1989-05-02

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1986, to September 30, 1987.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of a prestigious organization, the National Film Board of Canada. The NFB has been honoured throughout the world, particularly at the film festivals in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Nyon, Creteil, Annecy, Cannes, Berlin, Melbourne and London, to name only these.
On Friday, April 28, a resounding tribute was paid to a real genius who has spent his film career with the Board, Norman McLaren. The NFB main building on Cote-de-Liesse in Montreal will bear his name from now on.
NFB artists and craftspeople have been remarkably productive for 50 years: no less than 6,500 films in French and English for which the NFB has won over 3,000 prizes.
Over all these years, the National Film Board has been to a great extent directly responsible for the excellent reputation our country has acquired. Hundreds of millions of people first got to know Canada from NFB films distributed throughout the world. The NFB through its films is an excellent ambassador for our aspirations and our values. It has also greatly contributed to helping Canadians get to know Canada.
On behalf of all Members of this House, I extend our gratitude and most sincere congratulations to the official representatives of the NFB here present: Joan Pennefa-ther, Anne-Claire Poirier, Colin Low and Jacques God-bout.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the Minister this morning in paying tribute to the National Film Board, one of Canada's great cultural institutions. As the Minister has already noted, the NFB has won international acclaim for the quality of its productions. This has brought great honour to our nation. I am certain that the Minister would agree, however, that the National Film Board's greatest achievement is the contribution it has made to Canadian culture.
On the occasion of the National Film Board's fiftieth anniversary, it is fitting to reflect on the important role the NFB has played in the development of our unique national identity and our collective consciousness. For many, our earliest memories of the National Film Board are the educational productions that we saw in our classrooms. They brought history alive for us.
While it is best known for its educational productions, the NFB is also a leader in its presentation of contemporary issues that reflect social and cultural concerns of Canadian men and women. Animation, docudrama and feature films in both official languages capture the regional and multicultural flavour of Canada.
In the time the NFB has been with us, it has created 17,000 films, it has won eight Oscars and it is known as one of the best producers of animation in the world. Often, Canadians do not realize that NFB films have been and continue to be an ambassador for Canada all around the world. Thanks to the creativity of the National Film Board, more Canadians are now able to see more and more of its productions through enhanced

May 2, 1989
Statements by Ministers
distribution on video cassettes at libraries and Thursday evenings on the CBC. With these efforts, just think how many more Canadians will have an opportunity to treasure the NFB's work. I would recommend to all Canadians the NFB's fiftieth anniversary production, a great demonstration of creativity. It provides us with a panoramic view of the NFB's lifetime of work.
In these days of Government restraint, Canadians must be vigilant in defending their cultural institutions. Liberals established the NFB to reflect Canada to Canadians. We hope that over the next 50 years, it will realize an even more dynamic communication with the Canadian people.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister said that the National Film Board had won over 3,000 prizes including Oscars.

I might tell the Minister that we have a nickname for him over here. We call him "Oscar Masse". We have nominated him "Best Minister In Search Of A Supporting Role". It is too bad that he will not accept a supporting role.
It is with great pride that I join the Minister and the Liberal critic in congratulating the National Film Board on its fiftieth anniversary.
The creation of the Film Board, was largely the work of a documentary film maker, John Grierson. He was a Scot who came to Canada in 1938 to study and co-ordinate a film policy for the Government. The National Film Board was created a year later by an Act of Parliament. Grierson became its first commissioner. The Board's mandate was to interpret Canada to Canadians and to the world.
On both scores, it has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations in 1939. In its 50 year history, the Board has completed 17,000 productions, 6,500 of which have been original films.
I guess we could spend all day talking about the reputation of the NFB and its film makers. It has indeed produced probably the finest documentaries in the world.

The work of National Film Board film-makers in the field of documentaries has had a great influence in showing Canadians how diverse our country is. Pierre Perrault's La bete lumineuse and Pour la suite du monde, Anne-Claire Poirier's La Quarantaine and Mourir a tue-tete and Donald Britten's The Champions and Volcano can be mentioned as examples of this tremendous contribution.

While the NFB is perhaps best known for its documentaries, the work of its acclaimed animation department founded in 1941 by Norman McLaren has received both national and international acclaim.
I would like to underline for the House the work of Studio D of the National Film Board, which I visited recently, which produced through its short history such films as Not A Love Story, To A Safer Place, and If You Love This Planet.
Anniversaries are excellent times to reflect on the past. They are also times to consider the future. I would like to say to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) that it is not enough for the Government or for Canadians merely to bask in the glow of the NFB's successes, although they have been great. We have seen major cut-backs in support given to the NFB in the past four years. That is 10 per cent in real terms. As a result, we have seen projects delayed or cancelled, film makers and technicians laid off, user fees imposed, and 18 regional distribution centres dosed. I think it is an enormous tribute to the talents of their film makers, technicians and free lancers that their standards have been maintained in spite of these cut-backs.
I urge the Minister and Canadians to take advantage of the fiftieth anniversary to press the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Cabinet to increase significantly the financial contributions to the NFB.
I will conclude by saying that in an age in which rampant economic individualism is so assiduously promoted, I believe that the arts and cultural industries remain one of the most powerful, if fragile, means of celebrating a sense of shared experience and common
May 2, 1989

humanity. The National Film Board has made an enormous contribution in bringing all Canadians together. I congratulate the NFB on its fiftieth anniversary. I encourage Canadians to take part in as many of the events marking this important occasion as they can.


BILL C-9 CHANGE OF REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I believe you would find that there would be unanimous consent to put the following motion to the House immediately for approval without debate.
I move:
That the Order for second reading and reference to a Legislative
Committee of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Bank Act, standing on
the Order Paper, be changed to read "second reading and reference
to the Standing Committee on Finance".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of Canadians who point out the number of young people in our country who are officially unemployed. They suggest that the unemployment rate for young people of Canada is actually twice the rate that is normally stated and certainly much larger than on average. I point out that unemployment among young people is a source of many social problems including alcoholism, drug abuse, prostitution, crime, and so on.
They are calling on Parliament to consider the advisability of providing additional job-creation funds directed specifically to young people to ensure that federal job creation strategy emphasizes job opportunities that extend beyond the industrial and commercial sectors.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. The petitioners indicate that 50 per
Privilege
cent of Canadian women who file tax returns have incomes of $10,000 or less. They indicate that thousands of Canadian women living in poverty still have to pay income tax. They suggest that the tax system has an adverse effect on women as a result of the deductibility of alimony, maintenance payments, spousal tax transfers, deindexation of tax credits and social transfers. They are calling on Parliament to introduce a tax system that is simpler and fairer to the average Canadian woman and to consider the advisability of restoring indexation to the child tax credit.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the arguments presented several days ago with respect to the Question of Privilege relating to the supply process. On April 6, after giving the Chair the required written notice, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milli-ken) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), rose in the House to argue a case of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands claimed that the ancient rights of Members of Parliament have been denied in so far as the granting or withholding of Supply. I quote from page 177 of Hansard:
Why did we move to consider the Business of Supply when no supply had been requested from Her Excellency, the Governor General, at the opening of the Session?

Both he and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) also expressed serious reservations as to the use of Governor General's warrants by the Government as it is their view that such use of warrants has superseded the usual Supply process.

May 2, 1989
Privilege

During the discussion on this question of privilege, the Eton. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) also rose in support of the contention that the rights of the House had been breached. In reply, the Hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Lewis) argued that the question of privilege had not been raised at the first opportunity available. He indicated that all of the requirements of the Financial Administration Act had been met by the Government.
Before I get into the substantive issues on Supply, I would briefly like to address the matter of whether this question was brought forward within a reasonable period of time as required by our practices. The Hon. Members for Kingston and the Islands and for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell gave the Chair written notice on April 5 that they would be raising a question of privilege. Since one of their complaints arose as a result of apparent omissions in the Speech from the Throne which was read on April 3, the very earliest occasion that they could have raised the matter was on April 4. On that day, by agreement, the House only heard two short speeches before adjourning. In fairness to all Hon. Members, I have to conclude that notice was given at a reasonably early opportunity.

I wish to remind Hon. Members that questions of privilege must be raised in a timely fashion. If a matter is so serious that the privileges of this House must be invoked, then it stands to reason that the practice of bringing these matters to the attention of the House at an early opportunity must be respected. In the present submission, I feel that the practice has been respected.

Since the business of Supply is a complex procedure and since many of the new Members have not yet had an opportunity to examine its components, I feel that this would be an appropriate time to briefly review certain aspects of the Supply process.
The business of approving the spending plans of the Government is one of the major responsibilities of Parliament. The process by which the Government submits its projected annual expenditures for parliamentary approval is known as the Supply process. Once Supply is granted, the Government can draw on the
Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet its financial obligations.
The basic principle supporting the Supply process is that the Sovereign, or the Crown, is charged with the management of all payments for Public Service. The Crown acting on the advice of its responsible ministers makes known to the Commons the pecuniary needs of the Government; the Commons, in return, grants such supplies as are needed to satisfy these demands.
The House of Commons has an important role to play in this complicated process. It is in the Commons where the Government's projected expenditures-known as the "Estimates"-are first tabled and the legislation to implement the estimates-known as the "Appropriation" Bill-is introduced. Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 stipulates that all financial legislation, and this includes Government expenditures, must originate in the House of Commons. This requirement is reaffirmed in the Commons' own rules of procedure, more specifically Standing Order 80(1), a point which was clearly referred to by Hon. Members the other day.

As a result of the fact that Main Estimates for the upcoming fiscal year are usually adopted at the end of June, the Government could be without funds from the beginning of the fiscal year in April to the end of June. The rules accordingly provide for the Government to request an advance against the Main Estimates which is known as Interim Supply. From time to time during a session, the Government may also require additional funds which are introduced by way of Supplementary Estimates.

During lengthy periods when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, an urgent need for funds may occur. Under special conditions, provided for in the Financial Administration Act, the Government may draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund after a Special Warrant has been signed by the Governor General. Unlike interim supply and supplementary estimates, the use of Special Warrants is not a routine matter and the Government is required to inform the House, after the fact, when the warrants are tabled. Subsequently the supply granted by the Governor General will be included in the first supply Bill for scrutiny and approval by the House.
Now to address the specific points raised by Hon. Members in their question of privilege of April 6.
May 2, 1989

The first point refers to the fact that in the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General neglected to request the House to appropriate the funds required to cany on the services and expenditures of her Government. Because of this omission, it was argued that the Government could not and should not have asked the House to designate a continuing Order for Supply.
If I may refer Hon. Members to the operative Standing Order. Standing Order 81(1) states:
At the commencement of each session, the House shall designate by motion, a continuing Order of the Day for the consideration of the business of supply.
Hon. Members will note that the Standing Orders use the word "shall" and no specific mention is made in this Standing Order about the necessity of having a request in the Speech from the Throne to appropriate funds. If I may draw your attention to the commentary found in the Annotated Standing Orders relating to Standing Order 81(1), page 250, it reads as follows:
During the Speech from the Throne at the start of each session, the Governor General traditionally addresses the House and says, "You will be asked to appropriate the funds required to carry on the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament".
I would like to stress the use of the word "traditionally". As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands himself pointed out, there have been occasions when the Governor General has neglected to read this traditional phrase in the Speech from the Throne. He specifically referred to two previous cases: September 8, 1930 and December 12, 1988. A careful review of all Speeches from the Throne since 1867 has revealed that there were two other such cases, namely: January 25, 1940 and October 9, 1951. The case of 1951 is of particular interest to the Chair because while no reference was made to Supply in the Speech from the Throne, the House did appoint a Committee of Supply.

The Chair appreciates the comments made by the Hon. Member but wishes to point out to the House that the Standing Orders do not specify that a request for funds appear in the Speech from the Throne prior to designating a continuing Order of the Day for Supply. As the Annotated Standing Orders explains, this phrase is a tradition but not a requirement of the Standing Orders.
Privilege

Procedurally speaking, the Government is obligated to act in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 81(1) and I must therefore conclude that the Government has respected the rules of the House in designating a continuing Order of the Day for the consideration of supply.
The Chair would now like to turn its attention to the next issue raised by the Hon. Members relating to the use of Governor General Warrants.
Many people are puzzled as to the nature of these Warrants. To begin with, I would like to point out a difficulty we are encountering in the use of terms; there are Governor General Warrants and Governor General Special Warrants. Governor General Warrants as described in Section 28 of the Financial Administration Act are used frequently. Every time that Parliament adopts an appropriation Bill and Royal Assent is given, the Governor General must then sign a Warrant before the Government can draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Governor General Special Warrants are different. When Parliament is not in session and a payment is urgently required for the public good, the Governor in Council may, by order, direct the preparation of a special warrant to be signed by the Governor General authorizing a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund if there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made. This is in accordance with Section 30 of the Financial Administration Act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) when participating in the debate on the question of privilege, was quick to point out that the Government, in issuing the present Special Warrants, did so precisely because of the three conditions just mentioned.

Special warrants make it possible for the work of Government to continue even though Parliament is not sitting and the Supply process has not been completed, or begun anew. Special warrants may be used to pay the Crown's bills from the time of dissolution until the new Parliament has met or during prorogation and adjournment periods, so long as the terms and conditions of the Financial Administration Act are met and respected by the Government.

May 2, 1989
Privilege

According to the Financial Administration Act, every Special Warrant is to be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is issued. Within 15 days after the commencement of the next session of Parliament, the Government must also table in the House of Commons a statement showing what Special Warrants were issued.
Moreover, the amounts appropriated by special warrants are to be included in the next Supply Bill so that the payments made by Special Warrant will come before the House for review and decision.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) suggested that Special Warrants can only be used during the dissolution of Parliament. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), made reference to 10 occasions when special warrants were used during this period. According to John Stewart's 1977 book, The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform, there are 12 instances where special warrants were used. Since 1977, we have found three other such occasions, for a total of 15.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell referred to the fact that the only time that a Special Warrant was used outside of an electoral period was to repair the roof of the first Parliament Building in the 1890s. This Act was first adopted in 1878 under the title "An Act to Provide for the Better Auditing of the Public Accounts". In Section 2 of that Act we read:
If, when Parliament is not in session, any accident happens to any public work or building which requires an immediate outlay for the repair thereof-the Governor in Council may order a special warrant to be prepared -
It is important to note the phrase, "when Parliament is not in session". During the early years following Confederation, Parliament only sat for a few months of each year. As time went on, the business of Government became more involved and Parliament met more frequently. In 1951, an amendment to the Financial Administration Act actually defined what was meant by the phrase, "when Parliament is not in session". Further amendments were made to that definition in 1958 and this resulted in the version we have today, namely: "Parliament shall be deemed to be not in session when it is under adjournment sine die or to a day more than two
weeks after the day the Governor in Council made the order directing the preparation of the special warrant".

This part of the Act clearly states that a special warrant may be issued during periods when Parliament has been dissolved for an election, prorogued or during periods when Parliament is adjourned for a lengthy period. Hon. Members may be quite correct in stating that all previous special warrants (except for one) were issued after Parliament was dissolved for an election, but if one reads the Act itself, there is no inference that the words "not in session" were to be restricted to dissolution periods. It is an indisputable fact that when both Houses are in a state of prorogation, Parliament is "not in session".

All this being said, the Chair must now decide whether or not the matters raised by the Hon. Members constitute a prima facie question of privilege. The Opposition contends that the Government has been using the Financial Administration Act to circumvent the traditions and conventions of the supply process. The Government argues that the provisions of the Act have been followed, an Act validly passed by Parliament.
Having just explained the provisions of the Financial Administration Act in the matter of Special Warrants, the Chair finds itself in an awkward position for I do not want the House to misconstrue these comments as anything other than background for the information of all Hon. Members. The question of whether or not the terms of the Financial Administration Act have been respected in this instance is not a matter that was raised in the arguments put forward on April 6, nor indeed is it a matter upon which the Chair would be in a position to rule.
The Chair has no authority to venture beyond the realm of parliamentary practice and procedure into questions of law.
The Hon. Members for Kingston and the Islands and for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell argue that conventions in our Constitution have been breached in this instance. The Chair wishes to restate what my predecessors have so often reminded the House, that the Speaker has no role in interpreting matters of either a constitutional or legal nature. Let me quote Citations 117(6) and 240 from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
May 2, 1989

The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
In addition, let me refer to a decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of July 8, 1969, on page 1319 of The Journals where he says:
I have had occasion in the past to indicate that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on questions of law or on constitutional questions. This ruling has been made in many instances by previous Speakers. I should like, if Hon. Members would allow me to do so, to quote at this time a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker on Friday, October 25. 1963. It reviews some of the authorities on this point: "I have listened with much interest to the argument made by the Hon. and learned Member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). I gather the essence of the argument he submits now is that the Bill should not be considered, that it is out of order because it is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada.
My submissions at this time is that it should not be the responsibility of the Chair to rule whether a particular Bill or particular piece of legislation submitted to Parliament is or is not within the competence of this House.
The reason for these citations are straightforward. The Speaker should not sit in judgment on constitutional or legal matters. That role belongs more properly to the courts and the administration of justice. Previous Speakers have been very careful in strictly addressing themselves to matters of a parliamentary or procedural nature while avoiding dealing with constitutional or legal matters. Similarly, in this instance, the Chair must restrict its examination to the question of a possible infraction of the Standing Orders.
After studying the circumstances of this case to determine whether the ancient rights of Members of Parliament have been denied in relation to the granting or withholding of supplies, the Chair concludes that the Government has respected all of the procedures required by the House. As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has himself said, the House will have an opportunity to pronounce itself on the moneys found in the Special Warrants when the House votes on the next appropriation Bill.

While Members may complain that they do not have an opportunity to examine these expenditures before they have been allotted, the very nature of special warrants calls for the approval of the House after the fact. The cure for that complaint lies more properly within the legislative process by amending the Financial Administration Act to the greater satisfaction of the majority of Members in the House. As to the argument that the law has been breached, Hon. Members have other avenues available to them to demonstrate and establish those facts.
Borrowing Authority

After considerable reflection, the Chair finds that no Standing Orders have been contravened, and it has not been demonstrated that a prima facie breach of a Member's privilege has occurred.
I want to thank Hon. Members for raising the matter which is of course fascinating to all of us in this House and to all of us who follow parliamentary traditions and conventions.
I must point out that the response of the Chair has been lengthy but in my view the arguments presented to the Chair were worthy of very serious and lengthy consideration. I thank Hon. Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that as a result of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by eight minutes, starting at one o'clock today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Monday, May 1, of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today to Bill C-ll, a very important piece of legislation that deals with borrowing authority, with the federal Government's borrowing requirements for 1989-90.
Perhaps I may give the House a summary of the country's financial situation in 1984, when we began, and the situation as it is now, in 1989.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that in 1984, when the Conservative Government was elected, this country's annual deficit was $38.5 billion, while the national debt had risen to about $200 billion. Since 1984 we have managed to reduce the Government's deficit year after year, bringing it down to $28.5 billion by 1988-89. We did so despite the Opposition's insistence that what we did would bring about a recession, cause unemployment and make the Canadian economy go into a nosedive. However, during the past four years, job creation has been ten

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
times what it was between 1980-84, under the previous government.
All this, Madam Speaker, is part of our economic and fiscal plan to put Canada back where it ought to be internationally, as a country with a normal debt burden, not the debt-laden country the Liberal Party left us in 1984.
During the past six months, rising interest rates have hurt a number of Canadians, but they have also hurt the federal Government. As a result of rising rates, the debt charge has risen above $6 billion for this year, partly because of the debt we were left by our predecessors. These $6 billion, added to the annual deficit I mentioned earlier, would have raised this year's deficit to about $34 billion.
In the Budget we had to take stringent measures, both to reduce spending and to increase the revenues the Government needs to control the annual deficit and the national debt.
The announced spending cuts may not be welcomed by everyone, and I realize that. What surprises me, Madam Speaker, is that the Opposition criticizes the spending cuts in the Budget but complains that the deficit is still too high, and then turns around and wants us to spend more money. How can they expect us to reduce the deficit when they want this Government to increase its spending?
Madam Speaker, I think we are lucky to have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who is truly exceptional and who in his last five Budgets has done a tremendous job of putting the finances of this country in order.
The increase in revenues announced by the Government in the Budget has been achieved without penalizing low-income Canadians, by putting this burden on those who are able to carry it. Furthermore, the Budget provides for a judicious mix of revenue sources: increase in sales tax, increase in personal income tax, a tax on large corporations, and also a change in the level of unemployment insurance and a radical change in the federal sales tax. And you know as I do that the federal sales tax we have in this country is 65 years old this year,
since it started in 1924. So we think that after 65 years, the present system should retire and we will bring in a new system for the Canadian economy of the 1990s, one that Canadians want; that is, they will see the taxes they pay, which is not the case with the present federal sales tax. It will also correspond to the world situation. Do not forget that the proposed new federal sales tax system is already in place in 48 countries in the world and works well.
So, Madam Speaker, all this means that we have essential measures to bring our deficit back down to a proper level in the coming years, that is, around $15 billion in 1993-94, and to control inflation which threatens every household in the country. If it is not controlled by some rise in interest rates-we know what happened in 1980 and 1981, when the party in power let inflation rise to 12 or 13 per cent. At some point, it realized that things were not working and that inflation was too high. So it said that the only way to reduce inflation was to raise interest rates, which it did. We had interest rates of 22 and 23 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: We remember!


Pierre H. Vincent: We remember very well and I began my law practice then-I remember it very well.
And what we are saying today, and especially what we have done, is the opposite! We have to let interest rates rise somewhat to keep inflation at what is considered a reasonable rate accepted by and acceptable to all Canadians, around 4 per cent. And we knew that in so doing, we would have some problems with the Budget.
I think, Madam Speaker, it is as important, if not more important, to have a slightly higher deficit this year, but a reasonable rate of inflation and economic growth for the country, than to have a situation similar to what we had in 1980, 1981 and 1982, when households, contractors, everyone suffered from the policies, or rather lack of policies, of the government then in power.
So, Madam Speaker, Bill C-ll asks this House for authority to borrow $25.5 billion to make up for the shortfall we will have next year. I think it is important and imperative that this House pass Bill C-ll as soon as possible.
May 2, 1989

When you talk about financial requirements and you follow a country's finances closely, you know how important the gross domestic product is. This Government's financial requirements for this year will be 3.2 per cent of the gross domestic product, which is much better than what we had in previous years, when it was 6 or 7 per cent.
What is even more encouraging, Madam Speaker, is that in 1993-94, it is expected to be 0.3 per cent of the gross domestic product. That is all the Government's financial requirements will be.
So I think that this Government and all Canadians have to pitch in so that in future years, we can achieve what we want for this country: economic growth, job creation and a better quality of life for all citizens in the land. For that, we must act immediately and that is what the Government has done. That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has done. And that is how we see the future. Again, we should pass Bill C-ll as soon as possible.


Mrs. Marleau:: The Hon. Member first said that our debt amounted to $200 billion in 1984. I wish to correct him. Madam Speaker, because, in 1984, our debt added up to $170 billion. Then can you tell me why, if you have made cuts in all the programs as you said, our deficit is still $30.5 billion? That is what we do not understand. Individuals and families alike will all be affected by the cuts you made in the name of the deficit, which is even bigger this year than last year.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I said it in my speech, but it bears repeating because, as she said, many people find it difficult to understand.
In 1988-1989, the deficit amounted to $28.5 billion. As all Canadians know, interest rates rose throughout the country. When interest rates increase for individuals, they also add to the Government's debt. Since our debt was $320 billion, the increase in interest rates cost us an additional $6 billion for that year. That is $6 billion more than planned to service the debt and it is higher than the amount mentioned in the Budget because the interest cost has risen. Therefore, 28 plus 6 equals 34 and, if I subtract the cut-backs, I get 30. It is that simple! There is nothing mysterious about it and every Canadian family affected by the rise in interest rates can understand it. I am confident that my hon. colleague opposite understands it now too.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Duhamel:: Madam Speaker, the Government often talks about its job figures. In doing so I suspect it is not willing to acknowledge that there has been as much job creation under previous Governments as under this one. I refer the Hon. Member to at least a decade ago when we created as many jobs.
While the Government quotes an impressive number of jobs, I would like to know whether or not that takes into consideration the jobs that were lost along the way. I suspect not. However, I am willing to be corrected. Do those figures take into consideration the types of jobs that were lost along the way, as well as the quality of jobs? How many jobs created were in fact part-time jobs? How many of those jobs created paid minimum wage? How many of those jobs were dead-end jobs? Finally, to what part of Canada did those jobs go? I would like to have answers to those questions.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has just opened a can of worms. From 1980 to 1984, 80 percent of the jobs created by his party and his government under programs such as Canada Works, were part-time or temporary jobs lasting anywhere from three to five months. On the other hand, from 1984 to 1988, statistics show that 80 percent of the jobs created were full-time, permanent jobs, I repeat, 80 percent! Add 80 to 80, Madam Speaker, and you get a difference of 160 percent between 1980-1984 and 1984-1988. Where were these jobs created? From one end of the country to the other. In all regions of the country, there has been an increase in the number of jobs created and these, I repeat, are permanent jobs.
Madam Speaker, when I was elected in 1984, the unemployment rate among young people was almost 18 percent. It is much less today. In my riding of Trois-Ri-vieres, the unemployment rate was 3 percent higher than it is today. And job creation has occurred in almost all ridings. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that when we say that the government has created one million and a half jobs, it is a way of putting it because these jobs in fact were created

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
by investors and business people who had confidence in the policies of the Conservative govemement. And these jobs, I repeat, are permanent jobs, not part-time jobs created under phoney programs which were common in past years. There is no comparison whatsoever between the jobs created between 1980 and 1984 and the jobs created between 1984 and 1988. No comparison whatsoever!


Mr. Karygiannis:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must be either in a dream state or not in this world. He stood in his place and quoted to us the number of jobs that were created from 1984 to 1988. My question to the Hon. Member is this: Is he aware that the 9 per cent sales tax that the Government proposes will have an effect on jobs? Is he aware as to where high interest rates are taking us? They will cost us jobs. Is he also aware that these factors combined will cause inflation to skyrocket? We will be back into the levels of inflation that the Government accuses this Party of fostering some years ago. It was not our fault at that time. They were caused by a global economic recession.
Is the Hon. Member aware that what his Government is doing will cost jobs? If he is aware of that, how many jobs will it cost? I do not want to hear him rambling on giving us the figures for the period 1984 to 1988. We have heard them before. We know those figures.
As my hon. colleague on this side of the House has said, these are dead-end jobs and jobs paying $4.50 an hour at McDonald's. Canadians are sick and tired of hearing that. Can the Hon. Member come clean today in the House and say to the people of Canada how many jobs this 9 per cent sales tax will actually cost? Will he do that for me? I do not want to hear him rambling on with the figures for 1984 to 1988. I want to hear what will happen tomorrow. That is what I would like to know.


Pierre H. Vincent: This morning, interestingly enough, our remarks seem to cut the new Members of this House to the quick, Madam Speaker. I am surprised that my Hon. friend should ask me this question. Unfortunately, he was not sitting in this House a year or two ago when his party's official finance critic repeatedly insisted on the need to amend the federal sales tax, claiming together with the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou that the Government should change the sales tax system immediately because it was responsible for Canadians
losing their jobs. I believe the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou was then as he is now his party's official National Revenue critic. Madam Speaker, he is the one who repeatedly insisted that the Government should amend the sales tax system because it was responsible for Canadians losing their jobs. We are acting on the 1990 economy. We are removing the 12 per cent manufacturers sales tax which is indeed causing Canadians to lose their jobs by favouring importers at the expense of Canadian producers. We are going to implement openly a 9 per cent federal sales tax which will encourage exports-


Mr. Gauthier:: A regressive sales tax!


Pierre H. Vincent: -which will not apply to exporters, and which already exist in 48 countries, Madam Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not true!


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, please advise the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to keep quiet, that he will have an opportunity to rise later on.
Madam Speaker, it is a tax which already exists in 48 countries and which is quite successful.
Finally, I should like to reply to the other question of my hon. friend who unfortunately was not listening when I said that interest rates are indeed rising. They are rising on purpose to fight against inflation and prevent the recurrence of a situation such as that in which his Government placed us in 1981-82. That is the reason they are rising, Madam Speaker, and not to cause Canadians to lose their jobs. Quite the contrary! Thanks to this Budget and this Government, Canadians can look forward to the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Regina Qu'Appelle.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate this morning on the Government's request for some $25 billion. We heard the Budget first delivered in the Press Gallery then sort of delivered in the House when, in fact, all of the Opposition Members except for one were absent. This Budget was the fifth one introduced as a short-term pain for long-term gain type of Budget. This Budget asked Canadians to tighten their belts once more, to have services and expectations cut so that the Government can begin to control the country's finances. It is
May 2, 1989

obvious the four previous Budgets of this Government have failed to control our finances. We have seen our debt increase. We have seen taxes increase. We have seen services increase. When a president of a private company or business has such a dismal record, he or she will resign. In my opinion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should resign because he has had four years of failure, failing to manage the public interest and the public purse.
In this Budget we have cut-backs in transfer payments, resulting in cut-backs to education, cut-backs to important services provided by the provinces; cut-backs in university education, health programs and welfare programs. All of these will be cut back. There will be cut-backs in agricultural programs affecting farmers in my constituency and cut-backs to VIA Rail. Canada will no longer be able to take pride in a passenger service system from coast to coast. There will be cut-backs for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that will undermine one of the important institutions that has kept this country together. Then there are to be cut-backs in regional development right across the board, and in services that are important to Canadians and which keep this country together. These are the very things that the Government is attacking.
We see an increase in taxes. When all the increases are fully into effect, by next year, Canadians will be paying some extra $700 in taxes for an average family of four. Once the regressive sales tax is fully implemented, another $1,000 will be taken out of the pockets of the average Canadian family. I suggest that this is the ineptness of the Minister of Finance in managing our economy.
The Minister justifies everything by claiming that we must bring the deficit under control. In that I have no disagreement. Indeed, we should control our deficit. There is nothing socialistic about taking out approximately 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of our Gross National Product and putting it into the pockets of upper income Canadians. That is what happens when we pay $30-some-billion a year on interest. The interest payment is around 6 per cent of our Gross National Product. Around 37 per cent to 40 per cent of that goes to banks and to the insurance companies that control most of the debt. Around 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of our Gross National Product goes into the pockets of the banks and
Borrowing Authority
the large insurance companies. These are the upper income Canadians.
There is a shift of wealth into the pockets of upper Canadian income earners through our debt. There is nothing socialistic about that. I am certainly not prepared to support that. In analysing the debt and the deficit, let us first look and determine how this debt occurred in the first place. When I hear the Liberals talking about the deficit, there are crocodile tears. Surely they must take responsibility. It was during the Trudeau years in the 1970s when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance that the seeds were sown resulting in the deficits we see today. Much of that did not come about necessarily through direct expenditures but what the Auditor General has termed indirect expenditures. Those tax cuts, tax loopholes, that never got on the books could never be seen as expenditures, but they were real expenditures creating a loss of revenue. This loss of revenue caused the type of deficits that we have.
The Tories have been telling us we are living beyond our means, that is why we have the deficit and we have got to cut back. By living beyond our means, what they really mean is that our social programs are just a little too rich. That is in essence what the Tories have been saying is the cause of our deficit. If we look at the other OECD countries, the other western industrialized countries, in terms of what they spend on social programs as a percentage of their gross domestic product as compared to what we in Canada spend on our gross domestic product, Canadians are not living beyond their means.
When we look at the figures of what gets spent on housing, unemployment insurance, health care, pensions, on these important social programs, what do we find? In 1983 France spent 26 per cent of its gross domestic product on social programs. Italy spent 19.4 per cent. West Germany spent 17.1 per cent, Britain, 13.7 per cent, Canada 12.5 per cent and the United States, 12.1 per cent.
Of the western industrialized countries, we were the second lowest in terms of what we spent on social programs. We are not living beyond our means. In fact, we have not been collecting taxes or collecting revenues. That is why we have the deficit we have today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority


Simon Leendert de Jong: To prove this fact, in 1983 a woman who was a teller with the Royal Bank of Canada actually paid more dollars and cents in taxes than the Royal Bank of Canada did. The Royal Bank of Canada in 1983 had well over $360 million in profit and did not pay one cent of tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is no wonder that we have the current deficit. It is not because we are spending too much on unemployment insurance, education, child care or medicare. It is because of those who have not been paying their fair share. What has been the Tory record? While we certainly have to lay much of the blame on the Liberals because they created the tax loopholes and tax laws that allowed the Royal Bank of Canada, for example, not to pay a cent of tax on income over $360 million, the Tories made a bad situation even worse. They followed Reagan economics and Thatcher economics. They gave further tax breaks to corporations and to the rich. They have been socking it to middle and lower-income Canadians since they came to power in 1984.
Of course, it is a record of failure. The Budget forecasts show that as a result of Tory economic policies, unemployment is expected to rise to 8.2 per cent by year end and to some 8.5 per cent next year. Economic growth will slow from 4.5 per cent in 1988 to 3 per cent in 1989, and 1.7 per cent in 1990. Yet interest rates will remain high and there will be an increase in inflation. Under Tory economic management there will be increased unemployment, less economic activity, higher inflation and higher interest rates.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Some package!


Simon Leendert de Jong: As my hon. colleague says, some package. It is a recipe for inflation. There will be no economic expansion while inflation will continue to increase resulting in a massive shift of wealth from the lower and middle-income groups to the higher and upper-income groups.
The Conservative prescription for curing our economic ills will be the continued concentration of economic power and wealth in our Canadian society. It will only exacerbate our economic ills.
The Budget projections just do not make sense. There will be increased unemployment, a downturn in our production and ongoing high interest rates, which means the deficit figures will continue to rise. Future Conservative budgets will expect us to make more sacrifices, to
have more cut-backs, and to pay higher taxes. Of course, the Minister of Finance will never attack capital gains. He will never attack lower tax rates on investment because that is supposed to be the inducement to investment and the creation of wealth.
That brings me to the second part of my speech. It concerns the Tory notion of how wealth is created. We have seen paper wealth being created in Margaret Thatcher's England and Ronald Reagan's United States. Tremendous debts have been rung up by the private sector, thereby increasing the cost of production in our western economies at the same time, often resulting in lay-offs, further unemployment and other forms of inflation.
There is no doubt that the current high interest rates are keeping our deficit high as well as inflicting a lot of suffering and pain on average Canadians. Historically, the relationship between interest rates and inflation is that the interest rates are normally some two points higher than inflation.
An inflation rate of approximately 4.5 per cent means that our interest rate should be about 6 per cent to 7 per cent. At 7 per cent, our deficit becomes manageable. In fact our deficit does not quite compare to the deficit at the end of the Second World War, but that deficit was manageable because there was a lower interest rate. The present deficit would become manageable with an interest rate of 7 per cent.
The farm debt that plagued so many of the farmers in my constituency would become manageable at a 7 per cent interest rate. The young family who is trying to pay a mortgage needs two incomes to barely be able to make those payments. But at 7 per cent, life becomes a little easier for those young families who are trying to put a roof over their heads.
The Government says that it needs the high interest rate in order to keep inflation down. We have had high interest rates and inflation continues to rise. The Government says we need to cap inflation. Why must we continue pressing the interest rates so high? Of course, Canadians to whom I have talked see the folly of it all. They are telling me that increased interest rates induce inflation. It increases the deficit and the cost of production. Indeed it does.
Those average Canadians see through this folly even though the Minister of Finance might not. I suspect the Minister of Finance knows better. I suspect the reason why we have higher interest rates is because we must keep the Canadian dollar high. I suspect the reason why
May 2, 1989

we have to keep the Canadian dollar high is because of the understanding with the United States concerning the Free Trade Agreement. I suspect we have to keep the Canadian dollar high because the Americans will not play ball with us and the Free Trade Agreement unless the Canadian dollar is high.
The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar over the last year has essentially had the effect of a tariff on Canadian goods at about 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
Farmers in my constituency know this because they are exporters. They export their hogs, their beef and their grain and know that every time the Government increases the interest rate and the dollar goes up, the value of their exports decrease and their ability to export decreases. Yet the Government says it needs to keep the Canadian dollar up, otherwise imports will cost more. It is saying that our exports will increase and we do not have the plant capacity to produce more. We really see what the Government is all about. It is attempting to keep the Canadian dollar up so that it will fulfil its promises to the Americans in terms of the Free Trade Agreement.
The Government does not have the vision or the imagination to begin developing an economic policy and strategy that works from coast to coast rather than just in southern Ontario. Surely these higher interest rate policies affect the Maritimes, northern Ontario, Quebec, the Prairies and British Columbia. If there is concern about too much plant capacity in the Golden Triangle, surely there could be an economic policy and strategy that would induce manufacturing outside the Golden Triangle and into the Maritimes, the Prairies, northern Ontario and the West Coast. That would be the strategy if we had a Government that believed it had a role to play as an active participant in the economic life of this country, a Government that believed in working together not just with the private sector but with the workers and farmers to create an economic strategy that is good for all Canadians.
However, it is a Government that does not believe that government can and should be playing a role as an active participant in the economic life of this country so that wealth can be produced and more fairly distributed.
Borrowing Authority
We live in an age of abundance. The newer technologies allow us to produce at a fraction of the previous cost. There is great material wealth. Yet in this age of abundance, there are the homeless, there are food banks and operations are being postponed because there are not enough hospital beds. We do not have enough money to allow native children to get a university education. The one clear way out of the cycle of poverty for Indian people is higher education but there are limits and restrictions on that. We do not have enough.
We are living in an age of provincial, municipal and federal cut-backs, slashes and downgrades because we do not have enough to provide the basic necessities for human life. All this is in an age of abundance, all this is in an age in which there is so much material wealth and the capacity to produce beyond our imagination. Yet we live in this age of scarcity. I find that to be obscene. That is an indictment against the Government's bad management. We are living in an age of plenty, in a country so endowed and blessed, but we do not have enough for basic necessities. That surely is an indictment of the Government, the Minister of Finance and their mismanagement.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some comments and to ask a question of my colleague from Regina-Qu'Appelle. We have heard the same old speech from the Hon. Member many, many times, the frothing and foaming, the ranting and raving about all of the problems in the economy, about how terrible it is that programs unfortunately have to be reduced and that taxes have to be increased in order to meet a debt problem which has built up over the past 20 years.
There is no use going back over old ground. That has been talked about here before. The fact is that there is an enormous national debt and it has to be serviced. The tragedy is that the interest on that debt is taking up more and more of government revenue, thereby leaving less and less for other things, the kinds of programs that all of us here would like to see improved, enhanced and continued.
What is the answer in the face of that debt and that debt servicing problem? It seems that the choice is either to reduce Government expenditures, to increase Government revenues or, another alternative which is resorted to by other countries, to print money and debase

May 2. 1989
Borrowing Authority
the value of currency. The fact is that in a country such as Canada which has credibility in the world and is part of the G-7, we have to act responsibly. Clearly we have to address the debt problem, and the way to do it is the manner in which the Minister of Finance has proceeded in this Budget. That is to reduce expenditures fairly and evenly across the economy and to increase taxes.
I listened to my hon. friend with whom I served on the Finance Committee for several years for the entire 20 minutes, but I did not hear any kind of useful, practical suggestion from him. I heard the usual complaining about those mythical corporations which are profitable but, because they carry forward perfectly legitimate losses or because they have perfectly legitimate investment tax credits, pay no taxes. We all know about that silly song. We are looking for a practical solution, a practical suggestion, from Members of the New Democratic Party. Surely it is not enough to continue to whine, complain, argue against reductions and argue against tax increases. I would like to hear a positive suggestion from Members of the New Democratic Party. If they are talking about taxing these mythical corporations, let us hear some concrete suggestions about how we could do it and at what percentage. Will it be a capital tax on large corporations? That is good but do they want it increased over what it was in the Budget? If so, they should say so.
I heard the Hon. Member complaining about the value of the Canadian dollar. Somehow we are to force down the value of the Canadian dollar as evidence that we are a vibrant country. Surely if reducing the value of a country's currency is to be something that is valued, then Bangladesh would be a world power. Clearly, the value of our currency vis-a-vis other currencies is simply a reflection of the esteem in which our country is held, and I am proud that the value of the Canadian dollar has enhanced over the past couple of years. I think it is simply a measure of the esteem in which this Government and the Minister of Finance are held around the world.
I would like to close by asking the Hon. Member, who can hardly restrain himself, for a concrete suggestion, just one, for dealing with the debt problem. How would Members of his Party reduce the deficit? We do not want to hear the same old garbage about these mythical profitable corporations. Let us hear it from the Hon. Member.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, indeed it is a delight to answer a question from my friend and former colleague on the Finance Committee. First, had my friend stayed on the Finance Committee long enough, he would have heard some suggestions to which everyone on the Finance Committee agreed, but unfortunately, at the time, the Minister of Finance did not accept them. Had some of the recommendations we made regarding taxing financial intermediaries like the banks been accepted by the Government, there would have been more revenues from financial intermediaries. Had the Government accepted the notion of an advance corporate tax which is not quite as good as the minimum tax on corporations Members of the New Democratic Party have been proposing, more revenues would have been collected and we would have had a fairer tax system.
My friend rises in the House today and welcomes the higher Canadian dollar. I suspect he does not say that too often in his home constituency. I am sure the ranchers there are not all that pleased with a higher Canadian dollar. In fact, my friend believes in the free market. If he really believes in the free market, why does he not allow the dollar to simply float in the free market? Why does he not allow interest rates to float in the free market? If interest rates and the dollar were allowed to float in the free market, I would suggest that they both would be down quite substantially.


Mr. Stupich:: And the deficit.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Indeed, and the deficit, because interest rates would be lower.
Canadians are still saving. The bloom has gone off the southern Ontario boom. The demand for excess capital is not all that great. Interest rates could very well begin to go down. It is the activist intervention of the Bank of Canada and the Government that is keeping the interest rate up. The interest rate is being kept up, I suspect and I submit, because of the Free Trade Agreement.
We have made suggestions for dealing with the revenue side. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that we all agree that the deficit is a problem. How are we to tackle it? First and foremost, Members of the New Democratic Party insist that it has to be done fairly. The record of this Government is that it has not been done fairly. It has been done on the backs of the poor and middle-income earners. Every social study has proven that fact. Surely the Government cannot deny that.
May 2, 1989

If we are to tackle the deficit, first let us do it fairly. Let us also call upon industry as well as working people, fishermen and farmers to shoulder the burden of the debt. That means responsible behaviour on their part as well.
We have talked about Government debt. We should also talk about corporate debt. Right now, large corporations will acquire $100 million or $1 billion in extra debt as a poison pill in order to prevent corporate take-overs. Other large corporations are borrowing billions of dollars to take over corporations .They do it at government expense because it is tax deductible. They make capital scarce. They do not add to production. In fact, they decrease the ability and strength of our corporations.
We now find that the financiers are now the chief executive officers, not the engineers, because our corporations are not concerned with production any longer. We are losing the economic war to the Japanese and Europeans. We are losing jobs.
There is mass irresponsibility on the corporate side and yet they stand here and tell our Government they need more tax breaks, more inducements in order to invest, and special rates. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) suggested to his friends in his constituency, we need lower tax rates in order to induce investment. Yet much of that investment is going for corporate takeovers, money that further drains our treasury and further weakens our corporate sector. It leads to the loss of jobs and wealth.
In response to my friend, if we are to seriously go about the business of putting our economic house in order, we need the full co-operation of the business sector as well as labour, farmers, fishermen, all those men and women involved in activities that make our economy function. It has to be a collective responsibility. We need a Government that can show leadership in bringing that about. So far, we have seen a Government that lacks the imagination, the foresight and the leadership. That is why I again propose that the Minister of Finance should resign.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-ll, the Borrowing Authority Act, 1989-90, permits the Government to borrow $25.55 billion. This will permit the Government to meet its financial requirements and conduct foreign exchange operations.
Borrowing Authority
The projected deficit is $30.5 billion in the 1989-90 fiscal year compared with $38.3 billion in the 1984-85 fiscal year. However, this is not equal to the borrowing requirements of the Government.
The Government's financial requirements are a comprehensive measure of its demands on credit markets. These requirements have fallen sharply from the $29.8 billion in 1984-85 to the projected $20.5 billion in 1989-90. Relative to the size of the economy, financial requirements have fallen from 6.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to a projected 3.2 per cent this year. By 1993-94, the Government's financial requirements will have fallen to $3 billion or 0.3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product.
I am a new Member in the House, but I heard references yesterday going back to comments made by C. D. Howe. We have heard Finance Ministers stand up in this House and say it before. One Finance Minister stood up and said: "We intend to continue severe restraint. Our experience this past year and the prospects next year force us all to recognize the central problem of the control of public expenditures in Canada today". Many may think that sounds like the current Finance Minister, but that was Edgar Benson in his Budget Speech of October, 1968, 20 years ago. The Finance Minister at that time said a tight rein was needed because expenditures had surged to $12.3 billion.
In June of 1969, which was the Budget of the last fiscal year that Ottawa showed a surplus of some $332 million, the Finance Minister at that time said: "A fiscal policy of restraint, combined with restrictive monetary policy, would be an effective combination to overcome persistent inflationary pressures." That was 1969. We are hearing the same comments today.
On March 12, 1970, when spending climbed by 12 per cent, the Finance Minister told Members of this House: "Members are aware of our sustained effort to restrain the growth of expenditures". In the June 18, 1971 Budget, spending jumped 15 per cent in fiscal year 1971-72. Transfers to the provinces rose 40 per cent and federal funds for education climbed 41 per cent.
Then we come to the Budget of May 8, 1972, the then Finance Minister Turner's first Budget. It was full of goodies for the election expected that fall. One was inflation indexing, which was to contribute in large measure to future deficits. The Finance Minister at that time said: "The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply do not have the resources". In that Budget, spending went up 15 per cent and the deficit rose to $1.8 billion.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
We now come to February, 1973. The Liberals had been returned as part of a minority Government and needed the parliamentary support of the New Democratic Party. The Finance Minister said: "Cutting taxes, instead of increasing spending, reflects the government's determination to impose restraints upon its own spending." It did cut personal taxes. They fell by some $1.3 billion. What about reducing spending restraints? In the fiscal year of 1973-74, spending jumped 17 per cent.
May 6,1974 was another pre-election Budget. For the fiscal year 1974-75, spending went up 28 per cent. There were further cuts in revenue, too. The sales tax on building materials was cancelled. Personal income tax credits were increased. The $1,000 exemption for interest income was introduced. Finance Minister Turner said he would hold the deficit to much the same effective level as the previous year to help counter inflation. The deficit was over $2 billion.
We now go to June of 1975, one year later. The Finance Minister said: "The Government proposes to set an example of restraint in this regard by imposing strict control over its activities and programs". Inflation was running at 10 per cent. With indexing, government revenues climbed only 8 per cent while spending had soared 20 per cent. The deficit had gone from $2 billion to $5.7 billion in just one year. It almost tripled.
In May of 1976, after the introduction of wage and price controls, Finance Minister Macdonald said: "In recognition of the widespread feeling among Canadians that present circumstances demand restraint in government spending, the Government has stated that the trend in total spending by all Governments in Canada should not rise more quickly than the trend in Gross National Product". In the March, 1977 Budget, interest payments came to $5.5 billion which was about half of the $10.4 billion deficit.
In his last Budget, the Finance Minister told Parliament, "For some time, our policy has entailed a sizeable deficit. As the slack in the economy is taken up, the deficit will be reduced". That comment was made in 1977, some 12 years ago.
We move to April of 1978. This was Jean Chretien's first Budget. As spending rose 10 per cent, the Finance Minister said: "We have all come to expect too much of the economy. Governments increased their spending too quickly. The expenditures of all levels of Government in Canada have since been brought under control". Then we come to a Budget in December, 1979. Spending growth was pared down to 8 per cent. Why the reduction? Because this was the Budget introduced by Finance Minister Crosbie. Short-term pain for long-term gain. At that time the Conservative Finance Minister said: "The most fundamental element in our plan to lower the deficit is severe restraint over government expenditures." That was the Budget that included the 19-cent a gallon increase. After that election we saw the introduction of the litre and within a year we saw the price of gasoline increase some 60 to 70 cents a gallon.
On October 28, 1980, Allan MacEachen's first Budget included the dramatic National Energy Program. Interest payments were $10.7 billion which accounted for three-quarters of the annual deficit of $13.5 billion. The Finance Minister said: "A major item in the Budget is the interest we have to pay on the public debt. We must slow down the growth of the public debt charges. This is one of the reasons I am determined to reduce the deficit". Here, one year after the Conservatives had introduced spending of some 8 per cent, and Finance Minister MacEachen saying that he would reduce the deficit, he put forward increases of some 17 per cent in spending for the fiscal year 1980-81. That was especially ironic, because he said he would have strict control over the rate of government spending.
We now move to November, 1981. Again the Finance Minister predicted that the deficit that year would be much lower, $10 billion compared to $11 billion the previous year. By the end of that fiscal year, the deficit had increased to almost $15 billion.
In June of 1982, the Government said: "The Government cannot responsibly add to the deficit. It has to reallocate resources. The last Budget put in place a structure of revenues and expenditures that should, when recovery gets fully under way, gradually lower the deficit." During that fiscal year, the deficit nearly doubled to $27.8 billion.
May 2, 1989

Then on November 8, 1984, the Tories were elected. In September we had inherited a $38.3 billion deficit, a national debt of $199 billion requiring interest payments of $22 billion annually.


An Hon. Member:: What is it today? Double!


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: The Members behind indicate the total debt may have doubled. We inherited a debt of $199 billion. We are hearing numbers of $320 billion. That is not quite doubling.


An Hon. Member:: One hundred and ninety-nine billion dollars is not quite the figure either. One hundred seventy billion dollars would be correct.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Just listen to this. In 1975-76 the deficit was $31 billion. In three years the deficit had gone to $60 billion. The Government of the day had managed to double the deficit in that period. If that was not enough, that Government took the national debt from $60 billion to $199 billion. It managed to triple the debt in that six-year period. It is not a record that the Liberal Government at that time should be proud of.
Fiscal responsibility has been a top priority since this Government took office four and a half years ago. In 1984, the fiscal situation presented the Government with a difficult challenge. Expenditures were growing much faster than the economy while revenue growth was falling far behind. In the four years ending 1984-85, the budgetary deficit had more than doubled relative to the size of the economy. The growth in the public debt had reached alarming proportions. Public debt was rising well in excess of 20 per cent a year. The rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation has become an impediment to sustained non-inflationary growth, the creation of jobs and ultimately the future well-being of Canadians.
During the past four years, this Government has faced up to the challenge of the debt with a series of tough measures to restrain government spending. We are now spending less on programs than we receive in revenues. The irony is that so long as we let government debt continue to grow, we reduce our ability to fund education, assist the jobless and assist the very needy in our society. The real opponents of social programs are those who refuse realistic discussion of deficit reduction. The current surge in interest rates shows how vulnerable Canadians are to debt costs. In just one year, the projected cost of paying interest on debt has risen by more than $6 billion.
Let us not kid ourselves. The measures in the Budget are tough because they match the challenge the nation faces. Deficit spending is deferred taxation, and that deferral cannot go on.
Borrowing Authority


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Milliken:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just addressed the House has talked about the Government's management of the economy in the last few years in laudatory terms when many economists, businessmen, and Members of the Opposition indicate the opposite is true. One of the difficulties we face is the mounting size of the deficit. I want to quote two statements to the Hon. Member and ask if he agrees with my comments on them. The first is contained in the leaked Budget speech. Although we did not hear this read in the House, it has now been tabled. The document that I presume the Minister was supposed to read before the Budget sprouted the leak states:
We recognized the seriousness of the debt problem when we came
to office.
I could add they appear to have done very little about it.
We have been acting to get it under control.
Four years of inaction.
We have succeeded in reducing the growth of the debt from
almost 24 per cent in 1984 to less than 10 per cent last year.
That is one statement made by the Minister of Finance in the leaked document. The other statement was made in the House yesterday morning by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid). I told him his statement was ridiculous and he disagreed with me. I want to read his statement. I quote from page 1111 of Hansard of yesterday.
Our financial requirements were down from $30 billion to $22 billion in the same period. We reduced the growth of the debt to 9.9 per cent. That was the first time in 15 years that the debt growth was less than 10 per cent.
Anybody with an elementary knowledge of arithmetic can figure out that if the debt gets bigger, the growth will be a smaller percentage of the total. We can expect, therefore, that with the growth of the debt predicted in the Budget this year by another $30 billion and next year by another $28 billion, which will undoubtedly grow to $30 billion by the time the Government gets around to managing it, the growth in the debt will be down to about 5 per cent in no time.
To make these statements is to deceive the Canadian people, because they are not portraying an accurate picture of what is happening. We say the percentage increase of the national debt is going down. Yes, that is true; but the amount of the increase is just as big every year. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Yet that is what is perpetrated in the leaked budget document on the second page. It was further compounded yesterday by the Minister of State for Privatization when he spoke in this House. I stated then and repeat today, it is

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
ridiculous to cite that figure. I ask the Hon. Member who has just spoken if he does not agree with me.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: The Hon. Members are playing games with numbers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: I was quoting Budgets from 1968-70. The bottom line is that 9.9 per cent growth is the first time in 15 years the debt has been below that percentage. The citizens and taxpayers of Canada understand that currently 31 cents of every tax dollar is used to pay interest on the debt. If the Government does not turn the annual interest problems around, that number will increase from 31 cents to 40 cents to 50 cents. This will result in the Government continuing to raise taxes. We will not be in a position to offer new programs. We will be taxing the taxpayers to pay interest.
It was quite clear that is what happened in this last Budget. Suddenly we are very vulnerable to the amount of the debt. The Budget that has been presented to the House indicates that in two years we will have turned the comer. In four years the annual deficit will be down to $15 billion, and then if we raise taxes we will be in a better position as a country to use those taxes for the programs that all Canadians want.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Sobeski) on a very useful and instructive contribution to the debate this morning. I think it is important to point out in passing that during the past four years figures indicate that in fact there are 1,500,000 more Canadians working today than was the case back in 1984.
I think it is instructive also to note the composition of the national debt and what has happened in regard to the deficit over the past four or five years. 1984-85 was the last budget year of the previous Liberal government. The deficit was $38 billion. Over half of that deficit figure was government program over expenditures.
The fact is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the present Government has over the past four years worked that deficit into a position where the Government's expenditures today are in a balanced position, in the sense that current programs are financed out of tax revenue. The entire deficit for the past year relates to interest that was built up under those Liberal years.
I think it is important to point out that what we are spending money on today through the deficit is interest on that past Liberal debt entirely, not a bunch of nonsense like scientific research tax credits, Katimaviks, Canadairs and de Havillands and all of that kind of waste that went on during the past.
I would ask the Hon. Member, are these Members opposite not being a little bit hypocritical in suggesting that there have been massive increases in Government expenditures which are the root of this deficit? Is it not a fact that the root of the deficit today is entirely the mis-government and overspending of the previous Liberal Government?


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: I would like to thank the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson). I would like to say that as a new Member sitting on the Finance Committee it is indeed a pleasure to be part of that committee, inheriting the fine legacy of this gentleman and other people who have made the Finance Committee such a good committee in the past.
I think what the Member is referring to is that in my previous comments we talked about Government saying in 1968, 1970, 1974 and 1978 that we all recognized the problems that would be created unless the debt was brought under control. I know the difference is that this Government not only recognized it in 1984 but rather than just engaging in rhetoric and forgetting about an increase in spending, we are doing something about it. That is the difference between what we have heard over the past 20 years and what this Government is doing today.


Mr. Pickard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to just bring forward the question of responsibility in financial spending. I notice, as my hon. friend has pointed out, that he considers all the woes that our present Budget has as Liberal legacy.
May 2, 1989

I find it very difficult, in looking at a time line of four and a half or five years, that somebody who was there before can still be blamed. I also find it a little difficult to swallow that if the deficit was $168 billion five years ago, and it is $330 billion today, that this Government has worked very hard to reduce that national debt. The deficit has remained quite strong and we are going $30 billion per year further and further into debt. The suggestion has been made that this Budget is going to reduce our national debt or hold our national debt, or be a responsible Budget. Yet we are talking about $30 billion in that case as well. That is the projected debt next year.
It seems to me that I would like to hear the Member's comments with regard to the last four years, not the past 20 years. I would like to hear him comment on how responsible it is to double the debt in four years, going from $168 billion to $330 billion, and where we are heading now.


An Hon. Member:: Right downhill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short answer from the Hon. Member for Cambridge.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: I guess it is where we draw the time line and I will start drawing the time line. In 1984 the annual deficit went from $38 billion, down to $34 billion, down to $30 billion, and down to $29 billion. It has been going down and down in that direction. From 1970-71, where we could perhaps start the time line, the deficit went up one year, went up the next year, went up the next year, and went up the next year. That has been the difference. With the time line going back to 1970, the deficit has gone up, and since 1984 to 1988 the deficit has been going down.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period of questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I believe there might be a disposition to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 1.08 p.m., I do now leave the chair-

The Member for Regina Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong). I apologize.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I understand as well that there has been unanimous consent. I understand the Liberals want to take a little longer lunch break. We are in favour of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please! It being 1.08 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.08 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome -Missisquoi):: Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I met with about one hundred electors, as most Members do in their own riding. They all agree that Canada's budget deficit has to come down, so today I should like to tell the House about the message I conveyed to them. I told them that, human nature being what it is, we would all be inclined to let someone else shoulder the heaviest part of the burden. The Government's role is to ensure that as many people as possible are prepared to tighten their belt so as to restore the balance in the public accounts.
Regardless of the means used in the quest for that goal, the Opposition Parties are bound to disagree-for partisan motives, probably-as do certain pressure groups who feel they have been cheated out of something. The Government must entertain and respond to objections, listen to representations and consider their legitimacy, but first and foremost it has to govern, and that means discharging the responsibilities mandated by the people. The situation is too serious and our leaders simply cannot jeopardize Canada's economic future for the sake of political gain.

May 2, 1989
Canadians will come to appreciate that in the interest of our children and grandchildren we must follow the straight and narrow path for a while.



ADJUDICATION OF CONTRACTS


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my comments concern the call for the tenders for the relocation of Transport Canada.
By announcing that the call for tenders in connection with the relocation of Transport Canada was cancelled, the Mulroney Government has violated the fundamental principle of the contract process, thereby jeopardizing its ethics and integrity.
The Mulroney Government has tried to sink a major project that had no financial impact on the current Budget, while failing to consider the full implications of that decision.
That is why today, I want to ask this Government to reverse its decision to cancel the call for tenders by going back to the study process as soon as possible.



GREAT LAKES FISHERY


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, despite the efforts of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission which was established in 1955 to restore the Great Lakes fishery, it appears that the sea lamprey will continue to devastate our commercial and sporting fishing industry. By the year 2000 the sea lamprey population is expected to double. Without the funding to control this intruder, trout and salmon numbers will be cut in half. Sport fishing expenditures will decline by $552 million a year, commercial fishing revenues will decline by $135 million a year and regionally there will be losses of $1.4 billion.
It is essential that there be adequate assistance to control this menace now before the grim scenario described becomes a reality.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canada spends $1 billion a year on our troops in Europe. That is $1 billion that could be spent more effectively in the judgment of the NDP and, indeed, at one time in the judgment of former Defence Minister Erik Nielsen who unsuccessfully tried to bring the troops home in 1985.
Instead of working toward saving money by making Canadian troop reductions in Europe in the near future, preferably as part of a negotiated reduction in conventional forces by NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the Government has chosen to sabotage the economies of many Canadian communities like Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, which stands to be devastated by the elimination of its base.
The Government had an opportunity to save money, promote peace and disarmament in Europe and strengthen our forces at home. Instead, it chose to wreck Canadian communities, weaken our forces at home and ignore the possibilities for creative and cost-saving changes in Europe.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the PPCLI belongs in Winnipeg at Kapyong Barracks and should not be transferred to Edmonton.



THE BUDGET


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is more Tory double talk. Otherwise, how do you explain the strange twist of logic of the Tory Throne Speech that talks to the fostering of Canada's cultural and national uniqueness while the Budget savages its main vehicle, the CBC, with a massive incremental of $140 million cut.
The Tories are set on brick by brick dismantling of the CBC. Their commitment began to crumble under the former Minister of Communications' $85 million cut in 1984, followed in 1986 by another $10 million loss. As well, from 1984 to 1989, Conservatives denied enough funds to keep pace with inflation, causing another 15 per cent revenue loss; another $140 million. In one decade this Government will have stripped our Canadian public radio and television of $280 million. This is an outrage.
May 2, 1989

At the critical juncture in the political evolution of Canada, we need strengthened French, English, northern and international Canadian services providing an independent Canadian perspective. These Draconian cuts are a disservice to all Canadians. It is time for the CBC's board of directors to stand up and call this Government to account, for it is obvious they cannot count on this Minister. I suggest that the arts community does the same thing.
*	5jC *



SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, following today's announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. G. Bouchard) and Mr. Larkin Kerwin, president of the Canadian Space Agency, the new Canadian Space Agency will be located in Quebec, in the greater metropolitan area of Montreal, near the Saint-Hubert airport.
The Minister of Transport told the media yesterday: "We should stop fighting about aspects that are totally removed from the fundamentals of the problem and concentrate on getting as much as we can for Quebec- This is a useless debate that diminishes the impact of our comments as Quebecers because it makes us look very parochial, at a time when we should be concentrating on what is good for the entire province".
Mr. Speaker, whether they live in Longueuil, Laval, Saint-Hubert or Saint-Laurent, Quebecers have enough common sense to realize that they are still in the metropolitan area of Montreal.



ESTONIA


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on March 26 of this year, the people of Estonia enjoyed their first free elections in over 50 years of Soviet rule.
These free elections are at the very heart of a long struggle toward political and economic autonomy leading eventually to the possible restoration of full independence and sovereignty.
We are pleased to have with us today members of the Popular Front, a movement that has recently been acknowledged by the Kremlin, and which has been at the forefront of the radical reforms taking place in Estonia.
The time has come for Canada to promote trade and economic ties with Central and Eastern Europe. As these countries move closer to freedom and independence, they will need our support and commitment to achieve political and economic success.
Canada should adopt a resolution similar to that passed in the United States Congress in February of this year that called on the countries involved to revoke the seizure and occupation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, United Parcel Service, the largest parcel delivery service in North America, has been licensed in British Columbia to act as a customs broker.
On or about April 7, acting on reliable information regarding questionable conduct of this company, a regional collector for Revenue Canada refused to allow its licence to be renewed and asked UPS to show cause as to why it should not be revoked.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, acting on concerns identified by businesses in my constituency, my office documented considerable evidence of this company's pattern of diverting goods from interior customs entry points to Vancouver where its own customs brokerage is located.
Not only does this practice contravene explicit instructions of the receiver, but it also reduces the volume of goods required to achieve economy of scale necessary for commercial operators to service interior routes and denies customs brokers in Osoyoos business which is rightfully theirs.
The behaviour of UPS in British Columbia has been disruptive to the normal flow of goods across the border and has without justification caused interminable delays to B.C. customers awaiting delivery of goods.
I call upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) to hold a full investigation into the activities of this U.S.-based company before any renewal of licence is granted.

May 2, 1989



TELEPHONE CHARGES


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I recently brought to the attention of N.B. Tel a fee charged for the listing of 1-800 numbers in my province. This is a nuisance fee that hurts all businesses, particularly small businesses.
Yesterday I received a reply from the president of N.B. Tel on this matter agreeing with me that it is a nuisance fee and should be removed. N.B.Tel will be taking this matter before the New Brunswick Public Utilities Commission in the hopes that the fee will be dropped.
I commend N.B. Tel for this very progressive move and I also request that the Public Utilities Commission accept this proposal put forward by N.B.Tel and urge that all public utilities across the nation follow N.B.Tel's lead in this regard.



ENVIRONMENT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in as many months we have seen the embarrassing spectacle of a Canadian politician going to the United States to pick up an award which is neither deserved nor should be accepted.
First, we saw the former Minister of Communications pick up an Oscar. Now we have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) accepting an environmental award from a group that does not even believe that acid rain is a problem which needs cleaning up.
To give the Prime Minister the environmental award is a little bit like giving the Captain of the Exxon Valdez a safe-driving award. It has about as much impact, and it is just about as relevant.
Let us look at the facts. I would like to call this to the attention of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). During the life of this Government a half a billion dollars in actual spending has been cut from environmental programs.

If the Minister of the Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard) really has the ear of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), why was his budget cut by half a billion dollars? If the
environment is really this Government's priority, why did the Prime Minister cut the Minister's budget by half a billion dollars? Is that fair?

He should be ashamed to accept the award.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is fleeing the fall-out of his Budget, a Budget that is a complete reversal of Conservative campaign promises.
Where is he off to? He is off to accept an American award in Boston for his contribution to international understanding. Perhaps we should offer such an award to attract the PM to western Canada, to look into matters such as forestry, oil spills, and alienation.
Where next goes the master of double-talk but to Washington to receive a European award for his dedication to environmental management everywhere outside Canada? Perhaps we should offer one here in Canada in the hope that he will realize that Canada has only 1.3 per cent of our lands protected in national parks.
The award-giver, Prime Minister Brundtland, recommended that at least 12 per cent of lands in every nation and region be protected in conservation zones. Perhaps the PM will return home to announce the doubling of national parks and conservation areas. After all, only one-half of our national bioregions have any protection at all.
Perhaps the PM will find enough courage to tell President Bush to keep the oil rigs and oil spills out of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, home to our 180,000 caribou.
If he does not do these things for Canadians while accepting awards abroad, then he is revealed as a fraud.




Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, the whole world is watching with utmost hope as the two superpowers and other countries with nuclear weapons attempt to move from a balance of power based on deterrence to a new global stability based on trust and other confidence-building measures.
May 2, 1989

The Government and the people of Canada support nuclear disarmament. Now Canada is playing a leading role in the study of seismic detection of underground tests of nuclear weapons. Dr. Peter Basham, an Energy, Mines and Resources seismology expert, is chairing a group of international scientists from 25 different nations around the world working on seismic verification and developing a world-wide system of rapid data exchange to support a test ban.
This is just one of the significant contributions that Canada is making in increasing the hope and confidence of achieving a workable test ban and nuclear disarmament.




Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, the House has heard a number of exhortations from Hon. Members from the great City of Scarborough in support of the creation of an environmental heritage park in the Rouge River Valley and table lands.
The proposed parklands comprise about 5,000 acres inside Scarborough of which 80 per cent are government-owned, and an additional 4,000 of protectable land surrounding the river's headwaters to the north in York region. Through fate or miracle, these lands still contain much of their original endowment of vegetation, wildlife, clean water and fish.
The Rouge lands are not just a piece of real estate. They are still an ecosystem recognized as a critical and unprotected natural area by the World Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
The present and past Ministers of the Environment have committed themselves publicly to the initiative to develop these proposed parklands. I want to record my impression of our pitiable record as a society of coexisting within the context of our current environment. What will it take to wrestle the ethics of industrial development and growth to the ground in favour of environmentally sustainable development?
Oral Questions
If we cannot save this precious ecosystem from the bulldozer when it is so obviously saveable, just maybe we will show ourselves incapable of saving any ecosystem, including that of all mankind.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported recently that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) is considering the adoption of a zero tolerance drug policy as part of the Government's war on drugs. Such a policy would enable Canada Customs to seize cars, planes and boats in which illegal drugs are transported.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the adoption of this policy. Yes, it is a strong measure. But strong measures are necessary when we are dealing with a serious problem.
The fact is that drug use in Canada has reached epidemic stages which require the adoption of stricter and more diligent drug enforcement policies. It is imperative that we take steps now which will force smugglers to think twice about bringing drugs into our country.
This is why I now implore all Members of the House, regardless of Party affiliation, to support the Minister in the adoption of the zero tolerance policy. Such a policy will make Canada's future drug-free.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, since the Budget was dropped on us, people from all across the country in all walks of life are asking a question. That question is this. What happened between November, 1988 and May, 1989?
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are no longer singing the same tune that they sang last fall. Thus-


Mr. Charest:: The time for statements is over.

May 2, 1989
Oral Questions


M. Douglas Young: -my question for Captain Steroid is this, although it is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in reply to a question I asked the Minister, if he implied that the provinces should take up the slack in providing help to the unemployed, the poor, senior citizens and the sick because the provinces had managed their affairs better than the federal Government had managed its own affairs.
Based on the Minister's experience in the last four years, what does he believe the provinces should do, raise their taxes, their deficits, or cut programs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member does not watch what he calls me, I may go into a telephone booth and take off my shirt.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Peterson:: Michael, you have stripped every other Canadian, you should do it to yourself.


Ms. Clancy:: Anything but that!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question I point out to the Hon. Member that total transfers to the provinces are some $34 billion. Cash transfers represent 23 per cent of our spending.
It is very important when we look at the over-all problem of the government debt-and I am sure the Hon. Member agrees that we do have a problem with the Government debt-that we look at this as an element of the measures that we take in addressing that problem. That is why we have included some elements of those government transfers.
He also understands that we have not changed equalization. The equalization program is exactly the same as it was before. That is important, particularly to provinces like his own.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to leave the impression that I addressed the Minister of Finance as Captain Steroid. I reserve that for the Minister of Youth who is very familiar with the subject.


Jean J. Charest: And he is the MP for haemorrhoids.


M. Douglas Young: I want to tell the Minister he should start to wonder about putting Preparation H right around his lips.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, before the Budget was tabled in this House, Canadian workers and the unemployed were advised that they had to shoulder the burden of training and retraining. We are talking here about the most disadvantaged segment of our society. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following: Now that the Canadian Government has completely withdrawn from the unemployment insurance program, will it continue to manage it only until it is privatized or until the provinces, as Quebec indicated yesterday for example, take up the slack? Is it the strategy of the Canadian Government to withdraw entirely from everything that has to do with the unemployment insurance program throughout the country?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance reform announced two weeks ago prepares us for the challenge of the labour market in the year 2000. Having said that, I can assure you that this Government will continue to manage the unemployment insurance fund and to help out should financial difficulties arise. That is what we have done since 1980 and our Government knows how to take its responsibilities.


REDUCTION OF SERVICES
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Budget has indicated to Canadians that we are reducing the commitment of the national Government to eliminating regional disparity. No matter how it is sliced, the people who have analysed the Budget have discovered that we are going to have to consider cutting hospital beds and reducing services. The provinces are going to be asked to become more and more the players. They have managed their affairs so well, according to the Minister of Finance, that now they have to pick up the slack.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is the only role of the national Government, as a result of its Conservative agenda, to make sure that there are two kinds of Canadians, those who live in the areas that have low unemployment and very, very strong provincial Governments, and that other areas of the province that have high unemployment and are faced with high interest rates going to have to scramble and survive on their own? In other words, is the agenda of this Government
May 2, 1989

to continue to exacerbate regional disparity while at the same time the only concrete result of their agenda is to have continuing high interest rates in this country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member, and I want to point out to him that we took very seriously the need to try to find an appropriate regional balance. Let me quote from the Cape Breton Post of last Saturday wherein it said:
Wilson might have chosen many other combinations of taxes and cuts - . Most of the alternative mixtures would likely have turned out worse for the region.
That is not Mike Wilson. That is the Cape Breton Post. That is what we have tried to achieve and I think that comment shows we are pretty close to achieving that. But the Hon. Member has criticized four or five different ways that we have taken to address this debt. Does he not agree that we have a debt problem? Does he have any alternatives to addressing that debt problem, or is he going to simply criticize without coming up with any positive alternatives?


THE BUDGET
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Medicare is Canada's most important social program. Hospitals and the care given to our sick by our health professionals is fundamentally important to all Canadians. The Minister's recent Budget, coupled with the unilateral cut-backs in 1986 in EPF, has resulted in Prince Edward Island receiving $7 million less, Newfoundland $34 million less. New Brunswick $43 million less, and Nova Scotia $53 million less in the fiscal year 1989-1990.
Will the Minister of Finance explain the fairness of choosing the sick, the elderly, the children and, yes, the poorer provinces of this country to shoulder the burden of his deficit reduction plan?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me state very clearly and categorically that there will be a substantial increase in the transfers from the federal Government on these programs. It will amount to some $25 billion over the next five years relative to the amounts over the last five years.
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member understands, I am sure, that 20 years ago 12 cents of every tax dollar was spent on interest costs. That increased to 25 cents for every tax dollar four or five years ago. It has now jumped to 35 cents. The whole purpose of this Budget is to reverse that trend so that we will be able to afford these programs which we understand and agree are very important to Canadians.


REDUCTIONS IN EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Finance quoted from the Cape Breton Post. He should have gone two or three pages further where it said, "The worst Minister of Finance this country has ever had is Michael Wilson".
This Minister talks about increases in EPF while his Budget papers say the exact opposite. Provincial Ministers of Finance say that they are going to get substantial reductions in EPF. Will the Minister give an undertaking today to those provincial Governments that I have mentioned that there will be no closing of hospital beds, no reduction of staff, no reduction of nurses who care for the sick, or the orderlies who care for the infirm, no reductions whatsoever as a result of this Budget as it affects EPF? Or will the Minister do as he did with the Budget leak: Accept no responsibility, show no leadership and when in heat delegate to the poorer provinces?


Geoff Wilson: I challenge the Hon. Member to show me where in those Budget papers there is a cut, where in those Budget papers, to use his words, "that what I just said is the exact opposite". He knows he is wrong on that. The rate of growth in these programs is slowing, but $25 billion over the next five years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Members are laughing at $25 billion. That is a significant amount of new funding for the provinces-


David Charles Dingwall: That is duplicity from the Minister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He tells me that I am talking from both sides of my mouth. The Hon. Members on the other side say control the debt. Under your Government, the debt went up.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 2, 1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They know the only way you can control the debt is to get the annual deficit down, and yet we have every Member on the other side fighting me every time we try to get the annual deficit down. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question is to the Minister of Finance. All Canadians will have noted by now that this Government has begun to completely undermine Canada's social policy tradition. They will not put up with it, I say to the Minister of Finance right now.
Will the Minister confirm in the House that the head of a family today at age 45 with an income of only $40,000 after 20 years, by the time he or she begins to collect the pension, will have this Government's claw-back provision applied to that pension, will have it hacked away by this Government? If the Minister will admit that this is going to happen to an average head of family today, will he try to justify it to the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well the objective of this program, and if I can point out to him-


John Edward Broadbent: We do. That is what is wrong with it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I point out to him that the universal character of these programs is absolutely maintained. We are leaving in place the safety net that has been established with these programs. But in order to achieve the over-all objective of this Budget, which is to maintain social programs, we must get a hold on this debt and get it under control. The Hon. Member has said he agrees the deficit is too high, he agrees that we have to get the debt under control. What are his ways of getting the deficit under control?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table some day in the House a five-page letter that we sent to the Minister showing him where to get money without taking it from the poor.


TAXATION OF SOCIAL BENEFITS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just said that the universality principle has been maintained. Only a Conservative would claim that when you give a dollar away with one hand and take it back with the other, you are maintaining the universality principle.
Since the justification for hacking away at pensioners above the $50,000 level is that these pensioners do not need Government pensions, will the Minister answer seriously, if that applies toward taxing back pension benefits today, according to Conservative philosophy, why will it not apply to taxing back medicare benefits tomorrow?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me read from the Budget itself because I do not think the Hon. Member has:
The essential purpose of the social safety net is to assist those most in need, not to subsidize those with high incomes.
As I said earlier, we have left in place the universal character of these payments and, to repeat myself, we are doing this so that we can get the size of the interest payments down-


John Edward Broadbent: Swallow your propaganda.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -so that we can maintain the social programs, programs that both he and we are committed to, like medicare to which he just referred. That is the objective of this. If the Hon. Member does not understand-


John Edward Broadbent: I understand what you are up to. I understand very well.
Mr. Wilson Etobicoke Centre): -the impact of debt and the impact of interest costs, probably it is a good time for him to leave the House of Commons so that he can go back to school and learn more about it.


UNIVERSALITY OF MEDICARE
John Edward Broadbent: 
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the principle does not apply to medicare. We never said it does apply to medicare. It is only that Member who is saying that it does.


John Edward Broadbent: Pensions were sacrosanct once too.


An Hon. Member:: Here today, gone tomorrow.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me give a couple of figures. This year we are spending as a Government $2.2 billion more on social programs, $865 million more on Old Age Security.
Let me point out to the Hon. Member that it is 4.3 per cent of recipients of Old Age Security who are affected by this-


Nelson Andrew Riis: One hundred thirty thousand in other words.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and less than 2 per cent have the whole amount recovered. We are maintaining the universal character of the program but we are also doing it in a sensible way, so that we can maintain these programs on an ongoing basis.


LACK OF FUNDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad Budget. But the most shameful aspect of the Budget has to do with health care, and I quote from page 13 of the Budget Papers:
The change in the growth of Established Programs Financing transfers will result in federal expenditure reduction of $200 million in 1990-91 with increasing savings in future years.
-on the back of sick Canadians. It's revolting!
Last February 7 all the Health Ministers got together and stated it was urgent to restore adequate funding under this program because our health care system was falling apart. How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain to the Canadian people that in order to reduce his deficit he must tax the sick and provide fewer health services than are now available because he has no money left?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member has said is wrong. It is quite wrong. We are increasing the amount of payments
Oral Questions
to the provinces under the Established Programs Financing by $25 billion. It is very clear, right there in the documents, and he knows that it is there in the documents. It is a $25 billion increase. That is a very substantial amount. We are providing this to allow the provinces to continue to provide the medicare services which they have been providing.


Mr. Tobin:: Same level of service?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This is the same services that the provinces are requiring and have been providing for many years now. I draw his attention again to the fact that there is an increase in debt service costs this year of $6 billion. Surely the Hon. Member can see that if we do not get this under control this will be dangerous to the whole nature of government in this country. What we are trying to do with this Budget is reverse that process, get that amount of money down so that we can continue to provide the services and programs that Canadians value.


INQUIRY AS TO WHY CERTAIN TAXES NOT INCREASED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should stop hanging around Bay Street and go see what's happening in hospital corridors, where patients have to wait in line for care.
Go to Quebec where patients have to wait a whole year before having a heart operation. Personally I had to fight to get the cancer treatment without which I would not have survived.
The Minister of Finance should leave Bay Street and go-
Can the Minister explain why he chose not to impose heavier taxes on individuals-on corporations and banks instead of finding $200 million to provide health care for sick Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me refer the Hon. Member to a comment that his Leader has made:
"The mounting federal debt is obviously a burden that this
Government and Parliament will have to deal with", John Thrner
said yesterday.
That is February 23, 1984.

May 2, 1989
Oral Questions
If Hon. Members opposite agree with their Leader, and I know sometimes they do not, and they also acknowledge the fact that in the election last year they had $7 billion on an annual basis of new spending promises-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was $7 billion a year. If Hon. Members opposite understand the significance of that, they would come to the floor of the House of Commons and offer to talk about alternatives, about different ways of doing this, and have a debate on how we can get control of this government debt, rather than just playing the opposition Party and criticize, criticize, criticize. Let us hear the alternatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
He *	*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. During the election the Government promised to keep farm marketing boards. Two weeks ago, on April 14, the Minister announced that he was destroying the power of the Canadian Dairy Commission to raise the market price of milk regardless of how the input costs were affected during the next 20 months. Is he aware that his announcement on April 14 resulted in the chartered banks announcing, only three days later, that they were cutting the value of farm market quotas by 50 per cent for lending purposes? Why is the Minister and the Government destroying farm marketing quotas for Canadian farmers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is misleading the House, not deliberately but I think inadvertently, when he makes that statement because marketing boards are secure as they have been.
I might remind the Hon. Member that in August, 1988, there was to have been a roll back as a result of the production formula. The price that was paid to the producers was to have been reduced by $1.89. In light of the fact that feed grain prices were rising at that particular time, this Government took cognizance of that fact and allowed the prices to remain the same.
As a matter of fact, as well, in February there was to have been a further cut-back and this Government stood by the dairy farmers on that occasion. It is standing by the dairy farmers today and will continue to do so in the future.


DISCOUNT OF FARM MARKET QUOTAS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Agriculture say that he is standing by farmers and not destroying farm marketing boards? I have an internal document by the Royal Bank in which they state their belief that farm marketing quotas will be destroyed at the GATT by the Government and that they will be sacrificial lambs.
This is dated April 17. They state they will be moving immediately to discount the value of farm marketing quotas for loan purposes. That is a 50 per cent reduction. Loans will not be given over a five year period. Interest rates to farmers will have to be raised because of this decision. Why is the Minister allowing this to happen? Why is he destroying farmers' quotas? In many cases, this will take away 25 per cent of a farmers' asset value. Why is the Minister doing this in light of the promise made during the election campaign?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Members of the Opposition continue to use the same old fear tactics. During the election campaign and prior to the election campaign, they said the Free Trade Agreement would destroy supply management. They said that free trade would destroy import quotas. They said we should stick to the GATT, stick to the GATT. Now they are suggesting that the GATT will destroy supply-managed systems. Why do they not get their act together? Perhaps they should have a meeting with the Royal Bank of Canada and set the facts out straight.
H= *	*


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF POPULAR
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Edgar Savisaar and Mr. Hardo Aasmae, both of whom are members of the Popular Front of Estonia and members of the Congress of the Peoples' Deputies of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
May 2, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. After last Wednesday's Budget leak, on Thursday the banking index at the Toronto Stock Exchange jumped by some 2.8 per cent, and as of one o'clock today, the stocks of the chartered banks were still climbing. One reason for this is that the banks had anticipated and avoided two major new tax hikes in the Budget of last week.
Can the Minister give us one single reason why he did not bring about an anticipated excess profit tax on the banks whose 1988 after-tax profits were $3.3 billion?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that the effects of tax reform last year will have quite a profound impact on the taxes paid by the chartered banks. Second, the large corporations tax applies to the chartered banks as it does to any other large corporation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the excess profits tax would have brought in a quarter of a billion dollars this year alone. No wonder those Gucci shoes were clicking on Bay Street last Thursday.


NATIONAL SALES TAX-EXEMPTION OF BANKS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the day after the Budget leak, the shares of the Royal Bank went up by $1.37 and the shares of the Toronto Dominion Bank by $1.35. In addition to not having an excess profits tax, the Minister decided to exempt the banks from paying a national sales tax on their margins. In light of the fact that their after-tax profits last year were $3.3 billion, why did the Minister exempt the banks' profit margins from the national sales tax when he put that same national sales tax on music lessons for kids? why exempt the banks but not the kids?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first, the banks' purchases are fully taxable. TTiey will be charging tax on sales of services but we are not applying the tax on their margins. It seems to me that
Oral Questions
about two weeks ago, Members of the New Democratic Party were up on their hind legs screaming away, saying that we would put a tax on mortgage interest. That is exactly what the Hon. Member is now saying we should do. He is flip-flopping and sucking and blowing. He cannot have it both ways.


TRANSPORT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The recent budget proposes to terminate the grain dependent rail branch line rehabilitation program one year early. In view of this, I would ask the Minister what is the future of the branch line between Weyburn and Willow Bunch, the Bengough subdivision in southern Saskatchewan.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the lines to which my Hon. colleague referred have been considered within the deficit reduction operation. The branch line rehabilitation program has been considered by the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as being the least effective way of helping transportation of grain in Western Canada. Because we had to consider cuts in our program, we have considered this one. We must ensure, however, that the branch lines will not be abandoned before the year 2000.


COMMITMENT OF MINISTER
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister reconcile the statement he just made to the House with his commitment in writing to the people of Southern Saskatchewan that the Bengough subdivision would be rehabilitated this year?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said before. That program has been considered within the deficit reduction operation, and the Senior Grain Committee said that it is the least efficient way to help transportation. That is why it has been cancelled. I cannot say any more than the program has been cancelled but the branch line will remain until the year 2000.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

May 2, 1989


MANITOBA AEROSPACE INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Two years ago, Manitoba lost the CF-18 contract and we will never forget it. As a consolation prize, Bristol Aerospace received the much smaller CF-5 contract. The senior Minister for Manitoba said at the time that the Government has confirmed its responsibility to sustain the aerospace industry in Winnipeg. Now, as a result of last week's Budget, we have lost the CF-5 contract as well. What has happened to the Government's commitment to the aerospace industry in Manitoba? What has happened to its commitment to the people of Manitoba?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that the Hon. Member would state that Manitoba or Bristol Aerospace has lost the CF-5 contracts. He would also put forward something regarding the CF-18 contracts. I can inform the Hon. Member that in the heads-up program of the CF-5, there will be a slight reduction. I can also inform the Hon. Member that there has been a reduction in the CF-18 program.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can try to fool his Tory friends but he will not fool the people of Manitoba.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON MANITOBA
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. On the awarding of the CF-5 contract, the Minister of Energy said, "We felt a need to reaffirm our commitment to Western Canada to let you know that we have been and are listening to you and that we do not take you for granted". Was the Minister listening when 1,500 jobs were wiped out of Manitoba as a result of last week's Budget? Was he listening when the Budget revealed a string of broken promises? Is that the kind of commitment to Western Canada the Minister was talking about?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the point of the Hon. Member's questions. I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes the need, as his leader has recognized, for all Canadians to be responsible in bringing the debt under control.
I say to the Hon. Member, there has been a reduction in expenditures in the Department of National Defence. There have been reductions in expenditures across Canada. The Hon. Member is condemning every reduction put forward. I ask the Liberal Party: What is your alternative to the debt that is taking away the future of your children?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns another broken promise by this Government. On Friday morning past the Prime Minister said, and I quote from Hansard at page 1069:
- that regional economic expansion programs will be up by 35 per cent over the next five years.
However, when the estimates for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency were tabled in this House less than one hour later, the document stated, and I quote from page 7 of those estimates: "In the short term, 1989 to 1992, there will be significantly less funds for Atlantic regional development than had been planned."
Why didn't the Prime Minister come clean in this House on Friday past and admit that Atlantic Canada would be savaged by his Government and that for the next three years this Government intends to pull the rug out from under Atlantic Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must surely know, being an Atlantic Canadian, that this is a record year for regional development assistance. Almost half a billion dollars is flowing into Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Hon. Member will also know, if he reads the press-


Mr. Nault:: Didn't we just have an election?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I guess they do not want to listen.
I want to say to my colleague that for the next five years, regional development aid through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be at a considerably higher level than any other period in history.
May 2, 1989


RENEWAL OF ERDA AGREEMENTS
Ronald MacDonald: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Public Works. Last year was an election year and one that the Minister should take note of because 20 out of 32 seats in Atlantic Canada could not be bought by ACOA.


Some Hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Ronald MacDonald: ACOA was allocated $83.8 million for co-operation agreements with the Atlantic provinces. This year that figure has been slashed to $39.6 million, a cut-back of over 50 per cent.
Can the Minister tell the Elouse, in a year when $400 million in ERDA agreements have been allowed to expire, how many agreements he really intends to renew with those provinces, at what cost-sharing formula and could he also indicate what moneys have been allocated in future years for these agreements? Or will Atlantic Canada continue to be punished for exercising its democratic right on November 21?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it was never the intention of ACOA or this Government to buy any seats in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A lot of seats in Atlantic Canada were helped by ACOA, regardless of political affiliations. There will be over $425 million profiled each year on average to help Atlantic Canada through Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and ERDAs. As for renewing ERDAs, it will be a matter for the provinces and for line Ministers to decide what their priorities are.


MDERNIZATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the debate going on within NATO about the modernization of nuclear weapons. I have asked the Minister about this before.
Oral Questions
The Minister will know that there is growing support for the German position that there should be negotiations about battlefield tactical nuclear weapons instead of the modernization supported by the United States and the United Kingdom. The debate to date has been characterized as one between the Germans, the U.K. and the U.S.A. without there being a clear implication that Canada is even actively involved in the debate.
I want to ask the Minister of External Affairs whether he will now consider supporting the German position that there should be negotiations with respect to this important decision? Surely it is the will of the Canadian people that any opportunity to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons or the down-sizing of nuclear weapons should be taken. Why won't the Canadian Government support that view?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested that the question of negotiation would proceed instead of modernization. I think the Hon. Member understands that that misstates the position of the German Government and indeed of most of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There is an agreement supported by Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and all the government heads of NATO that we should proceed with modernization. The question before NATO now is one as to the timing and balance between modernization and negotiation.
The Government has been involved in discussions and correspondence with other of our allies to work out a way that will allow the alliance to find an agreement enabling us to proceed with modernization and negotiations.


MINISTER'S POSITION RESPECTING NEGOTIATIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my worst suspicions are confirmed. You would think from listening to the Minister that he does not know there is the debate raging in NATO about the issue. The issue is the timing. The issue is whether or not NATO should now modernize or enter into negotiations at this time. That is the position we are asking the Canadian Government to support. Perhaps the Minister might do some creative thinking and ask himself how the question of modernization of tactical nuclear weapons could be linked to conventional force reductions, where the alleged superiority of the Soviet Union exists and which is one of the reasons for having the flexible response doctrine.

May 2, 1989
Oral Questions
When will we have a statement from the Minister that outlines the Canadian position? When will we have active Canadian engagement in this debate and support for negotiation on this matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to believe that active involvement by Canada in these international questions involves making unilateral statements here in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is involved and required is for Canada to continue to play an active role in the leadership of NATO. This will allow NATO, particularly in the context of the fortieth anniversary celebrations and Summit later this month, to proceed along a path that will lead it toward negotiation, and also when the time comes to move forward on modernization, will give effect to the agreement by all the heads of the NATO countries a year ago to proceed with modernization. That is the position of Canada. The role of Canada is to ensure we will make a constructive contribution to international discussions that will lead to greater stability and security.


THE BUDGET
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations. This Government consistently presents itself as a defender of our global commitment to the poorest, a country with great concern and commitment to the world's hungry and the dispossessed including millions of Third World children. Canada's commitment to official development assistance traditionally accounts for about 3 per cent of total Canadian Government expenditure, but the Budget slashes to ODA account for 29 per cent of all Budget expenditure cuts. What credibility does Canada possess in the light of such doubletalk about our caring concern?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the Hon. Member
wants to be fair, or should I say responsible, she must recognize that at this point the Government of Canada cannot go on with a kind of debt load that would preclude future aid programs or other commitments to Canadians.
This Government's actions are now predicated upon the ability to increase eventually all services, both national and international.
Now I would like to tell the Hon. Member that over these last four years we have increased aid funding by $800 million and even after this year's 5,6 per cent reduction, we will go on over the coming years, over the next four years increasing aid funding by $800 million.
This is a commitment to aiding developing nations this Government has always honoured.


COMMITMENTS TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. Under this Government, Canada has consistently reneged on its Third World assistance commitments.
Last Friday I received a letter from the Minister for External Relations with an enclosed overview of CIDA which reiterated the Government's previous commitments. The Budget denies this.
How does the Minister account for this absurdity of contradiction? Will the Minister agree that she failed to defend ODA-GNP ratios as committed by her and that she has badly let down Canada and Third World countries?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the Hon. Member what I said this morning in committee which is that this Government has been adhering to the gross national product share formula. As soon as next year we will increase aid funding, which will grow by $800 million over the coming years. And this, Mr. Speaker, is a firm commitment. Also, we are maintaining our commitment to our major priorities under the strategy put forward by the Canadian Government last year.
May 2, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to exercise the right of every Member of Parliament when a borrowing Bill is before the House, to deal with matters of his choice relating to the financial situation of the country. Of course, nothing relates more closely to the necessity of this Government to borrow than the Budget improperly before the House.
This is a Budget of broken promises, a Budget of deceit, and a Budget of economic mismanagement. It is a document which should not now be before this House of Commons.
Canadians have every right to be outraged. Canadians have every right to demand that this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) resign. Look at how this Budget was presented: a day early at a hastily called press conference due to a leak. This was not a leak. This was a flood. The entire Budget was revealed prematurely at the expense of the Canadian people and against the privileges of this House.
Did the Minister of Finance resign? Did he offer to resign? No. Did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) demand his resignation? No. Instead, in true presidential style, they ignored the responsibility to this House of Commons to uphold and defend the principle of budget secrecy.
What happened was absolutely unprecedented, not only in the history of the country but in the history of parliamentary democracy. The fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy is that the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people, exercise primacy over all taxation and over all spending. Members of the House of Commons, therefore, must hear the Budget first. Secrecy must be maintained, not only to allow the Members of the House on behalf of the Canadian people to pass judgment on the Budget but to prevent anybody in this country, any Canadian, from obtaining an inside advantage. That principle serves to
Borrowing Authority
protect the public from those with advance information who could accumulate private gain at the expense of the rest of us.
When he defended his actions in the House of Commons last week, the Minister of Finance acknowledged that principle. This is what he had to say, as reported at page 1005 of Hansard:
There are two essential considerations underlying budget secrecy: The need to ensure that a person does not profit or otherwise gain advantage from advance knowledge of the content of the Budget, and the principle that the Government's financial policy should be disclosed to the House of Commons before it is made known to others-
Those were the words of the Minister of Finance. I could not have put it more clearly, nor I doubt could you, Your Honour. Having stated the principle, he then completely absolved himself from all responsibility for adhering to it. He simply said that it was not his fault, nor was it the fault of his Department. Then whose fault was it?
The Prime Minister said that the Minister of Finance was the victim of a crime. There has been no proof of that. We will wait and see, but nobody in this House has been given any evidence of that. I doubt whether it was a crime. Somebody goofed and the Minister is responsible.
When it comes to the Budget, he is the captain of the ship. If there is a leak for whatever reason, he is responsible. If he goes aground for whatever reason, he is responsible. Just like the captain of the Exxon Valdez, he has to answer for it whether or not he is on the bridge.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Listen to the vocabulary used by the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers last week. The Prime Minister spoke of "the criminal- who stole the property." The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to an "act of sabotage". He referred to the criminal act that occurred. All these citations are from Hansard. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) said, as reported at page 1013 of Hansard:
- it became evident to the Government that this was much more than informed speculation. There was in fact a theft of budget material -
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) referred to the actions of a thief. The senior Ministers of the Government, led by the Prime Minister, said that it was a fact that the Budget was stolen, but RCMP spokesperson Pierre Belanger said right off the bat: "We are not assuming it is only theft."

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
My argument or my submission to Your Honour is that whether or not there was a criminal action, the senior Ministers had absolutely no proof for their words last week. Of course, they are now backing out. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said that the Prime Minister was talking-and I am using the Minister's words- about "a crime in the vernacular". Now that is something new. This was not a statutory crime. This was not a common law crime. This was not a crime of the mind or of conscience. This was a crime in the vernacular. I know the Minister is a chartered accountant and a lawyer but I tell you that he ought to go back to law school and, if he does, tell us what a vernacular crime is really about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Now of course selfrighteously he went on to say "there will be no discussion on this event until the investigation is finished". There is no discussion anymore; they are going back into their foxholes.
What they really meant was that they would not comment once they got caught faking it as they clearly were faking it last week. The Prime Minister and the Government are now trying to get off the hook by suggesting that they did not call it a crime, that it was the reporter, Doug Small, who called it a crime. I have mentioned to Mr. Small personally that I would be delighted to take his case any time because there is absolutely no proof of criminal intent and no proof of a crime.
We will wait to see what comes out of this investigation. We will want to see what the RCMP report says about the incident. We will want to see what precautions were taken to protect the secrecy. We will want to see how the printing bureau was surveyed and how extensive were those precautions, because what the Minister of Finance fails to grasp is: crime or no crime it would not have happened if there had not have been negligence, negligence for which the Minister is responsible under parliamentary and constitutional traditions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Tbrner (Vancouver Quadra) Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the issue is not whether or not the Minister of Finance personally released information to the news media. Nobody accuses him of that. The issue is one of trust, placed in him as the custodian of the nation's finances,
placed in him by this Parliament, placed in him by Canadians because of his responsibility for the finances and accounting of our nation.
The Minister has missed the point. He has undermined our system, attempted to blame the Opposition and not accepted the responsibility for those for whom he is constitutionally responsible. It is for that reason we are currently talking and negotiating before your Honour about the breach of privileges of the representatives of the Canadian people. These privileges, in our submission to you, have been breached and violated. That case of privilege is not yet over. We intend to pursue it through you, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to get answers from this Government. Even more important, it is not just our privileges that have been breached and violated, but our fiduciary free privileges as representatives of the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Every single Canadian has the right to feel confident and be understood. Every Canadian has the right to feel confident with the assurance that the tax he or she pays is revealed, supervised, challenged, controlled and spent in a fair manner by the Minister subject to the overall control of the House of Commons. If Budget secrecy does not apply to all Canadians then the system will not work.
I have read editorial comments. Some editorials argue, as did The Financial Post yesterday: "Budget secrecy is a tradition that has outlived its usefulness". What that paper and what other newspapers editorially have failed to appreciate is that even though the general directions of some of the changes announced in the Budget may be known beforehand-even though I would encourage the Minister to consult widely, as I did when I held that office with the various sectors of the Canadian economy-the specific changes, the tax changes, the spending cuts, the amount of the deficit still have an impact on markets when they are announced. Prior knowledge of those specific changes can be used for personal profit, and so could the amount of the deficit in terms of movement on the world exchanges. We all know today, with the computer and instantaneous transmission of information, how quickly that information circulates not only across our own stock exchanges and money markets but instantaneously around the world.
May 2, 1989

If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will not resign over the largest release of budgetary information in the history of this country-indeed, as I attempted to submit to your Elonour last Thursday, in the history of parliamentary democracy-then there will be chaos in the system, lack of trust, lack of confidence and lack of willingness of 11 million Canadian taxpayers to assess themselves voluntarily and to file that assessment with the Department of Finance.
By not resigning the Minister of Finance is setting precedent in which a Minister of Finance will be held accountable for budget leaks only if he personally leaked the information. That is not good enough for this House. That is not good enough for the country and that is a very misleading interpretation of his responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister claims he was the victim of a criminal act. The real crime is his Budget. The real crime is that this Tory Government did not tell Canadians the truth about what it intended to do. This is therefore a Budget of broken promises.
Before and during the election the Conservative Government made $17 billion worth of promises, megaproject after megaproject across the country. We had a battle of vocabulary with the Minister. He said: "Those are not promises. Those are election commitments." The Minister of Finance said to Canadians that they were spending commitments and the cost was supposed to be zero. Eleven days before the election the Minister of Finance said: "Conservatives have made spending commitments. In those reserves we have sufficient money to handle the announcements." During the campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "We have dealt with the deficit. You have got promises. All are within Michael Wilson's fiscal framework. Every nickel has been accounted for." As I have said already in this House of Commons, the Prime Minister's word is not worth a nickel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
Borrowing Authority


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from reading this Budget that Tories never had the slightest intention of keeping their word. They never had the slightest intention, beginning with the Minister, of keeping and meeting those commitments. They were only interested in buying Canadian voters and buying the election so that they could sell this country at a discount to the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Fast Wednesday evening, in a matter of minutes, the average Canadian family was saddled with $7 billion in new taxes and $2 billion in program cutbacks. To us this was not really a surprise, however. Throughout the election campaign last fall, we clearly explained to Canadians what Conservatives had in store for them. Across the country, in Caraquet, Saint-Jean, Thunder Bay, Saint-Jerome and Saint-Boniface, I said that if he was re-elected, the Prime Minister would introduce a catastrophic new tax on consumer goods, abolish the universality of our social programs and destroy our social safety net. Everywhere I went, I was called a liar by his Ministers, by almost all the Ministers opposite. And now it has all come true. Who is lying now? Where are the real liars? This Budget is a list of broken promise.
During the TV debate in French, the Prime Minister said in full view of all Canadians, and I quote: "We shall maintain all our social programs, without fail. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that will prevent us from fulfilling these obligations, now or in the future, and we intend to spend more on these programs.
In Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister said, and I quote him once again: "As long as I am Prime Minister, social programs, especially those for the elderly, will be improved, not diminished".
In Quebec City, the old capital, appearing before another group of senior citizens and this time taking his mother as his witness, the Prime Minister again made a solemn oath that he would not only maintain but increase social benefits for the elderly.
From one election to the next, the Prime Minister's style has remained the same. In 1984, he promised with his hand on his heart. In 1988, he swore a solemn on the taking his mother as his witness. However, only a few months later, he cut the old age security benefits of thousands of Canadians. But, says the Government, this cutback will only affect people with an annual income of

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
$50,000 or more. We know the $50,000 cut off point won't last very long. This Government has no consideration for the elderly who built this country. Today, it may be $50,000; tomorrow, it will be $40,000 and then $30,000. Finally, no Canadian will have any assurance of having a decent old age. In any case, the purchasing power of $50,000 will decrease every year as a result of inflation. They did not tell Canadians the truth!

In the Budget last week the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance put an end to the universality of the old age pension and the family allowance. So much for the sacred trust. The principle of universality meant that every Canadian was treated equally. That principle lent credibility to our social programs. We were not dividing the country into those who deserve and those who had to be treated with charity. It was not charity. It was a right of citizenship. It was a right that every Canadian believed inherent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Once the principle of universality is abandoned then it is at a government's discretion who is going to be treated on the dole with the charitable largesse that a government decides to distribute from time to time. Using that principle of universality, this country built up one of the most advanced pension systems in the world. We built up one of the most advanced systems of family care, one of the best medicare systems on the globe. Universality means there is no difference in treatment according to your income; you get the same doctors, nurses, hospitals and care. But that principle is not compatible with the Tory right wing agenda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Neither is federal funding for unemployment insurance. What did the Government say about unemployment insurance during the campaign? We have already taken this up before Your Honour in Question Period. On October 13, before a large assembly of Conservatives at the Hotel Newfoundland in St. John's, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said this: "The federal Government has no plans to make changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program. It is complete nonsense to suggest otherwise". That was on October 13.
When asked by reporters if he had checked this with the Prime Minister-they know him well in St. John's- this is what the Minister said: "You're damn right I asked him about it and he said no, no one is planning any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Program".
To put it bluntly, either the Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the Minister for International Trade or the Minister for International Trade did not tell the truth to
Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: With this Budget there will be no more money for unemployment insurance. The Prime Minister and his Government are taking nearly two billion more dollars away from unemployed Canadians-all this on top of what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) did a week or so before. Worse, they are privatizing a public system that has been protecting Canadians for 40 years as a result of a constitutional amendment-the best system in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I shuddered when they started to privatize the infrastructure that holds the country together. I refer to Air Canada, the abandonment of VIA Rail and the Post Office. However, I never thought any Canadian Government would privatize one of the most fundamental features of social insurance and the social security net of the country, never-and this Government has done it.
What the Government is doing is shifting people off unemployment insurance and on to welfare. It is taking money away from the unemployed to put into training programs. We in this Party have been advocating more training and retraining programs for years. We need more of them. However, we always assumed in our arguments that the money would be forthcoming from the general revenues of the country, or from the business community with governmental assistance, but after four and a half years of slashing training and retraining programs the Government now claims to have discovered that training is not more important and has placed it on the backs of the unemployed. The money should have come from general revenues. It is an astonishing betrayal of public trust. Once again, as we build up this indictment in the House of Commons where it should be built up, it did not tell Canadians the truth.
May 2, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, look at what they said about a child care program. The Prime Minister and his House Leader brought the program into the House of Commons in mid-summer, July 14 or July 16 as I recall. It was not dealt with here in the House of Commons until the end of August. It was then sent over to the Senate. Through Senator MacEachen the Senate gave an undertaking to the Prime Minister that if he would wait three more hours-and the Senate had only spent a day or two on it-the Senators would pass it. The Prime Minister did not wait. He went to the country. Frankly, as I said during the election, he had to go to a wedding in Montreal and he called the election so he would not miss the date.
However, he went across the country saying this: "That was a tragedy for working women. It was an offence to Canadian families and we will be reintroducing that legislation and passing it as soon as Parliament comes back after the election".


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The big lie.


John Napier Turner: He told the Women's Health Research Foundation of Canada in Winnipeg on October 7, 1988, that he was very proud of the Government's $6.4 billion package on child care. This is what he said: "We will reintroduce child care early in the next Parliament and see it through to Royal Assent in the first session. Our program will add at least 200,000 new subsidized spaces to our existing child care facilities, doubling the present number".
The child care program promised by the Government is being eliminated before it is even put in place-a $4 billion cut over the next seven years. The Government and the Prime Minister said that there would be more spaces. Instead, there will be fewer spaces. Canadian parents, Canadian women-in particular 200,000 Canadian children-have been double-crossed, victims of a Tory right wing attack.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister and his Government did not tell Canadians the truth. Look at what the Prime Minister said during the campaign about government spending on regional development. He said before the Saint John Board of Trade in New Brunswick on October 13, 1988 that under a Tory Government "we will not have one Canada that is prospering at the centre while other regions do not receive a fair share of economic opportunity". However,
Borrowing Authority
they are slashing now even more money out of regional development. The campaign promise that regional development would be protected is a sham. We predicted that under the trade deal's provisions for the negotiation of subsidies the Americans would use its provisions for equal treatment and a level playing field to attack our regional development programs. What has happened is that, once again, the Government has not waited for the negotiations; it has already caved in to the United States. The hidden agenda of the trade deal is that the Tory Government is accepting the U.S. definition of subsidies. It has caved in before the negotiations have even begun.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: During the televised debate the Prime Minister said that education was one of his priorities-a priority was the way he put it. He talked about, and I use his words in the debate, "our renewed commitment to education". During the campaign he said that our health care system would not be weakened under the trade deal. Yet transfers to the provinces for health care and education have been brutally slashed-$4 billion over the next six years.
Is it any wonder that there is not a Premier who dares to stand up to support this Budget? Is it any wonder that they have attacked the Prime Minister for simply transferring problems to the provinces?
During the campaign the Tories said in their election manifesto concerning their agricultural program: "Farmers can count on a PC Government that has placed agriculture at the top of its agenda".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Agricultural programs have been slashed in the Budget, everything from crop insurance to retail branch line rehabilitation to Farm Credit Corporation loans. The family farm continues to be destroyed by a Government which said that it would defend the family farm.
For years the Tories talked about how committed they were, led by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was the Tory critic for transportation, to improving railways and our passenger train service. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister told Canadians that if they want to keep VIA Rail they would have to use it or lose it. Those were his words. Now Canadians will not even have that chance. The cuts in the Budget to VIA Rail mean the beginning of the end for rail passenger service in Canada. VIA Rail is being destroyed. The rest of Air Canada is being sold off. It is to be completely privatized.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
I want to reiterate a question put by the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mrs. Stewart). The Prime Minister used to say that he was in favour of increasing foreign aid. I want to quote what he said to the United Nations General Assembly. He went there on September 29, two days before he went to the Governor General asking for the writ of election. This is what the Prime Minister told the world in his speech: "Increased development assistance, especially to the poorest countries, is another imperative. Canada has just completed a review of its official development assistance policy. We have reset our bearings to improve the quality and increase the quantity of the help we give to recognize the special role of women in development and to concentrate on the poorest people in the poorest countries".


Sheila Maureen Copps: Another lie.


John Napier Turner: Canadians used to be proud of our contributions around the globe. We used to pride ourselves in being citizens of the world. We used to pride ourselves in being open to those members of the human condition who are not as fortunate as we are. In the best traditions of Mr. Pearson, Liberal philosophy has encouraged us to reach out to those in other countries who are less fortunate. Now in this Budget they are slashing foreign aid. They are leading our country and our citizens to turn our backs on the global human condition. We are turning our back on world poverty and hunger. As a Canadian, I want to say frankly to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the country that I am totally ashamed. Our Prime Minister has lied to the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Ibrner@Vancouver Quadra: This is a Budget of deception. The greatest hypocrisy, the greatest deception of all is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) now says about the deficit and the public debt. It is a completely different story from what he said before. Before and during the election the Tories said there was no problem with the deficit or with the debt. Now the Minister wants Canadians to believe that the fiscal problems suddenly appeared after the election. That is absolute nonsense. Interest rates did not begin to rise only last week or a month or two ago. The Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance knew the debt picture during the campaign. They knew the deficit picture during the campaign. They knew that interest rates were running at 11 per cent or 12 per cent during the campaign. They deliberately misled Canadians. They did not tell the truth to the people of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Tories played at the politics of deceit. This is a Budget of broken promises, a Budget of deception. It is also a Budget of fiscal mismanagement.

On November 22, the very next day following the election, the Government suddenly realized that he was faced with a deficit, a huge deficit of its own making. The Government had created it during its first term. In just four years, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had doubled the debt which Canada had accumulated since the beginning of Confederation. In less than five years, they had doubled the debt accumulated for over 120 years. The national debt increased from $170 billion in 1984 to $330 billion today. It will reach at least $440 billion by 1993-94.1 say "at least", because on the basis of the Finance Minister is past forecast which have always been so far off target, we just could not rely too much on his forecasts for the forthcoming years. In 1994, therefore, on the basis of the Finance Minister's own figures, our national debt will have increased to $440 billion in ten years. In only ten years, this Tory Government will have tripled the national debt.
Even if the Minister of Finance claims that he has tamed the deficit, the other Members of this House and I understand what figures mean when we see them. We understand from the Budget papers that the deficit amounted to $28 billion in 1987, $29 billion in 1988, and that it will amount to $30.5 billion in 1989. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when an amount goes from $28 billion to $30.5 billion, this represents an increase. I have never seen an amount decrease from 28 to 30. The Minister increased the deficit by $2.5 billion compared with two years ago. He did not reduce the deficit by $5 billion as he claims he did. Some day this Government will have to come clean and tell things as they are and not as it imagines them to be.
May 2, 1989

Business people and financiers everywhere in the world realize that the Canadian deficit and debt are totally out of control with this Minister. In this respect, except for Italy, Canada is the worst off of all the industrialized nations, for our situation is worse than that of Germany, France, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. Business people fully realize that this Government, beside juggling with words and figures, just cannot deal with the deficit problem which increases from year to year.
Once the investors are invaded by doubt, they will go elsewhere to invest in other currencies. Hence, the Canadian dollar will drop, and to maintain it at its current value we will have to increase the interest rates which are already too high. And then consumer purchasing power will decrease and we will wind up right in the middle of a recession.
The Conservative government has created a monster of a deficit which it is now trying to kill, destroying in the process the economic and social structure Canada has been building for a hundred years.

The Minister said repeatedly in this House and across the country during the last five years that he would reduce the deficit in sizeable amounts year after year. He did not do so. The deficit is up, not down. He said he would reduce the rate of growth of the public debt to better the economy. He did not do that either. The debt now accounts for 55 per cent of the gross domestic product, up from 45 per cent four years ago. The Minister also said he would reduce the deficit through expenditure reductions and not through major tax increases. He did not do that either. In this Budget, three-quarters of the increases in the Budget are tax increases and one-quarter are expenditure accounts- three-quarters on the taxpayer and only a quarter taken by the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: In four and a half years we have had nothing but tax-tax after tax after tax from this Government-regressive, hitting the low and middle-income people the hardest. We have had deindexation of the tax system, the most hidden and sneaky
Borrowing Authority
tax of all. We have had four increases in the federal sales tax, from 9 per cent to 10 per cent to 11 per cent and now
13.5	per cent. Yet this Minister said it was a silent killer of jobs. We have new taxes on construction materials, telephone calls, cablevision, gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, air transport taxes. Surtaxes on income are now up to 5 per cent for those under $70,000 a year. When you add up all these tax increases imposed by this Government, you get the largest increases since Confederation, including those increases during two world wars. You get a clear picture of the Tory right wing agenda at work.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, using the Minister's figures from five successive Budgets, taking the total increase in taxes for individuals from all sources, income, excise, sales, deindexation of the system, surtax and so on, cumulative from 1984 during the life of this Government, a couple with two children and one earner, the income being $23,600 a year-which is the poverty line, and I have chosen it deliberately-that family since 1984 has had taxes increased by 60 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: That is the poverty line. The average income in this country, according to the Department of Finance and National Revenue, is $45,000 a year. The cumulative tax increase from all sources since 1984 is 30 per cent. If a Canadian earns $100,000 a year, the tax increase has only been eight per cent. I will say to the Minister, Canadians do not mind sharing a burden, but they want to share it fairly, and this Government has not been fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That does not include, Mr. Speaker, the new 9 per cent goods and services tax the Minister intends to impose in 1991. It will be the biggest and the most regressive tax grab in history. It will be a tax on almost everything, on virtually every commercial transaction: books, shoes, auto insurance, child care services, train trips, bus fares, electrical repairs, plumbing bills, fire insurance, life insurance, haircuts, bookkeeping, legal fees, new homes, renting an apartment, bank charges on everything.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Music lessons.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority


John Napier Turner: There will be a tax on funerals. Not only will there be a tax on funerals, there will be a tax on reading the will. That is where the Government has taken us.
It is regressive, it is unfair, and the poor in this country will pay much more. The Minister of Finance promises that it will be "revenue neutral". The Minister says that he will not collect any more money than he has already collected. Nobody in the House believes that. Nobody anywhere believes that, and the Minister does not believe it. Once again he is not coming clean with the Canadian people.
The Minister's own Budget documents state that this new tax will provoke an increase in inflation from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent. Every time the Governor of the Bank of Canada feels that old inflationary pressure he will raise interest rates, rates which are already too high. The Minister knows that. He knows that the real interest rate, that is to say the difference between the nominal rate and the rate of inflation, is its highest in 30 years. It is between 8 per cent and 9 per cent in real terms. He knows that the spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates at 2 per cent to 3 per cent is double its historic level.
He should know that this Budget, combined with high interest rates which this Budget provokes, is a recipe for recession. By waiting so late in the business cycle to put its fiscal house in order, the Government has left itself no room to manoeuvre in the event of an economic slowdown.

During their first mandate, the Conservatives have tried to put their own philosophy into practice. They have juggled with the universality aspect of our programs. They have tried to de-index pensions, to restore capital punishment, to limit bilingualism. But, fortunately for all Canadians, the government was weakened by all the scandals it its midst and by its own incompetence.
Through the work of our Hon. Member for Laurier- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and other Members in this House who were also actively involved, we were able to avert disaster.
But this time, the situation is much worse. This time, we are faced with a fierce and all-out attack, if not a raid.
The Conservative action plan just got underway and is already bulldozing its way through the country, with no hesitation, no qualms about it. Their philosophy reflected is a cynical and callous political agenda aimed at cutting everything that can help the average Canadians, in order to make room for the market forces which will benefit the rich and powerful among us. This laissez faire policy will help large companies to take control of the country. Just too bad for the small people, the weaker and more vulnerable citizens of our country! The Conservative agenda is the law of the jungle. The strongest, the richest and the better-informed people are on top, because all the others are left unprotected.
This is not the country, or the type of freedom that we want, but that is what the Conservatives have in store for us.

The Tory right wing agenda has now been completely unmasked by this Budget. It is laissez-faire, let market forces run the country. That laissez-faire agenda was reflected in the trade deal, in the Throne Speech, the unemployment insurance cuts and last week's Budget.
There is nothing wrong with business, but the business of business is money. The business of business is profits and that is fine, but the business of politics, the business of public life is people, and the Tories do not distinguish between the two.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe in market forces and I believe in competition and enterprise and rewarding success. I have said in the House before and said across the country that Canada would not have been built solely on market forces. We built this country, east and west and north, in order to resist the overwhelming continental market forces dominated by the United States. That is why we built a railway and a pipeline. That is why we built a national airline, national broadcasting system, and a national highway. That is why we built a national system of public and social security.
Pure market forces would not have given us public housing or public transportation or the best health care system in the world. We in this Party have supported all of that and we believe, thereby, in a mixed economy. We believe in private enterprise, but we also believe that the federal Government has a role to play where private enterprise cannot or will not do the job.
May 2, 1989

Canada is not the domain of the rich and powerful. Canada belongs to every Canadian. It belongs to all of us. We are not here for self-glorification. We are here because we feel we have a legitimate role to play, that the role of this Parliament and the role of government is to defend those who cannot defend themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We do not accept the Tory agenda of laissez-faire as expressed in this Budget, in the Throne Speech and in the trade deal. It is adding fuel to the growing concentration of economic power in this country. It is adding fuel to "mergermania", throwing open our businesses to American takeover.
No sooner was the election done with than there were plant closings, mergers and takeovers. Gillette, British Footwear, Northern Telecom, Texaco, Wardair, Consolidated Bathhurst, the list goes on and on.
What is the economic rationale? Where are the new jobs as a result? Where is the new technology? Where are the new ideas? Where is the new efficiencies or so-called synergism? I have not seen any, and it has not been proven as far as I am concerned.
The economists have a delightful word for it. They call it rationalization. It is the rationalization of North American business, the rationalization in favour of American business at the expense of Canadian workers. That is what it is.
Combine that concentration of power in Toronto, in Montreal, especially across the border, with deregulation and privatization of our transport infrastructure, with the privatization of the Post Office and now unemployment insurance, and we have the beginnings of the shutting down of rural and small town Canada.
Those who live outside Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal will be out of luck because the Tories have abandoned 120 years of nation building. They have abandoned 120 years of the principle that living in this country is equality, no matter where one lives the services have to be equal.
Again, the Tory agenda is to remove the Government from a position of controlling national economic policy. We saw yet another example in the way the Minister of Finance so readily agreed to allow American Express to open a bank in Canada. The Order in Council was signed the very day of the election. American Express comes to Canada, and they are not going to leave home without it.
Borrowing Authority
The Government is obviously eager to repay the head of that American company for his support on the trade deal. However, this issue has raised another one which is germane to this Budget. It is the whole question of the ownership of financial institutions and the problem of those institutions having commercial links.
I believe there is a very real risk in allowing such links, first because it will put existing Canadian control of the major part of our financial industry in jeopardy. Existing rules prevent more than 10 per cent of our largest banks being owned by any one entity. However, other parts of the financial industry have become effectively controlled by individuals or groups of individuals, in some cases with as little as 30 per cent or 35 per cent of the shares.
According to the trade deal, American corporations and citizens are to receive national treatment. That is to say, they will receive the same treatment as Canadians, so that any policy that increases the ability of individuals or corporations to secure substantial holdings of Canadian financial institutions will inevitably lead to the erosion of Canadian control.
Second, I believe that allowing commercial links will increase the risk of failure of these institutions because of the increased possibility of self-dealing. The Canadian experience shows that self-dealing cannot be regulated effectively. That is the same experience the Congress of the United States is now facing south of the border.
Financial institutions have a unique role to play in our economy. They are not an industry like any other. They cannot be left solely to the pursuit of private interests because their success or failure could have a profound effect and impact on our economy. For example, the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northlands Bank in Edmonton cost the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars. The combination of deposit insurance and the now accepted belief that such institutions cannot be allowed to fail by the Bank of Canada increases the risk. The Government, in effect, through the Bank of Canada, through the Ministry of Finance, has become the partner of private financial institutions and the guarantor of last resort for the liabilities of such institutions. As such, the Government has a role and a responsibility to ensure that those institutions are operated in the public interest.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
Of course, some risks will exist whether the shares of financial institutions are closely or widely held. The fact is that the temptation to run exclusive risks is greatly increased when an institution is controlled by a small group of people, and even more so, in my opinion, when that small group may reside in another country. Insider abuse and regulatory failure have been the prime reasons for the disasters that have occurred in the U.S. financial system. Currently-and this is the first action that had to be taken by the new President, George Bush-they are attempting to bail out the savings and loans industry to the tune of what the federal administration in Washington calls $100 billion. Commentators in Washington, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago feel that amount may well exceed $200 billion. We should learn from their mistakes and not allow those same practices to be repeated in this country.
I would have more confidence that those practices would not be imported into Canada if the Tory Government were not so dedicated to renouncing traditional Canadian values and traditional Canadian practices and unquestionably accepting the U.S. free trade market model. We see inroads of presidential politics, of American financial ease. We see that this is not a Government that upholds Canadian sovereignty or Canadian practice and independence. This is not a Government that has demonstrated any desire to uphold the Canadian traditions of fairness and compassion. This is a Government that has demonstrated in five successive budgets that it really does not care about the average Canadian. This is a Government that through its tax policy has widened immeasurably the gap between rich and poor instead of trying to narrow it.
More than three million Canadians now live below the poverty line. One third of those, one million, are children who are living below the poverty line. That is simply not acceptable to me, to my party, or to this country. All of these people, the dispossessed, the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the unemployed, all are the victims of a Government that has pitted region against region, favouring the wealthy and large corporate interests, leaving lower and middle income groups to fend for themselves.
The Tory Government again symbolized by this Budget has shown a callous disregard for so many Canadians. It has shown a meanness of spirit. The sole value the Tories have promoted since 1984 has been money, profits and the glory of the free market system. What they have rejected is the Canadian sense of fairness, a sense of fairness that this party has attempted to portray and to implement ever since it was founded.
It is the philosophy of the right wing Tory agenda now unmasked in this fifth Budget to pick on the unemployed, to pick on the poor, to pick on native students, to pick on the poor provinces, to pick on the homeless. That is not now and never will be the agenda on this side of the House or the agenda of the Liberal Party.
Canadians are willing to make sacrifices. We are willing to give up certain comforts, certain advantages, if it helps someone less fortunate and if it is fair. It not only has to be fair in our eyes, but it has to be seen to be fair. If it is fair, we will make those sacrifices. If it is fair, we will go the extra mile.
We Liberals do not regard Canadians as so many widgets in a national economy. We Liberals believe that good social policy is also good economic policy. It makes economic sense that the more skilled our people are, the more educated they are, the healthier our population is, the better our economy will perform.
We are not a party that marches to the drum of any special interest. We do not march to the drum of big business or big labour. We have always believed in the supremacy of the individual, that the only purpose of a political economy is to create and encourage an equal climate in which men and women, no matter where they live, where they grow up, where they work or where they retire, will be able to fulfil themselves to the limit of their individual potential.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We are a party in which every Canadian is welcome, in which every voice can be heard. We are a party that speaks to the conscience of Canada, a party that will not abandon the values on which this country was built. I am confident that these values can endure. I am confident that Canadians want these values to endure. That is why we must continue to give a voice to those values, to help the Canadian people to understand what is really behind this Tory Budget, what is really behind the Budget and what the Tory Government is doing under the guise of this Budget to make this country a different place from the one we have known.
May 2, 1989

We will do everything we can during this debate and throughout the coming mandate of this Parliament to make our alternative Liberal vision come alive for Canadians. We believe in the great dream of Canada, a Canada rich in the accomplishments of the past and the promises of the future, a prosperous Canada, a fair Canada, and above all a sovereign Canada, an example to the world, an example to the world in fairness, in generosity and in concern. For all our people and for the citizens of the world, we will keep that faith and we will keep that dream alive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Frankly, Madam Speaker, this is quite a change. Only a few days ago, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) told Canadians: There is no Budget. From what I have heard during the last few minutes, his attitude has changed. He now admits there is a Budget.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-ll, which may be cited as "Borrowing Authority Act, 1989-90", is intended to provide the Government with a borrowing authority of $25.55 billion, so that the Government can meet its financial requirements and carry out foreign exchange transactions. As Canadians, Madam Speaker, we cannot deny that the national debt, which is rising constantly, has become a major problem. The cost of financing the debt is also increasing, at a steady pace.
Only 20 years ago, the interest on the debt was 12 cents out of every dollar paid by taxpayers to Ottawa. However, when our Progressive Conservative Government came to power in September 1984, that figure had already risen to 32 cents. This year it will be 35 cents. So it is clear that as a result of the recent increase in interest rates, this enormous debt has put us in a very vulnerable position.
In just one year, the projected cost of paying the interest on the debt has increased by more than $6 billion. This year alone, interest will cost us $39 billion. We must realize, Madam Speaker, that Canada has been living beyond its means. It is easy to find a scapegoat, depending on which side one happens to be in this
Borrowing Authority
House. However, we cannot blame my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), for this debt.
I would like to remind Hon. Members opposite that when we came to power in 1984-85, the annual deficit was about $38 billion, and it was our Government that brought it down to $28.9 billion in four years time.
Remember that when Mr. Turner was Minister of Finance from 1972 to 1975, his Government's record was: a rising deficit, rising inflation, rising interest rates and rising unemployment.
To remedy the situation, Madam Speaker, it was necessary to act, and that is exactly what we did. We know that if we want to maintain the social programs and high standard of living that Canadians want for themselves and for their children, we will have to implement a tough debt reduction program.
Madam Speaker, our Government has already made considerable progress in this respect. We have succeeded in reducing the growth of the debt from 24 per cent in 1984 to less than 10 per cent last year. Despite that progress, the debt is continuing to grow more rapidly that our national income.
The Minister of Finance has proposed a series of budgetary cutbacks in order to deal with this urgent problem. Madam Speaker, few Canadians like tax increases, but our debt is a major problem that will not disappear by magic.
The reality is that we did not fully pay the cost of public programs over the years and that we lived beyond our means. The measures taken by successive governments before 1984 shrank the tax base. This resulted in unfairness and lower federal revenues. Our Government has since acted to restore integrity to the tax system. This has involved some specific measures over the past four years. We abolished specific tax breaks. We eliminated some loopholes. We limited the ability to avoid tax for corporations and high-income individuals. We also reduced the incentive for tax avoidance with a comprehensive tax reform which broadened the tax base and lowered tax rates. But we must still go farther. A healthy economy is necessary to accomplish our objectives for the coming years. It will provide us more and better jobs, as well as the ability to satisfy Canadians' social and cultural priorities.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
It is surely no secret, Madam Speaker, that our Budget is tough. It is tough, yes, but it is also fair! Remember that the debt costs us $1 billion in interest alone every 15 days. That is huge! We do not have the choice of turning off the tap and raising taxes. There are major budgetary restrictions. The large increase in debt service prevents the Government from reducing the deficit this year. These expenses-public debt charges and government operations, which in a way are paralyzing our country's finances-cannot be reduced, Madam Speaker. So the priority is to curb the deficit and then lower it to a more acceptable level. This is the goal set by our Finance Minister and he has given himself the tools he needs by reducing expenditures and increasing revenues.
Limiting the debt will enable us to pass on to our children and grandchildren something other than a huge debt that may be out of control. This budgetary policy, Madam Speaker, guarantees all Canadians a better future. Allow me to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, the comments of a distinguished citizen from my region who said the following at a meeting of business people a few days ago, as reported by Bertrand Tremblay in Le Quotidien: "If he wants to do an effective job courageously, any Finance Minister must sacrifice his popularity, philosophized director Eddy Lalancette at a meeting called by the accounting firm of Charette, Fortier, Hawey, Touche and Ross."
The one who said that, Madam Speaker, is a former municipal councillor who was once a financial officer himself. Mr. Lalancette indeed knows that applying such measures may not be popular-that is just what our Minister has done. I believe that he has put his finger on the situation facing us. We must take unpopular action, yes, but in the interest of Canadians!
Also, Madam Speaker, I would like to present to you other comments that say the exact oppositie, to show that every Canadian can have a different point of view. This time, it is one of my colleagues in the Quebec National Assembly, Francis Dufour, and here is how he saw our Budget. In one of our newspapers, Le Reveil local, he said that the federal Finance Minister's latest budget in no way shows that the Mulroney Government is able to control its expenditures seriously. But, Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague is surely not familiar with the Finance Minister's Budget and this document on the Budget Speech. I will give it to him here and I think it is important for Canadians to see what is happening. In 1984-85, government program expenditures were $86.8 billion.
When we took power, the Government revenues amounted to $70.9 billion. It means that, in 1984-85, our expenditures exceeded our revenues by about $16 billion. In 1988-89, the Government spent $100 billion on programs and its revenues were $104 billion. In the coming year, expenditures will be around $103 billion and Government revenues will amount to $112 billion.
As we can see, Madam Speaker, Government revenues are gradually getting higher than its expenditures. However, our Government has to deal with the problem of the growing debt. The debt has now reached $320 billion and it costs a lot of money. I will now quote some figures which should make the situation clearer. In 1984, the deficit amounted to $38 billion; in 1988-89, it is $28 billion and next year it will reach $30.5 billlion. As for expenditures, they accounted for 19.5 per cent in 1984, 16 per cent in 1988-89 and 16.1 per cent in 1989-90. Those figures show that our expenditures are decreasing in proportion with the gross domestic product.
Madam Speaker, we have a date here which cannot be ignored and which show that the Government has brought its debt under control and taken the appropriate action to ensure that the debt will soon grow more slowly that the Canadian economy.
That being said, Madam Speaker, I think that with all due respect for my colleague, the Quebec MNA should consider these elements for he would realize that on the contrary the Government is headed in the right direction. Perhaps he would do well to heed the advice of Mr. Lalancette who said that a Minister of Finance cannot expect to win a popularity contest when he delivers a Budget speech.
Yes, Madam Speaker, ours is a tough Budget, but I think it is fair. Why fair? Because it expects more from those who can afford to pay, those who can make that extra effort in the national interest just so we can indeed reduce that famous debt.
For starters, major companies will contribute more, and I would like at this point to convey certain considerations. We found out that a number of major companies seemed to be able to find loopholes enabling them to contribute little if anything to the public treasury. In some cases we wanted to make sure that these corporate giants would pay at least a minimum income tax every year and thus be party to the debt reducing effort. So what we did was to ask these companies to pay a new levy on capital in excess of $10 million. This new tax will be in force as of July 1 this year, an additional source of tax
May 2, 1989

revenue for the Government. This year the surtax on corporate income is expected to bring $485 million in the public coffers, and next year the revenue should amount to $965 million-which is close to $1 billion. I would suggest this is proof positive that our Government wants the corporate sector and high income earners to contribute more to reduce the deficit and to replenish the public coffers.
And our Budget is fair as well because we have preserved the principle of universality. Of course our colleagues would again prefer that we let the debt grow bigger still and refrain from taking appropriate measures to gain control. We will maintain the principle of universality in that all Canadians who meet the set criteria will continue to get the old age security pension. However, we will achieve that through a tax measure. We will recover from upper income levels money which we will distribute to those who need it most. By upper income levels, we mean people who earn more than $50,000 net. If they are 65 years of age or older or have young children, we will recover a percentage of their old age pension or their family allowances so that the money thus saved can be distributed to those who need it most.
Madam Speaker, our Budget is also fair with regard to regional development. Over five years, the government will increase by 35 percent its contribution to regional development. This shows, on its part, a will to help the regions who need it most.
Madam Speaker, our Budget is fair but harsh in a way since Crown corporations are requirest to do their share. For instance, the CBC will sustain budget cuts of some 50 million dollars over the next four years, 20 million this year and 10 million a year each year thereafter.
We will also ask VIA Rail to make an effort by reducing its expenditures by some 500 million dollars over five years, starting this year with 100 million.
Since everyone who takes the train benefits from a $100 dollar subsidy paid by Canadian taxpayers, obviously something must change if VIA Rail is to attain some degree of profitability, something which the Canada Post Corporation has been able to achieve under our leadership.
Borrowing Authority
Madam Speaker, I remember all the comments we heard about this. In 1981-82, if I am not mistaken, the annual deficit of Canada Post was $600 million a year. And it was up to the Canadian taxpayers to pay for it out of their taxes. This year, Canada Post has become a viable entity, earning something like $40 million to $60 million.
Those are some examples of measures the federal government is taking to ensure that our Crown corporations will become profit-making enterprises.
We will also expect some effort on the part of the Federal Business Development Bank, which will be asked to make a $65 million contribution to the coffers of the state through budget cuts.
Madam Speaker, some of the measures to be implemented are somewhat harsher, namely the federal sales tax. I think that our government is already taking the necessary steps to ensure that low-income Canadians are in a better position to cany the burden of the federal sales tax soon to be applied.
Madam Speaker, the reason for this federal sales tax is to make sure Canadian products are more competitive on international markets. This tax will be applied in such a way as not to penalize Canadian products compared to goods produced outside this country.
I want to come back to the issue of the refundable federal sales tax credit. Madam Speaker, this credit will increase from $70 to $100 per adult this year, that is in 1989, and will reach $140 in 1990. That will be done in the context of changes in the federal sales tax.
Those increases will more than compensate for the effect of higher federal sales tax on individuals and families whose income does not exceed a certain level. They represent a first stage towards the new federal sales tax refundable credit, which should accompany the new reform.
So that is another measure the Government is taking to make sure low-income Canadians will be able to manage when that sales tax is introduced.
Madam Speaker, I have heard people say our Government did no go far enough. It is surprising to hear about a budget like the one we brought forward that we should make or should have made deeper cuts.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
I understand the arguments of those people who probably would have liked the Government to reduce the deficit to $28.9 billion this year and to $27 billion next year.
To do so, Madam Speaker, would have meant cutting $3 billion more than we are cutting now. Those are huge reductions. To avoid sending Canada into a recession, we could not risk go that far. And why, Madam Speaker, will the deficit amount to $30.5 in 1989-90? Simply because of the rising interest rates and the $39 billion interest we must pay on the debt this year.
As interest rates get lower and as the economy grows, the reduction of the deficit will be more significant. Moreover, Madam Speaker, our objective is to bring the deficit down by 1993, from $30.5 billion to $15 billion.
In conclusion. Madam Speaker, I want to point out that our revenues are now greater than our expenditures and that the economic signals we are sending are very important. Our message at the international level is that Canada is taking appropriate action to control its debt.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel).


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the Hon. Member. The first one, because I want to be sure I understood what he said, is this: Does he think that massive increases in sales tax, income tax and excise tax are fair to those Canadians who are poor or who belong to the middle class?
My second question, which I think is just as important, is: Would he agree that the federal Government's decision to cut certain transfers to the poorer provinces will increase the burden on those provincial governments and the people of those provinces, thus creating an additional demand for tax revenues? Would the Hon. Member care to comment on those two points?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member did not quite understand what I said about the sales tax credit.
When the Government introduces a new sales tax in 1990-91, the tax will be imposed on a range of goods. Some goods will not be taxed, but to help people on lower incomes cope with this sales tax, we will give them a so-called tax credit, a sales tax credit that will be refundable. As I said before, this tax credit will be
increased from $70 to $100 per adult in 1989, and to $140 in 1990. We intend to start paying the credit before the sales tax is introduced, to be quite sure that Canadians on low incomes will be able to cope when the sales tax becomes effective.
Madam Speaker, if I may comment on the transfer question, there again, our Government, as part of its national policy to reduce the deficit, is asking the provinces to share part of the burden. That is why these transfers will be reduced by 1 per cent.
I think we want to make Canadians realize that this Government really wants to control the debt. We cannot afford to go on with a debt that is now $320 billion and will cost us $39 billion in interest payments this year or $600 million every week. Can you imagine how many payroll deductions it takes to pay $600 million in interest every week? That is a lot of money, Madam Speaker!
In my riding, $600 million would build two highways from the Saguenay to Quebec City. Canada must control this debt, and that is what we are doing. When this Government came to power in 1984, expenditures exceeded revenues. Today, our revenues outweigh our expenditures, and three or four years from now, when Canada's economic growth is greater than the growth of our debt, the amount of money and the interest we have to pay on the debt will go down gradually, and we will be able to afford a more prosperous economy.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thought that I had asked different questions: I apologize if I misunderstood the answer.
The second question that I was going to ask is: Does my colleague agree that when a fiscal transfer is less than the previous year, the provincial governments require additional revenues? Does this put a heavier burden on each citizen, especially in poorer regions and provinces? That was the second question.
The first was: Does he agree that this massive tax increase will hit the poor and middle class much harder, proportionally? I did not hear the answers to these two questions.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, first I would like to remind my colleague that the provinces will continue to get more in dollar terms than before. However, the rate of growth will decline. The provinces will continue to receive more money, but the rate of increase will go down.
May 2, 1989


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, in the few years I have had the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament in this Chamber there have been debates of great importance. One of those debates I recall so vividly was on the future of Canada itself and the question of the referendum in Quebec and whether Quebec would separate from Canada.
Another was one in which we talked about patriation of the Constitution and the implementation of a Charter of Rights that would put the rights of Canadians above those of any legislator, including those of us here in this Chamber.
Today, I believe we are in a debate that has very important, if not equally important, consequences for the future of our country and for the future of Canadians.
We are debating spending. We are debating a Budget. However, what makes this debate unique is the direction that this Budget has taken and the direction of this debate. We are seeing across from us a Government which has made the deficit its priority. We on this side of the House do not disagree that Canada's national deficit is of grave concern to all Canadians. The question, however, is: How does one decide to go about dealing with this particular problem?
We have two alternatives before us which I suggest to all Members of this House will determine the economic future of this country for years to come. We have before us a Budget which talks of the powers of the marketplace, the laissez-faire concept that corporations should be able to do as they wish. This is the concept of foreign takeovers, where Canadian firms are up for sale, even those companies we have nurtured through public money. I am referring to such companies such as Connaught, Lumonics, companies at the leading edge of technology. Yet we have said that they can be taken over by foreigners with the possibility that what we have built up here in Canada might forever be lost to us as Canadians.
We have a Budget which says that the future of Canada does not really lie in our hands. We can turn control of Canadian companies over to foreign corpora-
Borrowing Authority
tions. As one Minister said, "let it happen, it is good for us".
These are some of the prospects we are dealing with, Madam Speaker, from the other side of the House. What have they done in terms of attempting to cope with the deficit? This again is a way we can determine the economic future of this country, for a Budget is not only a means of raising revenue, it is a way of declaring where a Government is actually putting its priorities. It is a way of determining not what the rhetoric says, but where they are prepared to spend their money. Where have they put their money?
It is pretty obvious to us, Madam Speaker, that the rhetoric is not matched by their actions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the House of Commons just three days ago on April 28 said: "While Canada is wrestling with a very serious fiscal problem the Government is standing up for Canadians." These are the Canadians he has stood up for: seniors, who are losing part of their old age security; parents, whose family allowances are being cut; and our children who want to go to universities or community colleges. Transfer payments to the provinces are being cut. What about our younger children? The Government has reneged on its promise to create 200,000 new child care spaces. What about the homeless? CMHC has had $49 million cut from its budget. What about the sick? Transfer payments for health care to the provinces have been cut and as for the unemployed, payments to the unemployed in this country have been cut.
Nothing has been done to help the one million Canadian children who live below the poverty level. The three million Canadians now living below the poverty level can find no succour in this Budget, not one new program to help them. What has been done to help the five million Canadians who are functionally illiterate and will not be able to have full opportunities in the job market in the future? Nothing.
Look at Canada's disadvantaged regions. Regional development funding has been cut by $240 million for next year and by $400 million for the years thereafter. The Regional Economic Development Agreements have expired; they expired on March 31 to the tune of $1.6 billion and have not been renewed.

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority
This Government is allowing the cut-back of key transportation facilities to the more distant regions of Canada: VIA Rail, Air Canada. How can these regions be strong if the communications with the rest of Canada are not built upon? We are penalizing those who have to go the farthest in this country with the gas tax. Again, that does not hit those people in the big urban regions who have public transportation as hard. It hits the people who have to drive long distances to their jobs and to market their goods. These are the people of Canada's regions.
In cutting back on military bases, again in the regions of Canada, we are insensitive to the needs of those particular communities. We are prepared to decimate them. The Minister yesterday in this House said, Madam Speaker, that as far as Grand Prairie is concerned, they are going to look at new ways to train our military forces. They are going to contract these services out. This is the absurd level to which this Government is prepared to take its right wing Tory policies. They are going to privatize the Canadian Armed Forces.
What is going to happen to the regions of Canada that are so dependent on tourism and on the service sector as opposed to the manufacturing sector? Who will this new goods and services tax prejudice the most? It will be those regions that are dependent on these sectors I have just spoken of where the new taxes are going to apply in a way they do not now that will hit every aspect of those economies without any thought for the fact that these regions of Canada deserve a break. Canada's regions are critical to the economic future of all of us. We as Canadians cannot be strong if our regions are not strong and if Canadians from all regions do not have economic opportunities.
Who else have they hit? Our homeowners. Tax on construction materials has gone from eight per cent to nine per cent. It will increase the average cost of a house in Canada by about $500. Add to that the new UI benefits that will have to be assumed by employers and workers. So you can add on another couple of hundred dollars to the cost of a house.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) I know must feel chagrined. There was a cut from his budget for overseas development. It was one of the biggest whacks taken out of our possibility for spending to create the type of world we want, a world that is humane, where neighbours look after neighbours. Until we realize that unless we can bring the rest of the world to higher standards of living, to higher standards of health care, to literacy, to education, to shelter, we Canadians will not fulfil our role as humanitarians and
world leaders. We even jeopardize our long-term economic future.
Nothing in this Budget helps our cultural industries, the industries that help us to define ourselves as Canadians.
In terms of going about the task, Madam Speaker, of building a type of industrial infrastructure we want here in Canada, what has happened in terms of the education and training to which this Government has paid lip service, to which the Government's own commissioner, de Grandpre, said we need much more spending and readjustment on training to cope with the new economic realities and to protect us from the ravages of the free trade agreement with the United States. On this the Budget is silent.
In terms of research and development, to which this Government has committed itself time after time, there are no incentives. Incentives that have previously been in the Income Tax Act to encourage innovation in Canada and to encourage incorporation of the new technologies into Canadian goods have been removed. There is no new tax on corporations, as de Grandpre suggested, to deal with the training requirements, to deal with the investment in our human capital, which is so critical to our economic future and so critical to fairness here in Canada.
We should look at our small businesses, which are the lifeblood of Canadian job creation, and the training of entrepreneurs, which is the heart of many communities. What has happened? John Bulloch, friend of the Conservative Government, said: "I call this Budget a tax tidal wave that is going to wash out consumer spending and business activity." The Government has increased the small business tax. The burden of unemployment insurance, which has now been privatized, will be about $2.9 billion falling on the private sector. The goods and services tax will add another nine per cent. The federal sales tax, the most regressive you can imagine and one that is harmful to manufacturing everywhere in Canada, has been increased from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent.
Then the construction tax I mentioned, which impinges on small business. Even if our businesses want to diversify into the regions, the first thing they are going to hit, apart from decreased transportation facilities, is the additional tax on telecommunications. If they need help to get established, do they go any more to the FBDB whose funding has been cut by $13 million? If one is looking to aerospace, which is a leader among Canadian industries on the world scene, one would see a cut of $25 million.
May 2, 1989

Yes, one can say that we have a deficit. That is what the Government has been saying through every one of its Members. They are saying that every cut is justified because we have a deficit. They do not tell us that the deficit has doubled in the four years that they have been in office controlling the economy. There are alternatives that they could have undertaken in dealing with the deficit, if they had not been such terrible financial managers. They have justified the Budget to us on the basis that it reduces the deficit. Last year the deficit was $28.9 billion. This year it is $30.5 billion. They have not decreased it, it has gone up.
How have they gone about coping with the deficit problem? They have done it in a right wing, machiavellian fashion on the backs of the disadvantaged. They have done it by cutting programs directed at the homeless, the poor, the sick, the weak, children, the illiterate and the regions. They have also done it on the backs of the average and the poor taxpayer. Since the Government has come into office it has increased the taxes of a family living at the poverty line by a full 60 per cent. They have taken the middle income family with income in the neighbourhood of $40,000 to $50,000 and over their tenure have increased the taxes paid by that family by 30 per cent. Taxes on the families in the $100,000 income range have gone up only 8 per cent. The share of income taxes paid in Canada by corporations has declined steadily under the Government.
What we have seen is an attempt to deal with the deficit, but it is being done on the backs of the poor and middle income Canadians. They are doing it by taking further from the programs that create social and economic justice for those least able and equipped to deal with it. They are doing it with all the advantages, all the breaks directed at the highest paid people in our society, high income Canadians and our major corporations.
I said when I started my remarks that this is an historic debate. It is a watershed in terms of Canadian political history as to where we are going. Unfortunately, the Government has another four years before it has to put its case to the people again. However, I suspect that
Borrowing Authority
many of its Members over the next couple of years will want to cross the floor to join us. They will want to do that because their constituents know that the way they are tackling the problem of the deficit is not only ill-managed but ill-conceived in terms of fairness.
Members opposite have a mandate. If they carry it out the way they have set it out in the Budget we will see Thatcherism run amok. The rich will benefit at the expense of the poor. We will see a two-class Canada. We will see rich individuals and poor individuals, rich regions and poor regions. We will see the disadvantaged remain disadvantaged, those who with a bit of help and understanding from the federal Government could become productive players on the Canadian economic scene. We can see these people being put down further by the Government when in fact it had the option to invest in them and make them full-class Canadians, full-class players in our economy.
We are seeing a meanness and a pettiness which accompany the total incompetence the Government has demonstrated in dealing with our national economic problems. This is a watershed in our economic history. It will be a watershed in our social history as well. The Government is taking it out on the backs of the poor. I want people to think about this. Is this truly the direction we wish to go in?
I believe that Canadians are fair. As my Leader said just a few minutes ago in what I believe was an historic speech, Canadians are prepared to sacrifice, providing that they perceive that sacrifice to be fair and providing that they see it as giving benefit to those who most need it. The Budget meets none of those criteria. It meets none of the criteria for helping to build a strong economy for Canada's benefit. It is a Budget which turns us more and more over to the foreign elements that are taking control of Canada to an even greater extent.
In conclusion, we Liberals on this side of the House ask Canadians to ask themselves these questions: When will the Government stand up for Canada? When will it stand up for them? When will it be fair?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 2, 1989
Borrowing Authority



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Unemployment Insurance-The Budget-Cut-backs in funding/ Social Programs-Cut in funding; the Hon. Member for Welland-St. Catharines (Mr. Parent)-Public Works-Development of Welland Canal lands/Request for public meeting; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Mar-chi)-Immigration-Lebanon-Plight of refugees- Consular services in Cyprus/United Nations High Commission on Refugees-Request for emergency meeting.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, by way of commentary I would like to advise my hon. friend from Metropolitan Toronto that the community in Manitoba to which he meant to refer is Portage la Prairie, not Grand Prairie. I know that from the perspective of Toronto it is rather difficult sometimes to have a precise understanding of the whole of the country.


Ron J. Duhamel: It was the emotion.


Mr. Epp:: The Member from St. Boniface did not know the difference either.


Ron J. Duhamel: I was there Sunday at the meeting. Where were you?


Charles Joseph Clark: I thought that since his colleague from St. Boniface did not correct him on the geography of Manitoba that perhaps I should.
More seriously, I listened with great interest as I normally do to the Hon. Member. He acknowledged the importance of the debt. He criticized the measures that the Government has taken to reduce the debt of Canada. I wonder if he would tell us in precise terms what his Party proposes to do to get Canada's debt down.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted if I were in government to set forth a completely alternative agenda in terms of what could be done. The first thing we would not do is what the Tories have done.
Let us consider the concept of wealth creation in Canada. Madam Speaker, do you think we can produce a strong economy for Canadians in the future if our key Canadian industries are going to be turned over lock, stock and barrel to any foreign corporation that wants to buy them out? Since Investment Canada was reconstituted by the Tory Government, it has received 606 applications for takeovers of Canadian enterprises by foreign firms. Every one has been approved. It is nothing but a rubber stamp operation.
Why do foreign companies want to take over Canadian companies? It is because they can get at our research and development. They can get at our technologies. They can take the profits out of Canada for reinvestment in their home countries.
In terms of creating additional wealth in Canada we would emphasize our human resources. Japan, for example, as I am sure the Secretary of State well knows, spends twice as much per capita in educating its human resources as does Canada. If we do not have an intelligent, informed, 21st century knowledge level of human resources in Canada, how can we compete on the world markets? This is the difference between the Tories and the Liberals. We look on education. We look on bolstering the handicapped and training them. We look on curing the sick not as a privilege that should be the subject of deficit cuts. These are investments in human resources. So there is a fundamental difference of philosophy between us.
In terms of raising taxes, we would not have, as the Tories have done over the last five years of their fiscal management of Canada, increased by 60 per cent the taxes payable by a Canadian couple with two children whose total poverty level income is $23,500. We would not have increased the taxes borne by middle-income Canadians over that same period, with the same type of family but with an income of about $45,000, by 30 per cent. We would not have done it in a regressive way-through sales taxes, which hit the poorest in the most excessive manner.
May 2, 1989

The sales tax applies to everything a person consumes. If you are spending all of your money simply to live, you are paying a far greater percentage of your income in sales taxes than if you are a rich person who has the discretion as to whether to invest or to spend.
The top level of income taxes have gone consistently down. We have a Government that has granted a $100,000 capital gains exemption to the rich. We have a Government that says if you buy a condominium in Florida and put your money there, you do not have to pay gains on the taxes here in Canada. That condominium in Florida is not creating jobs for Canadians. We have a Government that is not prepared to invest in the industries of the future. They look on tax incentives for research and development for new technologies as an expenditure. We know that we cannot compete in the world marketplace unless we are going to spend money as other governments do, as other nations do to create the highest level of technological development, the highest level of research here in Canada.
What they have done, in a nutshell, is they have given up our possibilities of being competitive in a more fiercely competitive world. They have denied us this right with this Budget. Secondly, they have taken the money from the weakest people in Canada. They have left the richest groups, the most privileged groups, with the lowest tax burdens. They have used the most regressive form of taxation on the backs of the poor in order to deal with this deficit, a deficit I cannot for the life of me understand. This right wing Government is so pre-occupied with cutting government spending, yet it has increased Government spending over its five years to inordinate levels. It is a Government that has totally mismanaged the economy. In spite of the fact that its revenues have gone up 60 per cent during its term of office, it has not been able to reduce that deficit.
The deficit today is $1.6 billion higher than it was last year. This is as a result of incompetence and bungling. It demonstrates a lack of priorities and a lack of investment in our future. And in every one of these Budget cuts to Canada's disadvantaged groups the Government has lied to us. They said they would not cut in any of these areas, but they have cut them to the bone.
Borrowing Authority
Canadians have been misled. When Canadians start to realize where their true economic future lies, where fairness and justice lie, they are going to revolt, and we will never have seen one of a greater magnitude in this country.
I suspect the Secretary of State for External Affairs feels chagrined when he attends international councils representing Canada and he has to admit that we have sacrificed our commitment to the poorest people, to the poorest regions in the world. I have great sympathy for you, sir; those of us on this side of the House do. We know you fought to keep those programs, because you are a decent man.


Mr. AUmand:: That is right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We sympathize with you, and there will always be a home for you when you want to come to this side of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my chagrin is that my question might not have been sufficiently precise. I ask the Hon. Member to detail those areas in which the Liberal Party would reduce Canada's debt. He spoke about things he would not do. I have heard a lot of that. I would be interested in knowing what precisely the Liberal Party would do to reduce spending or to increase revenues.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, the blueprint for how we would have proceeded would be in terms of increasing Canada's economic growth, increasing the productivity of every Canadian individual, from the young in the educational system, to the handicapped, to the ill, to the people in the regions. We would have gone about creating a new role for government working hand in hand with industry here in Canada, to have Canadian-controlled industry to take us into the 21st century to have new technologies, to increase our investment in Canadians and in Canada's future. That is the way we would have gone, and it is the way the Tories never would.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question and comment period has now expired.

May 2, 1989
Constitution Act


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an agreement between Canada and Papua New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Would the House agree that we would call it 5 o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PRPOSED AMENDMENT-DELETION OF ARTICLE 59
William Warren Allmand: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should initiate an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982 to delete article 59, which restricts the rights of Anglo-Quebecers to education in their own language.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to assure that English-speaking Quebecers have the same constitutional rights to education in their language as francophone Canadians outside Quebec have in their language. In other words, the purpose of the motion is to ensure that there is equality with respect to language rights for English-speaking Quebecers and Frenchspeaking Canadians outside Quebec. That is the purpose of the motion.
That equality does not exist at the present time. It does not exist because of Article 59 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Let me explain.
When the Constitution Act, 1982 was tabled in the House in 1981, Article 59 was not part of it. It did not exist. At that time, minority language rights with respect to education were governed entirely by Article 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Let me read that Article. It states:
23(1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside,. . .
They have the right "to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province." In addition those citizens.
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province-have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province will also have that right.
Article 23(l)(a) says that an anglophone in the Province of Quebec whose language first learned and still understood was English, has the right to send his children to English schools if and when he has children. It said the same thing for Francophones outside Quebec. If their mother tongue was French and they still understood French they had the right to send their children to French schools in any province in Canada, if that was the situation.
The article also says that even though a person's mother tongue was not French or English but that person had received his primary education in French or English, he also had the right to send his children to those French or English schools. That was the situation when the Constitution Act, 1982 was tabled in the House in 1981. While that Article had some imperfections, which I will discuss later, it was a good article. I supported it, as I supported the entire Constitution with great enthusiasm. I supported the Charter of Rights and the repatriation of the Constitution. I supported the amending clause.
However, in the later months of 1981, following a decision of the Supreme Court, there was a hastily called federal-provincial conference to deal with the decision of that court. Several changes were made to the Constitution Act as presented to the House of Commons. One of those changes was the famous notwithstanding clause. It was added. However, also added at that time was Article 59. It suspended to paragraph 23(l)(a). That is the paragraph I just read that states that if the first language learned and still understood is French or English, one has the right to have one's children educated in the minority language. Article 59 states that paragraph 21(l)(a):
May 2, 1989

-shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
It went on to say that a proclamation under that subsection could only be issued where authorized by the Legislative Assembly or Government of Quebec.
While I voted against it, what the Parliament did was suspend the right of English-speaking Quebecers to have education in their own language if their mother tongue was English. It left with them the right to have their children educated in English if they had attended primary education in English, but it took away the first basis for access to minority language education. We ended up with a situation where Articles 23(a) and (b) apply to Francophones outside Quebec but only Article 23(b) applied to Anglophones inside Quebec. I spoke against this provision at the time. I felt that I could never accept the entrenchment in the Constitution of such an inequity, an inequity where Anglophones of Quebec in a constitutional sense would be treated different from Francophones outside of Quebec.
What are the consequences of that? I will refer to my own children, as I have done so before on the record. I had my children educated in the French language in Quebec because I wanted them to be totally bilingual. My son had all his primary education in French. When the day comes for him to have children and send them to school, he will have no constitutional right, despite the fact that his mother tongue is English, to send his children to an English school. He may want to send them to a French school, but he loses the right to send his children to an English school because he did not do his primary education in English. He was an Anglophone but did his primary education in French, as many Anglophones do these days in Quebec.
What is the other significance to this particular clause? I know of a case where a man from a foreign country came to Canada when he was in Grade 2. He entered the Anglophone system of education in Quebec in Grade 2 and went through to Grade 7. When he had children he tried to take advantage of that Section of the Constitution to send his children to an English school. The ruling in Quebec was that one must do all of one's primary education in English, and six out of seven years was not good enough.
Constitution Act
Article 59 was inserted into the Constitution at the last minute, along with several other changes that are better known than Article 59. At that time I objected and asked for reasons why this was being done, especially since all political Parties in the House had stood for equality of treatment with respect to Anglophones and Francophones. That was the basis of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism submitted to Mr. Pearson.
I asked for a reason. No sound reason has ever been given to me. No one has ever stood up to justify that article. It was inferred that that change was necessary in order to have the Constitution Act, 1982 accepted by the provinces and the federal Parliament. It was insinuated or inferred that if we did not make these changes the whole package would be defeated.
I could never accept that. As a matter of fact, I have not found out to this day who really asked for that change. We know that certain provinces asked for the notwithstanding clause, but I could never find out who asked for that particular change. It was certainly not the Parti Quebecois Government in Quebec because it was not interested in the issue at all. It was opposed to the whole initiative.
Some have said to me in later years, following 1982, that that clause was necessary in order to protect the French language. I was told that we must protect the French language in Quebec.
I have been in Parliament for 23 years. I have always been strongly in favour of measures to protect and promote the French language. Whenever there has been a violation of Francophone rights, whether in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Ontario, I have taken the side of those Francophones and fought for their rights. In the early days when I first came here, most of the infractions were on that side.
I am in favour of protecting and promoting the French language in Quebec and throughout Canada. However, it is not protected and promoted with this kind of measure. I see absolutely no relationship between a clause that disallows anglophones from seeking education in their own language and the protection of the French language and culture. It has never been demonstrated that this provision will in fact have that effect.

May 2, 1989
Constitution Act
I also submit very strongly that one does not protect one set of rights by suppressing other rights. Racial rights, language rights, or sexual equality rights are not protected by suppressing the rights of others. Again, this provision seems to be attempting to do that. It is not well thought out. The underlying thought behind it is that if the rights of anglophones are restricted, perhaps something will be done to strengthen the rights of francophones in Quebec.
Despite this restriction on anglophone rights to education in their own language, a great percentage of anglophones in the province of Quebec are seeking education in French for their children. The immersion courses in Montreal are packed to the limit. At the schools in my area, parents have to line up days in advance to get their children into the immersion programs. Of course, immersion programs are programs in English schools in which nearly everything is taught in French. As I said, there is a great demand for those courses. In addition to that, the program for teaching French in non-immersion English schools has been greatly improved since the days when I went to school in the province, with the result that young Anglo-Quebec-ers are very bilingual today. As a matter of fact, recent reports published by the Province of Quebec have shown that young anglophones in Quebec are now more bilingual than young francophones. This is surprising, because it was always the reverse in the past.
The provision in Article 59 is the result of misguided logic. As I said before, one language is not protected, enhanced, or promoted by suppressing another. We hear other arguments from time to time that attempt to justify this kind of provision. We hear that it is necessary to protect the French language in Quebec, something I have always admitted, and that in any case, English is not threatened in Canada. One hears that argument quite often.
First, I admit that the French language and culture is under threat in Quebec and in Canada, because francophones are a population of about six million to eight million people, though I forget the exact figures, surrounded by a sea of anglophones in North America. While the English language is of course not threatened in North America outside Quebec, it is threatened and has been threatened for several years now in Quebec.
The English-speaking community in Quebec is a dwindling community. Many measures such as Article 59 have discouraged young Quebecers, even though they are bilingual, and members of the community have been leaving in great numbers. Great numbers of graduating students from McGill University, Concordia University, and Bishop's University are leaving the province because they feel they are being harassed with measure after measure that restricts or suppresses their language rights. While the English language community is not threatened in Canada, it feels threatened in the province of Quebec, and this has been documented in the reports of the Official Languages Commissioner.
When people use that argument, they should be clear about it. Let us not confuse what is happening in Quebec with what is happening in all of Canada. Let us not have the suggestion that those who want to speak English can go to Ontario or Alberta. My family is fifth generation Anglo-Quebecer; my home is Quebec, and I have no intention of leaving Quebec. I want my full rights in that province, as I stand for the full rights of francophones outside Quebec.
Another argument we hear is that despite Article 59, certain sections of Bill 101 and Bill 178, the Englishspeaking community in Quebec is still the best treated minority in Canada. That was true for many, many years, but it is no longer true. It is true that there is a series of anglophone institutions in the province of Quebec, including universities and schools, but over the years the English-speaking community built those institutions itself. It was a very large community in the province.
The fact is that the threat against anglophones now is in the form of restrictive laws. There has been attempt after attempt, both provincially and federally, including Article 59, which went in the direction of restricting their rights. That cannot be accepted.
On the other hand, there has been a slow improvement in francophone rights outside Quebec. The constitutional entrenchment of certain rights has improved the situation. While we have seen an improvement in francophone rights outside Quebec, we have seen a cutting away of the rights of anglophones in the province of Quebec.
I think my time is coming to an end. I simply want to remind Hon. Members that this motion provides that the Government initiate an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1982 to delete Article 59, which restricts the rights of Anglo-Quebeckers to education in their own language. I know that other Hon. Members will say that
May 2, 1989

francophones outside Quebec have the full constitutional rights of Article 23, but their implementation is very slow and difficult. I support them in that plea and agree with them. I have seen what has happened in certain towns and cities in Canada in which there has been reluctance on the part of certain communities to carry out the rights mentioned in Article 23. However, I want their support in this motion.
I will be listening very closely in this debate to hear what Hon. Members will say, and I will be listening very closely to hear how they justify a provision like Article 59, which clearly provides that one group, the anglophones in Quebec, should not have certain rights while those rights are available to another group in all other provinces of Canada. I urge the House to take this motion seriously.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for his interest in this matter and for the research he has done. It is a matter that really is a challenge to all of us to resolve.
The Hon. Member has proposed that Parliament should initiate an amendment to delete Article 59 of the Charter. Article 59 provides an exemption for Quebec from one of the bases for demanding minority language education rights in that province. Article 59 also provides a special unilateral executive amending procedure that allows the repeal of Article 59 but only at the time of the coming into force of the "first language learned and still understood" clause in respect of Quebec. That coming into force can only occur when authorized by the Legislative Assembly or the Government of Quebec.
I should point out that since Article 59 provides a special procedure for its own repeal, a procedure that is dependent upon a prior initiative by the Legislative Assembly or Government of Quebec, it would be inappropriate to initiate an amendment in this House. However, I should like to take this opportunity to explain why two bases for demanding minority language education rights were included in the Constitution and why only one applies in the case of Quebec.
Quebec's Bill 101 sought to grandfather everyone in the Quebec English-speaking school system at the time of its adoption in 1977, but to restrict access to English
Constitution Act
schools in the future. This was because the rapidly declining birth rate among francophone Quebeckers would make it neessary to integrate immigrants into the French-speaking community if it were to maintain its relative demographic strength. Therefore, Bill 101 only provided the right to English language education to the children of Canadian citizens who had received their primaiy education in Quebec in English, a clause known as the Quebec clause.
In the interests of the mobility of Canadian citizens, the Quebec Government said that it would be willing to extend this Quebec clause to a Canada clause, that is, the right would apply to the children of Canadian citizens who had received their primary education in Canada rather than only in Quebec.
However, because the other provinces had been far less expansive, historically, than Quebec in the treatment of linguistic minorities, and because in a number of provinces the right to education in the minority language was eliminated or sharply curtailed at one point or another, a considerable proportion of Canadian Francophone parents living outside Quebec could not receive their primary instruction in French. Thus, the Canada clause would create rights for almost all Anglophones living in Quebec while a high number of Francophones outside Quebec would have no right whatsoever.
In these circumstances, the federal Government devised the "first language learned and still understood" clause to provide the right for the children of Canadian Francophones who were not allowed to be educated in primary schools in their own tongue.
When it was decided by Prime Minister Trudeau to impose Section 23, the minority language education rights, on the National Assembly without its consent in 1981, he determined that the Canada clause, which Quebec had offered on the basis of reciprocity to the other provinces, should apply to Quebec because all other provinces accepted it.
However, the other provinces, recognizing that historical policies would effectively limit the application of the Canada clause to their own Francophones, agreed to be bound by the alternate right based on the "first language learned and still understood" clause.

May 2, 1989
Constitution Act
The same historical problems did not arise in Quebec and did not require the corrective of this alternative right. Furthermore, this alternative right could undermine Quebec immigration policy. It was for this reason that the Government, of which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was a member, did not impose the "first language learned and still understood" clause in Quebec. That is why it would be extremely inappropriate for us to ratify this amendment.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon as a Member of this House who had the honour of participating in the debates on the constitutional amendments in 1981 and of sitting on the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. I want to emphasize that in private Members' hour my remarks are personal and that I am not speaking on behalf of my caucus colleagues. I speak on my own behalf on this very important question.
I remember well the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who spoke with strength and conviction at the time the Section 59 provision was before the House. He did not propose an amendment to Section 59 respecting the constitutional resolution which was before the House in November of 1981. I do not know why he did not propose that amendment at the time his Government was in power. Certainly one could say that it is never too late.
There is a logical inconsistency in what is suggested here. Under Section 59 of the Constitution Act there is a special provision with respect to Quebec. The Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is proposing an amendment under Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. That amendment would only apply to Quebec and could only take effect if the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec agreed to the change.
If the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec were prepared to agree to the change proposed by my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, it could move forward under Section 59 of the Constitution Act because under that section a proclamation can be issued where it is agreed upon by the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec. Obviously, if the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec wanted to proceed in that manner, it could do so.
\Translation]
Madam Speaker, if we, in the Parliament of Canada, in this House, are prepared to accept Quebec's distinct society, we must ask ourselves how is Quebec distinct? If it is not its linguistic and cultural characteristics that make it distinct, I do not know what does. Personally, I believe that, ultimately, Quebec's National Assembly must decide what measures are necessary to protect that specificity, Quebec's distinct society.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I support the principles of Quebec's Bill 101. That is why I oppose and speak against the proposal of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). He suggests the English language, the Anglophone minority in Quebec, is at risk. But it is not so, Madam Speaker.
Even the Official Languages Commissioner, in his annual report that was tabled a few weeks ago, says no for the first time. The English language, the Englishspeaking minority in Quebec are not threatened.
My colleague recognizes that the French language is threatened in Canada and, as a Member for British Columbia, I assure you that if Francophone parents had the same rights as Anglophone parents in Quebec, they would be very happy. That is to say, Madam Speaker, that our priority should be to make section 23 a reality everywhere in Canada to protect the rights of Francophone minorities outside Quebec, rights that still do not exist in the other provinces of Canada.
Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), has described very well in a letter to the Prime Minister the reality of the Frenchspeaking minority in Canada. He also described the reality of the English-speaking minority. Let me quote from his letter:
Anglo-Quebecers get more services than all Canadian minorities combined. In Montreal, for example, English is king in several respects. There are more stores, restaurants and bars where they first address you in English, more magazines published in English, more movie theaters that show films in English, as well as more television and radio stations that broadcast in English. Proportionally, there are more schools and hospitals serving the English community than the Francophone majority itself! And while over 50 per cent of Francophones outside Quebec do not have access to French schools, there is not a single Anglo-Quebecer who cannot be educated in his own language if he so desires!
May 2, 1989

Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Richelieu talks about collective rights that must prevail over individual rights as far as language is concerned. As I said before, it is for that very reason, Madam Speaker, that it is up to the National Assembly to decide on the appropriate measures to protect that Francophone minority which represents only 3 per cent of French speakers in North America.
If the Quebec National Assembly decided to implement the measures provided for in article 59(1), I would accept their decision without reservation. But, Madam Speaker, the motion of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would force Quebecers to accept that principle.
Madam Speaker, I think the linguistic priority in Canada today should be to enforce the right of Francophones outside Quebec, for example in British Columbia or in other provinces, to be educated in their own language. That right is guaranteed by article 23 in the Constitution but, for many Francophones outside Quebec, it is only a dream.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, on his tenacity and for giving us another opportunity to discuss that important question. But, Madam Speaker, speaking for myself, I would insist on the preservation not of a minority which is already the most privileged in Canada but of the French fact throughout the country.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, the motion under consideration urges this House to ask the Government to initiate an amendment to the Constitution so that Quebec might agree to delete article 59 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with the application of some minority language education guarantees in Quebec.
I will not raise the issue here of whether the anglophone minority in Quebec is well or poorly served as far as English language education is concerned or whether its rights guaranteed by article 23 of the Charter are properly recognized or not. I will also resist the temptation to compare the situation in Quebec with that in the other Canadian provinces.
Neither will I get into a technical debate on the way to amend article 59 of the Charter nor whether Parliament should take the initiative of such an amendment. Never-
Constitution Act
theless, I will say this: however one interprets Parliament's role in deleting article 59, one fact remains-Quebec will have to take a stand.
Now the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace knows very well that successive governments in the National Assembly since the Constitution was repatriated have come out against any participation in constitutional discussions with the rest of the country until an agreement is reached to rectify Quebec's isolation as a result of the 1981 constitutional agreement.
This position of Quebec is why the constitutional reform process in Canada has been blocked since 1982. The failure of negotiations on constitutional matters affecting native people is an example of this.
Aware that Quebec must be heard and the wounds of 1982 healed, the ten provincial premiers agreed in August 1986 to make repatriating Quebec their constitutional priority. This commitment was repeated by all, including the federal Government, at the annual First Ministers' Conference held in Vancouver in November 1986. All agreed to deal first with Quebec's concerns and to postpone all other constitutional issues to a second round of negotiations. This commitment of all governments led to the Meech Lake Accord in June 1987.
To try to open new constitutional negotiations, as the Hon. Member suggests-and with Quebec, to boot- would amount to asking the federal Government to betray its commitment to deal with Quebec's demands first and to postpone other matters until later. Moreover, such an action by the House could be perceived as outright provocation, because it is more than likely that Quebec will refuse to deal with constitutional issues until the Meech Lake Accord is ratified.
Finally, if the Hon. Member is really serious about strengthening minority language education rights he will agree there is a better way to do it. Ratifying the Meech Lake Accord, which acknowledges the linguistic duality as a basic characteristic of the federation, will make it possible to proceed with the constitutional reform, and Canadians will then be in a position to concentrate their efforts on other changes during the annual gatherings of First Ministers which are already provided for under Meech Lake.
It so happens that the federal Government is firmly committed to putting the issue of stronger minority language education rights on the agenda of the first conference after ratification of the Accord.

May 2, 1989
Constitution Act
Here is the Prime Minister's message conveyed last March to linguistic minorities and made public in Quebec by the Association of Quebec Regional English Media:

By allowing Quebec to return to the constitutional table, the Accord will enable us to continue our efforts to improve further the situation of our linguistic minorities. The Government of Canada is committed to address, among other things, the strenghtening of constitutional language rights in their broadest context at the first annual conference following proclamation of the Accord.

On the same occasion Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations Senator Lowell Murray went even further and stated:

These discussions could help clarify, among other matters. Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on minority language education rights.

This commitment was repeated on a number of occasions and was given even more solemn currency in the Speech from the Throne. I quote the relevant words:
With Quebec at the table as a willing participant, future constitutional development-including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal and linguistic rights, of roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries, and of ways to strengthen the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-will become possible and will be a priority of the Government.
That, Madam Speaker, is the gist of my message. Strengthening the right of official language minorities is already slated for the constitutional discussions which will come on the heels of the Meech Lake Accord ratification. Both Quebec's Anglophone minority and Francophone minorities elsewhere in Canada stand to benefit from these discussions.
In any event, adopting the motion now before the House might be construed as a denial of our promise to respond first to Quebec's constitutional requests, prove to be detrimental to the Meech Lake Accord, and seriously undermine the gains the minorities would certainly achieve under the agreement.
Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) will understand my position. In the interest both of Francophones outside Quebec and of Anglophones in Quebec, I urge the House to keep my remarks in mind during the consideration of the motion now under study.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on motion 422, moved by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that the Government should initiate or introduce an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982 to delete Section 59 which restricts, as we already heard, the rights of Anglo-Quebecers to education in their own language.
Madam Speaker, the debate on the treatment of minorities in this country is not over, and I think it is high time that this Government and the leaders of provincial governments act responsibly and take the advice they have been offered by the Commissioner of Official Languages and your humble servant, which is that we urgently need a federal-provincial conference on the future of linguistic minorities in this country.
Madam Speaker, it is a fact that there is injustice in this country, in certain provinces, and I could name a few.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Name them, by all means!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In 1982, I was one of those who voted against this Constitution because I felt that quantifying the rights of Canadians, wherever they happen to live in this country, was not the way to deal with the issue. I thought that at the time, there would be a decision by the majority that minorities should be treated fairly and equitably, wherever they happen to live in this country.
I felt that Section 23, which some groups and some individuals would like to change, contained elements that do not belong in the Constitution. In Article 23, we read that where numbers warrant, parents will have the right to have their children educated in the language of their choice, in the family's mother tongue. In this country, in five provinces, and I could name them for you-


Marcel Prud'homme: Please do!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think I will, at the request of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). Some groups, especially Francophone parents-and there are also Anglophones in Quebec who did the same, and more power to them,-are before the courts today, in May 1989, to defend their rights. Why? To try and get a generous interpretation of Section 23 from the courts. There are cases here in Ontario, my own province; there are cases in British Columbia; there are some in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In each of these provinces, Mr. Speaker, people are before the courts-
May 2, 1989


An Hon. Member:: None in Quebec?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, not right now. They are before the courts to defend a constitutional right that is not being respected by these provinces. I speak from a thorough knowledge of the subject, since I have participated in several of these court challenges.
We know the federal Government sometimes does all it can to suggest it would like to see equal access throughout the land, in every province. And moneys are paid for minority education without expecting too much accountability for those expenditures and without too much concern for the fact that the Canadian Government's true role or obligation to protect and enhance the existence of those minorities should be really and seriously carried out. I can tell you that when we are being challenged in seven provinces where to this date it is impossible to obtain fairness and justice, it is difficult to ignore that, turn a blind eye, let the courts decide. Speaking of the courts, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of a decision rendered by Mr. Justice Hunter of the Supreme Court who referred to the legislators responsibility with regards to basic rights, and I quote Mr. Justice Hunter:
Although the courts are the guardians of the Constitution and the rights granted by it to individuals, it is incumbent upon legislators to enact laws that provide the proper safeguards to meet the Constitution's requirements. It is not for the courts to add details to legislative loopholes entrench in the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is right. We can't have a Constitution where opting in and opting out is allowed, where there are all kinds of provisos and rights in one province that do not exist in an other. There is one Canadian Constitution, enacted in 1982. It should in my view be the subject of a national consensus and apply to all Canadians.
I know it is difficult to understand how a Frenchspeaking Canadian in Ontario for instance or Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or wherever in Canada, can suggest: my wholehearted support to a Constitution? Yes, but a Constitution that is fair, that applies equally to all. I recognize regional considerations, I recognize that in some provinces the number sometimes may be minimal, because of the assimilation we have been subject to for 100 years.
Constitution Act
I simply suggest this to Hon. Members: When you are asked to ensure there is a first ministers' conference, this might open the door to a consensus, a resolution of certain problems. I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has been one of those Members in this House who always supported language minority goals in this country. This is a fact. I recognize this. He always supported us, even though we at times went through difficult periods, in Ontario for instance, but he never faltered. He told Ontario: Having signed the Constitution, why are you imposing education requirements to Quebec when you refuse to recognize in Ontario the constitutional requirements that Quebec must meet, and I am thinking of Section 133, in particular.
I know Section 133 recognizes the right to access the courts and provincial legislatures in either official language. The two provinces, Quebec and Manitoba, are subject to that section. New Brunswick of course has its own Charter, its own Constitution, and it also accepted the spirit of that section. However, it is difficult in this country to hear the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace mention, as he stated himself today, that he had his children educated in French in Quebec. And because he had his children educated in French in Quebec, he lost forever his ancestral rights to have his grand-children educated in his mother tongue, English. This is a problem that will have to be solved. This is what he is raising today, and I support him. I say there is a problem there indeed. However, Madam Speaker, I for my part have a problem that is just as serious, and that is to have my children educated in my own language.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, the proposed resolution leads us to examine the constitutionnal guarantees concerning minority language educational rights. As we know, these guarantees are defined in section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted in 1982. The Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) calls upon the Government to amend the Charter and calls upon Quebec to do the same.
I will not discuss the possible response Quebec may give to such a request. However, I would remind you of the will of that Province to deal first and foremost with the question of Meech Lake, and of the Federal Government's commitment and that of all other Governments

May 2, 1989
Constitution Act
to wait for a second round of constitutionnal negotiations before passing to other questions. Besides, I doubt the Hon. Member's motion distinguishes between the first and second rounds of discussions.
In substance, I would say that section 59 is only one aspect of the problem concerning the right to education in the language of the minority. Most Canadians would say that the real problem lies in the difficulty Frenchspeaking Canadians outside Quebec encounter when tiying to have their Provincial Government respect the rights guaranteed them by the Charter in that matter.
Quoting a study made for the Commissioner of Official Languages, the newspaper La Presse of March 6 stated that in English-speaking provinces, only 56 per cent of children aged 6 to 17 who have a right to schooling in French under section 23 of the Charter actually do receive that education. On the other hand, in Quebec, all young people from 6 to 17 entitled to education in English get it, that is 121,513 students.
Among mainly English-speaking provinces, only in New-Brunswick and Ontario do we see more than half the children entitled to instruction in French under section 23 attend French schools. The proportion is 78.4 per cent in New Brunswick. In Ontario, 68.4 per cent of the children with a constitutional right to French schooling attend French schools. Just the same, these figures reflect a major effort on the part of these provinces' Governments over the past fifteen years in the area of minority schooling.
In the other Canadian provinces, the proportion of children with a right to French schooling who attend French schools does not exceed 12.2 per cent. For that matter, it is 7.3 per cent in Alberta and 5.3 per cent in the Northwest Territories.
These figures clearly illustrate one of the major flaws of our Charter in the area of educational rights. It is found in Section 23(3)(a) which expressly provides that the right of Canadian citizens to have their children receive instruction in the language of the minority.
applies wherever in the provinces the number of children of
citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision
of them out of public funds of minority language instruction.
That is the infamous "wherever the number warrants" clause which has been so much discredited by all Francophones outside Quebec since 1982.
Under this clause, several provinces with English speaking majorities have been able to limit and continue to limit the instruction services provided to their minorities. In several cases, their French speaking minorities have had to spend a lot of money and wait quite a long time to appeal to the courts to have their needs for French teaching institutions recognized on a case per case basis. As a matter of fact, there were appeal procedures instituted in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The situation in Quebec is altogether different. That province has never tried to benefit from this law in Section 23 to deny its English speaking minority its right to receive instruction in its own language, no matter the number of pupils or their distribution over the territory.
This situation caused newspaperman Don MacPher-son to write in an article published on March 1st in the Montreal Gazette the following statement, and I quote:

Quebec respects the spirit as well as the letter of the Charter on minority education -In Quebec, the number that warrants a minority language education is one.

To make his point, Mr. MacPherson indicated that the School Board of the Lower North Shore operates an English school with two teachers for a total enrolment of fourteen pupils. He indicated also that half of the $40 million which the Quebec Government allocates to support small schools goes to the English sector.
And Mr. McPherson to conclude, and I quote:

Wouldn't it be a neat trick if, in the next round of constitutional negotiations, Quebec challenged the other provinces to follow its example-and proposed the abolition of the 'where numbers warrant' clause?

If the House is to deal with minority language educational rights, should it not address this side of Section 23? The elimination of the "where numbers warrant" clause is one of the resolutions which the Liberal Party of Canada adopted during its 1986 Convention. Yet, I do not believe that matter of the Section 59 was mentioned there.
May 2, 1989

The Hon. Member's Party voted also in favour of the minority language educational right being defined to include the right to administer these institutions.
The current situation has again compelled minority groups to appeal to the courts to have this right recognized, especially in Ontario. And this other amendment to Section 23 would have the support of the Quebec Government, of Francophones outside Quebec and even Alliance Quebec. Other such reforms might be looked into.
Things may not be easy for the Quebec English speaking minority. According to the last report tabled by the Official Languages Commissioner, small English speaking communities outside Montreal are having difficulties getting provincial services in their own language, while the English speaking community is suffering from under-representation in the Quebec public service. But we can see progress has been made.
With Bill 142, Quebec is trying to make social and health services in English more readily in most of its regions.
Following the new Official Languages Act, the federal government is discussing with Quebec the possibility of increasing federal funding in that area.
With regard to education, Quebec's seventh English CEGEP opened in Hull in October.
Quebec has also tried once more to change its education system in order to create school boards based on language instead of denomination.
As seen in the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, several opinion leaders, both French and English-speaking, acknowledged that a system based on language criteria would be more suited to the needs of a declining minority group scattered throughout the province, by bringing together the resources of both Catholic and Protestant English schools.
Such a system would also encourage parents to take part in the management of their children schools.
This reform however will not be possible before the courts rule on its constitutionality. Under section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867, the Quebec school system must respect the rights of individuals to denominational schools. So, we might not be able to bring English-Catholic and English-Protestant students in the same
Constitution Act
schools even if everyone agrees that would be beneficial to minorities.
So here is another constitutional reform that the Hon. Member and this House could tackle if we had to deal with minority language educational rights. I would go as far as to say that it could be very difficult to support such a partial and isolated reform as proposed by the Hon. Member without considering also the application of the legislation where numbers warrant, the rights of institutions to manage their own affairs as will as Section 93, specially in view of the relative viability of the educational situation of the minority in Quebec compared to the situation in other provinces. The francophone minorities outside Quebec could find it insulting if the House gave in to the Hon. Member's request without any concern about the more urgent problems facing thousands of children and parents.
Madam Speaker, I hope the House will give proper consideration to my remarks.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, in the short time that is left I would like to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). The purpose of his motion is to give support to the principle of attempting to right an historic wrong. I believe it is a noble privilege and duty to be able to fight for the right to correct that wrong.
Rights are rights, when one is English-speaking or French-speaking anywhere across this land. I want my grandchildren educated in French here in Ontario. If they choose to return to Quebec, which I hope they do, and if they choose to have their children educated in English, which I hope they will not, they should still have that right to choice. The whole point is the right to choice-not whether one is English-speaking or Frenchspeaking in Quebec, but the right to make an enlightened choice.
If I were today making an enlightened choice I would choose to go to school in French in Quebec. But do not impose it on me, Madam Speaker. That is the point behind the motion to abrogate Section 59 of the Constitution Act. No Constitution should have an exclusion based on one's language of birth or one's language of choice. It should be an option that everyone should be allowed to take.

May 2, 1989
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker,-


Sheila Finestone: You are going to talk it out, you son of a gun.


Marcel Prud'homme: It is not six o'clock. Who is a son of a gun?


Sheila Finestone: It is 20 seconds to.


Marcel Prud'homme: I hear very well-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, last November, in the middle of the election campaign, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) speaking in St. John's, Newfoundland said the following, and I am quoting from the St. John's Evening Telegram: "The federal Government has no plans to make changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program, Trade Minister John Crosbie said Thursday. It is complete nonsense, he replied to questioning by reporters at the Hotel Newfoundland following a Progressive Conservative rally for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney".
It went on to state the following: "Mr. Crosbie said he asked the Prime Minister about the report, and he said, no, the Government has no plan to make changes to the program. You're damn right I asked him", that is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) "about it, and he said, no. No one is planning any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Program, said the Minister for International Trade".
That was last November when the Minister for International Trade, a senior Minister in this Government, said that under no circumstances would there be changes or cuts in the Unemployment Insurance Program. Well here we are in the month of April with two serious cuts and changes to the program.
On April 11, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) announced the redirection of $1.3 billion in the Unemployment Insurance Program to other programs. While $500 million was redirected to improvements in the Unemployment Insurance Program, $800 million was taken away from benefits altogether and redirected to training, to consultation and to labour market planning, things which had always been paid for out of general tax revenue and never paid for with the contributions made by workers and employers to cover themselves during periods of unemployment.
We condemned those changes announced by the Minister because, first of all, they left the unemployed with less coverage during his or her period of unemployment. Second, because they shifted the burden of the unemployed to the provinces, it would be the provinces that would have to help pay for the rent and groceries of those workers during the period of unemployment when they were not covered by unemployment insurance.
Third, we condemned the program because the Government proposed using unemployment insurance money to finance training which is a regressive and inequitable method of financing training. We are all in favour of training, but that is not the way to pay for it.
Finally, we criticized the program because there was no assurance that once trained or retrained that there would be jobs for these workers whether they lived in Summerside, Prince Edward Island or Portage la Prairie. What is the use of training if you do not associate it with an effective program for regional development and for full employment?
We criticize the program for all those things. That was on April 11, when very serious changes were made. Then again last week on April 27 in the Budget, we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announcing that the Government of Canada will withdraw all its financing of the Unemployment Insurance Program. They are going to take out the $1.9 billion that they "paid in" last year. They are going to leave the financing of the program entirely to workers and to employers. In the past, this has
May 2, 1989

been a three-way financing program. Now the Government of Canada is getting out and leaving the financing entirely to workers and to their employers.
What are we to conclude from all this? We conclude that first of all government Members are attacking the deficit that they have referred to time after time. They are attacking it on the backs of the unemployed. Second, they are attempting to build a level playing field to facilitate free trade with the United States which they said during the election campaign would not be necessary.
I have asked for answers. I have asked for the Government to justify these cuts in unemployment insurance. I have asked how many workers will lose unemployment insurance and to what extent. I have asked the Government to tell us in what region are these workers who would have their unemployment insurance cut. I received no answers.
I asked how these workers who would have their unemployment insurance cut would pay for their rent and groceries. Will the Government let the provinces carry the burden, or will it give them additional money?
Finally, I asked the Minister to justify pulling out the government financing of this program. How does the Government justify pulling out from the financing of this program when the Government of Canada has been helping with the financing since 1941, when it started? We will now have a system that is set adrift and left to the workers and their employers to pay for.
I hope we get some answers to these questions, not for myself and the Liberal Party, but for the people of Canada, who are very concerned about this.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the Progressive Conservative government has kept its promise not to reduce its assistance to the unemployed in view of the fact that the purpose of the measures announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDou-gall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is to assist people who lose their jobs. Ten percent of unemploy-
Adjournment Debate
ment insurance funds will be applied to the training and retraining of these people. This goes to show that this government keeps its promises.
It is true that, on January 1 1990, employers and employees alone will contribute to unemployment insurance and that the premium will increase by 30 cents for employees and by 42 cents for employers. But it is also true that these will be the lowest premiums paid over the past six years. The Progressive Conservative government has kept its promise.
We must also keep in mind, in relation to unemployment insurance and to all other programs, the enormous deficit created by the former Liberal government. As we have repeatedly mentioned both in the Budget's speech and elsewhere, Madam Speaker, the Government has agreed, should Canadians be faced again with difficult years such as those they experienced in 1980, 1981 and 1982, to contribute to the fund if it should deem it inapropriate to increase the premiums and preferable to allow the unemployment insurance fund deficit to grow, to meet the needs and expectations of both employers and employees.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I should like to emphasize, for the information of the Hon. Member who made these comments, that the Unemployment Insurance Program has been amended for the purpose of improving the economic welfare of Canada, its employees and employers. These amendments have nothing whatever to do with the free trade issue.
You will remember that during the last election campaign, the opposition tried in vain to scare people both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are standing behind the statements we made then: There are programs in Canada. There are social programs in Canada which are and will remain different from those in the United States. We have our own programs and we are determined, as a Progressive Conservatine Government, to continue these programs for the well being of and a better quality of life for all Canadian men and woman. Such is the purpose of the amendements to the Unemployment Insurance Program. To conclude, Madam Speaker, I hope that my hon. friend has finally come to realize that we must work for the future of Canada and not try to jeopardize it all the time.

May 2, 1989
Adjournment Debate


PUBLIC WORKS-DEVELOPMENT OF WELLAND CANAL LANDS-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, Public Works Canada and the Welland Canal Development Board presented its final report, entitled "The Old Welland Canal-A Land Use/Marketing Review", at a press conference on April 18, 1989. On April 211 asked the Minister if he had read the report. I have read the report and have come to certain conclusions. I will also quote rather extensively from a very talented and far-sighted Welland city planner by the name of Stan Neatheiy.
My position on this document, indeed on what to do with the Welland Canals themselves, is unequivocal. I believe that these lands should be in the hands of the people of Canada and that not one square inch should ever be sold. Perhaps there could be long-term leases, but not one square inch should be sold. In my opinion, the members of the present board are in the majority pro-development and pro-privatization. I believe that for the majority of the men and women on this board the almighty dollar is more important than the needs and desires of the people of my riding.
With regard to the recommendations the report recommends developing 175 acres of Crown lands, and these are divided into 13 "opportunity areas" along both sides of the central and northern sections of the old canal. These lands are now an open space and some of them are already developed as park land.
Some of the recommendations I agree with. The opportunities presented include a camp ground, a golf course and an old building being changed into a restaurant. I agree with these. However, I want all Hon. Members to know that I am unalterably opposed to the building of a hotel, 135 prestige single, detached housing lots and 40 condominium townhouse lots. Some of these are extending from the service road to the top of the canal bank. Others extend from the service road down to the embankment in order to provide required minimum lot depths in compliance with city zoning by-laws.
Some 63,500 square feet of retail commercial space for small shops alongside the old canal are proposed in the downtown area immediately north of the Main Street
bridge. I disagree with this. I believe we could use the shops that are already there, update them and let the present merchants benefit from any development.
The land area proposed for sale for development represents a substantial amount of the total Crown land holdings alongside the old canal north of Broadway Avenue. It is suggested that the Crown retain the remaining smaller land areas along the canal and Merritt Island.
An emphasis in the report is that public access, including the current system of walkways and bikeways, will be maintained along the entire length of the canal "to the extent that already exists" and that "maintaining public access has been established to be of primary importance in meeting this objective". However, specific opportunity area plans presented in other sections of the report show development to the top of the canal bank. In these instances it is difficult to understand how this objective is to be achieved.
To elaborate, opportunity area E-3, lands between Chippawa Street and the canal water south of Thorold Road and across from Notre Dame Secondary School is shown to be developed either as 25 single or 40 townhouse residential building lots. The accompanying map which I have studied quite carefully shows the boundary of the area slated for sale and development approximating 13 feet from the water's edge. However, the average horizontal distance from the top of the bank to the canal water's edge is 30 feet on a steep slope. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand just how "public access has been maintained throughout to a minimum depth of 33 feet".
Further, to maintain a public access area of 33 feet wide in opportunity area E-3 would take up half the land area to be sold and developed. The report estimates total development costs for all the opportunity areas to approximate $36.2 million-$35.2 million in construction and $1 million in servicing. In addition, one section of the report estimates that the development of the canal lands would generate $115.9 million in direct and indirect expenditures. It estimates that 2,680 new jobs would result from the development of the canal lands: 1,456 direct and the remainder indirect. However, a later section of the report states that total direct and indirect expenditures would equal $81.6 million, and only 1,882 direct and indirect new jobs would result. These are significant discrepancies, which should be explained.
May 2, 1989

Although the report did not specify the types of jobs generated by the canal lands development of the various opportunity areas, it is believed that a major portion of these jobs would be construction related. I believe many of these jobs would be seasonal.
The estimated taxation impact of the development of the canal lands is estimated in one area at $491,625 per year; but in a later area it is $381,375, a discrepancy of 22 per cent.
To summarize, it seems to me: (1) that sufficient public access alongside the old canal is not guaranteed; (2) that a significant amount of existing Crown parklands alongside the old canal would be sold to private developers; (3) that there appear to be discrepancies in the amount of dollars that would be generated in the local economy as a result of the proposed sale and development of the canal lands.
I denounce this report as being unacceptable to the majority of the people in the Welland-St. Catharines- Thorold riding. Surely it is not worth anywhere near the $30,000 it cost to produce it.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, in 1973 the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority completed the construction of a bypass canal around the city of Welland. Subsequently, in 1974 the Seaway Authority transferred to Public Works Canada the ownership and management of 317 hectares of residual canal and adjacent federal lands that bisect the city center. The property consisted of 45 hectares of water, 150 hectares of spoil piles, and a 45-hectare island between the canal and the river, known as Merritt Island, with the canal banks varying in width from 20 metres to 200 metres.
In the fall of 1979 the Minister of Public Works visited Welland and later appointed a local citizens advisory committee, the Welland Canal Advisory Group, to advise on the development and long-term management of the lands.
In 1984 the advisory group was replaced by the Welland Canal Parkway Development Board, with a revised mandate. The board was charged with advising the Minister on matters pertaining to the redevelopment of the lands using alternative sources of funding, including private-sector financing and entrepreneurship, and developing a long-term management and operating plan
Adjournment Debate
for the canal lands that would best represent the interests of the Crown and the municipality.
Since 1976 the department has spent over $20 million in capital, operation, and maintenance grants in lieu of taxes. Much of the area is fully landscaped and actively maintained, consistent with the standards practised by the National Capital Commission and the Niagara Parks Commission. In 1988 the department spent approximately $350,000 on operation and maintenance and $465,000 on grants in lieu of taxes.
In a news conference on April 15, 1988, the Chairman of the Welland Canal Parkway Development Board, the Mayor of Welland, and the local Members of Parliament announced the approval of the Minister of Public Works to commission a consultant to undertake an independent land use study. Specifically, the study was to identify potential recreation and residential and commerical land development opportunities supported by economic viability. The final report was submitted to the department on April 14, 1989. A news conference was held on April 18 at which the Member of Parliament for Erie (Mr. Fretz) announced the completion of the study.
The study has identified a number of potential recreational, residential, and commercial opportunities along the waterway that could complement adjacent land uses.
Preliminary economic analysis reveals that some of these are viable as short-term options, that is for three to five years, while others would be safer ventures in the medium and long term, that is from five to ten years respectively. In addition, new employment, additional tax revenue and development money could be generated for the City of Welland.
In the upcoming weeks, Public Works Canada will be soliciting comments from the citizens of Welland through information booths and special briefings to various local interest groups.
The Department has also extended an invitation to the City of Welland to establish a working group between the city and Public Works Canada. The purpose of the group will be to address each of the opportunities identified in the consultant's report and develop a specific action plan which will benefit the City and the federal Government. May I say again that the disposition of these lands will be made in full consultation with the people of Welland.

May 2, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The Regional Municipality of Niagara, with the assistance of the Canada-Ontario Tourism Subsidiary Agreement, has also just completed a study of the whole Welland corridor of which the Public Works lands is a part. The object of their study was to look at the tourism potential and the opportunities of the area.
The Minister gave an assurance in this House on April 21 that the consultants engaged by Public Works Canada were hired only to identify potential development opportunities. The Minister emphasized the word "potential" and gave the Hon. Member for Welland-St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) the assurance that there will be full consultation with the City.


Gilbert Parent: And me.


William James Kempling: And you.


IMMIGRATION - LEBANON - PLIGHT OF REFUGEES-CONSULAR SERVICES IN CYPRUS-UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION ON REFUGEES-REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY MEETING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this full House this evening on a question that I had an opportunity of asking the Minister and the Government back on April 20.
The question pertained to the issue of Lebanon, which for the last 15 years has never seen as fierce fighting and as fierce an escalation in the war torn zone, producing very horrible results and producing refugees and homeless people in a number that is indeed very worrisome.
We in the Liberal Party had asked repeatedly in the House both the Minister responsible for immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to establish, at the very earliest, a full consular immigration operation in Cyprus, because the very large and proud Lebanese Canadian community in this country wanted to extend an invitation or a sponsorship to families and friends back in Lebanon who wish to escape the very horrific scenes we see on our television sets day in and day out.
The problem was the inability and the inaccessibility of people in Lebanon to get to a Canadian office in order to complete the necessary applications and forms.
We have a full operation in Damascus, Syria, but because Syria is one of the antagonists in the war we could hardly imagine whether people, particularly of the
Christian faith, would venture into Damascus, Syria. Therefore, we had asked for a full consular operation in Cyprus.
The Government finally responded to those calls by saying that it was going to send one official to Cyprus in order to process those applications.
It is our contention that one official is not only unfair but indeed misleading if we are to look at the long-term solution. At the very least, we are in need of a temporaiy full operation so that those who wish to come to Canada and elsewhere may have a hope and a chance of doing so. It is our contention that sending one official is clearly not addressing the magnitude of the problem.
On a secondary aspect we asked this Government to initiate an emergency meeting through the offices of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees which informed me that it only had a skeleton staff of three people in Lebanon to try to deal with the magnitude of the problem.
We suggested in Question Period, because we are members of the UNHCR, that clearly Canada can exercise some leadership and ask the UNHCR to beef up its representation in Lebanon so that not only Canada will try to help those who wish to flee and to reunite families in this country, but that other countries across the globe through the efforts of the UNHCR can share and participate in removing people from a place in the world that is completely tortured and, as I said at the outset, has seen fighting not previously seen for the last 15 years.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I hope the Government will offer a real solution to Lebanese-Canadians because a single immigration officer in Lebanon is neither a true nor a fair solution. Our party thinks that we need a full-time immigration consular operation staffed with six or seven employees who could answer inquiries from parents, relatives and people in Canada who are willing to work but who want to leave Lebanon because of the terrible situation experienced by everybody in that country today. I think that the Canadian Government could continue to play a very significant role by setting an example for other countries to follow. But I think having a single immigration official, in Cyprus for example, to process applications is simply not a real solution.
May 2, 1989

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will propose a fairer and more efficient solution and I hope to get that answer today.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I know Lebanon quite well. When I first went to Lebanon it was the jewel of the Mediterranean. It was a great place for a vacation. It was a banking centre. After visiting other countries it was great to get to Lebanon. The last time I was there I think our aircraft was allowed to land and refuel and we had to take off immediately. We could not even go into the city.
I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Hon. Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina) to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on April 20.
Canada has had special measures in effect for victims of unrest in Lebanon for some time. This special program for Lebanese, which remains in effect, allows relatives in the assisted relative category to be sponsored for immigration to Canada under a relaxed criteria. In 1988 over 800 Lebanese were admitted to Canada under this program. Since 1973 we have admitted over 15,000. As the situation in Lebanon remains unpredictable, it will be monitored by officials of the Department of External Affairs and adjustments to immigration services will be made accordingly. In other words, if we find it is getting more difficult and there are more applications we will adjust our people there accordingly.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has not considered this issue a refugee movement at this stage. We are in contact with his representatives in the area.
Adjournment Debate
and this could change. The main immigration office for the area is in Damascus, and continues to provide service to the people from Lebanon who are able to get through. But I can see that is a very difficult thing to get through, particularly if you are a Christian going through the Bekaa Valley to try to get to Damascus.
Similarly, the Canadian visa office in Cyprus has been able to meet the demand for immigration services there. Lor those already outside Lebanon, Canada has an honorary consul in Cyprus and there is presently an immigration officer in Nicosia who is providing immigration services and he has several civilian assistants to help him.
A special courier service has been established between Damascus and Nicosia. Lebanese who have completed visa formalities may collect their immigration visa in either city. A Lebanese may also approach any other Canadian mission in order to apply for immigration under the special Lebanese program.
For the moment, therefore, we believe Canada is providing good service to those who can leave Lebanon and qualify under the terms of the special measures. We shall continue to assess the developments in the event that additional issues emerge and a greater level of service is required.
We thank the Hon. Member for his continued interest in this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 3, 1989