficit by $10 billion in three years. At the same time, the interest payable on the national debt increased by $10 billion over three years, and it did so because the previous Government annually spent more than it should have.
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance, and I think you were here at the time, he started with a surplus of $481 million. Do you know what he did with that surplus, Mr. Speaker, when he was Minister of Finance? He turned it into a deficit of $4 billion, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who wants to run this country. Under his administration, expenditures increased by 23 per cent a year. This is not 23 per cent over three or four years, but 23 per cent a year. This is what the C.D. Howe Institute had to say about it: Most of Mr. Turner's budgets disturbed the relative balance of economic positions by favouring very high or lower middle income families rather than the poor. When Mr. Turner was Minister of Finance, the poor and the needy were not the ones to be protected against inflation. Most of the monetary benefits went to the wealthiest 8 per cent of Canadian families. I must point out that this is a translation of the text published by the C.D. Howe Institute. This, Mr. Speaker, is the man who says that he will perhaps be Prime Minister of Canada again. However, he will not be Prime Minister because the Canadian people will not vote for someone who put the country in the hole when he was Minister of Finance.
The late Senator Lamontagne, whom the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on the other side knew personally, and who was Minister in the Pearson Cabinet, described the period between 1971 and 1976, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, by saying: "The middle term Government strategy was not clearly defined. That period was characterized by the combined effects of unemployment and inflation, which were stimulated by the economic structure and an overabundant supply. The Government made mistakes in forecasting and its economic decisions did nothing much to counter these unfortunate trends and bring back some stability."
Mr. Speaker, if I may quote a last comment about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), in his report for the last year when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, the Auditor General, James MacDonald, stated: "I am deeply concerned that Parliament-and indeed the Government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse." Whom do you think he meant, Mr. Speaker? He meant the Minister of Finance. "Financial management and control in the Government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the Government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation." All this, Mr. March 24, 1988
Speaker, is taken from page 9 of the report of the Auditor General of Canada for 1975-76.
Mr. Speaker, the number of unemployed increased by
164,000	between January 1972 and September 1975. In Quebec alone, 43,000 people were added to the unemployment lists over this three-year period under the administration of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra. During that same period, the number of unemployed women increased by 70,000 nationally. You might not believe this, Mr. Speaker, but our trade balance for goods, which showed a surplus of $2.6 billion in 1971, showed a deficit of $451 million in 1975, four years later, under the vigilant administration of the present Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on. The price of gas to which the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) referred increased by 54 per cent under the previous Minister of Finance, 54 per cent! In my riding of Trois-Rivieres, the price of gas today is lower than it was when we were elected in 1984. My friend the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) who is here will confirm it. That is a Government who takes care of consumers.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to deal with energy ... The Hon. Member for Mount Royal who represents a Quebec riding who had nothing to say when we dealt with Bill C-22 claimed that free trade would be bad for the energy industry. I wish I had been able to ask her how she could reconcile her view with that of Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa who says he is in favour of the free trade deal and who, as everybody knows, is a Premier who is partial to the Quebec energy industry as a supplier of electricity and who supports outright the Free Trade Agreement with the United States because he understands that it is good for both Canada and Quebec. Yet, we have here a Member representing a Quebec riding who is trying to scare people. All the Liberal Party and its Members are good for is scaring people off. She referred to the marketing boards in connection with free trade and agriculture. Need I write with my blood that the marketing boards, as it has been told over and over, have nothing to do with the free trade deal.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: There are not many in Mount Royal!


Pierre H. Vincent: My friend the Hon. Member for Champlain has made a relevant comment, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, there are not many farmers in the Mount Royal riding.
I have visited my riding and my farmers. The farmers in Saint-Severe, Saint-Barnabe, Yamachiche, Pointe-du-Lac and everywhere else have told me that they are not afraid of free trade.
Everywhere, they said: We are going to go around the various...


Alain Tardif: In Richmond-Wolfe?
March 24, 1988


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) is welcome to meet the farmers in my riding who are in favour of free trade and who told me: I vote Liberal in federal elections, but next time I'll vote for you, because the Liberals don't know the first thing about free trade.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop being afraid and stop scaring people.


Mr. Prud'homme:: You shouldn't get so excited. If you were a Minister, you would be more relaxed!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is making remarks on ...


George Albert Proud: Not remarks but compliments ...


Pierre H. Vincent: Are these constructive remarks or compliments?
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, agriculture is an important industry. Free trade will benefit farmers as it benefits all activity sectors. And I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is trying to make people believe all kinds of things and using scare tactics. To hear Opposition Members, scare tactics seem to be the order of the day.
Did they ever come up with a single positive, concrete and workable idea in three and a half years? I dare them to submit just one, just one positive and constructive idea in four years.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to banks and other financial institutions. When we were elected in 1984, Canadians had been waiting nearly 10 years for a reform of our financial institutions. Ten years before, Canadian financial institutions had pleaded with the Liberal Government for reform.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is working on it. This reform will soon be ready and will benefit all Canadian consumers: people who buy life insurance, go to trust companies and banks and use the services of brokerage firms. Everybody will benefit.
Of course, if the Opposition wanted to be positive for once and support the proposal, we could move faster and the reform would be ready sooner, for the greater benefit of all Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is nearly up. In conclusion, I would like to say that the increase in Government revenue was not merely due to an increase in taxes but also to our cuts in Government spending which also reduced the deficit. I think that is important, and that it shows sound management on the part of our administration and government services.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a demonstration which, to my mind, projects an accurate image of the differences and distinctions between our two political factions.
Supply
The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) made it quite clear that the deficit mushroomed when the Liberals were in office. But, Mr. Speaker, let us bear in mind that it was because the Government did go to the assistance of consumers that the financial situation took a turn for the worst.
When they took over the recession had ended, so the deficit was the next target. As indicated in the motion, we condemn the Government for tackling the deficit and seeking to improve the situation, but exclusively at the expense of consumers. Earlier this morning we heard a lot about the fact that there has been a cruel, savage and indecent increase in drug prices- the direct result of a measure taken by your Government.
What do you say to these millions of prescription drug users who now have to pay up to twice as much as they did six or seven months ago? What do you say to Canadians who can only watch the mailman go by their door? What do you tell them? Are they not entitled to the same services as their neighbours? Finally, what do you say to the many consumers who were used to paying a minimal charge for Government services and who in many cases are now faced with increases of 200, 300 and 400 per cent? What do you tell them? The fact is that you have overloaded the consumer with taxes just so you would be in a position to reduce the taxes of others that can afford to pay, and I mean major companies.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have to smile at the comments of the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), who begins by saying: We spent more than we could afford, and should have in order to help consumers because there was an economic crisis.
I recognize that there was a recession between 1980 and 1983. The figures I quoted related to the period when his Leader was Minister of Finance between 1971 and 1975. This is when, according to the C.D. Howe Institute, and I shall now repeat it, as the Hon. Member may not have understood, most of Mr. Turner's budgets disturbed the relative balance of economic positions by favouring very high and/or lower middle income families rather than the poor.
When Mr. Turner was Minister of Finance, the poor and the needy were not the ones to be protected against inflation. Monetary benefits went mostly to the wealthiest 8 per cent of Canadian families. These comments were not made by Conservative supporters, but by the C.D. Howe Institute.
The Hon. Member says that his Government spent more during the recession to help consumers, but I challenge him to say where, in the Trois-Rivieres riding, it made any investments which really helped to create permanent jobs or did anything really useful for the riding. All its initiatives amounted to flagrant patronage and patching. This is all it did. It said it was creating jobs by doing some construction work. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, jobs in construction are not permanent jobs. It is only a band-aid solution. This is what the previous Government did when it talked about job creation.

March 24, 1988
Supply
As for us, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with the private sector, we have created 1.3 million jobs since September 1984. Moreover, 80 per cent have been permanent jobs and a lot of them have gone to women and young people, which had never been the case under the previous Liberal Government.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised the question of hydroelectricity. It is a subject that is very dear to my heart.
There is about 10,000 megawatts of electricity in Labrador flowing to the sea every day, untapped, unrestrained. This is happening in a province which will run out of electricity in 1992. In a province which will have no more of electricity in 1992, 10,000 megawatts of electricity flows to the sea every day. That is not the problem of the Hon. Member, I know, but I want to try to put that in context if I can.
The Hon. Member talked about the value of the free trade agreement. I hope he will listen to this because I have some arguments to make and I hope he will want to reply to them later on.
Not only is it impossible to develop that hydroelectricity now without the help of the Province of Quebec, a province which takes about $800 to every $8 that goes to the Province of Newfoundland for the Upper Churchill contract, but it will be doubly difficult to do so in the future under the free trade agreement. Every province that wants to export electricity must pass a test. First, they must pass a price test and second, they must ask other provinces if they want their power. They cannot sell electricity to the U.S. unless they ask the other provinces if they want the power.
In future, the provinces will not have to do that, not simply because of free trade but because of the deregulation policy of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). In a moment, I would like to quote the Minister of Energy because his words are apropos to what the free trade deal does.
The free trade deal creates a level playing field. It provides that we are no different from the Americans. I see that the Hon. Member is leaving. Perhaps I will repeat my point when he returns.
In future, we will be no different from the Americans. We will not be able to have a made-in-Canada price. The National Energy Program which has been very much maligned today allowed Canada to have a Canadian price, but we cannot do so any longer. The free trade deal says that we are a level playing field.
We are talking about consumers here today. It is great to develop James Bay. It will be great for the construction industry. It will provide a lot of construction jobs, and that is good. I applaud Mr. Bourassa for that and I say to my colleagues from Quebec that that is well done, they will create
lots of jobs in the construction stage. However, what will it do to the consumer? There will be no Canadian price for hydroelectricity.
Moreover, apart from free trade, Mr. Masse has said:
To take advantage of these opportunities, federal electricity export policies must change. We need to acknowledge that provincial regulation has become much more sophisticated since 1963, and that there is no need for the federal government to duplicate what the provinces are already doing.
Our general policy framework needs to be more market-oriented. We need to give exporters greater latitude, so that they can concentrate more on business. And we need to streamline the export review process so that it provides incentives for utilities to be more self-regulating.
In other words, the Government is getting out of the way and industry can do what it wants. It does not have to ask the other provinces if they want the electricity and it does not have to offer it to them at a Canadian price. That is the effect of both free trade and the deregulation policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Minister does not have to ask Newfoundland if it wants the power. The Minister does not have to ask Prince Edward Island if it wants the power. The Minister does not have to ask New Brunswick if it wants the power. What will happen to the consumers in those provinces? That is what we are talking about today, consumers and what will happen to the consumers of hydro-electricity under free trade and the deregulation of Mr. Masse.
Not only will the Minister not have to offer power to Prince Edward Island at a decent price, he will not have to offer it to the province at all. That is the effect of the free trade deal coupled with the deregulation policy of Mr. Masse. The provinces that do not have access to power will have less access to it in future, and even if they are offered it out of the goodness of the hearts of those producing it, they will have to pay the American price. That is the effect of free trade and the deregulation policy of Mr. Masse.
As I say, it is great for the construction industry in Quebec and it is great for people who want jobs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that he is mentioning the Hon. Minister's name when he should be saying the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse). He has done it three times and that is the only reason I bring it to his attention.


Bill Rompkey: We have to say things over and over so that the people opposite will understand, but I do appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that.
Joe Smallwood, and I can mention his name because he never was in this Chamber, always used to say that you have to tell people what you are going to say, then you have to say it and then you have to tell people what you already said in order to get the message across. I want to make sure that I get the message across that free trade plus the deregulation policy of the Minister of Energy will have a negative impact on the consumer in provinces which do not produce hydroelectricity.
March 24, 1988

It may even have a negative impact on the consumers of hydroelectricity in Quebec itself. I cannot speak for that province, but I can speak for my own.
That is the response I would make to the Hon. Member about hydroelectricity. Of course, there are many other points to be made too, and they have been made adequately today. My colleague from Mount Royal and others have sketched out the taxes that have been increased over the years, particularly the sales tax which of course is a regressive tax because it impacts negatively on those people who have less and it does not, however, impact a great deal on those who have more.
There have been tax increases and they have been regressive. They have not been a help to the consumers of Canada. The Government, of course, says that it can do this because the economy is good and because it has created a lot of jobs. Therefore, there is more income and businesses are investing more and creating more jobs. Where is that happening? In central Canada. Sure, there are more jobs in Toronto, but how many have been created in the Atlantic provinces?
If the argument is that you can increase taxes because the economy is good and business has invested and created more jobs, then the effect of increased taxes is doubly damaging to people in areas where the jobs have not been created, where there is still high unemployment, and where incomes are still low. In the Province of Newfoundland we still have the lowest per capita income and the highest unemployment rate in the country. What is the effect of tax increases on people in that area?
What about gasoline taxes? How many things come in to that province by truck? Quite a lot, and as gasoline goes up, prices go up. Berthage fees for fishermen have been increased. At the same time there have been cuts in government programs across the board in order to cut the deficit. That, too, has a cumulative effect on consumers, particularly in have-not provinces which are dependent upon government programs.
Then on top of that is the issue I raised with the Minister responsible for the Post Office concerning the state of our mail service. He talked about the fact that people wanted to go to supermarkets and collect their stamps at the same time they collected their groceries. That is fine for urban Canada but it does not work that way in rural Canada or northern Canada. He was asking for an increase in the price of stamps so he could improve mail service. I pointed out that the level of service we get in the North is deplorable. I talked to the Post Office today in Labrador City. Seventy-nine bags of mail destined for Labrador City were left in the airport in St. John's. Labrador City is served only by air. There are no ships that go there and no roads. People there depend on the mail service. The unemployed, pensioners and those on fixed incomes depend on it for cheques. They are consumers. Yet the Post Office wants to increase the cost of stamps while still
Supply
providing that deplorable service. Before they get that increase they better clean up their act and start giving decent service.
Then there is the impact of other government policies. We have not talked about young people and the effect on them of government policies. They are consumers, or they want to be. The fact is that money for post-secondary education has been decreased. The fact is there is a 30 per cent drop in funding to community colleges and CEGEPs as a result of the change in the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The fact is that the amount of money for summer jobs for young people has been frozen for the past three years. There is a direct correlation between the amount of education you have and the amount of money you earn. If young people want to be consumers, where is the incentive to get an education and try and start their own business? It is not there. This is a factor we have to consider.
I want to point out that even fisheries policy has an effect on consumers. I know of a fish plant in my riding right now that will have to lay off workers this summer, 56 people. Not a large number, perhaps, but in a community of 500 or 600, almost the total workforce in that plant will be laid off this summer. Why? It is a fisherman's co-op, the Labrador Lishermen's Union Shrimp Company, and the Government has said it cannot have a supply of offshore fish. The Government is prepared to bargain away that fish to Trance, but it has told the fishermen on that coast that they cannot have access to fish. That situation has a direct connection to consumers because once you start doing away with jobs, you start doing away with the wherewithal to make purchases. That aspect of government policy has its effect, too.
It seems to me that over the past four years, while businesses in certain parts of the country may have expanded and employment may have been created, the over-all effect on consumers has not been positive from the point of view of the broad range of government policy. That is the situation and I think that when this Government goes to its accountability session, as it must very soon, possibly this fall, the people of Canada will judge. If the polls are any indication, then the consumers of Canada will judge harshly indeed.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Grand Tails-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) spoke about saying something three times to get the crowd on this side of the House to understand what he is saying. I want to say that the crowd on this side of the House believe in doing instead of talking.
He spoke about harbours. When this Conservative Government came into office in 1984, the harbours around Canada were generally in poor condition. Many of them were in an advanced state of disrepair so as to render them unsafe. At that time it was estimated that approximately 112 harbours were indeed unsafe for vessels seeking safe haven. Many of them were barricaded. It does not sound like the previous Government had looked after the fishermen or recreational users in a very good way as far as the harbours were concerned.

March 24, 1988
Supply
At that time, if corrective measures had not been taken, in another five years an additional 150 harbours would have to have been closed. These statistics were and are alarming since the livelihood of fishermen is at stake. Most of the small craft harbours operated through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are located in outlying areas where fishing represents the primary source of income. That situation could not be condoned by this Government and I am glad to say that the Minister announced this past year that $150 million would be spent over the next three years on revitalization and maintenance programs in every province of Canada.
In the motion before us reference is made to user fees. I believe that this has been put in there intentionally to try and scare fishermen into believing that because a plan is being put in place to give fishermen more say in the development of their harbours through local harbour authorities, for some reason or other they are going to have to pay more for the services. I do not believe that that is true. The fishermen to whom I have spoken in the harbours in my constituency welcome the chance to be part of harbour authorities and to be part of the planning for the development which will take place in their harbours. They welcome the chance to set fees for themselves because they know that that money will go back to them for them to administer and use to their own advantage.
It is interesting to note that some of these harbours will be leased to harbour authorities which will help the federal Government set out directions for the setting of priorities for improvement and development of their harbours. As I have already said, they will undertake the day-to-day management. They will be able to install electricity on wharfs where they want it to use to their own advantage. The same is true with water on the wharfs.
Some people in my constituency have already approached me about setting up marinas in harbours which are presently used mainly by fishermen. They know that there are more tourists coming in from different parts of Canada and from the United States and they want to be able to provide harbour facilities to these people in order to generate more revenue to use for their own advantage.
Giving local fishermen, members of town councils or development associations and others the opportunity to serve on the harbour authorities will establish grass roots user management. They will be able to match programs more precisely to local needs and set their own priorities.
As I said, I believe that this motion is only a scare tactic of the Opposition such as those used on many occasions to try to put fear into the people. However, I know that the people in my riding are not fooled by those tactics. They are very grateful for the revitalization program.
The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador talks about cut-backs. That is certainly not the indication of people in places like Grate's Cove who have been waiting for
harbour facilities for 35 years, ever since Confederation. It is only now, with a Conservative Government, that they are getting those long needed facilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 82(10), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (E)
Donald Frank Mazankowski: That Supplementary Estimates (E), 1987-88, laid upon the Table
Wednesday, March 2, 1988, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Mazankowski thereupon moved that Bill C-119, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time.
Mr. Mazankowski thereupon moved that Bill C-l 19, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the customary question of the Deputy Prime
March 24, 1988

Minister as to whether this Bill is in the usual form. Perhaps he could inform the House of that.
Mr. Mazankowski Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members of the House that the form of this Bill is the same as that passed in previous years.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


George Albert Proud: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


George Albert Proud: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Schedule carry?


George Albert Proud: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


George Albert Proud: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Supply


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: That a sum not exceeding $11,452,962,802.07 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($8,469,890,735.75) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, which were laid upon the Table Wednesday, March 2, 1988, except those items below:
(2)	twelve-twelfths, less five million, three hundred and seventy-nine thousand six hundred and sixty-seven dollars, of the total of the amount of Agriculture Item 45, (Schedule A) of the said Estimates. $292,096,333.00;
(3)	eleven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Transport Item 15 and Treasury Board Item 10 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $169,355,083.33;
(4)	ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of National Health and Welfare Item 60 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $1,605,833.33;
(5)	nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $270,000,000.00;
(6)	six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 35 and Public Works Item 25 and Regional Industrial Expansion Item 30 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $22,148,000.00;
(7)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Energy, Mines and Resources Item 35 and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 15 and National Health and Welfare Item 55 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $754,282,583.34; and

March 24, 1988


Supply
(8) four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Items 30, 45 and 60 and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Item and Employment and Immigration Item 30 and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Items L20, 40, 45 and 50 and Justice Item 15 and National Health and Welfare Items 10 and 15 and Public Works Items 10 and 30 and Science and Technology Items 1 and 5 and Solicitor General Items 1 and 35 and Supply and Services Item 1 and Transport Items 1 and 30 and Veterans Affairs Item 5 (Schedule G) of the said Estimates, $1,473,584,233,32;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of fiscal year ending March 31,1989.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-120, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1989, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. Mazankowski thereupon moved that Bill C-120, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1989, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Jacques Guilbault: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) whether he can assure us that this Bill is in the usual form and similar to those which were introduced in previous years.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the form of this Bill is the usual one for Interim Supply Bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule A agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division Schedule B agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule C carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule C agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule D carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule D agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule E carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule E agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule F carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule F agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule G carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule G agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?



March 24, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers