1989-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
many ethno-cultural groups, and which was a commitment, together with the establishment of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, to have a separate Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
['The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) is quarrelling with the fact that the rule says that only four questions can be on the Order Paper at any one time and suggests that the Speaker should turn a blind eye to it. The Speaker cannot turn a blind eye to any rule because I am bound to interpret the rules as all other Members have asked me to do.\nI made it very clear in what I said a few minutes ago that I cannot order the Government to produce those documents or the answers within 45 days, but I say to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that nor can I deliberately turn a blind eye to the rules as they are sent to me to enforce.\nIf the Hon. Member is not satisfied with that particular rule, there are various ways to enter into discussions with colleagues and to change the rule. If the rule is changed, then I of course will accept that and be bound by it. After all, the rules are here because generally speaking the majority of Members of Parliament from all Parties have agreed to them. These are the rules that are made by all of us in this place to conduct our proceedings, so these rules change from time to time.\nThe Hon. Member may have a suggestion for change. I would invite him to speak with some of his colleagues on both the government side and in the New Democratic Party so that perhaps a change could be made. Of course, if the change is made, then I will enforce it as I am bound to enforce the rules as they presently stand.']
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East has raised a point which she may wish to pursue at another time.
*
*



Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizen-ship))(for Mr. Mulroney) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State and Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, I am honoured today to introduce a Bill concerning the establishment of a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I remain confident that I can count on the cooperation of all Hon. Members for quick approval of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East on a point of order.


Ms. Mitchell:: In support of this Bill to establish a new and separate Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, it is appropriate at this point to have clarification from the government House Leader, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), as to whether we might also have reconsideration of the request that has been made by


CANADIAN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM ACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)(for Mr. Epp)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, first I note that in yesterday's petition the Hansard reporter thought that one of the communities in Saskatchewan was Borneo. I want to indicate that Borneo is not a community in Saskatchewan, it is a country elsewhere in the world. When I indicated there were a number of communities outside the Churchill riding that supported the Port of Churchill, I did not include the country of Borneo.
However, today I have another 500 people who support the Port of Churchill. They are from the communities of Churchill, The Pas, Flin Flon, Cumberland House which is in Saskatchewan, Rose Valley, Saskatchewan, Wanless, Norway House, Cross Lake, McDowell, Prince Albert, and White Fox, Saskatchewan. Other communities include Thompson, Lynn Lake, Swan River, Water-hen, Meadow Portage, Creighton, Saskatchewan,

May 18, 1989
Order Paper Questions
Veregin, Saskatchewan, Pelly, Saskatchewan, Moose Lake, Cormorant, Pukatawagan, Grand Rapids, Dauphin, Garland and Winnipeg. There are no signatures from Borneo.
The people from all those different communities who have signed this petition call upon the federal Government to develop the obvious potential of Canada's only inland seaport. They call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ensure that, at the very least, 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the Port of Churchill and that the Government aggressively pursue additional ways to utilize this important seaport to ship exports other than grain.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions which have been certified by the Clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition, which contains 1,150 signatures, calls upon the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws which would allow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) to order the extradition of fugitives either immediately or after they have been dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system. It is another group of hundreds of thousands of petitions on this subject that will be presented in the House in the course of the next month.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified by the Clerk. This petition is in addition to those that have been submitted by my colleague, the Member for Vancouver North (Mr. Cook).
My petition also contains 1,150 signatures and calls upon the Government to revise the extradition laws, which would then allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives immediately or after they have been dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system.
These petitioners urge the Government to recognize that Canada cannot be considered a safe haven for murderers of citizens in other jurisdictions who seek refuge in this country from their own laws.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today is the deadline for the Government to answer these questions for which we have requested a 45-day response.
We introduced a number of questions in the House on April 3. There are a fair number of questions standing in the name of a number of New Democrats and a couple of Liberals. There is a requirement, as part of the process of parliamentary reform, that the Government respond to these questions within 45 days. It has not done so.
The whole idea of parliamentary reform is that Members could insist upon getting answers to various specific questions. The first day that the House sat, after not sitting for four full months, we put down a number of questions that are very important to our Members and to Canadians right across the country. Here we are, 45 days later, and the Parliamentaiy Secretary has the nerve to get up and not answer any of those questions.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have given enough notice. I have risen a number of times when the Parliamentary Secretary has risen and said that we want answers to these questions.
The Parliamentary Secretary is one of those people who was instrumental in working for parliamentary reform. Even with all the talk of government cut-backs, it has enough people in its various Departments to answer specific questions.
Question No. 1 by the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse) deals with western diversification projects in the Province of Saskatchewan. That is something on which the Government should be able to provide infor-
May 18, 1989

mation. Question No. 3, also in the name of the Member for Mackenzie, asks about contributions toward crop and drought payments. Again, that is something about which the Government has the information. We are not talking about something that requires a lot research, or about something that is new. The Government has that information.
If it were a complicated issue, and something that required a lot of research, I can understand the Government having a problem answering the questions within 45 days. However, for the sake of parliamentary reform, I believe that since we indicated when we put these questions on the Order Paper on April 3 that we wanted the information within 45 days, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministers, since there are 40 of them, could provide the information to the House.
I am almost tempted to go through each of the questions at this point and indicate that since we asked for the information we should have it. Question No. 8 by the Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) deals with foreign-owned corporations and tax deductions. Again, that is information the Government already has.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not intervene in the Hon. Member's representation, but I do want to know something. Standing Order 39(5) states:
A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.
What I need to know from the Hon. Member is that on the matter to which he is referring did the Member in fact request that the Minister respond within 45 days?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the point I am making. Following the rules and the indication you have made with regard to the Standing Order, when we submitted these questions on April 3 as soon as the House of Commons sat, we indicated that we wanted answers to each and every one of the questions I referred to so far and the ones to which I will refer in a few seconds.
The point is that we did our homework. We were ready when the House finally sat. We asked a number of questions that we believe are important to our constituents and important to Canadians.
I do not understand why the Government has answered so few questions to date. Whether it is Ms. Black, Mr. Kristiansen, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Young, Mr. Nys-trom, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Whittaker, both Mr. Skellys, Mr. Order Paper Questions
Riis, Mr. Angus, Mr. Fulton, Mr. Funk, Mr. Butland, Mr. Axworthy, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Karpoff, Mr. de Jong, Mr. Fulton, Mr. Taylor-


An Hon. Member:: More, more!


Rodney Edward Murphy: There is more. There are a number by Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Gardiner-all of those people asked that their questions be responded to within 45 days. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is not just a matter of requesting. We have a standing order which says that is something the Government should provide to the House of Commons. They know the rules. The Parliamentary Secretary that got up earlier knows the rules because he is part of the committee that called for parliamentary reform. I demand that these questions be answered. They have already broken so many rules in this House. This is a rule that does not cause them that much of a problem but it is a situation where we want information. We in the Opposition have a right to get that information. I believe that they are in contempt of Parliament by not providing that information.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and to assure him that we on this side are very much concerned about parliamentary reform and have played an active role in the reforms that have such an impact on this House.
I do want to apologize to the Member for the delay in some of the answers coming. As he knows, we answered some earlier this week and we will continue to do that. We will do everything within our power to make sure that those questions are answered as quickly as possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point since we have to deal with the borrowing authority legislation, but it is important. My problem with the answer that the House has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the questions can be answered. We are not talking about complicated information. We are talking about information that already exists in the various Departments. It is not a matter of "We will provide it when we can". The information is there. The attitude of the Government in the various Departments is to ignore Parliament and to ignore the Members of Parliament. The information is in the Departments. We have a right to get that information Whether it is a government Member or an opposition Member, we have asked for it. We have a right to

May 18, 1989
Order Paper Questions
receive it within 45 days. There is absolutely no excuse for not giving us the information.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize what has been said. I think it is essential for the Government to respond within 45 days to a question that is put on the Order Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alex Kindy: I think we brought in parliamentary reform so that Members could really contribute to the process. Thank you.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: We are paying the civil service to get the answers.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the first time that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I said some time ago that whatever the rule may be-and I will refer to the rule in a moment-there is no power given under the rule to the Chair to order the Government to produce an answer within 45 days. I want that clearly understood, not just by Hon. Members but by anybody who may be watching or listening.
The second thing I want to point out is that if one looks carefully at Standing Order 39 which is headed "Written Questions" and comes to paragraph 5, this is exactly what it says:
A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific
question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or
question.
I draw to the attention of Hon. Members and to all others who are interested that "a Member may request". As I read that, that is not a right. It is a request. There is a distinction.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the intention of the Reform Committee in bringing about this rule was that when written questions are put forward, it is the better part of virtue for the Government to reply within 45 days if the Member has asked for that.
An Hon. Member just said something about who has to prepare the returns. Ultimately, under our system, of course the Minister is responsible. But I hope that somebody notices that the Speaker has observed that people who are in the service of the public, who have to bring these answers back, ought to take a look at this rule
and realize that it does not just hang there without any purpose.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think it is appropriate that the time of this House has to be taken up by Members having to get up and ask why somebody has not given them the answer.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) made it quite clear. If there is a case where something is so complicated that it is impossible for the Government to give the answer within 45 days, I think Hon. Members would be patient and understanding if the Parliamentary Secretary or Minister got up and said that that was the dilemma they found themselves in.
For the most part, there is no real reason in the world why these answers cannot be given. As I say, I cannot order them to be given because I do not have the power. But I do ask that those who are asked to prepare these answers take a look at this rule and realize that when they do not get the answer back to their Minister in time, they are putting all of us through a lot of difficulty and taking up the time of the House, because undoubtedly there will be more points of order raised on exactly this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Short of the authority to order somebody to do anything, I cannot make my own feelings on this matter any more clear than I have just done.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for your indulgence. I recognize the very learned ruling that Your Honour has just made, but one of the restrictions that Members are under as a result of the reform, that included the rule to which Your Honour just referred, is one that limited the number of questions that each Member could have on the Order Paper at any one time. We are only permitted four.
Perhaps Your Honour, to ameliorate the situation for Members, could turn a blind eye to that part of the rule if the Government is going to be permitted to turn a blind eye to the request of Members that the question be

May 18, 1989

answered within 45 days. I am wondering if Your Elonour would consider that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) is quarrelling with the fact that the rule says that only four questions can be on the Order Paper at any one time and suggests that the Speaker should turn a blind eye to it. The Speaker cannot turn a blind eye to any rule because I am bound to interpret the rules as all other Members have asked me to do.
I made it very clear in what I said a few minutes ago that I cannot order the Government to produce those documents or the answers within 45 days, but I say to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands that nor can I deliberately turn a blind eye to the rules as they are sent to me to enforce.
If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with that particular rule, there are various ways to enter into discussions with colleagues and to change the rule. If the rule is changed, then I of course will accept that and be bound by it. After all, the rules are here because generally speaking the majority of Members of Parliament from all Parties have agreed to them. These are the rules that are made by all of us in this place to conduct our proceedings, so these rules change from time to time.
The Hon. Member may have a suggestion for change. I would invite him to speak with some of his colleagues on both the government side and in the New Democratic Party so that perhaps a change could be made. Of course, if the change is made, then I will enforce it as I am bound to enforce the rules as they presently stand.



POINT OF ORDER


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on another point of order, if I may. During the introduction of a Bill by the Hon. Minister for Multiculturalism, there was a suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) with respect to the citizenship and multiculturalism aspect of the present Committee on Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism.
Borrowing Authority
I just want to respond very briefly to say that during the months of January to March, there was discussion among the House vis-a-vis the number of committees and streamlining them in an effort to have them work more efficiently and save money. We had excellent discussion with the Opposition Parties.
We streamlined them. We went to our various caucuses and discussed it with our Members, and the final list of committees was unanimously agreed to by this House.
Since that time, there have been submissions made with respect to only one committee. The submissions have been to split off the Citizenship and Multiculturalism from Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism. I just want to indicate, since the Hon. Member did make the suggestion, that we are giving it serious consideration and we hope to be able to comment publicly in the very near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I probably erred on the side of generosity in allowing the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) to make the point of order, however, it seemed to me a legitimate issue. I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) for responding.
I also want to say something which I should have said a few minutes ago and that is to the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). The Chair does appreciate the very conciliatory way in which the Hon. Member responded to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on this difficult question of trying to provide answers within 45 days. I want the Hon. Member to know that the Chair does very much appreciate his courtesy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from TUesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
May 18. 1989
Borrowing Authority
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Churchill. Debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker,the Opposition is having a good day so far, and I understand that later today the Government is going to support the Private Members' Motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker).


An Hon. Member:: Don't push your luck.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I thought perhaps with the mood that is in the House and the fact that the Opposition usually gets its way on everything that perhaps we could defeat the borrowing authority at the same time.


An Hon. Member:: Perhaps you would want to demonstrate generosity for a change from your side.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, and unfortunately I have only 10 minutes to speak on this very important matter. Besides that, unfortunately if we force the vote we do not get to have the vote until Tuesday by which time I suspect the Government will go back to its usual attitude on these matters.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, having the opportunity to get up and speak on the borrowing authority does give me the opportunity to be concerned with the general direction of this Government and the program that it has put forward in its Budget, because of course the whole nature of the borrowing authority is to provide the money that it needs to fund Government programs.
I come from the Province of Manitoba, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we had a delegation in town from Portage la Prairie, who are veiy concerned with the fact that their base is being closed. It is a base which is used to train pilots. It is an initial stage base that gives the initial training and also gives training for helicopter pilots. I understand from the representatives of the community of Portage la Prairie that when they met with the Minister and met with the Conservative caucus that the response they had was: "Well, we can privatize the training of military pilots.'' I thought that this is probably the most ironic situation in the world.
The Government of Canada says that it is committed to defence, committed to NATO and committed to enlarging our role, but for some reason it believes that the training of military pilots can be done by the private sector. The Government somehow believes that it can close the community of Portage la Prairie because that is what it is going to be doing by its Budget. The Government has no concept of how it affects that community. It has no concept of what it does to the school division, what it does to the community of Portage la Prairie, and what it does to the rural municipality of Portage la Prairie where a number of those people live and work. It has absolutely no concept of what it has done in its Budget to that area.
Although I am not someone who has promoted NATO in the past and I am certainly not going to promote it today, we have always recognized in the New Democratic Party the proper role for defence. One of the things that we have emphasized is a Canadian role and that we have an obligation within Canada. What we see from the Government is that it has exactly the opposite approach. It is closing bases right across this country. It has no concern for the communities that are affected. We know that it is not made in the best interest of Canadians as a whole. That is one of the concerns that I have as a Manitoban getting up and speaking on the borrowing authority.
Another concern which is very close to me, and I have raised the issue for three days in a row now in the House of Commons, is the Port of Churchill. I indicated today in Petitions that we have support from all communities in northern Manitoba on the Port of Churchill. Yesterday in my petition in the House of Commons, I indicated we had support from right across the country on the Port of Churchill and that we had petitions signed right from St. John's to Victoria supporting the use of the Port of Churchill.
We were told on Monday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), that there was no guarantee that there would be any grain whatsoever coming through the Port of Churchill this year.
It is ironic that the provincial Minister of Transportation in Manitoba knew this a week ago. He was told by the federal Minister of Transport that this was the case, and he did not make that information public. He did not tell the people of Churchill. He did not tell the people of The Pas who work on the rail lines. He did not tell any of
May 18, 1989

the residents of Manitoba that our only Arctic seaport was unlikely to receive any grain this year.
I found the provincial Government had absolutely no concern with what was happening in our province. It was so concerned with the fact that it had a minority Government that it did not dare tell the people of Manitoba what its federal Conservative counterparts were doing. It is not just the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer), the Member of the Cabinet from Manitoba. He is the Minister who is ultimately responsible for grain shipments. He is a Member of Parliament from Manitoba and he has not stood up in this House and announced what is happening. He has not gone to his own province. He has not gone to the fanners within his own province and told them what is happening. It again indicates the lack of any sense of Cabinet responsibility. He is the Minister in charge. He is the Minister from Manitoba and he has not told Manitobans what is happening with a seaport which our pioneers set up many years ago.
This is a seaport which has always had grain coming from the middle part of Saskatchewan because that is where our grain comes from for the Port of Churchill.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of the New Democratic Party from Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk) and the three Members from Saskatoon and the Members from MacKenzie all realize the value of the Port of Churchill. They have stood up in our caucus and supported the Port of Churchill. I find it amazing that the Saskatchewan Members in the Conservative caucus have not stood up and also spoken in favour of the Port of Churchill.
We are trying to expand trade. Here we are talking about the need to export more grain in this country. We are letting one of our few ports close without the Government showing any concern whatsoever, without the provincial Government in Manitoba even bothering to tell the people of Manitoba what had happened, without the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds telling this House what is happening.
We are not going to let this issue rest. We are going to continue this issue as we have every day so far. We are going to have a community delegation coming and meeting with the Minister of Transport and the Minister in charge of the grains and oilseeds on June 8.1 will tell
Borrowing Authority
you, Mr. Speaker, we will not let this issue rest. It is an issue which is very important for all of the prairie provinces. It is very important in terms of our own destiny as a country. It is ironic, to use that word yet again, that other nations, particularly the Russians, are increasing their use of Arctic seaports at the very time that this Government is doing absolutely nothing to promote the North. The Government has given in on the Polar 8. It says the project is just delayed because they cannot figure out which end of the ship is the front as opposed to the rear. The Government has given up on any sense of Arctic sovereignty. Now the Government is willing to let our only Arctic seaport not have any grain whatever this year. I find that completely unacceptable.
You indicated that I only had two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell you that there are a number of other concerns that Manitobans have outside of the closing of the base in Portage la Prairie and the fact that the Government will not make a commitment to the Port of Churchill. We are also concerned about a number of other things indicated in the Budget. For example, the Established Programs Financing is being limited by this Budget. This is the fourth move by a Government, whether the previous Liberal Government or this Conservative Government, to restrict financing for post-secondary education and health. We have had four different bills over the last seven years introduced in this House of Commons to restrict funding. Obviously, in each case it further restricts funding by the federal Government for these very important areas and that is completely unacceptable.
We know, whether it is in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, or right across this country, that we have a problem with health services. Each time a Government introduces another piece of legislation which restricts federal contributions, it hurts each and every Canadian who needs health care. Each and every time the Government further restricts its role for post-secondary education that means another child in this country will not get the education that he or she wants. That is the net effect of restricting this money.
The Government's argument is: "Well, we cannot have it open-ended". It never has been open-ended. As I said, the Government of the day has had four different Bills in the House of Commons in the last seven years restricting funding. Each time a Government has done

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
that, it has prevented our young people from getting the training needed.
I know, coming from the City of Edmonton, that you, Mr. Speaker, would know that every so often we have this great demand by industry to bring in trades people from England, France or other countries because we have not trained our own people. When you see, as this Budget does, another measure which restricts funding for our own universities and community colleges, in two or three years from now we will have a dilemma. We will not have the trades people we need, we will not have the educated people we need nor will we have the scientists to develop jobs and our technology for Canadians.
I realize that my time is finished, Mr. Speaker, but if I can beg the indulgence of the House to speak for one minute. There are a number of concerns of Manitobans surrounding regional development. There is the cutback for VIA, the fuel tax, the cut-back in tourist marketing and the fact that corporate taxes have not been increased to provide that funding. People in Manitoba do not like this Budget. You can see what is happening in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The provincial Government in Manitoba is afraid to call an election because the federal Government is so unpopular as a result of the nature and issues in this Budget.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Borrowing Bill in the vernacular. This Government is into its second mandate.
Are you addressing me, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, I was not
addressing the Hon. Member. There are no questions or comments. Under Standing Order 74 we are now in the period for 10 minute speeches. The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) was waving to be recognized for a question or comment, and I just wanted to advise him that there are no questions or comments, just 10 minute speeches.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal has the floor.


Sheila Finestone: I presume, therefore, that that interjection will not cut my time, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Absolutely not.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Government is into its second mandate. In the cultural area this Government has had the benefit of advice from many task forces at a cost of nearly $9 million. With all of this experience behind it, with all of this time and effort it has spent, with all the Government's so-called consultations and with all of the Government's so-called standing committee work to which it was supposedly committed to listen, I believe that the Government has had no excuse for delay in facing its full responsibilities in the area of communications and culture, an area which is so important to the development of our national identity. The Government should have understood that money alone does not replace good, sound public policy. However, policy wrapped in pretty words and fancy wrapping is only rhetoric if all the necessary means to reach the expressed goals are not in place. Needless to say, financing is part of that application.
Canada's cultural community is really disheartened and, in some instances, will be decimated. Its goals or missions will certainly not be achieved with the revelations of the Government's Budget and the unveiling of its Estimates. Our cultural community deserved better. Canada's cultural community not only provides Canadians with a sense of identity and uniqueness but it distinguishes Canada from other countries on the world stage. Canada's cultural community is at the forefront of our development as a nation. As an economic force, its contribution is similar to that of education or scientific research. It is an area of innovation, creativity and resourcefulness. These intangible qualities are essential to the maintenance of Canada's economic growth, its trading status and its quality of life.
In 1985, the Canadian Conference of the Arts estimated that the cultural sector contributed some $10 billion a year to the Canadian economy. It employed 300,000 people directly and another 200,000 indirectly. In an informal analysis of the 1986 census data, preliminary findings indicated that the number of persons employed directly or indirectly in the cultural sector has increased faster than in many other sectors of our economy and has made a contribution of the arts and cultural industries to both the local, provincial and national economies, to say nothing of the quality of life in those cities.
May 18, 1989

The employment, training and job creation aspects of the cultural sector are impressive. It is labour-intensive. Its workforce is highly educated and mobile. The sector's strong contribution to tourism and economic development has resulted because of support reflected in federal, provincial and municipal policies and programs.
It is unfortunate that this Government in its latest Budget is not continuing that support. At a time when the strength of our cultural life is becoming more and more important to our independent identify as a nation, I find that this Government's pretence of support is an unconscionable smoke-screen.
The Communications Minister waxes poetically. He claims a 7 per cent over all increase while, in fact, if the truth be told it does not even cover the cost of inflation. In actual fact, the arts are in a lose-lose position over what actually was spent in 1988-89. With the minimal 3 per cent increase over the last year, in real terms a drop in spending has taken place in the communications portfolio. The way this Minister fights for budget increases he may be a banker's dream, but he is no hero to our cultural community.
It is quite interesting to note that the budget of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has an increase of 26.4 per cent, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has and increase of 22.7 per cent while the budget for Indian and Northern Affairs is up 11.6 per cent. What was the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) doing when his colleagues spoke up in defence of their Departments and got increases? What was this Minister dreaming about? His "canned" trips? I say to the Minister, it was no time to be silent or to give the silent treatment because Canadian cultural policy cannot afford it and, at this point, cannot afford him and his defence.
The Government has repeatedly told Canadians that under the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, our ability to protect our cultural sovereignty and provide for the expression of our identity has been protected and can be promoted. How often did we hear through the summer months and all the other months of negotiations that culture was not on the table? As a show and a promise to Canadian voters that Canadian culture would be preserved, the Government made two very strong commitments among others: first, that postal subsidies which help many publications reach a wide number of Cana-
Borrowing Authority
dians would be maintained for at least five years, and second, that the CBC would be strengthened, that there could be equivalence in programming in English and French and that for once and for all, we could see Canadian news, national and international, from a Canadian perspective. Now that the election is over, these two promises have been broken and can be added to the list of actions the Government has taken to weaken Canadian cultural policy.
Let me give Hon. Members a few instances of the kinds of things I am referring to. The reduction of the capital cost allowance for Canadian films and television programs resulted in the loss of millions of dollars of private sector investment in the creative field. The revision of the Film Products Importation Act made a sham of the political strengthening of our Canadian film industry. Investment Canada guidelines for film distribution proposed by the 1985 film industry task force, the Raymond-Roth report, were rejected. There was a backing away from the 1985 Baie Comeau policy on Canadian ownership in book publishing and distribution.
I remind Hon. Members of the scorched earth discussions that were undertaken with the now President of the Canada Council and the then Canadian Ambassador to Washington supporting strong Canadian cultural content. With that kind of support, I think we have some serious concerns. In the book publishing policy, we have ended up with a pretend control. Look at what Gulf and Western offered with the sale of its book publishing companies. It is allowing a 51 per cent equity but a veto on the right to decision-making, and that equity was purchased by the Government at an incredibly inflated price.
There has also been rejection of key recommendations made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in its 1988 broadcasting policy and legislation which would have placed limits on the North Americanization of the Canadian Broadcasting System. These are very serious concerns about Canadian content that were not addressed.
Let us take a specific look at postal subsidies, a broken promise to the Canadian book and periodical industry. Last year, the Government promised the publishing industry that for at least the next five years, the program's funding would be maintained at approximately its current level of $220 million annually. Where have these promises gone? Is it because of American pressure that sees postal subsidies as unfair subsidies? Look at the

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
minutes from the United States one month ago and what the Government just did in its last Budget.
The postal subsidy is to be reduced by $10 million in
1989-	90, followed by a further reduction of $35 million in
1990-	91. The Government is thereby reducing the total subsidy from $220 million to $175 million by 1990-91. The Government has been less than forthcoming in making clear its intent with respect to these cuts if we try to figure it out from the Budget, the double-speak and the fiscal plan.
With the Canadian magazine industry as a whole earning pre-tax profits of only 2 per cent, the implication of this cut is very serious. This is an example of the Government's view that cultural policy is so insignificant that when the Budget axe falls, nobody at the Cabinet table cares. For the Government, it is no more than a dollar and cents game.
I believe that these cuts in the cultural area show a Government willing to attack programs that support and promote our national identity. Without the arts, without distribution, without fair access, without equality across this vast land that allows us an appreciation and understanding of each other, just who are we and what do we stand for?
In one decade, the Government will have reduced the CBC's appropriation in constant dollars by close to $400 million. Across the way, I see a Government that has achieved what it failed to achieve through policy through a Budget door. Canadians have rejected the dismantling of the CBC, so the Government is now doing it through the Budget process. That is not something the Government should be proud of.
The Canada Council lobbied hard and almost received a promise for an additional $47 million in its parliamentary appropriation. It received an increase of $1.7 million, not even enough to cover the cost of inflation. The Director of the Canada Council, Joyce Zeamans, said that the effects of no increase will be that we will have a new generation of artists that is not being fully served.
That will be part of the Government's legacy in its cultural portfolio.
I have one further observation to make regarding the National Arts Centre and its future. Since 1984, it has been starved by the Government. In fact, the Government cut approximately $10 million from it in today's value, to say nothing of what has happened to the status of artists who have not received fair treatment or protection. If time would allow, I would add an additional list to the litany. However, I recognize that my time is up.
I conclude my remarks by saying that this is the 20th anniversary of the Department of Communications and Culture. The Government should be ashamed of what it has given it as a present.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-ll, the Borrowing Bill, which seeks to authorize the borrowing of $25.5 billion. Of course, this Bill is an integral part of the budgetary process, a Budget which cuts social programs and regional development, spells the death of VIA Rail and fails to deal with many of the current problems facing Canadians.
Over the last year, we have heard much of the major problem that has been preoccupying Canadians individually and in the media and that is the increasing problem of adequate, affordable housing. A number of things have happened in the last two to three years that have made housing the problem that it is today.
First, there has been a dramatic increase in the price of housing, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver. In Toronto, since 1984, the price of houses has gone up 154 per cent. In Vancouver, prices are up 88 per cent. At the same time, vacancy rates in rental accommodations are dramatically down. Toronto has a vacancy rate, by last reports, of less than .2 per cent. In Vancouver, it is less than .1 per cent.
There are other major problems that are fueling the housing crisis. There has been a decline in real family income since 1980. Family incomes for average working families have gone down $725 in buying power in that period of time while the Government has been raising taxes. This means that families have less money to put into housing. As well, 60 per cent of all single parent families headed by women have an income below the
May 18, 1989

poverty level. Fully 70 per cent of elderly seniors who are poor are women, something which reflects the inadequacy of the pension programs. These people are unable to afford proper housing.
Forty per cent of all renters in Canada start with an income below the poverty level. It is impossible for them to find adequate housing, particularly with escalating housing prices and rental costs. Poverty in Canada is no longer restricted to those who are on fixed incomes and are not working. Currently in Metropolitan Toronto, 18 per cent of all families who are working rely upon food banks to sustain themselves; 18 per cent of working families in a country as affluent as Canada. We should be ashamed of ourselves. The interest rate policy of this Government has been devastating for people trying to afford homes. Real estate boards calculate that an increase of 1 per cent in mortgage interest rates means that 200,000 additional Canadians are priced out of the ability to purchase a home. We have had interest rates go up by 2 per cent, 3 per cent and 4 per cent in the last two years. If you look at the number of Canadians who cannot now afford to purchase a home but who two or three years ago could have done so, for every 1 per cent increase in the mortgage rate adds at least $100 to the average mortgage.
What has the Government's response been to this? The Minister responsible for Housing has said that we have to learn to do more with less. If we are not doing a good job, give us a blast. He has instructed CMHC to stop talking about the 30 per cent rule. It used to be considered that anybody who was paying over 30 per cent of their total income for shelter was paying too much. Before, it was 25 per cent. Now the rule is 30 per cent. The Minister has instructed them not to talk about it because many Canadians are now paying 40 per cent, 50 per cent and even 70 per cent of their gross income for shelter.
After all the nice discussions, along comes the Budget followed by this borrowing Bill. A Budget is a blueprint for the Government. It sets out the Government's plan of how it is to deal with problems, what direction it is to take, what it wants to accomplish. Yet what do we have in this Budget? We have a callous attack on affordable housing. If a government sat down and designed a budget that would ensure that Canadians could not afford
Borrowing Authority
housing, it could not have done a better job. What they have done is to turn a housing crisis into a deep institutionalized social problem where Canadians are being driven out of their homes onto the streets.
What in the Budget has created this situation? Let us look at it. First, the Budget has maintained the high interest rate policy, a policy which in itself significantly keeps the deficit up because of the servicing of our deficit.
Second, they brought in an immediate increase in the manufacturers' tax. This is the tax that the Minister has said would be so detrimental, and yet they have increased it to 13.5 per cent, driving up the price of housing by $500 to $700. Then the Government brought in a sales tax, or as they like to call it, a goods and service tax, which puts the price of housing up $10,000 to $20,000.
If we look at the matter of social housing, most countries in the western world have social housing programs that amount to 25 per cent or 30 per cent of their housing. Canada has 4 per cent. Even Hong Kong has 40 per cent of its housing stock in social housing. What has this Government done? First, it cuts back on its commitments on co-operative housing. It made a firm commitment to build a measly 5,000 units a year in 1986. This year they are only going to build 1,700. Provinces like British Columbia are only going to get 158 housing units. The Government has totally done away with the RRAP program which is the program that municipalities like Montreal used to upgrade housing so it would not be demolished or turned into expensive condominiums. The Government has bragged that it will spend $100 million more on housing this year. That is because of the high interest rates, because they are paying more on their mortgage subsidy programs than they have in the past.
Finally, the Government has not dealt with the whole question of municipal infrastructure. In my riding of Surrey North, we have taken 60 per cent of all the building starts in the last five years, and we are bankrupt. The municipalities and Mayors have been after the Government to help fund municipal infrastructure for schools, for sewers and for sidewalks. We have 7,000 children in portable schools. Yet the Government will not, on a tri-Party basis, look at putting in money to allow for affordable housing, to allow the municipalities to provide the services that are needed.

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
In closing, this Government has made much of its concern about children of future generations and what we will be leaving them. I am afraid that we are leaving them is a Canada where only the very rich can afford homes and shelter.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to this debate. As I listened to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) give his redress to the Government's Budget on May 2,1 realized that I have never been so proud and so confident that to be a Liberal in this country means that every Canadian is important, on every farm, in every town and every city from coast to coast to coast. It is the recognition of that third coast, the Arctic coast, that the federal Government has denied in this Budget. Northerners want to contribute their fair share to the fiscal policy of our country, but this Budget disproportionately hurts northerners more than residents in other parts of Canada, and that is not fair.
People in the western Arctic are already burdened with the highest cost of living anywhere in this country. Our political and social development depends on economic growth. Broadening our economy's foundation and building on our strengths will help us solve our society's problems. Settling land claims will create the stability needed for development and give aboriginal people the resources to be full partners in the economy. All northerners will benefit from the self-reliant economy and society which we build together.
However, the Government has not recognized this in its Budget. Instead, the Tories have made the possibility of northerners acquiring equality very doubtful given the already high unemployment rates, the high birth rates, the paucity of economic opportunity in many of the small and particularly northern native communities in the western Arctic. There is still an enormous amount of catching up to be accomplished before northern residents to become economically on par with Canadians south of the 60th parallel.
The Leader of the Official Opposition said on May 2, and the Governor of New York said it during the 1984 U.S. election, that the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives believe the train will not make it all the way unless some are left behind: some of our old, some of our young, some of our
weak. The strong will inherit the land. But Liberals believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact. So what the Budget does is crystal clear. It erodes, destroys, abandons, denies, cuts and divides regions and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It does nothing more. There are no new initiatives. There is no creative programming. There are no improvements. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. I laughed when I heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight) tell the world that the sovereignty of Canada's Arctic will have to be maintained by our allies.
In 1987, the Government released a White Paper on Defence which announced that one of the priorities of the Ministry was to have a three-ocean navy in recognition of threats to Canada's claims in the Arctic. The former Minister of National Defence thought that the best way to define sovereignty was to invest in $8-billion worth of nuclear submarines. Naturally, Canadians did not share the Minister's hunger for power, and did not buy his cold war rhetoric about Canada being in an extraordinarily military threat. When the government Members said that the subs were necessary to protect the Arctic, Northerners and Canadians asked, from what?
The Budget cuts in the Department of National Defence indicate more than any other reductions that the Government does not have a clear goal. It does not know in which direction to go. It does not have the ability to lead Canada to becoming a strong and independent nation.
The whole submarine escapade is a symbol of a Government without a coherent security strategy. The Tories have taken four years to release policies such as the White Paper on Defence and to indicate to Canadians their plans.
Now, almost overnight and without any consultation or recognition of these policies, a Budget is implemented and everything has changed. Universality is being destroyed, social programs are eroding, national infrastructure is being dismantled, big business is being put ahead of ordinary people, and two Canadas are being created: the rich and the poor.
The defence policy which was a priority of the Government is now a policy of economic restraint. The truth is that the reductions in defence spending are not actual
May 18, 1989

cuts in expenditures. They are cuts in what the Government expected to spend.
The Minister of National Defence has stated that our allies will maintain Arctic sovereignty. I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, what that same Minister was presenting as policy when he was Minister responsible for northern development. In 1988 in one of his PR glossy brochures, on which the Government has no qualms about spending money, a brochure entitled: "A Northern Political and Economic Framework", the Minister confirmed the Government's commitment to the political evolution of the North. One of the so-called essential goals outlined states: "To examine the role and activities of the federal Government in the North as they relate to the northern dimension of Canadian foreign policy and the strengthening of Canadian-Arctic sovereignty".
When Northerners received this message, we thought that the Government was finally interested in the North and the vital role it plays in security for Canada. Northerners have had years of Cruise missile tests. We have also had the experience of a CFS base closure in Inuvik, thanks again to the Government, so we know what Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and the other areas are facing. This is not a new problem to us.
When the Minister of DIAND referred to the North in relation to Canadian foreign policy, we thought the Government was going to then develop a security Green Paper.
Canada needs a defence policy, not in terms of Cruise missile tests, but in the service of an over-all security strategy emphasizing economic, environmental, and non-military elements of security. However, the Department of External Affairs has shown no initiative in this regard.
In February, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence with these positive recommendations. To date I have received no response. It is typical of the Government not to want a debate or public scrutiny on a proposed policy.
Northerners have lots of experience with sovereignty. After all, we can claim traditional use and occupancy of the Arctic and Arctic waters. We do not need nuclear submarines to make those claims known to the United
Borrowing Authority
States or to the Soviet Union. The federal Government has given no recognition to the North and the role it plays in enhancing Canada's foreign policy.
The Northwest Territories is a full participant in the circumpolar world. Our people and our Government are leading actors in many of the events and issues which shape international polar activities.
The Government of the Northwest Territories participates in the Canada/U.S.S.R Arctic Science Exchange. This program has shown that the Government of the Northwest Territories is well ahead of the U.S.S.R. in developing northern construction and some aspects of education.
The Government of the Northwest Territories also plays an important role in environmental issues. That Government is part of the Canadian delegation to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, and is a full member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. We are active in international efforts to prepare a circumpolar conservation strategy. Canada's polar bear management program, largely developed by our Government, was praised as a leading international example of wildlife management at a recent conference on sustainable development in Zimbabwe.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has taken a leading role in dealing with issues which justice and education must face in a northern setting. We have hosted, and will continue to host, conferences on those topics which bring together representatives from Governments in Alaska, Yukon, Greenland, and polar nations around the world.
Northerners have much to gain from these exchanges, and the Northwest Territories will continue to be a leading participant in the circumpolar world. Our Government will continue to assist aboriginal groups, such as Indigenous Survival International, which are taking lead roles in promoting aboriginal interests throughout the world.
I had the opportunity and privilege to be involved with the North's display of traditional and modem ways of life at the British Museum in London. I applaud Northerners for an outstanding achievement in such a prestigious international event.

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
International links have also been actively developed by the private sector. The territorial Government helps northern businesses explore economic opportunities and overseas markets for our products. We also look for new ways to promote the Northwest Territories internationally as an exciting tourism destination, and attract international investors to work with northern residents in developing our economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to advise the Hon. Member that she is one minute over her 10 minutes, so if she would wind up, please.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that we have many concerns regarding the economy and the Budget that was presented. We do not feel there is a magic solution in dealing with the Budget. However, the spirit and the intent of dealing with the needs of the youth of this country and their future, and the needs of those who have made a major investment in this country, the elderly people, are very important.
The climate the Government is creating in the North is gloom. It is a mistake to think that the Budget only restricts the development of the North's economic resources. It also inhibits the development of our most valuable resource of all, our people.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on Bill C-ll, the Borrowing Authority Act, by which the Government is asking the House to grant it the authority to borrow some $25 billion on current accounts.
Yesterday afternoon I returned from three days in Summerside, Prince Edward Island. I went there as my Party's defence critic to listen to the local people, to hear their reactions first hand to the Government's cruel and heartless announcement that it was closing down Base Summerside. This military base and air force base goes back to the days of the Commonwealth air training program of 1941-42.
I wish to say at the outset that I do not think that the mandarins here in Ottawa who advised the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight) that that base should be closed down because it was no longer cost efficient realized the human factors. They did not realize the tremendous negative economic impact that that closure
will have on the citizens of Prince Edward Island. It will not only affect Summerside, a town of some 8,000 people, but indeed it will affect the entire Province of Prince Edward Island. Let me emphasize at the outset that those people and that province do not deserve the treatment they are getting from the Government. Closing down that base will result in the loss of 950 direct jobs at the base. Another 250 civilian jobs will also be eliminated and, indirectly, some 1,700 jobs will also disappear.
Along with the disappearance of those jobs will go approximately $50 million a year in revenue to Summer-side, Prince Edward Island and to the Province of Prince Edward Island. It will mean that the second largest employer in the entire province will go out of business. It will mean that 2.2 per cent of the province's total payroll will disappear. It will mean that jobs with wages averaging some $34,000 or $35,000 a year will disappear from the base and the average provincial job with a wage of $17,000 a year will supposedly take its place. That is not what will happen in Prince Edward Island.
The economy is extremely fragile. There is farming for a couple of months a year. There is tourism and there is some fishery. Even now, under optimum conditions, it is almost impossible to work for ten weeks at a time to get enough unemployment insurance to tide one over until another seasonal job comes along, if one is available.
In addition to closing the base at Summerside, the Government has changed the UIC rules so that now people in Prince Edward Island will have to work at least 15 to 16 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. I say to the House that that is absolutely impossible for many of the workers in that part of P.E.I.
I did not return from Prince Edward Island with only a negative attitude. I am not here today to say that the Government should keep the base open because Prince Edward Island as a province "deserves at least one military base" since every other province has at least one base, and in some cases several military bases. But I have come back with some very positive alternate suggestions.
It is about time that the Conservative Government got out of its 19th century thinking about defence posture and began to look at what modern thinkers are considering in terms of defence. The traditional meaning of
May 18, 1989

defence involves arms and ammunition, but there is an increasing attitude toward soft defence, or the use of defence for paramilitary purposes. This is where Sum-merside has as lot to offer. The Government should keep Base Summerside open, not because it is a military base but because it is a base of operation for other related activities such as the patrolling and policing of the fishery. That is not a military operation but it is an operation that can be carried out with extreme competence by the military.
Base Summerside is an admirable site for expanding those activities. Most countries do not even know that we have an exclusive economic zone. Those that do, don't care. As the years go by we will need greater reconnaissance patrolling and surveillance of the EEZ. We have in Canada engineered, designed and produced an excellent aircraft, the de Havilland-8 with its Maritime configuration, to replace the outmoded trackers when they are finally put to rest. They can be based at Base Summer-side for that surveillance purpose.
Third, we know there will be a need for increased patrolling for illegal immigration of supposed refugees to this country. We will need more patrols for that purpose.
We will need an expansion of our search and rescue operations, which again is a paramilitary activity, and for which Base Summerside is admirably suited.
Another function for that base should be for environmental protection. If ever there was an area in need of increased activity, it is the whole area of environmental protection. The House will know that in western Europe, Scandinavia, and North America, there is a growing covert activity of dumping toxic wastes into the sea. That must stop. It is such a vast area to patrol that we need more surface ships and certainly more patrol aircraft.
I have discussed six combined alternate uses for Base Summerside. Yet the short-sighted Conservative Government sitting opposite wants to shut it down, blindly, without planning ahead and realizing that just as certain as I am standing here this morning, some seven years down the road a Minister on that side of the House will stand up to announce the expansion of a certain existing base or the establishment of a new base to carry out one or all of these extended responsibilities, at a greatly
Borrowing Authority
inflated cost. We already have the facility at Base Summerside to fulfil those functions.
The Government owes the people of Summerside, the people of Prince Edward Island, the courtesy of at least putting Base Summerside on hold until moneys are available in the future to proceed with the expansionary measures I have mentioned. If the Government closes this base, I can assure the House that the Town of Summerside will die. I am not trying to exaggerate or be extreme. There are no alternatives. There is no private sector alternative.
Prince Edward Island is not exactly on the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. It is nowhere near the Golden Horseshoe. It is nowhere near Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It cannot attract the private sector activity that would come near paying those wage rates, even if it did relocate to that part of the province.
At a time when ACOA is being cut back, when regional development grants are being cut back, and when unemployment insurance regulations are being tightened to the point at which very few people will qualify, the Government is essentially telling the people of Prince Edward Island, by closing down Base Summer-side, that it does not care if it puts the whole of P.E.I on welfare. That is not good enough.
I implore the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight) and other Ministers responsible for those agencies and activities I mentioned, that I know will have to be increased, to meet and find solutions to this problem so that that base can stay open and the people of that part of Prince Edward Island, that part of Canada, can continue to live and enjoy their environment and their way of life as Canadians and Islanders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) after the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker).


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is always an important time for Members to discuss items such as borrowing legislation and borrowing resolutions from the House because it gives us an opportunity to review what the Government is trying to do. Of course every time we go looking for money or set out a Budget, we are in fact spending a lot of money on

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
behalf of the people of Canada. It causes one to reflect upon how the money is being spent, who is being helped, and who is being hurt.
One of the travesties of the process that we have seen since the Speech from the Throne is a tremendous loss of income, of livelihood, and of support systems in the Province of Manitoba and particularly in the City of Winnipeg.
I would point out that the best allegory and best image, when you think about what is happening in this Budget, is to think of the towns of Portage la Prairie and Churchill.
I have taken Churchill first. That is a community in a remote part of Canada. It is in the northern part of Manitoba. It has struggled against all odds for several decades to establish a financial base. The Government of Canada has gradually taken away one activity after another. The military has withdrawn, they have now withdrawn the satellite program, and they are about to withdraw VIA Rail service as we now know it. Then just recently they announced that wheat will not be shipped through the port again this summer. These are devastating blows which are often lost in the grand scheme of things in this country. It is about time that we as Members paid attention to communities such as Churchill.
Second and following up the previous speaker, my colleague from British Columbia, when he spoke about what was happening in Prince Edward Island, I can only add that that is the same story for Portage la Prairie.
It is a community which has been very proud of its military base. The role of the base is very well established in traditional Canadian military policy. It is a training base. The Government has reinvested in the last five years in its health facility, its runways and in all aspects of maintenance. It is a major contributor to the economy of Portage. We now have it removed. It is these particular acts that make people very saddened and very suspicious of government financing. They wonder why they are contributing their tax money.
Let me talk about the tax money that people have to contribute. Since 1984, the Mulroney Government has dramatically increased taxes on Canadian families and individuals.
With its recent Budget, families who are at or below the poverty line are being added to the tax roles while wealthier Canadians are facing minimal tax increases. While no one enjoys paying taxes, most people will support a system that is fair and equitable. Unfortunately, this Government insists on distributing the tax burden in an unfair manner.
In particular, I would like to point out what happened in my constituency, Winnipeg North Centre. As an example, a family living in a working class neighbourhood on Lipton Street with two working parents earning a total of $23,639 this year and supporting two children will now face an additional tax burden of $341. Since 1984, taxes have increased by $1,553 for this family. This represents a total tax increase of 176.3 per cent. This is all since this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took office. A similar family with earnings of $100,000 will only pay an increase of 10.9 per cent. This type of discrepancy in our tax system is leading to increased despair and anxiety among Canadians that their Government is not serving their interests.
There are also many single-parent families in Winnipeg North Centre who will now be paying taxes for the first time. A single parent with two children living in an apartment on Westminster Avenue and earning an income below the poverty line will now be paying $147 in taxes when they did not have to pay any of that before. Under this Budget, tax increases for individuals will be six times the amount that taxes increase for corporations. There is a tremendous tax burden taking place right now in this country for working-class families and away from corporations.
We are often fond of talking about the fact that corporations are taxed, and I think that is quite correct. They are taxed very heavily. In reality, we ignore our greatest export. Our greatest export is profit, profit to other countries. We let that profit go out because the Government has no gumption, energy, or commitment to taxing the money that is leaving the country. It therefore is left to tax the people who can least afford it.
One of the difficulties we have in Manitoba is perhaps from a historical point of view one of the most damaging aspects to our representation of the Government. This is the first time in modern history that the City of Winnipeg has not been represented in a federal Cabinet. Gradually it is shown as the Members who supposedly represent our province fail to stand up one time after another. Our support for the borrowing bill is minimal simply because there are no benefits coming to Manitoba. In fact, local media accounts refer to it as both "the
May 18, 1989

politics of punishment" and "a scorched-earth policy" of the Mulroney Government. That is very harsh language and I am not too sure that I would share it in the House, but I do think that the Government should pay attention to the increased alienation among westerners toward their activities.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that this Party is very much opposed to the way Manitoba is being treated in the budgetary process and in the Speech from the Throne and therefore opposes this particular borrowing action.
The West became the country of Conservatives under the leadership of John Diefenbaker. He was very proud of the way he could advocate western interest in the House. Many of the back-benchers in the other benches should be very much appreciative of his effort because that is why they are here. They are a legacy of the Diefenbaker tradition.
If Mr. Diefenbaker were sitting here, I wonder what he would think about the closing of the Port of Churchill, which serves his part of Saskatchewan. I wonder what he would think about the closing of Portage, a community that he supported. What about VIA Rail?
One of the great ironies is that John Diefenbaker went throughout this country campaigning on the back of passenger trains. He would now find that if he wanted to campaign that way that the very friends that he helped get elected and helped establish a base have cut off the trains. He would not even be able to stand in Portage. It will be gone in a few years. He would be standing somewhere in the West, wondering what happened to the trend of his tradition and what happened to his vision of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Singing in his grave.


David Walker: Absolutely. The Government has abandoned that tradition. It is with a great deal of sadness that the activities of this Government cannot be supported with any conscience by any Member of this House.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the matter before the House of Commons is Bill C-ll authorizing the borrowing authority for the Government of Canada.
Borrowing Authority
In speaking toward that motion, many Members have gone into a great many other matters, some of them far removed from the borrowing authority. That has caused me to respond to some of the remarks I heard. I particularly want to respond to the remarks made by the Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), who I understand is the national defence critic for the New Democratic Party.
I want to respond in this way. In the election campaign, year after year prior to that, we heard the members of the New Democratic Party say: "Cut national defence expenditures. If you cut national defence expenditures, you can provide money for child care, you can provide money for hospitals. You can provide money for a variety of social programs if you will only cut national defence expenditures". That was the sermon that was preached by the NDP across this country over the years and over the decades. It is part of their political philosophy to cut national defence expenditures.


An Hon. Member:: You cut them in the wrong place.


Howard Edward Crosby: Now in the fiscal year of 1989-90, there is a relatively small cut in percentage terms in national defence expenditures. It does amount to $2.7 billion over an extended period of time.


An Hon. Member:: We asked you to use a scalpel, not an axe.


Howard Edward Crosby: So who stands up in the House of Commons but members of the New Democratic Party and ask: "What have you done to national defence expenditures? What have you done to our military force in Canada? You have undermined and destroyed our military force". What utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Does anybody in Canada actually listen to that diatribe from the New Democratic Party in defence of our nation's military force after they have convinced the Canadian people, with help from the Liberal Party, that we do not need to concentrate on national defence, that we do not need to devote such a large portion of public funds, almost 10 per cent of the national expenditures, to national defence? It is too late for them to come crying to this House and tell us not to cut defence expenditures, keep our Canadian forces bases intact, and keep our weapons moving, and so on.

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
I would like to go into that for a moment because it was the defence critic of the New Democratic Party who made those remarks about the proposed closure of CFB Summerside in Prince Edward Island.
I would like to put a few facts on the record. First, Summerside has been under threat of closure for a decade, that I am aware of. There have been units transferred to Summerside from other bases, from Shearwater, in the constituency of Dartmouth, from Greenwood in the constituency of Annapolis Valley, to keep CFB Summerside viable.
As the defence critic well knows, the aircraft at CFB Summerside have become virtually obsolete. It would cost $300 million to retrofit the fleet of aircraft. Some of those aircraft which he says are useful surveillance can only stay in the air for two hours. It takes less than that to fly from Halifax to Ottawa in the normal course of events in a commercial aircraft. There are very few of those aircraft that can remain in the air long enough to do any useful surveillance. I am sure that the defence critic of the New Democratic Party knows that. But does he come to this House and say: "Spend $300 million retrofitting the obsolete tracker aircraft." No, Mr. Speaker, he just comes to criticize the Government for taking what are clearly essential and necessary measures in order to ensure the viability of our national defence force.
Let me speak for a moment about the situation in Summerside, Prince Edward Island. I am sure all Members have the greatest sympathy for the officials of that town and for the people of the area, but the question is, can we use our national defence facilities to provide economic support to an area of the country? Is that the purpose of our national defence initiative? I think everybody has to answer very clearly, no. That is not the purpose of our national defence force to simply provide economic capacity to an area or particular part of the country.
The solution to the problem in Summerside lies in other programs that might benefit people of the area and lead to economic development and overcome the adversity that will be placed on the people in the area as a result of the closing of CFB Summerside. While I think that we should exercise great sympathy for the people of
that area, there are a few facts that are important to the consideration of their plight.
For instance, there was an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail recently that referred to the $186 million windfall that Atlantic provinces have experienced as a result of the equalization program, that is payments from the Government of Canada. Do you know what those payments allow in the case of the Province of Prince Edward Island? The province had projected a budgetary deficit of $13.2 million. As a result of increases in the equalization payments, it received $14 million that wiped out the budgetary deficit of the Province of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island now has a balanced budget.
The Government that I represent in this House of Commons has a budgetary deficit of $30 billion and 34 cents of all the dollars that we receive have to go to service that budget deficit. One might say: "Who has the better financial position to react to a difficult situation?' The point is that the Government of Prince Edward Island as a result of equalization payments is not without financial capability.
I think we should reflect also on some of the decisions that that Government has made in the past decade and particularly, the current premier of the province who is personally involved in the making of these decisions.
First, Prince Edward Island refused to take cheap power from the Province of New Brunswick and elected instead to utilize power that was generated by fossil fuels. That was the decision Prince Edward Island made, to the detriment I should say of public authorities in the Province of New Brunswick. It was their right and privilege to make that decision, but it had very serious economic effects. Prince Edward Island refused to have Litton Industries establish an operation in that province which would probably have employed 400 or 500 people. I am proud to say that Litton Industries is now located in the federal constituency of Halifax West and we are getting the benefit of the jobs generated by their activity.
Prince Edward Island in the interests of the people- and I do not dispute that-has embarked upon a course of action that has made economic development relatively difficult.
In the last minute available to me, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say this, and particularly to the Members of the New Democratic Party who fought nuclear submarines, who said: "Cut defence expenditures", aided and
May 18, 1989

abetted by the Liberal Party.", we are now faced with exactly that situation.
It is obvious that there are going to be some dire results from any Government cut-backs. The Government is going to work very closely with the Government of Prince Edward Island and with the people of Summer-side to resolve the problems that have been created, but we must act in the interest of our national defence force. We cannot be led simply by the difficulties that are created in one part or another part of the country.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that Prince Edward Island has taken a course of action over the years that has resulted in losses of jobs and resulted in greater expenditures in order to maintain the industries that it now has or may have in the future. That is the decision that the people of Prince Edward Island have made and I think that everybody has to live with those kinds of economic facts.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and some nervousness that I rise today to speak on the Bill before us.
I say pleasure, because it is always a pleasure to lecture the Government on its wrongdoings.
I say nervousness, because I have seen the Budget that this Government is planning and has brought forward, and I see the amount of money that this Government is planning on spending and it does make me nervous.
It also makes every right-thinking taxpayer in Canada nervous, no exceptions. Government borrowing is at the highest ever. Couple with this the exorbitant rate of taxes being imposed on small business and the average Canadian taxpayer and we end up with a recipe for disaster.
The Government is now pleading for Canadians to tighten their belts. It is even advertising it. The Government is not prepared, however, to do the same. It has to advertise the cuts on the 11 o'clock National News. The Government shows us a little dollar and how much of that goes to pay our debt. However, the Government has to advertise this as if the Canadian people do not know.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the average Canadian cannot comprehend $1 billion. This presents a problem
Borrowing Authority
because at the current rate of Government mismanagement they will soon have to comprehend $1 trillion.
The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has spent $190 on a coffee table book, and $9,500 on a table for his office. The new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has recently spent over $40,000 fixing up his office. It was reported last week that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spent over $150,000 on 24 Sussex Street, and then it came out that he only spent it on studies.
This Government is intent on forcing the people who can least afford it to pay for Government excesses and pay more taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit which has grown to such monstrous proportions, due in great part to this Government's refusal to make sure that large profit-making companies in this country pay their fair share of taxes, and the Prime Minister's desire to bribe people to vote for his Party with money from all Canadians.
An example that comes to mind is the prison he had built for no other purpose than to help his re-election chances. Now we see the cancellation of the building of a prison in Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland reacted to that and they clearly sent a message to this House.
The people of this country are tired of reading about the Government's waste and being told that they must tighten their belts to pay for it.
The Government continues to ignore the small business community, perhaps because it does not have as much money to contribute to supporting the Free Trade Agreement as the Government's friends in the boardrooms of large corporations. The Conservative Government now seems to be penalizing small business on a variety of fronts.
For example, the Government's intention to pull out of the unemployment insurance program is a serious matter for small business. This policy will have the effect of sending many small businesses into financial ruin. The Government is telling the small business community that it does not care. But this is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker. There is more, much more.

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
One need only look at the proposed national sales tax to realize that the Government is choking the small business community. The Government's intention to introduce a national sales tax without an agreement with the provinces puts this country squarely on the road to ruin. It is still not clear why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was unable to get an agreement with the provinces that would have seen an integrated national sales tax.
Perhaps the Government has already given the store away to the provinces to get a Meech Lake agreement so that it has nothing left to give in exchange for an agreement on the issue of a national sales tax.
The federal national sales tax places an enormous burden on the back of the small business community. The most obvious one is the dramatic increase in the paperwork involved in the administration of the tax. Currently, business must deal only with one set of forms that involve provincial taxes. With the new federal sales tax, the Government has given small businesses a new gift, a new set of forms to fill out for the collection of this tax. For a small business of less than five employees, this amounts to a huge setback. Without the manpower to conduct this task, the small business operator is faced with a grim choice, either hire an extra employee to assist in the administration of the tax or go to an accountant to have it done for him. Both options mean that the small business operator will have to spend money that he may not even have.
The net result is nothing less than a dramatic decrease in the profitability of small businesses in Canada, along with a rise in unemployment. If this is not enough for the small business community to contend with, the Government has added insult to injury by slashing the funds available to the Federal Business Development Bank. I asked the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Hockin) about that. He replied: "We don't have to do that because our friends agree with it". Mr. Bulloch, when the Budget was being proposed, didn't agree with him then.
The cuts will adversely affect the bank's ability to assist those small businesses needing help the most. Surely the Government must be aware of the fact that program cuts must be progressive in nature. Those with the least money will feel tax increases and program cuts more than the rich. The Government is asking the small
business sector to make more sacrifices than it is able to make.
Even worse, in addition to failing significantly to reduce the deficit, and in addition to putting a maximum tax burden on all Canadians, this Government has completely ignored young people, senior citizens, the homeless, and the poor.
As a Member of this House, I cannot agree with proposals designed to benefit the privileged and prosperous, while the poorest and neediest in this country must suffer.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House this afternoon following the Hon. Member for Scarborough-Agin -court (Mr. Karygiannis). Bill C-ll gives authorization to borrow some $25 billion. I want members of the Opposition from both Parties to know that everything I have heard in this House regarding the borrowing of money and the expenditure of same since this election and since we were elected in 1984 as a Government is the amount that we are borrowing today would probably have had to have been $100 million if all the desires and the wants of the two opposition Parties were brought forward. In other words, the two opposition Parties advocate spending substantially more. It is a question of "spend it no matter where". The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) spoke earlier. All of a sudden he said "Keep all the bases open".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jim Karygiannis: Shame! You voted against closing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt has just finished his speech. I would appreciate it if I could listen to the Hon. Member for Portage-Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: I would like to draw to the attention of the House a column from the Montreal Gazette dated April 23, 1989. I bet, Mr. Speaker, no member of the opposition Parties like this article. Its headline is "How Did We Get Into This Mess". The article dialogues very accurately for those Members opposite how this mess started under the Liberal regime in 1968. It dialogues every Budget and how the Liberals would somehow reduce the deficit and create prosperity across Canada. This article highlights every Budget by every Liberal Finance Minister. But what did we have? These Budgets increased the national debt significantly. This is what opposition Members today and tomorrow want to continue, namely, to borrow, borrow and borrow five times
May 18, 1989

more than what this Government does with no responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Tax the rich.


Felix Holtmann: Our Finance Minister in every Budget that he has brought in has tried to reduce the deficit and, in fact, has.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He didn't succeed. He was a failure.


Felix Holtmann: The record will show he succeeded where all others have failed. From Mr. Benson-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He doubled the debt in four years.


Felix Holtmann: -to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Felix Holtmann: I would like to remind Liberal Members opposite that it was their Leader during the last campaign who said: "If we get elected we will really make the greatest effort to reduce our national debt". But we know that the leader of the Liberal Party would never reduce the debt. He would go back to his old ways and spend more money.
Yes, we are asking to borrow $30 billion, but not $100 billion that would be required if all the actions and noise that I have heard from opposition Members were carried out. We are cutting everywhere they would not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Felix Holtmann: Opposition Members want to spend more money. Most certainly we have to wonder what the leader of the Liberal Party and his back-bench colleagues would cut. They have never discussed the question in this House of where and how they would reduce the deficit. Every time our Finance Minister has introduced a Budget he has created jobs, not makeshift jobs, but real ones.
Most certainly the opposition Members do not want to discuss that. There are some fingers being pointed at me because the Government came down pretty hard in my constituency. I am facing the closure of a base. But I want to inform the Members of this House, particularly those in the Opposition, that this Member of Parliament before four years are done will have more people working in his constituency than are working there now.
and in Portage la Prairie. We do not sit back and cry. As a community we will make it into a far stronger economy. We will not whine and cry like Members opposite who have no concrete solution as to how they would run this country and bring down the deficit. Opposition Members would continue to spend every cent on which they can get their hands. That is all they talk about.
The other day I heard a statement in the House by a Liberal Member from Prince Edward Island who was crying that P.E.I. as a result of the cut in the dairy subsidy would lose something like $260,000. Dairy farmers will have to pay their fair share to help us bring down the deficit. The only poor dairy man is the one who forgets to get up and milk his cows. They are all doing quite well. I have been in the industry. To say that dairy farmers are unfairly hurt by this Budget is ridiculous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, let me advise the House that the Hon. Member will have four minutes left in his debate after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured today to have in the House of Commons Dobroslav Paraga, a leader in the cause of human rights from the State of Croatia in Yugoslavia. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was particularly helpful to Mr. Paraga when he was being held by the Government of Yugoslavia on specious charges and Mr. Paraga has expressed his thanks to our Government for its assistance to him.

May 18, 1989
Mr. Paraga has represented artists, intellectuals and writers in Yugoslavia, not only Croatians, but Slovenian and Albanian Yugoslavs, to make sure that their democratic rights are protected. He was instrumental in obtaining a resolution from the Parliament of Europe calling for the end of all forms of oppression and discrimination in Yugoslavia.
On behalf of my constituents of Mississauga South and Canadians generally, may I say that we welcome Dobros-lav Paraga here to the House of Commons.



LEBANESE REFUGEE COMMUNITY-NEED FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here at this moment, shells are exploding and people are dying in Lebanon. The occupation of that beautiful land by foreign powers and their surrogates, and the death, destruction and terror that mark the daily life its people, is a tragedy that cries out for attention by the civilized world.
Canada must do more. The two immigration officers currently in Cyprus are not able to cope with the needs of fleeing Lebanese. Nor do these officers have the authority to deal with the crisis situation which is developing among the Lebanese refugee community in Cyprus where the cost of food and accommodation is adding to the adversity faced by these individuals.
I urge the Government to make Canada's voice heard as international pressure must be brought to bear on those powers that are providing arms to the Lebanese protagonists. I urge the Government to take extreme measures to assist those desperate people whose lives are so endangered in their homeland.
Lebanese Canadians have made an enormous contribution to this country. They have proven themselves to be industrious, entrepreneurial people. Now all Canadians share the anxiety and sorrow of our Lebanese-Ca-nadian friends and neighbours.
I plead with the Government to ensure that Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.



MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF FERMONT
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Fermont, in the riding of Manicouagan, are celebrating their town's 15th anniversary this year.
Fermont, a mining town in northern Quebec, was founded in 1974 and is home to workers for the Quebec Cartier Mining Company, which exploits an iron ore deposit in Mount Wright.
For 15 years, the residents of Fermont have contributed with their labour to the development of our natural resources and the wealth of Canada.
They have participated actively in the growth and establishment of many civic, cultural and economic organizations which make community life in Fermont active and interesting.
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, I shall join the festivity organizers and the Town Council and I would like to pass on to the Town Council and Mayor Maurice Berube the greetings of this House and our hearty congratulations.



TOURISM


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, for the past few days, we have been celebrating National Tourism Awareness Week. As we know, tourism is Canada's fastest growing industry and is in fact our largest employer. By the year 2000, it is expected to be Canada's leading industry.
Because of its growth rate, tourism is being called Canada's opportunity industry of the future. However, the world travel trend shows that we must compete more aggressively for the overseas tourism market. That means that we cannot afford to decrease federal expenditures on foreign market advertising as proposed in the recently announced Budget.
The Government has to look at the effects the Budget will have on the tourism industry. Increases in employers' UIC premiums, tax increases on alcohol, gasoline, aviation fuel and telecommunications and a significant
May 18, 1989

increase in the goods and services tax will all increase the cost of our tourism product, making Canada less competitive in the international tourism market. That spells bad news-


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



ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Ontario riding and in particular those from the Town of Pickering know how they have been misled by the Liberal Government of David Peterson. The Liberals pledge their concern for the environment to the media but their actions show the truth. The Liberals pledge to the media that provincial lands are designated first for housing, but their actions show the truth.
David Peterson has pledged provincial lands in Pickering for one of the largest garbage dumps in Canada. These lands include the headwaters of three environmentally sensitive creeks. The Liberals have also waived the requirements for a public hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act which would provide the affected residents of my riding their day in court.
So much for the Liberal commitment to the environment. So much for the Liberal commitment to the people who elected them. When the people next get a chance, so much for the Liberal Government of Ontario.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is showing its true colours. The Conservative Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) predicted that the National Capital Region would be penalized for voting Liberal in the last election.
5.0. 31
I do not know if political vengeance is sweet to the Conservatives, but their dream has come true.
In fact, the Government has just closed 14 military bases, of which 9 are in Liberal ridings. Ottawa-Vanier has not been spared. The Rockcliffe military base will be closed. This closure will probably not have such harmful effects as the closure of the base in Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Nevertheless, it has terrible consequences for the 650 civilians and 1,073 military personnel who are assigned to the base or depend on it. Furthermore, it will result in annual losses of $2 million in wages and salaries and $1 million in local expenditures on goods and services.
Federal public servants, including the armed forces, are now paying the cost of a regressive budget, presented by a Government with a sick desire for vengeance. It is time for the Conservative Government to stop engaging in political patronage on the backs of Canadian citizens.



ONTARIO BUDGET


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 31 today to commend a friend and colleague in the Ontario Legislature. Yesterday, the Hon. Robert Nixon, the Treasurer of Ontario, brought in a budget, a budget that was not leaked and a budget that will result in the lowest deficit in the Province of Ontario in 15 years. He cut $911 million from last year's deficit. Of course, a lower deficit means lower inflation.
The care and compassion of the Liberal philosophy is first and foremost in this budget, and unlike his federal counterpart, he has increased funding for health care by $13.9 billion, hospital funding is up $6 billion and social assistance is up 92 per cent from 1984-85, which were the last years of the Ontario Tory dynasty.
Education spending is up 6.1 per cent over 1988-89 and housing is up 28 per cent over last year and 172 per cent over the last Tory administration. I respectfully ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of this House to contact the Hon. Robert Nixon, Treasurer of Ontario,

May 18, 1989
and humbly request advice and guidance before he brings in another federal Budget.



CANADA DAY


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Weiner) has released the name of the provincial chairman of the Canada Day Celebrations in Quebec.
I have the pleasure to announce, on behalf of the Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), Member for the riding of Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest), that Mr. Andre Viger of Fleuri-mont, world champion wheelchair athlete, will be our chairman.
For his dedication to community service, Mr. Viger was honoured by the International Association of Junior Chambers of Commerce as one of the seven most remarkable young people in the world.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of their champion, whose courage and determination are an example to us all. Bravo and congratulations, Andre Viger!



MULTICULTURALISM


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was quoted as saying that he wants to challenge his party to reconsider its position on multicul-turalism. Our current multiculturalism policy actually breeds racism in Canada because we are telling people they are different, he said.
Canada was built on a recognition and appreciation of wide cultural diversity of aboriginal nations, French and English settlers, and the rich influx of immigrants from many ethnic origins. Unfortunately, some Canadians have more opportunities than others. Instead of eliminating multiculturalism, we must strengthen policies to eliminate racism and insure that all Canadians have equal opportunities. Systemic discrimination against
people of colour must cease. We need mandatory employment equity in both public and private jobs. We must oppose racism in all its forms. I urge the Government to establish a separate standing committee on multiculturalism as promised so that parliamentarians may monitor and enforce multicultural policies.



TRIBUTE TO CANADIAN AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association on its leadership and efforts at bringing opportunity, challenge and enjoyment to Canadian youth for 75 years. The program developed by the Association, and headed by such people as Murray Costello and Ed O'Doherty, and its branches across Canada have ensured that approximately 550,000 novice to senior players had an opportunity to become involved in the sport of hockey, one of this country's favourite national pastimes. I wish the Association and its hard-working volunteers continued growth and prosperity.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform this House and Canadians of the serious human rights violations presently being experienced by the Hungarian national minority in the Transylvanian region of Romania. Recently, the United Nations General Assembly found these infringements of human rights so appalling that it passed a resolution to monitor and address the problem.
Thousands of people have fled Romania into their ancestral homeland of Hungaiy. However, this small nation simply is not able to handle the large influx of refugees. I call upon this Government to initiate a plan and carry it through in order to help those refugees who wish to settle in Canada to do so. This action will maintain both our international reputation as a home for the oppressed and our well-known historical tradition of
May 18, 1989

accepting the Hungarian-speaking peoples as immigrants to our land.



THE SENATE


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday many refugees fleeing countries with political and economic problems discovered to their dismay that our Liberal-dominated Senate chose to block legislation which would have permitted payment of government cheques required for food and rent. Many government-sponsored refugees depend totally on this money as they have no other source of income until they are established in Canada. Instead of receiving their cheques, they got a quick lesson in Canadian politics. When the Liberal Party is rejected by the people, they turn to the unelected Senate in an attempt to flex some political muscle.
Where has the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) been in the last few days while his Senate friends threaten to cut off veterans' pensions and RCMP pay cheques? The silence from our Liberal friends in the House in support of these Canadians has been deafening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Perhaps they remember what happened the last time they asked Canadians to choose between the Senate and the democratically elected government, or perhaps they are confirming what many of us have suspected for quite some time, that the only power in the Liberal Party is a Senator from Nova Scotia.



TRANSPORT


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on May 16 Canadians were told by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) that it was unlikely that any grain whatsoever would be shipped through the Port of Churchill this year. This deliberate neglect of one of Canada's shipping ports is absolutely inexcusable. This port, set on Hudson Bay, is actually 2,000 kilometers closer to Europe than Cana-



S .O. 31

[Stage Direction]
da's other Atlantic shipping route through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
In The Winnipeg Free Press on May 17, the Minister of Transport called the Port of Churchill a "very difficult and expensive port to use". The Minister of Transport obviously has not done his research. If he had, he would know that despite Churchill's short shipping season it is recognized as the cheapest port in Canada through which to ship grain to Europe. The federal-provincial working group on the comparative costs of moving grain has provided excellent figures to show that, compared with the St. Lawrence Seaway route, there was actually a saving of $21.06 a tonne on grain shipped through Churchill in 1985. In many ways, the Port of Churchill is the backbone of the western economy. Without it, the Town of Churchill will be crippled, jobs will be lost at the port and on the railway throughout northern Manitoba and western Canada, and farmers of western Canada will be denied the cheapest and shortest shipping route to the markets of northern Europe.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, when industry pollutes, it should receive the blame, but when that same industry takes steps to protect the environment, we also have a duty to bring this to the attention of the public. Noranda Mines, in order to meet the federal Government's objective to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by 1994, recently invested millions of dollars in building a pollution control plant in Rouyn-Noranda. The same company announced yesterday at a press conference that an additional $16 million would be invested to achieve a 70 per cent reduction by 1995, 20 per cent more than the standard set by the federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, this is very good news for the people of Rouyn-Noranda and for Abitibi-Temiscamingue. This is a concrete example of the leadership and determination of the federal Government encouraging industry to co-operate fully with the Government's environmental policies.

May 18, 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, I put a question or two to the Deputy Prime Minister. The CBC television report that a group of Toronto-based people had the contents of the Budget for two full working days before millions of other Canadian taxpayers, raises serious new questions about the security, the honesty, the fairness and the competence on the part of the Minister of Finance. When the Minister announced his Budget in an emergency press conference, he said that he had to act quickly, and the reason he had to act quickly was to avoid people profiting from inside knowledge of his Budget. Clearly, according to the CBC report, some people had two full clear days Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter for the police. This is a matter for Parliament. I want the Deputy Prime Minister to reply to this ques-tion.of inside knowledge to profit at the expense of other Canadian taxpayers.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister, and through him the Minister of Finance, still contend that the Government was a victim of sabotage or a victim of a crime? When did the Minister of Finance become aware of the allegations of this second far more serious leak? What comment, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, does the Deputy Prime Minister have about the CBC report?


RCMP INVESTIGATION
Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is an investigation by the RCMP into this case. It is a serious matter. I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that the investigation has included, from the outset of the situation, the press story referred to. I am also informed by the commissioner that to date there has been no indication that any profiteering has resulted from advance knowledge of the Budget. The investigation is continuing, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this case.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter for the police. This is a matter for Parliament. I want the Deputy Prime Minister to reply to this question.


INQUIRY AS TO WHEN RCMP REPORT AVAILABLE
John Napier Turner: Regarding the RCMP report, we have now had three weeks of this investigation. When are we going to get a report? When are we going to get the facts, and how are the RCMP qualified to know whether or not there was any profiteering? We have no facts before this House.
I put further questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and I expect him to answer them as the chief officer of Parliament in the House today. I am serious, and he knows I am serious.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Is this the cause of your life?


John Napier Turner: If the security was so tight, if there was no negligence, why has it taken three weeks for this investigation to proceed? Why has it taken three weeks for charges to be laid? Exactly how many copies of this Budget were in circulation in order to give the Government and its friends an advance-


Charles Joseph Clark: Shame, shame!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important matter, and I believe we must look at the facts as they are without pointing an accusing finger. I think the RCMP is an honourable police force, and when I advised the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the matter was being investigated and that from the outset, the investigation included the facts that were on the news yesterday. . . The Commissioner informed me, and I think this is important, Mr. Speaker, that so far, there has been no indication that prior knowledge of the Budget provided any benefit or profit whatsoever.
May 18, 1989


QUERY AS TO DATE MINISTER OF FINANCE KNEW OF ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS
John Napier Turner: If that be so, why wasn't Parliament informed of this second set of allegations? Why wasn't the House of Commons told about these additional facts?


Mr. Valcourt:: What would you do without the TV, John?


John Napier Turner: You are the Government. When was the Minister of Finance informed of this second set of allegations? If he was informed, why wasn't the House of Commons informed?
I say again to the Deputy Prime Minister that this is a parliamentary matter. I have known the Deputy Prime Minister a long time. He is snickering at this. This is a very important question, and he ought to know about it.
I want the Minister of Finance back here to reply to the House of Commons as to what is happening.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat to my Right Hon. colleague that we know what we are doing. We have a police force that is investigating the matter, and as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said so many times in the past, it is entirely inappropriate to comment or to intervene in any way in an investigation being conducted by the RCMP.


RELEASE OF INFORMATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the leak of the Budget papers. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, considering the fact that the Solicitor General just admitted in this House that the Government was aware of the second Budget leak from the beginning, how he expects to explain to parliamentarians and the Canadian people that they did not tell the people of this country
Oral Questions
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why did they hide those facts?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, in case the Hon. Member misunderstood, I will repeat what I said. The Commissioner of the RCMP informed me that from the outset, the investigation being conducted by the RCMP included the situation that was in the news yesterday. I think that is clear enough.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a supplementary question.


QUERY AS TO WHEN BUDGETARY INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF TORONTO GROUP
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Government is stonewalling. The Government has an obligation to be forthright and honest with Parliament and with the people of Canada.
I specifically direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who has an obligation to the House and to Canadians to be honest. My specific question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following.
When was the Government aware of the second leak, specifically? When was the Government aware of budgetary information being in the hands of a group of people in Toronto?
Could the Deputy Prime Minister also indicate to the House whether he believes that the Government had an obligation to inform the House immediately about that second leak?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we do not need to receive any lessons in honesty from any Member here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: I want to repeat the following, because it is important. Those are allegations. We have been informed by the Commissioner that to date there has been no indication that any profiteering has resulted from advance knowledge of the Budget. That is clear.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT SECOND BUDGET LEAK
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. What

May 18, 1989
Oral Questions
the Government is now revealing is not only contempt of Parliament, but it is in contempt of the people of Canada in its responses today.
Considering that the CBC report stated that the Government of Canada, not the RCMP, had been informed after the Minister of Finance learned of the Global leak, and since on the 27th and 28th of the month, and after the weekend, the Government was in the House implying time after time that there was only one Budget leak, I want the Deputy Prime Minister to tell the people of Canada when did the Government learn of the second leak and why is it not telling the people of Canada the truth now?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, and I will say it a hundred times if I have to, that when allegations were made, the Government's position remained consistent.
Allegations were made. We initiated-We asked the RCMP to start an immediate investigation of all the circumstances of this case.
If other facts are brought forward or referred to the RCMP in the course of this investigation and if, after the investigation has been terminated, charges are laid, the facts will be made public. We have nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing!


QUESTION AS TO WHY INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is an absolutely extraordinary performance by the Government. The Prime Minister is not here. The Minister of Finance is not here. The man who should be answering these questions and who is responsible is the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, and he is doing nothing. Instead of smiling and smirking about this fundamental issue of integrity, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when did the Government of Canada learn? Was it the night of the Global leak? If so, why did the Government not do the correct thing when it discussed the Global leak before Parliament, come clean about the whole situation, and tell us? Why did the Government not do that?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of rank hypocrisy. If the Government decided to intervene in an investigation being conducted by the RCMP, it would be accused of interfering. We are now doing what we must do as a government, and that is, let an honourable police force conduct its investigation and wait for the results. They want the Government to intervene, but I have no intention of doing so, Mr. Speaker. I am going to let the RCMP do its job.


ALLEGATION THAT GOVERNMENT MISLEADING PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are limits as to what one can get away with in Parliament. The Government is deliberately misleading the House and the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT FROM MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape-Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and the government House Leader who was intricately involved in explaining to Parliament and to Canadians what happened after the alleged leak of the Budget.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice to explain to the House why the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice came into the House and stated that the rationale for delivering the document on television at a press conference was because of a particular leak to Global Television. Why does the Minister of Justice not now take the opportunity to inform the House that there was in fact a second leak?
Will the Minister be honourable enough to rise in his place and explain to the House that indeed there was a second leak, that they had knowledge of the second leak, and that they deliberately misled the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
May 18, 1989


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague opposite would have the nerve to name one person as deliberately misleading the House.


John V. Nunziata: Doug Lewis.


John Napier Turner: The whole Government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Rather than covering it with "the Government".


John V. Nunziata: Doug Lewis.


Mr. Speaker:: If Hon. Members want to argue about that, they can argue about it later. The Hon. Minister will reply to the question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr.Speaker, immediately that it was discovered that there was a Budget leak, a full criminal investigation was called for involving the RCMP. They were in charge of the entire Budget leak investigation, however many they may be.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: The plot thickens. It is clear, it is obvious to every reasonable Canadian that the Government had ample knowledge of a number of leaks but refused to inform Parliament.


SECOND BUDGET LEAK-GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance repeatedly said in the House that it was a leak by Global, why did he refuse to tell Parliament that there was a second leak? Why do you continue to mislead the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that when these unfortunate events occurred a few
Oral Questions
weeks ago, the Government acted responsibly. We were advised of the facts just as you were, and we asked for a full investigation by the RCMP. As for any allegations about other facts, even if you knew about them, like any other Canadian, you would have to go to the RCMP and give them the information.
I think a Member of Parliament has a responsibility to respect the work done by the police. The RCMP will inform us of the results of their investigation.


REQUEST THAT RCMP REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. There have been a number of references since the leaks about an RCMP report and an RCMP investigation. It is obvious in the House that there is a conflict of interest on that subject on the part of the Government, which has its own version of these facts that it wants to be validated by the RCMP report.
Therefore, I want to ask the Solicitor General to clear the air by agreeing finally that this report that has been leaked and selectively described by members of the Government will be made public today so that all of us can make up our minds about what the report says and where the responsibility lies?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the Hon. Member's question, considering the fact that he is a former solicitor general and is aware of the responsibilities of that position. The Solicitor General and Members of this House have a duty to respect investigations being conducted independently by the RCMP. I believe all solicitors general must adhere to the principle of letting the RCMP do its job.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not and would not make a suggestion that the RCMP was partial or-


Mr. Hawkes:: You did. That is exactly what you said.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -biased in its investigation. I believe the RCMP has made an independent report.

May 18, 1989
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT RCMP REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC TODAY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The RCMP has submitted a report to the Government, and we have received a few details. What I am asking now is to have the full report released today.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. My colleague, who is a former solicitor general, ought to know that when a police force conducts an investigation, it does not submit any reports to anyone while the investigation is under way. Any lawyer, any solicitor general ought to know that. It is pretty obvious. Everybody knows that. One does not intervene in an investigation. It doesn't make sense!


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE OF SECOND LEAK
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I go one more time to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that a Budget leak is a very serious situation, when the privileged few may have access to information ahead of the people of Canada, I want simply to know the following information: When did the Government find out about the second leak and why it did not inform Parliament immediately?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague was away just now when I answered that question. The Commissioner, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Blais: That question was answered, Mr. Speaker, and I can repeat again that the RCMP Commissioner informed me that from the beginning, the investigation included the situation referred to yesterday in the news, and we must let the RCMP do its job. You should listen and you should respect the work done by the RCMP!


PROFITEERING-GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is hiding behind the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh,oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He says he cannot comment on when and why because there is an RCMP investigation, but he already said it to the House that the RCMP has determined that there has been no profiteering. How can he on the one hand say there has been no profiteering while on the other hand not tell the House when they found out and why they will not tell us?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that the point raised by my colleague is important. And that is why the Commissioner informed me that it is important to reassure Canadians that there was no profiteering from the budget leak. I think that is important: to date, no profiteering has been identified. That is why the RCMP Commissioner informed me.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE RESPECTING LEAKS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put my questions again to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government is using the RCMP as a coverup for a parliamentary problem. What we are getting from the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice are selective citations from an RCMP investigation. In that instance, we want a full publication of that investigation report now. In light of the Minister of Justice's admission that there may well have been other leaks, he said it here on the floor of the House, we want to know when the Minister of Finance learned of these other leaks, when he informed the Prime Minister of these other leaks, and why Parliament was not informed of these other leaks?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-
May 18, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the right hon. gentleman's question that he has no objection to the fact that there is an RCMP investigation going on. If that is the case, he should let the RCMP do its job. It would be most inappropriate to draw any conclusions or to extract in a selective way anything-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That is what you did.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -anything that pertains to the ongoing investigations.


Mr. Tobin:: Who is investigating the Minister of Finance?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to consider that it is most inappropriate for he or anyone else to draw conclusions until the full investigation is completed.


REPORT TO PRIME MINISTER BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, with respect due his office, we draw conclusions because the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to come clean with the House of Commons. I say to him once again that this is not only a police matter, but because of the budgetary implications, because of the implications of fairness, the possibility of profiteering because of premature leaks, this is a parliamentary matter and I want the Deputy Prime Minister to report to the Prime Minister and bring this to the floor of the House of Commons. That is what I want.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman's comments are most unfair. The Solicitor General has given the House the information that has been asked. He has explained as he has been kept informed by the RCMP and has revealed that information. I suggest again that it is most inappropriate to draw conclusions until the investigation is complete. Let the RCMP do its job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


RAIL SERVICE-SAINT JOHN RIVER VALLEY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport about rail freight service in New Brunswick. We understand that the National Transportation Agency has approved the abandonment of Canadian Pacific routes in the Saint John River Valley as a result of bridges that have been damaged in recent years at Woodstock and Perth-Andover. The fact is that the only remaining rail link is through the City of Fredericton and over the Canadian National bridge at Fredericton.
My question is this: Will the Minister of Transport request a review by the National Transportation Agency of the future of rail service in the Saint John River Valley, including reconsideration of the abandonment approval by CP, and also in the context of any future applications for abandonment of the Fredericton connection by CN?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the NTA has agreed with the abandonment of the CP Rail route for the Saint John River Valley. My colleague should know that if there is any opposition, they could appeal the decision by the NTA. We just have to refer to that decision. In line with that, there is no intention by CN to abandon the bridge used by CP at Fredericton. It could be used for rail transportation.


BUDGET LEAK
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who has just told us, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, if I understood correctly, that it was wrong to draw conclusions anything until the RCMP investigation is complete. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has just told us that in the RCMP Commissioner's opinion, no one profited from privileged information obtained before the Budget was presented. Now if the Solicitor General can draw such a conclusion in this House, does it mean that the Commissioner's investiga-

May 18, 1989
Oral Questions
tion is complete? And if the investigation is over, why do we not have a report today in this House?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel understood relatively well what he was told. Yes, the facts were reported relatively accurately, except that it is still under investigation and in the RCMP's hands. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, references were just made of some (selective) citations and I would perhaps like to quote the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition himself who said, as reported here in the Toronto Star of February 22, 1987, that he was imposing rules of conduct on his own Members at that time, Mr. Speaker-


REQUEST THAT THE MINISTER RECONSIDER HIS POSITION
André Ouellet: My
supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. Since he admits the investigation is not complete, how can he tell the House that no one profited from privileged information in the Budget? The Solicitor General cannot be selective and only release part of what he was told by the RCMP Commissioner. Does the Minister intend to be fair and frank in this House? Will he have the courage to table forthwith the complete report he has received so far from the RCMP?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't need the Hon. Member's advice either. Our Government has acted honourably throughout this case, and I certainly don't need the Hon. Member's advice. As I said before, and this is very important, the Commissioner has told me that so far, there is no indication that prior knowledge of the Budget led to profit taking. The RCMP Commissioner acted responsibly in giving me this information, and I am passing it on immediately to the House.


GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE AS TO SECOND LEAK
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, now that the Deputy Prime Minister has decided to answer questions, I want to say that we have no doubt that the RCMP will live up to its obligations. We want the Government of Canada to live up to its obligations. That is the issue.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: Considering that the Minister of Finance referred to a single Budget leak, considering that the Minister of Justice referred to a single Budget leak, considering that the Prime Minister himself referred to a single Budget leak and now it has been revealed, without denial by the Government, there was another Budget leak, will the Deputy Prime Minister finally tell the House of Commons the truth about this and tell us when he learned of the second leak?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the NDP wants the RCMP to do their job, he should not attempt to interfere with that job and he should not ask us to interfere.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Government of Canada is using the rules of Parliament to disguise the truth instead of revealing the truth and they are deliberately misleading the people of Canada minute after minute here in the House of Commons.


KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE-SECOND LEAK
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this: If as has been claimed recently that the Government wants to be honest and fair with the people of Canada and since we now know that according to one report, a leak existed 48 hours before the Budget came down in the Parliament of Canada, when did the Government and specifically the Minister of Finance learn of that leak and why have they not told the people of Canada about it?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is trying to score political points on a matter of this importance. At the end of April, the Government immediately asked the RCMP to investigate what happened to the Budget, and we must let the RCMP conduct its investigation. We have been informed by the RCMP that so far there was no indication that anyone had profited. . . That is what was said. We have no information that anyone profited. And I think it is important to reassure Canadians on this score.
May 18, 1989


ACTIONS OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General would like the people of Canada to believe that the issue today is whether or not the Opposition has confidence in the RCMP. It is not the RCMP whose judgment we question today. The fact of the matter is that on April 26, the Minister of Finance of Canada took the extraordinary step of releasing his Budget via a press conference in the evening.
The additional fact is that on April 27, the Minister came to the House to explain that action and explained it by saying that there had been a single leak on Global Television.
We know today that there was more than one leak. My question to the House Leader and Minister of Justice is the following as it has been asked but not answered so far today: When did the Minister of Finance know of additional leaks? Did he know of additional leaks when he stood in the House and said that his action was taken merely because of a single leak by Global? Did the Minister of Finance mislead the House of Commons?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when the Global Television report made it very clear that there had been a Budget leak, the RCMP were called in and asked to do a full investigation. That investigation is ongoing.



ALLEGED MISLEADING OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

["Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debate on Bill C-ll, the borrowing authority Bill. There may be somewhat of a delay, but we have indications that the House will finish debate on this matter today. If, as and when the debate is finished and a recorded division is requested, it has been agreed that the recorded division will be deferred until 6 o'clock Tuesday next. If it is convenient to the Parties involved in private Members' hour, that private Members' hour will commence immediately if debate concludes before 5 p.m. Private Members' hour would be advanced as would any adjournment debate which were to take place after private Members' hour. The House would adjourn immediately thereafter.\nThe Government has no Government business today other than Bill C-ll. Friday is an allotted day as is Tuesday next. Under the Standing Orders, we cannot have a vote on Friday, but if there were to be a vote called on Friday, it would also be deferred until Tuesday.\nMay 18, 1989", 'That is the menu up until Tuesday. We will be in touch with the offices of opposition Parties to inform them as to the business for Wednesday.']
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not answered the question. The question is very straightforward. What we and the people of Canada want to know is whether or not the Minister of Finance, who on April 27 and on subsequent days in Parliament, kept referring to a single leak by Global, had knowledge of a second leak in Toronto or other leaks elsewhere. Why did the Minister of Finance of Canada, why did the Prime Minister, and indeed the Minister of Justice deliberately mislead the House of Commons and mislead the people of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that that is not appropriate.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Is it true or not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has, I think, done everything appropriate to make sure that there has been a series of effective and searching questions. There are answers that are coming back from the Government side. It is not for me to judge them one way or the other. The Hon. Member knows that certainly it is not appropriate to say that somebody in this House is deliberately misleading the House. It is a very serious charge and I would hope that the Hon. Member would withdraw that. The Hon. Member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we could move on to another Hon. Member at least for now. The Hon. Member for Mississauga East.



Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Canada Post, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
At hearings held on Tuesday, Members of this House were told of systematic harassment of Canada Post workers by their supervisors. There were accounts of abuses of injured workers, pregnant women and disabled persons.
Many have been told that these punitive measures are a result of directives from senior management in order to prepare the corporation for privatization.
My question is, Mr. Speaker, what exactly is this Government's policy on Canada Post and is it encouraging and endorsing these tactics to further plans to privatize the corporation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post is away on Government business today. I will take notice of the question and make sure that he is aware of the concern.


Ms. Copps:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, a supplementary.

May 18, 1989
Oral Questions


HARASSMENT OF POSTAL WORKERS
Albina Guarnieri: I commend the Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House for being artful dodgers.
My supplementary question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Albina Guarnieri: -yesterday the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member's literary background is impressive but-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -perhaps she could finish her question.


Albina Guarnieri: I withdraw the comment. They are not artful.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!.


Albina Guarnieri: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister responsible for Canada Post said that there was an ongoing investigation at Gateway postal facility and yet he refused to commit to the protection of those workers who came forth to testify at the task force hearings.
Witnesses have already complained about intimidation because of their role in the hearings. Is the Government prepared to pledge that this harassment will not be tolerated and guarantee personal intervention of the Minister on behalf of the victims?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, may I say that if I had had any notice of the question I would have been happy to provide an answer. I had no notice.


An Hon. Member:: Just mail the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


An Hon. Member:: We will give you written notice tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members would want to extend the appropriate courtesies and hear the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to what can only be described as a scene out of Orwell, and that is the whole question of the Budget leak.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not seen behaviour like this from this Government since the Sinclair Stevens-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


John R. Rodriguez: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to know, when the Minister of Finance stood in this House at 5.40 on April 27, 1989, to deliver his Budget speech to this House, was the Government aware of any prior leaks other than the one by GlobaP.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question has already been given, and in fact I am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member remembers exactly when that took place, because I don't think a single member of his Party bothered to stay in the House to listen at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we acted responsibly and that we must now let the RCMP, which has been investigating this matter, do its job.


MINISTER'S REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are well aware that the Minister has refused to answer a question that is direct and simple.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I am going to give him another opportunity to come clean with Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 18, 1989


John R. Rodriguez: Was the Government aware, according to the record when that Budget speech was delivered to this House, of any prior leak of the Budget? Was it aware, yes or no?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, even if the Hon. Member wants to get tough, it won't change my answer. My explanation was clear and to the point. The RCMP is investigating. We asked them to do so, and we should let them carry on with it, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Two days ago my colleagues and I listened in horror at the allegations of sexual harassment, bribery and nepotism at Canada Post. At an emotional hearing where accounts of all of these came forward, eyes filled from the tears that were coming from the witnesses and voices becoming shaky while giving their testimony. They conveyed severe loss of dignity. The people on the far side of the House must realize these are Canadians with concerns. They are members of our society. How can this Government allow this to go on without a royal inquiry?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the question that was asked of the Minister yesterday and the Minister responded. I will tell him that that same question was asked today.


SITUATION RESPECTING EMPLOYEES-INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
Jerry Pickard: I realize the Minister is absent and I did direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: He is not answering today.


Jerry Pickard: An answer that Canadians are suffering is not a reasonable answer to this House. An answer that you cannot do anything about a Crown corporation which is mistreating people is not a reasonable answer.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jerry Pickard: The current investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member put his question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Spit out your question.


Jerry Pickard: The current internal investigation is like asking an accused robber-


An Hon. Member:: As your question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Jerry Pickard: The Minister must carry out a Royal inquiry. When will the Government do it?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Canada Post said that there was an ongoing investigation in this whole matter.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Another RCMP investigation.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from answers that were given by Ministers of the Crown, specifically the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), during the course of the proceedings today.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is your point?


John Edward Broadbent: There are important questions on this side of the House concerning the timing and, in particular, details of knowledge that the Government of Canada had about an additional budget leak that was discussed in a CBC television newscast last night.
Answers we received in the House, in our view, misled the House in terms of the extent of the knowledge of the Government on this important matter. Specifically, the Solicitor General said, on the one hand, that he could not talk about an investigation by the RCMP already in progress. On the other hand, he referred quite specifically to another part of the investigation when he said that according to information he had been given by the RCMP there was no concern about profiteering.

May 18, 1989
Points of Order
We say two things, that the Government of Canada has an obligation to be forthright in answering questions about the timing of knowledge of leaks of the Budget. The Government conveyed information when the Budget came down that only one leak had taken place.
Second, we say that the Solicitor General has not exercised his responsibility and is denying our rights as Members when he says that he cannot comment on an RCMP report, yet he can speak selectively about that report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the question of privilege-


Charles Joseph Clark: What is the question of privilege?


John Napier Turner: -raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). If, on deliberation, you are to find a prima facie case, I would be willing to go into it more fully.
This is a parliamentary matter, not a matter for an RCMP cover-up on behalf of the Government. Second, contradictory answers today are so flagrant that they amount to a contempt of Parliament. If you find a prima facie case, I will be glad to support this move, sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, let us put this in perspective.


Some Hon. Members:: Please do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we have here is the Opposition basing their questions on information that was contained in a CBC report which alleges that employees of an unnamed company somewhere in Canada had budget information. This whole question period has been used on that basis, on that particular allegation.
These and all other allegations are being investigated by the RCMP.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are there others?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why is the Leader of the Opposition attempting to interfere with the investigation of the RCMP? He should know better of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) whose intervention is supported by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). The intervention is on the basis of privilege.
This has been a very vigorous Question Period and many questions have been asked. It is quite obvious that some Members are not satisfied that they have all of the answers. That is a matter that happens often in this House. It does not take anything away from the seriousness of the issue that is being pursued, and I certainly have no comment to make on that. But I have to say that while there may well be a grievance and there may well be a complaint this is not, strictly speaking, a question of privilege, and I am so ruling.


POINTS OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in the answers that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) gave today-


Charles Joseph Clark: Not true.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -he kept citing from the documents of the RCMP-


Charles Joseph Clark: Not true.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -and, according to Beauchesne's Citation 327, subsection (2), we find:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought
to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without
injury to the public interest.


Mr. Lapierre:: It was in a red file.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It goes on in subsection (5)-


Charles Joseph Clark: No document was cited.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How do you know? Have you seen it?


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is Beauchesne's if you wish to find out. Some of you don't know the points of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring it to the attention of Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. May 18, 1989

Murphy), who is the Whip of the Democratic Party, is rising with a perfectly appropriate argument and is citing authorities to assist the Chair. I hope that Hon. Members will co-operate in hearing this argument.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Subsection (5) states:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to
influence debate. The admission that a document exists or the reading
of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing.
However, the Solicitor General did specifically refer and use that document-


Charles Joseph Clark: Not true. You misunderstood.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -in trying to influence debate in the House of Commons. He does not have to read from it, but he has to cite it and use it to influence debate. Certainly he was using the RCMP report to indicate a certain position and I believe under the rules of the House of Commons he must table that document.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I never saw a worse example of irresponsibility than this afternoon. I am not as experienced as some Hon. Members, but I have an experience of respect for the House and of responsibility towards- Yes! It is an example of responsibility that all Members of this House should have, Mr. Speaker, to the mandate of a Minister of the Crown.
I never said that I was referring "specifically" to a document. I had a note to help me answer the question and I merely said that I had been informed by the RCMP. I did not refer to a "specific" document.
I find that- I do not know what he is referring to. We can look at the blues, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what was said. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I simply referred to and passed on what the RCMP Commissioner told me.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in the heat of debate during Question Period the Hon. Leader of the NDP accused the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) of deliberately misleading this House and I know he would want to withdraw those remarks.
Points of Order


Mr. Speaker:: It may be another matter to deal with, but at the moment, I am dealing with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that in this Chamber the Minister concerned said that the RCMP had reported that no one made money from the previous information out of the leak. This was a selective quote from information the Minister received and told this House.
Now, the point made by my colleague and earlier during the questions, which is relevant, but dealing strictly with the point made by my colleague and referring to Beauchesne, once the Minister refers to that report in this House, it is the rule that when he said he had been told that no one profited from the leak, he revealed he had information, and we want that information tabled in this House.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, again during Question Period the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) drew a conclusion. He drew a conclusion that there was no profiteering. Presumably he drew that conclusion as a result of some information that he was privy to from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If, in fact, he was being forthright with the House during Question Period then he has some information which led him to conclude that there was no profiteering. The question then becomes, how can the Solicitor General on one hand say that the investigation is continuing while saying to the House unequivocally and categorically that there was no profiteering? Either the RCMP told him directly by way of document or verbally that there was no profiteering or the Minister is deliberately misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister, if I heard him correctly, stated unequivocally that he was not quoting from a document, that he was not referring to a document. We have had these cases in the past, and I draw that to the attention of Hon. Member. I will look carefully at the exchange and will report back to the House. Unless the Minister feels that it is necessary to argue the matter further-

May 18, 1989
Business of the House


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I do not want it said that I misled the House. I cannot tolerate people saying that I misled the House. Never, Mr. Speaker! I wanted-


John V. Nunziata: You're in a conflict of interest. You're an officer of the court and you should stop being a Conservative and lead as a Solicitor General.


Charles Joseph Clark: Get out of the gutter.


John V. Nunziata: Go back to law school. Joe. Get a decent legal education and then you can talk about legal principles.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is time to move on to another matter.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY-INSENSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMEN
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the earliest possible moment on a point of order arising from yesterday's proceedings under Standing Order 31. On page 1840 of Hansard, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless quite unfairly, misrepresented my feelings about the equality of women. The right hon. gentleman said, as recorded on page 1840 of Hansard, the following:
These Tory Members say, and I am also going to quote the Member from Hamilton-Wentworth, that women "aren't ambitious".
I want to put the record straight. The right hon. gentleman knows that I would never say that, let alone think that. He knows that I have fought for the equality of women for years. Surely any Member of Parliament whose electoral boundaries are surrounded by those of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Phinney), the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) as well as the provincial MPP for Wentworth East, Miss Shirley Collins and the Hon. Mayor of Glanford, Helen Bell, should know that women are both ambitious and successful.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this is a point of order. The Hon. Member has clearly made his point.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member rose quite properly, if I may suggest that to Your Honour. Yesterday, he happened to intervene for another purpose just prior to my own intervention under Standing Order 31. I inadvertently grouped him in my remarks when I meant to refer to two other Hon. Members, and I apologize to him. I in no way meant to reflect upon him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the right hon. gentleman.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am changing the subject. Since it is Thursday and time to find out what the Government has in store for us next week, I would like to ask the House Leader to give us the daily program for the coming week-


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and something to help make it go down! [English]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debate on Bill C-ll, the borrowing authority Bill. There may be somewhat of a delay, but we have indications that the House will finish debate on this matter today. If, as and when the debate is finished and a recorded division is requested, it has been agreed that the recorded division will be deferred until 6 o'clock Tuesday next. If it is convenient to the Parties involved in private Members' hour, that private Members' hour will commence immediately if debate concludes before 5 p.m. Private Members' hour would be advanced as would any adjournment debate which were to take place after private Members' hour. The House would adjourn immediately thereafter.
The Government has no Government business today other than Bill C-ll. Friday is an allotted day as is Tuesday next. Under the Standing Orders, we cannot have a vote on Friday, but if there were to be a vote called on Friday, it would also be deferred until Tuesday.
May 18, 1989

That is the menu up until Tuesday. We will be in touch with the offices of opposition Parties to inform them as to the business for Wednesday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period, I was referring to the article entitled "How did we get into this mess?" I was referring to Bill C-ll, the Bill that would provide authority to borrow an additional $25 billion. I was commenting on the fact that it was during the 20 years since 1968 when the Liberals achieved power that we started this absolutely horrendous deficit. Year by year, we moved gradually deeper into the deficit until 1984 when we came to power, we inherited a deficit of $38 billion. A Member of the New Democratic Party is staring me right in the face right now. He will remember that better than everyone.
The first Budget of our Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the first time reduced that deficit, and by 1985, according to this article, the Minister actually cut the deficit by nearly $4 billion to $34 billion. That is significant. That is what Liberal Members claimed that they too would like to do during the last federal election. They said they wanted to start reducing the deficit.
The following year, 1986, according to this article, the federal deficit was slashed another $4 billion. How can opposition Members scream at our desire to bring some sanity to the economy by reducing the deficit of Canada? In every case, they tell us that we should have spent more. I am telling the Canadian people who are not present in the House of Commons that since we were re-elected in November of 1988, opposition Members have asked the Government to spend more money. In
Borrowing Authority
fact, they will probably vote against this borrowing authority Bill because it does not provide for enough. They would like to throw us into a deeper deficit situation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Talk about the Portage base.


Felix Holtmann: I did that. The Hon. Member says I should talk about the Portage base. If he had been in the House earlier, he would have heard me speak about the Portage base and how we will handle that problem. We will create more jobs before the four years are up. The Hon. Member should consider what will happen to Churchill and his plans to increase employment there. He ought to consider that, but I am sure he will not. He will never offer a solution for bringing prosperity to northern Manitoba. He lives in Winnipeg, he does not even live in his riding and represent it as he should.
Going on to 1988, the deficit was still too high, and I am sure Members of the New Democratic Party would also like to find ways to reduce the deficit.
However, their Member stood up and said we should have spent more on defence. He has to reckon that with his partners over in the comer. I recall that during the election campaign they were going to pull all the troops out of Europe and our NATO commitment. That is what they were going to do. They were going to give the money saved to the social welfare of this country. They found all kinds of money, and today the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) stands there and says that they would have done it differently. Now he is spending what your back-benchers are taking away. Fantastic logic that they have over there. Do they actually have a plan on how they would reduce the deficit? Stand up in your place and tell us how you would stop putting this terrible deficit on your children. How are you going to do it? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they have absolutely no plan.
I will close by advising every Canadian to see if they can get their Member of Parliament to send them a copy of this article from the Montreal Gazette of Sunday, April 23, 1989, as to how we got into this mess. They will find out that it is the Conservative Government that is going to get us out of this mess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett).

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill dealing with Her Majesty in the name of the Government of Canada borrowing $25 billion, either on the international money markets or internally in Canada.
On behalf of the Canadian Government, this Bill, which by its background and its guarantees, represents a solid tradition of government intervention in the economy for whatever the Government of the day wants. When I talk about solid intervention, it is based on a simple word, trust. Trust has to have consistency. It is ironic that while we debate this Bill related to the Budget itself, and a Bill required to implement the Budget, today we have discovered that we have not been told the whole truth about who knew what and when they knew it regarding the Budget itself. We are asked now to debate a Bill for $25 billion worth of borrowing, when an RCMP report was referred to selectively in this House by a Minister as he attempted to assure the Canadian people and this House that there had been no criminal activity proven and no one had benefited from, not the one leak, but the two leaks of the Budget.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and I put it to this Chamber, how is it that we can continue with the debate on this Bill and $25 billion worth of borrowing when the House does not even know the truth about who knew what and when about the Budget that this Bill is related to?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are asking Canadians and international financiers to put up money, as they have in the past, on the basis of a consistently good record of the Canadian Government regardless of the political strife. In this instance, this Bill goes forward under a cloud. The cloud over this Bill is a simple fact of confusion, misinformation and indeed direct lies about who knew what and when. How can we go ahead with a Bill when that hangs over us? The honourable thing for the Government to do would be to amend the order of debate, pull this Bill off the Order Paper and ensure that everybody who may borrow money from this Government knows that their interest rates, their securities are guaranteed and that no one had an unfair advantage.
To ensure that atmosphere around it, the Minister chose to leak a portion of the RCMP report to leave the impression that no one has made any money as a result of that leak. How do we know that, Mr. Speaker? We
have not seen the report. We did not get answers as to when the Government knew of the leak, and we have not seen any whit of that report.
I cannot in good conscience, Mr. Speaker, participate in a debate that has become a sham and part of a cover-up by a Government that is not telling the truth to the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I watched a similar debate in this House during the Sine Steven's affair. I thought this Government had learned a lesson, but it has not. I for one am not going to sit through another cover-up. I do not see how we can continue with this Bill until we are told the full truth.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Finance-Interest rates increase-Government position/Mortgage and credit card interest rates; the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mrs. Steward-External Aid-Request that World Summit be held for benefit of children; the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall)-Public Service-Visible minorities- Hiring-Government's position/Native peoples and visible minorities.


POINT OF ORDER
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I rose on a point of order asking the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to withdraw the remarks he made to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) which were that the Deputy Prime Minister was deliberately misleading this House. I would ask that he do the honourable thing and rise and withdraw those remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I am correct, I believe the Speaker said he would look into the matter and report back to the House.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, precisely on the same subject.
Earlier today in the House, Members of both opposition Parties were asking Ministers of the Crown to indicate exactly when they learned the information about an alleged second leak on the Budget. Time after time, for 45 minutes in the House, Ministers of the Crown refused to answer that. Right after the Question Period the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) went outside the

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
Chamber and speaking to the media, answered the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
I say to your Honour that the people of Canada and their elected representatives on both sides of the House have a right to have Ministers of the Crown live up to their obligations. When they are asked questions in the House they should answer in the House and not outside before the TV cameras.


Charles Joseph Clark: Withdraw. Show a little honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am asking Your Honour if the Minister of Justice will now rise on this question of privilege and say in the House what he said outside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think there is a need for the Minister of Justice to reply. I know it is an important matter but I do not find that it is a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today and will concentrate on two or three areas of concern.
There are many areas that I would like to discuss, such as taxes on the poor, the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency, the ERDA agreements and bases. I will try to concentrate my message today, however, on three areas that I find very hard to take as far as the people in Nova Scotia are concerned.
The Budget just passed did two things which I feel have disastrous consequences. These consequences will be disastrous to the universality of Government programs for all Canadians. One is in the area of transfer payments to the provinces. Under the Established Programs Financing these monetary transfers will be reduced. This means that moneys received in two very important areas, health services and post-secondary funding, will be less than anticipated by the provinces.
Between fiscal years 1986-87 to 1991-92, the Atlantic provinces will lose $779 million. Nova Scotia will lose $301.45 million. That total is one that I do not think any Nova Scotian can accept in terms of reduction of services in the Established Programs Financing as it relates to our health programs and our post-secondary funding for students at universities and other training schools.
The federal Government has attacked the old age security and the family allowances. It is able to sell the erosion of these universal programs by saying that it will only cut benefits to those pensioners and families who have over $50,000 in income. The Government implies that the rich can afford the cuts.
But the federal Government is tampering with programs that assist all Canadians. This is what we call universality. All Canadians are treated equally with respect to Government programs. Once we allow the Government to start cutting these universal programs, we will see them deteriorate.
There are, in my opinion, other areas that could have been cut by this federal Government. The Minister of Finance could have followed the advice of his think tank, the Economic Council of Canada, who prepared a report in February of this year on the taxation of income from capital in Canada. But, no, he did not do that. What were the areas the Council suggested? We did not see any of them in the Budget. They were some of the alternative approaches to tax reform as put forward by the Economic Council.
In its summary where we find these proposals, capital cost allowances that reflect as much as possible true economic depreciation at current replacement costs; indexed inventory cost accounting; a full taxation of real capital income including capital gains and complete indexation of exemptions, deductions and tax brackets at personal levels.
May 18, 1989

There are other recommendations, but this Government did not do that. It went after the biggest tax grab on the backs of the poorest people in Canada and on cut-backs to the East in one clean swoop that have never been seen before. I mention that because it will be hard on easterners. I can only think that the old saying my grandparents had that Tory times are tough times will become a reality again.
I now want to talk about the unemployment insurance program. I am glad the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) is here. Perhaps she can hear something from an easterner. This Government has decided to privatize, privatize without giving any options to those people who cannot afford the privatization of the unemployment insurance program.
What does privatize mean? To the Minister of Employment it means that employers and employees will be the only source of funding for this program. It means that with this new direction of the fund that some of the concerns which the unemployment insurance met in the past will not be looked at by the private sector. What does it mean? It means that there is a new system. It will be streamlined into one phase from three. This means there is no longer the initial phase that gives one week of insurable earnings for every week worked, up to a maximum of 25 weeks. There will be no extended benefit period that gives you one week of benefits for every two weeks worked, up to a maximum of 13 additional weeks of benefits, and no longer any regionally extended benefits. Instead, there is only one set of benefits paid based on the regional unemployment rate and the qualifying period.
In many cases the number of weeks needed to qualify has been increased and the duration of benefits has been reduced. What does it mean to an area like South West Nova? In the region of Yarmouth, one of the economic zones in Nova Scotia, the unemployment rate fluctuates between 6.5 per cent and 9.6 per cent. I want to take an average and tell you what it means in terms of next year starting January 1.
If the unemployment rate is between 7 per cent to 8 per cent, the entrance requirement is 18 weeks and benefits of 21 weeks. Under the new system, residents in Yarmouth will lose from five to seven weeks of benefits.
Borrowing Authority
For example, in Yarmouth where the unemployment rate was 9.3 per cent in October, 1988, the claimant needed only 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and was eligible for 32 weeks of benefits, 10 weeks of initial benefits and an additional 22 weeks of regionally extended benefits.
Under the new system the claimant must now work for 16 weeks and will only receive 27 weeks of benefits. I just took this phase because most constituents in the past year in South West Nova have had to have 16 weeks to 20 weeks of insurable earnings because of the clause concerning repeat benefits. The Minister says we are doing away with the repeater provision but it is still a hardship.
Under the new system the claimant must now work for 16 weeks and will only receive 27 weeks of benefits. In other words, there is a loss of seven weeks. In areas where the unemployment rate is 6.6 per cent, the claimant will lose more. He or she will lose six weeks of benefits, yet will have to work six additional weeks to qualify. According to Statistics Canada the average weekly payment in 1987 in Nova Scotia was $182.23. I hope the Minister listens to that because I believe it is the area that will hurt the most. A claimant in the Yarmouth region, a region with an unemployment rate of 9.3 per cent, will lose five weeks of benefits. This loss will amount to $911.15. Similarly, a reduction of six weeks of benefits amounts to a loss of $1,093.38. If the unemployment rate in the Province of Nova Scotia was 9.3 per cent, and if the workforce in 1987 was 400,000, and I could not get that figure so I based it on the population, then the loss would be about $40.6 million based on the 1987 rate.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration stated in the House that she will use the money saved to retrain people. There will be no savings for the Government from Nova Scotia. The Government is getting out of the extended and regionally extended benefit period, except in those four areas out of 48 in which the unemployment rate was over 15 per cent. She does not understand the seasonality of this country. Both she and the Minister of Finance are from Bay Street.
We are keeping Toronto business happy, as we heard in the earlier debate. What does the Minister plan to do? Does she plan to move people from seasonal areas in Nova Scotia to Toronto? We experienced that before and

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
it did not work. The Government has to find jobs for people in the industries that are there, tourism, fisheries, forestry and farming.
I want to talk about fisheries as it relates to Nova Scotia, the people, the businesses and the well-being of a natural resource that we have taken for granted. The Nova Scotia fishery is the richest resource in the world. Unlike oil and most other resources, it is a renewable resource containing a rich protein. Both federal and provincial governments will have to address this serious matter very soon.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) may wish to blame a lack of fish, too many fishermen, over-fishing, too many fish plants and the foreigners, and I am getting tired of hearing all the excuses he uses, but this Government must take responsibility for the present mess. It cannot find any more whipping boys. National Sea Products is in trouble, but so is the inshore fishery and the communities dependent on that fishery. The inshore fishery has been in trouble for over a year. One need only look at the results of the last federal election. The Prime Minister should have learned his lesson and appointed a new Minister, one who would take action and understand the problems.
This Government has been in power for almost five years and we now know, as our grandparents knew, what Tory times are like. They will be tough. Wait until the unemployment insurance cuts affect those in the Atlantic. Wait until the cut-backs in essential services and cut-backs in ERDA and ACOA affect the people. These measures will soon be felt by all Nova Scotians, all Atlantic Canadians and all Canadians, particularly those in rural Canada. The Government does not seem to understand the nature of rural Canada.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-ll, the borrowing Bill, responds directly to the Budget just brought forward, and that Budget raises serious problems for many of my constituents of Northumberland.
Northumberland, on the shores of Lake Ontario, is both a rural and an urban riding with a population of approximately 80,000 people, 17 per cent of whom are seniors. The average income in Northumberland is in the
low middle-income area with women earning only slightly more than half the full-time wage of men, something that is of great concern to me. The women are largely employed in clerical and service industries while males in comparison are largely employed in manufacturing and construction.
The Budget raises very serious problems for my constituents of Northumberland. Besides being concerned over the expenditure cuts and the impact of tax increases, borrowing money for some of the expenditures supported in the Budget is also of serious concern.
That is not to say that my constituents do not agree with the need to address the debt and the continuing deficit. However, my constituents are not ignorant of the fact that the Government more than doubled the debt since 1984, and when distributing largesse prior to the fall 1988 election in order to gamer support and votes, did not see the deficit and debt as a major problem. The Government belittles the intellect of the voters of my riding if it thinks they do not recognize the duplicity of the Government. They ask, as do I, why is the Government not reducing interest rates in order to control the deficit and the growing debt.
We are all concerned that the Government is permitting interest rates to rise in the last months, the heavy increases in taxes, the burden of which is borne by the poor and middle-income families in my riding, and that the short-sighted expenditure cuts all combine to hurl our country over the brink into the pit of a recession. The Government does not seem to understand that expenditure cuts are not necessarily a saving.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, my riding is comprised primarily of lower and lower-middle-income families. The burden of increased taxes by this Government has fallen principally on the shoulders of this group. The logic and morality of the Government defies understanding when one realizes that most people in my riding have experienced serious increases in their tax burden since the Government came to power but those in upper income brackets have actually experienced lower tax rates.
There are other very serious Budget expenditure cut-backs which are of great concern to the people of Northumberland. On April 8, 1989, I held a public
May 18, 1989

meeting in Cobourg with a large group of citizens who at that time were alarmed by the rumours of possible VIA Rail cut-backs. The Budget is now before us and we, through Bill C-ll, are being asked to support the Budget, a Budget which is blindly cutting $100 million in VIA Rail's combined operating and capital expenditures.
Hundreds of constituents of Northumberland have voiced their concerns to me about the Conservative Government's cut-backs to VIA Rail passenger service. They have presented me with petitions and briefs on how our community will be adversely affected by such a move. Opportunities for affordable housing and a better quality of life depend on the growth of non-metropolitan areas, and VIA Rail was fundamental in the growth and development of Northumberland. The Government appears to be denying us opportunity.
In 1988, over 160,000 passenger rail trips originated and ended at the three station stops of Port Hope, Cobourg and Trenton Junction which serve our area. Canada's transportation system is a necessity to my riding and to the nation. Why did the Government cut back on VIA Rail at a time when VIA's service has been improving, when revenue from passengers alone has substantially risen and when the average occupancy rate is on the rise? There is no justification for cut-backs when Canadians rely on this essential service and when VIA's services have been improving.
The farmers of my riding of Northumberland are also concerned, not just with budget cut-backs in agriculture but with the Government's apparent loss of support for supply-management and marketing board programs. The dairy farmers of my riding, for example, are threatened by the fact that the federal Budget is reducing dairy programs by an estimated $14 million. These actions are contrary to the Government's own long-term dairy policy which includes a complete commitment to supply management. On top of these Budget slashes to the dairy industry, the federal Government has now decided to cap industrial milk prices until December, 1990, to implement decreases in industrial milk prices if the cost-of-production formula goes down, and will ask the provinces to extend the cap on prices of fluid milk.
Borrowing Authority
The dairy industry understands that these decisions have been made as a result of the April 1989 GATT negotiations meetings, contrary to the clear advice given by the dairy farmers in Canada. To decision to cap milk prices makes no sense. Support prices respond to changes in the cost of production, and production is controlled by means of the quota system with the producer paying the cost of surplus disposal.
The dairy farmers in my riding are asking what other group in the country is being arbitrarily told that then-income cannot rise. There is a serious injustice and deceit being perpetrated against the dairy farmers in Northumberland and Canada. The dairy farmers in Northumberland will be edified to learn from my colleague on the opposite side of the House who said today that the only poor dairy farmer is the one who does not get up in the morning.
There are so many other serious impacts that this Budget will foist upon the people of my riding. The Government has reneged on its commitment to increase day care in this country. The Unemployment Insurance Program is so seriously eroded as to be threatened with extinction as a national public program. The universality of the Old Age Security and family allowance programs is being thrown into jeopardy.
I wish to address my remaining remarks to the unconscionable cut-backs in official development assistance which the Conservative Government has included in its Budget. The Government of Canada traditionally directs about 3 per cent to all expenditures to official development assistance. In disregard of the overwhelming opinion of more than 70 per cent of Canadians who support Canada's prior commitment to official development assistance, government cut-backs to ODA represent 29 per cent of all expenditure cuts in the Budget. No other program has experienced the Conservative slice so drastically.
The Budget cut-backs to ODA represent the third time since 1984 that the Government has reneged on its commitment to meet the international targeted ratio of .7 per cent GNP to overseas development assistance. The fact is that that target is no longer even talked about by this Government. ODA expenditures have been cut by $360 million or 12 per cent for the year 1989-1990. Instead of spending the $3.1 billion ODA expected for

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
this fiscal year, the expenditure will be $2.44 billion, bringing the ODA GNP ratio back to .43 per cent from its almost .5 per cent of last year. The formula to be applied to spending over the next five years will save the Government $1.8 billion.
The Government is causing Canada to lose all credibility among donor and recipient countries alike. We now join the U.S. as the only other developed nation cutting the ODA GNP ratio. We now rank last in ODA ratio expenditures when compared to other comparable countries such as the four Nordic countries, the Netherlands, France, and Belgium. Canada has had a reputation as a caring, concerned nation, a leader among nations in development assistance. We have sacrificed our national reputation in this Budget. We have told the poor that we have a debt, that we have had a drought. Their debt, their droughts are of minor concern. We regret this is just a little cut, in the words of the Minister, but the fact is that thousands of poor and starving will die because of the ODA budget cuts.
It is interesting to review just where the ODA budget cuts will be felt. Bilateral and multilateral food aid will be cut by $65 million this year. International humanitarian assistance, multilateral technical co-operation, bilateral regional programs, and international NGOs will be cut by $112 million. Yet, certain ODA budget expenditures will rise. Industrial co-operation, for example, will increase by $10 million. Salaries in CIDA will rise by $3 million, and government promotion of our Development Assistance Program gets a boost of $13 million.
Where is our credibility? What is at stake for Canada? This Government does not appreciate the threat that our ODA cut-backs pose to fragile democracies, world security, environmentally sustainable development and trade. We are the big losers. As I stated at the outset, the Government does not appreciate that expenditure cuts are not necessarily a saving. The budget policies are short-sighted, not only in terms of Canada's future well-being, but as it affects our well-being in relation to Third World countries. Therefore, I could not support Bill C-ll, the borrowing Bill, as it supports the Conservative Budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties in the House. Essentially what it amounts to is that the NDP will probably have one more speaker, the Liberal Party will have the balance of the time, and we, as the Government, will not be putting up any further speakers this afternoon on this debate.
There also would be no more dilatory motions or votes, and just prior to five o'clock we will conclude the debate which will allow us to proceed with questions and defer the votes until next week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposal by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-ll, although I am sure my message is going to be very depressing.
I wish to speak on the borrowing Bill and on the $25 billion it requires to run this country. We accept that, but we certainly do not accept the method by which the money is raised and certainly not how it is spent.
Very often we in the New Democratic Party are accused of being quite negative. We accept that criticism simply because this Government leaves us little reason to be positive. There is little reason to be optimistic. The Budget is totally negative, and I shall provide a litany of negatives in a few moments. We as politicians are all guilty of rhetoric from time to time, but the danger is when one starts to believe one's own rhetoric. My genuine fear is that this Government believes itself. I believe that if you say something often enough, loud enough, even if it is less than truthful, you start to believe it. I sincerely feel that this Government has put blinders on and refuses to see what is really happening to this country, despite the fact that everyone else can see it.
The Budget is a complete contradiction of what government members told the country in October and November, 1988. They were in their pre-election mode. These surely are not the same people who spoke then. Surely they must have dual personalities. Dr. Jekyll has indeed turned into Mr. Hyde.
May 18, 1989

As to the Budget itself, I heard a Tory Minister say that everyone is against this Budget, that nobody likes it and therefore it must be a good Budget. What sort of bizarre reasoning is that? It could only be Tory reasoning that would suggest that this is logical. They are correct that everyone is against it. We have an unlikely ally in the director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Roger Hamel, who says that this is the biggest tax grab in Canada's history. He is against the Budget, as are the Canadian Chamber Commerce, environmentalists, foresters, women's groups, the military, people involved in transport, the unemployed, the provincial Governments, New Democrats, and Liberals, although yesterday evening the provincial Liberals in Ontario added insult to injury. They are against the federal Budget, but indeed provincial Liberals in Ontario are certainly bringing to Ontarians the same thing the Conservative Government brought to the country federally.
I could list more and more groups ad nauseam that are against this Budget, but the bottom line is that Canadians are against it. If I could be parochial for just a few moments, how does it affect northern Ontario? Everyone will have to pay more tax, but in particular the middle class and the lower class group. It was suggested by one of the Members across the way that we have closed many of the tax loopholes. That begs the question: Why not close them all immediately?
The Canadian Ontario provincial forestry agreements will die. They are being bought out. I thank the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry for his efforts. I believe that he is convinced but helpless to do what he wants to do for the forests of the country.
The insidious sea lamprey will proliferate unless we immediately receive $2 million to address the issue. One in three fish presently caught are already wounded by this parasite. I wonder how many have died. This is aggravated or complicated by the fact that millions are spent in stocking these very same waters.
Universality and the claw back on Old Age Security and family allowances have been attacked despite the Prime Minister's assurance that social programs would be enhanced by the ill-conceived, ill-negotiated, ill-
Borrowing Authority
contrived Free Trade Agreement. This was simply not true.
Sault Ste. Marie is a border city. Many people thought that they would benefit immediately from the Free Trade Agreement, that they could go into Michigan and buy many products at lower prices. This has obviously proven to be totally false. Grocery and food products would save each family $200 a year. That has proven to be false. One of the great supporters, Galen Weston, has suggested that indeed food prices have to go up. That is another contradiction. I had best stop myself from getting into my free trade tirade and harangue. It has already been exposed for what it is worth-nothing.
The Budget gives us double indemnity. The Government got us coming and it got us going. The Budget is full of negatives and cut, cut, cut. There is not one positive initiative in the whole document. At least the Government could have taken one initiative and said: "All right, Canadians, we are cutting you everywhere, but we are going to give you one initiative". There was none. The one I continually espouse as a municipal affairs critic is: Why does the Government not take the one-cent increase in gasoline tax and the extra one cent in 1990 and give it to the municipalities whose infrastructure is crumbling? Those municipalities can ill afford to put a further tax burden on to the citizens in the municipalities. There was not one positive step in the whole Budget.
People in northern Ontario do not need regressive taxes. In fact, we do not need regressive taxes in Canada. We require assistance, but direct government assistance with little or no strings attached. There are no strings attached, but there are very large coarse ropes attached.
I speak of some of the smoke and mirror programs that have been announced across the country.
For example, I wish to speak of the much touted Community Futures Program. There is a board of directors in my community that makes decisions about initiatives. If an initiative passes that board of directors, it goes to another board of directors in Thunder Bay. If it passes that board of directors, it goes to yet another board of directors in Sudbury. If it passes that board of directors, it must go to Toronto and to the southern Ontario board of directors. If it passes that board, it then comes to Ottawa.


Jean-C. Lapierre: How many Tories along the way?

Borrowing Authority


Steve Butland: Every one of them is a Tory appointee. It is a shame. However, if it makes it through all the boards of directors it can still be turned down. The Minister may say: "I am sorry". Despite all those Tories saying that it is a good idea, it can still be turned down at the drop of a hat.
I could go on for hours, and I would like to. It is depressing to speak in this manner, but the Government leaves us no alternative. It is a depressing Budget. It is a depressing Government. The ads are depressing. The Minister of Finance is depressing. His message is depressing. The economy is depressing. Canadians are depressed, and very soon our whole economy will be in depression.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Budget that was delivered to the Canadian public on April 26, 1989 will be long remembered in the history of parliamentary procedure. It will be remembered, regrettably, for the manner in which the document was placed before the people of Canada, as well as its devastating impact on all regions of Canada due to the spending cuts and tax increases.
The Government has now tabled departmental Estimates. Members opposite would have the people of Canada believe that this is the Conservative answer to a Liberal legacy, which the government Members are claiming demanded such severe measures. However, I wish to tell the Government that the people of Canada will not buy that argument any longer. The people of Canada are tired of being deceived and are equally fed up with broken promises and commitments. The people of Canada want a Government to tell it like it is, not the way it was. They want a Government that will be straightforward and treat all Canadians fairly and equitably.
I would like to take this opportunity to review the aspects of the proposed Estimates that are both offensive and unacceptable to the people of Canada. Canadians wonder what will happen to them as a result of the reductions in unemployment insurance, VIA Rail cutbacks, reduced regional development programs, reduced provincial transfers, the loss of universal social programs, reduced defence programs, broken child care commitments, reduced stabilization programs for agriculture, reduced Canada Post services, and the list goes on.
However, Canadians do not have to wonder what will happen on the taxation side. The answer is brutally clear. Although the Government has taken the axe to so many of our programs, at the same time it has cut deeper into the pocket books of Canadians by increasing gasoline taxes, increasing income tax surtaxes, increasing sales taxes, increasing excise levies, increasing premiums for UIC, and increasing privatization of Crown corporations.
My colleagues, Members opposite and I are all aware that the Government did not inherit the fiscal disaster which has put it in a position of introducing such Estimates. The people of Canada deserve a Government that accepts responsibility for its own actions. Those actions have doubled the debt in the past four years and have increased the annual debt service charges to 30 per cent of government spending. The people of Canada deserve a Government that makes them proud to be a Canadian, not one that penalizes them for being a Canadian.
In the fall of 1988, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that social benefits and programs, especially those for the elderly, would be improved as long as he remains Prime Minister. Today his commitment to the seniors will cause certain Canadian seniors to sacrifice old age pensions.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told Canadians that there was nothing to preclude the Government from maintaining all social and regional economic development programs. His commitment to social programs will see a complete revision to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There will be increased premiums for employers and employees and increased qualification periods, while at the same time reduced benefits. Today the Government's commitment to regional economic development will see a reduction in investment in all parts of Canada. Again, the election commitment in reality is an election deception.
The Prime Minister stated that the Government would reintroduce the child care legislation. Now the necessary funding to meet that commitment has been eliminated. In my riding, as in many parts of Canada, over 40 per cent of the workforce is made up of women. Proper child care is not solely a women's issue. All parents deserve the guarantee that proper child care is available for their children. The cancelling of the balance of this program contributes yet further to the Government's lack ol
May 18, 1989

commitment to fulfil its responsibilities to the people of Canada.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government has chosen to treat the social concerns of our society with such total disregard. I will find it equally difficult to explain to that single parent in Leamington or Tilbury, or the retiree in Blenheim, or the underprivileged in my riding, why the Government has not addressed the problems of the social programs but rather has used them as a financial excuse for its deficit.
My riding of Essex-Kent is a rural-urban mix, a beautiful part of the great country located in western Ontario on the shore of Lake Erie. It is a riding where the proposed Estimates will have disastrous results. The massive elimination of agricultural programs will create an even greater financial burden for the already beleaguered farm community.
Would the Minister of Agriculture like to explain to the farmer in Gosfield South Township that his fuel tax rebate will be cut in half this year, only to be totally eliminated next year? Or, will he explain to the farmer in Harwich Township that he will pay more for crop insurance which is so outdated that last year we required drought relief and that is still not paid?
How can we tell the farmer in Mersea Township that his finance charges are higher, his taxes are higher, his field costs are higher, his crop insurance costs are higher, his whole method of producing his crop has changed and then put the same farmer into a Free Trade Agreement? How can the Government take these programs out of the farm community and offer nothing in return?
The reductions in agricultural programs will eliminate some $332 million from farm programs over the next two years. Farmers in Essex-Kent, farmers in all ridings of Canada, deserve better treatment than the Government intends to give them. Imagine $332 million in reduced programs directed at the farm community.
How does the Government intend to handle its deficit problem? At the suggestion that high interest rates affect the ability of private sector investment and dramatically increase the cost of debt servicing by the Government, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Crow, responded that the Bank of Canada should not set
Borrowing Authority
its interest rate with the intent of creating a cheap method of financing the government debt. Yet the current rate, at over 12 per cent, costs the Government a full $5 billion more in interest charges.
The public debt will continue to grow. Regardless of the severe program cuts and tax increases, the debt will rise from $321 billion today to $352 billion in the next year and $380 billion the following year.
The annual deficit continues to be large and the debt continues to grow. The estimated current deficit is $28.9 billion and this fiscal year will be $30.5 billion.
In my opening comments I indicated that the Estimates are an attack on our economy and do not confront the financial and social concerns of our society. This belief is based on the impact that the Estimates will have on all Canadians.
The Government's attempt to reduce the deficit in this way is a direct assault against our universal social programs. The Government's attempt to clean up its own fiscal mismanagement is a direct assault against the same programs, while doing nothing to establish a financial policy where the real problem lies.
In four years of the Government the average Canadian family has seen its tax increase by over $2,000 annually, yet its services have been reduced. In this same period the public debt has risen to $321 billion and will continue to rise yet another $31 billion this year. To the end of this fiscal year, the public debt will have risen $153 billion in just five years of Conservative Budgets.
Certainly Members opposite will not continue to blame previous Governments for this. The Canadian people will not continue to accept that explanation.
Since 1984 the Government has bestowed upon every man, woman and child in Essex-Kent and across Canada an individual public debt of $6,000. The average family of four now has an increase in public debt of $24,000 since 1984. The average Canadian family of four devotes a full dollar of every hour of employment to pay for increases in taxes. That is $2,000 in extra taxes each year for a family of four.
Rather than attacking its own financial policy, the Government has chosen to attack social programs, agriculture and transfer policies.

May 18, 1989
Borrowing Authority
The reduction of interest rates to levels of only one year ago would reduce the deficit by a full $5 billion annually. This amount itself would eliminate the need for the massive tax grab on the average Canadian.
The present monetary policy and the current interest rates cost Canadians an additional $63,000 for a 25 year mortgage of $75,000. That is additional $210 per month, every month or $2,520 per year, every year of the mortgage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Member to conclude, please.


Jerry Pickard: In conclusion, I ask the Government to reconsider the Estimates. I ask it, for the sake of the people of Canada, to stop taking so much money through tax grabs and to consider the regions that need help.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-ll and to use my time to comment on how the Government intends to spend that money.
Quite simply, last month's Budget is bad news for northerners. There is little benefit for the North in the budget documents.
A program which provides a rebate on the excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for primary producers, including hunters and trappers, will be allowed to expire on December 31, 1989. The rebate is currently five cents a litre. Because this rebate is being terminated, and there will be an increase of one cent per litre on April 28, 1989, and another on January 1, 1990, hunters and trappers will be paying seven cents more per litre for gasoline beginning January 1, 1990. These increases are an unacceptable additional burden on my constituents. Many of them hunt, fish and trap to feed their families and they already pay an extraordinarily high price for gasoline. In Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, gasoline is currently 66 cents a litre. In Pelly Bay, gasoline is 84 cents a litre. In Cambridge Bay, gasoline is 87 cents a litre.
Hunting and trapping are the most important renewable resource activities in the Northwest Territories. This industiy contributed $6.1 million to the territorial economy in 1987-88. In the North we are fighting animal rights activists for the survival of this traditional economic livelihood. By increasing the cost of going out on the
land, the federal Government is making our battle harder.
Work is scarce in my constituency. Much of it is seasonal and unemployment in the small communities is well over 40 per cent. Those who do find work are generally paid higher wages than what is paid in southern Canada, but these higher wages are to compensate for a much higher cost of living in the North. For example, in Whale Cove in my constituency, milk is $3.50 a litre; a loaf of bread is $3.25; a dozen medium eggs cost $3.50.
In Rankin Inlet, a 10-pound bag of potatoes costs $10.98. In Pelly Bay, a dozen eggs cost $4.80.
Given these prices, I am sure Hon. Members will understand why hunting and trapping and traditional wild or country food is such an important staple to daily eating in the North. Most of my constituents could not afford to feed their families totally on the food which is imported from southern Canada.
The North is extremely disappointed that the Government has not kept its promise to provide more day care spaces. Instead of the seven-year, $4 billion commitment Canadians were assured of during the election campaign, we got the news in the Budget that the Government is not in a position to proceed at the present time.
In conclusion, northerners are wondering why they are being asked to shoulder so much of the Government's deficit cutting when so little will be accomplished. The national debt is higher this year than last year and will be higher again next year. For northerners this Budget means long-term pain with no gain.


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.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
May 18, 1989


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is a prior agreement that the recorded vote will be held next Tuesday at six o'clock.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen -Merritt) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing a healthy small-business sector in Canada by making small business the first priority of the Federal Business Development Bank.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to know that the Government has decided this motion is worth while enough to add their support to it, because certainly we all know and understand how important to the economy of Canada is the small business community.
I would suggest that throughout the course of history, small business has been the backbone of the Canadian economy and in fact has created the majority of jobs, jobs that are so essential in our economy today.
In recognition of this, this motion to build a healthier small business sector in Canada by making small business the first priority the Federal Business Development Bank recognizes there is an instrument available. It can be used and should be used to assist the small business sector, both men and women, to create more employment in the hard times that we are having now, have had in the past, and will have in the future unless we
Federal Business Development Bank
encourage these men and women to create the employment necessary.
I would like to look at the legislation that is presently in force. Under Section 4, "Incorporation and Objects" of the present Federal Business Development Bank states:
The objects of the Corporation are to promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada by providing, in the manner and to the extent authorized by this Act, financial assistance, management counselling, management training information and advice and such other services as are ancillary or incidental to any of the foregoing.
In the second paragraph of subsection 4, it states:
The Corporation in carrying out its objects shall give particular consideration to the needs of small business enterprises.
I would suggest that what we have seen since the inception of the Federal Business Development Bank is a falling back to a situation where money is lent and guarantees are made more and more to the large corporate sector as opposed to the small business person.
When I speak of small business, although I do not limit it to this, to a great extent I am speaking of those firms under five persons. The reason I state that is that it seems that this is the route of the future. The small entrepreneur should be encouraged. That is an area that has been left by the Federal Business Development Bank and should be paid more attention to in the future.
It appears that over the last two years, for instance, there has been a decline in the actual number of new and existing borrowers. The number of customers of the Federal Business Development Bank has been declining across all provinces since 1985. In 1988, more than 80 per cent-and in fact my figures have it at 82.9 per cent-of all funds for loans and guarantees made by the Federal Business Development Bank were in the over $100,000 category. Three thousand three hundred and six firms or individuals received funds for loans and guarantees in the under $100,000 category, for a total of $147 million. On the other side of the coin, the larger firms who are over $100,000 borrowers, received $714 million of the funds, or more than 80 per cent of the $862 million in funds authorized through the Federal Business Development Bank.
I would submit that it is clear that the Federal Business Development Bank has gone more to the area

May 18, 1989
Federal Business Development Bank
of subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Federal Business Development Bank and less to subsection (2) of putting the thrust towards small business.
Through the Federal Business Development Bank's management services, it has been able to assist small businesses in their set-up and in their training. Under this present Budget, unfortunately we have now seen a $13 million cut in these funds. I would suggest that of all of the things the Federal Business Development Bank did for small business, this was the one thing that I as a small business person and those people within the community that I represent in Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt, including the boundary country have actually used to a great extent in assisting us in setting up businesses.
As a lawyer and solicitor, I sent people to the Federal Business Development Bank for those services because they were services offered which I saw as beneficial to the communities. It is something I think should be increased and not cut because those management services are services that people in small communities look to to assist them in setting up business. If one looks at the small business communities around Canada, what one sees is often family corporations or family proprietorships of under five people. It is often two or three people.
These people start out wanting to be their own bosses. Those men or women go out and make the attempt to set up businesses. In a small community, they often have to turn to friends, neighbours, or the legal community for advice on how to set up a business and the type of things to look for in setting a business up.
The Federal Business Development Bank was an example of where we in small communities could turn. We do not have that now to the extent we had prior to the Budget. Cuts have already been made. I am told that in some of the offices, such as the Federal Business Development Bank office in Ottawa, people with two and three years' seniority have already been cut. That is the type of thing that I am getting at with this motion. We have to look into the future. We have to look at what the small business community needs. We do not necessarily have to look at what is in the large communities because after all, Canada is made up of employed people of all types, living in all areas. It is not just the large
areas, but some of the smaller communities. Those are the type of places that I am fighting for now.
I am trying, through this motion, to show how important small business is and how important the management services within the Federal Business Development Bank are. Those are only some of the things that we must look at in the future.
For a minute, let us look at the small business community and how it gets along with the banking community as a whole.
Right now what we see, Mr. Speaker, is that 85 per cent of small businesses turn to private banking because as it is set up now the Federal Business Development Bank is a bank of lending of last resort. That is not acceptable. The small business community are those men and women who are out there creating the jobs in Canada. The figures show that in the last eight years 70 per cent of all new jobs in Canada were created by the small businesses. We need some place for them to go, not with cap in hand to the large corporate banks where they are at the mercy of collateral requirements and high interest rates and all of the other discriminations we see in dealing with large banks, but that there is a bank that will service their lending needs. Not just their lending needs, I would submit, but all of their banking needs.
We should be looking at the expansion of the Federal Business Development Bank to assist the business community, not just in borrowing money and management services, but in all of the banking requirements of a business community, whether it be chequing privileges, assistance with budgeting or whatever. All these services should be available to the small business person within Canada.
I can tell you from my own personal experience in dealing with a number of clients that the small businessman is required to put up a lot more of their personal and business collateral than our large firms. That should be looked at.
The collateral requirements by the business community are seen as being far too excessive. The average collateral to loan ratio is an appalling 2.79 to 1. In other words, for every dollar that that small business person borrows, he must put up $2.79 as collateral for that loan. That is the type of thing that I am pointing at that is so unfair to the small business person within Canada.
May 18, 1989

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that more than one in five businesses provide collateral coverage that is three times or more their loan amount. Personal collateral is often required and this most certainly is the case for smaller, newer companies. The collateral requirements, as I said, have always been higher than for larger firms. In fact, the figures show that 85 per cent of small firms provide collateral security, while one-half of those must pledge personal assets.
We often see a situation where the small proprietorship or a small family corporation, with a husband and wife and maybe one or two employees, in order to get business having to go to the bank. As I say, 85 per cent go to the chartered banks, and essentially they have to put up everything they own. The banks do not look solely at what the cash flow is. They want the collateral position.
They want to have someone to fall back on, so that even if we have the case where the cash flow situation can be proven in the small business, that is not good enough for the banks. The banks want their almost three to one ratio. That puts the small person into a lot of difficulty because if they do need some money for personal emergencies, their home is tied up, their vehicles are tied up, everything that they own is tied up. They have got nowhere to turn for any additional security.
It is interesting to note that the statistics also show us that one in five small businesses are rejected in their request for funding by the chartered banks. That is outrageous. Something has to be done in order to help these people in ensuring that their business is viable.
Then there is the problem that the small businesses have with the interest rates. I think if anybody has ever dealt with a bank they automatically start with something like 3 per cent over prime. They negotiate with the bank to try and get that interest rate down. Of course the prime rate, as we well know, is up and down like a roller coaster. There is no security for these small business people. They do not know from one day to the next or from one year to the next whether in fact their business is going to be viable because of the debt load that is placed on them from start-up.
Statistics show us that one in five small businesses pay an interest rate of over prime plus 2 per cent, with the average interest rate charge being 1.23 per cent over the prime interest rate. The newest and smallest firms, the
Federal Business Development Bank
ones that are starting up, face the most difficulty in obtaining financing. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, the discrimination against women that we see in the banking community. It is clear that a woman has less chance of getting a loan from a chartered bank as a business person than does a male.


An Hon. Member:: Discrimination.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: There is rank discrimination and there has been for years. This can be addressed by the Federal Business Development Bank by making no distinction between the sexes. Regardless of gender, that person should be able to get a loan to start up a small business if they can show that the business is viable. They should be given the assistance in order to make sure that that business is a viable business before setting it up.
As a lawyer I can tell you that small business runs into more red tape and more paperwork than anybody else applying for loans. Because of all of the collateral requirements, these businesses must put up chattel mortgages, mortgages, give assignments of book debts, and the reams of paper are enormous. I have seen a stack for a small business person getting a loan of something like $60,000 that would choke a horse. It was approximately six inches deep. That person had to sign them but they had to go to a lawyer in order to get all of those documents interpreted, and often had to go to an accountant. The cost to the small business person in starting up is enormous, and all of these are artificial costs. The Federal Business Development Bank in granting loans often charges up to 2.5 per cent as a commitment fee. I say that that is nonsense. They should be there to help the small business person, not grab from the small business person. It is unconscionable that they would put themselves into that position of dipping their hands into a pocket that is already empty. They should be out there for the small business person. They should not be taking money from them.
I could go into another factor that is involved but I will not at this stage. What I would like to do is suggest that small business should be encouraged by the Federal Business Development Bank with lower stable interest rates to fuel jobs creation within the small business community. This would encourage economic growth in all regions of the country. We should reduce unnecessary forms and red tape that are so time consuming for the small business person. We should ensure that there are

May 18, 1989
Federal Business Development Bank
more federal contracts for small business sector and establish an aggressive "Buy Canada" program.
Under this motion, we should ensure that the Federal Business Development Bank is a bank that small business can turn to, a bank that is there for small business and not just the large corporate interests in Canada.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this very important debate on a motion urging the Government to have a small business development policy and to administer this policy through the Federal Business Development Bank. I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving us this opportunity to have a debate on the subject because since 1984, the Conservative Government promised to review the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank and give it a new one. Since my speaking time is limited, Mr. Speaker, instead of reading all the questions I have already put to various Ministers of State (Small Business) on this matter, something I really do not have enough time for this afternoon, I would rather spend my 10 minutes on this very important issue.
I just want to make it clear that considering this Government is often accused of having a laissez-faire policy, one look at the small business sector would prove that the Government left it to its own devices from the very beginning, and I think the last Budget is a particularly flagrant example, Mr. Speaker.
However, I wanted to talk about the Federal Business Development Bank. We in the Official Opposition took this matter very seriously after the 1984 election, and we discussed the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank and the services it should offer on a task force that travelled throughout the country. In May 1987, we produced a report that took an in-depth look at this institution, and in three recommendations we suggested what the motion in fact proposes, that the Federal Business Developoment Bank should be a development centre for small businesses in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank currently offers three types of service. First, a loans
service, and at the risk of repeating myself, I think the Hon. Member made it quite clear that these loans are above all directed to medium-sized businesses, because the average individual loan granted by the FBDB is about $84,000, while the average commercial bank loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act program is between $20,000 and $25,000. So actually, medium-sized businesses benefit most from Federal Business Development Bank loans.
The second service offered by the FBDB is their investment service. Mr. Speaker, here again figures show that during fiscal year 1985-86, for example, the FBDB did not put up a lot of money even in those sectors, but in spite of that 30 applications valued at $12.5 million were approved, an average investment of $417,000 per application. So as you can see we are not talking about small businesses. With respect to the second service, mediumsized businesses are also the big winners.
The third service, Mr. Speaker, relates to management consultation, information and training. This is the kind of service which small businesses essentially used to get from the FBDB whose original mandate was to help small-and medium-sized businesses.
In the Budget tabled at the end of April the Government saw fit to clip the wings of this service which accounted for $27 million. The cut-back amounts to $13 million, so we are looking at a 50 per cent reduction. The Government claims to be the political Party that looks after small businesses, yet it does away with half the services previously offered by the Federal Business Development Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I am as sure as you are that seminars have been held in your riding. As it happens, FBDB officials have organized business seminars with the bank manager, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, and small businessmen. Local merchants would meet with lawyers, accountants, tax and finance experts to learn all about the management of a small business. There was also another program under which experts, retired people, were sent to help people learn bookkeeping and give management advice. This did not cost a lot of money to the Bank. Mr. Speaker, now that these services have been cut down by 50 per cent the Federal Business Development Bank will no longer be able to provide them and the first thing we will know is that the
May 18, 1989

services have been cancelled. Once again small businesses will have to pick up the broken pieces.

In politics we say put your money where your mouth is. In every speech politicians always make sure that there is a paragraph about small business, but it is only lip service. If we talk about small business it is time we put some money where our mouths are. The Government, just to prove the contrary, has cut $13 million from a service that really addressed to small business. Therefore, when the Government wants to tell us that it is the champion of small business, it should put money where its mouth is because it is not helping small business at all.

Mr. Speaker, of course we could discuss what we would do with the Federal Business Development Bank. As I said in my report, I was privileged to chair the Liberal Party of Canada's task force in May 1987, and we made a number of proposals. Concerning equity, we know and everyone agrees that if there is one area where small businesses have serious problems, serious difficulties, it's the lack of capital. Borrowing is not good enough, because a business that relies on that only, is definitely not viable when interest rates rise to the levels we have seen and are still seeing. This is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of businesses do not survive more than five years.
Our report recommended that the Federal Business Development Bank offer a capital stock service, under which the Bank could buy stocks in projects, new businesses very interesting development-wise, and withdraw when the time came, when the business were able to pay the loans back. These moneys would have enabled the start-up of a number of projects instead of gathering dust on the shelves of various financial institutions. The same goes for loans, and of course management consulting, information and training services, which could have been helped financially.
Mr. Speaker, you are signaling that my time is up, but I would simply like to suggest that two or three years ago, the Federal Business Development Bank proposed and established the AIM Program-AIDE in French. That information program regrouped all services and programs helping federal and provincial businesses, and even municipal ones in certain cases. Instead of extending those programs to all regions, they introduced it in
Federal Business Development Bank
the hope the Government would step in and encourage them. But, if they slash $13 million, the AIM program definitely will be axed.
The CASE Programs, six or seven months or a year from now probably will be discontinued also. And according to my information, the training program also would be terminated.
To sum up, the Business Federal Development Bank, if it remains unchanged, will only serve a small clientele, namely medium businesses unless the Government gives it another mandate.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion by the Hon. Member from Okanagan-Simil-kameen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker), especially following the speech made by my friend, the Hon. Member from Saint-Leonard (Mr. Gagliano).
It is quite appropriate that we should talk about small business and its development as a strong and vibrant component of this country's economy.

This year the Federal Business Development Bank is again organizing, in co-operation with local members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the tenth annual Small Business Week. It provides an occasion to pay tribute across Canada to the hard working men and women who operate Canada's small businesses.

The Bank participates in many other programs, such as the Student Entrepreneurs Loan Program which helps young people set up businesses during the summer months; a special loan program for mollusc producers in the Atlantic Provinces and in Quebec; and a program designed to assist small exporters finance foreign accounts receivable.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the vitality of the small business community in Canada.

At the Federal Business Development Bank small business is indeed a first priority. We on the government side agree in principle with Motion No. 126 as outlined by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt. We can, of course, take some exception to a few of the details that both Hon. Members have presented to us, but they are on the record and they can be taken into consideration. Concerning Motion No. 126, we would

May 18, 1989
Federal Business Development Bank
not want any undue delays in the interests of Canada's small business community.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It is extremely important and requires a great deal of work since small business is the economic soul of our country. The statistics bear this out. Small business accounts for 98 per cent of all Canadian businesses or 812,000 companies out of a total of 822,000. A small business is classified as a business generating annual sales of $2 million or less.
It should be quite clear that the most crucial period for a business is its first three years of operation. This period is even more important for a small business since it has fewer resources that it can draw from. Therefore, if small business is to flourish in Canada, it requires an extensive commitment from all levels of government.
Several studies show that the survival rate of new small businesses in Canada is only 20 per cent after five years without any governmental assistance. However, in countries where Governments have been involved in helping small business, this figure is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 per cent. Clearly governmental assistance is indispensable if small business is to continue to grow.
In the past four years, we have seen a Government that has not given small business the priority it deserves. The Federal Business Development Bank should be the key player in helping small businesses during start-up stages. The FBDB must re-examine its mandate to ensure that it continues to put the needs of small business first.
Another proposal aimed at helping small business in Canada is the development of one stop information centres where small businesses could obtain all the information they need without the inconvenience of running from one office to another for assistance. One can certainly appreciate the difficulties that a new small business encounters when one takes into account that there are more than 560 different government assistance programs for small business at the federal level alone. The complexity of these programs are a headache for
entrepreneurs who are looking for the program which will be assist them.
It was partly to solve this problem that in 1984, the Federal Business Development Bank developed a new program called "Automated Information for Management Service". The purpose of this program is to group together all the information about programs for small business.
Because of limited resources, improvements to the system could not be made quickly and it has been impossible for the Federal Business Development Bank to develop the information catalogue fully. As well, the program is still not available to a sufficient number of organizations outside the FBDB network. Because it has been a pilot project for so long, the Automated Information for Management Service is starting to deteriorate.
The Government must be committed to developing a one stop information network for small business. To do so, it must be committed to fund the development of the FBDB's Automated Information for Management Service program adequately through local business organizations such as Chambers of Commerce and the various professional associations. These organizations have offices in every region of the country and are run by business people who are familiar with small business, as well as with the local area.
In addition to providing information on government programs, the Automated Information for Management Service could also provide information of interest to small business. This data has already been compiled by Statistics Canada but small businesses do not have access to it. This service could also contain information pertaining to government purchasing contracts.
We on this side of the House are also concerned about the drastic cuts in the management services program of the FBDB as announced in the Budget. Through the management services program, the FBDB has provided small business with management and legal counselling as well as information seminars. It is worth noting that this program has been very successful. However, the Government ruthlessly intends to do away this program, again indicating its lack of concern for the small business sector.
May 18, 1989

In order to meet the needs of small business truly, the Government must also increase the FBDB's funds for venture capital. There are hundreds of small businesses in Canada that are breaking new ground in the technology field but are unable to expand due to an inadequate equity base. This is where the FBDB should step in a provide small businesses with venture capital in order to ensure that new innovations are brought into the market-place.
Rather than competing with private sector lending institutions, the FBDB should represent the needs of all small businesses in Canada, wherever they may be located. As we all know, there are some regions of Canada that are more prosperous than others, but this is no reason a small business in a depressed area should be refused a reasonable loan request. Therefore, the FBDB has a unique role to play in the small business sector, which is why it should be expanded and not butchered as the Government is in the process of doing.
A greater commitment to small business would be reflected in the size of loans granted to small businesses. Over the past few years, the size of loans has continued to climb. This indicates that the FBDB seems to be moving away from the needs of small businesses and toward the needs of medium sized businesses. This course of action must be reversed in order to put the FBDB at the disposal of small business.
These programs are essential to the continued growth of small businesses. The FBDB must re-examine its mandate to ensure that it continues to put the needs of small business first. Small businesses need a national voice. The FBDB can and should act as the major representative of small business. In order to do this, the Government must reaffirm its commitment to the FBDB. Small business must be the main business of the FBDB.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I support the Private Member's Motion No. 126 of April 3 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider developing a healthy small business sector in Canada by making small business the first priority of the Federal Business Development Bank.
Adjournment Debate
In addition to the arguments and comments made by speakers earlier which I support, I would like to add that making small business a priority of this bank would be of great benefit as well to new citizens, to new Canadians.
In this regard I would like to see that the bank truly assists in granting loans to the small businesses of new citizens as well, that the processing of the applications be done with great dispatch and promptness, that they be assisted with the required feasibility studies, and that the requirement to have personal properties, including homes, as a requirement for collateral be waived. Any cut to the funding of this Federal Business Development Bank will be detrimental to the interests of many new citizens and immigrants. I therefore commend the Hon. Member for introducing his motion which I wholly support.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Si-milkameen-Merritt.Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on April 18,1 addressed a question to the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) requesting the Minister to sponsor a world summit for children. The year 1989 marks the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Child and is a most appropriate time to highlight the deteriorating circumstances that children

May 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
today throughout the world are experiencing. A world summit for children would analyse the circumstances of not only Third World children but of our own children here in Canada, one million of whom are living below the poverty line.
Because of health and nutrition improvements worldwide between 1950 and 1988, the death rate among children dropped from 25 million to 14 million or almost half. Low cost health measures, such as immunization and oral rehydration therapy, have saved millions of lives. Of course it is a well-known fact that the best method to control population growth is to assure parents that their children will survive.
Third World countries, in the absence of social assistance programs, depend upon their children for economic and social security in times of illness and old age. Canada at the beginning of this century, when we were predominantly a rural economy and without our social assistance programs, was little different.
The point is that child survival leads to lower population growth. For all the progress made in the last 40 years, suddenly the trend in child survival has reversed. Child deaths are on the increase. International debt problems are considered by UNICEF to be the major cause for this appalling situation. Because of Third World debts and depressed export prices, Third World Governments world-wide have had to cut their health expenditures by 50 per cent, their education expenditures by 25 per cent. Because of Third World debt, the developed world, the western industrialized nations, and the North are the net recipients of the world-wide cash flows amounting to about $20 billion to $30 billion U.S. per year.
For all the official development assistance that Canada and other developed nations send to the Third World, we receive more in cash back than we send. No wonder that the world-wide development process is in reverse. What is more, the Canadian Government in its Budget has cut official development assistance expenditures more than any other area of expenditure cut and has the gall to tell the starving and naked in the Third World to tighten their belts because we have had a drought, we have a debt problem.
In your mind's eye, Mr. Speaker, you can see the pathetic images of misery, starvation, disease, filth. The
pathetic images, mostly of children, have moved Canadians and still do to such generosity of response. Our Government's ODA budget cuts will have the direct affect of causing thousands of those human beings, again mostly children, to die. The Canadian Government's budget cuts to ODA do not reflect the Canadian peoples wishes and concerns.
The Conservative Government's lifeline now reaches only 20 feet, to quote a colleague on the other side of the House in a speech a few weeks ago. The drowning of the Third World are 30 feet away, to continue his metaphor, and must swim or drown. This is un-Canadian and shameful.
To quote UNICEF in its report "The State of the World's Children 1989", it reads:
It is children who are bearing the heaviest burden of debt and recession in the 1980s, and in tragic summary, it can be estimated that at least half a million young children from one to five years have died in the last 12 months as a result of the slowing down or the reversal of progress in the developing world.
It is the children who are bearing the heaviest burden of our budget cuts to ODA.
However, it is not just the child deaths which are tragic. It is the unnecessary future burden created by deprivation; deprivation which even when temporary causes permanent damage to growing minds and bodies.
The child disabilities we are creating today will cost us so dearly tomorrow. Will we never learn that investment today is a saving for the future? Spending on health and education is not something that can only be afforded in times of plenty. It is an investment in our future, in the economic and social development of ours and other societies, which allows for a secure future.
It is the Third World debt and diminished export prices which are the main reason for diminishing world-wide child welfare standards. Governments, international financial institutions, private banks, and development agencies are all having to confront the problems.
To date, adjustments and the burdens imposed by adjustments are being borne by those least able, the poor in the Third World, who have no resources to cushion the economic blows. Adjustment means trying to survive on even less of life's essentials. It means depriving children of food, housing, water, health care, education, opportunity. For 40,000 young children every day, it means not surviving. All of this, and yet adjustment does
May 18, 1989

not even achieve its primary goal-economic revitalization and growth.
Adjustment must be reconsidered. Debt world-wide must be rationally and humanely confronted. This Government introduces Bills to forgive debt, but takes no leadership in dealing with the root causes of poverty and debt. Debt forgiveness will not prevent new unmanageable debt from mounting. To quote UNICEF again:
Debt relief alone will not allow the poorest countries to move
toward healthy economic growth and toward a permanent resolution
of the development crisis.
As the world's poor become poorer, injustices become more evident, frustration inevitably mounts. Poverty causes tension and violence, and mounting poverty and inequality become a security issue. Desperation to have access to our world's natural resources will have irreversible environmental impacts. We all lose.
A world summit for children would have to look at all the serious problems in the context of trying to reverse the trend again to advantage the world's poorest, our children. The Minister of External Relations was of the opinion that to sponsor such a summit would cost $20 million to $40 million. UNICEF believes that an effective summit could be mounted for less than $10 million.
Canada could redeem some of its lost credibility among official development assistance donor and recipient countries if it would decide today to sponsor a world summit for children. "The State of the World's Children 1989" says it best: "It is time to begin attending to the needs and rights of children not as a mere by-product of progress but as an end and a means of progress itself. The true test of a civilization is how well it protects its vulnerable and how well it safeguards its future; children are both its vulnerable and its future".


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mrs. Stewart), let me begin by underlining the statement of the Minister of State for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) in respect to the recent UNICEF report on "The State of the World's Children" which was issued in 1989. It proposed an international summit meeting of
Adjournment Debate
world leaders to address the plight of children in the Third World, a world summit for children.
Canada has always responded positively to UNICEF initiatives and proposals. Canada was the fourth largest donor to UNICEF in 1988. Canada has been an active member of the UNICEF Executive Board, almost without interruption, since 1946. In 1987-88 Canada contributed approximately $73 million, which represented a 43 per cent increase over the previous year. Canada actively supports the goal of universal child immunization by 1990, and it has committed $43 million in additional funds for immunization in developing countries. These funds have been channelled through the Canadian Public Health Association to UNICEF. Over all Canada has committed more than $120 million to universal child immunization efforts since 1984.
An international summit would be one way to concentrate international action in this regard. This is consistent with the focus on poverty alleviation and human resource development as outlined in Canada's new aid policy document "Sharing Our Future".
Canada would be interested in further elaboration of the proposed agenda for the meeting and would especially want to know how such a meeting could avoid duplication of discussions in other international fora before deciding on a location.
Let us consider some facts. The cost, which has been estimated at $20 million to $40 million, must be compared to direct expenditure for children in the Third World. UNICEF has put forward two alternative concepts for participation and format of a world summit for children.
As we understand it, the first option would involve a one and one-half day meeting in a relatively isolated and relaxed location. It would be limited to approximately 40 countries representing developing and industrialized countries.
The second option, as we understand it, proposes that the summit be an all-inclusive gathering in the form of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly, meeting on the margins of the General Assembly, and be characterized by wider representation among participating United Nations countries; inclusion as a part of the United Nations General Assembly meetings in the fall session; the simplified logistical arrangements associated with United Nations headquarter locations in places

May 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
such as New York, Geneva, or Vienna; utilization of an existing framework for heads of state and government already involved; and linking summit agenda items with General Assembly actions.
In any event, Canada's commitment to UNICEF remains as strong as ever. A summit might have significant impact. It might accomplish the objectives of placing children's issues at the forefront of the international community's agenda. However, rest assured, Canada is giving this matter serious consideration, and we will respond to positive initiatives.


FINANCE-INTEREST RATE INCREASES-GOVERNMENT POSITION-MORTGAGE AND CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement by the Bank of Canada that it was raising its discount rate to 12.61 per cent, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) on April 21 why the Conservative Government was going after Canadian consumers with this high-interest policy.
I reminded him then that the real interest rate-than is, the difference between the interest and inflation rates-in Canada was over 8 per cent, the highest in 20 years, and that the spread between Canadian and American rates is over 2 per cent, compared to historic spreads of 1 per cent.
I reminded the Minister and the House that an $85,000 mortgage could be financed at 9.75 per cent a year ago, but now, the same mortgage is renewed at 13 per cent, $2,000 more a year for the same mortgage. I also stated that high interest rates had forced or would force credit card companies to raise their rates to over 20 per cent on June 1 this year.
I therefore asked the Deputy Prime Minister why the Government was maintaining this high-interest policy which is painful and catastrophic for Canadian families.
True to his Government's guidelines, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Loiselle) answered me that the current interest rates are part of the Bank of Canada's overall policy. He also said, and I quote;
"We shall continue to support the Bank of Canada in an effort to ensure that interest rates go down eventually, but in a lasting way for the better protection of consumers."
In the Budget he presented to the House last year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told Canadians that interest rates would be 7.8 per cent in 1989. The Minister's forecasts are far from realistic, considering that interest rates are now, in 1989, the year forecast, at 13 per cent. To add insult to injury, in his new Budget tabled this April, the Minister of Finance predicted that interest rates would average 12 per cent over the coming year. But the actual rate has already exceeded this prediction.
The Conference Board of Canada even states that the Bank of Canada's policies, combined with the Wilson Budget, will bring interest rates even higher in 1989-90. The Conservative Government is a dream merchant, but it should not take Canadians for idiots.
While this Govemement itself recognizes the ill-effects of high interest rates on our economy, it insists on using regressive measures, leading us towards a recession which is going to affect consumers, investors, workers and all Canadians in general. High interest rates are like a hidden tax. For those who must renew their mortgage, the additional interest payments are often higher than the increased personal taxes and sales taxes that they have suffered since 1984 and that they will have to suffer once again with the new Wilson Budget.
In August 1988, the provincial Premiers asked the federal Government to reconsider its high interest rate policy. During their recent meeting, the Premiers repeated their request, supported by provincial Finance Ministers. The Government hasn't done anything in this regard.
In 1986, the official Opposition asked the Governe-ment to put a ceiling on the high interest rates charged by banks and large department stores on credit cards. The Government didn't do anything then and it still hasn't done anything. Credit card users who are better
May 18, 1989

Adjournment Debate
off can afford to pay their bills before facing sky-high interest rates. But that is not the case for the more unfortunate, such as the average Canadian consumer who can only pay with a credit card and who must face very high interest rates on his bills.
A young single mother in my constituency-20 per cent of the families in my constituency are single-parent families, Mr. Speaker-has to support two children on the minimum wage. Once she has paid the rent, the rest of her salary only covers bus fare, food and child care. She cannot, on her budget, afford clothes and entertainment, much less unforeseen expenses. She cannot afford the luxury of drugs. Should the children get sick, the pharmacy would certainly accept her credit card to pay for the drugs. If the children need clothes, she will pray to God that they will be provided. As a last resort, she will buy with her credit card a coat and winter boots- God knows how she needs them sometimes to dress her children.
There are many like her in my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier, Mr. Speaker. They are not the only ones with problems caused by high interest rates on credit cards and other transactions.
Mr. Speaker, just think of the high interest rates that someone whose car broke down and who had to use a credit card will have to pay. Just think of all those who believed the Finance Minister last year when he predicted that interest rates would not exceed 8 per cent. If the Minister of Finance of Canada cannot predict an exceptional rise in interest rates, how can one expect Canadian families to do so? If the Minister of Finance cannot control his interest rates, how can one ask Canadian families to control their budget better, when the nation's moneyman, the Finance Minister himself, the so-called expert, is not even able to control his!
This Government's measures will throw many Canadian families into poverty. This Government's measures will bankrupt Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, I again ask the Government why it is penalizing Canadian families by maintaining this disastrous high-interest policy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, why do Canadian families again have to pay for the mistakes of a Conservative Government?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for taking the time to consider the plight of Canadians in relation to interest rates because so much of his time is involved in separating party members during this very difficult period of a leadership campaign.
Let me try to explain some of the factors that lead to higher interest rates which admittedly do have an adverse affect on some Canadians. I understand and appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the subject.
The strength of demand in the Canadian economy over the last year, following the exceptional economic performance of the previous five years, has placed strains on productive capacity in our economy and has resulted in rising pressures on prices and costs and higher interest rates, but conditions of strong demand and rising inflation have existed as well in other major economies and interest rates have risen internationally. For example, Canadian rates have moved up much less than those in the U.K., but moderately more than in the United States and Germany.
Canadian short-term interest rates have risen in response to growing demand pressures, as indicated by evidence of capacity shortages, buoyant investment and consumption spending, as well as rapid monitory and credit growth and falling unemployment. These conditions, together with the stronger world demand and a recovery in commodity prices benefiting some of our resource industries, have increased pressures on wages and prices in all regions of Canada. I hope the Member is listening to this erudite material.
These underlying pressures have occurred despite our dollar's strong appreciation over the last year, which normally would moderate inflation. Excluding the volatile food and energy components, the Consumer Price Index has risen from 4 per cent at the end of 1987. In recent months, the total index has risen to somewhat higher levels.
At the end of 1988 Canadian short-term interest rates were higher and they increased in the first four months of 1989 to around 12.5 per cent, which they are currently. This places them roughly 8 per cent above the rate of inflation. Although high, it is still below the historically higher rates that occurred in 1981.1 am sure the Member remembers well that period of time, with six and five and all that confusion. Differentials with U.S. short-term

May 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
rates were also wider than historical averages, and widened to 2.5 per cent recently, reflecting our stronger economy and the attendant inflationary concerns.
Despite the significant rise in short-term rates, however, long-term rates have been relatively stable. This has resulted in the reversal late last year of the normally positive spread between short and long term interest rates. Currently long-term government bond rates are nearly 2.5 percentage points below rates paid on Treasury Bills, and our bond differentials with U.S. rates are below longer term average historical spreads. This can be interpreted as a sign of confidence among savers and investors, of whom there are many in the Hon. Member's constituency, in his affluent area of Ottawa, that inflation will be slowed in Canada and our expansion sustained.
Interest rate reductions are linked to growing demand for goods and services. Responsible fiscal and monetary management can ease pressures on capacity, and in the process reduce the deficit, inflation, and interest rates in a way that will sustain economic growth. These are the policies that will ultimately provide the greatest benefit to Canadian consumers. I am sure he will agree with all that.


PUBLIC SERVICE-VISIBLE MINORITIES - HIRING - GOVERNMENT'S POSITION-NATIVE PEOPLES AND VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pursue the important issue I raised in Question Period a few weeks ago concerning the application of the merit principle as opposed to other standards in hiring within the Public Service.
When the Public Service was established decades ago, it was for one purpose. That was to protect the merit principle in hiring for people who would work for the Government of Canada and for the people of Canada. At that time, the merit principle meant one thing. It meant hiring people on the basis of what they could and how well they could do it, not who they knew and how well they knew them.
Now in the 1980s, it means something quite different. It means that we want to expand our conception of the
merit principle, getting rid of the often invisible and unconscious barriers that prevent certain groups of people in society from being considered only on their merits and not on any other standard.
We all know who these groups of people are. We know that the disabled are looked at for their disabilities, not for their abilities. We know that women are looked at as having limited capacities based on traditional roles and not on what they are really capable of. We know that visible minorities are not hired on the basis of their merit, ability, and capacity to contribute to the Public Service but on the basis of preconceptions of that of which they are capable. We know that native people in Canada face the same barriers.
We are looking now not at hiring on merit and getting rid of political favouritism in hiring, but hiring on true merit and getting rid of bias, prejudice and built-in characteristics in the system that automatically keeps certain people out.
I think we had to first face this different definition of the merit principle in the 1960s when suddenly bilingualism for the country and for the Public Service became an important issue. John Carson, who was then Chairman of the Public Service Commission, was often asked about whether this meant an abandonment of the merit principle. He was quite easily able to say, "No, it does not, but we are having is for some positions a new qualification. What we are doing is getting rid of barriers that have prevented Francophones in this country from being fully employed in their own Government".
The description was most aptly put by Mr. Carson's second in command, a woman, who was asked the same question as to whether bilingualism and requiring bilingualism now meant the abandonment of the merit principle. She quite simply said: "No, it doesn't. I can tell you this. If Archie Bunker and I sat down to apply the merit principle equally to a group of candidates, it is absolutely certain that we would both choose a different successful candidate". Those were the kinds of barriers and biases that she was talking about.
Those biases and barriers still operate to prevent women, disabled persons, visible minorities, and native people from being given equal consideration.
May 18, 1989

What we are talking about with an employment equity policy is not special treatment for certain groups but special measures to make sure they get equal treatment. This is a policy we publicly stated for many years and yet we still find that all these groups mentioned are not receiving equal treatment within the Public Service in hiring to work for the people of Canada.
When I first raised this issue in the House, it was on the basis of the hiring of visible minorities. Yes, we are making some progress and, yes, we are hiring more people. The figures are still quite appalling and show a very distinctive bias against hiring people from visible minority backgrounds.
In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, nearly 12 per cent of applicants to the Public Service were from visible minorities. With that large number of applications, it is very difficult to understand any other reason except inborn, perhaps unconscious bias for the hiring of only 3.3 per cent of the hiring being for visible minorities.
It is very difficult to understand why someone with a different coloured skin has only one-quarter the chance of the general applicant population of being hired. The same thing is happening to women. It is getting worse and not better. In 1987, women earned 75 cents for every dollar a man earned in the Public Service. Last year, it dropped to 74 cents. Women are still clustered at the lowest income groups.
Native Canadians are still, within the Public Service, below their representation in the population at large. If in fact we take out those who are employed by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, their representation drops to well below 1 per cent.
These are not statistics. This is not a record of which we as a Parliament or we as a people can be proud.
The Government of Canada is the largest employer in this country. The time has passed for us to look to other companies, to demand reports without really enforcing performance, and to look at ourselves, how we perform, what kind of leadership we are giving and what kind of example we are setting in employment equity.
It is not enough to say that visible minorities, the disabled, native people and women will forever be disadvantaged in their opportunities to work for their country and to work for their Government. We have finally to say that we are serious about it and put in place programs with real teeth in them, and hold our public servants accountable if they do not meet the objectives
Adjournment Debate
of justice, equality, fairness and true consideration of merit, and merit only, in hiring for the Public Service.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by assuring the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall) that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is committed to fair treatment of all Canadians in relation to the Public Service and recognizes, as do all Members on this side of the House, that that involves really special treatment for those who have been deprived in the past.
Let me begin by explaining the Employment Equity Program of the Government of Canada especially related to aboriginal peoples and visible minorities. I should add, women and disabled people are also assisted by this program.
Our Government recognizes that certain groups face unfair employment practices and are disadvantaged in the job market. Employment equity measures are designed to correct this imbalance. The ultimate goal is to ensure that no one is denied an opportunity to compete fairly for employment opportunities.
This goal has led to the development of comprehensive employment equity action plans for all federal Departments and federal Crown corporations. These plans highlight measures to remove barriers to the equal participation of aboriginal peoples and members of visible minority groups. We have specific numerical targets to ensure that more applicants from these designated groups are appointed to positions in the Public Service.
To implement our commitment to employment equity, numerical targets must be submitted by Departments for review by Treasury Board. This process involves extensive analysis by staff and careful review by Ministers of the Treasury Board.
In 1988, $19 million in funding and more than 2,000 person-years will bolster employment equity programs within the federal Public Service. More than $44 million and 1.100 person-years were devoted specifically to increase the hiring, training, and promotion of aboriginal peoples and members of visible minority groups.
The Northern Careers Program, the National Indigenous Development Program, and the Visible Minority Employment Program were extended to 1993. These programs provide tangible evidence of the Government's support.
Target setting and special programs of this kind demonstrate that employment equity is best achieved by a comprehensive, results oriented approach. The number of visible minorities employed in the federal Govern-

May 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
ment has increased significantly from 4,159 or 1.7 per cent as of March 31, 1985, to 6,308 or 2.8 per cent as of December 31,1988. The number of aboriginal employees has grown from 3,127 or 1.5 per cent to 3,951 or 1.7 per cent during the same period despite changes in services on reservations.
The targets that were established for 1989-1991 for aboriginal peoples and members of visible minority groups will increase. More important, it is a fact that we are meeting the challenge to provide greater benefits and opportunities for aboriginal people and visible minorities.
This is cogent evidence of the Government's commitment to progress. The challenge for all of us in this House of Commons and elsewhere is to ensure all Canadians equal participation in the Public Service of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 19,1989