1989-10-11

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the federal government established the National Arts Centre as Canada's national cultural institution. As Maureen Forrester, immediate past chair of the board, stated, "The formation of the NAC is arguably the most important single artistic development ever to occur in Canada's national capital".
Since its inception, several notables have been in such positions as director general, artistic director and on the board of trustees. Up until two years ago the centre's principals worked together to create one of Canada's finest institutions. Recently, patrons of the NAC have been asking people to sign petitions which accuse the new management of the NAC of being cavalier, incompetent and inadequate in artistic matters. It is for these reasons that I call on the Minister of Communications to initiate a public inquiry into the affairs of running the National Arts Centre. The inquiry must look into what has happened of late to bring the centre, its staff, its programming, and its orchestra to such an all-time low.
It is imperative that we address these problems before a major institution is destroyed and a wonderful orchestra becomes a thing of the past.


TOURISM
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the director of Carrefour Inc.,
located in UAvenir, in my riding, and I am referring to Mr. Rene McKaye and his team who received an award last Friday in the "development" category, one of the Coeur-du-Quebec 1989 tourism awards, for improving and developing their infrastructures.
I am also delighted that the Canadian Government was involved in this success thanks to its contribution through the special Laprade region program, which contributed $350,000.
Established in 1954 with the help of volunteers, this vacation centre, located in a magnificent setting on a hillside overlooking the Saint-Franco is river, has changed considerably since those early years.
With its new infrastructures, Carrefour Inc. should now be considered a full-fledged resort.
Since Carrefour is open the year round, tourists, businesses and organizations that want to meet in a setting conducive to work and relaxation are able to take advantage of the many services and activities it offers.
This enterprise is to be commended for its determination, dynamic approach and sense of entrepreneurship in developing regional and provincial tourism.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out how well the Conservative Government understands the farmers of Canada and Quebec.
My Government listens to farmers. Last week, the president of the UPA (Quebec farmers' union), Mr. Proulx, and his officials met with our Ministers of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister.
The federal Government has just granted Quebec pork producers $48 million under the stabilization program and, together with their federation, we are continuing the fight to abolish the countervailing duties imposed by the United States.

For milk producers, we abolished the milk price freeze and granted an increase of 47 cents per hectolitre.
We will make GATT see the light about yogourt and ice cream, Mr. Speaker. We want to strengthen Article XI of GATT, which fully protects us from certain imports.
The Hon. Member for Beauce is a strong defender of Quebec agriculture. We believe in the value of our marketing boards, our joint plans and our quotas!
Our farmers have made sacrifices, got organized and disciplined themselves. Believe me, we will protect ourselves!
The Conservative Members from Quebec are attentive and alert and my Government understands agriculture.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the great pleasure of welcoming a new premier into the Canadian constitutional family. Not only a new premier but a Social Democrat premier.
Yesterday, celebrating the tenth anniversary of responsible government in the Yukon, and acting upon the authority granted to the Yukon by a Progressive Conservative Government, the hon. Tony Penikett abolished the title "Government Leader" and instituted the title of "Premier".
Authority for this action was expressly granted on October 10,1979, by the Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs.
As Premier Penikett stated: "The colonial title of government leader is not recognized anywhere outside of the north."
I welcome this New Democrat premier into the fold. I trust that the Prime Minister will do the same and that we will, finally, see the duly elected leader of the Yukon
government as an active participant in all First Ministers conferences.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DRESS CODE
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sadness that I rise today to ask Canadians for tolerance and understanding on an issue of great concern to many.
As you know, numerous petitions have recently been filed with this House regarding the allowance of cultural dress and religious symbols in the code of dress of the RCMP. These petitions and the related controversy have given rise to unfortunate incidents of prejudice and racism that are directed at the Sikh community.
We all must and I am sure do deplore and condemn this intolerance and prejudice. This is fundamentally an argument about human rights, cultural identity and the very nature of our multicultural mosaic. Racism has no place.
The Sikh community has a long tradition of living in harmony with other cultures all over the world. I am sure that men of good will can resolve this issue in a way which is consistent with our Charter of Rights and in a way that also celebrates not only our cultural diversity but also the traditions that unite all Canadians.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today, the United Nations Day of Solidarity with South African political prisoners, I wish to take this opportunity to remember the thousands of political prisoners who have been imprisoned in South Africa for their struggle against the racist policies of apartheid. Last night, South African president de Klerk announced the immediate release of eight long-term political prisoners, the desired effect obviously being to deflect criticism during the upcoming Commonwealth Conference. This action is to be applauded but it is insufficient.
The release of eight prisoners who have served up to 26 years in jail in South Africa does not represent the end to the policy of apartheid in South Africa. South
October 11, 1989

Africa has just come through a national election where not one black person was able to vote, this in a population whose majority is black.
Four years ago, before the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister committed to increased sanctions against South Africa if apartheid was not dismantled. Apartheid is still alive and well in South Africa and those opposed to apartheid in South Africa urge Canada and other nations to step up the pressure not decrease it. Sanctions are working. Do not stop now.
Today, in particular, we must remember the hundreds of political prisoners who yet remain imprisoned in South Africa and their struggle to overthrow the oppression of the apartheid system. Canada must represent their interests before the Heads of State Commonwealth Conference and exemplify its own commitment to continue to fight apartheid by furthering sanctions now.


PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to point out to the House the excellent performance of Tembec Inc., a pulp and paper company located in Temiscamingue, in my riding. Tembec was chosen for one of the 1989 Canadian export awards of excellence. For Tembec, Mr. Speaker, that is a well-deserved honour which is due to the dynamism of its president, Frank Dottori, and a staff of remarkable ability.
This Canadian export award of excellence honours Canadian companies that not only increased their exports but also exported new products successfully or reached new markets.
The winners are chosen from among hundreds of candidates by a selection board made up of Canadian personalities, in particular, business people, union leaders, journalists and officials of the Department of External Affairs and of International Trade Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Tembec, its president and all'its employees!


EDUCATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has anointed himself the "Education Prime Minister". In a speech to the Conservative party in August, the Prime Minister proclaimed that: "this government will carry its fair share of the burden to ensure that all young Canadians receive a first class education as they confront a world class challenge".
The Prime Minister also said that education will be a high priority at the next First Ministers' Conference, and he would advocate a collective study of Canada's education system.
These are admirable goals, but unfortunately the reality of this government's commitment to higher education is totally inadequate. This week the government will introduce Bill C-33, which will slash federal expenditure on education by $650 million over the next five years. When the effects of the last cuts by this government in 1986 are included the totals are staggering. Over a nine year period, between 1986 to 1994, this government led by an education Prime Minister will cut close to $7 billion from federal transfers devoted to post-secondary education.
Yesterday, to add insult to injury, a senior federal official was quoted as saying that education discussions with the provinces are to be held in private because: "What we are going to say about it, you are not going to want to hear in public".
On behalf of all Canadians who support the improvement of higher education in Canada, I demand that the First Ministers discussion take place in public and that this government immediately withdraw the destructive Bill C-33.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba's historic role as a Canadian transportation centre is eroding. Over 3,000 CN and CP employees have lost their jobs in Manitoba over the last eight years. The recent savage cuts in VIA Rail will hasten this erosion. This is appalling since Manitoba has major

October 11, 1989
Oral Questions
advantages as a transportation hub. It is located at the geographic centre of the country and has strong representation of both federally owned and private transportation companies.
The federal and Manitoba governments acknowledged the importance of Manitoba's transportation sector in 1984 when they initiated two transportation agreements. But these agreements are expiring with no renewal of commitment. Maintaining Manitoba as a transportation centre is vital not only to the well-being of Manitobans, but also to the provision of efficient transportation to all Canadians. Nothing will fill the void. Thus I urge the government to take action to repair the damage and restore Manitoba's rightful role as a Canadian transportation centre.


CANADIAN WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wine Institute, composed of 17 companies, operating 30 wineries and representing 80 per cent of Canadian wine producers, has recently announced its support in principle of the proposed goods and services tax.
The wine industry has been adversely affected under the current federal sales tax which is applied at the manufacturer's level. Subsequent tax cascading results in an inflated price for Canadian wine. Given the current rates of excise tax and provincial mark-up levels, Canadian wines would be more affordable once the GST was in place. As a result, domestic wines would be much more competitive with imports.
In the past, individuals have expressed concerns about the wine industry's ability to compete in the world market. We should continue this concern and give the wine industry the ability to compete in the international marketplace. Replacing the federal sales tax will enhance its capacity to do so by making Canadian wines more affordable for consumers


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan
de Fuca, Mr. David Barrett, who is running for the leadership of the New Democratic Party, I am astounded at the Hon. Member's failure to understand what Quebec is all about and at his lack of political maturity in wanting to capitalize on anti-French sentiment.
I think he would do well to visit the people of Quebec and listen to what they have to say.
If he does, he will be surprised at the vast movement that is forming today in Quebec. Independence is no longer the sole concern of people in the Parti Quebecois.
For several weeks, provincial and federal Liberals have been coming to see us, and they say that if the Anglophones turn us down, this time it will be independence.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is running for the leadership of one of Canada's political parties, but if he doesn't change his approach, he may well become the leader of a political party without a country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Thrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Government has just called its star witness in the goods and services tax affair, and I am referring to the former Minister of Finance of New Zealand, who is now Minister of Police.
I am sure all Members appreciate Mr. Douglas' good will. However, does our Minister of Finance realize that after the goods and services tax was introduced in New Zealand in October 1986, New Zealand registered a negative growth rate; New Zealand went into a period of economic recession; inflation was over 15 per cent; the cost of food rose 10 per cent in one month; the number of jobs dropped by more than 3 per cent, and finally, New Zealand's exports, which until then had increased by over 9 per cent, dropped by 0.1 per cent?


An Hon. Member:: That's true!
October 11, 1989

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that Mr. Douglas was the finance minister for the Labour party of New Zealand, not for the Conservative party of New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: So what?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He was asked, I think, almost the same question as the Leader of the Opposition has just asked concerning the economic performance that New Zealand has had in recent years. The answer that he gave was quite simple. They have made an awful lot of changes in New Zealand, one of which was the GST.
But there was a very large amount of deregulation-


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Sounds familiar.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that resulted in a substantial amount of economic disruption in that country which resulted in some slow-down in the economy. But I believe that in recent years we have seen that that economy has performed quite a bit better. The conclusion that Mr. Douglas drew was, certainly, if New Zealand had not done those things the economic performance of the country would have been considerably worse.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is exactly what Mr. Douglas said.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, he was a great star witness. Yes, he is a member of the Labour party. He happened to be the Minister of Finance who brought in the GST in New Zealand. He was also a member of a government that brought in free trade with Australia, privatization and all three of these elements resulted in the negative figures I have just recited to the House of Commons.
Speaking of a tax grab, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, who has been left out of this current debate.


Mr. Charest:: A slow day.


Mr.   Dirner@Vancouver Quadra: The minister says it is a slow day. Yes, it is a slow day. We are coming to you. I have no doubt that the minister is clean in his response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Every minor hockey league in this country will have to pay a 9 per cent tax for arena rentals. Every 14 year-old who joins a minor hockey league or a figure-skating club will have to pay a 9 per cent tax. Every child who enrolls in a swimming course will face a 9 per cent tax. And this minister, who represents the young people of this country and the athletes of this country, has done nothing to protect Canadian children from engaging in sports programs.
I think the House should recognize that this government is putting a 9 per cent tax on the future Alex Baumanns, the Carolyn Waldos, the Kurt Brownings, the Gaetan Bouchers and the Mario Lemieux. Since little leaguers do not have the massive lobbies that have appeared before this committee of the House of Commons, why has the minister not been speaking out in favour of sports and young people of this country to protect them from this massive 9 per cent tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean J. Charest: Pick on somebody your own size, John!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: After the right hon. gentleman's speech I should probably call for questions and comments. The Minister of Finance.


Jean J. Charest: We are
working out our game plan, Mr. Speaker.
Talking of little leaguers, I am happy to answer the Leader of the Official Opposition in saying that this government has been very attentive to the area of sports to the point where we have created a great deal of activity in the area of fair play, for example, so that we could deal with what we think is the most important issue for young athletes in this country, which is fair play. That is why we have the Fair Play Commission.

Oral Questions
As for the sales tax issue, all I can say is that there will be more money for sport and for parents in this country so that young children can enter into sport activity if the finances of this country are in good shape. That is common sense.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has left for an international trip when he gets back I will advise him to put the minister on waivers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I see the Minister of Communications here and I would like to put a question to him. I am surprised he is not in Hollywood as an advance man for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we ought to note in this House that artists, orchestras, dance troupes, opera companies, playwrights and regional theatres will all be hammered by this 9 per cent tax. According to a study prepared for the Canada Council by Woods, Gordon Consultants reporting to the minister, performing arts organizations will pay up to seven times more federal tax than they currently pay.
Why has the Minister of Communications not done anything to keep Canadian cultural groups from being wiped out by this tax Why is the Minister allowing his colleague to impose a tax on the future Karen Kains, k.d. langs, the Denys Arcands, the Robert Batemans, the Gilles Vigneaults and Anne Murrays of this country? Why has he not stood up for the artistic community in this country to protect our Canadian identity?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my Department has been examining and analysing this matter for several months. I had a chance to discuss the issue with my provincial colleagues in Winnipeg last week, and I gave them the assurance that the Government, in this area as in all others, would act responsibly. In fact we have proved that in other areas since 1984. The cultural sector has increased its percentage of the Government's discretionary spending from 5.4 to 7 percent, and the Government intends to keep up the good work, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. In a speech on October 2, the minister said: "The availability of concessional funding for trade has been instrumental in providing equal footing for our exporters".
Yet today we learn that the government is cancelling the funding for trade. There will be no concessional funding until next April. Can the minister tell us why, at a time when our exports are at a ten-year low when the rate of our dollar is crippling our exports, the government has added another crippling blow in our ability to compete abroad? Will he undertake to explain to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that exports abroad will create jobs for Canada, will create more wealth and that is the best way to deal with the deficit?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
TVade): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman forgot to mention in his prologue-I suppose that is what you would call it-that the current account reference levels this year have increased 66 per cent over last year, going up in the Estimates from $75 million to $125 million and I think it is likely there will be supplementary estimates which will further increase that. There is a considerable increase in the spending for export credit financing. We have been doing so well that Canadian exports and the need for support is increased even at a faster rate than the amount of money that the House has voted in the Estimates. So the hon. gentleman's complaint is that we are doing too well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my complaint is that we are running a current account deficit with every single country in the world. Our exports are at a 10-year low, and our trade market is falling out of the bottom. This government is doing nothing about it.
We want to know why it is, at a time when our so-called favoured trade market has just increased a $100 million war chest to go after our markets with the Pacific Rim while it has had $200 million for additional export financing for agriculture, this government is cancelling concessional financing for our own compan-
October 11, 1989

ies. Are we just surrending finally and getting out with a whimper, or is this government going to stand up for Canadian business for a change?


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will have to decide whether we want to believe the hon. trade critic for the Official Opposition or whether we want to believe impartial experts, for example-


An Hon. Member:: Like you?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am an impartial expert, but I will refer to others in my modesty, Mr. Speaker.
There was an article in The Financial Post of September 23, 1989: "Signs point to trade upswing; new export chances will boost Canada's surplus". The picture the hon. gentleman painted is an entirely false picture.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Earlier today, simultaneously in Chicago and Toronto, there was an alarming report produced by the Institute for Research on Public Policy jointly with the oldest conservation in the United States. According to this report the situation in the Great Lakes has been getting worse. In their words, there is an environmental crisis and the health of humans as well as that of wildlife continues to be threatened.
Yesterday, in anticipation of this announcement, the minister of health recycled an old election promise by saying that the Conservative government would spend $1 per Canadian per year for the next five years to deal with this crisis. Since the Prime Minister in the election campaign said: "No area is higher on our environmental priority list than the Great Lakes themselves", I want to ask the minister why in that time has the government done nothing in the Great Lakes and what makes him believe that $1 per Canadian per year for the next five years is at all adequate?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. We have had programs in
Oral Questions
place for a good deal of time dealing with the Great Lakes.
What this commitment yesterday represents is a doubling of the federal commitment to clean up the Great Lakes. It represents an effort being made to cut down on new pollution going to the Great Lakes. It represents an effort to clean up the 17 hot spots around the Great Lakes in Canadian or binational territory. It represents for the first time a major new effort to get fundamental information that we need about the health effects of pollution in the Great Lakes. The hon. gentleman feels that is not important; I think Canadians will disagree with him, and I think that Canadians will feel that this initiative announced yesterday is of fundamental importance to every Canadian.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister's rhetoric is no different from the Prime Minister's. We saw the action that was taken since then and the action is zero. When the government was elected in 1984 there were 17 toxic spots on the Great Lakes. There are 17 today. It hasn't changed one bit. No money was spent on the Great Lakes in the past year to deal with this situation.
My question to the minister is this: Since there are 6 million Canadians drinking the water in the Great Lakes system that according to these reports today leads to birth defects, tumours, and nerve and brain damage on human beings, when is the government going to start delivering the goods? What makes him think that moving from 50 cents per Canadian per year to $1 per Canadian per year is anywhere adequate to deal with the serious problem?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has actually bothered to read the report. I have. I do not know if the hon. gentleman has actually bothered to look at what sort of research has been done to date on health effects, but I can say that my department believes that a new initiative of some $20 million to look at the health effects-


John Edward Broadbent: It's peanuts.


Henry Perrin Beatty: "Peanuts", says the hon. gentleman; just $20 million, he says. Don't bother doing it, he says; it is not important. Well, he is wrong.
It is time that Canadians had this sort of information so that we knew exactly what were the threats to specific populations, so that we knew what measures could be taken to protect them, and so that we could ensure that efforts were being made to clean up these environmental

October 11, 1989
Oral Questions
hot spots and that Canadians had conditions in the Great Lakes which enhance human health and which do not threaten human health. We believe this is an important initiative.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, in the four years leading up to the last election there was nothing done about the 17 spots. This great promise was made in last year's election. There is no greater priority than the Great Lakes and nothing has been done in the year since. The people have given up on the Government of Canada when it comes to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency published a list of major polluters, and as a result, because of this humiliating disclosure, some of these polluters, have changed their practices. Will the Canadian Government publish a similar list here in Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the hon. gentleman, if he has any interest in facts. He says that nothing has been done with regard to those environmental hot spots around the Great Lakes. That is simply false.
The hon. gentleman should know full well, if he does not, that the amendment to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the 1987 Protocol which was negotiated by Canada and pressed for by Canada, was designed to put the responsibility on both governments on both sides of the lakes to clean up these hot spots and to take further action. That is exactly what we have been doing. We have been putting in place remedial action plans.
One of these hot spots-


John Edward Broadbent: The situation is getting worse, not better.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman screams across his suggestions about what we should be doing. Let me suggest to him that he listen for a minute because he obviously is in need of facts.
In this fund we have set aside there is money for cleaning up those hot spots. There is money to be put in
place to prevent pollution of the Great Lakes. There is money to be put in place to ensure that we have information about the environmental threat to human health. Members of the NDP says that doubling the federal effort is inconsequential. I think they are wrong, and I think this initiative is important for Canadians.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it also deals with the recycled garbage that the government is parading as environmental policy.
I would like to refer the hon. minister to a statement made by the Prime Minister in Hamilton one year ago when he was on the election trail. He stated that of the $125 million being set aside for the Great Lakes action plan $75 million would be spent specifically on cleaning up the 17 hot spots. In the minister's own statement yesterday on page 3 that amount has shrunk to $55 million, a $20 million drop in the amount of money being spent to clean up the Great Lakes.
I would like to ask the minister who authorized the $20 million cut and, if there is a need for a study, why did he not add $20 million as a separate add-on in light of the potential for brain damage and the other incredibly disturbing evidence we have seen in the report tabled today?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to this announcement of $125 million being committed to Great Lakes clean up as recycled garbage. It is $125 million more than the Liberal government was prepared to put into cleaning up the Great Lakes. All that we had was talk from them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member refers to $20 million less in terms of the clean-up program. That is because we created a $20 million health effects fund to allow us for the first time to get-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right, it's not cleaning up.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Again the hon. member shouts from her seat. Perhaps she could listen. We created a $20 million health effects program which was designed to give us the very sort of information the hon. member alleges she has already and does not need. We also indicated that we are


October 11, 1989

prepared to add to that fund after 1992 if it is necessary to do so in the clean up of those 17 hot spots.
The hon. member may not feel that it is important to have a study of the health effects, to be able to identify what threats there may be to specific populations such as foetuses, infants, our native population, and others who consume large amounts of water fowl and fish. We believe that information is essential. As Minister of National Health and Welfare I believe this important new initiative will be very important for the health of Canadians.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, one of the 17 hot spots is in my riding, and if the minister wants to know-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He may laugh about the fact that 9 million Canadians are drinking water that could lead their children to brain damage. Of course I have a concern. I have had a concern and consideration for many more years, and I do not need the minister's lectures.

Mr. Speaker, what is the position of the Minister of the Environment on this issue? Is the Minister of the Environment attending the International Joint Commission's conference? No, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of the Environment is doing a tour-

He is doing a tour of the Rhine wine valley and he is studying pollution in Paris. Where is the Minister of the Environment of Canada when he is confronted with one of the most disturbing studies in the history of the Great Lakes? He is off studying the Rhine pollution problems and pollution in Paris. I would like to know where the minister is.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I will be given equal time to respond to that speech.
The hon. member says that one of the hot spots is in her constituency. One of the hot spots is in my constituency as well in Collingwood Harbour. My constituents will welcome this announcement and they will feel that the new effort being made to protect the health of people who are living on the Great Lakes and who are affected by it is an important advance in terms of serving the needs of Canadians. The hon. member may not feel
Oral Questions
that it is important to her constituents. It is certainly important to mine.
The hon. member dismisses contemptuously the fact that the Minister of the Environment is in London, Bonn and Paris for bilateral meetings with European environment ministers, with the French Prime Minister, Mr. Ricard, and with the Secretary General of the OECD.
If the hon. member knew anything about the environment she would know that the environment is an international matter that requires concerted international action. We believe that the efforts of the Minister of the Environment in Europe are essential in terms of encouraging concerted international efforts to protect Canada's environment.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who announced the VIA cuts last week and who announced the cut in the Canadian.
Across northern Ontario there are two rail lines. The rail line chosen to continue this passage across northern Ontario was a CN line that services a population of about 5,000 people. This decision eliminates passenger rail service on the CP line from Sudbury to Chapleau, White River, Marathon, Nipigon, Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, and on to Winnipeg. The route services a population of over 350,000 people.
This decision is obviously an error: servicing 5,000 people instead of 350,000 people across northern Ontario. If the minister persists in going ahead with the VIA cuts, will he at least agree to use the route that services the most people across northern Ontario?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know of the concern of my colleague for northern Ontario, but he knows very well that when we have to make a decision in terms of the national service we have to make difficult decisions.
In the case of northern Ontario we have to consider that there are a few communities that do not have any other mode of transportation while in Thunder Bay and in Sudbury, we have good air transportation, roads, and so on. He understands very well that in the decision that we made we considered that it was better at the time to keep the service for what we called the remote commu-

October 11, 1989
Oral Questions
nities rather than for Thunder Bay and Sudbury which, once again, have better modes of transportation.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, it seems that that decision was made more to look after the interests of CN and Mr. Lawless than the interests of the people of northern Ontario.
I can assure the minister that I am familiar with those routes in northern Ontario that he talks about, and this is not a question of servicing nine remote routes. Those areas that are serviced by the CN route can be serviced by other transportation modes at less expense.
I return to the question. Is it more important to service
5,000	people in northern Ontario or the 350,000 people who are being denied passenger rail service throughout northern Ontario? Will the minister make the change in that fundamental error in his business plan?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, indeed I want to make a change, and I think my friend basically understands that. Yes, perhaps it is just 5,000 people, but once again, I repeat what I said, and it has been a scenario we have used for the whole country.
We have people in this country who do not have any other mode of transportation. I understand the problem of Thunder Bay and Sudbury particularly, but in Thunder Bay and Sudbury there is a very good air transportation system.
Once again, people will continue to use the other modes of transportation. In the mean time, we have to serve all Canadians. Very honestly, that is what we tried to do in the decision we made last week.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it concerns pollution in the Great Lakes system. When the minister responded to my leader a few minutes ago, he said that since this government was elected in 1984 it had acted on pollution.
I want to remind hon. members that once the government was elected in 1984 the Canadian wildlife service was cut by 23 per cent, the toxicology research centre was
closed, the wildlife interpretation centre was closed, and the Great Lakes pollution monitoring program was eliminated. There was an exhaustive report on pollution which came out of National Health and Welfare. That report was killed by the Department of the Environment.
I want to ask this minister whether or not this government is prepared to respond to the real concerns of the people who live around the Great Lakes system and take a real commitment to cleaning up that source of danger to health.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, not only are we prepared to do so but we have done so. It is precisely what we did yesterday by announcing a fund of $125 million designed to do precisely that.
In addition to that, since we were elected this government has renegotiated and strengthened the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We have maintained substantial research and monitoring programs to identify and assess toxic problems. We have helped develop with Ontario remedial action plans for 17 areas of concern where water quality is impaired. We have had co-operative studies in development of management plans with the U.S. on the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the upper lakes connecting channels. We have had annual expenditures in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of $18 million.
Now we have doubled that federal effort and taken an important new step in terms of protecting the Great Lakes.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question directed to the same minister. Canadians know that this government's commitment toward cleaning up the environment so far has been zilch.
The minister's government has promised since as far back as I can remember to bring in a safe drinking water act in co-operation with Ontario or provincial governments. Why does he not do that? Why does he not at least respond in a positive way to proposals that have been put forward by municipal governments right across this country to pour some money into cleaning up the serious sewage problems that exist in every major city in
October 11, 1989

Canada? Instead of rejecting that out of hand why does he not do something concrete about it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Again, Mr. Speaker, $125 million is nothing concrete to the NDP. It is nothing substantial. We believe that $125 million is substantial.
The hon. member asks about the safe drinking water act. If the hon. member had been here for the Speech from the Throne he would know that we are committed to introducing a safe drinking water act.
There are a number of important steps that have been taken already. The doubling of the federal effort in the Great Lakes will help to move us forward to the point where the Great Lakes will represent an asset to human health and where there is adequate protection for Canada's fragile environment.


NUCLEAR POWER
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Minister, this is about nuclear power in New Brunswick.
In view of the fact that your department and Atomic Energy Canada Limited are considering prospective locations for construction of a prototype Candu III reactor; in view of the fact that the management and operation of the Point Lepreau I plant by New Brunswick Power is rated by experts as second to none in the world for efficiency and safety; in view of the fact that New Brunswick is reported to be seriously reviewing its previous long-term plans for wood and coal-fired thermal generating units, recognizing the serious carbon dioxide emissions posed by fossil fuels, Mr. Minister; and in view of the fact that a potentially sound market for the export of electricity exists into New England, can you please advise this House if you have received a formal expression of interest from the province of New Brunswick to enter into official negotiations for establishment of the Candu III reactor in New Brunswick?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the opposition is so interested in the subject. I want to tell my colleague that AECL and the Government of Canada have been
Oral Questions
discussing with New Brunswick Power and with the New Brunswick government the possibility of Lepreau II.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick Power is looking at whether or not to expand its thermal units, the Belledune units, and at both cost effectiveness as well as the C02 emissions that result from thermal power.
I can tell the hon. member that Lepreau I is one of the best and most efficient operations in the world and, if we can negotiate a Lepreau II in New Brunswick, it would be a Candu III which would be a prototype of the next generation of reactors. As well, we would be interested in seeing what we could do in terms of the industrial benefits that would take place in that province as well.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Minister, I did not hear clearly whether you had received an expression of interest from the province of New Brunswick formally. If you have, would you be willing to enter into official negotiations with that province?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we obviously are discussing it with New Brunswick and would be interested in formal negotiations. I think it is up to the New Brunswick government to make the ultimate decision as to whether or not to go with the nuclear option or whether to pursue Belledune.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The closure of the Lockeport plant has effectively left that community without employment. This is the reality of the minister's groundfish management plan. Thousands of workers in communities like Lockeport are out of work.
I ask the minister what is he recommending to the special cabinet committee as an alternative livelihood for the plant workers in places like Lockeport, Digby Neck, Argyle, and many other places that are being left destitute by this minister's management plan?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and other colleagues know that the Canadian fishery is managed on the basis of establishing quotas scientifically to ensure the sustainable development of those resources.

October 11, 1989
Oral Questions
There are certain of the Atlantic groundfish stocks, especially those in the Scotia-Fundy region, which have been depressed over recent years, and one reason for that has been the excessive overcapacity in that fleet. This is an important element of the discussions that are occurring before the special committee that is headed by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. When we have initiatives to report, they shall be reported in the appropriate way.


Coline M. Campbell: My supplementary question is again directed to the minister. The minister claims that there is no quota left to go around in his management plan. Yet, under the current groundfish management plan the offshore fleet in Nova Scotia still has 43,500 metric tons in Newfoundland and the gulf and
20,000	metric tons in 4VWX and 5, an amount that they cannot catch between now and the end of the year. I do not know what type of mathematics this minister needs to hear about.
Knowing this and knowing of the hardships that exist in all those communities in Nova Scotia such as Locke-port, I ask the minister whether he will ask the transfer committee that met last week, under his discretion, to reconsider the request of the inshore representatives who asked that 13,000 metric tons in the Scotia-Fundy 4VWX and 5 be transferred to the inshore to salvage the livelihoods of the many communities that are going destitute. The minister is over there and that special cabinet committee is not even meeting.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. member. The committee is indeed meeting and will report in due course. At the same time I should point out that the closure of the Lockeport plant of National Sea is part of a series of decisions that National Sea has to take regrettably because there are not enough stocks available to it in the offshore allocations.
Now the hon. member is asking me to transfer more fish from the offshore to the inshore who consumed their full quotas with the exception of the fixed gear inshore fishery, much of which is still fishing and will continue to do so for some weeks to come yet.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who seems to spare no efforts to make unemployment insurance benefits available only to the privileged few. [DOT]
I refer to Bill C-21's punitive measures which are going to deprive many unemployed of the benefits. Her department, not content with the punitive measures of the bill, appears to be preparing regulations to circumvent a federal appeal court decision of last April 14 that the commission was incorrectly and improperly interpreting the regulations regarding vacation pay and severance pay, thus depriving the unemployed of up $100 million per annum in benefits to which they are legally entitled.
Is the minister's department in fact preparing such changes to the regulations to get around this court decision?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House knows the meaning of the word "interpretation". This is a good example of interpretation applied to our daily lives.
Our officials drafted an interpretation of the regulations, published in 1985. The court handed down another interpretation in April 1989. Our officials apply the regulations consecutively, while the court suggests doing so concurrently.
Since the court's decision, our officials have, of course, acted accordingly.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the regulations are not within the purview of Parliament and its committees.
Since April 14, the Minister's department has acted as though the Appeal Court's decision had no significance for its interpretations. As a result, it was able to save up to $100 million annually, at the expense of the unemployed.
If the court's decision does not satisfy the Minister, is she prepared to table new legislation for consideration
October 11, 1989

by the House, and if she feels the decision is fair and satifactoiy, is she prepared to give specific instructions to her officials to obey the law and the court's decision?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, here is another example of interpretation.
I just said that since the court's decision, our officials have applied the concurrent method suggested by the court.
As a responsible government, we are now drafting an amendment to the regulations to be able to observe our policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Vézina: -which relies on the consecutive method.


NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding integrity in government. He would be well aware of yesterday's ruling regarding the use of taxpayers' money to advertise the Conservative party's tax policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member of course can ask a question, but I think hon. members might agree with me that it is not appropriate to interpret a ruling of the Chair in a preamble. I would hope the hon. member would desist from doing that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. I will simply ask the Deputy Prime Minister if, in recognition of the ruling, he would do the right thing, the honourable thing, the decent thing, and use the PC Canada Fund to pay for the ads as opposed to the taxpayers of Canada.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is placing an interpretation on the ruling or not. Having regard to the ruling that was rendered by yourself in this House, Sir, we respect your ruling. We will live by it as we always have and always will.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that you did not find a prima facie case of privilege-that was my under-
Oral Questions
standing-but that you did render an admonition and established some guidelines. Of course, in future the government will be cognizant of those guidelines.


An Hon. Member:: He did not answer the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think for a lot of Canadians living by the ruling would mean paying for those ads from the Conservative Party political fund.
I wanted to give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity. I am surprised that having had that opportunity he would not take it and do what, in everyone's mind, is the ethical thing to do, that is to use the PC Canada Fund to pay for ads that obviously should have been paid for on a political basis.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister do what has to be the honourable and the decent thing and make those payments from the political fund of his party?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am having very great difficulty finding how that question, aimed at what should or should not be done with the PC Canada Fund, has anything to do with the administration of government. It has to do with a political party and I would apply the same rules to either side of the House.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, the Canadian Labour Congress reported that since the beginning of this year, more than 60,000 jobs have been lost in this countiy. Today in Montreal, it was announced that 500 Domtar employees will be laid off next month. My question is: When will the Government be prepared to take these job losses seriously? Yesterday's answer that thousands of jobs have been created is not satisfactory, because the majority of these jobs are temporary and pay the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, Canadians now want real jobs, not lay-offs!


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, from September 1984 to September 1989, 160,000 jobs were created in the Montreal area. That is pretty good. The unemployment rate in Montreal, which was 11.3 per cent, has dropped 8 per cent. We are proud of that record. During the previous

Routine Proceedings
government's term, from 1980 to 1984, 4,000 jobs were lost in Montreal, Mr. Speaker.

If he wants to know about full-time and part-time jobs, in the last year in Canada there were 189,000 jobs created by the end of September as compared with
164,000	the year before, of which 86 per cent were full-time.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that, although I know he would like to put a second question, by looking at the clock I think that Question Period is over.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled Changes to the VIA System: Possible Environmental Impact.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, with amendments, in both official languages.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifteenth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] [English]



CONCURRENCE IN FIFTEENTH REPORT

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, that the fifteenth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in, and I would suggest that we dispense with the reading of the report. It simply affects naming members to standing committees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the member for Calgary Southwest.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Speaker, with your permission would it be possible to return to presenting reports from committees? Unfortunately, I could not hear you back here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House will agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 11, 1989



INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate this opportunity.
I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, that has been certified correct by the clerk of petitions. This petition is from a number of western Canadians who call upon the government to reconsider the decision to curtail VIA Rail service in much of Canada and to reduce the level of VIA Rail service in other parts of Canada; in a sense, to reconsider its decision on VIA Rail and instead to invest in modernizing VIA Rail so we can join with the rest of the world in expanding passenger rail service as opposed to curtailing it.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to this House. The petitioners ask Parliament to reject the new tax proposed by the Conservative Government.

It is a petition that asks members of the House of Commons to reject the new proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in this House a
Routine Proceedings
petition signed by constituents in Ottawa-Vanier. It points out that the Conservative Government has inflicted at least 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadian taxpayers since 1984, that since September 1984, the federal manufacturers' sales tax has been raised from 9 to 13.5 per cent by the Conservative Government, that this same Government wants to impose on Canadians a new universal 9 per cent goods and services tax which they consider bad, that this new tax will be hidden in the selling price, that it will apply to practically everything that Canadians buy and that imposing this new universal goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair difficulties for Canadians with low or moderate incomes.
For these reasons, the petitioners ask Parliament to reject this new goods and services tax.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of a number of constituents of the Minister of Defence who present their idea that the goods and services tax is a tax that is going to harm them and that the government should reconsider it and eliminate it entirely.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present hundreds of petitions on behalf of the National Arts Centre orchestra, an excellent world-class orchestra which has brought fame to Canada and its capital city, which petitioners believe that the National Arts Centre orchestra is in imminent danger of being damaged or even destroyed and who would wish for a public hearing into this serious matter. I depose for your consideration these hundreds of petitions.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table two petitions. The first contains over 500 names. They are Canadians who object to the tax proposed by the Conservative Government, the goods and services tax. It will be bad for Canadians. It will reduce consumers' spending power by at least 9 per cent. It will have a horrible effect on small merchants and will be dreadfully complicated.

October 11, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I have here over 2,000 names of Canadians from across Canada. This petition refers to the RCMP uniform. These petitioners across Canada would like to see the tradition kept regarding the RCMP uniform.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I have here several hundred names of petitioners from the National Capital Region. All petitioners duly signed pursuant to Standing Order 36, with regard to the concern over the management of the National Arts Centre and its world-class orchestra. These petitioners are very concerned over the longevity of the orchestra. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to seek a public inquiry into the management of both the National Arts Centre and its fine orchestra.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to the House a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, and signed by some 70 members of the Dundas Senior Citizens' Club. These seniors are standing up and saying that enough is enough. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.
I also have a petition from the riding of Hamilton West. In particular, 35 people from Emerald Street North signed the petition. They also call upon this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition of some 1,500 names from my constituency of Highlands-Canso. These petitioners deplore the fact that currently in Canada there is no law to protect the unborn.
They humbly submit to Parliament that urgent and decisive action is required on the part of the government to introduce new legislation that will protect the principle of life from the moment of conception. They call
upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to the unborn in order to protect the rights of the unborn.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and privilege to present three petitions from one of the very small businesses in the riding of Saint-Laurent-Car-tierville, asking us as parliamentarians to reject this new tax on goods and services because it will be a very costly burden for small business.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand on behalf of 271 constituents from Ottawa South today who are calling upon this House to reject the government's plans to tax back old age security benefits which were paid for by a surtax from the years 1952 to 1971 and continued to be paid for by these petitioners in the years following that.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present a number of petitions which have been gathered in my riding by a number of senior citizens who are very frightened. As a matter of fact, they are terrified of what is going to happen to them under the goods and service tax. They ask that this government withdraw its proposal, go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is fairer.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition duly certified by the clerk. It is signed by 30 Canadians who are concerned by the goods and services tax. Their concern is that it is hidden, complicated and is not shared by the provinces, and that it will hit the low and middle-income Canadians.
These Canadians do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to categorically and unequivocally reject any legislation that is brought forward for the purpose of implementing the said goods and services tax.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of filing a petition under Standing Order 36. The petitioners from the Toronto area are opposed to the goods and services tax proposed

by the government in its advertising campaign. They call upon Parliament to reject this vicious and unnecessary piece of legislation, when and if it is introduced, to avoid unfair taxation of the Canadian public.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 am proud to present a petition signed by some 35 of my constituents from Kootenay West-Revelstoke, particularly from the cities of Nelson, Rossland, Trail and Castlegar and the municipalities of Fruitvale, Montrose and Winlaw with respect to their opposition to the proposed goods and services tax. They ask Parliament to reform the taxation system so there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and, further, that we cause the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by a little over one hundred residents of Canada in Halifax, Toronto and Manitoba. They are calling on this House to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada to oppose the use of their lands for NATO-NO-RAD training; specifically, the low level flight training and the proposed NATO base in Goose Bay. They call on this House to redirect Canada's NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and livelihood and promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions representing the thousands of signatures coming from my riding. These petitions come particularly from the small towns of Campbellford and Hastings, places where the citizens feel they are already suffering unduly from cut-backs to VIA Rail, proposed changes to UI and the clawback of CPP programs. They feel that this would be an inordinate burden for them and they do not feel that piecemeal changes to the proposed legislation would do. They
Routine Proceedings
ask this government to repeal entirely the proposed goods and services tax legislation.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present even more petitions from the towns of Campbellford and Stirling requesting and calling upon this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House last week, the constituents of my riding are up in arms about the goods and services tax. I am pleased to present today three certificates totalling 90 signatures calling upon the government to totally reject any legislation which would implement the goods and services tax which has been proposed by this callous and unfeeling government.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand pursuant to Standing Order 36, and present a petition certified to be correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions. The petition I am particularly proud to present because I collected each of the names myself aboard a VIA train on August 24, travelling with my family from Saskatoon to Ottawa, return. The petition is signed by individuals from all across Canada as well as tourists from England, the United States, Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, West Germany and France. The petition particularly says that VIA is important for tourists, seniors, young people and aboriginal Canadians, and that VIA must be upgraded and have a budget sufficient to maintain its mandate for passenger service.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with regard to the goods and services tax. The members of this riding humbly pray that Parliament will reject the goods and services tax as presented.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition certified correct as to form and content on the GST. It is from many residents of Eglinton-Lawrence, many of whom took the trouble to express their views regarding the goods and services tax, a silent killer of jobs, an unfair tax imposed on all

Government Orders
residents of Canada. They urge and plead with Parliament to withdraw completely the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, just by way of some information for the House, there are three questions outstanding at the moment; one of which was a priority question, two of which are not. They are numbers 62, 84 and 106.1 wanted to bring to the attention of the House that No. 62 is presently at translation and should be back right away. Nos. 84 and 106 are expected very shortly. I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and a related Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motion for second reading of
Bill C-28, which implements the changes to the Income Tax Act announced in the April Budget of the Minister of Finance.

Some fiscal measures have already been presented in this House. Bill C-17 was referred to a committee after receiving concise but thorough consideration during second reading. I trust this Bill will receive the same efficient consideration.

This is not the first budget bill to be discussed by this House as a result of the April budget. Bill C-17, which amends the Customs Tariff Act, received concise but thorough consideration at all stages in this House, I am happy to note, and Bill C-20 amending the Excise Tax is in committee for study. I trust this bill will receive the same efficient consideration as those bills did.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the measures in the bill now before us have to be seen clearly in the overall context of the budget's goals. As the Minister of Finance stated in his budget, Canada's large and growing debt is a serious problem that must be brought under control so that we can build for the future, not borrow from it. The measures in Bill C-28 make a major contribution to achieving that goal.
I want to be very precise about what I mean by controlling the debt, and about the measures that will contribute to it. Controlling the debt is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end-an essential precondition to the maintenance of our social and other programs, and to the achievement of sustained economic growth, improved competitiveness and the creation of productive jobs.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every member of this House shares with this government the desire to reach these goals. We all want an environment in which inflation and interest rates can come down. That means we must have firm, measured and consistent fiscal and monetary policies. Reducing the deficit and controlling the debt are an integral part of our policy approach. The April budget responds to the need for fiscal action to control the debt. It contains a balanced package of measures that places the greater burden on those who are better able to bear it.
October 11, 1989

On the spending side, our government has made expenditure cuts in areas such as defence, foreign aid, business subsidies and other transfers, payments to Crown corporations and government operations. These are effective in the current year and will have a substantial impact on spending for several years into the future.
These expenditure control measures, together with the revenue measures in the budget, will reduce the deficit by over $5 billion this year and $9 billion next year. This year they will almost offset the rise in interest costs and leave a deficit of $30.5 billion. Next year the deficit is projected to drop to $28 billion and in five years time it will be cut in half.
I want to turn now to the revenue measures of the budget and, more specifically, to review the measures specifically and directly related to the Income Tax Act.

With regard to changes made to the personal income tax and the tax itself, Bill C-28 implements an increase in the personal surtax, which will rise from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. As well, an additional high-income surtax of 3 per cent will be applied to federal income tax on income in excess of $15,000. These measures will be phased in over two years, and will be fully applied in taxation year 1990. In 1989 the effect will be that the basic personal surtax will be increased to 4 per cent and the high-income surtax will be effective at a rate of 1.5 per cent.
While acting to bring the public debt under control, the government has examined the tax base to ensure that no Canadian bears a disproportionate level of income tax. This Bill, consequently, includes measures to improve the fairness of the tax base.
Specifically, the Bill introduces taxation of accrued investment income on a annual basis. In this way, taxpayers who invest in contracts which pay interest annually and those who choose to invest in compound instruments will be taxed on a comparable basis.

Measures are also introduced to ensure that lessors of property must recognize leasing profits on a current basis. This enables the government to ensure that the leasing industry bears its fair share of tax and curtails the use of leasing as an after-tax financing mechanism.
Government Orders
While these new measures will limit the tax advantages of leasing property, they will not affect the other desirable attributes of leasing. In particular, these measures will allow those people who lease property to claim capital cost allowance as if they had acquired the property directly.
The personal income tax system plays a major role in managing the over-all spending of the government. It does this by providing a basis for income tested assistance and by providing for taxation at progressive rates of most types of government assistance received by individuals. This role is being expanded by measures in Bill C-28.
These amendments provide for the recovery of various types of federal social assistance from those taxpayers who do not need assistance from the government. By moving to a more progressive system, the government is ensuring the continued existence of these programs for taxpayers who need help. By assuring the continued viability of these social programs, this bill is making an extremely important contribution to the maintenance of our social safety net.

The budget also included significant measures relating to changes made to the corporate tax system. We believe it is important to ensure that all large corporations pay tax and contribute to debt control. Therefore, effective July 1 of this year, a tax on large corporations was introduced. This tax, which will be levied at a rate of 0.175 per cent on capital employed in Canada in excess of $10 million, will ensure that all large companies pay federal taxes and thus contribute to debt reduction.
We expect that some 3,600 corporations which account for approximately three-quarters of total corporate capital employed in Canada, will be subject to the tax. Together with modifications to the existing corporate surtax, this measure is expected to raise $965 million in additional federal revenue in its first full year of application.

This bill also contains a number of measures dealing with securities lending and dividend rental arrangements. These measures are designed to facilitate the efficient operation of Canada's capital markets while

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
eliminating the revenue loss arising from certain tax motivated dividend rental arrangements.
The new rules ensure that a securities loan will not be regarded as a disposition of the security and will therefore not give rise to gains or losses for tax purposes. They provide that the lender of a share will be entitled to trade compensatory payments received from the borrower of the share as dividends. To offset the cost of these benefits such payments will be non-deductible to the borrowers.
However, where a person borrows shares only to take advantage of the favourable tax treatment afforded any dividends paid on the shares while they are borrowed, the borrower will now be considered to have entered into a dividend rental arrangement. The borrower will therefore be denied the dividend tax credit or inter-corporate dividend deduction, whichever is applicable.
This legislation recognizes the importance of securities lending in the operation of Canada's capital markets. It will provide greater certainty of tax treatment for investors and securities dealers alike. Together, these measures will facilitate legitimate securities lending but will curtail share lending only for tax purposes.

Finally, as a result of ongoing consultations with the securities industry, the deduction for dividend compensation payments for all taxpayers will be disallowed, effective July 1, 1989. In the case of payments made by registered securities dealers, the disallowance will be phased in so that only one third of such payments made before April 1, 1990 will be non-deductible.
Accordingly, the 50 per cent phase-in for the disallowance of dividend compensation payments, announced in the May 26 press release from the Department of Finance, will not be implemented. We will monitor the impact of these new rules to ensure that the Canadian securities industry maintains its international competitiveness.

The government has not forgotten how important it is to ensure that persons who owe income tax actually pay that tax. To encourage taxpayers to pay their taxes on a
timely basis, this bill will increase the rate of interest payable on overdue tax payments by two percentage points. A similar increase will be made to the rate of interest paid by the government on overdue refunds. There are also provisions to ensure that corporate tax payments due to the government are delivered on time.
An underlying principle of our government's economic policies is fairness and compassion for all Canadians. This must be reflected in the tax system. A number of measures in Bill C-28 are intended to assist certain categories of taxpayers who deserve further help.

Accordingly the Bill provides for:
-new deductions in respect of part-time attendant care expenses for the working disabled,
-the deduction of certain legal expenses incurred to obtain a pension benefit or retiring allowance,
-an expanded list of medical expenses qualifying for tax assistance, to include eight new medical devices, and
-other amendments to ensure that certain counselling benefits provided to employees are not taxable.
Bill C-28 also introduces a new drought relief tax deferral in respect of cattle farmers who have had to reduce the size of their breeding herds as a result of drought. These measures all improve the fairness of the tax system, and will assist those Canadians who face difficulties not encountered by most of their fellow citizens.
In conclusion, the measures in this bill have benefited from extensive consultations with taxpayers and their advisors. It is very important that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible, to remove the uncertainty that inevitably exists for the very large number of taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, affected by these amendments.

As members of the House, we must all realize that the seriousness of Canada's debt problem requires equally serious determination and action on the part of the government to bring it under control. Acting now will

enable us to maintain and protect social and other programs for Canadians today as well as in the future.
In addition, acting now will give us the fiscal flexibility in the future to respond to the priorities that Canadians feel strongly about. That is our objective.
The measures in this bill, together with the other measures in the budget, will help us deal with the debt problem in the interest of all Canadians.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister carefully and not once did I hear him mention our old age pensioners who are being brutally attacked in this bill.
This bill is an attack on the rights of our senior citizens. It is an attack on old age pensions. This bill is an attack on the rights of children. This bill is an attack on family allowances. This bill is an attack on the principle of universality of our social programs. This bill is an attack on the social contract that has governed this country for the 20th century. This bill is a betrayal of the promises of the Prime Minister of Canada. This bill is a betrayal of what the Prime Minister once called "a sacred trust".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This bill makes 59 amendments to the Income Tax Act. No one can deal with all of them in the time allowed within the rules. I cannot deal with all of them. I just want to mention one other briefly, and then I am going to document the treachery and deception of this government in its dealings with Canadian families and with our senior citizens.

First of all I would like to talk about the special income surtax the Government introduced in 1986. Members will recall that the Minister of Finance referred to this surtax as a temporary one when he announced it here in the House. According to the Minister, it would not be in effect for very long. The 1987 Budget clearly indicated that the tax would be eliminated as soon as the new sales tax came into force. The Minister of Finance said at the time that:
As soon as the new tax became effective, surtaxes on personal and
corporate income would be abolished.
Government Orders
That is what he said, Mr. Speaker, and that is what he promised. But what did he actually do? The surtaxes are still with us. In fact, they have increased from 3 per cent to 5 per cent for middle-income Canadians and up to 8 per cent for Canadians on high incomes, and they are no longer temporary but permanent. They are now an integral part of the Canadian tax system. The Minister's technical paper on the goods and services tax does not say the surtaxes will be eliminated. These new surtaxes against individuals, surtaxes that are no longer temporary by permanent, will cost Canadians $1.1 billion more, which is a flagrant contradiction of the Government's stated objectives of its tax reform. According to the Minister, the main purpose of tax reform was to reduce personal income tax.

So much for this minister's idea of tax reform because it has proven to be nothing but a sham. It is nothing but a disguised tax increase, nothing but a massive tax grab under the umbrella of so-called reform. With this government there has been nothing but increase after increase ever since it was sworn into office. Since 1984 they have increased taxes 31 times.
I want to deal now in more detail with the so-called claw-back provisions on family allowances and old age pensions contained in this bill. I am not surprised that the minister in his presentation before the House ignored it. This claw-back is the culmination of years of deception-years of deception by this Prime Minister and by this Minister of Finance, deception of their true intentions with regard to the universality of our social programs. This government and this Prime Minister has consistently misled Canadians.
Listen to what the Prime Minister himself said in 1984. "Social programs were"-and I repeat those words: "-a sacred trust never to be tampered with".
Shortly after his election he tried to deindex the old age pension. He and the Minister of Finance backed down, but only after an enormous public outcry, an outcry backed by members of Parliament from this side of the House. We forced them back because they had broken their promise, they had broken that sacred trust.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: One would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of this country would have learned a lesson. But there he was again in 1988 in another election, this time using his mother as a prop. He was on stage with his own mother saying that he would never do anything to reduce social

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
programs. He repeated to the country the promise of a sacred trust. Indeed, on October 15, 1988, during the election campaign in Summerside, Prince Edward Island-and that is one community he never should dare to visit again-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -the Prime Minister said to the people of Summerside, and through them to the people of Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada, the following: "As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, social benefits, especially those for the elderly, will be improved, not diminished by our government". What could be more categorical? What could be less ambiguous? What could be a more definitive commitment to the senior citizens of our country than that statement made a few weeks before the election in 1988?

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of taking part in two national debates, one in English and one in French. I have here a copy of the transcript of the French debate, including a question put by reporter Daniel Lessard. This is what Mr. Lessard said in front of the camera, in front of a national audience, in French: "Mr. Mulroney, are you ready this evening to promise, before Madame Denis and before all Canadians, not to touch senior citizens' pensions and to maintain, in their entirety, our social programs?"
Mr. Speaker, I may remind you that Madame Denis is the same Madame Solange Denis who came here on Parliament Hill and told Mr. Mulroney, to his face: "Mr. Mulroney, you lied, you betrayed us. At the next election it will be: Goodbye, Charlie Brown, we won't forget that!" And Madame Denis was right!
And here is Mr. Mulroney's answer in French to Mr. Lessard: , "As far as the future is concerned, I find that our system which we have in place is sound and deserves to be respected and maintained".

Because we are being listened to in both languages and because that commitment was so categorical, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will excuse my translating that, repeating it in our other official language.
This was a question put to the Prime Minister of Canada in the national debate in French during the last federal election campaign. It was a debate in which the member for Oshawa, Mr. Broadbent, the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, and I engaged the attention of Canadians. It was put by Daniel Lessard, one of the three journalists asking questions of us.
Mr. Lessard asked the Prime Minister this question: "Are you ready this evening to promise before Madame Solange Denis, and before all Canadians, not to touch senior citizens' pensions and to maintain, in their entirety, our social programs?" The Prime Minister responded and I quote: "As far as the future is concerned, I find that the system which we have in place is sound and deserves to be respected and maintained".
That was the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians during the French language debate. That was the ultimate in deception towards our senior citizens. That was the ultimate in political fraud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that 1988 commitment was worth as little as the commitment made by the Prime Minister in 1984. It was just part of the deceptive strategy for getting re-elected. It is no wonder while we sit in this House of Commons-elected by the people of Canada-that public cynicism is at an all-time high. It is no wonder that those of us in public life do not receive from our fellow citizens the credit that sometimes we feel we deserve. People do not know whom to trust anymore. If they cannot trust the Prime Minister, whom can they trust in the public life of our country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there has been deception after deception. The Prime Minister's word meant absolutely nothing. The bill before this House proves that without a doubt.

When we on this side of the House warned senior citizens they could not trust this government, this is what the Minister of Finance had to say during that same election campaign. I quote his remarks made in St. John's, Newfoundland as reported by The Evening Telegram on November 2, 1988:
I say to Ed Broadbent and I say to John Uirner, don't go into the old age homes in this country and frighten widows and widowers who are 80, 85 and 90 years old with things that are patently untrue. Try to fight the election on the facts. Playing on the fears and emotions of some of the most defenceless people in our society today is despicable. If you want to pick on Brian Mulroney, if you want to pick on Mike Wilson, that's fine, that's politics. But don't pick on our senior citizens.
Who is picking on our senior citizens now? Who is attacking their pensions? Not me, Mr. Speaker. It is the government opposite. It is doing exactly what we thought it would do. It is doing exactly what we said it would do, and worse.
Before the Empire Club the Minister of Finance, talking about the sales tax and replying to me when I said it would cost Canadians billions of dollars more-and it is-called me a coward and a liar. He said there would not be one additional cent of tax. That is the type of rhetoric, the type of morality we are dealing with.
If you allow me a little peripheral, but germane, comment to the subject of taxation, Mr. Speaker, for five years I have listened to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance attempt to misrepresent my record as Minister of Finance. I can look at that gentleman over there who holds the custodianship now, the fiduciary responsibility, for the finances of the country. I was the last Minister of Finance to present a surplus to this country and to this House of Commons in 1973, two successive surpluses, and in five budgets an annual deficit on average of $710 million-not $30 billion-plus as we have.had for the last five years. I have been listening to this for five years.
I would like to take a few minutes to tell the House what I did, under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau, for senior citizens as minister of finance compared with what this government and this minister are doing. The rhetoric of this government and of the Prime Minister is good but rhetoric does not do anything to put money into the
Government Orders
pockets and purses of our senior citizens. You will forgive me, Your Honour, if this sounds moderately immodest, but the facts speak for themselves. With Mr. Trudeau's complete backing I indexed the old age security pension to the cost of living to protect our senior citizens completely from inflation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I told this House of Commons that I did not want to see the men and women of this country who had contributed a lifetime of their earnings, their savings, their productivity and their energy to building this country when they had retired and could no longer protect themselves from inflation, bear the brunt of it. I said that the country will protect you, and will protect you absolutely. That is what we did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The current Minister of Finance, again with the complete backing of his Prime Minister, is withdrawing that protection from our senior citizens. I increased the old age pension, first by 11 per cent. I increased the tax exemption for senior citizens by 54 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr Turner (Vancouver Quadra): Again, with Mr. Trudeau's backing, I increased the basic old age pension by another 21 per cent. Once more with the backing of the Prime Minister of the day I cut taxes by 8 per cent and indexed the Canada pension plan.
Yes, it is true that in 1972 and 19741 made promises to the senior citizens of this country. The difference between me and the current Minister of Finance is I kept my promises and this minister broke his.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Never once as minister of finance, never once during the difficult times of the world-wide oil crisis in 1973-74, did I reduce any of our benefits to our senior citizens, because in the Liberal Party we have always believed that we honour our elders, we honour our senior citizens, we do not attack their basic rights.

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is passed, and they have a majority, old age pensions and family allowances will no

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
longer be universal. The Government is not only changing the foundation of these programs, it is creating precedents that will affect other social programs.
The Bill before the House today creates special measures to tax the old age pensions and family allowances of people with incomes of $50,000 or more. The cut-off point of $50,000 is only partly indexed, because there is no compensation for inflation over 3 per cent. The cut-off point will not follow annual inflation, so that in real terms, it will go down. Ten years from now, nearly one million Canadian families will lose all or part of their family allowances and old age pensions.

The minister and the Prime Minister say that the programs are still universal because everybody still gets a cheque. What they are not admitting is that along with the pension cheque or the family allowance cheque, they are also sending out a tax invoice at the same time to certain Canadians based on income. They are saying it is universal unless you make x amount of dollars per year.
There is one honest member of Parliament on the government side. He may be out of control. He may be a loose cannon. He may be a one-man fog-horn from coast to coast, but I will say this for the hon. member for Mississauga South, he may from time to time bring the good reputation of this House into question, but at least he speaks the truth.
This is a letter that he wrote in response to a constituent of his. I do not know whether any of you ever received a response from the member for Mississauga South, but this one is a collector's item. He does reply to his constituents. The senior citizen is obviously complaining about the claw-back on his old age pension. This appears as reported in The Ottawa Citizen on September 23. The headline is: "MP contradicts PM over 'sacred trust' These are the words of the member for Mississauga South:
With respect to your claw-back matter, I understand your
concern.
How about that? That is unusually sensitive for this particular member.
This is what he wrote in response to a letter of complaint written by 61-year old William Daly.
We have decided to eliminate universality and we do that in a sense by the claw-back in both family allowance and the old age pension.
As you know, it has been a Conservative philosophy for some time that distributions from the state ought to go essentially to those in need. While the claw-back may be unfair and sneaky, it is there.
That unmasks it all. I do not question the sincerity of the minister who appeared this afternoon. I do not blame him for not mentioning it because why defend the indefensible? Why defend something that would enrage every senior citizen in this country who is now watching the House of Commons?
It is not universal, Mr. Speaker. Let us face it. We are back to the old means test. We now have an income tested program. That is what this debate is all about.
What is more, people will be taxed differently depending on where their income comes from. A senior who receives pension income will pay more tax than another senior whose income comes primarily from investments.
Single-earner families will be discriminated against. If both parents work and they earn $49,000 each for a total family income of $98,000, there is no claw-back in the family allowance or pension. But if it is a one-earner family with an income over $50,000 they lose benefits. That is not only not fair, it is stupid.
I now wish to address social contracts. When the old age pension was introduced, a special tax was created to help pay for it. I want to quote from the 1971 tax guide, and this also appeared in earlier tax guides since the installation of the old age pension. Canadians who paid tax in the early 1950s until 1971 paid a special surtax. The 1971 tax guide states: "All taxpayers whose taxable income is over $500 are subject to the Old Age Security Ikx. The tax is 4 per cent of taxable income-maximum $240."
This tax was in effect until 1971. Canadians who paid that tax throughout the 1950s and 1960s until 1971, and that includes almost everybody over the age of 40 including those receiving pensions today, are now to be deprived of the benefits of what they believed that tax was earning them. That is nothing short of straight robbery. They paid the tax for the pension and, unilaterally, without any advance notice they are being deprived of the pension which that tax earned them.
October 11, 1989

Those senior citizens who contributed 4 per cent of their income on a special tax in the 1950s and 1960s and will now have 100 per cent of their pension clawed back, taxed back, in effect are paying a tax of 104 per cent. They paid thousands of dollars over a 20-year period believing that they were going to be entitled to the full old age pension. Now it has been taken from them. That is expropriation without compensation. The senior citizens of this country will demand compensation at the next general election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This is abandonment of the commitments and the social contracts that governments have had with the people in this country. What this government is saying to Canadians is "Don't count on it. Don't count on having a pension when you reach retirement age. Don't count on having a family allowance when you are trying to raise a family because we could rejig these numbers next week, next month, next year, or in three years." Once a government decides to set a discretionary limit on the total amount of the pension, whether it is $50,000 today or $40,000 tomorrow, nobody is safe and nobody can count on it because it is no longer a right of citizenship, it depends on the pure, unadulterated, unilateral discretion of the government of the day.

What about the social contract? What about the government's commitment to maintain its part of the contract? The Prime Minister has forgotten about it. The Minister of Finance has reneged on the contract. The Government simply does not believe in the universality of social programs. Why not admit it? Why not come out and say so? Why not? Because if they admit that universality no longer has its place in our country, the government denies what it has repeated and promised over and over again. It prefers to end universality in a roundabout way. Canadians, however, are not easily fooled.

Don't take it just from me. The National Council on Welfare had this to say: "The move away from universal benefits is the most significant change in social policy in a generation. Yet it was announced by the Minister of Finance in a budget speech with no prior consultation. In
Government Orders
the case of seniors, the federal government had publicly rejected the idea of a clawback or a surtax on old age pensions as late as January, 1985, on the grounds that it would seriously disrupt the retirement income system. The clawback changes the rules of the game without their consent. The elderly have already paid for their old age pensions through a lifetime of paying income taxes."
That was a press release by the council on September 13,1989. The president of the Senior Citizens Federation says the following in a letter dated June 23, 1989, to the Prime Minister: "We view this proposal as a serious breach of faith by our government and an insidious effort to undercut the social security programs that you have on numerous times stated are a sacred trust."
In a letter dated May 24, 1989 to the Minister of Finance the Coalition of Quebec Seniors says: "The pension clawback is discriminatory on the basis of age, unfair, and contrary to the Charter of Rights. It creates a steeper tax rate for seniors than for others of similar income levels. Seniors who with great difficulty have succeeded over the years in saving for their retirement are being penalized".
What this proposal means, of course, is that a senior with an income of $70,000 per year will be taxed differently than someone younger making the same amount of money. That is not fair and it doesn't make sense.
Why from this comer of the House, both in this House and across the country, certainly since the days of Mackenzie King, and then on to Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Trudeau, have we always believed in universality? Why has universality been the guiding principle in the social programs accepted in this country? We have tried to explain this principle to the government. This government has never been able to grasp it. I will try again.
If there is one characteristic that is Canadian, if there is one quality by which we like to define ourselves, it is the quality of fairness, equal opportunity and equal treatment. We believe that no matter where you come from, where you live, what you earn, who your family is that you have an equal right to the social programs of this country, that all individuals are entitled to the social programs as a right of citizenship. It is part of the social

Government Orders
contract in return for a lifetime of contribution to our community.
We believe that all Canadians deserve that equal and equitable treatment no matter what their social status. Universality means that everyone is treated the same. We do not mean that you don't tax the rich more than the poor. We believe in a progressive income tax where those who have the ability to pay, pay. That is the fault with this goods and services tax. It is regressive.
We have always believed that if you limit programs and direct them to the poor, if you design them for the poor, if you design them for those at the lower income scales, then those programs inevitably become poor programs. Universality means that the rich man and the poor man wait in the same doctor's office for the same service and are covered in the same way. They mean that regardless of income, regardless of connections, there is equal treatment.
Universality has been a unifying force in our country. It makes our social programs credible because there is no ghettoizing of the haves and the have-nots, such as the poor get something and the rich don't. Everybody does, subject to an over-all taxation system, but the programs are credible because when they come to all of us then we are all behind them. They are community programs, and that is why Canada has been the most successful country in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The danger is that once you start tinkering with that principle, once you start undermining the principle of universality, you put everything in question. Who decides who gets what benefits? Where do you draw the line? Who decides which of our citizens need more help than the next one? Once the principle is abandoned and discretion is reintroduced into our social programs, what is next? Medicare? Hospitalization? Free public education? Oh, some members may raise their eyebrows, but this is the first government in Canadian history that has ever put a tax on learning, a tax on books. This government is destabilizing and endangering the social contract which is based on trust, legitimate expectation, reliance on the word of our public officers.
I hesitate to say, "I told you so". It is the worst thing you can say to a member of your family, the worst thing
you can say to a neighbour. You never get any credit for it. But I made a prediction in this House of Commons in December, 1984, when I spoke out against the government's proposal to de-index the Old Age Pension. I said then that this debate would not end until there was "a clear, unmistakable, credible, believable and unassailable commitment that the government will not tamper with the universality of the social programs of this country which are counted on by millions of Canadians. They are part of the social contract, part of the glue, the adhesion, and the unity that have made this country a very decent place to live". That is what I said then, and I regret that that prediction has come true.
I want to say to you, Sir, my colleagues will be entering this debate. This is not going to be the end of it. It is only, perhaps to use the Churchillian phrase, "the end of the beginning". Now we know. Now we have the legislation. It is before the House. Now we know that all those commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, those commitments to protect and defend and enhance our social programs, promises are not worth a damn. Now we know that this government has no commitment that cannot be broken, no matter how solemn the occasion, no matter how frequently it is made. That is the measure of this Prime Minister and this Minister of Finance, and that is the measure of this debate.
I could not be more serious when I say now we are dealing with part of the basic moral fibre and structure of this country. Can our politicians and public figures be trusted? If commitments of the Prime Minister made on several occasions on national television and across the country, not only in two federal elections, but whenever he was accosted by members of the public are no longer sacred-and now we know they are not-then on this side of the House on behalf of Canadians on this and other issues we are in a battle and we will press it right to the limit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the government would like to advise the House that tomorrow will be designated as an opposition day.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, for his excellent speech.
I am honoured to lead off my party's debate on Bill C-28. I was going to say that it was a beautiful autumn day, resplendent in beautiful colours, with mother nature at work, a kaleidoscope and all of those beautiful terms, but really it is a black Wednesday in October across Canada. It is probably very appropriately a grim, sombre day because the discussion of Bill C-28 is an historic piece of legislation that spells the end of universality for social programs in Canada. A sacred trust of the Canadian people.
This government has created a new vernacular of political jargon in this country. Words such as reprofile, deregulate, privatize, rationalize, patronize, Americanize and finally benefit reduction tax, better known as the clawback. The name speaks for itself. This is on the heels of VIA cuts with the statement of the Prime Minister, "We must cut VIA in order to save it", and "We must decrease social benefits in order to maintain them". What sort of bizarre, fallacious reasoning in this? It is obviously Tory reasoning. It would earn a failure in logic in first-year university in philosophy and in the real world it is pure debauchery. This, indeed, is historic legislation, but history will not treat either legislation or the government kindly for its actions.
Speaking of history, I would like to cite some references dated, but nevertheless prophetic. William H. Seward, a Republican-no surprise-in January 1861 stated:
So I look upon Prince Rupert's Land and Canada, and saw how an ingenious people and a capable, enlightened government, are occupied with bridging rivers and making railroads and telegraphs to develop, organize and create and preserve the great British Provinces of the north; by the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and around the shores of Hudson's Bay, and I am able to say, "It is very well; you are building excellent states to be hereafter admitted to the American Union.
This government wants us to be like the United States. This legislation strikes out at the supposed richer, older citizens of our country. You know the now famous quote, Mr. Speaker: "As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, social benefits will be improved, not diminished by this government which is committed to social justice and
Government Orders
fairness for all Canadians". He forgot to add, "fairness for all, except for children and senior citizens".
This was said in October 1988. What a dramatic turnabout, but a turnabout that we have grown all too used to.
Remember the free trade debate? Free trade will not affect our social programs. It will, in fact, enhance them. Some of the candidates brought out their mothers and fathers and said: "I would never deceive you. I would never lie to you. Please believe me, because my mother knows that I am telling the truth". Well, today every grandmother and grandfather in this country is getting a swift kick.
I do not accept the remarks of the finance committee chairman that older people don't wear out their clothes, or they don't buy furniture. The intimation is that older people are sedentary. They are not. This clawback is causing older citizens to rise up again and glut their ire as they did in 1984.
The problem with this legislation is that it is sneaky, pernicious, discriminatory, an attack on seniors, but is also a lever into attacking all of the social services that will affect 128,000 pensioners in 1990, but one million in 20 years from now. Let us remember that we are an aging population. The claws of clawback will eventually hit everybody if, God forbid, this government remains in power.
We are not only talking to 65 year olds, but we are talking to 25 year olds making $25,000 now, with salary increased only by inflation. They will have part of their Old Age Security clawed back at retirement. So we are are not just talking about 65 year olds, we are talking about 25 year olds, 35 year olds, and 45 year olds.
What do seniors think? Not that the government cares. An editorial from The Legion magazine of July and August, 1989, put it very succinctly: "Indeed, even if the $50,000 income threshold will drop in real terms because it will not be indexed to a level of inflation, but only to inflation minus 3 per cent, with a reduction of the real income at which the tax kicks in, more seniors will have to pay more money. Not coincidentally the numbers of seniors will be increasing as Canada's population ages collectively. In more than just a decade, a large number of seniors will be caught in the net and it won't be just the big fish. In essence, the government is sneaking up

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
on us. What we have here, in addition to the government's betrayal of public trust, is a case of age discrimination".
Up to this point I have spoken in generalities. Many people will say: "Well, it doesn't apply to me". I want to cite a specific case of a constituent of mine who came into the office and talked about this clawback. She was fighting mad, upset, hurt, and indignant. Her story, we cannot generalize that just because someone makes $50,000 a year that means one is well to do and can easily afford to give back some of one's Old Age Security. This lady is a single woman. She worked for 35 to 40 years in a well-paid responsible position. She was a very budget conscious person for all of her working life. At retirement she had placed $250,000 into the provincial and federal tax coffers. The 1971 tax guideline, clause 37, Section 3, Old Age Security Act states: "All taxpayers whose taxable income is over $500 are subject to the old age security tax. The tax is 4 per cent of taxable income."
This lady lives in a non-profit housing unit. Her rent has gone from $426 to $469 to $510 per month in the last 15 months. The 4 per cent rent guideline does not apply to non-profit housing. Because of this woman's good fortune she has set up a $10,000 scholarship for a needy student. Excellent. Now she finds out that the company she worked for for 35 or 40 years has been bought out by another larger company and her pension is on hold. She has worked all of this out for 35 to 40 years and the whole budget is now shot. In tears she states that there is a lifelong budget shot to hell.
There are many stories out there similar to this. Different circumstances but, nevertheless, there can be a tragic end. Universality is not a right of citizenship any more. You will be asked: "Do you deserve it? Do you need it? Do you qualify for it? Prove it". If only big business had the same kind of morals.
Going back to free trade. The end of universality is a government desire. We want to be like the United States. I cite the problems since January 1 of harassment by Americans regarding pork, lumber, fish, and steel. Subsidies were supposed to be negotiated over the next seven years. Yet when a punitive duty was brought against Sysco and Algoma Steel the Minister for International Trade said: "Oh, well, everyone knows that Sysco is highly subsidized". So, they are now a write-off.
I wrote letters to the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade with regard to this punitive duty against the steel mill in my city. I got no response nor any reaction whatsoever. The free trade agreement binds us, it permeates all of our discussions, and makes us more and more like the United States.
A reputable politician, Mr. Gotlieb, the ex-Canadian ambassador to the United States states: "Lobbying in the United States is now vital. The free trade agreement offered us no protection whatsoever. We have to get in there and lobby for our rights". We should take his advice. It is important.
Social programs are no longer a sacred cow. The cow will soon be dead and the bleeding has begun. The end of universality has begun and it is acknowledged by the government's finance committee chairman. I will cite the same letter. We have a copy of the letter if one would deny the report of the Ottawa Citizen. I think it bears repeating. As you know, it has been a conservative philosophy for some time that distributions from the state ought to go essentially to those in need. While the clawback may be unfair and sneaky it is there. That says it all. That really does say it all.
The National Council on Welfare report is financed by the government and has various points with regard to the illegitimacy of the clawback. I would like to highlight number seven. "The clawback could erode support for social programs. Eventually it will weaken popular support for social programs in general including those which help the poor. Giving benefits with one hand and taking them all back with the other is a hypocritical policy that could engender middle-income voters' resentment at paying taxes for social programs to which they are not really entitled". In layman's terms people will say: "Well, I don't want to pay into it because I am not going to receive anything from it".
Time will not permit me to elaborate on the family allowance clawback but it is, suffice it to say, that the same scenario will evolve and within ten years 30 per cent of all families will be negatively affected.
This legislation hits everybody. It hits the seniors, it hits young people, but of course it hits the middle-income group that has to support these young people. As far as transfer payments are concerned, they are being cut in this omnibus tax bill. Under Established Programs Financing the federal government provides support to the provinces in the form of cash and tax transfers for
October 11, 1989

health care and post-secondary education. In the Budget the government announced it would cut the growth in its EPF transfers by one percentage point beginning in 1990-91.
I should like to turn to one of my favourite books and I have read it perhaps a hundred times because I cannot believe what I read. It is called Where I Stand, by our Prime Minister. This was written when he was at his zenith of popularity. He is talking about research and development and he says:
The starling line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit. To play with the majors, we must make a firm commitment to double the public and private funds allocated to research and development-Research and development, and the resulting innovations are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.
And he goes on:
As a percentage of its population, Canada employs in research and development one-third as many people as do the Swedes, the Germans, and the Japanese and one-half as many as the Dutch, the French, and the Americans. Of all the industrialized countries of the Western world, Ireland and Iceland are the only countries that invest less than we do in this vital field.
We must double our research and development. And part of that doubling has to come through transfer payments. Now that is the myth, this is the reality.
John Ferguson of Southam News writes:
Meanwhile, indications are that total spending on research and development in which we already lag far behind our major trading partners appears to have declined again last year as a proportion of the economy.
Mulroney promised in the 1984 election that Canada would double spending on R and D under a Tory government. It was then 1.37 per cent of gross domestic product. It slid to 1.31 per cent in 1987 and when the 1988 figures come out they will likely show the figure below 1.30 per cent.
In the same article Mr. Ferguson writes:
Another sign of waning interest: the 34-member National Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by Mulroney and touted as a signal of his commitment, has not met since last summer.
Government Orders
How can we do better when we cut, cut, cut? All of these measures will condemn us to be hewers of wood and drawers of water in perpetuity. Transfer payments affect our post-secondary education and hospital care. This could create two tiers of medical care, one for the have-provinces and one for the have-not provinces. The Canadian Medical Association says: "We are headed toward a two-tier health care system with one quality of health care in the rich provinces and second or third-rate services in the poor provinces".
Today I received a fax from Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario, which is one of the have-provinces and perhaps no one would deny that we in Ontario are indeed fortunate. But, the health care system in Ontario is in disarray, operated by a Liberal government, handling what meagre funds the Tory government passes on to it. This report is extremely upsetting, to say the least. A local individual perhaps lost his life because one of the best hospitals in Ontario could not care for him. It did not have the staff available. This is an indication that when the have-provinces are having problems, you can see what reduction in transfer payments could result in.
As far as the system is concerned, the system will work for those who are in the system who can play the system, but most average Canadians have no idea what the system is or how they can participate. The indication that average Canadians have been consulted on this tax bill, are, of course, erroneous.
James Carter said in 1895: "In every community those who feel the burdens of taxation are naturally prone to relieve themselves from it if they can. One class struggles to throw the burden off its shoulders. If they succeed, of course, it must fall upon others. They also in turn labour to get rid of it. Finally, the load falls upon those who will not or cannot make a successful effort for relief. This is in general a one-sided struggle in which the rich only engage and which the poor always go to the wall".
This legislation is a natural fallout from the budget. Let there be no doubt that this was a big business budget. When they brought forth all of their wishes from the wish book they got just about what they wanted.
Their wish list contained the following: the government must set targets for reducing the deficit and sustain the effort over a number of years of unshakeable

Government Orders
commitment; the deficit must be slated to fall by close to $7 billion per year; expenditure reduction should make up the bulk of cuts in the deficit. The following recommendation is particularly noteworthy: since social programs make up 60 per cent of government program spending, social programs should be the major target.
It is coming true. They say that any social program spending should be targeted only to those in need. This means the end to any concept of universality, including universal pensions. Tax increases will have to form some part of the deficit reduction strategy. Such tax hikes should be temporary when possible and applied to deficit reduction. The manufacturers' sales tax should be replaced with a national sales tax, and the federal government should introduce this unilaterally if it cannot secure provincial support. Small business groups caution that sales tax reform should be done very carefully if they are to support it. Ideally the tax should have no exemptions or exceptions and regressivity should be offset for the poor by a refundable tax credit.
Everything they wanted they got. Business should not be exempt from the program cuts to carry its share of the burden. Expenditure cuts to business should look at limiting industrial grants and subsidies for regional development. These were recommendations by the big business lobby.
I say that this big business lobby has become very sophisticated in its public relations. They say: "We have to tread softly not to upset the average Canadians. Let us put this kind of rhetoric in here and we will deceive them." Indeed I think people were deceived at first, but now they are starting to catch on and people are upset. They are extremely upset with the whole budgeting process and the tax grab by this government.
Since taxation is complicated and there are many different taxes involved, the ordinary citizen might be forgiven for being a bit confused. But if a large majority of Canadians have felt in the past that the rich were not paying enough tax, once the smoke and mirrors of the current reform are removed these same Canadians may be surprised to find that the rich are paying even less tax.
The finance minister's tax reform or tax deform, depending on how you take it, is indeed mostly smoke and mirrors. There is a lot of talk about making the rich pay more and helping those at the bottom end of the economy. In reality the reforms do almost nothing to achieve those ends. Some well-to-do investors in the corporations will pay more but most high rollers will pay less.
There was very little outcry. The Financial Post and The Financial Times, and The Globe's report on business, lost interest veiy, very quickly in the tax reform, indicating that it was a pleasant budget for big business.
The finance minister's reform has not really caused the government to veer from its agenda at all, except perhaps to throw out a quick tax reduction a few years ago. From the beginning the government has been moving toward a much heavier emphasis on the sales tax, the most regressive kind of tax. Since it came to power in 1984 it has increased corporate taxes by only 4.2 per cent while it increased income tax by 48.2 per cent.
I believe our party will soon be talking about implementing a wealth tax because the top 10 per cent in this country own more than half the country's wealth.
We are in step with the United States. Everything that we once stood for, revered, enjoyed, accepted and expected is being cut from under us. This is a very sorry day. These are sorry times. Until Canadians rise as one and shout: "we are as mad as hell, we are not going to put up with it any more"-and I think it is getting closer and closer-the government will move forward with its agenda, an agenda which is destroying us and making us a market driven, profit motivated society where only the fittest survive. What about the rest-and the rest-and the rest.
We beseech the government to rescind its clawback for the benefit of all Canadians. The Prime Minister said not too long ago: "We are in the process of building two Canadas-one which is rich and promising and one which is underdeveloped and underemployed", which is unacceptable. We agree whole-heartedly with the Prime Minister that this is totally unacceptable.
October 11, 1989


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a major piece of legislation, Bill C-28, and especially to answer the former Minister of Finance of this country who, as you know Mr. Speaker, took us from being hard-pressed to depressed, and I am referring to the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, not so long ago the Leader of the Opposition got rid of his financial critic because he said the Conservative government's policies were good. So he was kicked out. And I can predict, Mr. Speaker, that the regional president of the federal Liberal Party- The truth is never palatable, Mr. Speaker, but we all need to hear the truth from time to time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not the truth!


Pierre H. Vincent: Now what did I say, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. St-Julien:: It didn't take us 20 years to see the light.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I had the courtesy to listen to my colleagues and I think they should do the same for me. They would learn something.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I can predict that the regional president of the federal Liberal party in our area will soon be on the outs, because only last week, he said he agreed with the economic policies of the Conservative Party in the riding of Trois-Rivieres. Just watch, Mr. Speaker: their regional president will soon be fired, just like their financial critic.


An Hon. Member:: Talk about the bill, not the Liberal Party!


Pierre H. Vincent: Be patient! We'll get there. Nothing to get excited about. We have the whole afternoon!
When I hear the former Minister of Finance, who at the time managed to increase the deficit very substantially, when I hear him talk about the elderly and the last budget, it reminds me of the economic statement of 1984, the budget of 1985, the budget of 1986, the budget of 1987 and the budget of 1988. That makes five, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition must have taken the speeches he made on those occasions and used them to write the one he gave today. If he had given us a replay of his speeches on past Budgets, it would have
Government Orders
been the same speech, absolutely identical. The economy will be in bad shape. The elderly will be in bad shape, family allowances, and so forth- And this while our records show that 1.5 million jobs were created during the past four years in this country, permanent jobs, which means ten times as many as the previous Liberal government created over the same period, and that Government created part-time jobs, Mr. Speaker. And people remember that! Talk to the people in Trois-Rivieres and they will tell you all about it.
Mr. Speaker, just I am sure you do on the weekend, I make the rounds among the various senior citizens' clubs:	Sainte-Marguerite, Saint-Jean-de-Breboeuf,
Saint-Philippe and Radisson. During the budget period, they asked me: What's all this about old age security pensions and returning part of our cheque and so forth! I said: Listen, if you have a gross annual income of $77,000, not $42,000, not $24,000 and not $52,000 but $77,000, you will have to return part of your old age security pension. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? The people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres said: It's not a bad idea. The senior citizens in the riding of Trois-Rivieres said: It makes good sense.
If I have an annual income of $77,000,1 can give back part of my old age security cheque as tax to the federal government and I will still be able to live very well. That is what is in the Conservative government's 1989 budget. And I think that at some point, we must call a spade a spade. For 20 years, there was shameless waste by the former Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, so that when we took power in 1984, the accumulated debt was $200 billion and the annual deficit was $39 billion. It is funny how the Opposition does not talk when we speak the truth! It is funny how they become very quiet.
We must be realistic, Mr. Speaker. What has this government done for four years? It is true that we raised taxes, yes! I do not think there is a member on this side of the House who will not admit that. We will also admit something, Mr. Speaker: since tax reform in 1988, each Canadian taxpayer has between $1,600 and $1,800 more a year in his pocket. That too must be said! Because with the 1988 reform, taxes went down. Because with the reform in 1986 for the refundable federal sales tax credit, that tax, which as we know is not wonderful, is less regressive. With the GST, the credit will be raised and the tax will be even less regressive. The tax will penalize people on low or moderate incomes even less and it will

Government Orders
apply to those who can afford it. That is good, sound administration.
Look at the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was asked if he was against the cuts to VTA Rail. Yes! Is he against free trade? Yes! Is he against the budget, all budgets? Is he against the GST? Yes! He is against all that. No problem! He is against it all. And I could go on. But we also say to him: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, if you are against it, fine! But what are your solutions?


Guy St-Julien: He has none!


Pierre H. Vincent: "Well, no, I have no solutions, I am the opposition, I oppose. I have nothing to say, I am the opposition, I oppose." That is the policy of the Liberal Party: "to oppose!" Mr. Speaker, we do not create and continue to build a country with such a philosophy, "I oppose! I have nothing to say, I oppose!" That is the Opposition Leader's job. Since September 4, 1984, no Liberal or NDP Member has had the decency to come to this House and say, "I am against such and such a policy of the Conservative Government; here is what I propose. I am against a certain bill; I think it should be done this way." Not once has there been any suggestion on any subject. With such a style of opposition, we do not see how one of those two parties can govern this country the way it should be governed in the 1990s, as we approach the year 2000.
Because do not forget, Mr. Speaker, ten years from now we will be entering the year 2000, and to meet the expectations of Canadians for the year 2000 we need economic, cultural and social policies that are adequate.
Mr. Speaker, they suggest the Budget is no good. But like the four others that came before it, that Budget is Canada's economic policy. The Opposition never refers to the cost of the national debt for 1988-89-24.8 per cent of budget expenditures, nearly 25 per cent. This means that 25 per cent of all Canadian cheques issued by the Canadian Government are to pay the interests on the debts made by the previous Government opposite.
Mr. Speaker, to put that in terms of revenues, in other words if I take that 25 per cent and compare it against Canadian Government revenues for 1988-89, we come to 31.7 per cent!


An Hon. Member:: That is 32 per cent.


Pierre H. Vincent: -32 per cent, as stated by the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien). Indeed, 32 per cent of our fiscal revenues go to the payment, not of the principal, but the mere interests on our debts.
As we can easily understand, it is impossible to keep governing the country the way Opposition Parties would like to.
Mr. Speaker, last week I attended a yearly alumni meeting of Lafleche college, in Trois-Rivieres. It was the college's twentieth anniversary and I met a number of former students who are social workers, accountant or what have you, across Quebec. Do you know what those upwardly mobile young people said? They said: We believe in Canada, we believe that in order to have a strong country tomorrow, we need your economic policies now.
We believe that if VIA Rail cannot cover its costs, if it costs Canadians, if it costs us young people in this country $650 million a year, yes you must cut services!


An Hon. Member:: Impossible!


Pierre H. Vincent: Yes, you must maintain it across the country, as you are now doing, but yes, you must cut services.


An Hon. Member:: Unbelievable!


Pierre H. Vincent: This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what young Canadians are thinking!


An Hon. Member:: Untrue!


Pierre H. Vincent: The truth once more upsets people, Mr. Speaker, but we must live with it.
Mr. Speaker, they will have an opportunity after I conclude my speech to put questions if that is their wish. But if they will listen now, I will not be too long.
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I attended a gathering of volunteers in Pointe-du-Lac, a yearly meeting of all those who give their time and energies to those activities. Those people receive no pay but they take their area, their community to heart. But what are these people
October 11, 1989

saying? They are saying the same thing: Indeed, the government in office has to administer and slash where it is needed, just so higher-income families will pay their fair share of taxes, much in the way lower-income families will also pay their fair share, but keeping in mind the fact that they do earn less.
Mr. Speaker, that is the rationale behind the GST. We know that the GST credit will be much higher than what it will be in 1990, but that year every adult will get $140 and every child $70, and the threshold will rise from $16,000 to $18,000 a year. That, Mr. Speaker, is sound administration.
I heard the NDP member refer to corporations and wealthy people who do not pay their share of taxes. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, since 1986 all Canadians pay at least a minimum tax, which means that there is no longer a single Canadian who does not pay his or her fair share of annual taxes.
You also know that as a result of the latest Budget the government will raise close to $1 billion more through the corporate surtax. Mr. Speaker, all corporations will pay their fair share of taxes. I would suggest this is sound management and, looking at it from an economic standpoint, that is what this country needs for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the former Minister of Finance refer to his performance. Here is his performance, Mr. Speaker: while he was Minister of Finance, average expenses increased by 20 per cent a year, the deficit went up, the net debt went up, everything went up when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Timer) was Minister of Finance. This is the same man who today, as he has been doing over the past five years, is trying to teach ethics to this government which in four years did manage to reduce the annual deficit by $10 billion-a 25 per cent deficit reduction every year for four years. It stood at $39 billion when we took over, it is now down to $29 billion. Indeed, 39 minus 10 is 29, and 10 out of 39 works out to 25 per cent.
I see the opposition member smiling. The figures are there and, as my father would say, figures speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Budget is all about.
In 1991, again because we have to keep low income families in mind, as a result of the new federal sales tax
Government Orders
the annual refundable tax credit will amount to $275 per adult and $100 per child. Mr. Speaker, this tax will change absolutely nothing for families whose income is under $30,000. Nine million Canadians will receive a refundable tax credit. Nine million Canadians!
So when I see that the Opposition criticize a budget which shows economic leadership and is consistent with the efforts we have made over the past five years to reduce the deficit, to make sure that low income families are protected, to ensure that Canadian corporations can operate without tons of regulations and legislation as was the case under the previous government, to privatize Crown corporations which compete with private enterprise or which are not profit making concerns for the government- That is what we have done over the past four years and will continue to do, Mr. Speaker!
Bringing down the annual deficit is not wishful thinking but a necessity for this country. We just cannot imagine reaching Year 2000 with Canada being the country most in debt in the world. I think we must be realistic.
I want Members of the Opposition to start making serious proposals and stop arguing that they are against the budget, against the GST, against this or that. Members opposite are always behaving as though they were fighting for the survival of the country, involved in the very last struggle to help Canada make it-Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the same tune for the past five years, and also for the past five years the Canadian economy has been doing fine, we have been creating jobs, the unemployment rate is down and Canadian men and women are living in a stable economic climate and enjoy pleasant federal-provincial relations. That is important too. Since 1984, major investments have been made throughout Canada, whether in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, the prairies or British Columbia, and they have helped the economy. The unemployment rate will therefore go down. Mr. Speaker, these are realities.
In conclusion, I suggest that Bill C-28 must be adopted as soon as possible to be implemented and ensure that the economic well being which we have experienced since 1984 will continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a question or comment.

Government Orders


Guy St-Julien: A comment, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to address the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. You will recall that, in 1984, the Liberal Government then in power created a tax credit to promote research, thus causing the worst tax fraud in Canadian history, what could be called today the rip-off of the century. And today's Liberals, even the new ones, do not even remember it. They have not heard about it in their caucus. I would like to quote an article published in La Presse-


Mr. Boudria:: Do you still have your Liberal party membership card?


Guy St-Julien: That article dated September 30, 1987 reads as follows: "Taking into account the economic situation, the previous Liberal Government, for no valid reason, made taxpayers billions of dollars poorer." That was confirmed by Auditor General Dye. I want to get to Canada's current financial situation. In early 1984, Marc Lalonde the then Minister of Finance knew that the Scientific Research Tax Credit Program would cause problems. He was warned again a few months later but his Department did not do anything because the Government was about to go on the campaign trail.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend, the Member for Trois-Rivieres, that had the Liberal Government intervened right away in 1984, it could have saved a lot of money. And what did we do when we came into office? We cut those research tax credits. Finance Minister Marc Lalonde, who had predicted that the Program would cost $200 million, ended up with a $3.5 billion Program and a fraud of up to $1.9 billion. Nobody knows where that $1.9 billion went. My question for the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres is this: What could have been done in today's political context with $1.9 billion in his riding, in Abitibi, in Quebec and in Canada?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear what I would call an astute question, and the hon. member for Abitibi.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, if they want to ask questions, they're welcome to do so, but when I have the floor, I would like to be heard!
The hon. member for Abitibi is absolutely right. The former government implemented a program, and I have nothing against that except that it provides for tax credits, abatements, and so on. We know that when a back-door program, is established through the use of the
Income Tax Act instead of direct subsidies, it is impossible to predict its cost. They told us it would cost some $200 million, and that it would be promote scientific research, when in fact, Mr. Speaker, it did cost, as my colleague mentionned, almost $4 billion. But what's the problem, you ask. The then minister of Finance knew very well, right from the begining, that it would cost us plenty. But he stood behind his decision, and our country lost the opportunity to spend not millions, but billions of dollars, on social programs such as assistance programs for our handicapped or our ethnic groups, or on cultural and economic programs. Unfortunalety, that money has gone down the drain!
And, as has my colleague for Abitibi noted, we do not even know who got it. All we know is that there was fraud involved. All we know is that billions of dollars have disappeared, passing from a numbered company to another, that things were bought and sold. That is what is called a bad management of a country. And since the opposition members are honest people, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that each of them was against such a thing. If each of them had been able to say no to that bad thing, they surely would have done so. Unhappily, Mr. Speaker, the decision was not theirs to make, and we have lost a couple of billions in funds of all kinds.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member opposite, after listening to his speech. I would like to know if he personally supports Section 48 of the legislation, the thrust of which is to claw back senior citizens' pensions. Does he support the total or partial claw-back of senior citizens' pensions, especially in view of the fact that, as emphasized by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition his excellent speech, a large number of them directly contributed to the fund by paying at some stage 4 per cent of their income tax so that those monies would be reinvested separately for their pensions. In other terms, does the hon. member support expropriating the assets of senior citizens, as Section 48 of the legislation would?


Pierre H. Vincent: I thank the hon. member opposite for his question. I think I made this quite clear in my speech, but I will repeat it just the same Mr. Speaker. The hon. member referred to a budget, measure that says, in terms of figures, that where an individual aged 65 and over has a net annual income of $77,000, and I repeat $77,000, he or she shall pay back part or all of his or her

old age security benefits. And let me tell the hon. member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that I travelled across my constituency and people are saying that of course, with an $77,000 annual income, you can afford to pay back part of your old age security pension cheque because yes, you have enough income to help support the debt left by the Liberals. This is what people in my constituency are saying, Mr. Speaker, and I totally agree.
I think we must be realistic, and as the Leader of the Opposition stated, we never taxed senior citizens. In his question, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell says exactly the opposite. He says that the Liberals taxed senior citizens when they were in office and now they don't want to tax them anymore. Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic. I think that a person who is 65 or older and whose income exceeds $77,000 can pay his or her share to solve the national debt problem which we inherited from the previous Liberal government.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that I had understood the hon. member's reply correctly. He has just stated that he is in favour of expropriating the property of senior citizens who are earning over $77,000 a year to give it back to the State. I heard him say that he is convinced that, in a popularity contest in his riding, his constituents would agree to expropriate without compensation the property of senior citizens earning over $77,000. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that if such is the position of the hon. member opposite, it is certainly not ours as Liberals.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my Hon. friend still lives in a super affluent riding. But I can tell you that in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, people earning $77,000 and more a year are few and far between. There are not a lot of them. It is a riding where people are well-off but are not getting the kind of income to be concerned about the question at this level. Again, I suggest that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell does not understand the system. All Canadians who are 65 years and over receive their full old age security pension. All the budget is saying is that people earning $77,000 and more a year will pay a special tax, which means that part of the amount paid to them in old
Government Orders
age security pension will return to the Government. The budget states that people earning over $77,000 a year will have to pay a special tax, and I suggest that more Canadian men and women, and especially my Trois-Rivieres constitents, are all in favour of this measure.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it has been pretty painful listening to the presentation of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I weep for truth in this House for truth has been a major casualty after that assault from the member for Trois-Rivieres. Truth has been battered. It has been bruised. In fact, I think we will have to carry it out of the House on a stretcher. That is the kind of presentation that we have had from the member for Trois-Rivieres.
I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon on Bill C-28, particularly as it applies to the so-called clawback. I say that because this matter of clawback goes to the very core of Canada. It goes to the heart of this country. It says a lot about what this country is. Is it a country of compassion? Is it a country that cares? Is it a country of citizens who feel that they are their brothers' keepers? Or is this a country where everyone is out for himself, where the rule of the jungle applies?
Those are the questions we have to ask ourselves. The answers are quite obvious. They are apparent from the presentations from the other side. We know where they stand. They want a society that can only be described as dog eat dog, everyone out for himself. That is what they want. That is why they are assaulting the seniors of this country. That is why they are going after the very men and women who built this country and who made this country what it is.
Just last week the chairman of the House of Commons finance committee managed, and it was quite a trick, to insult the entire population of western Canada. I think we got an apology from him. The Minister of State for Finance went one step further this afternoon. I am quite sure that he did not realize what he did nor did he intend to do it, but he managed to insult all senior citizens in this country. I will tell you how he did it. He did it by not

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
even mentioning the word "clawback". He did not even mention the subject. He did not allude to the issue.
There is no bigger insult than not recognizing people's feelings and concerns. Those people on the other side who form the government of the day know that the senior citizens in this country are angry. They are very, very upset. It took a little while for this issue to sort of grab hold, but senior citizens now know what is going on. This is no small issue to them.
Were their concerns recognized by the speeches from that side of the House this afternoon? No, not a word. In fact, what they really said to the senior citizens of the country this afternoon was that they do not count, that they do not matter. They sort of said: "Shove off, buster, we don't care about you." I consider that the ultimate insult. The senior citizens of this country have a grievance. They worked hard. They set aside a portion of their earnings. In fact, it was so designated in their income tax forms back in the 1950s and 1960s. That was pointed out by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. They paid into a fund, and the government comes along and takes it. To add insult to injury, the Tories did not even ask, they did not even consult.
Was there a word about the clawback in the 1988 campaign? Not a whisper, not a boo, not a word. As soon as they got elected, what did they do? They put this infamous, perfidious, pernicious, ugly, nasty clawback into the budget, all in the name of deficit reduction. In fact, I got the feeling that the Conservatives have come to the conclusion that they can do anything, any damnable thing, any abominable thing, as long as it is in the name of deficit reduction. In fact, deficit reduction has been put up on a pedestal so high why, we might as well canonize it, make it a saint. Perhaps we should call it "Saint Deficit Reduction". Perhaps that is what the Tories want.
It is pretty shameful and they are not going to get away with it. They may use their majority, they may use their numbers, but they are going to pay for this because the seniors of this country are not going to forget. As far as I know, we still have a democracy in this country and as far as I know, we are going to have an election down the road. The senior citizens of this country are not going to forget.
Why does this government pick on seniors? Are they some kind of special group to be abused? They worked hard, put their money aside, they were expecting something and now this discrimination comes along, this discriminatory measure. If you reach a particular age, a particular plateau and if you have a particular level of income, they are going to hit you. In effect, they say: "Well, you have reached a certain age and we are going to pick you out for a particular kind of assault". Senior citizens do not like that and they are going to remember.
I do not think that the government of the day is listening because there is unrest out there. We get telephone calls, we get letters, we get petitions. The people want to put a stop to this. There have been editorials written. I want to read into the record some remarks that were made in a publication entitled One Voice. It is the voice of senior citizens. There is an article in it called "Clawback Sparks National Outcry". I want to just pick out a few paragraphs because they put their argument against the clawback quite succinctly. I will not go into the preamble, but in the third paragraph, the article continues:
The same-or more-revenue could be generated by raising the rate at the top income tax bracket by only 1 percent, thereby taxing all high income earners.
In other words, if they think they need this money, they do not have to use a clawback. A mere 1 per cent on high income earners and they would get what they want.
The article continues:
Many view the mechanism as discriminatory, since it taxes pensioners and families at a higher rate than others earning the same income.
Of greater significance and concern is that over the years more and more pensioners and families will start repaying their benefits.
Partial indexation is responsible, the threshold is now $50,000, but by the year 2000 -
And that is only 11 years away.
-it will have fallen to the equivalent of $35,000 in today's dollars. By the time the Baby Boom generation enters retirement, most of them will have to repay their OAS benefits through the clawback.
That is what the seniors are saying. This is not the imagination of an opposition member. This does not come out of the blue. This is what the senior citizens of Canada are saying.
October 11, 1989

The article continues:
In the meantime, once we have accepted the principle of the clawback as part of our system, governments of the day are free to set the threshold as they wish -$30,000, $20,000, etc.
There are widespread fears that the clawback is the "thin edge of the wedge", a wedge which will destroy the Canada's much envied universal social benefits program.
History will remember the clawback as the end of universality, not for its drop in the deficit bucket.
I want to repeat that because these are words of wisdom. I repeat:
History will remember the clawback as the end of universality, not for its drop in the deficit bucket.
Are government members listening? Are they paying any attention to what senior citizens are saying? Not a boo, not a word. In fact, we have heard two speakers this afternoon from the government side, and they have not had the decency to address this issue raised by senior citizens. It is as if senior citizens just do not count. They are not important. Obviously what they are saying is not going to contribute to the debate. We will just forge on, push ahead, because we are right. They are not right.
I want to say something about universality because the clawback does end universality. There is no argument about it. For the government to say it does not end universality because they are entitled to it unless, of course, they earn too much begs the question.
We on this side of the House feel strongly about universality because we want a country that is united. We want a country that does not have several strata of groups of people. We would like to think that we have a country where all of us are equal, that you are not separated by income, for example, or by some particular station in life. That is why we feel strongly about universality. That is why we feel that there should be equal opportunity, that everyone should be treated equally, that equality reigns supreme. That is why we have something like medicare. That is why we have a system of hospitalization. That is why we have a public school system. That is why we have an old age security system that is open to all.
That is important because when you have something that is as fundamental as an old age security program, you should not be going around asking questions: How old are you? What's your income? Where do you come from? There should only be one question and one question only: Are you a Canadian citizen? If you are a
Government Orders
Canadian citizen you are entitled to it, you get it. Yet, this government says no.
We have built up a tradition in this country. We have built up a system of equality that recognizes all Canadians as equal and these people want to put an end to it. They are going to bring about what is called the means test. Oh, they will deny until the cows come home that they are bringing in a means test, but that is exactly what they are going to do.
In the old days, you started the means test at the bottom. This clever bunch started it at the top. I think the idea was to fool Canadians, particularly the senior citizens. We will not start the means test until the $50,000 income level and people will not notice or catch on.
Well, people have noticed. They have recognized it and see it for what it is. It is that nasty, mean, pernicious old means test. It was rejected by our parents, it was rejected by our grandparents and, by golly, it is going to be rejected again by the current generation of Canadians. The government may get away with it for a while but not for long. I think the senior citizens of this country have a long memory.
Not only can the threshold of the clawback move, $50,000 today and $40,000 tomorrow and $30,000 the day after that, even if you did not move the threshold by $1, you would still lose something through deindexation. If you do not move the threshold, what is the value in today's dollars? What is the value of old age security as a result of the clawback 11 years from now at the turn of the century? The fact of the matter is that it is going to be worth perhaps $30,000 or $35,000. In effect, that is where the threshold will be even without moving it.
I opened my remarks by mentioning truth and how it has been a casualty this afternoon as a result of some presentations from the other side. This is nothing new. This whole clawback scheme was a sneaky thing right from the beginning. The Conservatives never said a word back in the 1980 election. Do you think for a moment that the clawback had not crossed their minds, that it had never entered their skulls, permeated their craniums? You can bet your bottom dollar that it was there all the time in the back of their minds. It was, as my good friend from Kingston and the Islands said, on their hidden agenda. When they get elected and know they do not have to face an election for four years, they show a little

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
nerve, this unmitigated gall, arrogance, hubris. This is a government of hubris. They did it without telling Canadians what was coming. In other words, to heck with democracy. Why do we have election campaigns? Why do we have democracy? Is it so they can just go ahead unilaterally without consultation? That is not my notion of democracy and I do not think it is the notion of democracy of many Canadians, except for that bunch over there.
I would say in closing that the clawback is part of a pattern. We see this pattern in cuts in VIA Rail, the closure of post offices in rural Canada, the privatization of Air Canada, the gutting of the unemployment insurance program. It goes on and on and on. Now we have the clawback.
This has been an attack on seniors. It is a betrayal of the senior citizens of this country. They do not deserve this kind of treatment. They deserve our respect. They earned their right to this pension. I have nothing against the richer people in this country, regardless of age, paying their fair share. I want them to pay their fan-share, but it need not be done through this kind of discriminatory measure. You can do it through a fair taxation system. You do not even need to be a genius. In fact, you can be a Progressive Conservative. If you just apply yourself, you can figure out a fair taxation system that will not assault every senior citizen in this country.
This is my entreat. I beg and I beseech and I implore this bunch on that side of the House to open their ears and listen. Get the message. The message is clear. It is as clear as the nose on your face. They do not like it. It is not good for the country and it must go.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A minister has finally come into the House. I will repeatedly object to the fact that on an important bill, particularly on a budget bill, there ought to be a minister sitting in this House. There is nobody here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are ministers here.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my hon. colleague on most of his points but I do have some concern as to what the Liberal alternative would be. Our alternative is as we have said ad tedium even for
ourselves. Now it is becoming ever more apparent that it is the right thing to do.
It is often said that Liberals sound like New Democrats in opposition and like Progressive Conservatives in government. Can we trust you any more than the government side? Will you really dare increase the taxes on the rich? History really does not distinguish you from them. You had your opportunity to implement a fair tax system. You did not do it. What is the Liberal alternative?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman had a question, I did not hear it. I was distracted.


Steve Butland: What would the Liberal alternative be?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the question is ludicrous. It is not a question of a Liberal alternative. It is a question of a Liberal program that was put there by Liberals.
This country has not yet suffered through a democratic administration at the federal level. Manitobans have and the people of Saskatchewan have as have the people of British Columbia.
I find it rather lamentable that the hon. gentleman from British Columbia would attack us. I thought the rotten bunch was those people over there. I thought he would go after them, but he is some kind of elephant. He wants to go into the past.
I will remind him of this: Who brought in UIC? Who brought in family allowance? Who brought in Old Age Security?


Some Hon. Members:: The Liberals.


John Harvard: I could go on and on and on.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and then I will put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James. Replying specifically to the Member for Kingston and the Islands, he constantly rises in this House to make the point of who is here and who is not here, notwithstanding the rule that that is not an appropriate subject for comment.
What I want to say to him and to anybody else who happens to be listening is that unfortunately for the member for Kingston and the Islands, every word spoken in this House is recorded for all time. It is on videotape. It is on the written record to be read and understood. I
October 11, 1989

want to tell you that we find out everything that is said by members opposite. We record it and we respond to it.
This very day the Leader of the Official Opposition said in this House of Commons that he was the author of financial responsibility in Canada, that he brought in budgets and so on but what he did not tell the House and what should now be recorded is that, having done that he left, he went back to his roots in Bay Street and let hyper inflation take place, let the interest rate go up into double digits let unemployment go into digits, let 1,300,000 Canadians become unemployed as a result of those policies.
I want to ask the member who now brags about introducing programs what his point is. Do we in this nation, in order to create financial responsibility, raise revenues, or reduce services? I understood the member's speech to mean that we should maintain services, increase services and lower revenue. Surely, he cannot deny that that is simply going to raise the deficit, cause more pressure to inflate interest rates and all other cost factors in this nation and lead us into the very kind of thing that defeated his government in 1984.


John Harvard: Again it is that same old line from the Conservatives. Anything, as long as its done in the name of deficit reduction, is right. Even if you turn a class of Canadians into second class citizens that is all right with them. Well, damn it, it is not all right, it is not. What gives them the right to destroy universality? What gives them the right to assault elderly Canadians, the senior citizens, the people who built up this country. They do not have the right. We built up in this country traditions, customs, conventions, a system, a whole line of programs and they have come along to destroy them one by one, one after another. They do not have that right, and they are going to get the message in 1992 or earlier that what they have done is absolutely wrong.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of my colleague for Winnipeg-St. James. I want to congratulate him first for the very thought provoking and excellent speech that he made this afternoon.
Earlier I asked a question of the member for Trois-Ri-vieres. I asked him if he felt that it was okay to expropriate the property of our senior citizens if they had
Government Orders
earnings beyond a certain threshold, namely, $70,000. I think I can say from his reply that it was okay with him, that he felt that it was all right to take back the property of the senior citizens of this country if they had earnings beyond a certain limit. I want to ask my colleague what he thinks of that kind of answer from the member for Trois-Rivieres.


John Harvard: I do not think it is much of an answer. Where I grew up, a deal was a deal, a bargain was a bargain and a contract was a contract. In other words, your word was your bond. I thought there was a solemn contract between the federal government of this country and the senior citizens of Canada that a deal was in place, that they had contributed to this scheme and when they reached age 65 they would get benefits under old age security. That is not the government view. It feels that it has the right to abrogate that contract, to shirk its responsibility. I think that is a dastardly deed.
I put it this way, can you imagine if a private company did this, can you imagine if a life insurance company on some particular pretext said, "We do not have to honour your policy, you have reached age 65 or, you know what, you have been too successful, you have made too much money. You know what, we have had kind of a bad year, or we had a bad decade, so we are going to take a little out of your pocket. Is that not kind of fair? We will just sort of ignore the words in the contract".
Well, I don't think that is fair. Certainly no one on this side of the House feels it is fair and I will bet you my last loonie that not one senior citizen thinks it is fair either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I begin to debate today this terrible bill, the end of universality in Canada, but I begin by making reference to something that was said by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-St. James when he talked about "Saint Deficit Reduction". Much as I agree with his speech I think we have to say and it has to be admitted that Saint Deficit Reduction does not come from realms celestial, it comes from the other side of this House where celestial matters are much lacking. It comes instead from the netherworld and from a form of social planning that attacks Canadians rather than helps them.


Don Boudria: An unholy bunch.

Government Orders


Mary Catherine Clancy: An unholy alliance of Canadians from coast to coast who are prepared to see the end of social programs as we know them, as Canadians have come to expect them, and as all people in this country who paid taxes until 1971 contributed to them.
Universality; the principle of treating all Canadians alike, of fostering a sense of community, a sense that all Canadians share in some of the riches of this country and in some of the benefits. Universality; which says to senior Canadians, you contributed; you worked years ago for 35 cents an hour, for 50 cents an hour; you were taxed. But now you are going to get some return on those taxes. Universality; unlike other social programs, universal benefits do not-


Howard Edward Crosby: Does that include everybody?


Mary Catherine Clancy: I am sorry, Harry, I didn't hear that.


Howard Edward Crosby: Does that include millionaires?


Mary Catherine Clancy: It includes millionaires. Have you got something against millionaires? Are we going to be prejudiced against millionaires here? No, Howard, you have 10 minutes at the end, just wait, chill it.
Unlike other social programs, universal benefits do not set the poor apart from the millionaires, they do not make the poor feel like second-class citizens. We are not back to the days when the hon. member from Halifax West and I, who share a common Irish ancestry, saw signs that said, "No Irish need apply". We are not back to the days when Canadians who live on one side of the railroad tracks are considered inferior to Canadians who live on the other side of the railroad tracks. Universal benefits do not set the poor apart from the rich and they do not stigmatize lower income Canadians.
Not too long ago I was in a bank in the neighbourhood which the hon. member from Halifax West and I used to share-he had to move out of town; I don't know if that was because of social programs or not. While in the bank I met a woman who worked for 45 years in the city of Halifax in the private sector. After 45 years of working she retired at age 65 on a pension from her private sector job of $40 a month. You are not really going to keep yourself very well on $40 a month. But this woman was in receipt of the old age pension. She would not, however, apply for the guaranteed income supplement to which she was entitled. In talking to her that day I asked her
why not. She told me why not. She referred to another woman in that same bank line who had worked for over 40 years in the public school system of Nova Scotia and, thanks to the lobbying techniques and the good contractual relations practised by the Nova Scotia teachers union, this woman had a secure pension, cost of living adjusted, but she, too, was in receipt of old age pension benefits. My friend, the woman with the princely pension of $40 a month said: "You see, we both get the old age pension. I am not getting a hand-out; I get it, she gets it. I feel that I can accept this with pride."
This woman still lives in my riding. She still gets a pension of $40 a month. She still won't apply for the guaranteed income supplement because, in her mind, it is a hand-out. How is she going to feel when she looks at her contemporaries who, because of different lifestyles, different modes of financial planning-and probably because of not being female in the work force-have managed to give themselves incomes in excess of $50,000 a year and thus are having those incomes clawed back, having those old age pension benefits clawed back.
I will tell you how she is going to feel, Mr. Speaker. She is going to feel like a second rate Canadian. In her pride she is going to say, "I cannot accept this because it is not given with an even hand to everyone in my situation, to everyone in my age group".
Fifty thousand dollars a year is not exactly a princely income, not in this day and age. Admittedly, it is a tragedy. In this country there are far too many people who fall below that income. But let us look at the one income family, $51,000 a year, on a pension alone. There is no way to get around that, the clawback will come into effect. The clawback will take benefits away from those senior citizens with a pension income in excess of $50,000 a year.
In my province of Nova Scotia we are very proud people, in spite of the hard knocks that have been dealt to us, particularly in the last couple of years by the federal government, we pride ourselves on the ability to plan for the future. Senior citizens in Atlantic Canada have planned for the future and part of that plan, no matter what their income may be, includes the old age pension. Suddenly, with very little notice, they are being told, "No, sorry, that no longer is part and parcel of your retirement income. That is gone." There is a great swipe
October 11, 1989

taken by this claw and it is leaving senior citizens right across this country bleeding.
We are also seeing a special tax on families with children, a tax that does not apply to families without children. This bill proposes a clawback of 15 per cent of family allowance and old age pension for taxpayers with incomes over $50,000 and a full clawback for taxpayers earning over $70,000. The claw-back on family allowance alone will take $1,686 billion out of family budgets in the next five years. This claw-back will affect 535,000 Canadian families, and the numbers will grow because within 10 years close to one million Canadian families will have begun to lose their family allowances and old age pensions due to the partial indexing of the $50,000 threshold.
I spent 10 years in the practice of family law in the city of Halifax. The bulk of my clients were women-women and children in crisis-and not all of them were what we consider to be poverty level. Indeed, many of them were women who lived in the finest neighbourhoods in luxurious houses, who were married to men who made incomes that would certainly put them well beyond the limits of this clawback. But I saw women in my city of Halifax save the family allowance benefit month after month, year after year, until they had enough money to get themselves out of untenable situations; situations where they themselves were abused, situations where their children were abused physically, emotionally and spiritually.
The family allowance, in particular, has great meaning for Canadian women. For many women it is the only income that they have. It is the only money that they see with no strings attached that belongs to them. It is money that they do not have to account for to their husbands. Suddenly, the husband's income tax is going to be clawed back to cover these benefits. What is that going to do in a household where a wife is trying to save that money for an escape hatch? That added stress in that family situation is going to create untold hardship and untold misery for women and children right across this country I wonder if the government has considered this. I wonder if, in the hardness of their hearts, they wonder how children and women in Canada are going to react to the pain that this clawback will cause. So another group in
Government Orders
this country is bleeding from the government's unceremonious and hard-hearted use of the clawback.
The claw-back proposal is particularly discriminatory against families in which only one parent works, and yet we see a government that is happy to fund anti-equality groups like REAL Women who say, not necessarily incorrectly, that in the best of all possible worlds a woman should stay at home and look after her children. Nobody who labours in the fields of the battle for women's rights disagrees with that in principle. We agree that women should have a choice.
We also know that in this country today, given the extent of the economic exigencies plaguing the Canadian family, the number of women who have a free choice to stay home or to go out to work is getting smaller every day. We know, Mr. Speaker, because the statistics tell us that women work, not to provide colour television sets or trips to Hawaii or any of the things that the government obviously thinks is behind the influx of women into the workforce, but to keep their families in food, shelter, clothing and education.
But what will happen with the claw-back? The one parent who works and supports a spouse and children will be in a far worse position than a family in which both parents work and earn under the clawback level. A family in which both parents work and earn $49,000 will not have to pay back any of their benefits, but a family in which one parent works earning $75,000 will lose all their benefits.
Where is fairness, Mr. Speaker? Where is the Canadian way? Where is the idea that this government allegedly adheres to in supporting the Canadian family? It is not there for Canadian women. It is not there for Canadian children. It is not there for older Canadians. I do not think it is "Saint Deficit Reduction", I think it's a case of a government that says, "We do not care. This is not on our priority list. This is not important to us as a government. This does not come within our financial plan." Well I can only say that a financial plan that leaves Canadians in the kinds of situations that this one is going to leave them in is one that comes from people who clearly do not think very far into the future.
I represent one of the most more prosperous areas of Atlantic Canada, at least we were a little more prosperous until the budget was unleashed upon us this spring. What we have seen in Halifax, what we have seen right across my region, and what I and my colleagues on this side of the House-because most Atlantic Canadians

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
sent people to this side of the House-hear when we go home to our ridings is a tale of woe. We see senior citizens worried about the pensions that they are going to lose. We see senior citizens worried that while they are going to get their pensions clawed back, they are going to be hit with a 9 per cent sales tax. We see young families wondering if they are going to be able to bring their children to the regional health facility in Halifax because the trains are cut.
Last week after the VIA cuts were announced there was a particularly poignant story on the CBC news. A young woman, the mother of a small child, in one of the outlying areas of Nova Scotia, has to bring that child on a monthly basis to the children's hospital in Halifax for chemotherapy. That young woman has taken the child in the morning by train, found it very comfortable, brought the child for treatment, and then has been able, because of the further comfort of the train, to take him back that evening. That young woman is now faced with the fact that when she brings her child for therapy in the future that she will have to spend an extra day and a night in Halifax because taking the child home by bus does not have the comfort, does not have the ease and the facility that the train did, so she has an excess cost.
She has an excess cost because she is going to get hit with the general suffering tax. And she may well-I do not know what her income level is-but she may well be hit with an excess cost if she comes over the income level for the clawback. And if she does not come over the income level for the clawback today, Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured that she probably will within a few years.
We talk about fairness and about the things to which Canadians aspire. We talk about a vision for Canada. I look at my riding that has 22 senior citizen apartment complexes. We are an aging population. If nothing else, a government that truly plans for the future should be looking at that planning in the sense of that aging population, in the sense that within a number of years all of us who are lucky enough to live that long are going to be in the position of being senior citizens and pensioners.
If we have no sense of what is fair for the people whom we represent today, would it not at least be sensible for this government to have some idea of self-preservation for the people who will be seniors in the future? I guess not, Mr. Speaker. What we have here is an uncaring government. What we have here is a government that says that universality is a thing of the past. A sense of pride for Canadians, whatever their income level, is not important. A sense of self-worth for older Canadians who have spent their time building this country, sacrificing for this country, sacrificing for their children and sacrificing for generations yet unborn, is worth nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. I call that, not something that comes, as I said earlier, from the realm celestial, no, that is someting that comes from the realms that this government will someday be more familiar with.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add some comments and to put a question to my colleague from across the harbour. I have been listening to the debate today. I listened to my hon. colleague for Halifax West who sits on the other side of the House, and I can tell you that after listening to my colleague for Halifax I am certainly very proud to be sitting on this side of the House with somebody who cares as much about the people in her riding and Canadians and senior citizens as what her comments just illustrated.
First of all, I would like to say that many people on this side of the House, all the Liberals on this side of the House at least, are concerned about the clawback provisions that the member for Halifax so eloquently spoke about. Every individual on this side of the House, and probably on the other side of the House as well, has received phone calls, has received letters, has been visited by seniors, who, as the member said, feel betrayed by this government, who feel that they were sold a bill of goods. Mny of these seniors, prior to the last election, gave some members opposite another chance after the government tried to partially deindex old age pensions. One of the things that is particularly troublesome is the callous disregard of the government of illustrating its true agenda during the campaign.
I can remember quite clearly that during the campaign at one point the Prime Minister, speaking to a group of seniors, I believe somewhere in Quebec, had the audacity to take his mother forward and say to the crowd, "Don't worry about old age pensions, I will never touch them. My mother is on old age pension. Do you think I
October 11, 1989

would do that to my mother?" Well obviously he has done something to his mother and it hasn't been to protect her pension. What he has done with this particular piece of legislation that has been presented by his minister is to make a mockery of the trust that has been placed in him by many of the seniors across this country.
Initially, this government has tried to silence the seniors. It said that anything over $50,000 will be taxed back, as if $50,000 was $50,000 in the spending power of 1982. The government said it would not touch the universal pension. The government tried to tell seniors who had planned their futures properly and who felt that they had a right to a universal pension to keep their mouths shut because if they told people that they were concerned, it would mean that they were making $50,000 and somehow they should hang their heads in shame.
I say that this government should hang its head in shame because the people who have built this country and made this economy as strong as it is, many whom have saved and struggled all their lives, as my hon. colleague from Halifax has said, are deserving of the benefits of good planning, but they are also deserving of good, fair treatment from this government.
Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that most of these individuals over the age of 40 have paid a special tax so that they had access to this universal pension; not a welfare payment, not a subsidy but, as my colleague from Halifax has said, something that they felt was a right that they had paid into.
I would just like to add my voice to the comments of my hon. friend from Halifax and say that the legislation is not just regressive, but shows a total disregard and a total lack of caring for those who have given so much to make this country what it is. The members on this side of the House will not let the government get away with this, even if this legislation does pass without amendment. We will stand up for those seniors because the members opposite have forgotten how to do that.
Ms Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member from Dartmouth, for his comments. I would like to say that the government can be put on notice that the Liberal members from Atlantic Canada are not going to be fooled, their constituents are not going to be fooled and, indeed, the constituents from their neighbouring ridings are not going to be fooled
Government Orders
either. We know what fairness is, we know what pride is, and we know what making a contribution to this country deserves. It does not deserve the treatment that has been handed out by this government. It does not deserve the treatment that seniors and families with children can look forward to. It does not deserve unfairness. It does not deserve regressive taxation and it does not deserve the kind of cowardly, uncaring treatment that they have received.
The time is over and the time to take the blinders off is now. I, on behalf of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada say; Take off your blinders and look to see the train that is hurtling towards you. You can derail VIA, but you cannot derail the proud people of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Crosby (Halifax West) Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left to us in this House of Commons before you see six o'clock, let me try to answer some of the disinformation that has been spread through the rhetoric of my friends from the Halifax-Dartmouth area.
They would have Canadians believe that they are protecting the little persons of Canada, those in need. What could be further from the truth? What the government is asking in this change is for those senior citizens, persons over 65 years of age, who are receiving from the national treasury of Canada an allowance per month, and if their income, in addition to that allowance, exceeds $44,000 and rises to $77,000 per individual, that they pay a portion of that back to the national treasury.
Now why do we want them to pay a portion of that back to the national treasury? So we can take those dollars from $75,000 plus income-earners over 65 and provide that to persons who are truly and really in need. And what do the members opposite say? They say: "Stop that. Don't do that. We want them to keep every cent of the $75,000. We do not want them to share that with those in need in Canada".
I just want to put the question to the member, is the great danger to persons in need in Canada not a bankrupt national treasury? Is the real danger not that the government will not have funds, like the Government of Poland does not have funds, like the Government of Brazil does not have funds to pay people in need? Is that what she wants to do, bankrupt Canada so we can nationalize poverty?

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
Ms Clancy: Mr. Speaker, permit me to give a brief answer to my verbose friend. I would just like to say that perhaps the member has heard of fair income tax. A clawback is a clawback and income tax is income tax and the twain could meet if the government put its mind to fair income tax.
As to a bankrupt treasury, fine words from a member sitting on the side of the House that doubled the deficit
in four short years-doubled the deficit, Mr. Speaker. I say give us fair taxes, don't give us any more deceit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt this lovely debate.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to standing order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
of
HIS MAJESTY, KING HUSSEIN BIN TALAL of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Wednesday, October 11, 1989
[Stage Direction]
October 11, 1989
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
of
HIS MAJESTY, KING HUSSEIN BIN TALAL of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Wednesday, October 11, 1989
[Stage Direction]
The King was welcomed by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada and thanked by the Honourable Gildas Molgat, Deputy Speaker of the Senate and the Honourable John A. Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons):: The Right Honourable the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen:
We meet here today to mark the visit to Canada of His Majesty King Hussein Bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and of his gracious wife, Queen Noor. Welcome, Your Majesties. We are honoured to receive you. In this House and in this countiy you are among friends.
We also celebrate here today the landmark first address to the Canadian Parliament of the leader of an Arab countiy. Your autobiography and the testimony of many respected world leaders record your dedication, sir, to the cause of peace in the Middle East. In fact, few, if any, have shown greater determination in this cause nor pursued it with greater resolve.
As Prime Minister Thatcher has said so aptly of you, Your Majesty, your human qualities, above all your courage and clear-sightedness, have earned you both respect and admiration world-wide. I can assure you, sir, that admiration is shared by every member of this House and by all Canadians.
Canadians hold in high regard and genuine friendship those leaders in the region, such as you, your Majesty, who have had the great courage and profound wisdom to look beyond intractable conflict and seek a just and durable peace. We, in this House, know that you have taken great personal as well as political risks to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For this, we salute you.

Canadians know that they are truly fortunate to live in a region of the world that has been spared the destruction of war for its entire existence. But Canadians have served and suffered and sacrificed their lives in wars abroad. They have seen the horrific consequences of war in the Middle East where Canadians have participated in virtually ever peacekeeping initiative since the UN's foundation. It is for these reasons that Canadians want nothing more for your region, Your Majesty, than that all its countries and all its peoples live, at last, in justice, security, and peace.
Successive Canadian governments have supported all constructive efforts to achieve a comprehensive negotiated settlement of the problems of the Middle East. Canada's support for Israel's right to exist and for its security is well known. It enables us to speak frankly to our Israeli friends, as I did in the presence of President Herzog in this House in June, when I said that Canada supports the concept of land for peace.
But we believe that peace will not come if any of the parties is so threatened by the actions and statements of others that it feels it must give absolute priority to security over peace.

We believe that peace will only come on the basis of respect for the security, well-being and legitimacy of all states in the region, and of respect for the rights of the Palestinian people. And those rights include their participation in the determination of their own future.
Over the past year and a half, developments in the Middle East have altered long-standing assumptions about the nature of the peace process. Your own courageous and difficult decision last year, your Majesty, to disengage from Jordan's historical links with the West Bank was a turning point in the peace process.

The time is now arriving when other leaders in the Middle East must make equally difficult but far-sighted
October 11, 1989

decisions as you have, Your Majesty. The Israeli government's proposal for elections was, we believe, a significant initial step in a political process that could lead to a negotiated settlement.
We are encouraged that President Mubarak has joined actively in the search for progress; his ten points have taken the peace process a step further. Canada stands ready to advance this process in whatever ways we can.
Comparable hope for a settlement in Lebanon, as you mentioned last evening, has been overwhelmed repeatedly by violence and hate. Canadians look on the heart-breaking situation there with grief and dismay.

Members on all sides of this house are particularly touched by the anguish of Canadians with family and loved-ones caught in the terrible cycle of civil war in Lebanon. Like you, we pray for a political settlement that reflects the aspirations for peace of all Lebanese and that will restore their country's national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are encouraged by the efforts of the Arab League Tripartite Committee to establish a basis for national reconciliation and we hope, for the sake of all the Lebanese people, that this time, the cease-fire will lead to peace.

Thanks to your especially strong and impressive leadership, Your Majesty, Canadians see in Jordan an island of stability and economic development. Jordan is a land of ancient civilization. Canada is yet a young country of modern history. This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and Jordan. What brings us together is not only diplomatic association but the prospect of ongoing friendship and constructive co-operation. The economic links between us are significant and growing. Petro-Canada International's technical assistance program to identify oil and gas reserves in your nation is a major case in point.
Your visit here, Your Majesty, and that of your gracious Queen, allows us to strengthen our friendship and build our bilateral relationship and broaden the common ground we share in the search for peace. I am, personally, very much looking forward to continuing the
excellent dialogue that we began in The Hague. All Canadians, Sir, are anxious to hear your views.
Colleagues of the House of Commons and the Senate, I present to you His Majesty King Hussein Bin Talal of Jordan whom I now proudly invite to address the Parliament and the people of Canada.
HIS MAJESTY KING HUSSEIN OF JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank his excellency the Prime Minister for his kind introduction. It is indeed an honour, a privilege and a pleasure for me to visit Canada again and to address this joint session of the Houses of Parliament.
Whatever the differences between our respective cultures may be, there is an important heritage which we have in common: the tradition of civilization, over 5000 years old, going back to humanity's first urban settlements in the lands of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Iraq-today, the heartlands of our Arab world.
In ancient times, our vast, beautiful and spiritually evocative landscape inspired the birth and expansion of three of the world's most enduring religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In medieval Islamic times it was in the schools and libraries of our Arab cities that the great patrimony of classical knowledge was translated into Arabic, preserved, refined, and ultimately passed on to an emerging Europe, to spark the first stirrings of the Renaissance. It was among the great Arab and Muslim centres of learning in Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and Andalusia that medieval scholars, thinkers and scientists expanded the frontiers of human knowledge in such fields as astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, ethics, medicine and law.
Today, of course, the tables are turned, and we find ourselves at civilization's receiving end. Also, we are saddled with a different reputation. The genesis of constructive pluralism, of which we were the original pioneers, is forgotten and the conflict of contemporary nationalisms holds sway. Central to our present predicament is the need to reach a settlement over the question of Palestine. And it is to the particulars of this question that I shall address myself today.
Rather than go into the history of the Palestinian-Is-raeli conflict, I shall concentrate on the way in which matters stand right now.

October 11, 1989
Government Orders
Since last year, the Palestinians and the Arab world have made a historic compromise-to concede geography, but not quality of national rights. The PLO has met all the prerequisites and requirements to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in line with international legitimacy and global consensus. The one remaining obstacle to a just peace is Israel's inability to reach a decision on the future of the Arab territories that it has occupied by force for over 20 years.
At present, one-half of the Israeli governing coalition favours a territorial compromise. The other half looks for ways to fulfil its avowed pledge to annex the territories, albeit in a camouflaged way to avoid regional and international repercussions. Unable to achieve more than the lowest common denominator of political consensus, the Israeli government tries to mire the peace process in debates over modalities and procedures in order to gain time and forestall the moment of decision.
Hence the convoluted process inherent in the Israeli Prime Minister's plan for elections in the occupied territories. Palestinian representatives are needed to talk to the Israeli government about elections which, in turn, are needed to select Palestinian representatives to talk to the Israeli government. To help break the impasse, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt made his ten-point proposal on the issue of elections. It is not an alternative plan nor is it a set of preconditions for dialogue. The peace plan, as approved by the Israeli government in May, called for Egypt's assistance and the ten points have come in the spirit of the proposed process. We believe that the Mubarak proposals constitute a helpful vehicle to advance the peace process. Ironically, we now see the Israeli Prime Minister trying to derail the very process which he claims as his own brainchild.
These attempts to forestall the inevitable are futile. No matter how long and winding the road may be, no matter how many twists and turns it contains, it will ultimately lead to the question: Does Israel accept the application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 to the Arab territories that it now occupies as they were applied to Sinai?
There is only one Resolution 242 and it is ironic to see Israel accept its application to Sinai in its entirety and float a different interpretation of the same resolution where the West Bank is concerned. If Israel were to
accept this principle, the modalities would not constitute a hurdle and the road to the international peace conference would be open.
As we strive to bring about a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian problem, in all its aspects, a resolution that allows Palestinians to exercise their legitimate national rights and guarantees the security of all nations in the region, we are saddened to see Lebanon, once a haven for democracy, art and culture, come so close to being a den of iniquity where outlaws find sanctuary and terror reigns.
We find it encouraging that the plan of the Arab tripartite committee has been accepted, not only by all the Lebanese factions, but also by all Arab Governments. We sincerely hope that the newly formed Lebanese Security Committee will continue to function, and that the tripartite committee will continue to receive the co-operation of all parties concerned. We thank God that the cease-fire is, at last, being observed. But it would not be sufficient to stop the bloodshed and silence the guns.
Another area where we are disappointed to see the truce failing to develop into a permanent peace is the Gulf. We are very keen to prevent the cease-fire between Iraq and Iran from becoming a lull, in which the two sides catch their breath in preparation for the next round.
Each one of these conflicts-the Lebanese problem and the Gulf War-must be brought to a just, comprehensive, and lasting peaceful settlement, and it is imperative for the world community to help in this pursuit. Lester Pearson articulated this imperative most eloquently when he said: "Aggression, in any part of the world, constitutes in the long run, a threat to every other part. If it is true that we cannot tolerate a city of residential suburbs surrounding slums and degradation, it is equally true that we cannot be safe in a world community which condones lawless aggression in any part of it".
These insightful words have grown even more pertinent with the passage of time. The rapid advances in communications technology have increased the level of exposure and raised awareness of other cultures and ways of life, thus raising the hopes and expectations of the less fortunate to explore and take advantage of the new opportunities unfolding before them.

This optimism has resulted in a higher level of maturity, best evidenced by the atmosphere at the Ninth Non-aligned Summit in September of this year. The voluble anti-imperialist rhetoric of the past had given way to more quiet analysis of common concerns like international debt, regional conflicts, and the environment, and a search for co-operation in facing these challenges. One of the points that received virtually universal emphasis in the conference was that differences of ideology should not prevent good relations and co-operation between nations.
This pragmatic and constructive attitude cannot be taken for granted. It must be encouraged and nurtured because, if it fails to bear fruit, if the under-developed world is not helped to make headway toward the cherished goals of development and progress, the resultant frustration and socioeconomic ills would contribute actively to destabilising the countries concerned and their regions.
Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East, especially since Israel has accumulated a nuclear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction. There can be no global security in the absence of regional and national security and social stability. The opposite is equally true. Peace is the only path to the security and prosperity of any region, while conflict in any part of it turns the whole region into a time bomb that threatens world stability.
Ladies and gentlemen, the world has become so interdependent and closely integrated that no nation has the resources to face the challenges of our time on its own. Without organized and comprehensive regional plans of co-operation, the various countries' attempts at development become random shots in the dark.
This lesson was not wasted on the Middle East. We saw Europe begin to work toward political unity, having successfully achieved economic complementarity; we saw Canada enter a free trade agreement with the United States; and Jordan began to work for the establishment of the Arab Co-operation Council.
Today, the council comprises Egypt, Iraq, the Yemen Arab Republic, as well as Jordan, and remains open for the admission of other states that will be welcomed as constructive members in our community. All four countries have committed themselves to facing the social and
Government Orders
economic challenges of the 21st century in a regionally co-ordinated effort to achieve comprehensive development. The success of this endeavour requires an atmosphere of political moderation and stability.
When we look at the experience of Europe we find that the political process that started with the European coal and steel agreement created in a short while more concrete foundations for European security than centuries of defensive pacts and innumerable balances of power. It did so by creating a common interest in stability that turned the most implacable enemies into staunch allies. It is our faith that the security of all nations in the Middle East can only be achieved through a similar process.
This is the security that we seek to achieve. We pray to God to grant us success in this endeavour.
Thank you.


Hon. Gildas Molgat (Deputy Speaker of the Senate):: Your Majesties, Mr. Speaker,

-Mr. Prime Minister, Hon. colleagues in the Senate and the House of Commons-

Distinguished guests:
On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate of Canada, I thank Your Majesty for the honour you have paid us in addressing this joint session of Parliament. This Chamber no doubt reminds you of the British parliamentary traditions with which you are so familiar.

It is with great pleasure that we welcome Your Majesty and Her Majesty Queen Noor to this Chamber. It is entirely appropriate that you should be the first Arab Head of State to address this assembly.

We know that when you acceded to the Throne you decided to be a modem sovereign of your people. We knew that we would be moved by the words of a monarch who, during the 37 years of his reign, has played a critical role in the unfolding drama in the Middle East and in the search for a lasting and just peace. Canada too has been actively involved in the search for a solution which

Government Orders
would reconcile and do justice to the claims of the contending parties.

For two decades, Your Majesty, you and your government have succeeded in living peacefully with your neighbours, thus making Jordan a haven of stability and development in a region tom by strife. This has been achieved largely thanks to the courage, statesmanship and realism that Your Majesty has shown over the years.

Canadians in all walks of life have admired Your Majesty's willingness to take personal and political risks in the interests of peace. We have admired the reasoned, moderate tone with which you intervene on the international scene.
We are therefore extremely grateful to you and we thank you sincerely for sharing with us your preoccupations and your insights. I know your words have been eagerly listened to by all present.
On behalf of the Senate, I would thank you for visiting us. We wish Your Majesties happiness, peace and prosperity for your people and for the members of your family.


Mr. Speaker:: Your Majesties, Members of the House of Commons and Senate, honoured and distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It is my duty, but it is also a great pleasure for me, Your Majesty, to say, speaking on behalf of all Members of the House of Commons and all political parties represented here today, how much we appreciate your visit to our country and your presence in this historic Chamber. And we are particularly pleased to receive Her Gracious Majesty Queen Noor, your wife, as guest of honour.

Your presence here today culminates a long and important association between your country and Canada. Diplomatic relations were established between our countries in 1964. Since then we have maintained contacts which we hope have done two things: first, to bring us closer as nations which desire peace and progress for all the peoples of God's earth; and, second, because of our
association, we have created a relationship within which we have been able to discuss, in very frank terms, the Middle East situation and the concern and interest of all nations which hope for an end to hostilities and a just peace.

Trade, diplomatic relations and major diplomatic and state visits have all contributed to the development of this friendship and will continue to do so.
We in this place who have paid attention to events in the Middle East have no illusions; we are acutely aware of history, of tragedy and heartbreak, and also of the absolute necessity to find a solution based on common sense, reality, justice and compassion.
We are also aware that all of us on earth face a rapidly changing global environment. If public opinion research in this country is accurate, the great majority of Canadians believe that the man-made threat to our global environment is the greatest danger we face. If this is so, and many of us believe it is so, surely our two countries can persuade others that whatever the provocation for conflict there is now a terrible imperative to come together and save the world for all of us.
Your Majesty, you spoke of this last night when you said that environmental dangers "stop at no boundaries", and you went on to say that we must strive for "co-operation rather than confrontation" and that it must be within a spirit of reason and dialogue.
These statements illustrate we believe your own wisdom, and we are heartened by your comments which indicate that despite all of the problems which you face, you can say to us what so desperately needs to be said, co-operation rather than confrontation, reason and dialogue, and that our environmental dangers know no boundaries.

Your Majesty, you are welcome in this Chamber, and we hope we shall have the honour of receiving you again. We wish to express our earnest hopes for peace and happiness for your people and your neighbours.

Thank you, Your Majesties, for being with us today.

Thursday, October 12,1989