1989-05-03

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it has just been announced that 700 jobs are being cut from the workforce of the de Havilland STOL aircraft plant in my riding at Downsview, Ontario. This is our major employer and a big part of Canada's aerospace industry.
Although the company claims that attrition can cover these jobs, the local union, Local 112 of the Canadian Auto Workers, tells me that this is impossible.
Since the Government sold the company to Boeing of Seattle there is less that it can do on behalf of Canadian workers. I call on the Government to review the lay-off decisions, no doubt made south of the border in Seattle, to defend these jobs and to assist employees who are affected.
We also have news of Boeing's $110 million lawsuit to cover false representations by the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the sale involving safety and health conditions. If Boeing is successful, since the company was sold for $90 million, the result will be that Boeing gets the company from the Canadian taxpayers free.
I submit that the Government should have known of the safety and health conditions since every worker in the plant knew of them. The Government is responsible for this give-away.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and this House the blatant unfairness of the income tax provisions and lack of child care provisions in this Budget for a single working mother in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam.
This woman who earns $1,400 per month has expenses in excess of $2,100 per month. She currently receives the family allowance of $65 a month and child support of $400 a month, yet she is $200 short at the end of the month. Her largest single expenditure is $850 per month for the care of her children while she is at work.
How is it that the Government claims that its tax and child care provisions are fair, yet this woman and thousands like her are being penalized by the unfairness of the Income Ihx Act and by child care being put on hold? She is not looking for charity. She is demanding fairness.
I call upon the Government to act immediately to redress this unfairness. I also call upon the Government to put real fairness in the tax system and acknowledge that working people of the country are being driven into debt by its taxation and child care policies.


SOCIALISM
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, while the provincial and federal governments are selling their companies to private enterprise, to the socialists' great despair, communist countries are doing the same thing. But there, Mr. Speaker, it is even worse. They want to sell to foreigners. The Hungarians have just offered the Germans 53 companies, including large steel mills. The Germans are demanding guarantees, because to make these money losers pay, massive lay-offs will be necessary. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian NDP should give us such news from time to time.

May 3, 1989


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, Yuli Ko-sharovsky first submitted his emigration application to leave the Soviet Union in 1971. A radio engineer, Kosharovsky was not allowed to work in his profession after he applied. He held a number of jobs, including those of night watchman and manual labourer.
Yuli's wife Inna is a mathematician with a degree from Moscow State University. She too was prevented from working in her field.
Because of his active involvement to spread Jewish culture and to teach Hebrew, Yuli was branded a traitor. As recently as 1987 when I met Yuli in Moscow, it was stated in a leading Moscow paper that he would never be allowed to leave, for reasons of state secrecy.
However, late last year, Yuli's prayers were answered. He and his family were granted exit visas and they arrived in Israel on March 12, 1989. Their 18-year struggle is over.
Mr. Kosharovsky is in Ottawa today to share his experiences and to urge the Canadian Government to continue to pressure the Soviet Union to live up to its human rights obligations.


TRIBUTE TO RIGHT HON. JOHN TURNER
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to speak about the way in which the Budget has had a devastating effect upon my own riding and upon western Canada. However, with the announcement today of our Leader's resignation, I want to take this opportunity to say something in a personal way about the man I have known for over 25 years in public life.
Over that time he has been for me a great teacher and mentor, especially about this House of Commons and about the meaning of Parliament in Canada. As a Member of Parliament from western Canada he has spoken well and effectively about the interests of our region. Particularly as Leader of our Party he has fought
to preserve the independence of the country, and in the last election it was with great pride that we served with him.
As a friend and associate he will be missed. As a person who can give us the real sense of the House of Commons he will be missed. As a Member from western Canada he will be missed. As a national Leader he will be long remembered for the fight and choice he gave Canadians back in November 1988.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of citizens who have been working tirelessly in the name of a supreme issue, that is, the environment.
These volunteers who have come together under the banner of POWER which stands for Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources, have recently been named citizen of the year by the Acton Chamber of Commerce.
Members of POWER, which include Ruth French, Ken McGregor and hundreds of others, have succeeded in raising public awareness of key environmental issues.
These citizens know the future lies in recycling, recovering, reusing and rethinking the way we treat our environment.
They oppose further landfill sites, particularly the establishment of one in a dangerous quarry location with the potential to pollute the groundwater for thousands of people in my riding. I stand behind the citizens and these environmentalists.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, today in Vancouver there is a gathering of people whose livelihoods depend on the B.C. fishing industry. This rally is to protest the new Conservative regulations which will gut the Canadian industry of its fish and its jobs. New Democrats support those workers.
May 3, 1989

Our fishing industry has never been threatened like it is today. American interests want our herring, want our salmon and want our jobs.
Over the last three years, the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the former Minister for International Trade made repeated promises to this House that Canada would fight the U.S. complaint to GATT, that B.C. fish would be landed, inspected and gutted in Canada, and that Canadian natural resources and Canadian jobs would be protected.
None of those promises were kept. Those Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have sold out the B.C. fishing industry to the Americans. The Americans are still not satisfied. They feel that the landing requirements would bruise their fish. The Americans already believe they own our fish.
Where are our rights to grade our fish and to gut our fish, our rights to Canadian resources, and our rights to our jobs? Americans must not be allowed to steal our natural resources with or without the connivance of the Prime Minister.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Harb) applauded a decision to reduce Department of Transport expenditures by some $200 million, thereby contradicting his caucus.
Certainly, the Liberals have never understood Canada and never will. That explains their increasingly negative position on the Meech Lake Agreement.
In their caucus, the Liberals do not even agree on the National Capital Commission, the Ottawa-Hull region, which is only a part of Canada. How will they be able to agree on a national consensus on the Meech Lake Agreement?


TRIBUTE TO JOHN N. TURNER
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have represented the new riding of Carleton-Gloucester since last November. It is also
an honour for me to represent part of the riding formerly represented by the Right Hon. John TUmer.
A man of courage and integrity, he devoted his energies to his country's business.

As a Member of Parliament representing ridings in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) served his electors and all Canadians with great enthusiasm and determination.
As defender of the unity of Canada, he was a courageous, decent person and a true Canadian. The future will prove that the Right Hon. Member should have been our present Prime Minister.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the people in my riding who are now receiving unemployment insurance benefits or who may do so in the future that the Government will continue to help those who lose their jobs.
The improved system will take into account the dynamic nature of our regional economy. The Unemployment Insurance Program has simply been adjusted to the vitality of our regions. The old system was obsolete, Mr. Speaker. We are now adjusting to the economic situation as it is today.
The entrepreneurial spirit of the people of Beauce has already created many jobs, and the Department of Employment and Immigration will provide retraining and skills upgrading for those who need it. An additional $800 million has been earmarked for retraining. The new formula is still just as generous for benefit recipients. Benefit amounts have been maintained. It makes good sense to adjust the Unemployment Insurance Program to the economic circumstances in Beauce and elsewhere. Contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund will realize that the new system will be fairer, more equitable and more effective.
Furthermore, as the Member for Beauce, I intend to defend the interests of all those constituents who are receiving or who will receive unemployment insurance benefits.

May 3, 1989
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner


Mr. Speaker:: In view of announcements that were made this morning, we are going to hear members of all Parties with respect to the announcement of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I first of all call upon the Deputy Prime Minister.


LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Government of Canada, colleagues here in the House, and all members of the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to my friend, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who just this morning has announced his intention to resign as Leader of the Liberal Party.
As we watched the right hon. gentleman over the past week, and despite Ottawa being awash with rumours of an impending resignation, many of us on this side of the House had come to the conclusion that maybe he was going to put it off until the next time February 29 rolled around. I guess, as usual, his good sense and good judgment prevailed, and he did what he considered to be the right thing this morning.
It is at times like this when this institution, the House of Commons, demonstrates that it is a very special place, a very unique place. As a gentleman whom the right hon. gentleman admired so much, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, used to say on various occasions like this one, "Parliament lives".
Today we recognize that it is truly a living institution and that it always rises to the occasion, for it was just yesterday that the right hon. gentleman engaged in a very vigorous debate as is his responsibility as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and today we are here in this House to set aside our differences and pay tribute to him as ;a distinguished parliamentarian and as an outstanding Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a parliamentarian he has indeed had a long and remarkable career. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1962 and re-elected on seven different occasions. It was during this time that he served
ridings in three different provinces, the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. As one who has known the right hon. gentleman for over 20 years, I have always admired his respect for this institution, his desire to preserve its integrity to ensure that the uniqueness and integrity of this institution be preserved as the basic pillar of freedom and democracy in this Canada of ours.
He did so frequently, he did so eloquently, and he did it with vigour, while at the same time he used those parliamentary instruments to his advantage and to his Party's advantage in the best parliamentary tradition.
I think it is fair to say that the right hon. gentleman had an intense respect for all Members of the House of Commons. I remember that when I came here as a back-bencher he was the Minister of Justice. He always tried to respond to the questions that were asked and he always considered the requests of MPs as a priority.
In government he held many portfolios which reflected his broad interests and his abilities-Registrar General, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Solicitor General, Minister of Justice, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister. That is a record that all Hon. Members I am sure would agree has been matched by few.
Above all, I am sure that it is fair to say that all Canadians admired his tenacity and strength of character as he fought in difficult and trying circumstances for what he felt was the interests of his Party and for his vision of Canada. His life outside this theatre and outside politics was equally distinguished. As a Rhodes Scholar, a prominent and successful lawyer and as a businessman, he brought the same characteristics he displayed in the House of Commons to the other facets of his life.
We note with some satisfaction as well that he was a noted author. He wrote a book called The Politics of Purpose wherein he talked about the exports of water, something which came in quite useful during the free trade debate from time to time. John Diefenbaker said: "Never write a book until you are almost through. It will come back to haunt you".
In the best spirit and in keeping with the best parliamentary tradition, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government, my colleagues and our Party, we extend to the right hon. gentleman, his wife Geills and his family enjoy what will obviously be a less hectic and more relaxing pace. We wish you well, Sir.
May 3, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, when I held a rather innocent press conference a few weeks ago, I had no idea I would be setting a veritable trend, and I do not know where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is but I am sure we will learn about that later today.
More seriously, I am absolutely delighted to join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on behalf of my colleagues to pay tribute to a very distinguished parliamentarian and a very exceptional Canadian.

The Right Hon. Member has served as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice. He has been Solicitor General, Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister of Canada.
As Minister of Justice, he sponsored the reform of the Criminal Code.
As a New Democrat, I cannot truthfully say that I always agreed with him when he was Minister of Finance. In fact, those instances were few and far between. However, even during that period he made a number of good suggestions and on one occasion increased pension benefits.

Among the many attributes of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, for Hon. Members who have known him as have the Deputy Prime Minister and others, myself included, going back 20 years, a very special attribute, to use a phrase that he has used himself about others, is that the Hon. Member is very much a House of Commons man.
For me, there are two special connotations to that phrase. One is a person who has recognized the importance of the traditions of parliamentary democracy and, more relevant, has understood those traditions and has understood that they have not been perpetuated over time as mere ornaments but because they have given substance to our Parliament in terms of their application to real life democracy in this country of ours. He has well understood that, and I want to pay particular tribute to him as a Minister when he understood that in replying to
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner
questions from this side of the House, as Prime Minister, and as Leader of the Opposition. He was an exceptional Member of Parliament who, perhaps more than any other Member during my time, has both understood and respected those parliamentary traditions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The second aspect is that it is a very human attribute. The man we are honouring today has not only been vigorous in debate, has not only well understood parliamentary traditions, but has well understood something that some of us tend to forget from time to time, that debate is important, that the expression of ideological and philosophical differences is very important and that is why we are here, but at the same time, he has had a great capacity for recognizing the independent dignity and worth of each Member of the House of Commons, regardless of his of her Party affiliation. It is important, he has expressed without necessarily saying it, to have vigorous partisan debate, but it is equally important to recognize the human dignity of each Member of this House beyond those partisan considerations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the first time the Right Hon. Member ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he cut a dashing figure as the anti-establishment candidate. This augured well for his future in his Party and his country. As the Leader of his Party, he has demonstrated what he so aptly said a few weeks ago after my own announcement, that politics is a tough game but an honourable calling.

His special qualities were evident for all to see in the House and outside the House when in spite of intense back pain he waged an exceptionally vigorous campaign during the recent election for the kind of independent Canada he so evidently believes in. Instead of adversity weakening him, it simply deepened his resolve.
On behalf of my colleagues, I salute a decent man, a serious politician. We wish him, Geills and the family well. Good luck in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 3, 1989
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, and I think on behalf of Liberals all across this country, to pay tribute to a great Canadian and a great parliamentarian, our Leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner). Today, Mr. Speaker, we thank him for his courage, his integrity, his ability and for his deep feelings for Canada. All of these have enabled him to give leadership, not just here in the House but across the country, in the fight for the kind of Canada he and we believe in, a sovereign, independent Canada, able to define and apply its own values of caring and concern for all of its people.
This battle did not end with a full victory for us under his leadership. But we believe it is not yet over. His commitment and his courage will inspire us to continue that battle until it is won.
On a more personal note, all of us, especially myself, appreciate his friendship and his encouragement. We also recognize his very distinguished parliamentary career which saw him, as Minister of Justice, take important steps in law reform, which saw him as Canada's first Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which saw him as the Minister of Finance who began the concept of indexing of pensions and personal income tax, so important to Canadians today.
We pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition today. We thank him for all he has done, and we wish him and his family happiness, health and contentment in the future. But we recognize with satisfaction that he will continue to lead us here in the House and across the country for some time yet with vigour and enthusiasm. We say to the Leader of the Opposition, we, your colleagues and friends, thank you for how far we have travelled together on the road to a better Canada. We say to him, thank you for the example of courage and commitment which will help us to continue to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, we say thank you for the encouragement, dedication and above all the courage of the Leader of the Opposition. And we can assure him that the battle will continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, there is not perhaps very much one can add to the words of tribute that have been accorded to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) here today, but I think it would be fitting that one of his colleagues from British Columbia says a word of appreciation for the friendship that we have enjoyed together over many years.
I got to know the right hon. gentleman quite early. When I came here in 1972 he was the Minister of Finance and I recall my first question being directed to the right hon. gentleman. All of us who have gone through this experience know the nervousness and excitement that is associated with such a debut. Of course, my question was overly long and was perhaps a little too smart, and the Speaker cut me off. I was terribly embarrassed. I noticed that the right hon. gentleman sort of had a deep feeling for me, and he was kind enough-I never told him this because I never wanted him to feel that I was obligated to him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: -to take the time, Mr. Speaker, to wait until I left the House to move outside and meet me there. He congratulated me on my first question and wished me well. I have never forgotten that.
I got to know him better a few years later when, as fate sometimes plays tricks on us, we found ourselves in Labrador on a fishing trip next to a stream. The aircraft that brought us there and was to bring us back got into difficulty, and the right hon. gentleman fell in the river. We one had one fish, and his boots were full of cold water. The night was wearing on and we were in desperate straits. He has been telling the story around the country that he saved my life because fortunately he did have the matches that helped us light a fire, and he did catch the fish and had the libation that carried us through half the night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Of course, I never told anyone that I saved his life because of the reaction I would have gotten from some of my friends on this side of the House, and even some on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Frank Oberle: The longer one serves in this institution, the more one discovers that it is just as difficult to leave politics as it is to get into it. It requires just as much courage to make the decision that the right hon. gentleman has made today, as to decide to get into politics and make the sacrifices that are associated with it.
May 3, 1989

I assume of course that the right hon. gentleman will move home to British Columbia and that he will contribute to the life and the progress of our province in his later years.
I want to say to him on behalf of all his friends and colleagues here in the House from British Columbia, and in fact on behalf of all British Columbians, thank you for the contribution you have made to Quadra, to our province, to the country; and to your family, all the very best in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I had to give some serious consideration as to measuring my words about retiring politicians considering my own circumstance. One could say, upon listening to the words said to a retiring politician, that they are blandishments to return. If indeed this is the case with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), I would second the motion. The Leader of the Opposition has been a servant of Canada and a servant of British Columbia in a number of particular ways that touch not only me personally, but the people of British Columbia. I want to publicly acknowledge the role that the Leader of the Opposition played in a major controversy at the time between British Columbia and Canada. I will not go into the details, but a decision was made in my office and, on the basis of a handshake, a policy was formulated. Within 18 months of that policy being formulated, it would have been to the advantage of the Government of the day and the Minister, now the present Leader of the Opposition, to go back on that handshake. It would have been understood if he did, but to this day that Member never once has gone back on a deal that he made as representative of the Crown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is a Member of the House of Commons from the old school. He has a sense of tradition, a sense of proportion and a sense of history. He got it from his mother, who was a great British Columbian, and as the Chancellor of the University of British Columbia was a champion for our province and the people of that province.
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner
The Leader of the Opposition has served very well in representing his constituency in British Columbia, from a political point of view, only too well. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I value his personal friendship, I value his historic and sincere commitment to the Province of British Columbia, but more important, as a Canadian he saw British Columbia as part of Canada. He will be a great loss not only to British Columbia but to this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Liberal Caucus and through Caucus, on behalf of Liberals everywhere in Canada.
Today has been an emotional day for all of us. Indeed it has been a day of reflection as we pay tribute to a leader who took on his role in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada with great courage and integrity, a Party that has been among the most successful of political organizations in the free world. However, continued success demands renewal and we began that renewal in 1984. In 1984 some said that, after decades of political success, our Party was destined for oblivion. The last chapter of the Liberal Party of Canada had been written. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), as recently as last fall a similar prediction was made.
Mr. Speaker, John Turner, by the force of his will, by the depth of his commitment and by the power of his passion turned back those predictions and leaves this Party today a dynamic and renewed organization all across Canada, and for that we thank him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have a saying in Newfoundland that the measure of a captain is not how well he sails his ship in calm waters, but rather how well he sails his ship through the storm. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it another way. He said: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Leader, on behalf of Liberals everywhere, I am proud to say that notwithstanding the moments of challenge and controversy, and Lord knows there have been a few of them, we were proud to stand with you, Sir, and we thank you for your contribution to Parliament, to our Party, and to the country.

May 3, 1989
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner
On March 16, 1984, upon his return to public life, the Right Eton. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated: "I have always believed that every Canadian has a duty to serve our country. Public service is a high calling. It is a way I can give back to my country a small measure of what it has given me-I have no magic wand. I have no instant solutions. But I do make a pledge. I will make whatever sacrifices are necessary. I will devote myself to my country. I will not flinch from the tough decisions. You will know where I stand".
Those are not partisan words. They are the words of a proud son of Canada, and they are a challenge to every single one of us in this place. John Turner has lived up to the standard he set for himself. As Parliamentarians, we would all do well to seek to follow his example. We give our best to his wife, Geills, his family and, of course, to you, Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I had the opportunity to introduce the Right Hon. John Turner in Montreal. I would like to repeat today some of what I said: a man of courage, a man with presence, a great Parliamentarian, as the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker often said-and you know, John Diefenbaker was occasionally right-a man of principles, a man who through all sorts of challenges maintained his commitment to serving Canada, the ideal of Canada, what it represents for all of us, a different country, more free, more egalitarian and more humane.
Mr. Turner, you are deeply attached to Quebec, not only because some members of your family still have roots there, your sister Brenda has always lived in Montreal for-dare I say-more than 30 years, but also because you know that Quebec's place in Canada is unique and for all these years, you have always acted to guarantee this special position.
A man's strength of character is judged in adversity. I have been a living witness to it. Indeed, your patience, your composure during the difficult storms of these years, 1984 to 1989, and also the courage with which you bore and accepted a difficult physical condition during the last election campaign have earned you the respect and sympathy of all Canadians.
You gave your support to the Meech Lake Agreement and you never wavered in your decision, despite the unfavourable reaction this brought you from many quarters, and for this we thank you. You understood-I repeat-you understood that the Canadian federation is
always in the making. For this, we thank you and I thank you.
You began your political career in Montreal in 1962, as Member for Parliament for St. Lawrence-St. George, which helped you to become quite familiar with the distinct character of Montrealers and Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, a politican is never alone in life, and on behalf of all Canadians, I wish to thank his wife Geills, as well as his children Elizabeth, Michael, David and Andrew for sharing him with us. Thanks!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Tbrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, you will understand fully when I say that over the years I have found that the goodbyes in this place are far more generous and spontaneous than the hellos.
Notwithstanding, I am very touched by the words of three old friends of mine: the Deputy Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and my colleague and friend of 30 years, the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and particularly the reference to our shared mission in the House of Commons to which I will refer in a moment.

I must also thank my colleagues, the members of the caucus, the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) as well as the longest serving Member of the House, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), for their most generous words.

I was particularly touched by what the Minister of Forestry and the Member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) had to say, and the Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett). I consider it a privilege to represent our province and I am particularly sensitive to the way they address this House before your Honour.
I am not going to allow the record to stand unchallenged, however. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker. You understand what it is to seek salmon on both coasts, and I want to tell the Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) the question before the House will always be: Who had the matches, who killed the salmon, who had the bottle?
May 3, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Who saved whom? Let it be a warning to any Member who ventures into the outdoors to go properly equipped.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you are allowing me the indulgence of the House. We are interrupting the public time of the country, but before I address a few short matters I want to thank Geills and the family for all the support they have given me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I was extremely touched by what all Hon. Members said about the House of Commons, because for me as well as for everyone here, the greatest privilege for a Canadian is to be elected by his or her fellow citizens to the House of Commons. I always told my colleagues, especially the youngest ones: "Be careful, respect others." We must respect the other Members of whatever party because everyone here, each and every one of us, represents Canadians as a result of an election in a highly free country.

This is and remains the forum of the nation. This is the highest court in the land. This is the place where finally issues must be decided.
I know, from time to time, critics and members of the media and those who watch Question Period wonder what we are doing here. Yes, it should be a legislative workshop, as there is business to be accomplished on behalf of the people of Canada. But the word Parliament, taken from the Norman, was well chosen. This is theatre, this is debate. It is the freest Chamber in the free world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is unruly at times, but it is untrammelled and uncensored, and unpredictable.
I had a very good question from Gail Morris in the press conference today. She asked me my impressions of what had changed during my years here. I think the most
Tribute to Right Hon. John Turner
fundamental influence, of course, is television as it reflects on the proceedings of the House. I welcome that change. I think we all do. It converts the House of Commons again into a town hall, a forum for the people.
But it has changed the elements of the House. You and I were talking about it, Mr. Speaker. Question Period has become the dominant issue and period of focus of the people as it relates to the House of Commons. I think we should recognize that. Perhaps it should be extended so that all Members of the House, particularly members on the Government side, can participate more fully in it. I think we ought to extend statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 to allow individual Members of Parliament to make their points of view.
I have always felt, to continue the excellent work of Jim McGrath, now the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we ought to examine whether fewer issues remain issues of confidence so that there is more liberty of expression and freedom of registering our votes in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think there are ways of maintaining the relevance of this place, and increasing it, because it disturbs me that while the House is full during Question Period, as it properly should be, with Members from all sides of the House, the House is not as full as it might be during principal debates, the Throne Speech, the Budget and debate on second reading of principal pieces of legislation, reflecting the importance of issue we are debating here. There must be ways, under your guidance, that we can re-enhance the relevance of this place. I know how strongly you and I feel about it, Mr. Speaker.
In any event, the Member for Vegreville, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), mentioned the late John George Diefenbaker. I say this not in any pompous way, I hope, but I remind particularly our young Members of Parliament from all sides of the House that Mr. Diefenbaker used to say: "Don't neglect this place, spend your time here. It may take many years to build up a reputation in the House of Commons but you can lose it in one day". That is the importance of this place, and it is one place I am really going to miss.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 3, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Before we commence Question Period, I should point out that it will continue in just a moment for the usual 45 minutes.
I want to say something to a number of Members on both sides of the House who came to me and would have wanted very much to make an intervention on this occasion in which we have all joined together. It was my decision, of course, to finally say that perhaps, at least for now, we have heard all that is appropriate under the circumstances. As the right hon. gentleman we praised today pointed out, we have the business of the country to proceed with.
I would not remark on this very often, but I want to say to Hon. Members that given the hour there will have to be the absence of some members of the Cabinet because of prior obligations. I hope that under all the circumstances Hon. Members will exercise care and courtesy in not making a point of that.
However, we are running 45 minutes late now. Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as you have urged, we will get back to the public business of the country. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Even in this Canada of ours, more than three million people live in poverty. Over one million children live in poverty, 40 per cent of single or widowed women live under the poverty line. When we should be helping to lift our fellow Canadians beyond the poverty line and out of poverty, how can the Minister justify the fact that since he has been Minister of Finance he has raised the taxes of people living at the poverty line by 60 per cent? Meanwhile, those with incomes of $100,000 have had an increase of only eight per cent. What kind of fairness does he think this represents and what kind of vision of Canada does he think it represents?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will recall that-I do not have the figures right off the top of my head-some 250,000 or 300,000 fewer people are living under
the poverty line since we came to office in 1984. We have also introduced a number of changes that respond to the needs of these people. The refundable sales tax credit was something that was introduced by this Government and has been increased in two consecutive Budgets. We have also increased the value of the child tax credit. In a number of ways, we have responded to the needs of these people.
Finally, let me say that through tax reform we have taken 850,000 people who are at the lower end of the income scale off the tax rolls. Again, I think that demonstrates our concerns to which the Hon. Member refers.


THE BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, referring to the Minister's own figures as contained in five successive Budgets, the cumulative tax increase for a couple with one earner, two children, earning $23,600-which is the poverty line-over five years of his custody of the finances of this country has been 60 per cent.
As a result of this Budget, the federal Government will contribute $4 billion less through the provinces for health care and post-secondary education. How can the Minister justify fewer spaces and higher tuition fees for our colleges and universities? How can he justify longer lists of people waiting to get into our hospitals? How can he justify inevitably lower quality health care for Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to questions along those lines in previous meetings of the House of Commons. I say to the Hon. Member, he has chastised me roundly for the increase in the debt of this country in recent years. He knows full well that the only way that you can stop the debt from growing is to get the annual deficit down to zero. I have yet to hear any alternatives from the Hon. Member as to how we will get that debt down to zero.
We have had criticism time and time again of the measures that we have taken, measures that are regarded by many commentators across this country as evenly spread, as balanced in their impact, and what we are trying to do is solve this debt problem so that we can maintain the very programs that the hon. gentleman himself is saying we should maintain.

May 3, 1989

Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we recognize, as does the Minister, the problem of the public debt and the annual deficit and what he has contributed to it. We say to him that when he cuts both, "Don't do it on the backs of the weak, the unemployed or the weaker regions of the country or the handicapped." Don't do it that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JUSTIFICATION OF BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, more than half of Canada's single mothers raise their children on incomes that are below the poverty line.
How can the Minister of Finance justicy cutbacks that are adding to the burden of families and children, and especially to that of our poorest provinces?
Why didn't he keep his promises to the neediest in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying that we are hurting the provinces which are the poorest. We have kept in place the equalization program which goes specifically to the poorer provinces in the country.


John Napier Turner: There is a statute there you can't touch.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says there is a statute there, we can't touch it. This House, and as the Hon. Member, a fine Parliamentarian, knows, laws can be changed, but we are respecting the needs of the provinces. We are respecting the needs of the provinces which are in the lower income areas of the country because of the very concerns that the Hon. Member has expressed. In this Budget we are bringing in a large corporations tax which will raise $1 billion, to be paid by large corporations. We brought in a high-income surtax, specifically to put a heavier burden on those parts of the country, those people, those companies that are best able to bear the burden.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, the primary objective of this Budget is to ensure that we can retain the services important to people with lower incomes and who are in the less well off regions of the country.


REDUCTION OF SPENDING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, Therese Lavoie-Roux, the Quebec Liberal Government's Minister responsible for family policy, attacked the Budget of the Minister of Finance, saying it was anti-family. She quoted items that make it an anti-family budget: recovery of family allowance; deindexation of family allowance; cutbacks in spending on health and education; and the new sales tax on new homes that will affect young couples.
Could the Minister inform the House why he brought down an anti-family Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I reject that commentary on the Budget. Family allowance cheques will be received by 100 per cent of the people who are eligible to receive them. That continues. The universal character is maintained. The Hon. Member refers to Established Programs Financing. That, as I said yesterday, will increase by $25 billion over the course of the next five years relative to the last five years.
Finally, his comments are quite wrong as they relate to the cost of housing. We have made a commitment which is repeated in the Budget papers which states that if there is an affordability problem, we will take action to offset that affordability problem. The details will be made known in the next few months.


ALLEGED REGRESSIVE FAMILY POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refuses to understand, refuses to admit that one of the major problems in Canada is our declining birthrate.
The Minister ought to realize, considering what it costs today to raise children, that we need a generous family policy, not a regressive one.
The Minister deindexed family allowance payments, and now he has started to recover those payments, starting at a certain income level. Today, he is going after people with high incomes. Next year, when he needs extra money, he will go down to $20,000 or $25,000.

May 3, 1989
Oral Questions
Could the Minister explain why he did not look at other ways of reducing his deficit instead of going after Canadian families?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the best encouragements for people to start a family and raise children is to have a job and the assurance that that job will be there and will pay more. If people have jobs and are trained as a result of the substantial increase in the moneys that we have made available, these are what are important to families. This will give people the confidence that there is a strong future for them.
Let me remind the Hon. Member-he is shaking his head. I do not think there are many people in the country shaking their heads, having seen a million and a half more people with jobs. I see the Hon. Member nodding. He agrees with me.


Jean-Claude Malépart: No.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are a million and a half more people who have jobs today. That situation is giving people the confidence to build and grow and leave a better country for their children.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. One hundred and four years ago, under a Conservative Government, the last spike was driven to connect one end of this country to the other by rail. This morning the Minister of Transport delivered the last spike to the heart of VIA Rail by announcing the subsidy restrictions for the next number of years. Will the Minister confirm that the result of the subsidy level for 1993-94 is that VIA will only have sufficient funds to provide for those nine protected services, and therefore will not have the money to operate the Transcontinental, the Atlantic, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor and a number of other routes in this country? Will he confirm that that is the result of his decision?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm anything which has been said. TTiis morning, I gave some reference levels to the Board of Directors of VIA Rail which correspond to the reality
of the finances of this country, something we always have to keep in mind. I totally share the concern of the Minister of Finance. Transport Canada has to consider that also. We have set the new reference levels that the Government of Canada can provide to VIA Rail. Within those reference levels we would like to have proposals or options which will permit not only what the Board of Directors of VIA Rail want, but can afford. I believe that not only this Government but also the Member will have to consider the affordability of what we do in Canada with regard to transportation.


CUTS TO VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since 1986 this Government has systematically undermined VIA Rail's ability to improve its service and to reduce the cost to taxpayers. It refused to give VIA the equipment it needed in order to turn it into a modem passenger rail system. It did not give it legislation. It has now fired the President of VIA Rail, who had the guts to oppose this Conservative Government's policy.
Will the Minister go back to Cabinet and say: "This does not make sense. I do not want to be the Minister who goes down in history as having destroyed passenger rail in this country''.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if my friend wants me to talk about history, I will. It is true that 122 years ago this country was built by transportation-


An Hon. Member:: Still is.


Benoît Bouchard: Can you listen, please, it is important. The decisions of today will be the past tomorrow. I do not want to give your children and my children a past made up of debts, deficit and inflation. I would not be proud of that kind of heritage for my children.


ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RAIL TRANSIT
Iain Francis Angus: When one looks at transportation in this country, one recognizes that from an environmental point of view rail passenger transportation is the most environmentally sound opportunity we have.
Is the Minister suggesting that he is more willing to conserve the dollars and cents of the Minister of Finance than the environmental health of this countiy by forcing people to drive on highways instead of riding the rails? Is that what he is suggesting to the people of Canada?
May 3, 1989


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the point raised by the Hon. Member with respect to the environment deserves futher comment. What we are saying, what we said and what we intend to repeat to the corporation's board of directors, first of all, and to Canadians in general, is that we can no longer afford to invest $650 million annualy in a mode of transportation that is used by 3 to 5 per cent of the population. We must ensure that the modes of transportation used by Canadians have a financial structure that the Government can afford to support. We must not be unrealistic, Mr. Speaker. We can no longer afford what we have been paying during the past ten years in terms of subsidies to VIA Rail.


VIA RAIL-POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber

St. Barbe-Baie Verte):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. We noted last week some $500 million in cuts in VIA subsidies over the next five years. This morning the Minister of Transport fired the chief executive officer of VIA Rail because the chief executive officer believes that those cuts are inconsistent with the notion of maintaining a VIA Rail passenger service in this country.
Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: My question to the Minister of Transport is a straightforward one. Is the Minister of Transport prepared to come clean with the people of Canada today and admit that the reason he fired the chief executive officer is that the Government of Canada has decided to close down VIA Rail's operations entirely in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government of Canada does not have the courage to make a clean statement. The president left because the cuts are inconsistent with maintaining a rail passenger service in Canada.


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


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not pound the desk. It is not the way to convince Canadians who do not believe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: I would like to say that there was an agreement with Mr. de Belleval that his departure would be appropriate in light of the fact that we had a new mandate with VIA Rail and it was not what he had exposed to Canadians in the last three months.
I met Mr. de Belleval this morning and I believe that he understands our position. You can yell and scream and say what you want, you will not change the reality of the finances of this country that you are responsible for.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister can twist and turn all he wants and he will not hide the hypocrisy of his answer today in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is no courage in scurrying away like an anxious crab from the truth.


PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE-TAKEOVER BY PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: would like to ask the Minister of Transport, what other conclusion can Canadians come to other than this Government, despite all its promises both during the election and over the last dozen years, is abandoning VIA Rail, when we see the Minister of Transport of Canada promoting the notion in Canada's newspapers that the provinces and municipalities ought to take over the rail passenger service in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I ask the Minister again, why does he not come clean? Why is it Mr. de Belleval is fired but Mr. Hanigan, a former Tory candidate is kept on as chairman of the board of VIA Rail?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I already said in English. Mr. de Belleval and I agreed that considering the positions he had taken, it was preferable for him to resign, and that is what he did. The Hon. Member has already made up his mind about the options that VIA Rail will propose to the Government. I have not. This morning I told the board of directors: Submit proposals that you feel are appropriate, considering the financial reference level we are giving you, we will listen. That is what I said, and that is what I can do, Mr. Speaker.

May 3, 1989
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has stated that as a result of his Budget, growth in Canada's economy will slow and unemployment will increase next year. Analysts are now forecasting a drop in our economic growth of at least one full percentage point from over what it would have been without this Budget.
How can the Minister cut expenditures, raise taxes, keep interest rates high, and hope that the economy will somehow continue to grow at a healthy rate?
Will the Minister admit that his Budget is deliberately slowing growth in our economy, causing more inflation and causing yet more unemployment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote a very learned observer who said:
The solution is quite simply for the Government to demonstrate a real ability to cut spending and to increase taxes-not very palatable ideas but necessary nevertheless-there are no magic solutions, MacLaren said.
That is a quote from the Hon. Member who has just asked the question. It is all very well to stand up on his hind legs and criticize, criticize, criticize, but Canadians are not going to be fooled. They can read what the Hon. Member said just three weeks ago and they know that the criticism is going to get nowhere.
What we are looking for in Canada today is an honest debate on the issues so we can understand where we are going as a country, where we are going as a people. I will answer the question if you will give me a little more time.


An Hon. Member:: Where were you during the campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. Members opposite have been critical of the high interest rates in this country. They are saying we should get interest rates down. This is a Budget designed to get interest rates down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Now the Hon. Members say that that will not happen. This is designed to get interest rates down. I listen carefully to what Hon. Members say, and they say you cannot have it both ways. If we want to get interest rates down, we have to attack the fundamental causes of why interest rates are high. That is what this Budget does.


INTEREST RATES-INFLATIONARY EFFECT'S
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that we must get interest rates down. I agree with him, but he himself in his Budget is forecasting that interest rates will average 12 per cent this year. We are already into the fifth month of the year. Interest rates remain in excess of 12 per cent.
Given that the Minister predicts higher inflation while at the same time the Governor of the Bank of Canada has stated that inflation requires the imposition of yet higher interest rates, can the Minister explain somehow how anyone can believe that interest rates will drop before the end of this year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows, because I have another quote from him here, saying that lower inflation is essential to getting better productivity and lower interest rates. He is asking why we have not got interest rates down. The Budget was only presented last week. We cannot expect that just overnight, bang, things will happen, but the Hon. Member knows that the essential components of this Budget are designed to get interest rates down. We know the importance of getting interest rates down as demonstrated by the tremendous record of success we had in the last four years in which a million and a half jobs were created. Ibis is our objective and this Budget is designed to repeat that great record.
May 3, 1989

Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. The Canadian Housing Renewal Association has said that the killing of the rental residential rehabilitation program will result in the decline of the living conditions of many low and moderate-income Canadians. This is the only major program that allows municipal and local Governments to upgrade substandard housing, to prevent conversions to high rise and high expense condominiums or to prevent demolition. What action will the Minister now take to help those thousands of Canadians, including children, who are caught in the housing crisis and who are being made homeless? Why not just keep this program?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that I am as unhappy as he is, and in fact, the Government is as unhappy as he is with having to reduce spending on this particular social housing program. At the same time, the Hon. Member is aware and all Canadians are aware that a few years ago, 18 cents out of every dollar the Government took in went to pay for interest on the national debt. Last year, it was 31 cents out of every dollar. This year it will be 35 cents. Before very long, there will not be any social housing programs if that keeps up. In order to make sure that we are going to preserve social housing programs in Canada, we have to take action on that deficit.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, at the rate this Government is going, there sure will not be any social programs left in this country.


SOCIAL HOUSING-IMPACT OF BUDGET
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister. This Budget has cut needed social housing programs, has increased taxes on homes and has done everything to drive up interest rates rather than bring them down to make housing affordable. Can the Minister point to one single thing in this Budget that will actually provide Canadians with affordable housing?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would examine the Estimates and the Budget very carefully, he would find that in fact, the Budget for social housing last year was $1.6 billion. This year it is $1.7 billion. There has actually been a $100 million increase in the social housing budget.


FORESTRY
Mr. Guy H. Arsenault (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On a number of occasions in the past, the Prime Minister promised people in the forestry sector that he would give the industry the attention it deserved, considering its importance to Canada's economy. The Prime Minister also promised to establish a department that would be responsible for forestry. The Budget tells another story. It shows cutbacks of $28 million and 44 person years.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister's commitments to the forestry sector were only empty promises? And how can he explain the cutbacks, in view of those commitments?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be helpful to put the matter in the proper context. The Hon. Member is comparing what he has read in the Estimates with standards that were established by this Government and by this Prime Minister. There has been the restoration of the Canadian forest service to its rightful place as a full Department and accomplishments have been made in developing a forest sector strategy. There is a committee of Ministers that meets on a regular basis to plan future long-term integrated forest management policies that will not only preserve the commercial values of our forests but also the non-timber assets and will manage them properly. If the Hon. Member would read the information that I have sent him, he would know that there will not be a cut in the forestry budget but a significant increase once the establishment of the new Ministry and the separation from its previous Department is complete.


FOREST RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Guy H. Arseneault: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. In the past, the Minister has stated how successfully the forest resource development agreements have functioned. Last year's Estimates for the agreements were $139 million. This year's Estimates reduce that amount by 25 per cent and next year's projections reduce that figure by 66 per cent. Can the Minister explain to the 5,000 people in New Brunswick who stand to lose their jobs if the agreements are not renegotiated why the agreements have been so severely cut? Moreover, does the Government have the intention of eliminating these agreements all together, and can he

May 3, 1989
Oral Questions
justify the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across Canada?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has recognized the important achievements that have been made over the last four years. Hundreds of millions of seedlings have been planted, literally thousands of jobs have been created in silviculture and in forest farming. Hundreds of millions of hectares of land have been restocked and are treated effectively now, and of course, six of the agreements that have expired are presently being renegotiated with the provinces, and hopefully quite soon we will be in a position to enter into a new generation of those kinds of co-operative agreements that have proven so successful in the past.


TRANSPORT CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns the Conservative Government's decision to cancel its plan to relocate Transport Canada to new accommodation. Could the Minister inform the House why the Government provoked this whole controversy by cancelling the bidding process? And above all, could he explain why the Government has decided to negotiate with only one party, Mr. Robert Campeau, who supports the Prime Minister's free trade policy, instead of using a more democratic and more open system, which is the bidding process?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very important decision and it falls into the general constraints that this Budget has placed on my Department along with other Departments. This decision was not one that was easily taken, but it was part of the budgetary process and reflects the general constraints that were placed on public works.


Don Boudria: I guess this is what the Prime Minister used to call "you dance with the one that brung you".


RENEWAL OF LEASE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister says in his Budget Papers that the cancellation of this particular item will result in a saving of $2 million. Given that the renewal of the existing lease will not result in any saving and as a matter of fact will be more expensive than getting a different lease according to the bids already known, why did the Minister of Finance pretend in his Budget to save money when he is spending more money?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, would that this question were as simplistic to answer as the Hon. Member thinks it is, this particular Public Works project along with others have been curtailed.
There have been projects curtailed in Vancouver and in other parts of the country. It is by no means certain, depending on what statistics you use, that the savings the Hon. Member attributes to continuing the project would be any more than cancelling the project. It depends on whose statistics you believe and whose arguments you accept. He is having the same problem in his own Party, as he knows.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
I am sure that all Members of this House applaud the Minister's fight against the drug problem. However, the Minister was quoted in a number of articles last week as saying that the Government is seriously considering pursuing the policy of zero tolerance as a method of combating the drug problem in Canada.
Considering the less than successful record of this extremely controversial program in the United States, is the Minister so naive as to believe that zero tolerance alone will resolve the drug problem in Canada?
May 3, 1989


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government is committed to the most comprehensive and broad program dealing with the serious drug problem, by virtue of the fact of the establishment of the national drug strategy.
To set the record straight, I will quote very briefly from what I said last week: "We will be looking at all options available to us including the pros and cons of zero tolerance". I will not be dissuaded by anybody anywhere in looking at every possibility to reduce the use of illegal drugs in Canada.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In privatizing Air Canada, the first annual meeting of Air Canada shareholders was told last week that the chairman and president of the airline were receiving interest-free loans to buy 275,000 shares at the original price of $8 per share. With these shares worth $11.50 today, the profits for these two people will be over $970,000, all based on interest-free loans.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance who votes the shares which the Government controls in Air Canada: Why was it that the Government did not vote its 55 per cent present share in Air Canada against these grossly generous benefits to two wealthy Canadians?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. In the prospectus that was presented to the Canadian people back some six and a half months ago, it was made very clear at that time to all the security commissions across this country that the Government of Canada, in its 55 per cent share of Air Canada, would not vote those shares. We have kept our commitment.


EFFECTS OF PRIVATIZATION OF AIRLINE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he and the Government consider it fair and just that $975,000 should be made in profit by two individuals at the top, while ordinary Canadians receive no interest-free loans and face in fact cuts in the service to their communities because of Air Canada's change to private ownership?
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question because it gives me the opportunity to tell Canadians that the initial issue of Air Canada went to 130,000 ordinary Canadians from coast to coast.
All provinces and all territories were represented as shareholders, over 130,000 of them. They are very happy with that opportunity. There will be an opportunity some time in the future for all Canadians to participate in more share issues in Air Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
During the last two and a half years, we have heard a great deal of bombast about securing our markets in the United States through the flawed one-sided trade deal. Could the Minister tell us what went wrong with secured access to the markets when the United States is allowed under its laws to slap Canadian pork producers with a penalty of 7.7 cents per kilogram on pork from Canada exported to the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that this issue was occurring before the Free Trade Agreement came into place. The countervail action was in fact being examined then. The preliminary determination of 3.5 cents per pound has been levied. It does not have to be paid, however, and the Government of Canada and the Minister for International Trade are fighting this issue. We believe that we are on solid ground.


ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKETS
Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the United States trade remedy laws are still intact, that the omnibus trade bill was passed by the United States Congress in December, and that our access to the United States markets is no more secured now than it was five years ago, will the Minister admit that he misled the pork producers of Canada and that instead of negotiating a free trade deal he bought a pig in a poke?

May 3, 1989
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to misleading, we can take lessons from the Hon. gentleman himself because we heard a lot of that during the last election campaign.
I might remind the Hon. Member that our trade laws are in place as are the U.S. trade laws. At the present time we have a countervail against U.S. com, so we are applying our law in a similar manner. If we think there are unfair trading practices, we have the laws in place and the mechanisms in place to protect our producers. We are going to fight this issue because we believe that on the point of law at issue here we are on solid ground.


LOSSES SUFFERED BY PORK PRODUCERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefiford):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
I wish the Minister would explain why this action was taken on January 5, five days after the Free Trade Agreement was ratified, and I would like to ask the Minister what he has to say to hog producers who are already losing money when they sell at 53 cents or 54 cents a pound. How can he explain those additional three and a half cents? And how are producers going to react to this loss? What can they do to make up for it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member better get his facts together because there is not a 3.5 cent per pound countervail duty being assessed right now. That is a preliminary determination. We are fighting it, and it is not being paid at the present time.


AID TO PORK PRODUCERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The threat of a three and a half cent levy hangs over the heads of all Quebec hog producers. The Minister of State spent all last year promising Quebec producers free access to the U.S. market, when he told hog producers: There is no problem; you can sell on the U.S. market without any surtax. But what about today? How can they still tell producers there is no problem? There is a problem. Forty-five days from now, they will have to save enough money to pay that surtax.
So there is a real loss of three and a half cents. What will the Government offer producers to make up for that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will talk about secure access. We are the largest exporter of pork into the United States market. We enjoy that market, and we are going to continue to have it.
There will be trade disputes that arise from time to time, but under the Free Trade Agreement we have another opportunity under the dispute resolving mechanism to deal with this issue in a fair and equitable way. That is something we did not have before.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows that there is a tremendous need, particularly in southern Saskatchewan, right across the Prairies for assistance in the soil conservation program.
The Minister also knows that an agreement has been sitting on his desk, an agreement between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal Government. Is the Minister prepared to tell the House and the farmers of Saskatchewan whether that agreement is to be signed and when he will make that announcement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the farmers of Saskatchewan will be glad to note that the Hon. Member is concerned about soil and water conservation and the adequate provision of water in the Province of Saskatchewan. I am sure the farmers out there will be very happy about that.
It is true that we do have a soil and water conservation program which was announced in December 1987. We have been working with the provinces in a joint arrangement to put together projects that would be suitable under the provisions of that policy. Yes, there have been ongoing discussions with the Province of Saskatchewan, and there is a proposal before us now that we are examining very closely. As soon as we can get through the process of examining it to ensure that it complies with all the criteria, we will take the necessary action.
May 3, 1989


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am afraid that that answer is not good enough for the farmers of Saskatchewan.


RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the past agreement has expired. The Minister also knows that every day which passes without the announcement of that program means there will be no soil conservation projects in Saskatchewan this year. It is getting too late. In fact for most farmers it is already too late. There have been dust storms in Saskatchewan; last week in my constituency there were dust storms. We need this program.
Could the Minister explain what earthly reason there is that that program has not been announced in order that there can be soil conservation programs this year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the program was announced in 1987. It is now 1989. We have the proposal on our desks right now and we are examining it.
I will simply tell the Hon. Member that we are going to do this right to ensure that it complies with the criteria. As soon as that examination is complete, we will take the necessary action.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During the last federal election many constituents in my riding, and indeed across the country, complained of not being enumerated.
When will the Deputy Prime Minister appoint a commission to study reform of the Elections Act?
Introduction of Bills


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Hon. Member's question, the Chief Electoral Officer made the point very clearly that had the provisions of the Bill tabled before the House in the last Parliament been approved, 85 per cent or 95 per cent of the problems would have been cured.
The Opposition wanted to inject other items into that particular piece of legislation upon which there could be no agreement. As a result many Canadians were denied the opportunity to vote.
We are examining that issue very closely to see whether in fact we can bring in emergency legislation to deal with that particular issue. Today we are also looking very closely at the terms of reference for the commission, as well as names of people who could conduct it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture concerning Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pari-mutuel betting).
This is the first Bill reported to this Session of Parliament. The speed of its return is a mark of the industry of the committee and, indeed, of our excellent clerks and researchers.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 341 have the duty to present to the House a report, in both official languages, on the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of Commonwealth Parliaments, held in Malta on March 27 and March 28, 1989.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

May 3, 1989
Petitions


MUSEUMS ACT
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences of sexual nature).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, the current justice system unfairly treats victims of sexual offences in particular. The two measures outlined in this Bill will address that inequity, to a degree.
The first measure will assure victims that their right to privacy is given consideration. The second will require that defence attorneys must prove to a justice that their clients are not a hazard to their victims or other members of the public.


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

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that 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, be read the first time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for this motion being put to the House immediately without debate. I move:
That the House not sit on Friday, June 23,1989, in consideration of St. John Baptist Day the following day; and That, for the purposes of Standing Order 27(1), respecting extension of sitting hours in June, Thursday, June 15, 1989, be the day on which a motion for such extension may be proposed for that period from Friday, June 16, 1989 to Friday, June 30, 1989.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Government House Leader have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order
36.
The petitioners are concerned that Canadian films represent only 3 per cent of total screen time in Canadian theatres, that 95 per cent of all film profits go to the United States, and that only 3 per cent of video cassette sales in Canada are of Canadian produced videos.
May 3, 1989

They are asking Parliament to enact film distribution legislation which would give Canadians control over film distribution in Canada and would give Canadian film makers a genuine opportunity to have their work seen in their own country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners point out that one out of every ten Canadian women is beaten by the man she lives with, that one woman in four is sexually assaulted or abused, and that every 17 minutes a Canadian woman receives some sort of sexual assault.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to ensure that women have alternatives to protect themselves and their children from violence, to consider the advisability of increasing funding for transition homes and advocacy centres, and to ensure that women receive greater protection under the new laws.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Motions for Papers stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Budget-Mr. Loiselle



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 28, 1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government and of the amendment of Mr. MacLaren: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House regrets that the Government has imposed unfair taxes and has cut vital programs, including child care, regional development and agriculture, in an effort to reduce its annual deficit, despite the fact that this effort has been rendered futile by the Government's ill-conceived high interest rate policy; and
That this House condemns the Government for pursuing these policies that fall most onerously upon lower and middle-income Canadians and that are certain to hinder the further development of the Canadian economy."
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Nystrom, seconded by Mr. Riis,-That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and this House further condemns the government
1)	for imposing the greatest new tax burden on Canadian families in recent times;
2)	for reneging on its commitment to develop regional equality;
3)	for continuing and increasing the unfairness of the tax system; and
4)	for eroding the universality of vital social programs."
Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today in support of the Budget my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled last week. This is an important budget for the future of Canada. It deals with what we must do as a government and as a country to maintain social programs and the high standard of living Canadians wish for themselves and for their children.
This Budget, Mr. Speaker, deals with what we must do to face challenges and make the most of the opportunities offered by a changing world, what we must do to affirm our sovereignty, that of a mature and confident nation, and, finally, to meet the new and ongoing priorities of our country.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Loiselle
What kind of Canada will we leave our children? A Canada with social programs to which we are attached. We must leave them a high standard of living and we must leave them economic freedom, sovereignty at home and respect abroad, as well as a sensitive, reasonable and responsible government. That is the Canada we must leave our children. And the Budget, Mr. Speaker, is designed to attack a major national problem that prevents Canadians from having a better future for themselves and their children. This problem is our large and growing national debt.
Only 20 years ago, Canada had no deficit and our total national debt after a century of Confederation was just $18 billion. The service charges on our debt were well within our means. The problem began shortly after, about twenty years ago, the problem of annual deficits. They were relatively small at first, but year by year they increased and started to be a burden. By 1984, the debt had grown from $18 billion to nearly $200 billion. The annual deficit exceeded $38 billion.
At the present time, the $320-billion debt puts great pressure on the economy and on our ability to provide Canadians with the social programs that set us apart. The sad reality of the debt is that it traps the country in a vicious circle. Every year, a greater effort is required of Canadians to produce additional revenue just to pay the interest on a growing debt.
The question all Hon. Members must ask themselves is whether we have the right to leave this huge debt as a heritage for future generations. It is easy to borrow from future generations, Mr. Speaker, because they have no say in the matter. They do not have a vote. However, they will have to suffer the consequences if we do not act.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government was aware of the seriousness of the debt problem when it took office four and a half years ago. We took measures to control this problem. We eliminated programs that were no longer useful. We reduced waste and made government more efficient. Total program expenditures declined as a proportion of national revenue.
We also put an end to tax loopholes for businesses and high-income individuals. We reduced the annual deficit and it has declined sharply in relation to national income. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, the
deficit was $28.9 billion, nearly $9.5 billion less than it was in 1984-85.
Our budget program was implemented as part of a comprehensive long-term plan to give the economy the dynamism it needs in a rapidly changing world that is increasingly competitive. Since 1984, we have been laying solid foundations for Canadians' economic potential.
We have modernized the regulatory framework for business. We have reformed the federal tax system and negotiated the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. We have encouraged research and development and improved occupational training programs. Thanks to our action on the economy, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to create a climate where Canadians can face the economic challenges of a world of merciless competition.

The record shows just how well Canadians responded. Since 1984, Canadians have created 1.5 million new jobs and our economy has expanded faster than most other industrial nations. We made this progress together as a Government and as a nation because we made tough choices and we took strong actions to deal with our fiscal and economic problems.
The overriding fiscal policy objective of this Government is to continue getting the public debt under control through deficit reduction and to reinforce the policies that have helped to achieve our record of fiscal progress.
However, that progress is at risk because of rising inflationary pressures here and in other countries. In response to these pressures short-term interest rates have risen. They will be much higher this year than was widely expected even a few months ago. In early 1988, most economic forecasters expected that the world stock market plunge of October 1987 would slow the growth of industrial economies to more sustainable levels. Nowhere, not in Canada or any of the major industrialized countries, did forecasters project the rapid growth and inflationary pressures that emerged. Growth has been very strong and monetary policy has tightened in Canada and abroad to contain inflation. We must not forget the explosion of inflation and interest rates in the early 1980s, the shattering of economic confidence, the collapse of economic growth and employment in every region of Canada and, above all, the enormous damage inflicted on the lives of millions of Canadians.
May 3, 1989

The then Government may well have taken the inflation threat with a grain of salt, but we do not intend to make the same mistake. At stake is nothing less than our capacity as a Government and as a country to maintain the high standard of living and the quality of life which Canadians rightfully expect.
To protect and strengthen that capacity we must implement firm, moderate and cohesive fiscal and monetary measures which will keep us on a right course towards lower inflation and interest rate reductions. Our policy has to be realistic and responsible, where shortterm risks and mid-term objectives strike a proper balance.
In the long term we will continue to lay the foundations of economic progress by following a well-balanced program of financial and economic measures. We will be taking major economic initiatives such as implementing our strategy, making better use of our labour force, revamping the federal sales tax system, and launching the last stage of the financial institution regulation reform which I will be proud to introduce in the House.
We will embark upon a reform of the tax system concerning retirement savings. We will advocate greater liberalization of international trade in our multilateral trade negotiations. We will seek to develop our country by promoting a productive and economically sound agricultural sector. And we intend to privatize more Crown corporations and take steps to ensure that our environment does not fall victim to economic growth.
A sound economy is needed if we are to achieve our goals over the coming years. It will provide more and better jobs, making it possible to respond to the social and cultural priorities of Canadians. However we will fall far short of our objective if we do not come to grips with the threat of our ever growing public debt. We cannot possibly gain control over the debt if our economy falters, but that alone is not enough. Other measures must be taken to reach our economic and financial objectives.
We have made difficult choices in this Budget. We did our best to ensure that the measures as a whole are balanced, that they take regional conditions into consideration, and that they shift some of the burden onto the
The Budget-Mr. Loiselle
shoulders of those who are in a better position to carry the extra weight. We will not reduce the debt on the backs of less fortunate Canadians.
The Budget contains a wide array of cut-backs in public outlays and measures designed to boost revenues. After implementation, expenditures will be down by roughly $2.5 billion a year.
Mr. Speaker, let me give a few examples. First there will be reduced expenditures with regards to government operations, business subsidies and other transfers, and payments to Crown corporations. We will not go ahead with the purchase of nuclear powered submarines. Individuals whose net income exceeds $50,000 will refund trough the tax system their old age security benefits and family allowances payments.
This however maintains the universality of those transfer programs. Every eligible person will continue to receive his or her benefits. Those moves go one step further in the cost control initiatives taken since 1984.
Through those and previous moves, program expenditures have gone down from 19.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product five years ago to 16 per cent this year. They continue on going down till 1993-94 to reach a level slightly higher than 15 per cent, the lowest in 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, on the revenue side Budget initiatives are placing a heavier burden on taxpayers who can afford it. And these moves are distributed over a number of sources.
In the corporate sector, a new tax levied on large corporations will apply to capital over $10 million used in Canada. This new tax ensures that all large corporations pay taxes and help control the national debt.
A new surtax will apply to individuals whose income tops $70,000. Excise taxes are increased and so is the federal sales tax pending the sales tax reform.
Finally, new changes will ensure that funding for the Unemployment Insurance Program is in line with our effort to control the debt.
Starting in 1990, unemployment insurance benefits will be funded entirely by employer and employee contributions. The Government will continue to cover any deficit in the unemployment insurance account during difficult periods.
Taken together, these moves will save more than $5 billion this year and $9 billion next year.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Loiselle
This year, they will almost cover the increase in interest charges and leave the deficit at $30,5 billion. Next year, the deficit will come down to $28 billion. The debt to gross Domestic Product ratio will stabilize next year. The debt will stop growing faster than the economy, an important result. In five years the deficit will be reduced by 50 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the replacement of the existing federal sales tax is a key component of this Government's strategy to maintain essential programs and strengthen the Canadian economy.
The existing tax is notorious for its basic weaknesses. The Budget once more stresses our determination to eliminate it and establish a new system.
The sales tax reform will lay a more stable foundation for the Government to maintain important public services and better tackle the Canadian debt problem. It will contribute to a more equitable tax system and will make the national sales tax more visible to consumers.
Finally, it will bring in as much as $9 billion per year in revenues which will benefit all industries in every part of Canada.
With this new sales tax scheme, the Government wants to make sure that Canadian families earning less than $30,000 a year will be better off after the sales tax reform than before. This new 9 per cent sales tax will bring in enough revenues to fund a new goods and services tax credit which will represent a major increase over the current sales tax credit. This credit will be refundable and paid quarterly, the first payment being made before the coming into force of the new tax.
Moreover, basic groceries, prescription drugs and medical devices will be exempted from this tax. Residential rents, day care services, legal aid services and most health and dental services and educational services will be also exempted.
Early this Summer, in a back ground paper the Government will provide technical details on the sales tax reform, and it will introduce the relevant legislation for study next Fall.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I say that Canadians want a to be a nation which can protect and enhance the basic values which define our national identity.
They want and we want a compassionate Canada which is able to maintain the cultural and social programs as well as provide for the other major public
services Canadians need. Moreover, we want a Canada which is economically strong and totally competitive with other trading nations which continue to create rewarding jobs and open new opportunities for Canadians in the 1990's and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, we want a developing Canada which can meet such priorities as professional training and environmental protection. In short, a Canada which can guarantee a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for future generations.
Such is our responsibility as a Government. This should be our objectives, certainly as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the measures contemplated in the Budget will help us maintain the type of Canada we want to leave as a legacy to our children.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Minister's speech with interest. He made several interesting points. One of them is that the debt now amounts to some $320 billion. It is huge. We need about a third of our revenues just to pay the interest on it.
I must add that, in 1984, the debt was $180 billion. Only 20 per cent of our revenues was needed to service it. It means that the interest on the debt has grown from one fifth to one third of Government revenues.
Our Budget tries to reduce the debt but the deficit projected for next year will still amount to $30.5 billion. It will add to the existing debt of $320 billion for a total of $350 million and, the following year, it will be $380 billion, then $400 billion the year after that.
The debt will be extremely hard to reduce. Does the Minister think that our cuts, which are quite modest in proportion to the total Budget, are a step in the right direction? We made cut-backs, for example, in projects that had not yet come into existence like the acquisition of submarines. Those were not really cuts in expenditures since the projects had not started yet. That is one of my questions. Does the Minister think enough cuts have been made in the Budget?
I have another question with the regard to the sales tax. Will the administration of the sales tax require the hiring of additional employees? Studies done in the United States, which could apply to Canada, show that the implementation of the sales tax would require about
4,000	employees and $200 million a year in administration costs alone. At the same time-
May 3, 1989



-the compliance cost of a sales tax would exceed $4 billion in Canada. Thus it would be extremely expensive for the small businessman and for the farmer. Would the Minister care to address those two questions?


Gilles Loiselle: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interesting comments. The debt in general is, of course, the result of accumulated deficits and while we had forecast last year a lower deficit, something occured this year that none of the analysts had seen coming. At the end of last year, already, with interest rates reaching 10 per cent, after the 1987 crash, after a four-month employment slowdown that had levelled, that had peaked, everybody expected us to go through, if not a recession, at any rate a much calmer period when inflationary pressures would ease off. Unfortunately, those pressures did not lessen and exerted on our economy such forces that, in view of what was happening elsewhere, interest rates had to go up, and we were left with unexpected, extremely heavy and burdensome costs, that we strived to offset as best we could during the expenditure review exercise.
You talked about a $31.5 billion deficit. A deficit of $30.5 billion is forecast for next year if interest rates take long to fall down. And today, in this House, we heard my colleague the Minister of Finance explain that we should first give the Budget time to produce results, and be confident we will witness a move in the right direction in the months to come.
Deficits are adding up. As you say, the deficit will be $28 billion next year. That's right, but the economy is growing too. And the important thing is that we succeed in balancing anew our debt, our deficit and the economic growth so that those threatening and paralyzing cuts in our spending gradually diminish. We hope so and we have made projections accordingly.
Now, you say that the cuts are minimal. When we cut $1.5 billion, to mention only that aspect, it is more than a little. Moreover, you have to hear our friends over there. To listen to them you would think that we must cut somewhere else without touching our spending. It's a rather difficult thing to do.
The Budget-Mr. Loiselle
So we made what we think is a good trade-off, a trade-off which protects regional distribution and especially the most disadvantaged, and I think this trade-off is just and puts us on the road to recovery.
Concerning the goods and services tax, you spoke about the problems related to its administration. A considerable reduction in administration costs was certainly one of the advantages we saw in a national tax in which the provinces would have joined. Concerning compliance costs for small and medium-sized businesses, as you will see in the material which will be distributed early next summer, specific meaures will be taken to help businesses in the management of this tax.
I cannot go into any detail now, but we will surely do what is necessary so that businesses can manage this tax without difficulty.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I have three very brief questions, having listened to the Minister. He stated that it is easy to borrow from future generations because they have no vote. My question is this: would he not agree that it is also easy to steal from today's children because they have no vote?
In the Minister's speech there was no direct reference relating to the banks of Canada. How are Canada's banks paying down their proportionate share of the deficit? Is it through appropriate and fair taxation?
Finally, will the Minister please assure Canadian children and Canadian families that there will be no sales tax on family counselling for troubled families?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her questions. I expect that all Members would agree that this country is faced with a problem. It is not a question of having the choice of doing everything we would like to do. We are faced with a problem which is growing at a very dangerous pace.
One thing is obvious, when you receive at the end of the budget year a bill of $6 billion that is expended in interest rates, you have to get it somewhere, either through taxes or through your programs. If you want to make sure that it does not decrease again next year and gradually pushes you out of the capacity to make decisions about programs, you have to make certain decisions. I believe that when you look very closely at the measures which have been taken, some of them have been postponed in response to the question: Should we go out and borrow $3 billion again?

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Keyes


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Minister's time has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence and that of the House to stray off topic for just a moment. I would like to state for the record that when my Leader announced his decision today, I found myself on a bit of an emotional roller coaster. I felt sad, then I felt a sudden void, and then a feeling of loneliness. Then I was overwhelmed with a sense of pride, pride in the fact that I had the privilege to be a candidate, and then an elected Member of Parliament due in large part to a great Canadian committed to a caring and sharing nation.
I owe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) a great deal of thanks and wish him and his beautiful family good health, prosperity and only the best for the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I focus specifically on this appalling affront to the Canadian people which the Government refers to as its Budget, I would like to refer to the clear and knowledgeable words of sheer wisdom offered in 1983 by Conservative parliamentarians. They must be asleep. They did not even react to that.
For example, former Deputy Prime Minister Erik Nielsen, speaking on April 19, 1983 stated, "Budget secrecy is a basic principle of our traditions of parliamentary government-it is not a principle that is necessary to defend:-for information about the detailed plans contained in the Budget-to be released prior to the delivery of the Budget in Parliament is, in essence, a contempt of Parliament itself".
Lest you feel that this was just a personal passing whim of one Conservative MP, let me refer to the words of the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), a man whose wisdom in parliamentary matters I respect. On April 19, 1983, he noted: "It is a breach of Members' privilege that this material, the Budget, was disseminated through the media before it was presented to the House".
He noted further that if the leak was accidental: "The disclosure-in the media is a breach of the Minister's confidentiality-his very privilege".
Mr. Nielsen noted that: "This leaves the Minister the only option of resignation and the production and presentation of a new Budget by a new Minister to be appointed to replace him-"


An Hon. Member:: What did he do?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Yes, what did he do? It should not surprise any of us, however, that the current Government chooses to ignore the parliamentary wisdom of its own Members. Clearly, none of its public statements has a life expectancy of more than three months, let alone three years. It willingly disowns its promises, directions and policy statements in the interests of political pragmatism. Therefore, this dubious "Budget-by-press-release" is in contempt of the Canadian public and a breach of democratic ethics in its attack on the most vulnerable citizens of our country and in its complete denial of promises made to obtain a mandate to govern.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: A recent Globe and Mail editorial boldly claims that the Minister of Finance has become: "the symbol of all the fiscal resolve this Government has been able to muster". I say Amen to that. There is little doubt that the Minister symbolizes the financial fiasco perpetrated upon a distinct Canadian way of life during the past four years and reaching new depths of horror in this Budget. The Hon. Member's budgets do indeed speak to the most abysmal record and appalling failure in fiscal resolve of any government in two decades.
Had the Hon. Member's Budget in 1985 been at all accurate, we would be looking at a deficit of $24 billion instead of $31 billion. Had he been at ail astute in 1986, we would be paying $42.5 billion in personal income taxes, not $50.5 billion. If his claims in 1987 "Plans for Reform" had been fiscally sound, government spending cuts would account for 75 per cent of the reductions in the deficit, instead of the mere 29 per cent now in place. If he had been even close to capable in 1988, the Bank of Canada's lending rate would be 7.8 per cent not 12.6 per cent.
Now the same Minister predicts that this Budget will create further wondrous things, reducing the Bank of Canada rate by 1994 to 7.5 per cent. How are we to believe him now? This huge gap between government projections and promises and the actual public performance and delivery is not surprising to any of us.
May 3, 1989

Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) had the gall to accuse the opposition of playing with the integrity of the Canadian economy. I would suggest to him that Government Members, since November, have been playing with the integrity of the Canadian way of life, using political gamesmanship and chicanery upon the Canadian public. This Budget in its sheer disregard for numerous promises made to the Canadian people demonstrates to Canadians this Government's overriding commitment to harmonizing with American economic practice rather than to enabling Canadian initiative and self respect.
Most of us are aware that a Budget is more than a fiscal plan, more than a simple guideline for spending. It defines the actual outline of social possibilities for change. It plays a key role in what individuals and families will be encouraged to try for themselves in the immediate future. At all times it should enable not constrain individual, family and community growth.
In other words, the Budget provides the framework for weaving the fabric of our society. I state today that this Budget, rather than enabling a strong social fabric, is unravelling our sense of community. With its attack on the CBC, on unemployment insurance, on child care, on co-op housing and numerous other unique Canadian support systems, this Budget attacks the most vulnerable members and institutions of our culture.


An Hon. Member:: Despicable.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: As I examine this Budget, I am reminded of a famous story by the great Canadian humourist and world renowned economist, Stephen Leacock. It is called "The Sinking of the Mariposa Belle". Many of us may well remember the tale about a marine excursion in which most of the community of Mariposa sets out in an old paddle boat for its annual picnic. Suddenly the old boat springs a leak and the leaders of the town go into a frenzy. Realizing that they are sinking, the cry goes out: "Women and children first, women and children first". The women and children are tossed into leaky lifeboats which sink quickly into what turns out to be thankfully only two feet of water.
The Conservative Government, in a state of panic over the way their ship of state has sprung leaks, and with great cries that we are being engulfed in the deep waters
The Budget-Mr. Keyes
of the deficit, have sent out the cry: "Women and children first".
This is not a laughing matter. This is a despicable tale in which the Government rescues itself at the expense of women, children, and the Third World.
So, to all the single parents in Canada, to all the wage earners who are struggling constantly between seasonal jobs, to all those children whose parents or parent had to work to pay for housing and food and who cannot stay home with them each day, to all the young people or unemployed adults who are trying to upgrade at post-secondary institutions, to a large number of women with children who live below the poverty line, to all grandparents and elderly who find their income earned over a lifetime of service to our community now being eaten away by inflation and this Government, to all these people of Canada, the Government assures you that there is $1 billion available for roads and things in Lac-Saint-Jean. You will be pleased to know that there is $1 billion available for the Hibernia oil field. Oh, yes, there is the $650 million for tarsands, $325 million for heavy oil upgraders, $288 million for improvements in the Prime Minister's riding, half a million dollars for renovations to offices of government Ministers and over $191,000 for a beautiful book on energy starring the current Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse).
But wait, four months pass by and the cry goes out, women and children first, women and children first. Alas, there just is not enough for day care at this time. We understand you voted for us on that basis, but sorry, that was a lie. There just is not enough for transfer payments to welfare, unemployment insurance, post-secondary education, medical health care. You remember that promise, that commitment about conserving social programs and universality? That was a lie too.
Time wounds all heels. Oh, by the way, there is not enough for co-op housing or any other solutions for the homeless in Canada or even those suffering elsewhere in the world. Sorry about that, just a few more promises or rather commitments necessary during the heat of an election campaign. We are sure you will understand, short term pain for long term gain and all of that. Just tough it out and sometime, somewhere over the rainbow, things will get better.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Keyes
This is the Government's message. However, a leading Toronto psychiatrist spoke recently of this Budget in the long term. She spoke of the thousands and thousands of angiy and bewildered young people 15 years from now whose beleaguered single parents will be unable to provide an environment and care even close to what an intelligent, caring culture knows is essential to a healthy early childhood.
Once again, this Government is focusing on those most vulnerable to solve its overspending problems, totally oblivious to the long-term social responsibility for society. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that whenever a single sparrow has fallen, this Government has clipped its wings and it must be held accountable.
The Government might say to this that there are millions of other Canadians with solid jobs and salaries who will not suffer, whose lives will be enriched by this Budget. I say to them that this Budget has its arsenals pointed right at personal initiative for middle-income families and small businessmen.
In 1988, personal taxes represented 47 per cent of government expenditures, corporate taxes only 9 per cent. In 1988 terms, had corporate sector contributions matched, kept pace with those of personal taxpayers, the Canadian Government would have a surplus of $18.5 billion.
What is particularly intolerable to Canadians is that this Government has browbeaten its citizens by encouraging a policy of high interest rates. Yet it has abandoned any effort to get back any of the resulting high banking profits to the benefit of our citizens, citizens who fed that profit. What happened to the Government's 1987 plan to impose a fiscal margin tax on financial institutions?
This feeling that each of us is looking down the barrel of a fiscal cannon is shared by small business across Canada. Mr. Bullock, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, claims that small business people are being bombarded today because of a spending spree the Government has been on for two years now. Small business will not only be buried in taxes, it will be mired in red tape. Jeff Ruben, senior economist at Wood Gundy Limited, predicts a policy-mandated recession.
At McMaster University in my riding of Hamilton West, the Government has decided not to fund the upgrading of the McMaster nuclear reactor which, in the
opinion of international scientists, would make the reactor fifth in the world in productivity and research. This update would have cost $18 million, coincidentally exactly the same amount that the Government has cut from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. In essence, this Budget does not enable initiative, it cripples it.
The Government continues to see the average Canadian's car as a luxury comparable to the sins of liquor or cigarettes. Since 1984, its tax on gasoline has gone from
1.5	cents a litre to 7.5 cents a litre. Apparently, the Government has forgotten that this is a vast and often isolated country in which our capacity to bridge distances is essential to holding jobs or seeking new initiatives for taking charge of our lives. Canadians in rural areas often drive long distances to work and they have little public transportation. On average, motorists can expect to pay close to $600 annually in gasoline taxes, but those, of course, in rural areas who require vehicles for the normal conduct of their lives will pay double that, double $600 a year. However, this too does not surprise us for there are other aspects of the Budget which tear at the fabric of Canadian life.
It is enough of a struggle in this vast land to maintain a powerful sense of community and to hold on to roots set down over a lifetime. Yet this Government plans to cripple VIA Rail by forcing it to cut back on the very communities in which the need is the greatest. It will further tax long distance phone calls in a country in which distance makes calls essential, not frivolous.
We also understand the role of amateur sport in the family life of Canadian communities. We know its essential role in the healthy development of our children, the good, solid values for our young people and its significance in maintaining fitness among an aging adult population. Amateur groups have been more than meeting their their objective of becoming largely self-funding over the past four years. For instance, in the Canadian Soccer Association, local affiliations have managed to go well beyond that fifty-fifty split with the Government to raise 70 per cent from private sources. What is the reward of these groups for such fiscal accountability? Once again the Government has broken faith with these people and has cut back its smaller share of the responsibility. Could this Government not even guarantee its meagre contributions?
May 3, 1989

Such a breach of trust is just as evident in the communications industry. A year ago, the Government's Minister of Communications came to an agreement with the magazine publishing industry. The Government would maintain a mail subsidy steady if the publishers would agree to a 12 per cent increase in magazine postal rates annually for five years. This Government's word is not worth a wooden nickel. One year later, this Budget proposes a series of cuts that will eliminate in just the first year $10 million rather than maintain this subsidy. Of course, it will not simultaneously rule out the steady increase in postal rates. The goal again is not to enable but to cripple small businesses.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Government has made a wholesale assault on the CBC. Clearly the Government cannot be committed to the way CBC links a vast pattern of communities from coast to coast and into the far north in a network of communication and cultural support. The CBC, faced with drastic reductions in 1984, has been a highly responsible fiscal partner in the Canadian cultural enterprise. It deserves better than this cut of $140 million over the next five years. This is another commitment broken.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the term clawback refers to the Government's attack on the universality of our distinctly Canadian social programs. It is also an appropriate symbol for this Budget as a whole. Clawback conjures up the image of some kind of berserk punishing grizzly bear slapping his paw and dismembering personal lives uncaringly, slicing bloody gashes in the social fabric of our Canadian way of life. This clawback of public commitments erodes good faith, which is the basis of any democratic vote. This Budget totally abandons the premises, promises and practices upon which this Government's mandate was granted. We demand that the Minister of Finance clawback this Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes) for a fine performance. That is exactly what it was, a performance. I am amazed that he does not spend his summers in Stratford because there would be a position for him there. He is a fine actor.
I want to thank you as well, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the Member to pay tribute to his Leader today who announced his resignation. I think it was appropriate that you allowed that. It was very appropriate that he should mention his Leader. But it is also appropriate that we
The Budget-Mr. Keyes
mention that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is the modem day father of the deficit which we inherited. The deficit can be traced back to the days when the Finance Minister, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, was the individual who carried the scenario forward. When we came to power in 1984, his party had overspent to the tune of $42 billion.


An Hon. Member:: No, you are wrong.


Andrew Thompson: Well, check the record. Mr. Speaker, they like to talk. They like to complain about the deficit. But it is like the old axiom: Everyone wants to complain about the weather, but nobody wants to do anything about it. What would the Member for Hamilton West do about it? He likes to complain, scream, holler and wave his hands and arms, but does he have a solution? My question is, Mr. Speaker, what would they do about it? What sort of plan would they bring forward that could be enacted to deal with the deficit?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and preface my remarks by responding to what he said about the way I spoke. I cannot apologize for the way I speak, how tall I am, and what my beliefs are.


Andrew Thompson: It was a figure of speech.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I will not apologize for speaking the way I do. What I believe in comes from the heart. When I speak here, I believe in what I say. My riding said, you will represent us in the House of Commons. I would respect the Hon. Member if he stood here passionately delivering what he believed in. So I cannot apologize for the way I make a delivery.
Beyond that, he speaks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition should be the last person that the Hon. Member should accuse of mishandling public finances. If the Hon. Member checked his facts, he would see that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was the last Finance Minister to show a surplus in the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I do not know what he is talking about. Now I will answer the question to which he made all the preamble. Certainly we recognize that there is a problem with the amount of money that is crushing Canada as far as the national debt is concerned. Of course we recognize that. I would be the last person to stand up in this House of Commons, as they should not do, and put that kind of responsibility on the backs of the unemployed, the elderly, on those less fortunate and those who live in the outreaches of this great country. I would be the last to do that kind of thing.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Keyes


Mr. Comuzzi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Member for Elamilton West (Mr. Keyes) for making such a succinct and comprehensive statement on the Budget as presented by the Conservative Government, our friends across. The portrayal of what he stated is very, very accurate. I would like my friend to comment on what was said prior to his getting up in this House.
For the first time, Mr. Speaker, we are starting to get close to the numbers that we believe are the accurate numbers with respect to the deficit and to the debt of this country. The Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy), who has just entered, stated in a question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Loiselle) that the deficit-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like the Hon. Member to comment on the Hon. Member's speech and direct the question to him.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I am asking him to comment on the numbers that he heard in this House, that the deficit in 1974 was $170 billion, and by 1990 the deficit will be $380 billion, and that the present Government took over in 1970 and increased that deficit in their four years in office. Would the Member for Hamilton West please comment on those numbers?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I thank my Hon. colleague for the question, and if I can succinctly address the situation, the lines we were delivered were that the economy will blossom, reaping the gains of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, inflation will taper off, the job market will grow and interest rates will drop. Well, don't count on it. If they had been right last year, the Bank of Canada's trend-setting lending rate would now be 7.8 per cent, not 12.6 per cent. In fact, the Finance Minister has disappointed all Canadians by setting a deficit target of $30.5 billion, a full $1.6 billion higher than last year's figure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston and then the Hon. Member for York West.


Mr. Marchi:: We are so close that we can do it at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You can both ask the same questions together if you wish.


Mr. Nunziata:: It is called the Mutt and Jeff routine, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I to congratulate the Hon. Member from Hamilton. He is fast becoming the pride of Hamilton.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I am only kidding, Sheila. But it was an excellent speech. No doubt he does his constituents proud when he stands up in the House and tells it the way it is. I would like the Hon. Member, my friend and colleague, to put this particular Budget into perspective. If one examines the policies of the Conservative Government over the last five years, one can quickly see what the Conservative agenda was from day one; that is, the dismantling of Canada as we know it and Canada as we cherish it. Four years ago the Conservatives came to power and they started to dismantle the country. They did away with the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In the last Parliament, they privatized our national airline, Air Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


John V. Nunziata: They gave us free trade. We have made all the arguments with respect to the negatives associated with free trade. Now we find that they intend to dismantle passenger rail service in Canada, VIA Rail. We know from this Budget that they intend to chip away at the social safety net that we have: old age security, family allowance, unemployment insurance, transfers to the provinces with respect to medicare and post-secondary education.
My question to my friend and colleague is the following. Is it not obvious that the exact nature of the Conservative agenda is to totally destroy what has taken a hundred or more years to develop, and that is a country that cares about the disadvantaged, a country that has compassion and feeling for its citizens, and a country that has rendered itself the pride of the world? I ask my friend to comment on the over-all picture in terms of the nasty Tory agenda for Canada.
May 3, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time has expired, so I would ask the Eton. Member to respond briefly.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Out of respect, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member's question. Women and children first, Mr. Speaker. We had a Government that set its mandate, not only within the last five years, as my colleague has indicated, but within the last two years, within the last six months. During that election campaign all the promises came forward. All the money was there. Every nickel was accounted for. It was all within the fiscal framework of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It was all there. Canadians stood up and said: "Boy, they must know what they are talking about. They have all the money in the bank. The Finance Minister has it all lined up and accounted for, every nickel. Look at all the great stuff we are getting, yet they are still going to reduce that deficit. How are they going to do that? Well, it does not matter. If they said they can do it, then we will give them the confidence to do that."
What happens? Four months later, a scant four months later, and all the lines start pouring out from Members on the Government side.
To directly answer the question, what is happening is that the Government, through these policies, through the harmonizing policies that it is now looking at between Canada and the United States, is now in the process of subsidy negotiations with the United States before the United States has even begun to sit down at the table.


John V. Nunziata: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South is the next speaker, and the Hon. Member will have many opportunities to ask him a question.


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I am sure if you review the record it will show a promise made by you to recognize my friend and colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I did, if there was time. However, the Hon. Member for York South- Weston took an extra three or four minutes. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South has the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Typical Tory. Break another promise.
The Budget-Mr. Blenkam


John V. Nunziata: I'm not going to vote for you the next time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member like to withdraw that statement?


John V. Nunziata: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1984 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) set forth to the House of Commons a course of action that he initiated to try to solve the problems that he said were with us at that time. He set forth a course that would reduce the amount of the deficit, bit by bit chip away at it, and eventually get the country to a point where it could start paying back a horrendous legacy of debt.
Over that period of time the Minister of Finance proved exceptionally competent. In 1986 his deficit projections made the year prior were exactly as he said, and he did what he promised. In 1987 his projections were right on, except that he found an extra $1 billion and reduced the deficit even more than he thought he could do.
In the year just finished, 1988, by cutting back on expenditures, by controlling things very carefully, despite interest increases, the Minister of Finance brought in a deficit bang-on to what he forecast back in February for the 1988 year.
Up until now the Minister of Finance has been doing a superb job. Unfortunately, he has been faced with a problem that has particularly developed since last November. Last November the Minister of Finance was quite easily able to place a successful Canada Savings Bond issue at 9.5 per cent. Unfortunately, last week interest rates had risen to 12.5 per cent and people were redeeming Canada Savings Bonds in great fashion, and the cost of carrying the overwhelming debt of the country was rising at an unbelievable rate. It is estimated that the cost of carrying that debt in this fiscal year will be $39 billion.
That is an enormous amount of money. It has thrown out of whack the projections originally made in 1984 and repeated year after year as we chiselled away at the problem. This year, and possibly next year, we have to do some things to get back on track. That is the reason for the Budget.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Blenkam
When we took over, the total amount of deficit in relation to Gross Domestic Product was 8.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. Last year it was down to
4.6	per cent. As a percentage of the production of the country we had reduced the deficit to very nearly half. The borrowing requirements of the country were 6.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product when we took over, and now they are 3.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. The money that has to be raised is less than half of what it was when the Minister of Finance took over. Therefore, he has done a remarkable job in handling the problem. The fact that he has done a remarkable job in handling the problem means that we have to do a remarkable job too. We have to take a look at that problem and do what we can to assist in handling it.
We have to bear in mind that the interest that we pay on the debt is more money than we raise in sales taxes, customs duties, excise taxes, and corporate taxes all rolled into one, and then some. In interest alone it amounts to $39 billion. It would not be all that bad if we did not have to look at the problem of interest straight at it the way it comes at us. The Minister of Finance has forecast that perhaps interest rates will go down a little, and perhaps he will be able to carry the deficit next year with interest expense at $39.4 billion. The Minister of Finance has a problem that requires not only that there be some good luck in the economy, but that there be a further reduction in interest rates.
If interest rates do not go down, then we have real serious problems. Those problems may well mean that we will have to take more drastic action. Let us look at the actions taken. There are cuts in programs of about $1.5 billion. There are tax increases of about $3.5 billion in the Budget for this year. The Budget cuts for next year come to approximately $2 billion, and the tax increases to approximately $7 billion to increase the revenue or the amount toward the problem by $9 billion in the second year.
That is exactly what the IMF suggested that we do. In order to balance our problem it stated that we have to substantially change our Budget practices, and we have done that. We would have thought that the other side would have had some understanding of the arithmetic, because we are talking about arithmetic when we have a Budget. It is simple, ordinary, straightforward arithmetic.
However, what we hear from the Opposition is whining of the worst fashion. We hear Members opposite claim that we will damage a number of segments of our society.
Let us look at the resolution that we will be voting on later today. It says: "for eroding the universality of vital social programs". Let us talk about that. If someone is wealthy enough to have $50,000 or better of taxable income, should that person continue to receive a social hand-out from the state, or should that social hand-out from the state be reduced?


Sergio Marchi: It is not a hand-out.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Should they not be able to stand on their own? My mother-in-law says that you should and she does not have that much money. She says that it is about time we did, and my parents say that it is about time they did. Many people say that it is about time, and let us realize that it is about time we did.


Mr. McKnight:: What would $50,000 taxable income be? It must be an income of about $75,000 a year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It has to be a little over $60,000 anyway. Of course, it is only eroded at the rate of $150 per thousand of income. You are up to $85,000 or $90,000 before you are wiped out on the old age pension, and about $70,000 before the family allowance is taken away, per child.
It would seem that this is a terrible thing to happen. Universality is really damaged and that is a real serious matter and no contribution should happen there because, after all, we are hurting the old, the sick, the lame, the blind and the hard done by, the people who do not have a lot of money. That is what we hear from the other side.
Let us consider the next part of the resolution which states: "for continuing and increasing the unfairness of the tax system". That is a real winner. When a special surtax is placed on people earning over $70,000 a year, that is unfair according to the Liberals and New Democrats. When a special surtax is put on corporations that have not been paying any tax, that is unfair according to the New Democrats and Liberals. Where is the unfairness in the tax system in this Budget?
Next, the amendment states: "for reneging on its commitment to develop regional equality". All one has to do is look at the Blue Book. You will find there is more money for regional development this year than last year, and more money last year than the year before. That assertion in the amendment is wrong. Are Members opposite saying we should vote in favour of falsehood?
May 3, 1989

The Member from Hamilton who just spoke was crying about things like the CBC. He said we will hurt the CBC.
I looked in the Blue Book. I am really worried about the CBC. It will only get $58 million more this year. There will be a cut-back of $20 million, but is it $20 million from $58 million or $20 million less than it would like to have.
If we go through one budget item after another in the Blue Book we will see that department after department has more money this year than last year. The reason is that in building this budget the Minister of Finance had to tread a very quiet and careful line.
He could have done the hard-nosed thing and ripped through those expenditures, to cut them down in a vicious fashion. However, he did not do that. He carefully cut things that could be cut without causing too much damage to the economy. He carefully increased taxes where he could increase taxes without causing too much dislocation and damage. He was worried, like we all are, about setting off a recession or doing something that will unbalance the fragile economy we have.
The problem is that this country presently has some $320 billion worth of debt. It is growing very rapidly, and by this time next year it will be over $350 billion. It is an enormous problem. It will not be solved by us wishing it could be solved, or by picking the trees behind this building that are covered with money.
There is only one way to solve the problem when there is a shortfall of money. It is to take more money in, which means taxing more, or to spend less. In both cases, we are taxing more and spending less. We are trying to reach a responsible balance. That responsible balance is shown in this Budget, and it ought to be supported.
Earlier today in Question Period there was a question concerning VIA Rail trains, on the basis that this was the day the last spike was placed on the CPR. I thought about that and the fact that perhaps passenger trains as we once knew them would soon no longer be running the way we knew them.
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
I wondered what would have happened if someone had stood up in the House of Commons on the day the last spike was driven, to say that we should have a new agency called "VIA canoe" because we put the canoe route out of business, or "VIA stagecoach" because we put the stagecoach out of business. Would we have continued to sponsor and subsidize those forms of transportation because new technology had taken place, because the automobile, the bus and the airplane have taken passengers who once went by train and trains today are no longer economic, or are we to keep everything that we have had in this country and not cut anything?
In closing, I want to read from an article in Maclean's this week. It is an article by Peter Newman, who quoted Mickey Cohen:
"We won't solve our fiscal problem until Canadians perceive that we are in a real crisis", he says, "and that won't happen as long as the deficit issue remains a debate among the elite. Some political leader is going to have to stand up and say, 'Look, the cupboard is bare, there is no more money for welfare payments, no more funds for most of the things governments do'". Then Cohen turned seriously pessimistic: "This issue isn't going to be resolved merely by cutting out universality. That is only the beginning; that is only the painless stuff. It simply won't be enough to take money away from the people who don't need it.
You are going to have to get at the people who really need it as well. That is not so much a question of political courage as having the stomach to do it, because it is going to be very, very painful".
I say to Members of the House that unless this Budget is successful, and we better hope it is, it will be very painful.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, talking about pain, let me assure the Member, the chairman of the Finance Committee, that Members on this side have been in pain for the last 20 minutes. The Member has the audacity to ask what is so unfair about the current tax system and the tax measures that have been imposed by the Conservative Government for the last five years.
If the Chairman of the Finance Committee and an individual from the government side does not know why it is unfair then I worry about the direction, not only of that committee but indeed of that Government. When we have in this country, after five years of Tory rule, a Canadian who earns over $100,000 in income paying 8 per cent in increased taxes versus an individual on the poverty line, which is estimated at approximately $26,300, paying 60 per cent more in increased taxes since 1984, we suggest that we do not have to ask what is so unfair about that.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Mr Blenkarn


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: I believe that all Canadians would put their noses to the grindstone because they do not mind paying their way for the betterment of this country. However, where Canadians and where we in the Liberal Party object to the way this Government is moving is that the burden is not shared equally. That is when you have tax revolt and that is when you have stratification of classes. For the first time in public polling they are beginning to find after five years of Tory rule that Canadians are beginning to look at class stratification.
We know that we have had our differences East and West. We have had them between French and English. We have had them between federal and provincial Governments. However, we have never had, until now, Canadians beginning to look at themselves as people in Great Britain do; that is to say, in terms of class structure, in terms of those who have and those who have not. This Budget does not enhance that problem; this Budget aggravates that problem.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the Chairman of our Standing Committee on Finance, why would he almost bring embarrassment upon himself to ask what is so unfair about that tax regime? I suggest that the Government go back to the boardrooms, use the blackboards and inject some fairness, some equity and some dignity for all Canadians, not just offer it to some of their Tory friends who happen to represent a very small stratum of Canadian society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has not looked at the Budget and the tax system. It really is unfortunate that he does not understand percentages. I can tell him that at a certain level a person might pay 100 per cent more taxes one year than the next because that individual might move from paying zero tax to paying $1. I can tell him that the effect of this Budget is to make sure that the rich and the well-off pay a great deal more. That means people who are well off, receiving money from government, and people who are well off earning their money, pay a very substantially enhanced surtax. These problems of enhanced tax are there and they are going forward.
We had a fairly lengthy study, as the Member will know, last year resulting in a White Paper which had certain tax recommendations. This Budget carries on with those tax recommendations. It carries on with a form of minimum tax against corporations that up until now have not paid tax, so that means any corporation having more than $10 million in assets. That is not a very big corporation but the Budget states big corporations and they will pay a minimum tax.
When the Member talks about tax fairness he ought to understand what really has happened. We are going after those who have the money. We are getting as much as we can from them. We will have to continue to do what we can to get this country on the road and out of its problems.
What we need as Members of Parliament on standing committees and in this House is the willingness to spot items of expense and to spot situations where either taxes ought to be increased specifically or where expenses ought to be cut specifically and make those statements. That is the kind of assistance and leadership we all owe, not only to this House, but to our families.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair on the list. Members can govern themselves accordingly; we have six minutes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about regional development. He has spoken of that and has stated in his remarks that in his view regional development programs were not only retained-I think he alluded to that fact and I am paraphrasing here-but were enhanced or improved. Is he familiar with the part of the country that I represent, that of Eastern Ontario? Is he familiar with the fact that previous Governments, even the same Government in the past, recognized that there were two sections of Ontario which were doing not nearly as well as the rest of the province, namely, Northern Ontario and Eastern Ontario.
In abolishing the Industrial Regional Development Programs and converting the programs into the various agencies across Canada, what the Government has done is established the Atlantic Accord, the Western Canada Diversification Program and FEDNOR. In that process Eastern Ontario has been completely left out.
May 3, 1989

Given certain statements that the Member is quoted as having made in the past, does he feel that that is all right? We have places like Hawkesbury in my riding with 13 per cent unemployment, Pembroke with unemployment rates again in the teens, Cornwall and other communities in Eastern Ontario outside of the City of Ottawa also with high unemployment rates. They have no regional development programs and are not in a position to attract industries as other areas can which receive development programs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the detail of the programs in Eastern Ontario, but I do know what the Blue Book says. It gives more money for that type of program this year than last year. I say to the Member that he should read the Blue Book. It is a great bible and a marvellous thing. It sets everything out. There are even baby blues that set things out in even more detail. Whether there should be a separate program for Eastern Ontario, that is the first time I have ever heard of that.


Mr. McCurdy:: It was not in the Blue Book.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I did have a good look at the other programs and I find they are enhanced.


Mr. Harvard:: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. We said, during the election campaign, that if this Government were to be re-elected and given its commitment to the Free Trade Agreement, it would not be long until the Government started breaking down the social fabric of this country by going after social programs.
We have seen that in the Budget. The one thing that I want to point out is the so-called claw-back as it applies to family allowance and old age pensions. I think it sets a terribly dangerous precedent because if this Government can get away with clawing back family allowances, if this Government can be successful in clawing back old age pensions, where does it stop? Where does this stop?
Does the Member not realize that if the claw back begins at $70,000 today, it can be $60,000 tomorrow and $50,000 after that. Not only that, the Government can then strike medicare. It is an unbelievable precedent that the Tories have started. It is the end of social programs, the end of a solid Canadian tradition.
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the breaking point is. However, if the Hon. Member will take a look at his income tax form he will see that if he received too much income in a year and received unemployment insurance, he will have to start paying back some of that unemployment insurance. This is not a new program. There has been such a provision in the Income Tax Act for some considerable period of time. The Hon. Member may want to take a look at that.
He asks where does it stop. I will tell him where it stops. It stops when people will no longer lend money at an affordable rate. It stops when we cannot collect enough in taxes to pay our bills as they come due. It stops when there is not a sound economy and we are forced to the printing press. It stops when the country becomes financially bankrupt. Unless we are very careful, unless we pay attention to what we have here, and unless we support the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that will be the future. That is where it stops.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we have had raised a cloud of gobbledygook which is supposed to be substantiated by references to the Blue Book. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to deal with all the purported arguments of the hon. gentleman.
Surely you must have been tremendously impressed, Mr. Speaker, with his metaphor about VIA canoes and the demands of those on this side, had we lived then, for their subsidization. The fact is that the Hon. Member completely failed to understand that what the Government has been doing is indeed to subsidize VIA canoes instead of to build the steamship. Perhaps it was a mistake, a beclouding of the Hon. Member's mind with his own gobbledygook, that he would argue that air transportation in Canada is more efficient, more convenient, indeed safer, and that we should not look to Europe or Japan and build a new kind of railway that would keep people on the ground and get them from point A to point B quickly and environmentally more safely, more efficiently and perhaps more economically.
Does the Hon. Member understand what has happened? Does he understand that the Government has destroyed the chance of having ground transportation which is rapid and efficient as well as economically and environmentally sound? Or could he not find it in the Blue Book?

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Miss Grey


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member comes from Windsor. When he signed up for this term in Parliament he received a pass on the railway. I wonder how many times he has used it and saved us the cost of air transportation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Beaver River (Miss Grey).


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, in my other life I was a drama teacher for about 10 years. I noticed from the other side a comment about the dramatic performance and theatrics of the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Keyes). I would give the Hon. Member for Hamilton West a good, clear 9 out of 10. He was only surpassed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I would give him a clear 10 out of 10 for theatrics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Deborah C. Grey: I would also like to give my best wishes to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He is one who has gained my respect during the short time I have been here in the House. I will always remember the fact that he returned to the Chamber to listen to my maiden speech on April 12. He owed me nothing. He had no reason or responsibility to come to listen to me. He listened because he wanted to. I certainly admire him for that.
He also mentioned this afternoon that it is important for a Member to be around in the House. I think that illustrates that he has certainly practised what he has preached. I would like to thank him on behalf of the Reform Party, whom I represent, for being a hard worker and an ambassador for western interests. I certainly wish him every success in his future endeavours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Deborah C. Grey: Now, to the Budget debate. Of course, I feel quite qualified to speak on the Budget as I was the only Opposition Member in the House to hear the Budget-the second Budget if you will, Mr. Speaker-on April 27. I was told when I won the by-election that I may be lonely down here in Ottawa. I had no idea it would be that lonely, that I would be sitting alone on this side of the House listening. I certainly understand the other two Parties and their upset at the events which have taken place. Truly, it was an extraordinary situation. Nonetheless, I felt the responsible thing for me to do was to listen to the Budget. That is what I think Canadians wanted us to do. For me, the responsible thing was to listen to the Budget. Now, however, I must tell the House that the responsible thing to do is to oppose the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Deborah C. Grey: I have planned extensive consultations with my constituents which will take place next week. However, I know my riding well enough to know that this Budget cannot be sold to the people.
In my maiden speech I talked about the importance of reducing the deficit and controlling the financial mess which we are in. I indicated certain things would have to be done if belt-tightening measures were to be made credible. I said there would have to be cuts at the top, even if they were largely symbolic. I said there would have to be evidence of sacrifice here. There is none. Spending on all major parliamentary institutions is well above average rates of increase. For instance, spending on the Senate is up by 10 per cent. Spending on the Library of Parliament is up by 9 per cent. Spending on the Governor General's Office is up by 20 per cent. Spending on the Ministry through the Privy Council Office is up by 16 per cent. Spending on the House of Commons is up by 9 per cent.
As my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, points out, we have one of the most over-bloated Cabinets in history. Spending is up on their limousines, if you please.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Deborah C. Grey: There is a tax-back of the old age pension. There is no-tax back of MP's pensions. So much for leadership from the top.
I said there would have to be cuts in the bureaucratic middle. There is no clear evidence of this in the Budget or the Main Estimates. There are not even measures that would allow an analysis of bureaucratic efficiency to be made. There are supposedly cuts in man-years but no analysis of the job levels at which such cuts will occur. In fact, a recent article in The Ottawa Citizen told us that there has been a 19 per cent rise in executive level positions under the Toiy Government. That is a rise in positions which pay salaries between $63,100 and $111,700 annually. In any case, there is no way of knowing whether these reductions in man-years will simply be offset by contracting out.
May 3, 1989

In some cases evidence of new inefficiency emerges. The Western Diversification Office will see its budget fall by $24.8 million, but its staffing will rise by 120 person-years.
We see 226 new people for Revenue Canada to administer what was supposed to be a simpler tax system.
I heard on the radio the other day that there is a sentence in the new tax form that is 62 words long. I am also an English teacher by trade. That is what we in my profession call a run-on sentence.
What is clear is that the taxpayers of Canada are again being asked to diet so that the public sector can have dessert. There will be new taxes of all kinds. There will be more taxes on consumption, on capital, on income, on sales, on the poor and on the not so poor.
For instance, the general federal sales tax is up $1,140 million. I could go on and on about personal income tax and large corporations tax. However, the one that I think is very significant concerns the financing of the unemployment insurance program. For this year the figure is $425 million. It will go up next year, when it is in the private sector, to $1,900 million.
In the first year there will be $3.5 billion in new taxes. For every one dollar in cuts there will be more than two dollars in new taxes. In the following year there will be $7 billion in new taxes. That is $3.50 for every one dollar in cuts. Only the rate of increase in spending is down. Spending in absolute dollars will rise by nearly $10 billion this year. Let us ignore even interest charges for a moment. Program expenditures outside of defence will more than outpace inflation. Total government spending will be $142.9 billion. It is $1 million, for anybody who is interested in winning the lottery, times 142,000 nine hundred times over. That is how much money this Government spends. Is that this Government's idea of austerity? I hardly think so.
Until the Canadian public can be shown that money can be wisely spent, the tax grabs in this Budget simply cannot be supported.
The question for me is whether I will be able to support those expenditure reductions that are proposed. I will try. The Reform Party is not like the other opposition Parties. All I have heard them saying in this Budget debate unfortunately is: "Why are we cutting so much?" Our Party states quite unequivocally: "Why are we spending so much?" We have not even tapped into
The Budget-Miss Grey
the resource. We are just talking about the extra projection of growth.
However, asking my constituents to support the cuts is not going to be easy, because there are no cuts at the top. There are no cuts in the middle. There is no consistency in the cuts. There is no evidence even of a philosophy or rationale in the cuts that are proposed.
There is not even honesty in what has been done. For example, take the old age pension and family allowance. Universality has been removed but the Government tries to pretend it has not.
Then there is the bottom line. This Budget sees the deficit going up, not going down. They should not brag of a deficit of $30.5 billion. All that says to Canadians is that we are going broke slower. That is not good enough for Canadian citizens. It is up $1 billion this past year and $1.5 billion this coming year. Borrowing is up over $4 billion.
I may be a political novice but I am not politically stupid. There is no political constituency for this Budget. We cannot ask people to support a deficit reduction program that does not reduce the deficit. Now we see the price behind this Government's pre-election tax cuts, pre-election spending and pre-election promises.
I do not say these things glibly, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is an honourable man. Most Canadians believe him when he says he wants deficit reduction, but they do not believe his Leader or his Party and they cannot believe this Budget.
Last Thursday, I listened to the Minister because I believed he was the victim of an event beyond his control. But it is now clear that he is the victim of a fiscal situation beyond his control. He is unfortunately the victim of his own government, a government that claims to face the music on the debt but whose words for the past five years have not played that tune.
Since 1984, this Government has talked about reducing the deficit next year. Nobody is fooled anymore by projections of drastically dropping deficits four or five years hence. Debts are welling up like water behind a dike. We are supposed to believe that when the national debt hits 56 per cent of GNP it is going to somehow level off. It is at 53 per cent now. I doubt it. It is only a matter of time before the dike bursts and this Government, this Minister, this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), all their sacred trusts and all their credibility will be washed away.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Miss Grey
The time has come for real fiscal responsibility from this Government. There is discontent in the Tory ranks. The Hon. Member or Portage-Interlake (Mr. Holt-mann) said he will stake his career on stopping base closures. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson) is unhappy about transportation provisions. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Thorkelson) said he will not support cuts to VIA Rail. The Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) has the audacity to suggest that his voice as an elected representative should matter. So it should. It seems even Alberta Tories will find it next to impossible to defend this Budget to their constituents.
Canadians are increasingly nervous about the shortterm, near-sighted policies of this Government. During the election the deficit, they claimed, was under control. I went to many forums. I ran, of course, in the election. I went to nine all-candidates forums. I turned around and did four more in the by-election. In the general election, in the nine forums that I attended, I wanted to talk about the deficit because I felt it was important and Canadians felt it was important.
The Free Trade Agreement absolutely, overwhelmingly took precedence. That is all we heard, unfortunately. We heard nothing about the deficit. Now I wonder, was it under control? We know it is not under control and it was not then.
Now they talk of urgent crisis but show little urgent action. The longer we wait, the deeper the cuts will have to be. The public is tired of the crisis management approach. For example, why is the Government building $1 billion CBC building in the overheated economy of downtown Toronto, while cutting the budget for CBC's programming? Does this sound like reasonable planning?


An Hon. Member:: Not at all.


Deborah C. Grey: Canadians, I believe, are ready to bite the bullet. Constituents expected cuts and they can live with them. But it is only fair that every sector should be affected. As leaders of this country, we should be serving as role models. Think of the message it would send to Canadians if we were willing to take cuts in expenditures. If cuts were absolutely consistent, then
no Canadian could point a finger at anyone else and cry "unfair". That would speak louder than anything else.
I have watched in frustration, and indeed just watched it a few moments ago, the Government and the Opposition blaming each other over and over again for who is to blame about this. Canadians are concerned about answers to the crisis, not merely attaching blame. As far as they are concerned, it does not matter who is to blame. They want us to get out of this situation. Let us get on with the salvaging operation. Time is running out. Taxes are up. Spending is up. Interest rates are up. The deficit is up. Mr. Speaker, the gig is up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to give the NDP the last six or seven minutes here before we call in the Members. I would like to forego the questions and comments on this particular speaker.


Mr. Volpe:: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe) can have his question and comment. I will allow him a short question and comment, and Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Walker) also. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am veiy pleased to have listened to the Hon. Member give her address but I want to clarify the record. In fact, while she may not have seen as many members of the Opposition here to listen to the second presentation of a budget which was flawed, both in content and in process, and while she indicated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is a victim of circumstances, we would have argued that he would have been a victim of his own ineptitude and that his credibility did not merit the attention that he wanted for a budget that was rehashed.
But there was somebody present here for the opposition Parties. Both opposition Parties were represented ably by my colleague to my left from Winnipeg North Centre, who saw very, very clearly that our views would be there, that he would listen on our behalf to reinforce what we had already known and what we were already convinced of. I dare say to the Hon. Member that we have seen nothing to the contrary so far. In fact, all of our suspicions regarding the Budget, its content and its perpetration of inequity were justified and it justified our actions on that evening.

May 3, 1989


Deborah C. Grey: I appreciate that. I am sorry, I did see the Hon. Member here. I was under the impression that he had left shortly thereafter. I guess the press did not pick that up, perhaps.
Nonetheless, the leak is not the crisis. The financial situation in this country is what is the crisis. That is what we need to deal with.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our hon. colleague from Beaver River for her comments. I notice the change in strategy. There are several westerners in the House right now, everywhere from the Lakehead west, listening to the comments and our curiosity about the Party and the stance of the Party. I notice that she is very critical of the Government and for its Budget. I would like to also point out for the record that she did support the Speech from the Throne. I take it that this is a change in strategy which I would like her to clarify for us, that her critical comments means that she is opposing the Government's Budget strategy. In particular, I would like to have some comments from her as to how she thinks the Government's high interest rate strategies affect the West.
Miss Grey Let me also point out that I am here representing the Reform Party, not the Liberal Party or the NDP. The fact that I may support a Liberal in Alberta would certainly be a far stranger aberration than an NDP or a Reform Party member.
Nonetheless, I would like to say in answer to that that my position as an elected Member of the House of Commons is to represent my constituents. My constituents, and indeed I believe western Canadians, are in favour of free trade, so if I am hurting any of the opposition Members' feelings on that, I am sorry. All I can do is speak on behalf of my constituents.
I campaigned from Thanksgiving straight through until March 13. I have been around Beaver River, let me tell you. The people there were very strongly in favour of free trade, and if that offends any of the opposition Parties, then I have to beg forgiveness from them. But my job in terms of representing my constituents was to be pro-free trade.
I have made it fairly clear what I feel about the Budget, and that is the issue at hand right now. I will certainly be voting with the Government sometimes and with the Opposition sometimes, according to the wishes of my constituents.
The Budget-Miss Grey


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that you indicated previously that you wanted to recognize another Hon. Member later, but I do not believe that the unanimous consent of the House was sought in order to change the rules and perhaps you would like to make that request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member from the NDP to have the last three minutes for his speech?


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is ten minutes of questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) has a question or comment? Please put it.


Alex Kindy: I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Beaver River (Miss Grey) for her excellent speech. Perhaps she could make a short comment on her feelings about the value-added tax or the goods and services tax and how that will affect the consumers of her riding.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. Again, I think I can speak quite comfortably on behalf of the people of Beaver River. They are very upset about the goods and services tax which will come in mainly because of the points I have talked about already. If it will be consistent, if everyone will pay and if the Government is looking after the money that it already has, if we were to see the Government spending money wisely, then the people of my riding would be quite comfortable chipping in their fair share. Unfortunately, they have not seen that yet and so they are quite upset about this goods and services tax.
Small business is upset. I was at a meeting on Saturday night with the Chamber of Commerce in my riding and they are almost devastated by this Budget and the impending goods and services tax.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I too commend not all the arguments the Hon. Member has made but certainly the force and the compelling commitment that she attaches to her words and thoughts. I would be curious to find out what the position of the Reform Party would be on the question of the universality of some of the programs that are being chipped away and second, whether there is a fear among the Reform Party that those thresholds will be lowered and that will be administered to different programs such as medicare. She may wish to comment on the over-all picture of universality in social programs.

May 3, 1989
The Budget-Miss Grey


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of my riding, supported by the Reform Party and its platforms and policies, feel that universality, if I could speak specifically about child care, is probably a waste of money and that these programs should be targeted to people who need them. In other words, we may be discriminating against parents who choose to raise then-children at home. We believe firmly that these programs should be targeted to those who need them in terms of universality.
Regarding medicare, we feel that medicare is for the sick and not for the poor. We also feel very strongly that that should not be eroded and that that is a service that people pay for. The public would be very upset to see that eroded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 84(4), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment to the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being 6.16 p.m., this Elouse stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 4,1989