1988-02-10

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stands today to deliver his budget address, I am sure that he will mention the many taxes which he has piled upon Canadians since 1984. Each day workers are taking home less and less money. Canadians are paying more, yet the Government, and especially Canada Post, are cutting their services to those same people.
First it was rural post offices. Now people in the communities in the West Prince area of our province will have their mail delivery cut back. This is unacceptable.
Furthermore, where is the consultation that Canada Post promised? Nobody contacted my office, so I urge the Minister responsible for Canada Post to cancel this decision and restore proper mail service to the people in the western part of Prince Edward Island.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Member Gabriel Desjardins has come up with a tremendous idea, which is to make Rouyn-Noranda a national environmental research centre which would benefit not only Temis-camingue but also Abitibi.
According to Gabriel Desjardins, his riding has become a national and international laboratory and could be used as an observation centre.
I agree, and I think all of us in Quebec and across Canada should support Mr. Desjardins.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Lloyd Francis, former Speaker of this House, is mistaken. His Citizen article "Illegal Immigration Time Bomb in our Society" attacks Canada's 10-year refugee policy based on the United Nations Refugee Treaty we signed 20 years ago.
He does a disservice to Canada by raising irrational fear of refugees with mistaken statements such as these: that for 500 million immigrants and 40 million refugees Canada is a preferred destination-no responsible authority supports such wild exaggeration-and that humanitarian groups seek exemption from the law so as to help illegal immigrants.
What a slander. Of the dozens of witnesses against Bill C-84, not one asked for exemption because all were conscientiously obeying the law by bringing refugee claimants, not illegal immigrants, to Canadian immigration offices.
Does Mr. Francis wish us to ignore refugees persecuted by Governments in some former colonial countries? Canada benefits by the cheap exports of those countries and is partner to some of their violently repressive Governments that enforce virtual slave labour at starvation wages. These refugees Mr. Francis fears are the voice of our conscience.


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, Archbishop James Hayes, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on January 28 on the Supreme Court's decision regarding abortion laws. The following are quotes from that statement:
The situation of "abortion on demand" that follows from the court's decision must be corrected legislatively as soon as possible. This is our common task now, and the future of our human society depends on how soon and how well it is done.
Abortion is the destruction of human life. The challenge is to change our society's attitude toward life and to channel the energies and strong emotions

February 10, 1988


S. 0. 21
[Stage Direction]
involved in this debate toward correcting mentalities and situations that lead to abortion.
We need to create a society that supports life and enables children to be raised with dignity; a society that puts other people's rights and needs ahead of personal comfort and gain; a society that respects human life at every stage of its development.
The vision and hope that lead us forward flow from our God-given belief that every human life is sacred. Today's Supreme Court decision leaves us in a situation where the sacredness of life is being violated.
We must urgently work together with all Canadians for legislation that will indeed safeguard the life, liberty and security of every person, including the unborn.
May I say Amen to all of that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on his twenty-fourth anniversary as a Member of the House of Commons. However, I also have a few comments to make about yesterday's statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) concerning senior citizens. I am pleased that the Minister took the advice of the Liberal Party and put back the $5 million he had cut from the New Horizons programs. We agree with the new programs aimed at increasing the autonomy of the elderly, but unfortunately, funding is minimal. We have nearly 2.6 million senior citizens in Canada, and the Government is granting the equivalent of $10 each. Instead of announcing this bare bones program to help senior citizens stay in their own homes, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have set up a full-fledged program of home health care and housekeeping services. That is what they need!


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members know that Alberta and the City of Calgary will soon be welcoming the world as the Winter Olympics edge closer. In fact, at this very moment, the legendary Olympic Torch is being paraded through my city of Edmonton. All
Canadians are expecting the best Winter Olympics ever. The one potential cloud that looms on the horizon is the nurses' strike currently going on in Alberta.
More than 150,000 people are expected to visit the Olympic site, and although one-quarter of the 9,400 volunteers are trained in First Aid there is nothing like the care of an Alberta nurse to ease one through injury or illness.
Some nurses have shown true western spirit by volunteering their services to the games organizing committee, but picket duty may interfere with their good will, so I call on both the Alberta Hospital Association and the United Nurses of Alberta to settle the dispute quickly. The eyes of the world are upon us.


ABORTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision on the Morgentaler case found Canada's abortion law unconstitutional in part because therapeutic abortion committees denied women reasonable access, and long delays put women's health in danger. Section 251 of the Criminal Code contravened the Charter which guarantees security of the person.
The federal Government should have provided immediate leadership and should have clearly communicated the implication of this Supreme Court decision. Women must have equal access to abortion across Canada. To deny access to health services, according to the Supreme Court, is to contravene the Charter.
The decision on abortion is a health matter to be decided by a woman in consultation with her doctor. By refusing to take a leadership role immediately, the federal Government has contributed to mass chaos across Canada. Some provinces like British Columbia are victimizing women and imposing impossible decisions on doctors.
We call on the federal Government to instruct the provinces that, under the Canada Health Act, they are responsible for ensuring that medical services are universally accessible, comprehensive, and portable. Health services must be covered by medicare. Women's health clinics with a range of health services should be publicly funded, and the federal Government should immediately launch a campaign in support of family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
February 10, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD-FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

['Hear, hear!']
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my Opposition colleagues and of all Canadians to the fact that Question Period has become a real circus. When I was elected, I had to learn about the procedure in the House, and I was told that the main purpose of Question Period was to inform Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, for some time now, we have been exposed to a steady stream of repetitive and harassing questions whose purpose can be only to tarnish the reputation of the Government and all its Members. Mr. Speaker, this is called disinformation and obstruction, and I sincerely believe that the Opposition's role should not consist of those activities.
Mr. Speaker, I think you have a duty to put an end to this charade, otherwise the Canadian people will no longer have access to the information they have a right to receive.



Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, TIAC, is the country's largest and most important tourism association with a membership covering approximately 30,000 tourism businesses. Recently, TIAC wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) accusing his Government of total disregard for the concerns of the tourism industry in the tax reform legislation.
The Tourism Association stated that if tax reform in Canada places our tourism products and services at a greater competitive disadvantage with the U.S., both our foreign exchange earnings and job-creation potential within Canada will be seriously compromised. The association points out that the Conference Board of Canada is already predicting that the travel account balance of payments deficit for Canada will grow to the $3 billion range by 1990.
If this deficit is allowed to escalate further, it will end up having serious negative employment implications for Canada. In support of TIAC, I urge the Government to start paying attention to our tourism industry. Tourism means jobs, jobs, jobs.
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


POSITIONS OF OPPOSITION PARTY LEADERS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I want to help all Canadians understand what the two opposition Leaders will be saying after tonight's Budget. This is what they said the last three times. The Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) said that "the Budget does not have an economic plan, no agenda for growth and no agenda for jobs''. He was wrong, wrong, wrong.
The NDP Leader (Mr. Broadbent) said that "not only have we had no improvement but things have gotten worse". He was wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Liberal Leader: "There is nothing in it for farmers". No Government has done more for farmers than this Government, and he was wrong again.
On unemployment the NDP Leader said: "The projections show virtually no change". How wrong could that wrong man be?
Bill told me, Mr. Speaker, that after tonight's budget speech he was going to celebrate. He said that Mike Wilson has brought more economic growth, more employment, more real stability, than ever thought possible, and Mike has been constantly right, right, right!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MARCEL PRUD'HOMME
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps 1 may point out to Hon. Members that on February 10, 1964, as a result of a by-election, Mr. Marcel Prud'homme was elected a Member of this House, twenty-four years ago. Congratulations!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in testifying before a U.S. congressional committee,

February 10, 1988
Oral Questions
Secretary of the Treasury Baker said that the U.S. will seek compensation or redress from Canada if any provinces do not comply with the terms of the agreement initialled by the Prime Minister and President Reagan. We already know three provinces have said they are not in agreement with the deal.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if the U.S. has the right to seek compensation and redress under the terms of the agreement? As well, is he ready to offer such compensation in view of provincial non-compliance? In other words, is he prepared to give away even more in order to get the deal approved?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, obviously when one concludes a treaty with a trading partner, that partner is quite entitled to assume that the treaty will be fully honoured by the sovereign nation with which it was concluded. That is the assumption under which Mr. Baker is functioning and it is not an inaccurate one.
With regard to the questions raised by my hon. friend, clearly he has not been listening to comments made yesterday by U.S. Congressmen and Senators, many of whom are voicing grave misgivings in regard to the treaty, not because they disagree with the principles involved but because they feel Canada got by far the better deal.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Prime Minister did not answer what was a very important question, that is, to what extent does the agreement bind the provinces, to what degree must they comply, and does the U.S. have the right to compensation?


CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, several months ago, under the Freedom of Information Act, we sought from the Department of Justice and other government Departments the legal view of the constitutionality of the agreement and its impact upon the provinces. We got back three blank pages, one with the title of a U.S. law firm, one article from a U.S. trade publication-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Lloyd Axworthy: -and an article from The Toronto Star.
Is this the kind of information the Government is working from, and why is it refusing to give parliamentarians and other Canadians a proper legal interpretation of the agreement rather than a bunch of hopeless articles from a U.S. law firm?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. friend is not calling into question the sovereign right of the Government of Canada to conclude international treaties and cause them to be enacted. If my hon. friend is stating that as policy of the Liberal Party of Canada, he should stand up in the House and say so.
The Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, has concluded an international treaty. We believe it is very much in the national interest. We will submit it to
Parliament at an appropriate time and we will ensure that that treaty is respected, as I am sure my hon. friend wants to ensure the respect of all of our international obligations.


Lloyd Axworthy: As a gentleman who at one time practised law the Prime Minister will know that there was a decision in 1935 on the International Labour Organization which gives the provinces the right not to ratify international agreements signed by the federal Government. For him to try to mislead this House by suggesting-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where do you get your legal advice from, Lloyd?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to impute any intentional misleading, especially with regard to the interpretation of a decision of the courts. The Hon. Member.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention to do that. We are trying to get the facts.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a very serious challenge by the Secretary of the Treasury to which the Prime Minister has refused to respond. We have asked for proper legal opinion from the Government of Canada and it has refused to provide that legal opinion. The Prime Minister is not dealing with the facts as he should know them.
When and how will the Government provide a clear response to the challenge raised by Mr. Baker concerning the responsibility of the Government to ensure the compliance of the provinces? Can the Prime Minister say today that all the provinces will comply, or is he going to do as Mr. Baker said and provide further compensation to the United States in the face of the fact that three provinces say they do not go along with this deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the legal and constitutional authority of the Parliament and Government of Canada to proceed in this regard is clear and unchallenged. If anyone chooses to invoke a challenge, then he, she, or that Government is entirely free to do so and to address the appropriate courts. The Supreme Court of Canada will, no doubt, at an appropriate time, render a decision in this regard.
With regard to the Government, we are absolutely persuaded that we are acting not only within the purview of our legislative authority but very much in the national interest.

February 10, 1988

With regard to the objectives of the trade agreement itself, the basis of our action has been consistency throughout on behalf of the people of Canada.
I draw my hon. friend's attention to something which will interest him because he is not referred to in it. It came from the Vancouver Liberal Conference. The Member mentioned one article from The Toronto Star. This is another article from The Toronto Star, and therefore is probably accurate.
This article from The Toronto Star sets out the position of the Liberal Party. It says that Mr. Turner promises to kill the deal, that Paul Martin says we have got to be realistic-


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know how anxious Hon. Members are to hear exactly what The Toronto Star said.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Branko Mikulic, President of the Federal Executive Council of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FINLAND'S MINISTER OF FOREIGN TRADE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Pertti Salolainen, Minister of Foreign Trade of Finland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest that the Prime Minister be more concerned about the differences in his own Party, particularly surrounding Bill C-72.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


FILM INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, what kind of an answer is that!
Oral Questions
Our artists and authors, singers and film makers are entitled to the truth from this Government.
The Minister knows perfectly well that under the trade agreement with the United States, we can say goodbye to broader distribution of Canadian films, songs and books.
My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. If the Americans are not keeping the film distribution Bill from being tabled, and the Bill has been ready for months, who is? So prove the Americans are wrong and table the Bill this week as a Saint Valentine's Day present to our film industry.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in their meeting last weekend in Vancouver the members of the Liberal Party certainly could not come to any agreement on how they should face up to trade relations with the United States. They ought to ask Paul Martin what he thinks.
During the lengthy negotiations on trade, one of the beneficial aspects of these negotiations was the fact that the U.S. negotiators came to recognize the uniqueness of Canadian culture and the need to have it exempted from any free trade agreement. That was done. That is recognized in the agreement.
As the debate continues in the Senate, I am sure that members of Congress will recognize the uniqueness of Canadian culture and the need for measures such as Bill C-58, simultaneous substitutions and the need for film distribution rights for Canada as a separate entity. We will see that that is done.


Sheila Finestone: The Minister's odyssey into fantasyland certainly forgot our cultural policy. Certainly she did not read the Bill.


SOUND RECORDING INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Government has faked its promise on the film distribution Bill. If the Minister cannot protect the film industry, will she at least enrich the sound recording fund to ensure more Canadian French and English recording artists and records, or will the Americans claim once again that their commercial interests have suffered, total up the cost, and hammer us back with a countervailing action?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought that Member was the spokesperson for the Opposition in this field. She does not seem to know that $5 million annually has been added to the sound recording industry and that the past year was the most successful year ever for the sound recording industry in this country. She can ask artist after artist in this country who met with me to say

February 10, 1988
Oral Questions
that publicly and privately. I am very proud of what sound recording artists are doing in Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister will know, on Monday Premier Getty announced plans for an untendered transfer of harvesting rights to the Daishowa pulp project, some 11,000 square miles of northern Alberta, which is an area over 100 times the size of the area sought by the Lubicon Band for settlement.
Since parts of these lands that were announced on Monday are those sought by the Lubicon Band and, we must assume, by Crown Canada, as the basis for the settlement of the outstanding Lubicon claim, has the Minister expressed concern to the Government of Alberta about the proposed transfer of these lands and the fact that it will be harmful to a peaceful and just settlement of the Lubicon claim?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the way the announcement was made yesterday in Alberta on the transfer of forestry management to assist in the development of a large scale pulp plant in northern Alberta was indeed unnecessary and unhelpful. Some of the lands that were prescribed are indeed lands which may be transferred to Lubicon when we have reached a settlement.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the 25 square miles originally put forward by Alberta in 1940 have been excluded from that forestry management, and any lands that will be transferred to Canada to settle that outstanding claim, as is Alberta's obligation, will be transferred and exempted from the forestry management agreement between Daishowa and the Province of Alberta.
Again, as Minister of Indian Affairs or as Minister responsible for western diversification, I was not consulted on what is solely a provincial prerogative.


GRANT MADE FROM WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could rise, wearing his hat in terms of western diversification at the same time as aboriginal affairs, and explain to the people of Canada and, in particular, the Lubicon people and the people of Alberta, why the Minister participated in the announcement by announcing an economic participation in terms of $9.5 million, in the project?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member has drawn a distinction between an economic initiative taken by the Province of Alberta, the Government of Canada, and Daishowa, and the land claims which we both wish to see proceed to settlement. Hopefully, there will be a negotiated settlement.
The reason the Government of Canada through the Western Diversification Fund was pleased to participate with the Daishowa and the Province of Alberta was that over 600 direct jobs will be created in northern Alberta, some 2,000 years of person employment in construction, indirect benefits to a part of western Canada and a part of northern Alberta which has suffered economic decline, particularly in the oil and gas industry under the National Energy Program which was available to those people in the past. This initiative was undertaken with major, major foreign investment to benefit people in western Canada, particularly in the Peace River region.


LAND CLAIM-REQUEST THAT MEDIATOR BE APPOINTED
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday John Diefenbaker's former Minister of Justice, the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, stated that in his judgment, as a former Minister of Justice, as a politician, and as a well-respected Canadian, he rated the Lubicon crisis, on a scale of one to 10, as a 10 in terms of tragedy. The Prime Minister has now heard from the Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs. What the Government of Alberta has done is unhelpful in resolving the situation.
Mr. E. Davie Fulton has publicly offered his services, which are requested by the Lubicon band. That has been blocked so far by the Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs. Will the Prime Minister show the leadership he has shown in the past, for example, on South Moresby-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: -and satisfy himself in discussions with the Minister responsible for aboriginal affairs that the appointment of E. Davie Fulton at this point in time would be helpful, because the eyes of the world are on the Calgary Olympics and on how Canada has mishandled the Lubicon case to date.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House hopes that the settlement of the Lubicon claim can be proceeded through negotiation. The Lubicon band walked away in July from bilateral negotiations under the leadership of Mr. Tasse on behalf of Canada. It refused to negotiate bilaterally in November with Mr. Malone, whom I appointed negotiator. It had up until January 29 last to enter into negotiations. That time of negotiation, unfortunately, has passed. Canada has sent a letter of request to the Government of Alberta outlining the needs of Canada and the needs of
February 10, 1988

Alberta to provide, under the Constitution Act of 1930, the land which is required to settle this claim.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to assist the House in receiving an explanation from Mr. Kingsley, the Assistant Deputy Register General, with respect to the decision he made Monday, in essence exempting political party funds from the provisions of the conflict of interest guidelines. The Prime Minister kindly invited me to be in touch with Mr. Kingsley to seek clarification and understanding of the decision that was reached.
Fifteen minutes ago I spoke to Mr. Kingsley, who has refused to provide me, or any other Member, with any background to the decision which has been reached. More importantly he has refused to direct me to any particular clause in the conflict of interest guidelines which would explain, in essence, the exemption which has now been declared.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Question!


Brian Vincent Tobin: With the Prime Minister's invitation in mind, sincerely given, I believe, I ask him today for his assistance. I ask him directly whether or not he will direct Mr. Kingsley, who is, after all, not an officer of Parliament, nor accountable to Parliament, but accountable to the Prime Minister as a civil servant, to issue for Parliament a complete backgrounder explaining and giving the rationale for the decision that was reached on Monday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 last Mr. Kingsley provided the country and the House with a complete and definitive statement in this regard. I think if my hon. friend checks the record he will see that while, of course, I offered him my assistance, and will continue to do so, in respect of this I think I indicated that the Government was planning to bring in an important measure in this area, and when he had the opportunity of examining this measure he might indeed want to consider any questions he would have or manners by which it might be improved or corrected.
It was in that light the discussion ensued over the last couple of days. In respect to Mr. Kingsley's statement, it stands on its own. It is a straightforward, clear-cut statement in which he conveys his decision. I would hope my hon. friend would agree that it meets the objectives he has been raising.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT OFFICIAL PROVIDE EXPLANATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear by now that what I am asking for is an interpretation of the current guidelines, not future guidelines, that allowed the current exemption announced Monday to be made.
I remind the Prime Minister that the last time he rose in the House to quote an ADRG as an authority over an allegation of conflict of interest was April 29, 1986, when he quoted Mr. Boyle who said at the time-


Mr. Mazankowski:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -that the former Member for York Peel was in no way in a conflict of interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: In light of the subsequent findings of the Parker Commission, does the Prime Minister not agree that it would be prudent and appropriate that the current ADRG, given his ruling on Monday, provide Parliament with a full explanation of the rationale behind that ruling and, more particularly, point out to Parliament which clauses of the conflict of interest guidelines give rise to an exemption for political party loans or advances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend raises the issue of the Parker Commission which is, of course, relevant to Members of this House. There will be action in respect to this important and growing problem that affects all jurisdictions of conflicts of interest.
1 notice that Premier Peterson had some comments to make yesterday on this sensitive matter because three of his Ministers were called upon to resign because of allegations of conflict of interest.
May I just say that Mr. Bourassa's Solicitor General was called upon to resign because of conflict of interest.


Ms. Copps:: Kingsley wrote that letter with a broken arm.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The same happened in British Columbia. We are dealing-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What did you do on the weekend, Don?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is sort of difficult for me to answer a sensitive matter, Mr. Speaker, with constant heckling from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


An Hon. Member:: Just answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would be happy to try to answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend-

February 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister has said it is a sensitive matter, and it is. The Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe has asked a question which is completely procedurally sound. The Right Hon. Prime Minister is giving an answer and I am sure that Hon. Members will give him the courtesy of allowing him to continue his answer to its proper conclusion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I must say that it is with admiration that 1 view the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. It must be nice to be absolutely perfect in one's private and public life-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -so as to make such severe judgments about other people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer the question put to him.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer the very serious question put forward by my hon. friend. I indicated to him yesterday that, given the seriousness of the matter, we would be bringing forward a very serious Bill-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Answer the question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that I think is going to respond exhaustively and completely to any concerns my hon. friend has. At that point in time it would be entirely appropriate for him to raise any questions or seek to interrogate any public officer. We are dealing with a matter that has been out there for some years. 1 think my hon. friend will agree, when he sees the legislation, that the legislation itself is sufficient to remedy a very difficult human problem.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Kingsley, will you provide Kingsley?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will provide-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I indicated to my hon. friend that we are bringing forward the legislation-


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, no, the current legislation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and as soon as he sees it, I think he will be satisfied.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Two years ago in the 1986 Budget the Government announced a program for older workers of $125 million. To this day, this program is not in place.
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the program announced in today's Budget will be implemented, not slid under the carpet like the POWA program was two
years ago?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: I am not
sure, Mr. Speaker, if I heard the Member say "the program announced in today's Budget". But if that is what I heard, I don't know today's Budget.


INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAM
Marion Dewar: My supplementary question is the following. The Canadian Advisory Council was told that it would take over $1 billion to provide a program for unemployed older workers. The Government promised that two years ago. The Minister of Labour keeps saying that it is coming, and it still has not come.
When can the people of Canada expect to see a properly funded concrete program for older worker adjustment?


Pierre H. Cadieux: The program was announced in the 1986 Budget, and it should be in place soon.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bowing to the propaganda of the anti-trapping law, the Government of Great Britain has announced plans to label fur products as having been caught in steel-jawed leg-hold traps.
What action has Canada taken to forestall this threat to the livelihood of our trappers? Will Canada retaliate against this restraint of trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by that announcement by the British Minister. We will oppose it, and we will fight it. It constitutes a very serious threat to the livelihood of Indian,
February 10, 1988

Metis, and Inuit Canadians who depend upon the fur industry to live.
I must say that I particularly regret that there was virtually no advance warning to this Government by the Government of Great Britain in bringing in this matter. I will be pursuing it personally with the British Foreign Secretary, and with others.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, although I would have liked to answer the other Minister. He has been negotiating for older workers for three years, and he's getting nowhere fast.
This week, the Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee, Mr. Robert Perreault, told Le Devoir that the municipal authorities of the City of Montreal feel they have been let down by the Conservative Government on issues as important as the Vieux-Port de Montreal, Montreal's East End and the Space Agency.
Mr. Perreault, members of the Chamber of Commerce and the union complained they have been unable to meet either the Prime Minister or the Minister, and they have been waiting two months for information.
Could the Minister inform the House why his Government, day after day and month after month, has failed to announce $50 million in funding to upgrade businesses in Montreal's East End, an early retirement program for Montreal's East End and special funds for manpower training? Why is his Government procrastinating on measures that people have been demanding for so long and which the Leader of the Opposition was ready to announce in Montreal's East End last week?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am certainly not aware of what Mr. Turner would like to announce for Montreal's East End in way of programs. I can inform the Hon. Member that a number of decisions have been made involving Montreal, and those decisions have in fact brought about a substantial drop in the unemployment rate in that city, which is now at 9 per cent, compared with an unemployment rate of 12.9 per cent in September 1984. We did not delay development in Montreal, but the people who blocked Bill C-22 delayed Montreal's development for months and months!
Oral Questions


CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DEMANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal are fed up with these stupid answers!
The question came from Mr. Perreault, Vice-Chairman of Montreal's Executive Committee. Will the Minister stop fooling around and find out what the Chamber of Commerce wants, and could he inform the House why the Government is taking so long to make its announcement on the Space Agency?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if fooling around means creating
64,000	new jobs in the Montreal area over a period of 12 months 1 will go on fooling around. 1 will go on creating jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, all political rhetoric aside, if we want to look at the facts and discuss questions as important as the Vieux-Port and Montreal's East End, we are now at the negotiating stage, and in fact we are negotiating with the Government of Quebec. The latter has asked us to prepare a bilateral agreement between Canada and Quebec, before discussing these very important issues with the municipal authorities. I can inform the Hon. Member that we are on the move, and there has been more prosperity in Montreal since we came to power than there ever was under your Government.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. All four Members of Parliament from Essex County, representing all three Parties, have petitioned the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revoke the licence of Fermi II nuclear plant, which is very close to Windsor.
Given the record of serious safety breaches, design deficiencies, operational incompetence, concealment of emergency events, about all of which NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was aware, will the Secretary of State table the written report of the Atomic Energy Board of Canada which has resulted in Canada's lack of objection to the operation of this plant at full power, a plant at which if there was an accident it would threaten 300,000 Canadians?

February 10, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question that has engaged the interest of Members on all sides of the House.
1 have been asked a question that I cannot answer at this stage. I will certainly look into it to see if it is possible for me to publish that report, or otherwise to make available its contents to interested Members of Parliament.
I take the issue seriously, as the Hon. Member does, and we will proceed in that spirit.


REPORT MADE BY ATOMIC ENERGY BOARD
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. Would the Government examine the report of the Atomic Energy Board of Canada to ascertain whether the board was aware of the sorry record of Fermi II, as well as the record of duplicity and collusion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which has been documented before three congressional committees?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I take this matter seriously. I will look into it, and report to the Hon. Member. But I will not associate myself, or the Government, with the language used by the Hon. Member-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It was used by Senators and Congressmen.


Charles Joseph Clark: Having been used by Senators and Congressmen is not necessarily any more recommendation than having been used by Members of this House.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In his 1985 Budget the Minister of Finance increased the refundable tax credit for research and development which, he said, "will be of most use to small start-up research and development firms who may not otherwise be able to use tax incentives immediately".
Yet a survey released by the Canadian Advanced Technology Association last week indicates that uncertainty and delay in the processing of claims are hurting the very firms that the Minister of Finance said he would help, namely, the small research and development performers.
My question to the Prime Minister is the following. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister promised an efficient refundable tax credit for research and development. Will the Government respond to the concerns raised by the
Canadian Advanced Technology Association and take immediate steps to correct this situation?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is examining this policy and the delays in particular, and he hopes to be able to make a response to the House before long.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not a new one. It was raised as long as two years ago by the association.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Gordon Gow, Chairman of CATA, said "that the Ministers of Finance and Revenue have both been trying to pass off this issue as the other's responsibility".
Will the Prime Minister, as Chairman of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, put an end to this buck passing of his Ministers and provide Canadian business with certainty and effectiveness in the administration of tax incentives for research and development?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond to the question briefly, I recognize the validity of my colleague's concerns. 1 want to assure him that we are taking steps to improve the situation.
1 want to quote briefly in the House for his benefit a recent article by Diane Francis in The Financial Post. It reads:
Scientific research tax credits will go down as the biggest scandal in the history of tax policy in Canada. Perhaps anywhere. It was an ill-conceived scheme, contrived by former finance minister Marc Lalonde, and his deputy, Mickey Cohen, in the dying days of the Liberal government. About $3.2 billion flowed out of-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister would like to conclude his answer.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Having been presented with this very regrettable situation, our officials and the Minister of Finance have been bringing in a better regime, which is bringing great benefits to the scientific community in Canada. It will be further improved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence. Why did the Department choose a truck designed and patented by a
February 10, 1988

non-NATO country when there was an opportunity to get a "made-in-North America" truck to any specifications desired?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1986, an interdepartmental force, which was later confirmed by the Ministers, decided to open up the bidding to all truck manufacturers in the world and not restrict it to NATO trucks.
At that time when the tenders were put out on July 31, 1986, all truck manufacturers, both inside and outside NATO, had an equal opportunity to meet the specifications.
When the truck was purchased, we purchased the lower priced truck of those trucks which met specifications. A couple of trucks did not meet specifications.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns an appeal to Cabinet by Call-Net Telecommunications.
Officials in her Department have been actively working with Call-Net to overturn a series of CRTC and cabinet decisions. What Call-Net is seeking is a special exemption and the right to do business in a way that no other company can.
Why is the Minister's Department working with Call-Net behind the scenes to amend the CRTC decision? Why is this special treatment being given to this company?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think the Hon. Member quite understands what in fact took place. At the time that the original appeal was denied-and he will remember that that was done-the Department of Communications indicated that there would be a period of 180 days in which Call-Net would have the opportunity to bring its operations within the ambit of the law, and that is what is being done.
I may say that obviously we indicated to Call-Net, we indicated to the CRTC, and we indicated to other small businesses that we would be prepared to assist them to ensure that they would be within the law and not remain outside the law.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, what Call-Net is asking for in its petition to Cabinet is a further extension until the regulations are changed, which is quite different. In other words, Call-Net is not willing to change its modus of operation. It is asking for changes in the regulations themselves.
Oral Questions
I should like to hear the Minister assure the House and Canadians that the decision of the CRTC will stand, and that the Government will not interfere in another case with the CRTC as it did with all-news CBC broadcasting.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again I have to point out that the Hon. Member does not seem to be aware of the proper processes.
Call-Net has the right to make any additional appeal it wants to the Cabinet. That is what has been done, and that appeal is now before the Cabinet.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return with the Prime Minister to the question raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. Surely the Prime Minister understands and has conceded the importance of Mr. Kingsley's interpretations of the applicable rules about spending, and yet today in his answer he seems to have taken a step back from the position that he took yesterday.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said, and I am quoting him, "My hon. friend, I suppose, if he wishes to interrogate him", meaning Kingsley, "or any other public servant, can seek the appropriate instrument to do so".
The appropriate instrument is the Prime Minister's approval, and that is what is required.
I want to ask him whether Mr. Kingsley will be made available for examination in front of a parliamentary committee, not on legislation that the Prime Minister has been promising for a long, long time, but on the conflict of interest guidelines which are presently in effect and about which Mr. Kingsley has presently given an interpretation that, to say the least, surely the Prime Minister will agree is controversial.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the committees of the House are masters of their own rules. The Hon. Member from Newfoundland-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves or will give his approval, for the purposes of the record if he likes, that Mr. Kingsley can appear before the committee? Do you support his appearance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my approval is not required. It is up to the committee

February 10, 1988
Oral Questions
to make its own determinations. I am not going to conduct witch-hunts or insist upon rules being imposed upon public servants. If I did that, the Hon. Member would be the first one to criticize it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For over five weeks the Indian Government has refused to allow consular access from our High Commission in New Delhi to Mr. Balkar Singh, a Canadian citizen under arrest in India, who, our officials allege, has been tortured while under arrest.
Is the Minister now prepared to have our High Commissioner in New Delhi deliver a formal protest to the Indian Government as a result of its failure to honour its commitments to Canada under the Vienna Convention?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question was whether I was yet prepared to take that step, and the precise answer to that is no.
We are very concerned about the situation and are seeking consular access again. I should remind the Hon. Member and the House that the Canadian citizen in question does have regular, and I underline the word "regular", access to his lawyer and to his family. We are seeking further consular access.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, my question is for the Prime Minister. He knows how important the Commissionership of Official Languages has been in achieving the goals of the Official Languages Act of 1969. However, when the Government put forward a Bill to establish multiculturalism in Canada, it rejected the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and refused to create a Commissionership of Multiculturalism.
Does the Government still hold to this position, providing no impetus to achieve the policy of multiculturalism, or does it plan to act on the call of the Canadian Enthocultural Council
to ensure that a Commissioner of Multiculturalism will be at work to achieve worthy goals?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend would probably agree that the Multiculturalism Act has made very significant strides in areas of citizenship and the promotion of multicultural values.
The Minister responsible for multiculturalism deserves the support and, I know, the gratitude of all Hon. Members of the House for this tremendous move forward in the field of multiculturalism. There have been significant advances in a number of areas. I will be happy to take the question as notice in respect to the specific point and report back to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplemental.


CONTENT OF BILL C-93
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis Chan of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council described Bill C-93 as simple without substance.
Does the Prime Minister plan to arrive at the next general election waving a flag but with no strength behind it, none of the impetus that a Commissionership of Multiculturalism would give to a policy that presumably we all support?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not misinformed. I thought my hon. friend and his Party were going to support this Bill. I hope that continues to be the case.
With regard to the matter the Hon. Member raises on behalf of the multicultural community, I will be happy to consider it and refer back to my hon. friend.
He refers to the Canadian Ethnocultural Community. I was informed when I met with that council that I was the first Prime Minister of Canada to meet with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. This Government has increased, by 100 per cent in three years, the number of ethnocultural appointments to commissions, boards and agencies in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Davenport.


LEUKEMIA-REPORTED INCREASE AMONG CHILDREN LIVING NEAR NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a short and easy question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
February 10, 1988

As he probably knows, a British study conducted last summer reveals a higher incidence of leukemia and an increased number of leukemia related deaths among children and young adults up to the age of 20 living near nuclear installations. The National Cancer Institute in the United States announced that a similar study will be conducted in the United States in the next nine months.
Will the Minister launch a similar study in Canada to establish whether or not there is a relationship in our country as well and, if not, why not?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for bringing the two examples to the attention of the House and to me particularly.
I cannot give him any answer beyond that today as to whether Canada would consider such a study. I will consult with my Cabinet colleagues and obviously with officials in my Department as I am sure my colleagues will consult with theirs. Because this is a major policy issue, we have to do that, and I will get back to the Hon. Member at the appropriate time.


POINT OF ORDER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In responding to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has risen on a point of order. I would ask Members on her side and Members on the other side to give her the courtesy of addressing the Chair.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Hon. Member for Regina East, I said that the Call-Net appeal of the CRTC decision was before the CRTC. I should, of course, have said that it is before the Cabinet.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of a Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the Soviet Union. In addition, I am tabling copies of the Memorandum of Understanding in the Russian language.
Motions
This agreement will enable Canadian officials to gather evidence in the Soviet Union and it includes the conditions recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes to ensure obtaining such evidence in accordance with Canadian procedures and safeguards.


HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to re-introduce an amendment to the Holidays Act, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pontiac- Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Moore), that would declare the third Monday in February a national holiday entitled Sir John A. Macdonald Day.
Our first Prime Minister, more than any other individual was responsible for the creation of the Canadian Confederation. A day set aside to honour him is long overdue. I believe as well that Canadians would welcome a February holiday in the middle of our long Canadian winter.
Therefore, I call on all Members of Parliament, and Canadians everywhere, who believe we should honour Sir John A. Macdonald, to support the creation of a new national holiday.


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

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion to be put and voted on immediately.
I move:
That, the legislative committee on Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and
to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts be authorized to

February 10, 1988
Petitions
adjourn from place to place within Atlantic-Canada from March 6 to 13, 1988
inclusive, for the purpose of holding public hearings with respect to the Bill
and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 signed by petitioners from Vancouver, North Burnaby, Richmond, Abbotsford, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, B.C. who have indicated in their opinion that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
They believe, of course, that this trade deal would weaken Canada's sovereignty. They believe that the trade deal threatens the very fabric of our political and economic life by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and its ability to develop Canada's energy resources in the best interests of Canadians.
Therefore, they call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject this proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today from Canadians who would like to table a grievance with the House concerning this commercial deal concluded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country and the President of the United States-the so-called free trade deal.
The petition states that, whereas the Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return, whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, the auto trade, financial services and investment, whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, wherefore-


An Hon. Member:: Oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is the Hon. Member saying? Is he not in agreement with this? It is a good petition, signed by many
petitioners and it is in order. It goes on to say, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the trade agreement. In spite of all the noise from over there, the petitioners do not agree with it.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling 422 petitions signed by residents across the country. These signatures are in addition to those on petitions I tabled previously, making a total of 32,182 signatures. The petitioners are from Chibougamau, Roberval-Dolbeau, Saint-Pamphile, Metabetchouan, Alma, Beauharnois, Chateaubriand, Lac-aux-Sables, Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Marc, Farnham, New Market, Sudbury, Montreal, North Battleford in Saskatchewan, Mont Saint-Hilaire, Granby, Delisle in Saskatchewan and Aylmer in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the undersigned are aware that since 1974, federal legislation allows the installation of self-inflating bags in the driver's seat for private cars, and that this device would reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries.
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to make it mandatory to install inflatable bags in the front seat of passenger cars and adjustable shoulder seat-belts for passengers on the back seat.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to deposit with the House of Commons. The first is a petition collected by Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua, resident of the federal riding of York North and a member of the Maple Village Ratepayers Association. The petition concerns Canada Post and the Government's plan to adopt supermailbox services and also the closure of rural post offices. They say this is creating havoc and tremendous inconvenience for all residents of the federal riding of York North.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the Government to reject the corporate plan proposed by Canada Post and to instruct post office officials to provide one service for all Canadians rather than to differentiate between Canadians and create second-class citizens.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of individuals from my riding who signed a petition because of the recent closure by the Government of the embassy in Ecuador.
The petitioners call upon the Government once again, because of the hardship created on individuals seeking to apply
February 10, 1988


[Stage Direction]
for immigration and the long delays, as long as six months, in making an appointment at a nearby embassy in Bogota, Ecuador to reopen the embassy in Colombia to provide the service people in that part of the world certainly merit and to respect the large community in Canada that relies on an embassy in Colombia.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by people from the great City of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. The petitioners humbly pray and petition the House that they feel the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective of these negotiations but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement in a federal General Election.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a duly certified petition from a number of Canadian residents saying that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, whereas the free trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions, and that the proposed trade agreement denies Canadians the policy freedom to determine their own economic future, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national General Election.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and duty to present a petition in which a number of citizens call upon the Government to dissolve in order to call a national election to determine the will of Canadians as far as the trade deal is concerned.
It is the considered opinion of the signatories to this petition that the present Government of Canada had no right or mandate to engage in a treaty with the United States that would erode and destroy Canadian sovereignty.
Therefore, they request the Parliament of Canada to dissolve so that an election may resolve this issue.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Toronto, London, North Bay, Gloucester and other parts of Ontario, a petition duly signed by the Petitions Clerk, in which the petitioners say that
Order Paper Questions
they are concerned that this Government had no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States but that our Canadian sovereignty is threatened by what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has signed, that it will reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social and cultural programs, and also it makes us integrated further into the North American defence industrial base.
For these reasons, they ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on this trade deal and that this debate result in a national General Election before any agreement is finalized.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of a group of citizens of Saskatchewan, B.C. and Alberta a petition which comments on the undemocratic procedures the Government has followed in presenting the free trade agreement and calls upon the Government to act democratically and call an election so that the people can comment on the trade agreement.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions on behalf of residents of the Province of Saskatchewan protesting that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but the agreement negotiated threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Since the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national General Election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 10, 1988

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the occasion of a Railway Safety Act is an important and momentous one in the House of Commons and for the country. We should always remember that rail transportation was one of the keys to creating this confederation. It was created by a commitment to tie together our country with a band of steel which is symbolically, what was the railway. It was an east-west commitment to create a nation in the northern half of this hemisphere.
I think when we deal with revisions to the legislation affecting railways we should always keep in mind that the railway is a part of the vision of this country. I like to remember that when arguments are made about rationalizing, downsizing and elimination of overlapping and duplication. Certainly those are important goals and I am not suggesting that we do the opposite, but we would not have a country if we had not been prepared to do something that seemed pretty irrational at the time, that is to establish a nation on an east-west axis.
We now have before us in Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. As my colleagues indicated, particularly the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), our principal spokesman on this subject, we support the Bill in principle and are going to vote for it. However, it would be a great deal easier to do so if we knew the Government was prepared to be more flexible than it has so far indicated it intends to be when the Bill moves into committee.
I want to take some time to talk about our specific concerns and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister
himself might respond and indicate that at least some effort will be made to look into the important arguments we on this side have raised because we think that is necessary if the Bill is really to serve the railways and our country.
Just before getting to my main points, I have had some interest in a specific issue of railway safety which I have raised both in the House in Question Period and outside the House through statements and press releases. That concern relates to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail through Metropolitan Toronto. That is a subject dealt with by the Railway Safety Act.
Members should know that this is a matter of great concern for us in Toronto, as it is in western Canada because of the Hinton disaster. For us it was fortunately not a disaster but a very near miss when, several years ago in Mississauga, a train carrying deadly chemicals was nearly derailed. It forced us to confront the issue of the carriage of dangerous goods through Toronto, the location of our rail lines in metropolitan areas, and to reflect on emergency relief and emergency measures when dealing with this type of disaster. It was all hypothetical, thank God, because actual disaster was averted and in the end no one suffered injury. However, it showed us how vulnerable we are to potential disasters which arise from carrying dangerous goods by rail through built-up areas.
When I heard, for example, a couple of years ago that notice was being given by the railways of their intention to close down some important lines running through northern Ontario I could not help but think of the impact that could have on dangerous goods which might be channelled through cities and urban areas because of the shutting down of those lines. That is a powerful argument for keeping lines open outside of urban areas.
I have done some work on statistics and it turns out that most of the dangerous goods carried by rail through dense metropolitan areas are carried to destinations inside those areas. Obviously, for most of them, it is inevitable that they are going to be carried on those lines and the question of northern lines or remote lines is irrelevant. However, the problem of those goods not destined for downtown urban areas or metropolitan areas being carried through those areas if the northern lines are closed down is a problem worth considering.
I want to hear from the Government that it cares about that, and that when the viability of northern lines is being looked at, one of the principal factors which should be considered is that those lines present a method of diverting some dangerous goods from being carried through urban areas.
To those of us, like myself, who represent urban populations, it is important to make that point and it is important to hear from the Government that the point has registered and indeed the northern lines are recognized as a method of diverting dangerous goods, in cases where it is appropriate, from being carried through urban areas.

February 10, 1988

Of course, that is not the only recourse for dealing with dangerous goods. There was a task force meeting in Toronto, I believe it has now concluded its public hearings, which attracted a great deal of interest. It demonstrated a concern that Canadians feel about the problem.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), appeared before that committee and set out a number of ways of providing greater safety when it is inevitable and necessary that dangerous goods be carried to and through urban areas. In his brief he talked about, as he has in this House, a lower speed limit because of the strong likelihood that more care can be taken and more notice of danger given when railway cars are travelling at a lower rate of speed.
He talked about the importance of observation of the cars and the rails. While all kinds of technical methods are available for observation and security and these methods should be used, human observation is an essential part of a proper system of safeguards. People can spot rail defects, loose freight, poisonous leaks, track wash-outs and, perhaps most important, are able to stop the train if an emergency is perceived. These are important and essential safeguards when dangerous goods are carried through areas where people live. He emphasized as well, as I have done now, the importance of lowering the risk in general in heavily-populated areas. That is where, of course, any disaster would have its greatest impact.
In conclusion, I want to turn to the features of the Act that concern us. I know Members opposite are listening with intense interest and I hope they will indicate that these concerns matter and that the Minister will look with some sympathy at these ideas. We are first concerned that a sort of conflict of interest exists in a broad sense for the Minister in assuming some of the powers to be awarded under this Bill when added to his already significant powers; for example, responsibility for deregulation.
The goal of deregulation is simple, to reduce the amount of control by the state over the subject matter, in this case railway carriage. The new or reinforced responsibility awarded by this Act for safety could lead him in the opposite direction, and I would not like to think that the interests of deregulation would be a goal that the Minister would keep in mind when issues of safety are being considered. We know that railways want to operate in an efficient manner and they certainly want to operate in a safe manner. However, regulation has a role to play in assuring that they do operate in a safe manner. [DOT]
We would like to hear that the Minister is not obsessed with the goal of deregulation and that that will not be a consideration which prevents him from considering the kind of regulations which I have urged in my remarks today and that others have urged when these disasters have arisen and when the problems of safe passage have been considered.
Railway Safety Act
Second, my colleagues have made the point that the fines and penalties provided for in Clause 41 do not give enough range to a court. I am not saying that the amounts are not substantial and that they may not cover most of the situations in which penalties will be imposed. However, when you think of the seriousness of the consequences of some unsafe procedures for which fines may be imposed, a maximum fine of $50,000 to a corporation and $10,000 to an individual seems small.
One could imagine the situation in a corporate boardroom of a decision being made when a very expensive regulation or costly procedure is being considered. Although they will be careful and try to avoid doing anything wrong or getting caught, if they are caught $50,000 is a lot less than it would cost to avoid the problem. Much larger fines would be in order in the circumstances of the risks and costs of implementing regulations about which we are speaking here.
Third, I want to talk about the committee which is proposed to be set up pursuant to Clause 44. That committee is to be composed, according to the draft legislation, of one position for labour, six for businesses and the railways, and four at the Minister's discretion. I do not think that is a fair balance. I think it would be better to provide more representation from labour if there is to be that much representation from business and railways.
I am not only thinking of labour from the point of view of issues of labour management or the point of view of workers' concerns as workers. Some of the most expert people on the subject of rail transportation and safety are people who have hands-on experience, who know how trains operate, and who know the kinds of situations which can arise. Therefore, I say that not only from the point of view that business and labour have a different perspective, but from the point of view of having someone who knows how railways work from a hands-on position. I hope that the Government will concede that more than one labour voice be put on the committee by right, and not just if the Minister feels like it, as is the present provision of the Bill.
Also, there ought to be an official designation of one position on such a committee for a community representative. Who the community representative should be would depend on the circumstances. It could be a designate of the mayor or council of a community. It could be someone in a ratepayers' association when a smaller issue is at stake which only affects that kind of a limited group. It could perhaps be someone from a consumer group who would want to bring to bear the position of consumers.
However, to say that if the Minister so chooses the committee could operate without such a person is overlooking one of the sources of legitimacy which we want such a committee to have and the respect which we want the public to give to the decisions which such a committee reaches.
A fourth area of concern has to do with the hours of work which will be applied in circumstances where rail safety is

February 10, 1988
Railway Safety Act
being considered. I would like the statute itself to lay out some guidelines. The Parliament of Canada should indicate in legislation some type of scheduling to give a signal about the standards which we want to apply to those who work on the railways and whose attention and energy are affected by long hours of work or too much overtime on particular shifts over a long period of time. Parliament ought to do a bit more than identify that as an issue and leave it totally to be established outside the legislation.
We want this Bill to move forward.

It is a significant undertaking. We must always make progress in the field of railroad safety. We are very much in favour of that, and we hope that the contribution we are making now in terms of ideas and suggestions will be of some interest to the Government.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker dealt very effectively with some of the key issues on this matter. I wonder whether he would be in a position to elaborate in a little more detail on shortcomings arising from the Mississauga event regarding hazardous products. There have been a number of serious incidents subsequent to that. Has he any additional concerns about sufficient prevention in the carriage of dangerous products?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 could go on at great length on this subject. I have in my office the report on the incident which I have read with great interest and also the work of the task force which has just concluded. 1 know the Hon. Member is as concerned as I am about railway safety. I want to ensure that he receives a copy of the report. From that he will see what this task force, which was appointed by a Conservative Government but seems to be doing a very good job, is going to propose.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member with great interest and I appreciate the remarks he made about the transportation of dangerous goods. Does he realize that in a metropolitan area such as Toronto thousands of tonnes of dangerous goods move every day to and from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and processors? If we were to move rail lines further out of Toronto those same dangerous goods would have to move by road through Metropolitan Toronto. As the Member, I, and everyone else all know, the incident of accidents on the road, particularly involving trucks, is many times higher than on the rails. Despite the Mississauga incident, rail is still the safest way to go.
Does the Hon. Member think that that consideration should override the demand for the wholesale moving of railway tracks, whether spur tracks into warehouses or mainline tracks, out of a metropolitan area?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my friend makes a very good point. I agree with him that rail carriage is perhaps the safest way of transporting dangerous goods. The wholesale removal of lines from urban areas where they are needed, with the objective of forcing the transportation of these goods on to the roads, is no real solution. It is a step backward.
The first priority is to be certain that rail lines within urban areas are not being used to carry dangerous goods that are irrelevant to the economy of that community. If the line is being used simply because it is the shortest distance between two points, through what happens to be a great metropolitan centre, a high priority should be given to a diversion of that commodity to a railway line that goes around the city,
Art Eggleton, the Mayor of Toronto, made an impassioned plea before the task force on the transport of dangerous goods, to urge them to build a new line going around the city. It would cost some $700 million to build a line so that goods would not have to go through the city unnecessarily. While that is a very substantial amount of money, it can be less than the cost of a disaster that could occur.
Furthermore, such a line could be used to move goods from one side of the city to the other, thereby increasing the safety of the population in the urban area by moving goods around the city on a rail line rather than through. When one adds all these elements to the equation, it is evident that a line like that could be a very important factor in making our urban areas a safer place for residents.
Finally, there is the question of dangerous goods that are required in the cities. Historically, certain industries that require the use of dangerous goods have been in the hearts of our cities. It may be worth giving some priority to the thought of relocating those industries to industrial suburbs where many of the risks that are involved might be reduced.
I once visited the site of a former bomb factory in New Brunswick. I was given a long explanation about the measures that had been taken to divide the operation into a number of buildings and caves on this vast site in an effort to make them as safe as possible. One might suggest that that type of planning could be done in the first place when dangerous goods are involved in industrial projects, but I do not want to rebuild our cities around this principle. We should keep that in mind in everything we do as a Parliament, and governments as well at other levels. We should take account of the increasing danger of these industrial activities and try to make them truly as safe as possible.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned that this Bill will allow the railways to make their own rules to an even greater extent than they have in the past, and that the decision about how to care for such things as the movement of dangerous goods may be tied to economic considerations. Will the Hon. Member suggest an alternative to this method of
February 10, 1988

ensuring that the rules that are put in place by the railways will provide safety in the movement of those kinds of goods?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the safety function which I mentioned earlier and said should not reside with the Minister to the extent it does, perhaps could be given to the safety board that is also referred to in the legislation. At least the safety board has as its main concern the question of safety.

If we consider that the Minister wants deregulation and is actively promoting this issue, whenever he has to come to grips with safety problems he may be prepared to compromise to achieve deregulation or give it first priority.
Given the safety plan now being proposed, why not give more power to this agency so it will feel free to make any decision aimed at ensuring maximum safety without compromising in respect of deregulation issues.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. It has already been pointed out that the New Democratic Party supports the legislation in principle since anything that will lead to a safer transportation environment is to the benefit of all Canadians.
My main area of concern is the political will of the Government to deal effectively with questions of safety. We know that the legislation on rail safety is likely only before the House today as a result of four wrecks that occurred during the last month. There were wrecks in London, Sudbury and Regina where two people lost their lives. The Bill arises only because of the crisis management nature of the Government rather than a timely and organized approach toward enhancing transportation safety.
This is a reflection of a general problem with the Government. On the one hand it expresses its serious concern about certain problems, while on the other hand it tends to delay implementation of legislation which, from a philosophical point of view, erodes its effectiveness.
We have heard for some time a litany of concerns about rail equipment safety, timely upgrading and proper inspection of that equipment. We have heard about railway grades that need substantial improvement and repair because they eventually become a serious hazard to safety.
The transportation of dangerous goods is of great concern. Cars containing propane have overturned, and dangerous chemicals have been spilled. Many Canadians believe that the attempt to address the problem of the transport of dangerous goods, especially in sensitive areas, has been inadequate. In the last several years the injuries, loss of life and the destruction of property have increased our concern about rail safety. In the last year some 350 people were killed at level crossings, of which there are thousands in Canada. Most of the level crossings in Europe disappeared years ago. However, this
Railway Safety Act
country's penny wise and pound foolish approach to railway transportation safety has not allowed us to effectively deal with the problem of level railway crossings.
Urban centres like Vancouver, Mississauga and Toronto must face the safety aspect of dangerous goods transported by rail every day.
The double tracking of the Fraser Canyon is of great concern to us. Just over a year ago the Fisheries and Oceans Committee heard serious concerns about the intention of the double tracking of the CN through that very delicate environment where slides and the disturbance of the local ecology have the potential of serious environmental impact. Other concerns include the danger to the goods that are transported and the problems associated with that. As well, there are the concerns of aboriginal people. We are very concerned about the double tracking proposal and, later on in the future, the possibility of the double tracking of sections of the other carrier through the Fraser Canyon.
It is quite surprising that the Government and the railways seem to again choose the penny wise and pound foolish route of dealing with the problem rather than considering the many other safer alternatives that were proposed. But the Government chose not to insist that the railways explore those possibilities and take the pressure off that sensitive environmental area. The cheapest way is the best way in the minds of some people in this present Government.
Another serious concern we have involves the whole question of the integrity of the safety infrastructure. Over a period of time there has been a profound feeling that although the Government is saying it is very concerned about safety, there is an erosion of the will of Government to become aggressive and active on safety issues. We would point out that the deregulation program of this Government is bound to create more safety problems than it will resolve. The experience in the United States tends to indicate that as the deregulation process goes into place, major safety problems arise.
There is the whole question of the aviation industry. We have seen a massive expansion of aviation activity, by way of comparison. Both the growing economy and the deregulated environment have resulted in a massive increase in air transportation traffic. At the same time, the Government has failed to apply adequate human resources for inspection, safety compliance operations and accident investigation. The application of these human resources has not been expanded to keep up with the expansion of activity. On the other hand, the Public Service has gone through a number of cuts which has led to intense pressure on those responsible for inspection and investigation and who deal with questions of safety.
Therefore, deregulation has had an impact on expanding activity, along with an improved economy, since the days of the early 1980s. Yet at the same time the Government has gone in absolutely the opposite direction and laid off public

February 10, 1988
Railway Safety Act
servants, allowed the Public Service to shrink by attrition, and essentially loaded more and more responsibilities onto a smaller and smaller group of people who, in fact, cannot handle, other than through a very low-grade spot-check system, the safety factor. As we watch more and more carriers operating and more and more activity because of economic growth, we will find that those people are certainly not going to be able to guarantee the integrity of the safety infrastructure.
On the question of the lack of the Government's will to continue to strengthen the safety infrastructure, we have the problem of the removal of resources. The people who are still in the system, doing the inspections, the safety enforcement, prevention and accident investigation, are finding that because of the Government's desire to curtail deficits, to reduce overall spending, there are fewer and fewer resources to do a decent job and guarantee to the public that its safety is a matter of priority and is being looked after in an effective and timely manner.
The Government's will to develop and enhance the safety system in Canada, therefore, is being harmed by its budgetary activities. The cuts to spending, the inability to obtain adequate resources to do the kinds of things that can guarantee safety, is apparent to most Canadians.
Again, it is a matter of serious concern to us. Over all, the Government's philosophy almost contradicts its stated intention to improve safety. In a deregulated environment, the Government wants to remove itself from the back of business and basically say, "You get out there and do it. You are responsible for safety and we are counting on you to undertake the problem". We see the Conservative philosophy of getting Government off the back of business as almost a contradiction to improvement in safety.
Secondly, there is a lack of political will in enforcing safety regulations. We have a situation in which there is Government interference, where there have been Public Service attempts to enforce safety regulations, and where those attempts on occasion have been modified by direct interference by Government. Even though regulation may be there, the question of the will to enforce those regulations on the part of the Government is a matter of serious question. I have gone into the whole question of Public Service staff and financial resources at great length. Each year, with growing traffic problems and with the growing number of people involved in the business, we wind up with a situation where those resources are far too inadequate to deal with the problem.
It is interesting to note that on this issue of resolve in the safety area, the Ministry of Transport has quite a negative track record. I would point to the issue of the lighthouses. The Department of Transport is charged not only with railway safety but with marine and air safety. In the marine environment, by way of example, the Government had intended to shut down a majority of the lighthouses on the coast of British Columbia. In the face of a massive amount of evidence that
those lighthouses were providing a very important safety network along the coast of British Columbia, the Government charged ahead with its objective to shut those facilities down. It was clearly demonstrated that they needed to be enhanced. There is a need for improved weather reporting capability and communication equipment; indeed, there is a need for the human resources to do the job.
But the Government was completely unwilling to upgrade that structure even though marine transportation was increasing along the coast of British Columbia, and even though there are a substantial number of serious accidents every year, and lighthouse keepers have played an important role in mediating those accidents. Yet the Government preferred to move in the other direction, to cut human and financial resources, saying, "It is not our mandate", which is a very curious thing. In dealing with the over-all responsibility of transportation, whether it be commercial, recreational or tourist transportation, that Department is saying that giving weather forecast to those vessels is not its responsibility, but the responsibility of some other Government Department, so it is going to chop it. Indeed, a very narrow, short-sighted approach to marine safety is illustrated by the Government's desire to cut those lighthouses.
It was pointed out by a previous'speaker that over the years there has been an interesting conflict of interest in enforcing safety. The Minister of Transport has a dual role in many cases, especially under the new transportation legislation, to deregulate the environment, to encourage more carriers and to facilitate their opportunity to become involved in the industry. At the same time, there is a deterrent and expensive proposition to enforce rigorous safety standards. At times the Minister comes into a conflict situation.
To move over to the air side, to illustrate this point as it would apply to rail safety, we see it as an awkward area that we are certainly loading onto the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and onto the Ministry, away from the Canadian Transport Commission. Instead of an organization that operates to some degree at arm's length from the Minister, an organization which can, with some objectivity, with independent resources and decisions, apply those resources to prevention, investigation and inspection programs, we now have it locked within the responsibility of the Minister whose mandate is to promote, improve and encourage expansion, and on the other hand, to impose major cost and regulatory burdens in terms of safety.
The Dubin Royal Commission into air safety uncovered this conflict within the aviation branch of the Department of Transport. There is no doubt that that conflict and the requirement to enforce rigorous safety standards within the aviation branch during the period of the Liberal Government wound the Minister of Transport or the Department of Transport into a major conflict.
February 10, 1988

There was political interference in the outcome of many accident investigations. Those people within the safety and accident investigation branches were hampered from bringing their material to public knowledge and to those agencies that could improve the situation, and to impose the burden effectively on the carriers.
We wound up with a Royal Commission, and Judge Dubin stated that these ought to be split off in order that they can function independently, and guarantee to Canadians that air transportation will be as safe as humanly possible, and that that can be done by an outside agency through the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, rather than under the direct auspices of the Minister of Transport.
It was pointed out by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) that we are moving railway safety into a potential conflict of interest area. That is a matter of concern, given the history dealt with in the Dubin Royal Commission in the early 1980 period.
There is an interesting point in the legislation on penalties. How serious are we about railway safety and the implementation of safety standards, when one considers that an individual can be fined $10,000, yet a corporation can be fined a maximum of $50,000? It is a very strange situation when a manager within the railway system, concerned enough about the Budget for his or her department, can say, "If we are detected for having a faulty system in place, the fine is cheaper than the cost of changing or repairing that situation". With some of the equipment and systems that we are dealing with, $50,000 is an absolute drop in the bucket.
I have spoken with many engineers who are responsible for air safety from a maintenance point of view. They state that indeed the deregulated environment has put pressure on certain air carriers. Years ago a defective part would be taken out and thrown away and another one would be put in. Today that is not done. The part is taken out, fixed up, haywired together in order that it works. It is stuffed back in the machine and they hope for the best. I have heard people say that their hands shakes when they sign the log book stating that that beast is airworthy.
The same situation applies when a safety or maintenance supervisor or a manager states, "We are going overboard on our accounts or budget. What we should do, because this thing probably has a few more hours left in it, is use it". The same thing applies in the railway safety area. There should be penalties in this legislation that are serious deterrents to managers who put the corporation's budget ahead of safety matters.
Within the House there should be serious consideration, especially in committee, to recommending much stronger penalties from a corporate point of view where matters of corporate budget concern exceed the need for safety, where one could find a manager who states, "In order to keep the budget that has been assigned to my department within limits, I am going to overlook the safety requirements here". That is well within the realm of possibility, and there are examples that that is indeed happening today.
Railway Safety Act
In the transportation system the Government got involved in a number of things. The commitment to remove the regulatory burden and the burden of government from the industry, and to some degree from safety, the cutting of human and financial resources to the government department responsible over-all for the implementation of safety, are serious matters. Even in the cost recovery program the example of substantial increases in charts, in navigational material within transport, and down the road the use of Transport Canada services designed to assist in safety imposing a cost to the public or to the users, instead of a general burden to the population, will result in people avoiding the use of those services, taking a chance, and returning us to the old concept of the wild west approach to public safety.
In some areas, the Government has done a major disservice to people by the philosophy that it has imposed on the safety infrastructure of the railway transportation system.


Mr. Friesen:: I thank the Hon. Member for his speech. Earlier in his speech there were actually some remarks directed toward rail safety. The rest of his speech was off the subject of the Bill. I did notice when speaking about rail safety, the Hon. Member gave some attention to the need for double tracking in the Fraser Canyon. I take it from the context of his remarks that he was promoting that idea in order to promote rail safety in the Fraser Canyon. The Hon. Member mentioned when he was on the fisheries committee that he faced a lot of concern about the environment when dealing with the subject of double tracking.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) if he supports double tracking of the Fraser Canyon, or does he not?


Raymond John Skelly: I thank the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for his intervention. Certainly, he must have been wandering a little during the discussion. He knows as clearly as anyone else in the House and in the country the position of the New Democratic Party on double tracking in the Fraser Canyon. The position is clearly stated on the record.
I do wish to deal with another matter that I know is of concern to the Hon. Member-


Benno Friesen: Are you for or against? Which track are you on?


Raymond John Skelly: -that is on the question of drug and alcohol within the legislation. It is interesting that the legislation deals with punitive aspects regarding individuals who are involved in drug an alcohol problems in the workforce. Certainly, it is our hope that under this legislation the Government and the Department of National Health and Welfare will work with the railroads and the railroad employees to see that ideal programs involved in prevention and resolution of personal problems with employees will be undertaken before there are accidents, not simply the old standard of drug testing and the firing of an employee who has contravened the legislation.

February 10, 1988
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
Perhaps, the Government will take the example of the Canadian Armed Forces in relation to alcohol treatment. The Canadian Armed Forces has to be considered one of the leaders in developing treatment programs and rehabilitation programs for its employees. It provides a service to the employee in terms of alcohol and drug rehabilitation that can return the individual to useful and productive service, can remove the problems that are experienced by an employee's family, and the potential risks in a very delicate and serious work situation where the abuse of alcohol and drugs, or personal stress experienced by an individual, can lead to a major safety problem. Of course, this applies to air, marine, and rail safety, and in the Armed Forces these come together in an even more crucial area. That branch has become one of the leaders in Canadian society in the alcohol and drug rehabilitation system.
It is my hope that the provisions that are in this legislation will not be used as a punitive sanction, but to lay down an example in Canada of how employers in the industrial, and especially in the transportation environment, can provide support services to their employees that aim at rehabilitation and returning the individual to the workforce and in particular, preventing the types of accidents and difficult situations that can occur before they happen by recognition and effective treatment and rehabilitation.
I am appreciative of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta for bringing this matter to the attention of the House in the skilful and effective way he always does. Incidentally, we are also opposed to the double tracking of the CN through the Fraser Canyon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent for suspending the sitting until 4.30 p.m.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is correct. We could adjourn for 18 and a half minutes, have coffee, and wait for the next CPR wreck to present the Budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) also give his consent?


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement that it be postponed until 4.30 p.m.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until 4.30 p.m.?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.13 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to orders made Friday, January 29, and Monday, February 8, 1988, the House will now proceed to Ways and Means proceedings No.
29.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
He said: As Canadians look ahead to a new decade and a new century, they have good reason to look forward with confidence.
Our economy is growing stronger, more dynamic, better able to compete.
Many more Canadian men and women have jobs.
Canadians are successfully meeting new challenges and seizing new opportunities.
In three and a half years, our economic progress has been dramatic. Overall, we have done better than any of the other major industrialized countries.
We have been number one in economic growth since 1984.
We have been number one in employment growth.
February 10, 1988

[ Translation]
More than 1,150,000 jobs have been created since we came to office; the great majority are full-time jobs; the unemployment rate today is the lowest it has been in six years.

Economic and employment growth last year were more evenly balanced among regions. Unemployment dropped in all provinces.
Mortgage rates are 3 percentage points lower, saving homeowners $1,200 per year on a $50,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years.
Elousing starts last year reached a 10-year high.

Business is confident; the pace of investment has increased sharply.
Consumers are confident; consumer spending has continued to grow strongly.


POLICIES FOR GROWTH AND JOBS
[Stage Direction]
This solid record of progress didn't just happen.
This government brought to office a vision for a stronger, more prosperous Canada, now and into the next century.
Our vision is rooted in the belief that the source of real, lasting jobs and economic strength is the creative energy of Canadians themselves-their capacity to innovate and produce, their desire to excel, their determination to build greater opportunities for the future.
To make this vision a reality, we set out a long-term plan- our Agenda for Economic Renewal-to transform the economy so that it can meet the challenges of a more competitive world.
Step by step, we have been putting in place a wide-ranging series of actions. These actions complement one another. Together they strengthen Canada's economic and social fabric and reinforce our place among the leading nations of the world.
[Stage Direction]
We have revitalized the private sector and positioned Canada's economy to meet the challenge of international competition in the 1990s.
[Stage Direction]
We have restored fiscal responsibility by reducing the deficit and cutting the growth of the national debt.
We have implemented priority programs, and we have helped regions and sectors hurt by unexpected developments in the world economy.
The budget I am tabling today is an accounting of the steps we are taking to build a stronger economy to create productive
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
jobs. It reviews the economic and fiscal progress we are making and sets out our prospects for the future.
It is a record of how our policies and initiatives have worked in building the framework for the economic success we now enjoy. It is also a statement about the economic and social progress still to be achieved by holding to the course we have set-progress measured in rising standards of living and an improving quality of life that fully reflects the distinctive priorities and values of Canadians.

[Stage Direction]
The driving force behind productive growth and job creation is a dynamic private sector.
To encourage this dynamism, the government has taken far-reaching measures to modernize the regulatory environment for business, reform the federal tax system and secure markets for our exports.

[Stage Direction]
Before this government came to office in 1984, the confidence of the business sector was at a low ebb.
The need for fundamental change was overwhelming.
We have acted to bring about this change.
We deregulated the energy and transportation sectors.
We opened financial markets to global opportunities and stimulated greater competition in financial services.
We modernized business framework legislation for competition policy, copyright and patents, providing better protection for the public interest.
[Stage Direction]
We privatized Crown corporations to reduce the intrusion of government in the market-place.
[Stage Direction]
We created Investment Canada to encourage and welcome investment capital from abroad, investment that is creating jobs for Canadians.
Through these and other initiatives, we are providing the environment for a stronger, more confident and growing private sector to play its role as the dynamic force behind growth and job creation. We are helping to build a more flexible and outward-looking economy, one that will be successful in the competitive and often volatile world economy.
Sceptics said the private sector would not respond; that jobs would be lost. The record proves the sceptics were wrong.

[Stage Direction]
To build a firm foundation for success in the 1990s, we need a tax system that is fairer for individual Canadians. We need a system that is effective in supporting growth and job creation.
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1988
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
We need a system that helps our businesses and industries to compete in the world.
We are meeting these objectives. On January 1, 1988 major reforms to the personal and corporate income tax systems went into effect. The key to these reforms is our belief that the best possible tax incentive for productive activity is lower tax rates.
For individuals, three federal tax brackets are replacing 10. To make the system fairer we are converting personal exemptions and many deductions to tax credits, and we are reducing and eliminating many special tax breaks.
The results are compelling.
More than eight out of 10 households will see their personal income taxes reduced. About 850,000 lower-income individuals will have their income tax reduced to zero. Almost nine out of 10 Canadians aged 65 and over will have income tax reductions. The vast majority of families with children will pay noticeably less personal income tax.
For the corporate sector, many special tax breaks are being eliminated or reduced, and tax rates are being lowered. This will mean that the corporate tax system will be more competitive with systems in other countries. Business and investment decisions will be based more on economic merit than on tax considerations. At the same time, many more profitable corporations will pay tax and corporate income tax will contribute a larger share of total tax revenues.
1 will be presenting to this House legislation covering these income tax reforms in the near future.
Still ahead of us is reform of the federal sales tax. We will replace the archaic and distorting sales tax system we now have with a multi-stage system that will be effective in supporting growth and job creation.
We have been working with the provinces and others to develop the most effective means of implementing this new system-particularly the opportunity of an integrated National Sales Tax. While the progress so far has been good, we have more work to do. We are actively pursuing these discussions to ensure that, coupled with the major reforms in the personal and corporate income taxes, Canadians have a tax system that meets both our shared commitment to fairness and the demands we face in a competitive world.
1 want to emphasize that tax reform is not a "cut now, pay later" proposition. There are many who have failed to understand, or who choose to ignore, that stage two of tax reform, like stage one, will neither increase nor decrease the deficit. It will not raise additional revenues. The revenues from sales tax reform will be used only to replace the current sales tax, support further income tax reductions for middle-income Canadians, fund a generous sales tax credit for low-income Canadians and remove the income tax surtaxes.

[Stage Direction]
Another key element of our strategy for the 1990s is to secure improved access to world markets for Canada's exporters.
The government supports the liberalization of world trade. That is why we are determined to resist the forces of protectionism that ultimately damage the spirit and health of any nation's economy.
And it is why we worked so vigorously for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The current negotiations in Geneva are an important opportunity to overhaul and strengthen the rules that are essential to an open world trading system.
in January, the Prime Minister signed a free trade agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States.
[Stage Direction]
The free trade agreement with the U.S. is a major building block in the government's strategy to strengthen Canada's competitive position in the world and enhance the prosperity of our people.
[Stage Direction]
The economic benefits of the free trade agreement will start to be realized shortly after its implementation on January 1, 1989. Prices for a wide range of consumer goods will begin to decline, expanding the purchasing power of Canadian households. Investment in plant and equipment will expand as Canadian firms move to take advantage of their enhanced access to the huge U.S. market-place. Increased consumer and investment spending will lead to stronger economic growth and more job creation.
The free trade agreement will provide greater opportunities for economies of scale in Canadian production and marketing and this will encourage greater productivity and stimulate innovation. In short, the agreement will lead to a more efficient and lower cost Canadian economy. A stronger and more productive economy will allow us to better support our social programs and further advance our cultural identity.
The government has completed a number of detailed studies on the impact of the free trade agreement on the Canadian economy. We estimate that there will be a net increase of at least 120,000 new jobs by 1993. We expect, too, that by the time the agreement is fully implemented, the real incomes of Canadians will be increased permanently by about $1,800 per year for a family of four.
There are further benefits to the economy that cannot be estimated in advance but that will be every bit as important- intangible benefits that result from greater incentive to invest and expand and the confidence built by broader horizons and opportunities.
The agreement itself is a symbol of our maturity-of our confidence as a sovereign and independent nation in our ability
February 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
to compete successfully with products from around the world inside our own borders as well as in foreign markets.

[Stage Direction]
Nothing is more basic to a strong framework for economic growth and job creation than responsible management of government finances.
In 1984, the federal deficit and the national debt were out of control. The deficit was more than $38 billion-up from $14.9 billion just three years before. The national debt had doubled in the same period and was growing at an average rate of 26 per cent per year.
If we had continued to pile up public debt at the same rate, today the debt would be more than $100 billion higher than it is-equivalent to $16,000 more for a family of four.
When government loses control of its finances, everyone is affected. It leads to higher interest rates for mortgages and for business and consumer loans; it means declining economic confidence, less growth and fewer jobs; it threatens our ability to provide the kinds of government programs and services Canadians need and want.
I believe that this generation of Canadians wants to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of opportunities and optimism, not one of crushing debt and crushed hopes.
Our challenge in 1984 was to restore fiscal stability and rebuild credibility in the management of government finances.
[Stage Direction]
The only way to do that was to set out a medium-term fiscal plan with sustained deficit reduction-and then hold to that plan.
That is exactly what we did. We embarked on a series of actions to restore fiscal order by cutting government spending and increasing revenues.

[Stage Direction]
The first priority had to be to get government spending under control.
In the four years before we came to office, government spending on programs had increased at an average annual rate of 14 per cent-far in excess of the rate of inflation and enough to double spending in about five years.
In the first three full years of our mandate, we cut the average annual rate of increase in government spending to just 3.5 per cent-less than the rate of inflation.
We achieved this record because we put in place a new, disciplined approach to the management of government and its finances.
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
An increase in government revenues is also an important part of our fiscal progress. Almost 80 per cent of the increase in revenues comes from the job and income growth that our policies are helping to create. Tax increases account for a relatively small part of the revenue gains.
With these actions, we have systematically reduced the deficit.
We said we would cut the deficit in each and every year. We did.
For the current fiscal year, I said we would cut the deficit to $29.3 billion. We will meet that target.
We said that control of expenditures would be the main source of deficit reduction. It has been.
We said that we would respond to the priorities and needs of Canadians in a fiscally responsible way. We have.

[Stage Direction]
Sound financial management was essential in 1984. It is essential now and it will be essential in the future. We must hold to our fiscal principles and we will.
First, we are reducing the growth rate of the national debt to no more than that of the economy by 1990-91.
Second, we are achieving steady year-to-year declines in the deficit. The reduction projected for 1988-89 will be the first time in the post-war period that the deficit has declined four years in a row.
Third, we are ensuring substantial reductions in the government's financial requirements.
And fourth, we are achieving the greater part of this progress through expenditure restraint and disciplined management.
Through continued adherence to our fiscal principles, through the measures taken in this budget and through the structural improvements designed to encourage our economic expansion, we will stay on the fiscal course that I set out last June.
In June, I proposed measures to prevent the erosion of the sales tax base that results from the creation of marketing companies by related manufacturers. Following consultations on these proposals, an improved approach has been developed. To ensure that sales tax revenues are maintained, the Excise Tax Act will be amended as set out in the supplementary information and technical notes tabled with this budget. We will also tighten the provisions which permit the purchase of inventory by wholesalers on a tax-free basis.
In 1988-89, government program spending will increase by only 4.3 per cent. To ensure continued deficit reduction, this budget includes further expenditure reductions.
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1988
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
Today 1 am announcing a reduction in non-statutory spending by government departments of $300 million beginning in 1989-90. This reduction will be carried out in a similar way to the $500 million in expenditure cuts announced in the 1986 budget. Details will be made known by the President of the Treasury Board later this year.
These reductions, together with the continuing impact of our earlier restraint measures, will ensure that spending on nonstatutory programs, excluding foreign aid and defence, will be lower in 1989-90 than it was when we took office. This is a real reduction, after inflation, of almost 20 per cent over a five-year period.
To raise revenues, the tax on gasoline will be increased by one cent per litre effective April 1. The rebate on gasoline purchased by farmers, fishermen and other primary producers will be increased by this amount. These measures do not apply to diesel fuel.
I am tabling Notices of Ways and Means Motions covering the changes I have announced and a number of further amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Tariff. These additional amendments are described in detail in the supplementary information.
Legislation will be introduced shortly to amalgamate the three import institutions-the Canadian Import Tribunal, the Tariff Board and the Textile and Clothing Board-into one new institution: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. This action will remove the duplication that currently exists.
Pursuant to a motion of this House, I will also introduce today a bill seeking borrowing authority for the 1988-89 fiscal year.
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, the steady progress we have been making in carrying through our fiscal and economic policies is reflected in the economic record and outlook for the Canadian economy.
[Stage Direction]
The performance of our economy in 1987 surpassed most expectations. At the start of last year, forecasters were saying that the economy would grow by just over 2 per cent. When the final numbers are in, the growth of the economy will be close to 4 per cent. With growth driven by high levels of business investment, housing starts and consumer confidence, employment growth was very strong and the unemployment rate declined by 1.3 percentage points over the year.
For 1988, the Canadian economy is on course for a sixth consecutive year of expansion. Business confidence remains high and our corporate sector is in good financial health; we are competitive in international markets.
However, even without the October decline in the stock market, we could not have expected to sustain last year's rapid pace of economic growth. This year I expect the rate of growth to moderate to just under 3 per cent. Employment will
continue to grow. Interest rates are expected to remain relatively stable over the course of the year.
Inflation has averaged just over 4 per cent over the last three years and in recent months has declined from the levels reached in mid-1987. To maintain a positive climate for growth and job creation, it is essential that wage and price pressures continue to be restrained and that further progress be made over time in reducing inflation. Both monetary and fiscal policy have an important role to play in this regard.
In 1989 the rate of economic growth is expected to rebound, with consumer expenditures buoyed by refunds resulting from tax reform and the lower prices resulting from the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. Investment spending and exports will also be spurred by the trade agreement.

[Stage Direction]
Strong economic performance is good social policy.
By creating more jobs, more opportunities and better incomes, our expanding economy provides the means for Canadians to improve their own well-being and economic security. That same economic growth also provides the means for the government to maintain the social services that are an integral part of the Canadian way of life.
But strong economic growth coupled with our fiscal progress has enabled us to do more. It has created the financial capacity we need to do things that only government can do-to act in specific areas of national priority and to respond in support of regions and sectors hurt by unexpected developments beyond our borders.
We have undertaken a number of priority initiatives.

[Stage Direction]
One of these is the National Child Care Strategy which was announced in December.
This initiative will benefit children because many more good quality facilities will become available for their care. We expect 200,000 new spaces to be created in all parts of the country in the next seven years.
[Stage Direction]
The initiative is of great importance to Canadian families. It will help to eliminate a barrier facing many women who work, or want to work, outside the home. It also increases tax assistance to many who choose to work in the home.

[Stage Direction]
We are also implementing a new approach to regional development, an approach that will be more responsive to needs and priorities in the regions. It will draw fully on the ideas and the initiative of people living in the various regions as we work to achieve more balanced development across Canada.
February 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
In the Atlantic Region, local entrepreneurship and small and medium business development is being promoted by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
In the West, diversification of the economic base will be assisted by the Western Diversification Office.
In Northern Ontario, increased private sector activity is being assisted by the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario.
[Stage Direction]
The Government has also announced its intention to respond more effectively to the real development needs of the less prosperous outlying regions of Quebec. To this end, an extensive consultation process will be undertaken with the people of the regions, representatives of local business communities and the provincial government.

[Stage Direction]
We are ensuring jobs for Canadians in the future by investing in knowledge today.
Our ability to grow and create jobs depends fundamentally on our ability to use science and technology to our advantage.
At the National Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation in January, the Prime Minister announced $1.3 billion in federal funding for new science and technology activities over the next five years. These will include a national program of Centres of Excellence on university campuses and a program of Canada Scholarships in science, engineering and related disciplines.
Canadian companies carrying out R and D receive strong support through the tax system. When deductions and tax credits for R and D are taken into account, the tax incentives for Canadian firms to invest in R and D are among the most advantageous in the industrialized world.

[Stage Direction]
To protect Canada's sovereignty and meet our commitments to our allies, we must have a strong and modern defence capability. In the White Paper on Defence Policy, the Government defined three major elements in Canada's renewed defence strategy.
We will strengthen and modernize our naval defences. We will fulfil our commitment to NATO by consolidating our forces in Western Europe. And we will strengthen our defence of Canadian territory by enlarging our reserve forces and integrating them into the regular forces.
This Budget begins the process of implementing the White Paper proposals in a manner consistent with our fiscal principles.
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson AGRICULTURE
The Government has provided strong support to Canada's farm community in the face of severe international market conditions.
In addition to agricultural assistance under existing programs, the Government announced in December a further series of agricultural initiatives. These initiatives provide income support, help alleviate the pressures of farm debt on many farmers and maintain the economic base of many rural communities.
These actions have been made necessary in large part by falling grain prices caused by the continuing export subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community and by the lack of effective international rules governing agricultural subsidies.
At home and internationally, the Government will continue to support Canadian agriculture and work to advance agricultural interests. We will continue to seek better international rules. The Prime Minister is at the forefront of efforts to find a resolution to the international grain subsidy problem. We will continue to work through various forums, most particularly the multilateral trade negotiations currently under way in Geneva. In addition, Canada is a leading member of the Cairns Group-a group of countries that account for more than a third of world grain trade. Together we are working to ensure our shared objectives are met.
[Stage Direction]
Since 1984, we have provided wide-ranging support for the development of Canada's vital energy industry. We signed energy accords with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the Western producing provinces to end years of federal-provincial disputes, to make the industry market-responsive and to instill investor confidence.
In 1986, following the collapse of world oil prices, we assisted the oil and gas industry by eliminating the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. We also cushioned the shock of lower prices through the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program.

[Stage Direction]
I want to place this Budget and our economic program in the broader international perspective.
[Stage Direction]
We live in a volatile world economy. Changes in commodity prices, inflation, financial markets and world economic growth have been large and difficult to predict. This situation is not likely to change in the future.
[Stage Direction]
To succeed in this turbulent environment, we must be able to adjust quickly and be flexible in responding to change. At home, we must continue to build the strength and resiliency of
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1988
Borrowing Authority Act
the private sector to position the economy to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. We must stick to our fiscal principles. We must continue to implement priority programs and to deal effectively with unexpected developments in a fiscally responsible way.
We will continue to support the individual and collective efforts of the major industrial countries to strengthen the basis for global economic growth.
At this juncture, the Group of Seven industrial nations has a vital leadership role to play. The world's trade problems and the difficulties faced by developing countries will be the focus of attention when the Prime Minister and the other leaders of the major industrial nations meet this June in Toronto for the Economic Summit. In addition, as Minister of Finance, I am in close consultation with my counterparts in the other G-7 countries to assess global developments and to co-ordinate economic policy action.
Canada is committed to this co-operative approach. By carrying forward actions to revitalize domestic economies and by working together, the major industrial nations can improve the prospects of all countries, including the developing countries. 1 will be introducing legislation which will allow Canada to support the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility of the International Monetary Fund to help address debt problems of the poorest developing countries.

[Stage Direction]
To grow and prosper in a more competitive world requires the combined efforts of people in every sector of the economy, every part of the country.
[Stage Direction]
From the day we took office, we invited Canadians to share in these efforts. We have benefited greatly from the advice and co-operation that we have received through our extensive consultations. We have also worked closely with provincial governments on a wide range of initiatives essential to Canada's future.
[Stage Direction]
Through the policy course that we charted in 1984, this government embarked on a series of carefully planned actions to strengthen the fundamental components of economic growth and job creation.
We are staying the course because we know that our policies are working. We also know from the experience of the 1970s and early 1980s the approaches and policies that do not work.
We will continue to take actions requiring tough decisions, difficult adjustments and firm resolve. There are no short cuts to achieving Canada's economic potential.
We must continue to improve our ability to adapt, to seize the opportunities created by an ever-changing world.
In the decade to come we cannot be satisfied simply to do as well as other countries. We must continually strive to do better, to be the best.
For the next two weeks Canada and the world will witness many of the finest athletes competing in the Winter Olympics in Calgary. Their commitment and quest for excellence must be what we as a nation bring to the task of building our economy.
[Stage Direction]
This commitment and this pursuit of excellence are essential to ensure an economic future that provides challenging opportunities for our children, jobs and economic security for all Canadians.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear Hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Pursuant to orders made Friday, January 29, and Monday, February 8, 1988, the House will now revert to introduction of government Bills.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
[Stage Direction]


February 10, 1988
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when the thoughts of Canadians are focused on Calgary and the Olympic Games, I understand why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) preferred to move up the date for his Budget speech, because with his performance he would never have been able to compete with athletes from all over the world.

The Minister of Finance with this Budget could not even make the cut-off for the Calgary Olympics. Like a worn out athlete who is living in the past, all he can tell us about are his past glories of Lake Placid and Sarajevo. As to the future, no vision, only new taxes, $200 million in new sales taxes and $300 million in new gasoline taxes. If I were a Member on the Tory benches, I would-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance. May I have the same courtesy?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


Raymond Garneau: This Budget does not say that in 1988 the Canadian people, on top of the half billion dollars of new taxes announced by the Minister of Finance today, will pay $870 million in taxes announced in December, on telecommunication. De-indexation of personal income tax will cost the Canadian taxpayer an additional three quarters of a billion dollars. The additional sales tax announced last December will be implemented this year. That will add another $60 million. This Budget, together with the news that was announced in December, will mean $2 billion of additional taxes for Canadians in 1988.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, $200 million worth of new sales taxes, $300 million worth of excise tax on gasoline, plus the taxes announced last December, which are to come into effect this year-all this adds up to a total of $2 billion in new taxes announced by the Minister of Finance, in his December speech and in today's speech, for fiscal 1988.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance referred to his past achievements. He said everything was under control. But what is the reality?

What is the reality about the public finances today? The national debt has now reached $300 billion, an increase of 66 per cent since the Government took office on September 4, 1984. I should add that 40 per cent of the total national debt was brought in by the Government.
What about the deficit? I am surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is playing with his credibility in that manner. He stated that he would hold the line and meet his target of $29.3 billion of deficit. Can you imagine that, Mr. The Budget-Mr. Garneau
Speaker? That is after six years of recovery-and I will quote the Minister in a moment-and after having increased taxes by $22 billion, and the Minister gave me proof that I was right when I was saying that because he stated that 80 per cent of the tax increase came from growth of the economy and 20 per cent came from increase of taxes. The 20 per cent corresponds to the total amount of taxes that 1 was talking about, $22 billion of new taxes. Six years of recovery, and the deficit is still around $30 billion. If I take for granted the statement made by the Bank of Montreal in a report published a few weeks ago, without the accounting tricks used by the Minister, the real deficit in this fiscal year will be between $32 billion and $33 billion. Canadians will remember.

Mr. Speaker, our national debt has increased by 66 per cent. Taxes have gone up by $22 billion. After six years of economic recovery, the deficit in real terms, if we ignore the Minister's sleight of hand, is more than $31 or $32 billion. I am convinced people in the business world will realize that the Minister's promises ... I sometimes have the impression the Minister thinks that if he beats his chest and blows his own horn and keeps repeating everything is under control, people will start believing everything is under control, while nothing is further from the truth. Our public finances and the national debt are in a pitiful state.
Mr. Speaker, the real deficit is over $30 billion, our national debt has gone up and taxes keep going up as well. Nevertheless, not a word in the Minister's speech about how the Government intends to finance the announcements it has made in recent months. Where is the Government going to get $16 billion for its nuclear submarines? How is it going to finance research and development programs? How is it going to finance its five-year day-care program? How is it going to raise the $2.8 billion it has promised our farmers?
Mr. Speaker, I do not object to these programs, but if the Minister wants to maintain some credibility, he should provide some indications in his fiscal plan, as we know only what will happen during the first two years, and in some cases, we do not even have the total figures for the year 1990. We have no indications, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand why the deficit is not going down.

The much hoped for "death-bed repentance" by the Minister of Finance was nowhere to be seen in this Budget. Instead, this Minister and the Government have chosen to stand on their record of broken promises and the massive $22 billion increase in individual taxes on our children, our young adults, our families, and our senior citizens.
In short, the Minister of Finance and the Government have chosen to be judged on their record of broken promises and massive tax increases. Even at this eleventh hour-because it is an outgoing Government, and we will have an election sooner

February 10, 1988
The Budget-Mr. Garneau
or later-Canadians had hoped that the Minister would reverse these massive, huge, unfair tax increases, but this was not to be.
Canadians had hoped that the Minister would finally respect his word, his solemn promise made in the House in 1984, only a few months before the general election in 1984 when he stated that a Tory Government would not increase taxes. A Tory Government would cut spending.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Did he say that?


Raymond Garneau: Yes, he said that in the House on behalf of the Government on March 6, 1984.


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Raymond Garneau: The present Minister of Finance when he was sitting on this side of the House. Those words can be found in Hansard on March 6, 1984, a few months before the general election. He stated, "We would cut spending. We would not raise taxes, tax levels in Canada are already too high''.


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Raymond Garneau: The present Minister of Finance made that promise on behalf of the Tories in 1984. After the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) repeated that. They are both sitting there on the pile of money that they have taken out of our pockets since they have been elected, $22 billion.
Taking into account tax reform, the last three Budgets, and not taking into account the tax increase in today's Budget, it will cost a one-income couple with two children $1,200 a year in additional taxes that have been imposed by this Minister who promised in the House in 1984 that he would not increase taxes, he would cut spending.

Mr. Speaker, do you have any idea how many taxes have been imposed? In giving us an empty Budget speech which shows only the good sides, the Minister has made a noteworthy omission. He forgot to list all the tax increases, and if I may, Mr. Speaker, I shall now do so very quickly. It could take a few minutes as the list is long.


John Napier Turner: Certainly! Take your time.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the first tax increase was immediately after the Conservatives came into office in 1984: a 1 per cent increase of the sales tax, for $1 billion more. Then, there was a second sales tax increase of 1 per cent in 1986, for another $1 billion. Still in 1986, there was a third sales tax increase, for another $1 billion.
There was a first tax increase of 1 cent a litre on gasoline in
1985.	This meant an increase of $450 million. Then, there was another 1 cent increase in 1985, for $450 million. We had a third 1 cent increase in 1987, for $450 million. In 1987, there was still another 1 cent increase, for another $450 million,
which brings us to 4 cents, and we got another 1 cent increase today.

It is amazing, talking about the Olympic Games, that with that performance the Minister could not have made the cut-off for the Olympic Games. Perhaps he could have won one medal, the gold medal for the tax on gasoline. Five cents a litre means 23 cents a gallon. Even the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) would have to be satisfied with the bronze medal for trying to implement an 18-cent per gallon gas tax in 1979.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, there have been increases of the sales tax on candy and soft drinks and a new sales tax on snacks. We had a first increase of the excise tax on cigarettes in 1985 for $300 million and a second increase in 1986 for $156 million. In 1987, there was a third increase on tobacco for $70 million. By eliminating the tax credit for Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans, which helped Canadians to save to buy housing, the Government increased taxes by $105 million. Then there was the deindexation of the tax system.
Mr. Speaker, deindexation of the tax system increases taxes by $750 million a year, but the Minister has not said a word about it. There were also changes to the exemptions for spouses, a general surtax of 3 per cent, a temporary surtax of 5 and 10 per cent, an increase in the air transport tax, a 10 per cent tax on long distance calls, an increase of the tax on wallpaper, paint, and so on. Mr. Speaker, there is a whoie series of taxes which the Minister forgot to mention.
Let us examine this additional tax on gasoline. If we look at the fiscal plan, we find on page 34 that the tax on gasoline will bring in about $500 million over the next two years. However, if we look at the impact of the trade agreement with the United States, the Minister will lose some $500 million in customs duties. In other words, what the Minister has taken away from us in customs duties is being billed to the consumer.
It is very clear on page 37 of The Fiscal Plan that the additional taxes on gasoline are to pay for the tariffs that will be taken out by this agreement with the United States. Now Canadian consumers will pay for the deal that is supposed to lower the price for consumers.
There was only one positive thing that I saw in all these papers. I am very pleased to say that finally the Minister of Finance is acknowledging that the economic recovery in Canada did not start with the Conservative Government.
I should like to quote from the Budget document entitled Canada's Economic Prospects: Looking Ahead to the 1990s. Here is what I found:
Canada is now in its sixth year of economic expansion following the 19811982 recession.
February 10, 1988

Indeed it is gratifying to see that the Minister has recognized that Canada's economic recovery had commenced at least two years before under the previous Liberal administration, and that his Government has been carried along on the wave resulting from world-wide economic recovery. This is what he is saying in this document. I suggest that all Hon. Members read it because it is probably the only page where we can find truth in these documents. I thank the Minister for acknowledging that the Conservative Government was not responsible for Canada's economic recovery.
Aside from this quote which I found in the papers, I will have much more to say tomorrow. However, in a nutshell I would say that it is a non-budget. It is only preparation for an electoral campaign. The Minister gave us only one side of the coin.
Generally speaking the fiscal and budgetary policy of the Government will not solve the problem it was supposed to solve, contrary to what the Minister said. I would say that the general framework of the philosophy of the Government is a
The Budget-Mr. Garneau
blueprint for a Conservative Canada-a Canada for the rich but not a Canada for the average Canadian, not a Canada for the poor; a Canada for the rich regions of the country, but not a Canada for the underdeveloped regions of the country; a Canada that may bring prosperity to a very few, but misery and poverty for many Canadians.

1 therefore move, seconded by Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That the debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to orders made Friday, January 29, and Monday, February 8, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 11, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers