1990-03-05

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. First, however, I would like to congratulate him and say that we welcome his appointment as the minister responsible for the business of the House. We are confident he will draw on his many skills to work with his opposition colleagues in this House, in a manner that is constructive and in the best interests of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns Standing Order 7(3), which I will read to you. It is about the Chairman of Committees of the Whole-in other words, the Deputy Speaker of the House:
The Member so elected as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole shall continue to act in that capacity until the end of the Parliament for which he or she is elected, and in the case of a vacancy by death, resignation or otherwise, the House shall proceed forthwith to elect a successor.
Could the minister inform the House whether he intends to consult the opposition, as is customary and in keeping with parliamentary tradition, before moving the motion to elect a Deputy Speaker of the House?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State to Prime Minister and Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, cognizant of the standing order and its requirements, and because of the fact that we had a recess since the elevation of the former Deputy Speaker to cabinet, the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to have the usual discussions with the leaders of the Opposition. It is his intention to do so, after which he will have a recommendation hopefully agreed to with opposition leaders to bring to the House for election to Deputy Speaker. It is only for that reason that there is a delay.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to echo the concerns of my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. The point he raises is most appropriate.
I also wish to take this occasion to welcome my good friend from Calgary Centre in his new position. It appears as if there is a bit of an Alberta Mafia developing here in the government. We have the member for Calgary Centre, the member for Peace River and the member for Calgary West, all playing a critical role on the government benches. We look forward to an ongoing close working relationship with the team.


BUDGET DEBATE
Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise today at the first opportunity after the break on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to suggest firstly that debate on the budget motion be suspended and, second, to request that you carefully review the government bill currently on notice and determine whether or not the House should proceed with that bill at this time.
On Tuesday, February 20, the government presented its budget and moved the traditional motion to approve the measures it contains. A debate on this motion and the traditional amendments took place on subsequent days of that week.
Since that debate was last adjourned a significant event has in fact taken place. The Government of

March 5, 1990
Points of Order
British Columbia has approached the courts and asked for a ruling on the legitimacy of one of the major components of that budget, namely the Canada Assistance Plan.
Specifically, the province of British Columbia is asking the Court of Appeal to answer the following questions.
First, has the Government of Canada any statutory prerogative or contractual authority to limit its obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan Act, RSC 1970, Chapter C-l and its agreement with the Government of British Columbia dated March 23, 1967 to contribute 50 per cent of the cost to British Columbia for assistance and welfare services?
Second, do the terms of the agreement dated March 23, 1967 between the Governments of Canada and British Columbia, the subsequent conduct of the Government of Canada pursuant to the agreement and the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan Act, RSC 1970, Chapter C-l give rise to a legitimate expectation that the Government of Canada would introduce no bill into Parliament to limit its obligation under the agreement or act without the consent of the people and Government of British Columbia?
Those questions are contained in Order in Council No. 287 signed by the Lieutenant-Governor on February 27, 1990.
I have forwarded a copy of the Order in Council and all relevant court documents that I have been able to obtain to the Chair.
We know that the first court hearing on this issue will take place tomorrow afternoon. I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the House should do all that it can to ensure that this hearing is as fair to the citizens of British Columbia as is possible.
I think it is important at this point for the House to remember the pledge it made some decades ago when it established the Canada Assistance Plan and defined the federal responsibility over welfare assistance, child care and other related issues.
Section 8 of the Canada Assistance Plan Act states: "an agreement may be amended or terminated by mutual consent of the minister and the provinces" and
"Canada may at any time give to the province notice of intention to terminate an agreement-the agreement shall cease to be effective for any period after the day fixed in the notice or for any period after the expiration of one year from the date on which the notice is given, whichever is the later."
Historically the House has by convention restrained itself from discussing questions which are before the courts when such a discussion would prejudice the outcome of those proceedings.
I refer of course to the sub judice convention.
Beauchesne's fifth and sixth editions describe the responsibility of members to exercise restraint in the following way:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
As a result of the cases brought before it the House has a much clearer understanding of the sub judice convention as it applies to criminal cases than civil ones.
But the premise of the convention that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing before the courts without prejudicial debate in the Commons surely applies equally to criminal and civil matters.
I hope you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I feel it should apply in today's circumstances.
The courts are being asked to judge whether there is a legitimate expectation that the Government of Canada would introduce no bill into Parliament to limit its obligation without the consent of British Columbia. It is also being asked whether the government has any authority to limit its contributions.
These two questions are part and parcel of the motion currently before the House. If the House resolves its approval for the budget, it will be endorsing the authority of the government to limit its contributions.
If the House gives leave to introduce any bill which reduces the Canada Assistance Plan to any or all provinces, it will be asserting that there is no "legitimate expectation that the government would introduce no bill".
March 5, 1990

How could the adoption of the budget motion fail to prejudice the rights of the citizens of British Columbia to a fair hearing on their questions?
Would it be fair for the government to be given the opportunity to put on the public record four days of evidence without the Government of British Columbia being able to have the opportunity to rebut or question that evidence or forward some of its own?
Similarly, to allow the bill on notice, if it indeed does limit payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, would prejudice the same appeal. It would also breach parliamentary tradition.
Beauchesne's sixth edition at paragraph 508, clause 4 reminds us that:
The reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws
that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament-The
question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
Beauchesne's cites a 1948 ruling that is germane to the question before us at the moment. At that time the Speaker was asked to accept an amendment to a government motion to appoint a joint committee of the House and Senate to consider the question of human rights and freedoms. The amendment proposed would have called for a reference to the Supreme Court of a general question of federal jurisdiction over the freedoms of speech, assembly, et cetera.
The Speaker at that time disallowed the amendment saying that "this amendment actually proposes that the Supreme Court be asked to consider the same matter that the main motion proposes to refer to a select committee. It seems to me that both these propositions cannot be approved at the same time by the House. If the constitutional situation of human rights is submitted to the Supreme Court, it thereby becomes sub judice and cannot be considered by the committee until the court has given its decision. The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time."
I submit that if the debate on the budget motion proceeds, and if the bill currently on notice is in fact introduced, this is exactly what will ensue. Two public bodies, each trusted with responsibilities over justice, will have before them these questions about the legitimacy of the proposed termination of agreements under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Points of Order
Before I conclude, allow me to address briefly the sub judice convention itself. It strikes me that every time a public issue is before the courts, the House is buffeted by opposing whims on how the convention should be applied, whether the convention should be applied, why it should be applied, and so on.
Should such a re-examination occur today, I submit that it should not be material to your decision, Mr. Speaker, or the decision of the House to suspend voluntarily debate on the budget motion.
Nor should it colour your decision on whether or not to allow the bill currently on notice to proceed, because the convention does exist and it continues to be applied.
For example, only last summer, Mr. Speaker, you interjected to remind the House of its self-imposed restraint when members of the Opposition attempted to question the government on its decision to lay charges against Mr. Doug Small and the conflicting evidence given to the House committee.
In fact, since I have been in the House, I can only remember sub judice being applied to prevent the Opposition from unrestrainedly asking questions of the government on topical issues of the day.
Although it may sometimes appear so, the convention does not exist to protect the government. It exists to protect those before the courts.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to protect the interests of the citizens of British Columbia whose elected representatives are challenging, on their behalf, the budget measures proposed by this government.
I ask for debate on the budget motion to be suspended and for any proceedings on any bill regarding the Canada Assistance Plan to be stopped until such time as debate will not imperil the rights of these citizens from British Columbia to a fair hearing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments on the point raised by the member for Kamloops, House leader for the New Democratic Party.
Indeed he may have a point. The government could be breaking the law or possibly has broken the law already, but in my view this is a matter of law and not a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons to settle. The courts are indeed empowered to look into these matters,

March 5, 1990
Business of the House
and I take it that both provinces at this time have taken measures to make their case in front of the courts.
I am therefore uncomfortable as to whether in your position as Speaker of this House, knowing our traditions and our customs, you should be ruling at this time on a matter of law. I know you cannot.
Therefore I put it simply to the House that although I agree with the member that there could be a good legal case made before the courts for the government breaking or being in breach of its agreements, or of its subagreements for that matter, at this time I must say that the Official Opposition would feel that the matter is a legal one, not one for the House.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just very quickly respond to the opening comments of the member for Kamloops by saying that I hope he does not think that because there are four Albertans involved it takes four Albertans to match wits with one British Columbian or one Ontarian. That is not the circumstance.
I indicated that we had no previous warning of this point of order so I am not in a position to reply in detail, except to dig back into my memory and recall, without the specific citation, previous speakers pointing out the fact that if this point of order were to prevail, then by the simple expedient of filing a lawsuit anybody could prevent the House of Commons from dealing with its normal business. That clearly would be an unacceptable situation. For that reason if for no others-and there certainly are other reasons-I would say this is rather a spurious point of order and probably not worthy.
If the Chair should see in the arguments more merit than is obvious to me at this point in time, I would ask that we have an opportunity to respond in detail. I have to say at this time I agree with my friend from Ottawa- Vanier that this point of order is elaborate and articulate but without merit in terms of substance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has raised a very interesting point. It is public knowledge, as has been repeated by the hon. member for Kamloops, that at least one province is challenging in the courts
certain provisions which the federal government has enunciated in its budget speech.
The challenge lies on the side of civil law, not criminal law. The sub judice convention has never been as rigorously applied in civil matters as in criminal matters. Hon. members will know that as a consequence of matters raised by members to me recently, I have had to deal, with the sub judice convention with respect to criminal matters, and I think that position is quite clear.
I echo the words of the hon. House leader, that the hon. member for Kamloops put forward a very able argument. I want to consider carefully the reference to a particular ruling which the hon. member cited. I will take that matter under advisement and report back to the House as soon as I can.
However, in the meantime, I do not think it would be appropriate to delay the debate on the budget motion. We are not debating a bill at the moment. I have the hon. member's point. I will give it very careful consideration and will report back to the House as soon as I can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Orders of the Day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could use this moment to ask my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, if there has been any progress made on a motion to be brought before the House in terms of televising the proceedings of the finance committee which will start later in the day. It is important that we deal with this expeditiously.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been progress. I thought I would wait until Orders of the Day had been called and just before we got into debate, it was my intention to rise on a point of order.
There have been discussions among the three parties, and I believe Your Honour will find consent for the following motion:
That televised broadcasting be authorized of meetings of the
Standing Committee on Finance, specifically during the consideration
March 5, 1990

of Bill C-62; an act to amend the Excise Thx Act, Criminal Code, Customs Act, Customs Tariff, Excise Act, Income Tax Act, Statistics Act, and Thx Court of Canada Act;
That such broadcasting be on the basis of the principles and practices now governing broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have 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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; and the amendment of Mr. Young (Gloucester) (p. 8636).
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding was that the hon. member for Regina- Wascana had the floor at the interruption of debate last time. I am advised that for reasons I assume to do with flight connections he is not able to make it, but he would like to continue his speech later in the day.
I am wondering if the House would give its consent to allow him to continue that speech at a later time during the day, in light of the fact that he cannot be here right now.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to consent to the hon. member using any unexpired time he may have had at the conclusion of his speech and the usual period for questions and comments at the conclusion of that speech.
I would also like to say while I am on my feet, Sir, that during the continuation of this debate the speakers from this party will be speaking for 10 minutes followed by a 5-minute question and comment period if that is agreeable to the House.
The Budget


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, certainly we are prepared to give consent to allow the hon. member for Regina-Wascana to complete his remarks, followed by the usual question and comment period.
I too would seek an understanding of the House that, if the various parties wish to divide up the particular slot allotted into a 10 and 5 as opposed to 20 and 10, that would meet its approval.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues and friends opposite for allowing the hon. member for Regina-Wascana to continue his speech at a later time today.
Second, I wish to indicate that in our usual attitude of co-operation we would be happy to allow the other parties to split their time as they wish.
We on the government side may consider doing the same, although I am not informed of that at this moment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take advantage of this atmosphere of co-operation and ask my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, whether there is any possibility of the government reconsidering and allowing the finance committee to travel so witnesses from various parts of Canada can be heard.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I am a very generous man, but there are limits to my generosity.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, one thing has been drawn to my attention. The hon. member for Regina-Wascana, as I understand the situation, may have been addressing the House in this debate immediately before the vote was taken on Thursday evening. If that is so, it may be that his time has expired by reason of the interruption and the vote. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could confirm that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we have had enough negotiation on the floor. We can decide that later.
We will proceed to debate. The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor for 10 minutes, plus 5 minutes for questions.

The Budget


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and extremely pleased to be able to address the whole question of the budget this afternoon.
As I begin to do so, I would like to quote for the record a communication I have just received from a colleague addressing this very question. It reads as follows:
This budget is a true Tory budget. The government's real agenda, about which it said nothing in the last election campaign, is now fully visible, and the vast majority of Canadians are clearly unhappy about the directions in which the government is taking our countiy. In the last campaign the government did not talk about a deficit out of control. It did not promise reductions to unemployment insurance, health care funding, and education funding. It did not promise a clawback of old age security. When the Liberals said these were exactly the things that would happen, the Conservatives called them liars and fear-mongers.
If we were to ask Canadians today who are the liars and who are the fear-mongers, I suspect we would get a very different answer from the one that would have been given some months ago.
The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, in an address a few days ago with respect to the budget, indicated that a budget reflects a government's priorities and is really a reflection of its very soul.
I was interested in that particular comment because, in a sense, it has profound implications. How I spend my money is actually a very important statement about what it is that I consider my priorities to be. What is it that is most important and what is it that is perhaps of lesser importance?
If you look at the government's budget from that perspective, you will find some very interesting facts that I want to share with this House. Defence spending will in fact increase by 5 per cent. The operations of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, will be increasing by 20 per cent.
I could give some other examples but I believe that those serve to make the point I want to make. It is that there are certain programs of government that will be getting substantial assistance.
Where are the largest cuts being made? To health care and to education. I could mention several others but I am going to concentrate on those two because they happen to be massive.
Let me talk very quickly and briefly about the reductions in transfer payments, particularly those with respect to education. They are even more severe when one looks at them in the total context within which they were taken. Education will suffer from the goods and services tax when it is implemented in 1991.
Hon. members will recall the postal subsidies from which education was exempted. Educational institutions were given these postal subsidies by a former minister of this government for scholarly and research journals. That promise was not honoured. Those dollars will have to be absorbed within current funding. In fact, there will be reductions in funding.
There are reductions in training and retraining. Supposedly that was a high priority of government. There are reductions in expenditures in science and technology. There again we keep hearing the rhetoric about the importance of those particular programs. There are reductions in student aid, which has seen no change since 1984. An administrative fee has been tacked on for those who need funding most.
What is the message being sent to students? The government is saying quite clearly that they have a lot, apart from its other decisions about reducing job opportunities for the summer. It is saying that they have too much. Otherwise, it would not be making those particular reductions.
In looking at education and health, the Association of University Teachers has estimated that there will be 39 billion fewer dollars from 1986 to 1995 in current government projections. With the reductions in 1986, after the government had said that it would not touch the formula, and with the intended reductions in 1989-90, which were not necessary because of the freezes that were imposed during this current budgetary year, there will be 39 billion fewer dollars for Canadians, for the provinces in health and education. There is roughly $9 billion less for education out of those $39 billion. I would suggest that there is well over another $1 billion of additional reductions elsewhere in other cuts.
Let us look at Manitoba alone where there will be 99 million fewer dollars for health and education over the next two years because of this budget. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, you can buy a lot of health and education in Manitoba for $99 million.
March 5, 1990

Let us look at the message that this government is giving with respect to its reductions in health. What is the message to the elderly and to those who need health care? Obviously, it is saying: "If you do get sick or if you do need health care, it is going to be more costly and risky." Obviously, the supports that were there are no longer there. The system is deteriorating. People are waiting longer for operations and for services that they used to be able to get quickly.
How can the government expect me to say anything positive about this budget when it has attacked two basic programs essential to the well-being of this country, health and education programs? I cannot and will not say anything positive because I think that the government has not only been dishonest with Canadians, it has betrayed Canadians.
Let me come to another point where the government has had some success through exaggerating the statement about no new taxes. If this were not Parliament, I would be calling it a blatant lie because it is. I have to say that it is a false statement.
I would ask you to ask Canadians whether or not they believe they will be paying more taxes as a result of this budget. Ask them whether or not the goods and services tax that will be implemented supposedly in January 1991 is a new tax that will be implemented during the current budgetary year? Ask them whether or not the withdrawals, the reductions in health, in education and in a number of other areas will necessitate the payment of additional taxes to the provinces, to municipalities, and indeed to individual Canadians. I urge you to ask them.
Of course, we have not even talked about the partial indexation of the income tax. My personal indexation will not keep up to inflation, neither will my salary category on which I pay taxes. There will be more taxes, new taxes paid on those measures because the government has not taken the time to change it to accommodate me and many other Canadians who need this kind of assistance.
Another big distortion is when the government suggested that there will be a growth in the transfer payments according to the growth in population. That is not true. The growth will be in tax transfers. It works this way. I quote from a report I received. "The minister is taking credit for increasing transfers which are really
The Budget
part of the existing provincial tax burden while the federal cash share is down. Total cash transfers for post-secondary education are down $54 million". That is the truth of the matter.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Budget reflects the priorities and values of this government. A budget always reflects the priorities of an individual, an organization or a government.
If we look at the increases in certain budgets, we see a 5 per cent increase for Defence and a 20 per cent increase for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We see cutbacks in health and education, cutbacks that will affect senior citizens, Canadians who need help and young people who want to work towards a promising future-They say there are no new taxes, which is not true, because the goods and services tax is a new tax. A number of programs enjoy only partial indexation, which is a clear indication that we will pay a lot more taxes- new taxes-on measures that are already in place. Transfer payments to the provinces, to municipalities and to individuals will suffer.
This government claimed there would be no new taxes and that it was entirely fair in allowing certain departments to expand, but it has been extremely unfair in many areas such as health, education, programs for women, aboriginal people, multicultural groups, and so forth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's comments. He joins the masses in opposition to the public outrage against the budget in questioning its legitimacy in a number of areas. The one area I noticed my hon. friend did not mention, because of its very critical importance in terms of the context in which the government places it, is the goods and services tax, a measure which we all clearly oppose.
I just want to clarify one point with my hon. friend. What is the Liberal party's position on the goods and services tax? Is it opposed to the goods and services tax in principle, or just opposed to it for the moment with the hope that maybe later it will have a chance to reap its benefits?

March 5, 1990
The Budget


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to respond to the question. I spoke very quickly when I made my remarks. I assume that is the reason why my hon. colleague did not hear my reference to the goods and services tax. I did indicate how it would penalize students and a number of other sectors.
If the hon. member will recall, in the very recent past I have spoken against the goods and services tax. I have pointed out a number of areas in the health care sector where it will have a very negative effect, such as with respect to psychology services, therapeutic services and so on.
The hon. member is, of course, trying to have some fun with me and my colleagues in this party. He knows clearly that we were among the first and the strongest and the most vociferous against this tax. It is completely unfair for him to suggest that we are perhaps dancing around, that this is perhaps a disagreement in principle. We have said no. I continue to say no, and I shall continue to say no.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not question my hon. friend's sincerity. I think he probably does believe that this tax is a nasty tax.
I have been listening with care to some of the leadership candidates for his party, Mr. Martin and Mr. Chretien to be specific, who both have said: "Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not certain. Quite frankly, something has to be done with the tax system and we will look at it some time in the future." I do not want to suggest to my hon. friend that I am being cute with him, because I believe sincerely that he is opposed to this measure.
What I want him to say is that not only is he opposed, not only has he spoken against the goods and services tax, but in fact the Liberal Party of Canada is in opposition in principle and would never as a government some time in the distant future impose a goods and services tax or a national sales tax on the people of Canada. Is he prepared to say that, to set aside his own personal views and represent the party that he does represent?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the leadership candidates. The hon. member would not want me to do that.
On the other hand, if I were a leadership candidate I would be saying exactly what I have been telling you. I would not be changing that for one moment. I cannot speak for the party. I can tell you what the party is saying right now.
The hon. member heard, perhaps, this party's critic this morning on Canada AM who will be debating that with the Minister of Finance tonight in Edmonton. He said it was a poor tax. We are against this tax. We have to look at taxation in a progressive kind of way, and we cannot look at it in isolation. I have not heard any of my colleagues, and if you know of any I wish you would tell me, who have said that they are for this tax.
There may be some who are less passionate, less intense about the negative effects. I suspect that is true about any question, but I have heard nothing but complete accord from my colleagues with whom I associate here on this side of the House on that question. We are against this tax.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, where does one begin to debate a budget tabled by the finance minister? The budget contains many measures which will have a devastating impact on students, seniors, native peoples, low and middle income families, war veterans and small business. The list goes on and on.
The finance minister claims there are no tax increases in his budget. He has simply passed on an $8 billion problem to the provinces. Furthermore, the goods and services tax threatens to become the largest tax grab in Canadian history.
The finance minister claims that deficit reduction is not at the expense of social programs. Yet support for medicare, welfare and day care has been slashed. Support for social and co-op housing will be cut by $165 million over a five year period, compounding the problems of the 200,000 homeless in Canada and the many more who must commit over half their income to rent.
Speaking of the deficit, in 1984 the Minister of Finance announced a five year program of deficit reduction designed to cut the deficit in half by the end of the decade. Despite record economic growth, the minister has failed miserably to reach this target. In fact, he has only trimmed $4 billion from the $34 billion deficit that
March 5, 1990

existed in 1985-86, the first full year of Tory administration.
This government is not only bent on destroying the economy of the country, it is also bent on destroying aboriginal organizations which have become, in the government's opinion, too critical of the current administration. Funding cuts to the Secretary of State's budget have been focused primarily on aboriginal organizations. Never has a budget had a more devastating impact on one group. The government has chosen to attack aboriginal organizations because it cannot stand to hear how dismal its record has been in this area.
One has to wonder why one department with a total budget of $3.5 billion has chosen to attack the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Secretary of State has to cut $23 million from his budget. In reality, when you subtract last December's increase to the department of $13 million the Secretary of State only needs to cut $10 million. Native aboriginal communication societies are hit hardest. Cutbacks to these organizations represent 65 per cent of the Secretary of State's budget cuts. Is this fair? Of course it is not. The government has chosen to eliminate the one program which has served to inform aboriginal Canadians of this government's inadequate handling of aboriginal issues. This government has in effect silenced the aboriginal people.
In my riding, Wawatay Native Communications Society operates a bilingual newspaper, community radio and television stations and a high-frequency trail radio program for trappers. It currently has a staff of 45 people to cover all of the aboriginal communities in northern Ontario, many of which are remote and isolated.
As a result of the elimination of the native communications program and a cut-back in the northern native broadcast access program, Wawatay will lose 33 per cent of its funding from the Secretary of State. Twenty jobs will be lost and Wawatay's award-winning newspaper will most likely become a unilingual English publication. The high-frequency trail radio program will most likely be eliminated.
Native newspapers in this country have contributed to a large degree to the preservation of aboriginal languages. Bilingual newspapers such as Wawatay News have protected aboriginal languages from extinction.
The Budget
Native newspaper publications have also contributed to the preservation of a very unique and distinct culture by publishing a record of aboriginal traditions and customs. Such a record will ensure that these traditions and customs are not lost.
Aboriginal communications societies have made a significant contribution to literacy. Many more aboriginal Canadians are literate today, thanks to native newspapers. This government has bragged about Canada's participation in this year's International Year of Literacy. In my view this government should be ashamed of its contribution.
This Tory government is attempting to destroy aboriginal peoples. This Tory government believes the aboriginal peoples are a thorn in its side. It believes that aboriginal peoples will just go away if funding is cut off.
Canada's aboriginal peoples are living in Third World conditions. Government members often say that I am exaggerating. I have seen these conditions in which some of our aboriginal people live. I challenge members to visit a native community and see the poverty, despair, drug and alcohol abuse, high unemployment, high rates of suicide and violence. Once they have seen these Third World conditions right here in Canada maybe members will understand why it infuriates aboriginal organizations when their funding is cut or eliminated. Funding for aboriginal organizations is crucial to improving these conditions.
The cut-backs in the provinces' transfer payments used for post-secondary education and health care is a direct attack on social programs in this country. Capping increases in Canada Assistance Plan transfers to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta is an attack on low income Canadians in these provinces. The Minister of Finance has left the provinces with virtually few options -increase taxes or cut services. Students will be forced to pay higher costs toward education. Seniors who are the main recipients of health care in this country will feel the pinch in reduced services. Low-income Canadians will see their already inadequate quality of life eroded even further.
To say the least, one way or another, Canadians will once again be faced with increased taxes as a result of this budget. Whether it be the goods and services tax, the taxation measures from the 1989 budget which came into

March 5, 1990
The Budget
effect this year or provincial and municipal taxes, Canadians will be paying higher taxes.
There are a number of budget measures which directly impact on northern Ontario. The regions of this country are being asked once more to pay for this government's incompetence in managing economic affairs. Small business and junior mining companies will feel the crunch. I can assure this House that that will mean several hundred job losses in my riding. There is no question whatsoever that this government has abandoned its regional development policy.
The cancellation of the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program is a harsh blow to the junior mining industry in this country. Northern Ontario and northern Quebec will lose jobs as a result. While it is still too soon to tell how effective this program was, the government has breached its promise to protect the junior mining industry. Instead, it has contributed to its demise.
The government should have introduced measures which would have made flow-through share investment more attractive. Prior to this government coming to power we had a flow-through share program which encouraged investment in the junior mining industry. Between 1983 and 1988, 35 mines opened in Canada, 16 of which are located in northern Ontario, thanks to flow-through share investment.
When the government introduced changes to the Income Tax Act in 1987 investor confidence declined. To add insult to injury, the government cancelled the mineral exploration depletion allowance. The Canadian Exploration Incentive Program was designed to reignite investor confidence. It was designed to protect the junior mining industry.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in a press release on February 21 that the federal government is not abolishing the concept of flowthrough shares for exploration. He said that junior exploration companies wall still have the option to obtain equity financing for exploration using flow-through shares. How does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expect junior exploration companies to attract investment when the flow-through share program is inadequate?
Analysis of flow-through share financed exploration has indicates that, on average, every million dollars spent on mineral exploration creates some 21 person years of
direct employment. Between 1983 and 1988 this suggests that the $3 billion worth of exploration financed with flow-through shares has generated an estimated 63,000 person years of direct exploration employment in Canada. This alone is proof that the flow-through share program as it existed under the previous Liberal administration was more effective than this government's policies.
Flow-through share funding creates jobs. Given this government's many promises to create jobs, you would think it would be interested in improving this program. Flow-through share funding has led to economic activity in northern Ontario which would have otherwise laid dormant. Flow-through share funding has contributed to regional economic development.
This government has consistently abandoned and destroyed regional economic development since it came to power. It has provided northern Ontario with lip service only. This Tory government will announce some program one year and in the next it either destroys it completely or erodes it to the point where the program is rendered useless.
Regional economic development has become a thing of the past under this government. In his budget speech the finance minister announced that he will eliminate grants to business with limited exceptions. What do these exceptions really mean? Will the government's exceptions be based on financial limits, or based on types of grants?
FEDNOR's future remains uncertain to this day, since we have yet to see the spending estimates for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. FED-NOR, while not perfect, has served to attract a more diversified economy to northern Ontario. It has served to help small business expand and grow.
I know that my time has expired. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I expect the people of northern Ontario to hear more on this budget as time goes on.


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. When we talk about flow-through shares in Canada and in each province, we could also mention that the crash of October 1987 caused consumers in Canada to lose confidence in the mining industry. I am one of those who defend prospectors in Quebec who are trying to find a new program. Every time we find a new program, we have difficulty implementing it. In my
March 5, 1990

riding now, there is a federal office in Val d'Or that will close. This was ordered by the Minister of Finance.
I would like to ask you the following question: Does Ontario now have programs to help mining exploration as now exist in Quebec? According to the 1867 Constitution, mineral resource development is a provincial matter under section 109.
Do you agree that the province of Ontario should do more to help this sector? Because, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, people no longer trust the federal government to help with mining exploration. Even we on this side of the House have to fight every time, every week, to come up with a new program.
Can you tell me whether the province of Ontario has mechanisms in place to help mining exploration in Ontario?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The member for Abitibi has a riding very similar to my riding in northern Ontario. These are ridings that have a lot of economic development initiative and which want to get involved in mainstream economics in Canada. Unfortunately there are some difficulties. One is that Ontario governments, Quebec governments and the federal government are not listening to the regions as it relates to mining.
To answer the member's question simply, I do not think that the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and, in this case, the federal government have put in place the types of programs that will help the mining industry in Canada to flourish and grow.
What I talked about in my remarks to the House and to the people of northern Ontario is this. If we want regions like northern Ontario and northern Quebec to grow we have to put those types of programs in place.
I have asked my colleagues in Ontario to do something similar to what I have asked the federal government to do, that is to put some initiatives in place like the flow-through share mechanism to allow the junior mining companies to get involved in the industry to the extent of creating employment and getting these mines open. I tell the member opposite that there are 10 mines that are ready to go in northern Ontario but no dollars to put in place to get them going. We have the ability but we
do not have the funding. I ask the federal government, as I have asked the Ontario government, to do that for us.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate, appreciating that the other member from Ontario made comments about the fact that the Ontario government has not put in place the mechanisms to allow for the economic development of the mining area in that part of Canada. I recognize he complains that the federal government has not done so either. Yet during the whole process leading up to the current legislation on the goods and services tax, many mining industry executives appeared before the finance committee indicating the positive steps that it would have for exploration development of mines, particularly in Ontario but also in western Canada. So I am a little surprised that the member would comment on that.
I would ask the member to tell us just where and how much money he would like to have the federal government kick into this program. It is certainly very consistent and very common in Ontario that the provincial government of Ontario insists on hiring lots of bureaucrats but does not put any money into programs. Here at the federal level we have a deficit problem. We have to deal with some of the problems that are a legacy of the previous Liberal administration.
I would ask the hon. member just how much money he would like from the federal government. Does he have any suggestions as to how much further he would like us to cut back the provincial transfers to make it possible for this to happen?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's nonchalant attitude to Canadian youth is deplorable and unhealthy. Although the 15,000 young people in Ottawa-Vanier, my riding, could count on $528,000 in 1987 when the Challenge summer employment program began, they will have to share 4 per cent of that amount, or $23,200,

March 5, 1990
this year. This is even more laughable because it may cost more to administer the program in 1990.
In past years, Mr. Speaker, the jobs created by Challenge and Young Canada Works helped thousands of young people in Ottawa-Vanier pay for their education. Since the devil finds work for idle hands to do, it would be in the Conservative government's interest to invest this money to keep our young people busy and to educate them, which would help it avoid spending millions of dollars on problems of drugs, alcohol, theft and so on caused by inactivity. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed deplorable that the government is cutting its programs for youth.

English]


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the announced cuts in the Summer Employment Experience Development Program are going to create tough time for students who want to pursue their education.
The SEED program provides wage subsidies to encourage employers from all sectors to create jobs for high school, college and university students.
Last year in the Ottawa-Carleton area alone, $1.3 million were allocated to the program. This year that amount is being cut by 85 per cent.
Last year 79 jobs were created in Carleton-Gloucester alone. With these cuts, only 91 jobs will be available for students through this program across the whole Ottawa-Carleton region.
In times when fees are going up drastically and the goods and services tax will increase the price of books and resource material, how will students be able to afford an education? The government is denying them employment opportunities and a chance to contribute toward Canada's economic growth.
The government is letting the students down by refusing to invest in our youth and the future of this country.


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in May 1989, the Ad Hoc Committee on AIDS was established. It includes members of the House from all three parties and of the Senate.
The Ad Hoc Committee on AIDS is a voluntary group of concerned people who have come together in a non-partisan way to address one of the most serious pandemics facing our world today. This is a voluntary association of committed parliamentarians, but we would obviously welcome the establishment of a special joint committee of both the House and the Senate.
This week we will begin holding a series of public meetings which will result in recommendations to the government. On Wednesday, March 7, Dr. Earl Berger and Mr. Ian Sadinsky, authors of the Working Document for the Development of a National Strategy on HIV Infection and AIDS will appear before our committee. This meeting will be followed by the appearance of the Canadian AIDS Society on March 14.
AIDS represents a serious crisis in Canada. Much has been done to address the many issues surrounding it but much more work still remains to be done.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in 1963 Linda Macdonald, a young mother of five children, sought medical treatment at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal from Dr. Ewen Cameron. Instead, without her consent, she was subjected to a series of barbaric medical experiments, including 109 electric shock treatments, being kept in a drug-induced coma, and subjected to a psychic driving tape placed under her pillow.
These projects were funded by the Government of Canada then, as they had been during the 1950s. Linda Macdonald lost the first 26 years of her life. Her lawyer, Tom Berger, has filed an action on her behalf in the
March 5, 1990

Federal Court. I urge the new Minister of Justice to re-examine the decision of her predecessor to deny compensation to Ms. Macdonald and to settle this claim fairly without further legal proceedings.
Despite the white-washed conclusions of the Cooper report and its appalling medical underpinning, Canada has a legal, moral and ethical obligation to Linda Macdonald and indeed to all other victims of these cruel government-funded experiments. Justice must be done.


NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, on February 271 received an urgent message from the Mayor of Umiujaq, Noah Inukpuk, who told me: "The people of the community of Umiujaq, including myself, are suffering terrible hardship as a result of the high cost of living. The pressure on us is incredible. We, the people of Umiujaq, earnestly request that you give voice to our feelings of alarm.
Here are a few examples: a bag of apples that was sold for $2.86 now costs $4.44; bread has gone up from $1.70 to $3.88; a can of evaporated milk, from $1.60 to $2.60; a five-pound bag of flour from $6.13 to $8.36; and pork chops from $10 to $13, and they aren't even fresh".
Mr. Speaker, for several months I have been trying to make the Government of Canada realize that its domestic policy of cutting back on financial assistance is unfair as it affects local air services, as I said in the House on October 23 and 25, 1989.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the recent budget, Canadians indicated they wanted the debt dealt with by cutting government spending, not by tax increases.
The Minister of Finance met the challenge. He responded by cutting and restraining spending in a number of areas, by imposing no new taxes-the first such budget in 22 years. He managed to exempt major transfer
payments to individuals, such as elderly benefits, family allowances, UI and veterans pensions.
Grappling with the legacy of past government overspending is not easy. Those who preceded us never took the unpopular decisions. Their answer was always to borrow some more, to continue to mortgage the future.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for taking some difficult decisions, for displaying the determination and leadership necessary to face up to the debt problem and to build the kind of financially stable Canada we want for ourselves and for future generations.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this ad, run in one newspaper today in Canada, cost this government $11,000 for one day. Women's centres are receiving less core funding from this government in an entire year than it is spending on GST advertising. This government's commitment to women is not worth the paper this ad is printed on.
The government is spending $14 million to advertise the GST. Last year the total budget of the Secretary of State's women's programs for one year was $11 million. After this budget, it will be closer to $9 million. The Tories are spending $14 million on propaganda for a tax that no one wants, a tax that has not passed Parliament. They have cut funding to women's centres right across the country that provide support and information to the women of their communities, to battered and sexually assaulted women, to jobless women and to homeless women.
Instead of attempting to silence the voices of women, instead of cutting women's funding by 100 per cent, the GST advertising should be slashed and the Tory government should also be cut by 100 per cent.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party continues to stand solidly with Canadians in opposing this government's 7 per cent goods and services tax.

March 5, 1990
To date, with our help more than 600,000 Canadians have petitioned this government to stop the GST. Now, the Liberals are giving Canadians from coast to coast a chance to say no to the GST.
Starting Monday, March 12 through to Friday, March 16 Canadians can vote against the GST by dialling 1-900-720-6052, 24 hours a day. That is right. Starting Monday, March 12 through Friday, March 16 for a mere 50-cent toll charge, Canadians can tell this government no to the GST by dialling 1-900-720-6052.
The Liberals once again take the lead in giving all Canadians an opportunity to tell this government that they reject the biggest, most obscene tax grab in Canadian history, the goods and services tax, by calling 1-900-720-6052. Let us give this government the message, "axe the tax".



Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the replacement of the structurally flawed and antiquated federal sales tax is being welcomed with open arms by manufacturers all across Canada. In light of the superficial criticism by others, our Canadian manufacturers see it as the righting of a historic wrong. After all, they have been discriminated against under the existing system for some 65 years.
The implementation of the GST will remove the built-in competitive bias of the existing system, increase capital investment and enhance our ability to compete internationally, according to Mr. Jordan Sullivan, President of Strong Equipment of Woodbridge, Ontario.
Armchair opponents of the goods and services tax should revisit their cursory arguments. Certainly an important initiative such as the GST which will provide an instant 1 per cent to 3 per cent price savings for our manufacturing sector should not be a target for shallow criticism.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, this government is taking important steps to control spending,
manage the economy and to invest in the very future of this country. This affects all Canadians.
But let us be realistic. How much control of our affairs will we have if we do not deal with our national mortgage? How much control do we have over our destiny if we owe our souls to foreigners? This government is fighting hard to control spending and regain the very sovereignty lost under the years of fiscal indifference and mismanagement of one Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.
If Canada loses its sovereignty and its ability to control its own house, the blame will clearly rest with the seeds and growth of fiscal mismanagement of the Trudeau era.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory government is jealous of the popularity of the Liberal Party. It has come up with a new way of recruiting members. Indeed, large numbers of Canadians have taken over riding association executives of Alberta Tory members. They have obviously not done so in order to join the Conservative party, but, indeed, to defeat the government goods and services tax.
By going totally beyond responsible limits of taxation and complexity, and by showing its disregard for the desire of over two-third of the electorate, the government has forced otherwise calm, law-abiding citizens to stand up and say, enough is enough. They have told the government in no uncertain terms, no to the GST.
In addition to phoning the number 1-900-720-6052 in order to oppose the GST, citizens across this country are ready to do almost anything to oppose the GST, including buying membership cards-heaven forbid-in the Conservative party.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, this government was elected six years ago with one vital objective, to get control of our nation's expenses. This objective had and has priority over all others because it must. Any other objective cannot be considered, advanced or planned without first having the dollars to do it.
March 5, 1990

The environment needs cleaning up. We all agree with that. But it takes more than political will, it takes money. Our poor and unemployed need the tools and education to make themselves self-sufficient and productive. But that requires more than sympathetic rhetoric, it takes dollars.
Our health care system, one of the best in the world, cannot be sustained without an ever-increasing amount of money. We do not have any money. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. But with this budget, we are finally able to stand on our tiptoes, peer over that mountain of debt and see the future, prosperous and self reliant.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware that the 7 per cent goods and services tax will dramatically affect their lives for generations to come, which is why 80 per cent of Canadians oppose the government's decision to impose this cruel and punitive tax on the people of Canada.
Unlike the Liberals, while the New Democrats really do oppose the GST, they also, as a party, offer specific alternatives to the goods and services tax. We did detail explicitly what the government should do rather than impose the 7 per cent tax. This is why I am so disappointed that the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, sponsoring tonight's GST debate was not prepared to allow the NDP finance critic to participate.
Is it that the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce are not interested in hearing the New Democrat alternatives to the goods and services tax, or is it their fear that the NDP, who have led the fight against the GST across Canada, would point out flaws not only in the government's tax policy, but also reveal that the Liberals really do not oppose the principle of the goods and services tax, as pointed out so explicitly by their leadership candidates, Martin and Chretien.


S. O. 31 ALBERTA
René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I returned to Ottawa today having read an article in The Globe and Mail on the weekend about how Alberta is paying too much for Confederation.
I decided to talk about this article with a member of the government on my return to Ottawa. The first cabinet minister's office I saw belonged to the right hon. member for Yellowhead. Not feeling it appropriate to discuss this with an Albertan, I looked around and noticed that not only is the Secretary of State for External Affairs an Albertan, so, too, is the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture and President of the Privy Council, the member for Vegreville.
Now the member for Calgary Centre, an Albertan, is government House leader. Thinking I better tread lightly, I thought I would speak to the government whip, but lo and behold, he is an Albertan, the member for Calgary West.
With the approval of the member for Edmonton- Strathcona, who sits behind me, and the member for Calgary Southeast who normally sits in front of me, I thought I would point this out to you, Mr. Speaker. On the way to the House I wondered what I would do if the Acting Speaker, the member for Edmonton North, was in the chair. With all of these eminently qualified members in this place, no wonder Alberta does not need the assistance provided to those less fortunate provinces.


NEW MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Phillip Edmonston, for the electoral district of Chambly.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Phillip Edmonston, member for the electoral district of Chambly, introduced by Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Nystrom.
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1990

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the status of women. There appears to be a great deal of confusion between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance on the exact impact of the cuts in the recent budget on the existence of some 80 women's centres across Canada.
The minister has stated that she was not sure whether her cabinet colleagues, "were aware of just what kind of services were provided by these centres". The minister knows that these cuts will have a devastating impact on women seeking shelter from family violence, on women seeking education to overcome unemployment, and on women seeking help to overcome illiteracy. Will the minister confirm today that she has persuaded the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance to restore full funding for these women's centres, or will she admit that she has already failed to stand up for the women of Canada?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I think the brightest future for the women of this country is to ensure that we have a healthy and growing economy and jobs so that women can work towards self-sufficiency and independence. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance has brought down in his budget, and it is a budget which will ensure the future economic help and opportunities for the women of this country.
Let me say as well that the record of this government in supporting women in their aspirations is second to none. The $40 million program to assist women in dealing with family violence goes a long way in addressing an issue which had not been addressed in previous periods of times. There is, as well, the appointments of women, and the work that is done in terms of employment equity.
Everything that this government is doing, and everything that I will be doing in working with my colleagues,
will be to promote equality for women; to work with my colleagues at the provincial and community levels to ensure that services for women and their issues are addressed in an appropriate manner.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just admitted that she does not consider the women of Canada to be part of our national treasure.


Mr. Epp:: She said no such thing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In his Budget, the minister decided for the first time to restrict payments made to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan, without consulting with the provinces and without giving them prior notice as required by law.
The minister knows that children of poor families will suffer the consequences. He ought to know that 48 per cent of poor children in Canada live in the provinces he has targeted.
My question is just this: How can the minister justify his attempts to reduce the deficit if it means the poorest children of our country will suffer.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is entirely wrong.
The provinces are part of the problem. They have to be part of the solution. I can tell the hon. member that the provinces are not going to suffer. Consider the province of Ontario, for example, which has been spending money at 10.2 per cent per year over the last five years, increasing government bureaucrats by 7,014 people while the federal government has been trimming its deficit and trying to get the debt under control.
The hon. member says that the provinces cannot afford it. That is nonsense. They can. It is only about 1 per cent of their budget. Of course they can help with the deficit fight.
March 5, 1990

In the long run it is going to help them because it is going to get interest rates down, and that is what they are asking for.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that the provinces are part of the problem. Canadians already realize that the real problem consists of himself and his government.
The government wants to cut all funding for newspapers like the Mic Mac News, the paper that played a major role in exposing the terrible miscarriage of justice in the Donald Marshall case.
How many more cases like Donald Marshall will go unnoticed and unexamined because of this government's cuts to native newspapers and broadcasting? Will the Prime Minister agree today to restore funding for native Canadian media and associations, and stop denying native Canadians an important vehicle for justice and full participation in Canadian society? What is the answer today?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this government's record of support for our aboriginal peoples is second to none in the world.
Hon. members will notice in the budget that there were substantial increases in funding for native social, educational and community development projects, in total amounting to an increase of over 8.1 per cent. In so doing the core funding for native advocacy groups funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is increased and not reduced in 1990.


PUBLIC WORKS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, ten days ago in Halifax this government announced the opening of a $1.6 million office for visiting cabinet ministers. The office is in a plush office tower in the highest rent district. Does the Prime Minister find it surprising that the cost of this office is exactly the amount of the cuts to the women's program in the Department of the Secretary of State? Will he undertake today to cancel this office and restore funding to women's programs.
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of regional ministers' offices was made about four years ago. It is to eliminate the proliferation of offices that were held in all the minister's constituencies under the previous administration. We now have regional offices in Vancouver, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Montreal and in Halifax. This has greatly reduced the cost that was incurred in other places.


Mary Catherine Clancy: It may have escaped the minister's notice but Halifax is not a minister's constituency. I will lend my office to any visiting minister.
My supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women. Eighty women's centres nation-wide need to hear from her. Will she make a commitment that women's programs are more important than superfluous cabinet offices and will she at least attempt to convince her colleagues to restore the women's funding?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered that question. When you look at the record of this government in promoting equality and opportunities for women, we see the record of employment equity, assistance to battered women and assistance to immigrant women.
Those are the issues that we need to address. Women's centres have been providing services and in some cases they have been receiving project funding. My colleague has indicated that he still continues to have funding for over 550 projects. We will be working with him to address the needs across the country and with provincial, municipal and local activities to develop new partnerships in terms of addressing issues of concern to women and the services that are there. It is not only the federal government acting alone, all of society must work together to address those issues.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, women's centres across the country are being closed. Women's publications have been shut down, women's research organizations have been cut back and there is an attempt on the part of this government to silence the voice of women across Canada, whether it is in White-

March 5, 1990
Oral Questions
horse, Yukon, Hay River, Northwest Territories, from B.C. to the east coast.
On top of this, last week when the Minister for International Trade insulted the women of Canada, this was supported by the minister responsible for the status of women in saying that his comments were marvellous.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, who in the election of 1984 and the election of 1988 assured the women of Canada that he stood for equality, for social programs as a sacred trust, and that he would see equality in this country, will he keep that faith today? Will he keep his promise and reinstate funding to women's programs?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my hon. friend because I think one of the points that the New Democratic Party has consistently made is that equality comes through economic equality as well. Since this government was elected 1.6 million new jobs have been created and 61 per cent of them have gone to women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We introduced employment equity legislation in 1986. We increased by 100 per cent the number of women in decision-making positions in commissions and agencies of the federal government. We introduced a family violence initiative of $40 million in June of 1988. We improved job training for women as part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We introduced a $25 million program for immigrant women, improved child tax credits for low-income families, a plan for equal pay for work of equal value in the federal Public Service and improved pension benefits for women. That is a partial list of the accomplishments of a government deeply committed to the notion of equality and fairness for women.
Since this government came into power we have 1.5 million children in Canada living in poverty; 60 per cent of female-headed households living in poverty and 1 million children waiting for child care.
The mandate for the minister's department describes the minister's role as one which is "to promote equal opportunities for women in all spheres of Canadian life".
Given that women still only earn 66 per cent of what men earn, given that violence against women is increasing in our society, and given that poverty is more and more a women's problem in our society, it is clear that women are still far from being equal. I ask the minister responsible for the status of women as she sees these cuts being made, how is she going to carry out her mandate?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the lead question came to me from the Leader of the NDP, I assume there is no objection to my responding.
The question suggested there was an increase in the incidence of poverty in Canada for women and families. In point of fact, the exact opposite has happened since this government has come to office.
There has been a decrease of 757,000 Canadians living in poverty since this government came to office. Included in that number are 229,000 women and 259,000 children. In one year, from 1987 to 1988, the total number decreased by 80,000 people.
On the job creation side, 61 per cent of new jobs have gone to women. With regard to reduction of poverty, 757,000 people have been taken off the poverty line and have been made productive members of society. With regard to the participation of women, starting with the Supreme Court of Canada where there was one woman when we formed the government now there are three. Two women were ambassadors when we formed a government, now there are 13. There were three women deputy ministers, now there are 21.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women.
In every area of national life the situation of women has been vastly improved since this government came to office.
March 5, 1990

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
On December 6, all of Canada was in mourning. Fourteen young women had been massacred in Montreal. However, since that very tragic day, the government has closed women's shelters, cut funds for research and cancelled publications.
Now a minister makes remarks insulting Canadian women and another minister applauds him!
Will the Prime Minister finally prove to women that he understands them, that he listens to them and demand that those two ministers resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I attended the funeral following that absolutely horrible and tragic event. I personally communicated with all the families concerned. Since then, I have been in touch with some of the parents affected by this enormous tragedy.
I take it for granted that the Leader of the New Democratic Party makes no connection whatsoever between this great tragedy and the administrative action taken by any government. If she did, that would be cause for concern on the part of all members of this House.
The fact is that the government which I have the honour to lead has more than doubled the number of women in decision-making positions in the federal Public Service. We appointed two more women to the Supreme Court of Canada, for the first time in history. When we took power, there were, I think, two women ambassadors; now there are 13. There were three women deputy ministers; now there are 21.
All our actions, Mr. Speaker, have been directed to the goal of more social justice for women in Canada.
Before I was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada, there were only two women in the federal Cabinet. We now have six. Since last week, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is a woman, for the first time in our history.
The record shows that we care about women, and we will do more to improve the status of women in Canada.


THE BUDGET
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In June, 1989, the Prime Minister said, and I quote excerpts from his address: "We are going to focus more and more on a competitive society. We will concentrate on long-term investment in people, skills training, education, strategic technologies, research and development."
Can the Prime Minister tell us how his budget reductions in transfer payments, in training and retraining funds, in science and technology expenditures, in research and development activities and in student aid will contribute to productivity in this country, to use his own words: "to the creation of a competitive society"? Can he reconcile those cuts with the creation of a more just and humane society?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, every single thing that my hon. friend has just said is wrong. In point of fact in all of those areas there have been increases. In all of those areas there have not been cuts. There have been reductions in some areas of the rate of growth.
For the last five years, transfer payments by the Government of Canada to the provinces have exceeded 6.5 per cent while we were maintaining our rate of growth in program spending at 3.5 per cent. While we were trying to reduce the national deficit and cutting 12,000 public servants from the payroll in Ottawa, the Government of Ontario was putting 7,000 more on its payroll and increasing its spending at a rate of 10.1 per cent a year.
That is why we have an inflationary problem in Canada and the member should be addressing his question to the Premier of Ontario and not to the Prime Minister of Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting. If we look at the transfer we find that there is a transfer of funds and tax points. In fact there are fewer dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Ron J. Duhamel: There are.

March 5, 1990
Oral Questions

Is the Prime Minister willing to meet Education Ministers and other groups such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian School Trustees' Association, to see what negative impact these cutbacks in funding for education will have in Canada? Will the Prime Minister make a commitment today to meet these groups?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had his facts wrong in English and he has them wrong in French. The problem was the same and the solution is the same, in both languages. We are in the process of providing for a new era of increasing prosperity for Canada. We can do more for universities, research centres and institutions across Canada. We have increased our contributions to the provinces by 6.5 per cent annually, while keeping our own increases at 3.5 per cent. I think the provinces must do their share to help the national government and deal with what is basically a national problem. It is not a federal deficit, it is a national one, and all Canadians and all governments have a role to play in this respect.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On February 15 the Prime Minister said: "It is time-to remind ourselves what it is like to be a minority and to treat minorities with the same tolerance and generosity of spirit that we would want to be treated with, if the situations were reversed."
Does the Prime Minister believe his Minister of Finance upheld this noble sentiment when he eliminated the funding five days later for aboriginal newspapers, severely cut back aboriginal radio and television programming, and terminated and slashed aboriginal political organizations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the native population, next year the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have a budget of over $3.5 billion, which is an increase of $200 million in one year alone. There has been no cut-back to Indians and natives in this country.
There will be an increase of $200 million next year and we propose to do even more in the future.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. I fail to see how the increases he referred to affect the slashing of the program funding for the native newspapers and the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation which has been cut by a total of about $600,000 out of a $2 million budget.
In the same week as the budget cutbacks were announced the new $100 gold coin was unveiled which features Inuit people and the Inuit language, Inuktitut. Will the Prime Minister give real meaning to his expressed desire to protect linguistic minorities by ordering the reinstatement of the funding which has been cut from aboriginal programming so that the new gold coin will not become famous for its depiction of an endangered species?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said to my hon. colleague from the eastern Arctic, the program of funding by the Government of Canada to Indian, Inuit and all aboriginal peoples exceeds $4 billion and will have increased in 1990 by over 8 per cent on average.
The programs for the move toward Indian and Inuit self-government, the settlement of comprehensive claims, the programs in support of social, health and education initiatives for our native people have all been increased because this government, I and my predecessors, put a very great emphasis on the importance of properly and justly dealing with the needs of our native peoples.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. John Efford, Minister of Social Services of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIVE PROGRAMS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 1985, a leaked cabinet document known as the Buffalo Jump advocated the virtual elimination of many native programs and the virtual assimilation of native people in Canada.
The Prime Minister responded to that document with a letter denying it was government policy, promising to retain native fundings at current levels and saying that prior to policy changes consultation would be held with aboriginal people at the grass roots level.
My question is for the Secretary of State. Is he now implementing the recommendations of Buffalo Jump by cutting funding to native representative organizations and native media without any consultation, contrary to the solemn promise made by the Prime Minister to native leaders in his release of April 18, 1985?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend wrote out the question before he heard the answer given to my Liberal colleague over there.
I will be happy to go back and get my hon. friend the exact number, but since 1985 there have not been any cuts to native programs. There have been increases of hundreds of millions of dollars, $200 million in the upcoming year. Since 1985 there have been increases of hundreds of millions of dollars to the native community in Canada. Each year since this government has been in power there has been a substantial increase in funding for the aboriginal peoples and we propose to maintain that policy intact.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I hope my supplementary question will make it to the Secretary of State who seems to be surrounded by a number of defenders.
In the letter from the Secretary of State to native leaders justifying cuts to native organizations he states: "All areas of government have been asked to decrease expenditures and my department is no exception."
Can the minister explain why, of the $23 million in cuts in his department, $19 million came from native programs? Why is there a concentration on native programs
Oral Questions
while in comparison, for example, the budget for official languages went up by $8 million? This does not sound like the cuts are being shared equally, either within the government or within his department.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts to the DIAND Indian and Inuit affairs program. It went from $1.4 billion in 1984-1985 to $2.3 billion in the current year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: That includes $20 million to status Indian organizations. That is not a cut. That is a major increase, including $202 million of increase for this year alone.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Fulton:: He won't answer because he's a racist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. McKnight:: Withdraw!


John Horton McDermid: Stand up and withdraw.


Mr. Jelinek:: He called him a racist.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Have some courage, Fulton.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: I withdraw what I said, Mr.Speaker. It was intemperate but I felt it.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not accept that as a withdrawal. The hon. member will withdraw it properly.


James Ross Fulton: I withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The unification of Germany has vast implications for all of Europe and the rest of the world. What role does the minister see for Canada as

Oral Questions
a member of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in these negotiations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the House will know that during the Open Skies Conference a very important agreement was made involving the four countries which had been the great powers involved in the signature of the Potsdam Agreement and the two governments of Germany. That was important because it filled a void in dealing with some of the implications of German unification.
Obviously there has to be the involvement of other countries including, very actively, Canada. We are one of three nations that maintains a troop presence in Germany and consequently have an unusual interest in some of the implications of unification.
Part of that will be done through NATO. Part of it, as the hon. member suggests, could be done in the context of the CSCE negotiations and discussions which will become increasingly important as we proceed toward developments in Europe. There is also the possibility that informal arrangements can be made involving Canada and perhaps some other countries to become engaged in the process that was begun with the two-plus-four formula.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. We know that the talks on German unification have already begun under the two-plus-four formula but given the fact that Poland has serious and well-founded concerns with respect to its boundaries, has Canada communicated to the six countries within the two-plus-four formula that we will not accept anything short of an absolute safeguard of existing boundaries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look carefully at the language that was used when the two-plus-four formula was put in place, he will recognize that that language was framed to take particular account of the Polish situation.
I think that is understood by the Government of Poland. I know that is understood by the Government of Poland. But there is no question that there needs to be
further precision coming particularly from authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany, and Canada is encouraging the Federal Republic of Germany to give those kinds of assurances.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IHnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he tell the House why benefits to Canada's war veterans are being cut?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, while there have been changes, I can assure this House and the hon. member that there have been no over all cuts at all. In fact, the Veterans Independence Program has increased an enormous 60 per cent or more this year. There have been no cuts.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to test my arithmetic here this afternoon. In his Remembrance Day tribute less than four months ago the minister talked about how much was owed to those who did their duty and more for their country.
No matter what the minister says, the fact remains that money was taken away from veterans and benefits were cut. Something is being taken away from veterans for the first time since the great depression. We should not be taking something away from veterans, we should be racking our brains trying to find something to give them. Veterans deserve benefits and veterans deserve better.
Can the minister tell this House that he will immediately go to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and have these shameful cuts rescinded now?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear to this House that we support the veterans. For example, we have improved disability pensions, we have significantly increased the prisoner of war allowance, we have expanded the Veterans Independence Program by 60 per cent this year alone, we have reinstituted pensions for remarried spouses. We have negotiated with provinces for additional beds and we have improved health care benefits since we formed the government by 136 per cent.
March 5, 1990

We have put in more programs and we do not need any lessons from the hon. member or from that side of the House on what we have done for veterans in this country.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the friends of the Tory government will be pleased to hear, after watching today's Question Period, that there have been no cuts in this budget.
In his budget the Minister of Finance announced that he would be capping the Canada Assistance Program for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia because they are "have" provinces. The poor in these provinces are not the "have" poor. The poor in these provinces are just as poor as in other provinces.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like him to explain to this House how he can justify attacking the poor in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in this budget.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can calculate a balance sheet on Confederation. We are in a particularly difficult deficit problem which is, as the Prime Minister said, a national problem.
The hon. member should look at the deficit situation of the three provinces to which she refers. As a matter of fact, the largest province, the province of Ontario, bragged about a balanced budget-excess funds as a matter of fact. It can proportion the funds which it has to the poor, to health care and to housing and can perhaps cut back some of the fat that it might find.
One per cent of the provinces total budgets will be affected. Actually it is much less than that in year one, it is .5 per cent. In year two it is about 1.2 per cent. Those provinces will have to adjust their budgets by 1 per cent a year. I believe that those three provinces can handle that while at the same time taking care of those who need care in our society.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I am very offended by the response from the hon. minister. I am offended because the reason there is a balanced budget in the province from which I come is that that
Oral Questions
province has squeezed the poor year after year after year.
I suggest that hon. members on the other side go to British Columbia and see the 280,000 kids who have no child care, the hundreds and hundreds of kids on lunch programs at school, the hundreds of kids at food banks and the poverty that everybody on that side of the House sweeps aside.
Can the hon. member really truly in his heart justify that kind of extra squeeze being put on people who have already been squeezed by the province?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the hon. member misses is that there will be a 5 per cent increase to the provinces to help these people next year-not a cut as she likes to talk about, but a 5 per cent increase.
This government has a great record of helping those less fortunate, a great record that I am very proud of, as I know all my colleagues are.
The province of British Columbia will receive a 5 per cent increase next year, as will the other provinces that have been capped.


NORTHERN COMMUNITIES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The people of the community of Umiujaq, in Quebec, are suffering terrible hardship as a result of increases in the price of food since the Canada Post Corporation increased its postal rates by 30 per cent, 100 per cent, or more.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: While his department is still examining the question of the exorbitant rates set by Canada Post on January 31 this year, could the minister inform the House whether his department intends to consider the serious impact on the health and well-being of Northern Canadians, before the study ends as scheduled on February 1, 1991?

March 5, 1990
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Abitibi for this question which is important not only to the residents of Umiujaqbut to residents of northern Canada generally.
The problem arises, Mr. Speaker, because the normal postal subsidy which has been in place for several years is being removed this year. As of January 31, 1990 there have been significant rate increases affecting some northern communities.
My predecessor announced a careful review of the impact of these rate increases on January 19. We are looking very intently at the possibility that there might be any negative impact on northern communities. The Minister of Health is vigilantly watching to ensure that there will be no affect on the health of northerners. We will have a report quickly and remedy this situation as quickly as we can.


TAXATION
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is for the Prime Minister. On January 29 the Minister of Finance said in this House that about $9 billion in federal sales tax revenue comes from the taxation of business inputs.
The Prime Minister knows that this tax is incurred at the corporate level and either absorbed through lower profits or passed on through higher prices, just the same as the corporate income tax.
Will the Prime Minister agree that the shift from the MST to the GST is the equivalent of replacing $9 billion in corporate income tax with an equivalent tax increase at the individual level and constitutes the largest single corporate tax decrease in the history of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not agree with that.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, many times this question has been put and the government refuses to admit the simple fact that by reducing the
corporate tax burden in the manufacturers sales tax it has been passed on to individual Canadians.

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Revenue Canada officials know that for administrative reasons, it will be impossible to implement the GST by next January.
When will the minister admit that implementing the GST in January will be an administrative disaster and that the only reason the government is so adamant about this date is that it hopes Canadians will have time to forgive and forget before the next election?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has been paying attention over the course of the last six to eight months he will know that on a regular basis I have made public announcements, both outside this House and in this House, advising hon. members and Canadians of the progress of the preparation towards the GST, a change in the taxation system that is going to benefit Canada and Canadians, put the Canadian industry on a competitive level playing field with the international community and make Canada stronger, better and more prosperous.
I can assure this House that we are progressing well. We are on track. I can guarantee this House that there will be a smooth launch on January 1, 1991 for the benefit of all Canadians.


FREE TRADE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question to the same minister.
As the minister knows, since the signing of the free trade agreement there has been a major haemorrhaging of the border economies through a 19 per cent increase in border crossings and an 85 per cent increase in purchases registered. As the president of the customs union official said, "Canadians enticed by talk of free trade and low prices are heading south in record numbers".
The federal government is proposing to the provinces that if they accept the implementation of the GST, they can now charge provincial sales tax on these purchases. By adding new taxes to the burden already being

March 5, 1990

exercised upon Canadians, is this the way of solving the major haemorrhaging and spending which is taking place and affecting seriously the economies of our border towns and communities?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows anything about the free trade agreement, he will know that the increased congestion at the border has absolutely nothing to do with that agreement. As far as the congestion at the border with the trans-border crossings that are taking place and the difficulties being experienced in several border communities, I will be making a detailed announcement to the Canadian Importers Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and others at a luncheon speech this Wednesday in Toronto.


Lloyd Axworthy: The
minister says it has nothing to do with free trade, but if it waddles, quacks and has feathers it is a duck. In this case it is free trade.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put this question very clearly.
In this year alone we are suffering a $20 billion deficit in our current accounts. That is double what it was last year. Some $3.5 million leaves the economy of this country every hour.
I want to raise this question with the minister: Rather than forcing a new sales tax on Canadians, which will make the haemorrhaging even worse, why does the government not just cancel the tax, cancel the free trade agreement, and give the economy back to Canadians?


An Hon. Member:: Can you waddle and quack at the same time?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass on to the hon. gentleman the opinion of the Ontario Trade Minister Monty Kwinter, who was in Australia and told Australian business leaders that thanks to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement Ontario represents Australia's best way into the tough North American market. I quote him: "We know the North American market like no one else does and freer trade means we will get to know it better. It makes good sense for both of us".
Routine Proceedings
That was a gentleman who had feathers and quacked like the hon. gentlemen opposite, but he is now quacking in support of the free trade agreement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[ EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to table a petition signed by Canadians from many ridings regarding the release of Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo who was arrested unlawfully and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment for exercising his right to return to his native land. Mr. Leo is currently under indictment and still in a Taiwan prison.
The petitioners say that Mr. Leo is a valuable citizen of Canada and a law-abiding taxpayer. They urge the government to take immediate and effective measures to secure Mr. Leo's release.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House three petitions signed by Canadians in my riding of York West.
The petitioners are urging the government to scrap the GST. Not only is it going to hurt average working class families in my riding, but it is also going to undermine and address the serious difficulties the small business sector will have in my riding.
I am pleased to present to the House these three petitions in the hope that the government will listen to Canadians finally, once and for all.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present a petition from my constituents in response to a mailing

March 5, 1990
Routine Proceedings
asking them their opinion on the goods and services sales tax. I must say that thousands of people in Ottawa-Van-ier took the trouble to answer this request and that they are vehemently opposed to a goods and services tax. They think that this tax will be hard to administer, unfair to poor and middle-income families and a tremendous burden for small business.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of Burnaby and the city of Vancouver, expressing concern that the Minister of Finance has proposed the goods and services tax as an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay.
They note that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place and that the government is now trying to tax reading, hair-cuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
Therefore they call upon the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They urge the government to cease this proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.
In short, the petitioners call on the government to reject the goods and services tax.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from quite a number of Canadians who are very concerned with the goods and services tax.
They call on the government to reject the current proposal for a GST, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, and to ensure that there be broad public consensus on the sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax and that the government cease with a proposal that will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling two petitions, one from Matagami and one from Chibougamau, further to the recommendations of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
The signers, representing isolated communities, are very worried and reject the recommendations of this report which, among other things, would result in many workers losing their jobs.
They feel that the Government of Canada is refusing to adjust to the reality of their daily life, for life is hard in the North.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 175.


Mr. Young (Gloucester): Does the government intend to change (a) existing excise taxes (b) existing excise duties (c) the nine per cent sales tax advocated in the Goods and Services 'lax Technical Paper once this tax has replaced existing sales taxes on (i) tobacco (ii) liquor products (iii) transportation fuels and, if not, is the government committed to keeping these taxes at the existing levels in the case of excise taxes and duties and at the proposed nine per cent level in the case of the federal sales tax as advocated by the government and, if so, does it intend to recoup the difference between current revenues from taxes on each of these goods and those projected under the proposed goods and services tax and what will be the new levels of excise taxes, excise duties or federal sales tax for each of these goods?


Geoff Wilson: Under the proposed Goods and Services Tax, alcohol, tobacco and motive fuels will be taxed at 7 per cent. In addition, excise levies will continue to apply to these products. Given the deficit situation, it would not be
March 5, 1990

realistic to expect that the government would forego the current excise revenues from these items.
The 7 per cent GST rate represents a substantial decrease from the current federal sales tax rates on alcohol, tobacco and motive fuels. The reduction in revenues resulting from this decrease will be only partially offset in the case of alcohol and tobacco products by shifting the imposition of the tax from the manufacturer's to the retail level. Thus, without certain adjustments to excise levies, federal revenues from excisable goods would decline significantly. Sustaining this loss in existing revenues would make the achievement of a 7 per cent GST rate more difficult.
Accordingly, modifications to the rates of some of the excise levies will be made to protect current revenues. Thus, the excise levies on beer, spirits and wine will be increased from $1.58 to $2.29 per case of 24 bottles of beer, from $3.22 to $3.32 per 750 ml bottle of spirits, and from $0.34 to $0.39 per 750 ml bottle of wine. The federal excise tax on cigarettes will rise from $4.28 to $4.36 per carton, with similar increases in the excise levies on other tobacco products. There will be no changes in excise levies on motive fuels.
On average, the prices of these products to consumers should not change as a result of these adjustments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I find the request for an emergency debate to be very important and I have written down why I am making this
Routine Proceedings
request. Let me take a few minutes of the House's time to give the reasons.

Today, all women across this land are tuning their television sets to hear from their political leaders that the shock, the pain and too often the horror of words and deeds said against them because of their chromosomes will be brought to a halt because of the political will of our country's leaders in this House of Commons.
Men and women alike, must debate right now in an emergency debate on what we can do to refrain the violence against women. Before we can tackle any debate such as the one on the goods and service tax, the funding for women's groups or the proposed new abortion law, we must be able to demonstrate to the people of Canada that violence against women will not be tolerated.
Men and women must be treated fairly and equally and a message must be sent at once to everyone that there is a strong will in the House of Commons from members to push such measures.
In the years since the introduction of the emergency debate, it is most likely the first time a commoner has asked the permission of this House to entrench fundamental rights for a group of Canadians.
Sexism has reached an endemic state in our country. We are to be blamed because we accept sexism against women as acceptable and understandable and then we accept all forms of violence against women. This abuse must come to a halt, and the proper place to begin right now our journey to fight sexism and violence against the women of our country is right here in the House of Commons.
Today, I am seeking the compassion of the Speaker of the House to allow an emergency debate in order to start a new era of equality among all people, especially men and women of this country.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to permit me to move a motion under Standing Order 52(2):
That this House do now adjourn to call on all Canadians to set
aside their differences and pledge that all men and women in
Canada are equal and will be treated fairly.
My motion is seconded by many members on all sides of the House.

March 5, 1990
The Budget

And I eagerly and hopefully await your decision. SPEAKER'S RULING


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has moved that the House adjourn under Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate.
The subject is very serious not only for all hon. members but also for all Canadians. I also note that the hon. member has the support of many members on both sides of the House. As I said, it is a very important, very serious subject, but I must say that it is not appropriate for an emergency debate.
There will be many other opportunities to raise the subject, and I thank the hon. member for Laprairie for his request.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; and the amendment of Mr. Young (Gloucester)(p. 8636).
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt you have had an opportunity after the week's break from the duties of this House to refer to Hansard where I made mention in my remarks about how tough this budget was and how this political party has the political courage and guts to deal with a national debt problem, where others just seem to criticize and do not have much of a resolve as to how we should solve this difficult problem.
It is a difficult time to be in government. This country, plain and simple, cannot afford giveaways. Some segments of the population acknowledge this point; others do not. Hence our job is made that much more difficult.
We are listening and doing what must be done. We have made real progress in restraining spending since
September 1984. This budget is simply a continuation of our fiscal plan.
Over the past five years we have limited the growth of program spending to an average of 3.6 per cent. This is lower than the rate of inflation and lower than any provincial government. That, I deem, is responsible government.
After a generation of double digit growth in program spending by successive Liberal governments, this responsible budgetary approach was long overdue. Between 1970 and 1975 program spending increased by some 18 per cent; in the next five years, by 10 per cent, a period of restraint I guess; and finally between 1980 and 1984 spending on programs was boosted by 14 per cent a year. This budget will once again limit spending growth to well below the rate of inflation. As a matter of fact, except for the interest payment on the debt, this budget reflects a budgetary surplus.
The effect of this budget and earlier restraint measures announced in December is substantial. Spending next year will be cut by $3 billion, and by more than $19 billion over the next five years. This kind of expenditure control is tough but it is needed. Our future, our children's future, and Canada's future depend on our resolve to act today.
We on the prairies know that inflation must be controlled. We understand the effects of high interest rates. We have lived through the disaster caused by the upward spiral of inflation and interest rates some years ago. We are currently feeling tremendous pressure again, and we feel the effects of a stagnant economy caused by a series of droughts and international trade wars. Some money has been cast our way, but this has not solved our problem. Our problem can be solved only with the co-operation of mature, sound federal economic practice and international trade harmony.
We see the effects of rising interest rates today. This budget is a major step toward reducing the federal deficit which will help ease inflationary pressures. Only by reducing inflation can we hope to lower our interest rates. Lower interest rates will also help us further reduce the deficit.
There is no magical or painless solution to the interest rate problem as my colleagues in the NDP would have us believe. We are a relatively small and open economy. We simply cannot ignore the rest of the world and manipu-
March 5, 1990

late our interest rates in isolation. We have to attack the root cause of the problem, and that is of course inflation.
If we fail to control inflation and the deficit we will pay the price. That price is a weaker economy and a weaker government less able to do the things that people want and need. Just as important, we will lose our sovereignty. We could soon see Canada dependent upon the international monetary system. That is something that no true Canadian wants to see, and Canadians have an interest in avoiding it.
The deficit is truly a national problem, a Canadian problem. Therefore it demands a national solution. If we are to restore health to the nation's finances, provincial governments must also do their part. They will also enjoy the rewards of lower inflation, lower interest rates, and sustained economic growth. After all, we do serve the same people.
Substantial deficit reduction cannot be achieved without affecting transfers to the provinces. They are simply too large a part of federal expenses to be ignored. Cash transfers to the provinces alone account for 23 per cent of total federal program spending.
Let us look at the transfer picture. In the fiscal year just ending, tax and cash transfers to provincial governments total more than $35 billion, and these have been growing faster than federal programs generally. They have risen at an average annual rate of 6.5 per cent since 1984-1985. During the same period, spending on federal programs in general has been held to an annual average growth rate of 3.6 per cent, which is well below the rate of inflation.
This year 35 cents out of every federal dollar goes to paying interest on the national debt. The provinces on average pay approximately 12 cents of every revenue dollar toward debt.
In Saskatchewan debt servicing costs are less than 10 cents of every revenue dollar. The Saskatchewan government, under the leadership of Premier Grant Devine, should take great pride in its fiscal record. Given the liability of the farming economy on the provincial treasury and the other factors, it has shown excellent stewardship of the public purse. However, this budget recognizes that transfer payments to provinces cannot continue to expand at the same rates if deficit reduction goals are to be achieved, and they must be achieved.
The Budget
Under the budget's expenditure control plan transfers to provinces are expected to grow by approximately 3 per cent on average over the next two years, roughly the same rate as total program spending.
The budget recognizes the special circumstances of low income provinces too. Transfer income growth in the higher income provinces is expected to average 2.3 per cent, but in Atlantic provinces it will be some 4 per cent over the two years the regime is in place.
The reductions in the rate of growth of transfers to provinces represent about 1 per cent of total provincial revenue. Federal support to provinces remains large and total transfers will still increase to more than $36 billion in 1991.
The poorest provinces will get more growth than others on top of the significant extra help they already get on a per capita basis. As an example, the substantial nature of past transfers has helped Saskatchewan avoid the kind of deficits shouldered by the federal government. This should not change during the two-year period of transfer restraint. The federal government has been careful to tailor the impact of its transfer restraint measures so as to be sensitive to the fiscal capacity of Saskatchewan relative to other provinces.
The Established Programs Financing to Saskatchewan will be limited to the same per person levels as in 1989-1990 for the next two fiscal years, but equalization transfers, which in Saskatchewan are some 60 per cent of the size of the EPF, are expected to continue to grow normally. This means much faster than other federal spending.
Growth of social assistance transfers to Saskatchewan under the Canada Assistance Plan will also be unaffected, because the budget exempts provinces that receive equalization from the 5 per cent cap on growth of these payments.
The result is that transfers to Saskatchewan under these three major programs which total $1.22 billion are expected to rise in the next two fiscal years to $1.25 billion and $1.29 billion respectively. This is less than the increase projected prior to the budget. It does, however, still represent an average growth of about 2.4 per cent over the next two years.

March 5, 1990
The Budget
Federal support to Saskatchewan is going to continue to play a strong, positive role in the provincial fiscal picture. It is worth noting that between 1984 and 1989 provincial government expenditures grew by an average of 4.2 per cent a year, while during that same period federal transfers to Saskatchewan grew by 11.1 per cent annually.
In the next two years the major federal transfer programs will make up close to 30 per cent of total Saskatchewan revenues. In Ontario and Alberta federal transfers account for 20 per cent to 22 per cent of total revenues. On a per capita basis the federal transfers are expected to amount to $1,236 for each Saskatchewan resident in 1990-1991 and $1,269 for the subsequent fiscal year. The same figures for Ontario are $956 and $963.
I am not trying to suggest that these measures will have no impact on Saskatchewan. There certainly will be. However, I believe that the federal and provincial governments must cope with the reality of our present situation. All governments must take actions to ensure that each tax dollar is spent more carefully and used more wisely. All Canadians have to adjust their expectations of what the federal government can deliver, given the present circumstances.
We presently have a national debt of some $350 billion, and it will continue to grow until the year 1995. We can choose to take strong action over the coming years or the matter will be out of our hands.
For residents of Saskatchewan, on balance I believe that the budget can be looked upon as a necessary national effort. It is fair in its demands and promises clear rewards in the form of a healthier economy. Greater financial security for governments and Canadians and a better, more prosperous future for our children are other benefits of this budget.
This budget does much more than reduce transfers to the provinces. It has much to say about continuing restraint within the federal government itself. Canadians want less government and they want less government waste. That is exactly what the government has been doing and is continuing to do with the budget.
The government has placed a great deal of emphasis on restraint and the cost of running the government. Over the past five years this cost has declined by half a billion dollars and is a real saving to the people of
Canada. It represents a reduction in real terms of some 25 per cent.
Government leadership in this area will continue. The 2 per cent cap on non-salary expenditures by all departments has been extended to 1995. This will save the people of Canada $450 million over the next two years. Government departments have taken significant steps forward in their drive to reduce waste and improve efficiency. This process will continue and yield further benefits.
Over all, this budget will reduce spending relative to 1989-1990 levels on about 40 per cent of all government spending on programs, but it is equally important to mention the areas of government spending that will not be affected by the budget. A number of areas have been exempted: elderly benefits, family allowances, veterans pensions and allowances, and unemployment insurance benefits. Of course equalization payments and Canada Assistance Plan transfers to equalization receiving provinces are also exempted. In all these exempt programs will receive an additional $6.2 billion over the next two years, yet despite these major increases in funding to those in need total spending will increase at an average rate of only 3.7 per cent over the next two years. As in the past, our Minister of Finance has sought to spread the burden or restraint over a wide base, yet he has kept in mind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to stop the hon. member at this time, but he has 10 minutes left in his debate because of the time that he started his debate prior to February 23. We have just calculated the time and the hon. member has 10 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Larry Schneider: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can slow down then so that we can all understand what I am going to say, and for reasons of effect, also. I was trying to get as quickly to the conclusion as I could so as not to impinge upon the credibility of your presence here. I will refer back to my notes and hopefully not offend anyone by repeating some very important and meaty matters in my remarks, some very weighty matters.
It is worth taking special note that this budget is about more than reducing transfers to the province. It is about government waste. I made mention of that earlier and I want to emphasize again that this government has done more to prevent waste than any other government
March 5, 1990

before and is courageous enough to want to stick with that.
There have been those who have argued that we are taking the easy way out. I challenge the people who have made that statement because in fact this has not been an easy way out. It has been very difficult. The program to arrive at a deficit reduction formula which will see that Canadians remain happy and at the same time freed from the burden of the national debt is not an easy path at all. As a matter of fact it is very difficult. We say that it will not be terribly popular, but it must be done.
The measures announced in the 1989 budget, together with the spending reductions announced last December and those of one week ago, are absolutely necessary for two reasons. First, they will place the deficit back on a downward path. This will help to free up domestic savings to finance needed investment in Canada. It will diminish our increasing reliance on foreign saving and reduce the burden of debt on future generations.
Second, these measures will contribute in a substantial manner to the lowering of inflation. Only by lowering inflation can we ease the burden on our monetary policy and increase the scope for a downward shift in our interest rates. We simply cannot accept budgetary deficits of $30 billion. The compound interest that we must pay on our debt will suffocate the country. We know that 80 per cent of our debt accumulation since 1984-85 is a result of interest on our cancerous debt. To allow that process to continue would be a grotesque abdication of our responsibility. This budget is a clear indication that we will not stand by and spin this nation into the ground.
I for one-and I am sure there are many-would have liked to have seen us get on a faster path to a balanced budget. However the choices have been made and the path chosen. All members of the House of Commons and all governments must work together to end our nation's legacy debt. It must be the highest priority if we are to pass a strong Canada on to the next generation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made a number of remarks to which I would like to refer. He and others have often identified
The Budget
the supposed high spending of many provincial jurisdictions. In fact Ontario was recently singled out.
My question is as follows: Is it possible that a significant portion of the increased funding by provinces is a result of the cut-backs to provinces in health and education? Those two alone will be over $39 billion between 1986 and 1995. There are also cut-backs to sectors such as agriculture and housing. In fact because of increased poverty which has increased costs to the provinces, is it possible therefore that the increased spending by provincial jurisdictions is a direct result of the reductions in those transfers in a number of sectors?


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to be able to respond to that question somewhat in isolation. I enjoy the conversation that is going on at the far end of the House of Commons. Unfortunately I have to speak while I am on my feet. I would rather choose to listen to see what two experienced colleagues have to say to one another. I do have an answer to at least part of the question. It was somewhat convoluted in that it ties an apparent reduction in federal government spending to an increased requirement by federal governments to come up with extra funding, covering a wide perspective of various budget areas. I will pick two areas in particular that the hon. member made reference to. The two that he made reference to are in the areas of health and education, the perceived reduction in federal government moneys made available to the provinces for those two very important areas.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that while the federal government has shown that the rate of growth in transfer payments to the provinces is showing a slowdown, the fact is that it continues to grow.
As a matter of fact, had the hon. member been attentive to my earlier remarks, I think he would have found a relationship between the growth of moneys going to the provinces in terms of transfer payments in direct relationship to how we have had to curtail money that we have spent. He would have seen a very dramatic difference between the two, a dramatic difference to the point where moneys going to provincial governments have increased some 6 per cent per annum where the

March 5, 1990
The Budget
amount of increase that we have allowed ourselves is somewhat closer in the order of 3.6 per cent to 3.7 per cent.
First of all, to say that we have restricted funding to the provinces is simply not telling it as it is, with the exception of this year as it relates to their expectations in terms of growth of what they had anticipated.
I have been advised that as of last December, the hon. Minister of Finance, in meeting with provincial finance ministers has indicated to them that this is not a sacred cow in that we, as a federal government, are harnessed with this national debt and are looking for ways to address it. As we have had all kinds of communications from our constituents saying: "Do something about government spending", I think it can be safely assumed that those people who have been writing us mean the same thing for their provincial governments. We have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and we have shown a decline in the growth of moneys going to the provinces.
It is interesting to note that we make reference to the province of Ontario. I recall hearing a statistic recently to the effect that only 80 per cent of the transfer payments that went to the province of Ontario, generally understood to be required for the purpose of education and health, went to those two departments. The other 20 per cent went into general revenues.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to my colleague for Regina-Wascana and his statements on the budget. There are a few things, however, that I should mention.
First, his statement that the NDP call for lower interest rates was just an NDP notion. I wish to remind him that the Devine government in Saskatchewan has also called for a lower interest rate policy.
Second, he lauds the leadership of the Devine government in tackling debt in Saskatchewan. I was not able to watch the hon. member's face, but I am certain that there must have been a bit of a smile when he made that statement. Certainly the Devine government in Saskatchewan, as all Saskatchewan people have known, has driven Saskatchewan into its biggest, deepest debt and deficit in the history of our province. It started with a good surplus in 1982, and the last time I tried to estimate it, it came close to around $10,000 per person of debt in Saskatchewan.
I am surprised as well that the hon. member for Regina-Wascana, who has the university in his riding, is not somewhat concerned at the cut-backs which will cost Saskatchewan somewhere between $90 to $100 million in the next two years. It will affect the University of Regina which is in his riding. I am certain the university and students at the university will be making presentations to him to enlighten him of the fact that the cut-backs will hurt higher education in Saskatchewan.
I am also surprised that the hon. member did not mention some of the cut-backs to native organizations. Regina has a major problem dealing with child hunger, particularly among the native community. I am certain the hon. member in his former career as mayor of Regina was very well aware of the problem of hunger in Regina, particularly among the native community. Surely he must realize that this budget will put the extra squeeze on these people.
The last thing I am surprised at, and I would hope the hon. member would make some comment on, is the state of agriculture in Saskatchewan. He knows that the projections are that next year there will be a negative income in the farm community in Saskatchewan. We are facing a serious problem back home. Anybody from Saskatchewan surely has to begin to address that question and the urgent need that farmers in Saskatchewan are facing for some type of support in order to save farm families from going under.


Larry Schneider: My hon colleague from Regina- Qu'Appelle gives me a great deal to comment on, but I do not believe I have as much time as is required to reply.
I am particularly pleased to note that the member has listened with great interest. It probably goes on record as one of the few times he has ever listened to me with great interest and certainly there has been ample reason why he should have. But I welcome that attentiveness to the House of Commons here today.
I have to make reference to a few of the points that I hastily jotted down. He ridicules the provincial government's ability to handle the finances given to it by public trust. What he does not make mention of is that about the time they were elected, the economy of Saskatchewan was headed into a spiral down hill in that we were to experience low prices for potash, uranium and oil in unprecedented proportions. I do not believe that anyone can point a finger at any political party and accuse
March 5, 1990

politicians of having any impact on the world commodity prices for a provincial commodity.
The fourth item that he alludes to is with respect to the agricultural situation. I have a permit book and no one in this Elouse of Commons has to tell me the drastic plight with which Saskatchewan farmers are currently being confronted. It is a terrible problem but thus far all I have heard is people making reference to the problem, no one has a solution. I would greet with open arms and enthusiasm those who can come forward with a solution to the problem. Perhaps we could build a brick wall around Canada, eat our own wheat. That at least will not cause it to be an international problem.
Yes, the University of Regina does cause me very great concern. As I made reference earlier, 80 per cent of the transfer payments to the province of Ontario went to health and education and 20 per cent went into general revenues. There are no controlling factors on the transfer payments that are going to the province of Saskatchewan which will cost the province $33 million. Let us not frighten anyone with this $100 million figure. It will cost the province of Saskatchewan $33 million and as we have to tighten our belts, I think the province of Saskatchewan can do that.
I would entreat the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle that instead of giving us continued hot air, give us a little rain, it will help out agriculture more than any rhetoric.


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


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise to speak to what I consider now, after today's Question Period, to be a phantom budget.
As we heard during Question Period, there were no cuts in this budget. I wonder if the people on the other side of the House could tell us whether we are looking at some different documents. Were we not provided with the same information that the government is operating from, or in fact is there a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the budget?
The Budget


Simon Leendert de Jong: George Orwell is alive and well in Tory ranks.


Joy Langan: My colleague from this side of the House just pointed out that George Orwell could not have done a better job than the kind of job that was done on the Canadian people in Question Period today.
This budget is forcing Canadians to take yet another step on the economic tightrope that the Tories have stretched from coast to coast for Canadians. We have had the free trade deal, the clawback on pensions, family allowances, cuts to unemployment insurance, privatization of Air Canada, VIA Rail, now Petro-Canada and Telesat, and the goods and services tax.
All of those things have been heaped on top of all of this. When I say "this", I mean the kinds of things that we were raising in the House today.
This is a so-called budget where the finance minister is attempting to finish the job that he started on Canadians six years ago. I would like to comment to the hon. member for Regina-Wascana that Saskatchewan has been accused of being in violation of the CAP guidelines to provide for those in need, and yet there is no recognition of that in the response that we got from the hon. member for Regina-Wascana.
Saskatchewan has one of the lowest welfare rates in Canada and one of the highest rates of infant mortality. I hope that the hon. member for Regina-Wascana will think about those things the next time he rises in the House and explain how this budget is going to help people in Saskatchewan in view of those horrid statistics.
Because my area of concern is social policy, I would like to talk about the social policy side of this budget.
There has been a cut of $51 million over two years for social housing. This, at a time when Canadians in every major city of this country, in suburban communities and municipalities, and in many cases rural communities are finding it impossible to afford housing in this country. Yet, we have had a $51 million cut for social housing.
The federal government has unilaterally decided to freeze transfers to the provinces for criminal legal aid at the 1989-90 level for the next two years, approximately

March 5, 1990
The Budget
$86 million, at a time when more and more Canadians are unable to defend themselves, to be represented in this great free country because they cannot afford it, because they are living below the poverty line.
The two programs that are most affected by the finance minister's budget are the Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan. Under the Established Programs Financing transfer payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education are made. How much the provinces lose due to cuts to both the EPF and the capping of the CAP program start adding up very rapidly.
British Columbia, my home province, $102 million; Alberta, $98 million; Saskatchewan, $33 million; Manitoba, $38 million; Ontario, $378 million; Quebec, $220 million; New Brunswick, $24 million; Nova Scotia, $29 million; P.E.I., $4 million and Newfoundland, $19 million.
This is at a time when some of those provinces are under tremendous stress. We have heard in this House in the last few months the stress that the Atlantic provinces are under. This is at a time when Saskatchewan is under terrible stress. The hon. member from across the way wanted to throw in the reason that it was drought. If drought it is, then there is stress in that province. Yet, Saskatchewan is being cut by $33 million.
The only reason that there is a balanced budget in British Columbia is that the British Columbia government has not paid adequate welfare rates, has not provided adequate child care, has not provided adequate school lunch programs for those who are poor, has not provided anything in housing, has not provided any of the social safety net features that we expect through transfer payments. That is why that province has a balanced budget.
Now the double whammy is that their cut is even greater and the very people who have carried the province to make it balance its budget are going to be hit again with another whammy.
Under health care, CBC reported that Quebec's Minister of Health may be forced to stop funding some medicare services as a result of the cuts to the EPF. Marc Yvon Cote says that the government's budget is costing
Quebec's health plan $157 million. Mr. Cote wants to drop some services from the universal medicare plan. It would mean more patients would have to pay for some of the treatments and it would mean that that would be right in line with what this Tory government believes should be happening in Canada, that is, the development of a two tier medical system.
British Columbia is already sending heart patients to Seattle for serious, much needed health care. What will the effects of the EPF cuts be to heart patients in other parts of this country? Under the Canada Assistance Plan, transfer payments to B.C., Ontario and Alberta will be capped at 5 per cent more than what they spent in 1989-90. But the anticipated costs are expected to be much higher.
The Canada Assistance Plan came into effect in 1966. It is the federal government's commitment and its responsibility to fund 50-50 the costs of social services and welfare programs in this country. The finance minister is claiming that he is applying the same principle the federal government is using for the clawback of family allowance old age security payments to higher income Canadians. He said that British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario do not need as much help in financing programs as do other provinces.
British Columbia and Ontario, and it is anticipated that Alberta will join in, are taking this government to court, claiming that the finance minister is violating a contract by unilaterally changing the funding formula under the Canada Assistance Plan. The plan requires the government to give one year's notice to the province and requires that the province give its consent.
Under an Order in Council, the B.C. government will be asking the B.C. Court of Appeal whether the terms of the CAP Act of 1970 or a 1967 agreement between the federal government and B.C. give rise to a legitimate expectation that the Government of Canada would introduce no bill into Parliament to limit its obligation without the consent of British Columbia.
It will also ask the court whether the federal government has any statutory prerogative or contractual authority to limit its obligation to contribute 50 per cent of the cost to B.C. of assistance and welfare services.
March 5, 1990

This government is expected to introduce legislation and, indeed, is introducing legislation to change the Canada Assistance Plan Act before the court rules.
Even Leonard Shifrin, a respected columnist when it comes to discussing social policy, has said that this budget is a load of rubbish.
When the finance minister says that the CAP ceiling affects only the three richest provinces, I think it would be important to more accurately say that it affects one half of Canada's poor, who live in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. After years of chipping away at universality and claiming benefits should go to only those in need, this government has decapitated the one program that is totally targeted to the poor.
Child care is affected in two ways by this budget. One, the government has failed once again to announce a national child care program. Even more important is the effect of this government's decision to unilaterally change the funding responsibility for a federal-provincial program.
The Ontario Attorney General put it best when he said: "Why would any province in the future ever rely on the undertaking of the federal government to fund a program, if as soon as the program is established the federal government can say: 'Now that you are under way, we have changed our minds'". Since the only way the provinces get assistance for any funding to child care is through CAP, concern has been expressed about whether the three provinces will, indeed, be willing or able to increase funding to address the continuing crisis.
In Ontario, 8,000 eligible families are on a waiting list for subsidized care across the province. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care was hoping for 5,000 to 5,300 new spaces for children in the province in the next fiscal year. Now they estimate they may get 1,000, and that would be due to the capping of CAP.
In B.C., as I said during Question Period, it is estimated that 300,000 children need child care and only
20,000	licensed spaces are available. What happens to the other 280,000 kids in British Columbia who need child care?
The Budget
The Native Council of Canada recently reported on the lack of native child care, especially in urban areas, and cited this as a reason for denying natives the opportunity for jobs and education. In Vancouver, it is estimated that there is a native population of 60,000 but there is only one child care centre. It is estimated that
5,000	Indian children are in desperate need of child care, yet there is only one native Indian-run centre called Sundance Day Care Centre.
In response to criticism that his government is neglecting the needs of Canadians and their families, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has always pointed to the child care initiative fund as a shining example of the Tories' commitment to child care. Now they have shown us just how much this commitment means: $1.75 million has been cut from the fund. The department argues that this is only a freeze at the 1989 level of spending, that the $15 million fund was underutilized, the demand was not there. Advocacy groups on the other hand point out that the criteria applied made these funds almost impossible to get. The funding that is granted for more studies does not supply the needed capital or operating funds to create child care spaces for children. This is the only federal program that is specifically for child care and the government has cut it.
I would like to add at this point a comment about the cuts to the veterans' programs. After World War II there was a national consensus that established that those who had gone and fought on behalf of the country, or those who had been willing to go would indeed be given assistance to reassimilate and to survive in society, particularly those suffering from the effects of war.
I cannot believe that this government could be so cynical as to raise the daily charges for vets in long term care from $8 to $14, almost doubling it, and to cut into the very successful Veterans Independence Program. I would like to also point out that the cut to the Veterans Independence Program is another area where women's programs have been cut because many of those veterans have wives at home and the areas that are being cut are going to make it increasingly difficult for those husband and wife teams to remain in their homes.
The average vet in Canada today is in his or her mid-sixties. Their numbers are diminishing. It is incon-

March 5, 1990
The Budget
ceivable to me why this government would cut the programs for the veterans in this country at a time when through attrition those programs are diminishing in cost daily.
In conclusion, it is important for us to note that the cuts in this budget and the way the government has approached this budget are very similar to the way one would try to sucker one's bank manager.
Mr. Speaker, if you or I as small business people went to our bank manager and said: "We have a whole bunch of accounts receivable due us but we are not going to bother about that. We are only going to increase our spending by 5 per cent this year and we are going to try to pay you back and cut down our debt as much as we can, but we are not going to bother those folks who owe us and we are not going to ask those people to pony up what they owe us in accounts receivable.", our bank manager, yours and mine, would think that we had gone off our heads.
This government is introducing a budget. It has all kinds of accounts receivable from 80,000 Canadian profit making corporations that have not paid any taxes, from deferred taxpayers, corporations that have deferred their taxes endlessly and the government increases its budget, cuts in some very important areas where people desperately need the funding, and says to you and I that it is tightening its belt and goes to its bank manager and says: "But we are going to cut our spending where we can".
I would suggest that it is high time this government started asking Canadians on the other side of the economic spectrum to shoulder their fair share of the cuts in this budget and to provide Canada with a balanced budget because I think that it is very important. There is nobody on this side of the House who would disagree with a balanced budget. The difference is the political priority and the priority on the other side of the House is to take the money from the poor, the people who can least afford it, and leave alone the friends of this government. The time has come for this government to share the cost of reducing the deficit in this country and share the cost with its corporate friends, its wealthy friends and not load the burden, yet again, on the poor in this country.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some remarks to my colleague. I come
from Surrey North, which is the fastest growing municipality in all of Canada. If the hon. member has followed any of the news from the lower mainland in the last several months, she will know that there is a tremendous crisis facing the acute and chronic medical care sector in the municipality of Surrey.
Surrey is growing, not only because it is a bedroom community but it is absorbing population from the rest of Canada, people who are coming to British Columbia because of increased job opportunities. This government chooses to limit that province in terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. The government is reducing its transfer payments which is going to put tremendous strain on the province's ability to develop the types of medical care services which are necessary.
At the present time, Surrey hospital has a bed shortage of 400 beds. Since 1971 the ratio of beds to the population has gone backward instead of forward, as it should have, simply because of the increase in population. In addition, some beds which might be available have not been opened because there are no operating funds.
There is a whole series of problems that are facing particularly the urban fast-growth areas like the hon. member's riding and my riding, where because of the lack of funding from the federal government, the provincial government has simply balanced its budget by pushing the cost savings down to hospital societies, school boards, local municipalities, cutting back on welfare services and cutting back on services to the poor. They learned years ago that what this federal government is doing is sloughing off its budgetary problems by reducing the funds to provinces. Years ago, the provinces decided to cut down funding to school boards and hospital societies.
With this type of reduction in transfer payments, what does the member think are the prospects of Surrey Memorial Hospital or similar hospitals getting the necessary funding to solve the 400 bed shortage it has and to adequately staff the beds that they have now?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that the prospects are very poor, especially when one looks at the attitude of the government in British Columbia, which has been one of withholding and one of not addressing the chronic problems. In fact, in British Columbia, we have just seen a situation in the hon. member's own riding where there are more students in

portable classrooms than many school districts in the province. That is how rapidly that riding has grown.
In fact, the kind of reaction that we are getting from the provincial government is a fancy, smoke and mirrors kind of funding formula for the school board and that is the same kind of fancy, smoke and mirrors funding formulae we see in the area of housing, health care, social services, and just about every other area that is encompassed in people's services.
I would suggest to the hon. member that, given the track record of the provincial government in British Columbia and given the track record of this federal government, the opportunities and the hopes of Surrey Memorial Hospital are pretty slim indeed.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I would also like the member to comment on the question of child care. Last year when the federal government announced it was withdrawing its much vaunted child care program it said: "Don't worry, be happy. You've got the Canada Assistance Plan. You can expand your day care programs, your child care programs in an unlimited way under the Canada Assistance Plan, so be happy, don't worry, there is no problem".
Now it comes along and says to provinces like British Columbia: "Oh, no, you can't use the Canada Assistance Plan to expand child care services to meet the crisis that has developed in the province". What, pray, can the provinces do to meet this? How do they get out of this double bind when the Conservatives one year tell them to use the Canada Assistance Plan and the next year that it will cut it off?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank my colleague.
The use of the Canada Assistance Plan for child care has been very limited, to say the least. What we find ourselves with now is a capping of the fund that is being used, not for child care spaces, not to put children in safe care but in fact funding to do yet another study here and another study there. If child care centres which desperately need capital funding, operating funding or a supplement to that can be creative enough to propose a study program that will fit within the guidelines that will maybe give them a little help in running their child care centre, then those centres can count on something. Yet even those funds are being cut. The Minister of National
The Budget
Health and Welfare has consistently said in the House in response to questions from me that in the mandate of this government we would have greatly expanded child care.
At the same time he has also risen in this House and said: "I am going to do more studying". I will again say to members on the other side of the House that if one were to go and make a visit to the Library of Parliament, which is behind this Chamber, one would find the shelves collapsing under the weight of child care studies. What we need in this country is child care programs, not child care studies. We need child care spaces for children who are not being adequately looked after. This budget does nothing to address that.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in this House and address the question of the budget.
This budget is a blueprint, I suggest, to social and economic disaster. This budget, along with past budgets puts this country on a road that leads nowhere, a road that no one wants to travel except this government.
This budget is not only bad for what it does, but is even worse for what it fails to do. Instead of challenging our people, it penalizes them. This government is turning the future not into a promise but into a nightmare. This government through successive budgets, including this one, is dismantling our country as we once knew it, piece by piece, region by region, sector by sector and person by person.
National programs, national institutions, national services, national partnerships and national commitments are either gone or quickly going. I am afraid that the word "national" may never be found in our dictionary again. If we continue down this road we have to be afraid for our country as we know it.
The latest victim in this budget is the Canada Assistance Plan. As we know, the Canada Assistance Plan is the major vehicle by which the federal government and the provincial governments, along with the municipalities, deliver services to people in this country, services such as post-secondary education, health care, day care and other needed services for our people.
Yet this government again sees fit to essentially forget about the historical significance of this country, to forget about the historical partnerships and agreements that have been set up with other provinces because

March 5, 1990
The Budget
essentially it wants to take its responsibility and shift it to other levels of government.
There are a number of things in this budget that I could speak on, but I want to devote some of my comments to our national commitment on housing or, better put, the lack of, in this budget. The homeless after this budget was presented were not comforted by what was in it. Young working families wishing to buy their first home were not comforted by what was in it. Young single parents looking for affordable housing were not comforted by what was in this budget. They are disillusioned because this government has failed to show some vision and compassion with respect to the housing crisis in this country.
Every weekend when I return to my riding my constituents ask me why the cost of a home in London has risen by over 55 per cent since the Tories took power in 1984. They want to know why millions of Canadians cannot afford their first home. I want to know what the Minister of Finance tells his Etobicoke constituents when they ask him why housing prices in that riding have jumped over 100 per cent in the past five years since his party has been in power.
I want to know how the Minister of Finance explains that increase when the price of a home in his riding rose only 4 per cent in the three years prior to him becoming the Minister of Finance. These astronomical increases in housing prices have occurred all over Canada, from Vancouver to Montreal. But the problem is not limited to large urban centres.
Across Canada the average price of a new home is expected to reach $151,900 in 1990. That means that the average Canadian family would need an annual income of $65,000 or more to reach for the Canadian dream of owning their own home. But in 1988, the average family income was only $46,185. That means that family incomes and salaries must increase by 40 per cent this year before the average Canadian family can own the average Canadian home.
These figures are a clear indication of Canada's growing housing crisis. More and more, Canadians can no longer afford to buy their own home. Rents are rising higher and the cost of shelter is taking up more and more disposable income.
Rather than addressing the problem the federal government is part of the problem. Rather than introducing
measures that encourage the construction of affordable housing this government taxes new housing, especially under its new grief and suffering tax, the goods and services tax. To make matters worse, this government has cut spending on social housing by 15 per cent in this budget in the year 1990.
This is not the first time that the Conservative government has cut funding to housing programs. It is ignoring the 1.3 million families living in inadequate housing in Canada. Instead, the Tories have implemented a policy consisting of cutting programs and hoping that the growing housing crisis will just disappear. It is impossible to make 1.3 million families disappear.
At least 50 per cent of all single parents in Canada are raising their children in unacceptable housing conditions. At least 40 per cent of all seniors in Canada spend their final years in squalor.
There are 1.3 million tenant households that must spend over 30 per cent of their incomes to pay for shelter. Even more astounding is the fact that there are over 600,000 families in Canada that must spend more than 50 per cent of their income on shelter costs.
The Minister of Finance admitted in his budget speech that the cost of housing has increased about 10 per cent each year. In some areas, such as Toronto, the price of a home has doubled in just four years. The cost of rents has matched these increases and jumped at an incredible pace.
With house prices rising in the last 10 years, housing construction has focused mainly on luxury homes and condominiums. Home builders have no incentives to construct affordable housing. In fact, governments at all levels impose barriers toward the building of affordable housing. The supply of affordable housing has decreased dramatically in urban centres during recent years.
Rooming houses are being closed. Affordable units are being converted and older downtown neighbourhoods are being renovated for a more upscale clientele. The poor are forced to move, but where can they go? Private developers build for the most lucrative markets, the middle and high ends. There are no incentives for them to build what is needed most-affordable housing. The government must work with the private sector, not against it, to bring onstream affordable housing. High interest rates, taxes, red tape, lengthy delays and redun-
March 5, 1990

dant regulations are not the answers to our housing problems.
Rental apartments represented just 17 per cent of total dwelling starts across this country in 1988. New private rental construction has virtually disappeared in some centres. While the need for affordable housing has increased at an alarming pace, this government has taken the opportunity to abandon its responsibility.
Here is this government's pathetic record. Just two months after it was elected in 1984, it cut the Residential Rehabilitation Program by $29.4 million and the social housing budget by about $9.6 million. By 1986, RRAP was cut again, this time in half. During this same period total grants and contributions from CMHC would fall by $400 million on an annual basis. The 1989 budget saw the elimination of the rental component of the RRAP program. The government thereby removed essential assistance to landlords to upgrade their properties. Much of the funding for this program went to maintaining our older buildings. Loss of these funds will only hurt the poor, taking away their last source of adequate housing and pushing them into unacceptable living conditions.
In 1986 this government said it was dedicated to supporting social housing. It launched a program to build
5,000	co-operative housing units each and every year. But after three years of failing to meet its commitment, it cut the co-op housing program by 25 per cent, and only 1,900 units were built in 1989. Yet the waiting lists get longer and longer and longer.
What kind of housing program does this government have to offer the 54,000 people in Ontario who are on waiting lists for co-operative or non-profit housing? What government programs are in place for the 14,000 families in Montreal alone who are waiting for public housing? What government programs are in place to help those people in Vancouver, Halifax and even London, Ontario, who are waiting for affordable housing?
Housing costs have increased each and every year at rates higher than inflation, but spending on social housing has been cut by this government time and time again. It has fallen almost 20 per cent in the last five years compared to the 1980-84 period.
The Budget
The Conservative government has been eliminating the housing programs that are most desperately needed at a time when they can do the most good. This government has again cut the desperately needed funds for social housing in this budget. This means that the
54,000	families in Ontario and the 14,000 families in Montreal will still be on waiting lists for public housing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Are there questions or comments?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his very capable speech indicated some of the nastier cut-backs that the government has imposed on the Canadian housing industry. It is unfortunate that the former minister for homelessness is not here in the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member should know that he should not indicate whether the minister is here or is not here. He knows that he should not do that. I will not dwell on it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I simply indicated it because I hoped that he would have been here to hear this comment. I know he will read it later in Hansard. I know he is concerned about the housing crisis in Canada, although he is part of a government that has done less than nothing about it.
I wonder if the hon. member for London East would be able to comment on the list of cut-backs that the government has imposed on housing. I know he got through some of them in his speech, but I am sure there are more. Perhaps he could provide the House with a list to simplify the matter for people who want to understand exactly what the government has done.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very germane question.
The list is so lengthy that perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might have to get up on your feet and tell me that my time has expired again. Let me tell you that from 1984 to 1990 every successive budget, every successive action of this government has been to cut social housing programs.
I do not have to tell any member in this House that in their communities the waiting lists get longer and longer and longer. It is unfortunate that the government has a Minister of State for Housing for there is no national housing policy. In terms of programs this government is

March 5, 1990
The Budget
virtually transferring its responsibilities once again from itself to the provinces and in turn to the municipalities.
This country, through its Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been at the forefront of housing. Since 1984 this government has seen fit to essentially not take its responsibility for social housing very seriously.
On the other hand, it should be noted that this government has taken away the dream for those would-be new homeowners to own their first home. How has it done that? It has been done by not understanding that the average person who wants to buy that first home needs to be encouraged by their government. It needs to put in place programs that will allow them to buy that first home so that they in turn can put their blood, sweat and tears into that home and allow the equity to take care of itself.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that people who in turn have to pay rent are not going to be comforted by this budget whatsoever. As I said, over 1.3 million families in this country need assistance. They are paying more than 30 per cent of their incomes toward a basic essential of life.
We are prepared to work with this government to put in place those necessary housing policies to address the very serious question and a very serious housing crisis that we have in this country for the homeless and others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.
Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma-Agriculture; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Tiem Canada; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Human Rights.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, this budget is a brutal blow to the north and to the aboriginal peoples throughout this land. There is no comfort for northerners in this budget at all.
"No new taxes," says the Minister of Finance. What a sham. What deception. Northerners know how many times this government has increased taxes since it was elected in 1984-32 times. The big one, the goods and services tax, is right on the horizon. This budget is counting on the revenues from the goods and services tax.
Further, by cutting transfer payments to the provinces for health and education the federal government is forcing the provinces into increasing their taxes. If there is a funding shortfall, the provinces will have to make it up. There will likely be new provincial taxes.
Increased provincial taxes affect the northern territories under the terms of the federal formula financing arrangements. Under these arrangements, imposed arbitrarily by the federal government, the two northern territories will have to increase their taxes if the provinces increase their tax rates. They will either have to raise their own taxes or face a reduction in their annual operating grant.
Increased taxes, whether caused indirectly or directly by the federal government, are new taxes. We know who is responsible; it is the federal Minister of Finance.
The minister cannot escape the fact that by ordering the cut-backs he is just as responsible as those who have to implement the cutbacks.
The current federal government has already cut back on the funding it transfers to the two northern territories. Yukon's transfer payments have been reduced by $9 million this fiscal year, by $12 million next year and by $20 million the year after next. The Northwest Territories has been cut back by $110 million over the next five years. The effect in the Northwest Territories in this fiscal year is a reduction of about $25 million.
According to the N.W.T. government, these cutbacks jeopardize the territorial government's ability to stimulate the economy. The Northwest Territories finance minister has called the federal action a disincentive to economic growth. He went on to say:
The timing of the federal announcement couldn't have been worse.
It comes at a time when there are a lot of critical economic and social
March 5, 1990

issues to resolve in the Northwest Territories, each of them requiring
substantial financial investment.
Under the new formula, Ottawa expects the government of the Northwest Territories to increase territorial taxes until they reach and remain consistent with provincial levels. If the territorial government does not increase its own tax effort at the same rate as the provinces, its projected annual operating grant from Ottawa will be reduced.
I want to repeat that these funding arrangements were not reached by agreement. They were imposed by the federal government on the territorial governments.
Also impacting on the north in this budget is the elimination of the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program, which will affect mining exploration. While not as helpful as the flow-through shares program, which was cut two years ago by the current government, it is still a loss.
The north is sick and tired of having to pay more for less. Since 1988 this government's miserly feelings toward the north have been creeping out from underneath the camouflage of concern it has tried to maintain. All the rhetoric about being concerned about the north is just that-rhetoric.
If this government truly cared about northern people, would it have cut back on the subsidy to the Canada Post food mail program to remote northern communities? The Minister of Finance boasted in his budget speech that Canada Post turned a profit. He also said he wants Canada Post and other profitable Crown corporations to turn over more of their profits to the government in the form of dividends. He said that this is to contribute to deficit reduction.
Because of the current government's actions my constituents now have to pay $5 for one litre of milk so that the government can pocket more of the profits of Canada Post. This government is taking food out of my constituents' mouths so it can put more money in its pocket.
If this government truly cared about northern development, would it have cut back the transfer payments to the territorial governments? If this government truly cared about northern and aboriginal people, would it
The Budget
have cut $100 million over the next two years from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs? Would it have eliminated funding for aboriginal newspapers and cut back on other aboriginal communications? Would it have slashed the funding to aboriginal political organizations? Would it have cut back social housing funds, health funding and legal aid?
This government's obsession with the deficit has blinded it to certain fundamental realities. Yes, we must reduce the deficit, but we must not do so at the expense of the poorer elements of society.
What good purpose is served by cutting funding to the aboriginal communications societies? The government is totally eliminating the native communications program, which had funding of $3.4 million last year. It is cutting back on the northern native broadcast access program by 16 per cent, or $2.2 million.
With these actions, it is causing the death of eight aboriginal communications groups and mortally wounding another seven. The National Aboriginal Communications Society estimates these cut-backs will mean a loss of 100 jobs.
What do these cuts mean for northern aboriginal communications? For the Inuvialuit Communications Society the elimination of the native communications program means a loss of $106,000. With those funds the Inuvialuit Communications Society produces a monthly newspaper for Inuvialuit called Tusaayaksat. The cancellation of this funding means the death of this newspaper.
The 16 per cent reduction in the northern native broadcast access program means a loss of $105,600 to the Inuvialuit Communications Society. These program moneys are used to produce an award-winning television program, Tamapta. The production of this program will now have to be curtailed.
These cut-backs will lead to lay-offs. The Inuit Broadcasting Corporation is going to lose about one-quarter of its funding. It will be cut by about $600,000. The Inuit Broadcasting Corporation will lose up to $400,000 from the northern native broadcast access program. Under this program the corporation produced such series as Takuginal, a children's program, and Takuyaksat, the award-winning series from Baker Lake.

March 5, 1990
The Budget
The elimination of the native communication program funding means a loss of about $215,000. These program moneys are used to produce drama, including the popular Super Shamou series.
The corporation will have to cut down on its air hours and close down part of its operation. Staff will have to be laid off in Ottawa and the northern production centres. Throughout the country the story is the same.
The national media do not cover aboriginal issues the way aboriginal people would like them covered, nor as often, nor as in depth as aboriginal people would like. The national media cannot cover these issues from an aboriginal viewpoint. Furthermore, they cannot communicate these issues in the aboriginal languages. Pulling the plug on aboriginal communications is an attack on aboriginal culture.
For the same reason that the CBC was established-to counter the magnetic pull of the American culture-aboriginal media were established as a counter force to the overwhelming dominance of non-aboriginal Canadian culture with its two official languages and multicultural mosaic.
How many Canadians know that there are 53 aboriginal languages in the country? How many Canadians know that these languages are dying? Only three of the 53 aboriginal languages in this country have a good chance of surviving into the next century. These languages were spoken throughout this country for hundreds of years prior to the arrival of the European explorers and settlers. Yet many are in danger of extinction and a major battle has to be waged against their loss. In that battle for cultural and linguistic survival, aboriginal people need the federal government as an ally and a supporter, but the government has turned its back on aboriginal people.
The federal Department of the Secretary of State spends only $1 million a year on an aboriginal language programs. Compare that to the hundreds of millions spent on the two official languages. Even heritage languages, the languages spoken by most recent immigrants, receive more money than the original languages of the first people.
While I am not speaking against the funding of these other languages, I am saying that the government has to
give priority to the survival, preservation and enhancement of aboriginal languages.
In this budget not only is the government not providing this critical support, it is cutting off the means for aboriginal people to communicate in their own languages with their own people. Quite simply, the government is contributing to aboriginal cultural demise.
Aboriginal people in this country want to know why the government persists in widening the gap between the rich and poor in Canada. They want to know why the government is cutting programs that need catching up. They want to know why they have to pay with the loss of their jobs when big corporations in this country do not pay their fair share of taxes. They want to know why they are being asked to pay with their culture and language when the socioeconomic gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this country is still so great.
Aboriginal people in this country are paying with their lives for the government's lack of attention to the health, education, employment and economic needs that exist.
Aboriginal youth are killing themselves at six times the rate of non-aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal babies die in greater numbers and their health, when they do survive, is much poorer than non-aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal people live 10 years less than the non-aboriginal Canadian.
The government sheds crocodile tears for aboriginal people, pretending that it really matters or it really cares, but these phoney tears are not going to rebuild the shattered lives and broken dreams and hopes of the aboriginal people, abandoned again by a government which is hostile to aboriginal aspirations and is as bent on aboriginal subjugation as the earlier colonial administrations.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for Nunatsiaq for his good presentation. Perhaps I could have the hon. Secretary of State's attention for one second. My colleague referred to the native communications program and the northern native broadcast access program. I would like to ask him how these two programs served very specific purposes in the north.
March 5, 1990


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some things that have been misrepresented or misunderstood by many Canadians in terms of the funding cuts to certain aboriginal organizations.
First, the hon. Prime Minister pointed out earlier that there were no cuts to the aboriginal funding of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as did the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. There are no funding cuts to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development budget only because it is legislated. The government has to raise the funding programs because they are either for reservations, for education, for other mandatory programs, health and land claims. That is the only reason they they are going up, because they are legislated into the law.
Other programs like the native broadcast access program and the communications program have been cut and are being eliminated over the next six months from April. Aboriginal newspapers-such as the Native Press from the Western Arctic-are either going to be shut down or are going to be veiy hard to operate after April because the funding is being cut. That newspaper serves the aboriginal people in the Western Arctic. There are others all across Canada that serve the aboriginal people in Canada. They are the means for the aboriginal people to learn more about what is happening across the north or across Canada in the aboriginal society.
I think you have to realize that cutting the funding, especially this year being the International Year of Literacy, is a very great disservice to the first people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over. Debate. The hon. member for Joliette.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Budget, especially after what our colleagues opposite said about incredible cutbacks by the government and what this government has done. And especially after what my hon. colleague just said about cuts at Indian Affairs. I find that rather surprising, because last night, I heard Liberal leadership candidates answer a question about what they would do about Canada's debt if they came to power.
The Budget
They all said they would cut government spending. And today, they say the government should not make any cuts. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance pointed out that since 1984, our government has been following a consistent and comprehensive plan to ensure that Canadians can benefit from a rising standard of living and a quality of life second to none in the world. This plan had two major thrusts: first, to put the government's financial house in order, something that had not been done for many years; and second, to foster a dynamic, innovative and competitive private sector. The main challenge, of course, was to regain control of the country's finances. The previous administration's legacy consisted of a monstrous national debt. The government's program spending was out of control, and we were faced with an operating deficit unprecedented in this country's history. In fact, fiscal year 1984-85, the year we took over, ended with a total deficit of $38 billion, of which $16 billion represented the shortfall between revenues and program spending. This was in addition to the cumulative deficit built up during the 20 previous years.
To give you a better idea of the size of the problem, the successive deficits incurred in the 10 years previous to this administration show the disastrous progression of our debt. I think it would be useful to look back, to see where it all started and what the result was. At the end of fiscal year 1974-75, the deficit was $25 billion. The next year it was up to $31 billion. By the end of 1976, the deficit was $37 billion; the year after, $48 billion. By the end of 1978-79, we were up to $60 billion. The year after that, we were up to $72 billion. By the end of 1980-81, it was $85 billion. Not bad! The government was rapidly losing control. By the end of 1981-82, $100 billion, but that wasn't enough, and by the end of 1982-83, it was $128 billion. By the end of 1983-84, it was $160 billion, and by the end of 1984-85, the last fiscal year under the previous administration, we had a cumulative deficit of $199 billion, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What is it now?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, what is it now?


Gaby Larrivée: I will tell you where the deficit is now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You doubled it.


Gaby Larrivée: And I will tell you about your debt, the $200 billion debt you left us in 1984-85. I suppose you knew that when you borrow money, you have to pay interest. Everybody knows that borrowing involves

March 5, 1990
The Budget
paying interest. And before you borrow, you make sure you can meet your payments.
And now going back to the Liberal legacy of $199 billion at the end of the 1984-85. The Government of the day had therefore completely lost control over its spending and, as I said earlier, seemed unaware of the impact interest payments on its huge indebtedness would have on future administrations.
The interests which the Government must pay on this debt-I hope my colleagues opposite are listening-account for the deficit of some $30 billion which it has declared year in year out since 1986. Without this debt, Mr. Speaker, Canada would have no deficit and could even declare a surplus. In other words, we collect enough taxes to pay for absolutely all the services provided by the Government. Our deficits only represent the interests on the debt. Which means that the operating deficit of $16 billion in 1984-85 was eliminated when we took over. The very first year, the Minister of Finance showed enough restrain to achieve a reduction in expenditures in real terms. Since then, the increase has varied between 2 and 2.5 per cent, a significant change compared with the previous years.
Our friends opposite are blaming us for allowing the national debt to grow to apocalyptic proportions. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. We are forced to pay the interests on the debt which the Trudeau Government accumulated during its last ten years of tenure and that is the reason why we must continue in this direction and keep the situation under control. As future progress will be seriously compromised by inflationary economic pressures, we feel we must continue to limit public spending, something for which we need the support of all Canadians. Interest payments on the national debt are still the main component of our deficit and these budget measures will enable us to cut it down to $28.5 billion next year. By maintaining our program we expect to reduce the deficit to $14 billion over the next three years and to $10 billion in the fifth year. This means that in five years the government will begin to buy back its outstanding bonds and treasury bills and that the country will be well on its way towards a significant reduction in the national debt load.
The lower deficit will contribute to reduce inflation and that in turn will bring interests down. This is something for which the opposition parties have been clamouring for quite some time, but then it is due to the problems they left us with. A reduced deficit will make Canada less reliant on foreign lenders, thereby shoring up our national independence.
Canadians made it quite clear in recent months that they expected lower public outlays rather than higher taxes. Their message got through to the Minister of Finance and this is why his latest budget reflects this new trend.
The two-year expenditure control program will affect all areas of government spending, excepting of course income support programs for seniors, families and veterans as well as unemployment insurance and the equalization program and the Canada Assistance Plan payments to lower-revenue provinces.
The growth of expenditures for some programs will be capped at 5 per cent for the next two years. These programs relate to science and technology as well as to native and Inuit people. Opposition members describe this as a catastrophe, yet expenditures will rise by up to 5 per cent.
This applies as well to the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces that do not receive equalization payments and of course also to defence and official development assistance.
Some programs will be frozen for two years. These programs concern established program financing per capita, tax transfers on the income of utilities, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Telefilm Canada, the Export Development Corporation and Marine Atlantic.
Some programs were reduced like the Department of the Secretary of State, small craft harbours and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We also eliminated some projects such as OSLO, for the oil sands in northeastern Alberta, a saving of about $650 million, the Polar 8 icebreaker project, for a direct saving of $84 million in 1990-91 and $62 million in 1991-92.
We also eliminated the mining exploration incentive program. This measure should save us $50 million in 1990-91 and $125 million in 1991-92.
March 5, 1990

Some management initiatives will be proposed for the sake of better expenditure control. Stricter conditions will apply to the repayment of financial aid given by the federal government to business; such aid will no longer be in the form of outright grants.
The government will continue with its objective of privatizing companies where its presence is no longer necessary.
In keeping with this objective, we will sell our shares in Telesat Canada, Nordion International Inc. and Thera-tronics International. We will privatize Petro-Canada. This will be done over a period of five years.
A number of Crown corporations and agencies will be wound up, including Canada Harbour Place Corporation, Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Finally, in addition to the initiatives announced last December, which are expected to contribute $2.8 billion in savings over the next five years, a number of further initiatives are contained in this Budget. They are designed to reduce the cost of government and improve management efficiency.
In all, these measures are expected to save $2.8 billion in 1990-91 and $3.3 billion in 1991-92. Taken together with the spending reductions and management improvements announced in December 1989, the fiscal savings total $3 billion in 1990-91, and $3.8 billion in 1991-92. Over the period from 1990-91 to 1994-95, the cumulative fiscal savings will be well over $19 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this Budget meets the expectations of Canadians. It provides for reducing the federal deficit in an intelligent manner and does not contain any new taxes, at the request of Canadians.
Of course, implementing this expenditure control plan will require patience and understanding on the part of all Canadians, and perhaps especially those who are more directly responsible for the situation facing us today and who so far have kept demanding all kind of increases. They should not forget what Canadians experienced during the 80s when they were faced with spiralling inflation. We cannot afford to bring back the despair, loss of confidence and personal problems caused by interest rates of 20 per cent or more that materialized as a result of this inflationary spiral.
The Budget
So many businesses had to close down because they could not afford the exorbitant cost of financing stagnant inventory. So many Canadians lost their jobs as a result. So many Canadians lost many years worth of savings invested in their homes when they could not afford mortgage rates of close to 25 per cent. Many Canadians will never forget that time, and that is why today, Canadians are better able to appreciate why we have to deal with inflation and the deficit and do it now. It means providing a sound basis for a secure and prosperous future.
To achieve this, we must follow a clear plan of responsible fiscal and economic policies to reduce inflation and create a better climate for lower interest rates.
In his Budget, our Minister of Finance continues to do, not what is easy or popular but what is right for the country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that Tory members have to defend their Minister of Finance, but by sheepishly saying that he was doing his best they are only trying to discourage anyone from attempting to find out what this Budget is all about.
First, this Budget is a complete sham, and the Minister seems to be abdicating his responsibilities and transferring to the provinces the burden of the debt.
By passing the deficit on to the provinces, the Minister will hit the poor and the less privileged in Canada. He will also be hitting education programs which, as we know, benefit from transfer payments to the provinces from the Canadian Government.
The Minister of Finance, whom the hon. member is supporting, pushed interest rates up. Since 1988 he has been pushing interest rates up to an unbelievable level. As we know, those interest rates further increase the national debt, something I submit he acknowledges when he quite clearly recognizes that he has been doing extensive research on the level on the national debt over these last 10 years, and he agrees with me that since this Government was elected, four or five years ago, they have increase the debt twofold from some $150 billion to the current $300 billion.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether the interest rates he is justifying so well or so badly will not, in his constituency as everywhere else, have devastating effects on small business loans, on housing he certainly supports as any good member, and if finally the interest rates Canadians have to pay now, nearly 15 per cent for

March 5, 1990
The Budget
consumers, and this is no joke, 15 per cent interest now, when the prime rate is at 13.50 to 13.75. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member will realize one day that he has to stand up and speak for the average citizens he is representing.
Interest rates are much too high, and what does he do? He supports the Minister of Finance. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are lost causes and this may be one.
I would ask the hon. member what he has done recently to try and convince the Minister of Finance to lower interest rates to a level that might be 2 or 3 percentage points above the American rate, but not 5. Canada cannot compete with a country such as the United States when our interest rates are 5 percentage points above theirs.
So here is my very simple question: What did he do personally to help lower interest rates that are now destroying the Canadian economy, that will lead us down the road to disaster, that is the impending recession?


Gaby Larrivée: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think that it is very relevant. He mentioned that I built my argument on debt statistics for the last 10 years, and he said so again. I have been a member of this House for a little over a year, Mr. Speaker, and the same point always comes up: We doubled the debt.
Now my colleague did not follow my whole speech. I explained to him why we were now at around $350 billion. Mr. Speaker, I said why and I think it is elementary that when you borrow money, you must not only plan to pay it back but also plan to pay the interest. It is not given away.
My colleague should explain to us how they were able to borrow year after year such large amounts to finance current operations, which shows very poor management, without planning- Because when he says that we doubled the debt, I suppose that he is accusing us, that he is charging us for the interest on their debt. That makes no sense, or rather it can be explained. When the debt has reached such a point and there are no plans to pay it back, it is quite normal to have such a question and to pass the burden of the interest on the debt to the government in power. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in all our efforts, we must maintain a policy of high interest rates for the simple reason that we are faced with enormous expenditures that must be limited to bring down interest
rates which the Bank of Canada is now using to fight inflation.
My hon. colleague should have thought-it maybe too late for them, much too late-but they should have known, having lived through this experience, that by not controlling inflation, by maintaining interest rates at a lower level, and by allowing inflation to rise, they eventually lost total control over a running away inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather support the Minister of Finance interest rate policy rather than have a recurrence of the disaster we faced in 1981-82. My hon. friend should have listened when I mentioned the hardship that situation caused to all Canadians. A great many businesses went under because they could not live with interest rate approaching 25 per cent. A great many Canadian men and women lost their houses because having to renew their mortgages on their house with interest rates as high as 25 per cent, thereby losing their lifetime savings.


An Hon. Member:: You must be kidding!


Gaby Larrivée: I understand that I must conclude, and I am sorry to do so referring to hard times we would not want to experience again. And the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance will eventually solve all these problems.


Mr. Gagliano:: It does not solve anything!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister on a very short question or comment.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, just a very short comment. I recall being elected here in 1979 when the deficit was $68 billion. The Minister of Finance then appointed was the present Minister for International Trade. He proposed "short term pain for long term gain". Canada said no. We got four years of Liberal government and the deficit rose to $220 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior.


Réginald Bélair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the budget debate. On a national scale Canadians from coast to coast are questioning the financial policies
March 5, 1990

of this government and the economic situation we are facing. The picture does not look too good.
The public debt has doubled in the past six years of Conservative government. It has risen from $170 billion to $351 billion. In spite of massive tax increases and extensive spending cuts the deficit has continued to rise each year, from $28 billion in 1987-88 to $30.5 billion in
1989-	90. The Tories have gone to the taxpayers 32 times for tax increases, either on income through sales tax hikes or through increased fees from government services.
During its six years in power the current government has boosted federal revenues by 70 per cent, from $70 billion in 1984-85 to an estimated $120 billion for the
1990-	91 fiscal year. What use has the government made of all these increased revenues and saved expenditures. It certainly missed the opportunity to make meaningful reductions in the deficit during the last six years when we were experiencing world-wide economic growth.
The Minister of Finance has made his own five-year projection. What does he see in the future? He sees a deficit reduction to $10 billion by 1995. Also his calculations show that the net public debt will by then have increased to $452 billion. That is a $100-billion leap from the current total. According to his figures, four years from now Canadians will be paying $41 billion in annual interest on the national debt, precisely what it will cost us this year. Of course this is based on the assumption that the finance minister's calculations are correct. This may be a highly questionable assumption given his seriously flawed forecasting in the past.
For example, he forecast that short-term interest rates would average 10.1 per cent. In fact they have averaged 12.2 per cent which resulted in the government paying $6 billion more in debt charges than it had forecast. The assumption that the Canadian dollar would be stable and that interest rates would miraculously drop has also not materialized. The finance minister's current projections are tied to 9.5 per cent short-term interest rates. Private economists expect levels of at least 10.8 per cent. That
The Budget
difference would add at least $2 billion to the minister's deficit prediction.
On a more regional basis, northern Ontario, particularly my riding of Cochrane-Superior, has suffered repeated financial and economic shocks in the past year. Northerners have moved from one crisis to another. They have had to deal with many issues. The 15 per cent export surtax on softwood lumber has caused the closure of seven mills in small industry towns resulting in high unemployment. The reduction in air service to northern towns will affect the quality and level of services in the areas of tourism, disabled travellers, and people requiring medical services in the south.
The repercussions of the GST legislation will result in an increase in the cost of all goods because of the transportation service factor. The elimination of VIA Rail to many northern communities will impact negatively on the tourism industry. The elderly and the disabled who used to use trains because they were accessible and affordable will not be able to do so any more.
The hike in postal rates for commercial customers using the northern air stage network will further erode the purchasing power of natives. The tax benefit for northern and isolated areas is on the brink of extinction for 37 communities in my riding if the recommendation of the task force report is implemented.
The Canadian Incentive Exploration Program which was to provide incentives of $160 million for the exploration of minerals, oils and gas was recently eliminated after being introduced in 1988. Its cancellation today will serve a terrible blow to the mining industry.
The recent budget also took a swipe at the federal government's regional program in northern Ontario, FEDNOR, which provides specialized incentives for rural small businesses in logging, manufacturing, motel resorts, tourism, as well as professional services such as architects, computer and data processing services. They will now be moving in the direction of repayable contributions when new or existing businesses apply for assistance.
The north does not enjoy the essential services that urbanites do. The communities lack the medical, educational, recreational, cultural, and commercial services at

March 5, 1990
The Budget
urban doorsteps. Almost all the incentives which encourage people to stay in the north are now being axed.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to the Department of Forestry for which I am the official opposition co-critic.
On February 23, 1990 the Prime Minister proclaimed the Department of Forestry as a full-fledged department and completed the inauguration with the swearing in of the hon. for Prince George-Peace River as minister. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his official appointment.
We now have a Department of Forestry and a Minister of Forestry but ironically a few days before the Prime Minister's announcement the forestry department's budget was slashed by 23 per cent or $47 million. This is incredible.
To add insult to injury, these cuts took place in one of the department's most sensitive areas: federal-provincial forestry agreements. For months we have been urging the government to complete the federal-provincial agreements which are absolutely vital to the viability of the forests in Canada and to the survival of the forestry industry. These agreements are the muscle of the department. Through them the minister can implement federal forestry policy, and he is able to negotiate with provincial officials from a position of strength. If we remove the financial support which came with the agreements, we do not have much left. It is quite evident that nothing has changed. The Minister of Forestry is in the same position as he has been in the last four years.
However Treasury officials have said, according to a report in The Financial Post of February 23, 1990, that this decline in funding is temporary. If and when new agreements are worked out with the provinces, more federal money will be made available through the department. With all these budget cuts one wonders if those funds will ever materialize.
As a member from the province of Ontario I am extremely concerned with the reduction of transfer payments to my province. Health officials are crying for increased funding in order to offer better services. Our educators are faced with having to pass on huge increases in school taxes just to maintain the actual levels of education: $365 million this year and $680 next year. This is shameful. Talk about passing the buck. The
government is passing a big buck indeed. The federal government is passing its financial burden on to the backs of the provinces.
A few days ago I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State in which I said:
I was shocked and disturbed, as were native communities across Canada, to learn that the S3.4M Native Communications Program (NCP) has been eliminated and the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program (NNBAP) has been cut by $2M.
At a time when there is a resurgence of freedom on a global scale, the Government of Canada is slashing two programs which are vital to the linguistic expression of our native communities and which reflect their culture and tradition.
Canadians are rapidly realizing the serious problem of illiteracy in our society. The native communities are no different. Their native language is an integral part of their legacy and without the operational funds from the NCP and the NNBAP, the survival of their language is in jeopardy.
Now, after painting a picture of bad economic times caused by this government, the GST is coming along to choke Canadians, and serve the final blow. This one Canadians will not forget.


Mr. Marin:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what my friend and colleague from Cochrane-Superior has been telling us about a number of cut-backs. If I may, I should like to focus on the so-called cut-backs in the new Department of Forestry. Just a few days ago, royal assent was given to Bill C-29 to establish a federal Department of Forestry. The new department is the result of a promise made by the Prime Minister in 1984 when he identified the need for a full-fledged ministry, and of a government commitment to husband our forests. During fiscal year 1990-91 the department will give more, not less, support to forestry by spending an additional $4.5 million, for a total of $74.3 million. As my colleague pointed out, forests fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and we simply cannot ignore that fact. The new department is getting organized and the minister does not spare any effort, particularly with respect to federal-provincial negotiations on a number of programs designed to maintain progress made under previous agreements on forest resources development. The 1990-91 main estimates cannot tell us anything about the outcome of these discussions, but they do indicate that several Economic and Regional Development Agreements are about to expire. This should not necessarily be
March 5, 1990

interpreted as leading to lower regular financial or human operational resources. Two agreements have already been ratified, one with Nova Scotia, $45 million on a 55 and 45 per cent federal-provincial basis, the other with New Brunswick, $91 million also on the same federal-provincial sharing ratio. As well, there was a $3.2 million amendment to the agreement with Newfoundland. Negotiations are continuing with all the other provinces and I can assure my colleague and friend that the federal government is prepared to put about about 55 per cent of the funds required to renew these agreements. These funds will be added to the estimates.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the announcement made by the minister. The 90s will present many challenges to the forest sector, and the new department will have a role to play in reconciling the recreational, environmental and social values of our forests. The forest industry ranks first among our various exports and it must continue to supply wood fibers while taking into account the other forest values not directly related to timber. The department is fully aware of Canadian public concern in that regard. I believe that with the members of the forestry committee, who are all interested in the future of this department, we will give strong support to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not hear a question there, but does the hon. member have a rebuttal? He has a minute left.


Réginald Bélair: First of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague opposite for his question. Yes, the Department of Forestry finally saw the light of day after six years of promises. Now that it is here, there is a lot of equivocation. I think that, since 12 percent of forests have been cleared with no plans for reforestation and given the increasing number of confrontations between the industry and environmentalists, the government should intensify its efforts to bring them together.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the budget debate this afternoon and I tell you that after a week spent in our ridings, everyone had a week off from Parliament, but I
The Budget
believe that we all worked in our ridings and met our constituents.
So, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to make a speech on what my constituents told me when we met and I must tell you that they have several concerns. Of course, those directly affected by the Budget are concerned about the cuts and all those who are not affected fear that they will soon be by this Minister of Finance. In general, we have a problem, namely the deficit and the national debt. There, I have decided to deal with it in a non-partisan way and maybe make a few suggestions and recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the government.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the last decade, economists, business people, labour unions and politicans, like all of us here, had two points in common on the deficit and the national debt. The first is that their forecasts never came true from year to year and the second is that the deficit and the national debt are too high. I think that we have proof from this Conservative government which supposedly should have solved-It told the people that it would solve all the economic problems, but we still have those problems. It has not changed much and we saw in this Budget the cuts that it proposed just to come up with the same deficit forecast as a year ago.
Furthermore, there are as many solutions to these financial problems as there are economists, business people, unions and politicians suggesting them. My first question is therefore this: Is a Government elected to have a surplus or to serve the people who elected it? I thing we must answer this question. We are elected to provide the people with services. We need money to provide such services, but what would be the use of money if there were no people. Therefore, we must achieve a certain balance. To do so, as Canadians, we need both financial and human resources.
Let us now have a look at our country. Canada is a country which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and up North to the Arctic Ocean. Distances are enormous. Weatherwise, Canada is a cold country. Yet, it has an abondance of natural resources. Canada not only has a very small population, but its population is spread over huge distances. Although inhabited by various

March 5, 1990
The Budget
ethnic groups, Canada is a predominantly Anglophone and Francophone country.
Compassion and tolerance are the Canadian way of life. In 1990, we have a deficit of approximately $30 billion. Has anybody wondered whether our human deficit is at least equal or perhaps greater than our financial deficit of $30 billion. I think that we should address this issue. Are 26 million Canadians enough to support our standard of living and operate our system as a democratic and modern society?
They keep repeating that our national debt is higher than that of the other industrialized countries. We don't have to go that far, Mr. Speaker. We can look next door, to the south. The United States has a per capita debt that is lower than ours, but its population is eight times as big. Its territory is smaller and its climate more temperate, it costs less to govern that country.
If our debt is too high, is our population a factor? If we had more people, our per capita debt would be lower. I mentioned achieving a balance, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is where a balance is required. We must not only consider fiscal solutions, we must also increase our population in order to achieve continuing economic stability.
Mr. Speaker, I realize I will not have enough time this afternoon to cover all aspects of how to increase our population, but since we are talking about the Budget, taxation and our financial problems, I would like to start by suggesting ways of controlling our annual deficit and reducing the national debt.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada should change its accounting procedures. Our system of accounting is obsolete. Although, as a government, we ask taxpayers who are in business to produce a balance sheet for their company, the Government of Canada, does not produce a balance sheet in its annual report.
We have two types of transactions: revenues and expenditures. There is no accounting for capital investment.
For instance, when the Government of Canada created Petro-Canada, that year the amount spent was shown as expenditures. What did we get at the end of the year? Revenues minus expenditures: a deficit! In the
government's annual report, Petro-Canada cost nothing. Nothing! Now that the government has decided to sell Petro-Canada, I think it is important to set the record straight, and I will get back to the matter of Petro-Canada and Air Canada later on.
Just think, Mr. Speaker, if business people had to draft their financial reports according to this system, the vast majority of our businesses would be in the red. And that is because capital investment occurring in the same year would be put down as expenditures, without accounting for the business's capital and net assets.
The Government of Canada, therefore, must produce every year a balance sheet with assets and liabilities, as Auditor General Kenneth Dye has been suggesting for the past three years. He had even developed and submitted to the Government a model of this balance sheet, but nothing came of it. I suggest it is very important to implement his suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the accounting system should operate on this basis, in order to separate operating expenditures from capital expenditures. The cost of servicing the debt should be part of capital expenditures in order to plan and finance a long term reduction of the debt. We must develop a financial plan. For the past six years, we have seen the Minister of Finance re-adjust his forecast every year. We cannot solve our financial problems in that way.
Fiscal arrangements should be considered to reduce the debt. Some Canadians would be willing to pay a little more if they felt that their taxes would be used in part to reduce a debt which is increasing every year. That is what our constituents are telling us.
The current operating budget should take into accounts the political objectives of the Government and determine its policies. The Government should establish its objectives and set up a budget for services. But the whole issue of the debt and the servicing of the debt should be considered in a separate budget with specific policies to handle it.
The accounting system should be set up on this basis so that we can distinguish between operating expenditures and capital expenditures All Canadians they might understand better what the national debt means. The issue is really very complex even for experts, and I am
March 5, 1990

afraid we will have great difficulty understanding all the Estimates the Minister of Finance tables every year.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, servicing the debt must come under the capital budget to allow for the long-term planning of the debt reduction and its financing. The policies involving specific steps to tackle those problems must be understood.
Mr. Speaker, any project with long term market value should come under the capital rather than operating and identified budget. And the method of financing such a project must be specified and identified before it is approved.
Mr. Speaker, if it is decided to build another Museum of Civilization, if such is government policy and if it is determined that we need it, fine, let's do it. But we must determine how much this will cost, and how it is going to be financed, rather than always dip into the same purse. And then, when something is sold, the proceeds are put into the same purse, and at the end of the year the Minister of Finance tells us: "I reduced the deficit by $2 billion." In actual fact, he reduced nothing. As in this case, he did not reduce anything, he merely sold of one Crown Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, it is important therefore that we have a management system that is healthier, better controlled, visible and that citizens can understand.
I realize I am taking some time, but I want to make sure that Canadians and hon. members understand what I am saying, because if we really are to reduce the debt and the deficit, we must take the steps needed rather than the GST or other measures proposed by the Department and the Minister of Finance.
Increasing taxes will not solve the problem. In the end, revenues will decrease because Canadians no longer can afford new or higher taxes.
If the Government decides, under that accounting system to incur a deficit, that is their privilege. They are elected by the people and must be accountable to them. Therefore, they are responsible to the people who elected them, then this is very, very easy. What we are seing is that the Minister of Finance after six years in office is still blaming the Liberals, although we have not been in government for six years and the debt was increased by the Tories.
The Budget
Earlier I heard the hon. member suggest: You cannot blame us for the interests we had to pay on the debt you incurred. Does that make any sense? None at all. The problems will not be solved that way. Propose solutions. In six years the Minister of Finance has not suggested anything new.
Mr. Speaker, another example is obvious. He has just suggested selling Petro-Canada but he did not say how or what he intends to do with the proceeds. He sold Air Canada. I would like to know how much he got for it. I think that company was worth something. It was not something to get rid of on a whim. How much money did the Canadian government get to reduce the deficit or even the national debt? Nothing! We had to give!
This government is so irresponsible that it gives away its assets. But, if we sell off our assets, we will be left with only the liabilities, which would create serious difficulties. It is therefore important and urgent to change our accounting practices before this government rips off the whole nation and leaves us in dire straits since we would not have any assets. That is what it did with Air Canada and other companies it has already sold and what it will do with Petro-Canada in accordance with its ripping-off policy.
I hope my colleagues from all sides of the House will understand the urgency and call on this government to accept the Auditor General's report suggesting a change in accounting practices and an annual assessment of the replacement cost of all government capital assets as in any business. They should draw up a balance sheet and from there propose policies to reduce the deficit and especially to finance the debt and reduce it, because that takes a long-term plan, as in any business.
Mr. Speaker, when you buy a house, you take out a mortgage and have a plan to pay it off. At present, the Government of Canada has no plan and I think it is urgent. If the minister is serious about wanting to solve the debt problem, he should develop a plan right away.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested to hear members speak on the budget this afternoon. It is amazing to hear the difference in the speeches. Every opposition member has complained about budget cuts-how this budget cuts all the programs, complaining about budget cuts here and

March 5, 1990
The Budget
budget cuts there. I have to say to myself, as I heard the comedian Yakov Smirnoff say: "What a country!"
I was in my riding last week. The hon. member for Calgary West and I had public meetings. Everyone said: "You gotta cut more. Get the deficit down. You gotta cut". They all tell me that.


Mr. Keyes:: Everybody in Calgary says that?


Lee Richardson: They all tell me that.
The member for Hamilton West has to come out. I invite him to come to the Calgary Stampede and to talk to Canadians who know what it is like to balance a budget.
I also heard the members talking about interest rates and questioning the finance minister's forecast for interest rates in the current budget. It was noted that last year's forecast was not as accurate as in previous years. I do not think any finance minister in any country in the world could have forecast the unpredictable interest rates of the past year.


An Hon. Member:: How did they get there?


Lee Richardson: Well, all businesses and financial institutions forecast interest rates. That is how they predicate their business for the upcoming year.
When I heard criticism of the finance minister's forecast of an 11.1 per cent interest rate over the year, I questioned that as well. I asked the finance minister how he came to that interest rate forecast. I also went to the 20 leading financial institutions in the country. The banks, leading trust companies and brokerage firms also have to do interest rate and economic forecasts across the country. I asked for the average prediction of those 20 leading financial institutions of Canada for the interest rate for the upcoming year. The average prediction was for an interest rate in 1991 of 11 per cent.
If members turn to their budget documents they will see that the finance minister, in fact, has given a very conservative estimate of 11.1 per cent. He is actually giving a higher rate than is forecast by all those leading institutions in this country which make their money in this game."
The government was elected six years ago with one vital objective-to get control of our nation's finances. This objective has had priority over all others because it must. I just listened to my colleague in the finance
committee who understands the problem of the deficit. We do not always agree on how we arrived at that deficit, the $200 billion legacy left to us by the previous government. Any other objective cannot be considered, advanced or planned without first having the dollars to do it.
The environment needs cleaning up. We all agree to that. It cannot be done without money. It takes more than political will.
Our poor and unemployed need the tools and education to make themselves self-sufficient and productive. That requires more than sympathetic rhetoric. It takes dollars.
Our health care system is one of the best in the world. It cannot be sustained forever without an increasing amount of money. We do not have that kind of money any more. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. With this budget, we are finally able to stand on our tiptoes, peer over the mountain of debt that has been created by previous administrations, and see the future as prosperous and self-reliant.
Every homemaker, business person and every Canadian knows that they can only spend what they earn or they will go into debt. Eventually, that debt has to be paid. Everyone who has been in debt knows that to pay it off requires some sacrifices. With consistent and concerted effort the interest and principal can be paid off and the slate wiped clean.
In 1984 when this government came to office, it was clear that our financial situation was such a mess that there could not be any quick cure. The national debt was $200 billion and the previous government in the previous year spent $16 billion more on government programs than it collected. I would like to tell you just what that means. We came into office in 1984. Not only did they have a $200 billion debt that they had been adding to for the past 10 years, they also had expenditures away up here, built in, indexed expenditures and revenue way down here. That is the legacy we were left with in 1984.
First of all, not only did we have to bring that revenue up and hold those expenditures before we could have a balanced budget, after the mess we were left by the Liberals, we had to get to that point before we could start to pay off the national debt.


An Hon. Member:: At 20 per cent interest.

March 5, 1990


Lee Richardson: Exactly. They are racking up these revenues.


An Hon. Member:: Where have you been for six years?


Lee Richardson: I will tell you where we have been for the past six years. The member asks where have we been. Where we have been is getting Canada out of the hole created. It is not a quick cure. It took until 1987 for Michael Wilson to bring forward a surplus in the operating account of this government. As this budget shows, we have a continued surplus again, $9 billion surplus this year. By 1995-96 we will be able to attack the principal on the national debt.
Within three years we turned that operating deficit around to a surplus. This year the government will collect $9 billion more in revenue than it spends on programs, that is a $25 billion turnaround, a remarkable achievement in such a short period of time.
Having an operating surplus does not yet get us out of the woods. We still have an accumulated debt of $350 billion, the result of 20 years of deficits, the original $200 billion left to us by the spend-crazy former government, plus the compound interest on that debt. Indeed, 80 per cent of the increase in the debt since 1984 is accounted for by interest charges alone. That explains why despite a growing operating surplus, we have a $30 billion deficit this year. It is all interest.
For anyone in debt there are three choices: increase earnings, cut spending or sell assets. The government has used all three of these methods to make the substantial progress we have made to date.
In the 1970s and early 1980s revenues to the federal treasury were declining because of arcane tax rules, exemptions and loopholes, ad hoc tax cuts, the endemic flaws in the manufacturers' sales tax and the direct and indirect impacts of the 1981-82 recession.
In November 1984 we introduced measures that have increased revenues to the same levels, on average, that were earned in the 1970s. These measures have helped bring down the national deficit from $38.3 billion in 1984-85 to $30.5 billion in the 1989-90 budget, nearly $8 billion. Relative to the size of the economy the deficit has declined to 4.7 per cent of the GNP in 1990, a drop of 45 per cent.
The Budget
We have increased revenues, not by gouging taxpayers but by cleaning up the system. We have made it fairer and more reliable. Implementation of the goods and services tax is a crucial part of this process. Our tax reform policies have worked. There is not much more that needs to be done on that front. That is why there are no new taxes in this budget.
This budget concentrates on spending cuts and decreases in government spending. This is neither new nor surprising. Getting spending under control is an integral part of eliminating deficits and giving us the flexibility to attack the debt.
In every budget year we have been in office this government has reduced spending and kept its growth in check. That is why we now have an operating surplus. Seventy per cent of the deficit reduction was achieved by government spending restraint. Only 30 per cent was the result of revenue increases.
The growth of spending on all government programs and services since 1984 has been kept well below the growth of the economy and the rate of inflation. The money used to meet the cost of the government's operations has been cut from $17.4 billion in 1984 to $16.8 billion today, despite a larger workload. The public service has been reduced by 12,000 person years to the same size it was in 1973, despite a 20 per cent increase in Canada's population.
People have said to me: "Well, that's fine. You tell me you have cut the civil service since 1984 and reduced the civil service by 12,000 people, but haven't departments just replaced some of those people by contract positions?" No they have not. When we removed those person years from government departments, we also took the budget that paid for those people. If anybody wants to hire somebody on contract in their department today they have to find the money from some other source within their department funding.
With tight discipline and good management, program spending has dropped from 19.5 per cent of the economy in 1984 to 16 per cent this year. This is its lowest level in almost 20 years and equivalent to a $22 billion reduction in spending. Since 1984, government program spending has increased by only 3.6 per cent per year, significantly less than the 4.3 average rate of inflation. Controlling government spending has not been easy or painless.

March 5, 1990
The Budget
Programs have been eliminated, including the Canadian Home Insulation Program, the Petroleum Incentives Program and the Cape Breton heavy water plants, among others.
Family allowances and transfers to the provinces had their growth restrained and measures to better target the transfer of money to individuals have been implemented. Payments to Crown corporations have been restrained. The government has sold or reduced its holdings in 18 Crown corporations and eight others have been dissolved. Other Crown corporations such as Canada Post were told to shape up. The post office has turned a $400 million annual deficit into a profit and is continuing to improve its service.
Defence and foreign aid budgets were reduced. Direct subsidies to businesses were scaled down. Make no mistake. This government has cut spending. Last December, the President of the Treasury Board announced further steps to eliminate waste, improve efficiency and save $1.4 billion over the next three years. This was done in part by imposing a freeze on federal government construction in Ottawa, travel restrictions for members of Parliament and public servants, and closures of parliamentary restaurants and some government agencies.
This budget continues that work with its two year expenditure control plan designed to save $2.8 billion in 1991 and $3.3 billion in 1991-92. Together with the President of the Treasury Board's cuts announced in December, these actions will save $19 billion by 1994-95.
The expenditure control program exempts transfers to persons. Pensions, family allowance and unemployment insurance payments will not be affected. There are no cuts to veterans pensions. Following the lead of the successful western diversification program, which is headquartered in Edmonton, the budget takes a more business-like approach to business by eliminating grants and making loan repayment measures more rigorous. This places the emphasis on investing in economic development and not giving handouts to the private sector.
Petro-Canada will be sold. The government will wind up a number of Crown corporations and agencies whose
functions can be handled efficiently and effectively by the private sector.
Grants and contributions paid by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship and by National Health and Welfare are being cut. The plan also caps the growth of a number of programs to 5 per cent a year for the next two years. These include the Canada Assistance Plan payments to the fiscally stronger provinces of B.C., Ontario and Alberta and represents about 1 per cent of the total provincial budgets in those provinces.
Federal support to provinces remains large and the total transfers will still increase to more than $36 billion in 1990-91. My province of Alberta is one of the fiscally stronger provinces that will be affected by the cap, but only if the province chooses to increase spending on social assistance by more than 5 per cent this year. If it does so, then it is no doubt better able to bear the extra cost than the federal government. I was pleased to hear from Premier Getty that the province of Alberta will be able to absorb those cuts with no increase in taxes.
Payments to the Alberta government under the Canada Assistance Plan will still go up from $2.3 billion in 1989-90 to $2.4 billion in 1990-91 and to $2.45 billion in 1991-92. On a per capita basis, Ottawa will still transfer back $972 for every Albertan in 1990-91 and $979 the following year. Obviously, there is an effect on Alberta as a result of this budget. We must bear in mind that this year 35 cents of every federal dollar goes to paying interest on the debt. The provinces, on average, pay only 12 cents of the revenues toward debt. Federal and provincial government efforts must be made to ensure each tax dollar is spent more carefully. The effects can be coped with as all Canadians adjust their expectations of what the federal government in the current circumstances can be expected to do.
This is a tough budget, but it had to be. Continued expenditure reductions while maintaining the level of revenue will bring us to a point in 1995 where our operating surplus will cover that year's interest on the debt. Then and only then will we be able to start paying down that massive debt which has impeded our flexibility and stifled our economic growth.
We have implemented measures in the past six years that have put us on the road to recovery but it is a long, long road and there are many pitfalls along the way. The
March 5, 1990

measures to date, the spending restraints and the stabilization of revenue have worked and will continue to work if we do not lose our nerve.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a very peculiar situation as I am not sure whether I am in the same House as I was in Question Period. I heard cabinet minister after cabinet minister get up and deny that there were any cuts. They said there were no cuts, that there were only increases in expenditure.


An Hon. Member:: Including the Prime Minister?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The Prime Minister also said that. I now have the hon. member congratulating himself and his Tory colleagues for the tremendous cuts in expenditure. Who are we to believe? More critical, who are Canadians to believe? The Prime Minister says one thing, you say something else, the Minister of Finance says something else and Canadians are left bewildered. The member passes off the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan. Alberta can absorb the increase in income assistance rates. What happens when the unemployment rate goes up another 2 per cent as predicted by the Minister of Finance and the demand increases for people on income assistance? What happens when the impact of the cuts in UIC take place where thousands and thousands of British Columbians in my home province have been disentitled to unemployment insurance and therefore have to go to income assistance? How is the province going to absorb that?
In the last five to ten years, the province of British Columbia has balanced its budget on the backs of the poor by cutting income assistance, not maintaining it, by actually cutting income assistance payments; by reducing their transfer payments to hospital boards, to post-secondary education facilities and to school districts. This is going to accelerate with this type of a budget.
The member says a wealthy province can absorb it. Maybe Alberta is in a position where there is an out migration of population. B.C. is in a position where there is an inward migration of population plus a settlement of immigrants coming to this country. Our population is going up and yet our revenues from the federal government are being capped.
I want the member to explain the discrepancy between what he says and what the Prime Minister says. Also, could he explain why he feels there will be no impact on
The Budget
services, particularly services that relate to income assistance, child care, post-secondary education and health, which are under tremendous stress in the province of British Columbia. The one thing I do agree with that the member said is the incompetence of the Liberals. It is true. Their fiscal incompetence is only surpassed by the Conservatives fiscal incompetence.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member has taken the time to agree with me that the federal budget has taken a course of restraint. He objects to the cuts. Perhaps he would not be well received in my riding.
I was pleased also to hear the hon. member congratulate the government of British Columbia for another successful budget and for balancing its budgets over the past years. If we had similar restraints shown in provincial budgets across the country as we have in British Columbia or in Alberta, the economy would be in much better shape. I think particularly of the Government of Ontario which continued to raise their level of expenditures by over 10 per cent a year during a boom period, creating inflation and adding to the level of interest rates.
I commend the member for his acknowledgement and credit given the British Columbia government for maintaining a balanced budget, even in difficult times.
I should comment on his point with regard to what has been cut and what has not. People are no longer buying this garble of NDP members and others trying to mix numbers around. What we are saying is that the government has a serious debt problem, one that has been created in this country over a period of 20 years. We are resolving that problem. The record stands for itself. We are attacking the national debt. The only way to do it is to hold down that rate of increase of expenditures to cut the level of increase of expenditures as we have done while maintaining a stable level of revenue to attack the national debt. We have succeeded.
The Minister of Finance has done a remarkable job in holding down that level of expenditure while maintaining a level of revenues that, in the game plan laid out in his budget address, will allow us in the next three or four years not only to pay the interest on the national debt, but to begin to attack the principal on the national debt.

March 5, 1990
The Budget
This is a remarkable achievement and a remarkable budget.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend, who sits on the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship with a number of us from both sides of the House, some questions related to that department.
I will quote from the budget. I am not making up this figure. The Tory budget has cut $23 million from this year's Secretary of State budget. This means it has cut essential programs for women, aboriginal programs-$90 million we heard today in Question Period-and, of course, the funding for multicultural programs, including advocacy groups and community programs. Last year they cut out the SILT program for language training which was essential for new immigrants to settle into Canada and cut 15 per cent per year for advocacy groups.
In addition to this, I assume the government still has plans to set up three new bureaucracies, a new multicultural department, a race relations foundation and a heritage language institute that would take a lot of money.
I would like to ask him, first, how he thinks cutting $23 million allows enough money for the minister to carry out the mandate of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act? In my view, it is just sheer tokenism. There is no way he can do it, much less set up a new department.
I would also like to ask him about the increasing intolerance, bigotry, and racism that have been documented in this country. Well over 50 per cent of Canadians say it is on the increase. How does he think this is going to be dealt with when the government is cutting back the very community front-line programs and advocacy groups that are there to deal with this? They are the only hope to get some real movement to improve inter-cultural and inter-racial programs and relations in Canada.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her thoughtful question. She is well aware that she and I perhaps share much of the same opinion on this issue, which is probably unusual because on many issues, particularly finance, we do not.
With regard to her question about the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship's policies on racial intolerance, the minister responsible has done a remarkable job in this area with the budget constraints he has had. I know the member would like more money going to advocacy groups across the country to put their particular cases. What the minister has done, and continues to do, is to influence groups already existing in society, police services and any number of government departments, and to bring racial tolerance into the mainstream of Canadian life. He has not relied simply on advocacy groups, although many of them have done an effective job. Across every department of government he has used his influence and the influence of his department to consider this as an over-all government concern, rather than limiting it to his own department. In doing so, within the budget restraints he has, he has done a remarkable job.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, it is with real anger that I rise today to participate in the budget debate for 1990. Both as a New Democrat spokesperson for the status of women and as the member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby in British Columbia, I find that this budget is really deeply offensive.
This is the second year in a row that the Secretary of State's women's program has reeled under severe cuts by the government. This year women's centres and publications have been targeted for total funding cuts of 100 per cent. Every single last penny of core funding for these organizations that provide their communities with valuable information is gone. Women's centres funding has been cut to zero. That is the best example of the Tory commitment to the women of Canada. It is zero.
Women's organizations have been providing for next to nothing the types of information and services which will cost provincial governments millions of dollars to take on. Women's centres are often the first places that battered and sexually assaulted women turn to for help, information and direction. Women's centres show the women in their communities what resources are available to them. They operate largely with dedicated volunteers.
We have not achieved equality for women in our society. Women still make up the majority of the poor in Canada. In the world, women make up the majority of the poor. Women are still not safe in the streets or in their homes. There is so much more yet to be done to achieve true equality for women in our society. Women
March 5, 1990

are challenging the traditional economic structures that have kept them in their place, in our place.
We are challenging the attitudes of the economics of violence. We are being silenced by a government which is, at best, ignorant and, at worst, hostile to our efforts. We are being muzzled.
By attacking women's and native communications' research, the government hopes to keep women and native people uninformed. This is a prime mechanism to silence these growing movements, the opposition to the Conservative attack on the poor, women and disadvantaged. The government is attempting to silence the voices of women and native people.
The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women received a 20 per cent cut this year. It released an appropriate media statement entitled: "A woman in justice-but no justice for women". It said that the appointment of a woman Justice Minister cannot substitute for financial support for women's equality efforts. The government appoints women who will parrot its policies, despite their principles and, perhaps, despite their better judgment.
The government has spent more money funding strip clubs than women's groups. It has loaned $17 million to 38 strip joints. The total budget of the women's program last year was $11 million. The women's program funds hundreds of women's resources all over the country.
The Canada Assistance Plan which funds social assistance but also funds shelters for battered women was dealt a blow in this budget. The Tories slapped a spending limit on British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario CAP funds. Shelters for battered women today must turn away one of every two women who appear begging for a space. What is the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan going to mean for these women? Where will they go?
The Canada Assistance Plan is also how child care is funded in our country. In my home province of British Columbia, 280,000 children are in desperate need of child care right now. There are 20,000 licensed spaces. The Tories promised us a brand new child care program before the last election. Instead, it is cutting back on child care. These cuts really do make me angry because they go hand in hand with a $114 million budget increase
The Budget
for the Canadian Armed Forces in Europe. When the Berlin wall has crumbled, when the spirit of openness and co-operation exists now among eastern European people, the Canadian government is stepping up its military forces in Europe at the expense of women, at the expense of children, at the expense of native people and the poor of Canada.
The Tory government increased the budget for security intelligence, increased the budget for CSIS, by $33 million while taking $1.6 million from the women's program. This is in addition to last year's cuts to women's programming of $2 million. The government's priorities are truly disgusting.
This budget, according to the government's own projections, will lead to higher unemployment, to the tune of 100,000 jobs lost per year. This budget contributes to lower disposable income for Canadians. The government clearly does not care a bit about how its policies affect real people's lives, it deals with economic policy in the abstract. Women have to find jobs and they discover that these jobs are hard to find. They discover federal employment equity programs with no teeth to them at all. Women have to find child care and discover waiting lists of up to a year and sometimes longer for a subsidized space.
Women will have to start paying the GST on hygienic products, on children's clothing, on boots, on winter coats, on muffins, on hydro bills and on heat. Let the finance minister hand his "no new taxes" line to the women of Canada who will have to start paying the GST on almost every item and service that they buy.
How can employment equity work in a period of cut-backs when people are being fired, not hired? Employment equity is a program for the hiring and promotion of women and minorities. Because of seniority, those left with jobs after massive job losses are mostly white males. Hiring freezes guarantee that women and minorities will not be hired.
The 1990 budget stands alongside the 1989 budget in which the universality of family allowances and old age pensions was destroyed and where the unemployment insurance system was cut back almost beyond recognition.

March 5, 1990
The Budget
The Tory agenda has not created prosperity but misery. The biggest lie ever told was that the Conservatives are good economic managers. We in Canada are now on the brink of a recession. This is where Tory economic policy has led us.
I would like to take a moment and talk about something of which my colleagues on the other side may be unaware. It is the notion of principles. I can see that the members on the other side are squirming and muttering. They may be saying, "Well, we have principles too", and to be fair, I suppose they do. They might, when in doubt, put the burden on working Canadians, put the burden on middle-income Canadians, or a tax loophole for the rich is a vote at the ballot box.
However, there are some ideas which might be a bit more radical for this government. I thought it might consider the principles of fairness and equity. I thought it might consider something honourable like the value of a promise. Evidently I was expecting too much and I will tell you why.
A couple of years ago, the government decided to award some frigate building contracts. As there are excellent and productive shipyards in British Columbia, these shipyards were hopeful that they would receive some of these contracts. These companies and their workers were not asking for a lot. They did not want all of the frigate contracts, they only wanted to be treated fairly by the federal government. Let us look at how the federal government dealt with the people of British Columbia and let us look at the notion of fairness.
Did the B.C. shipyards get half of the contracts? No. Did they get a quarter of the contracts? No. Did they even get one of the contracts, Mr. Speaker ? No, not one contract for British Columbia. For some reason, the logic of which truly escapes me, the Conservatives thought it would be fair to give each and every one of these frigate contracts to eastern shipyards. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you can appreciate that the people of British Columbia were very upset at this blatant example of favouritism. They were angered by the cavalier manner in which the federal government dismissed them. Canada is a far-flung country and it is hard to believe that Ottawa really cares about the regions of Canada when one can see such reckless decisions being made.
Keep in mind that this is not an administration that governs. This is an administration that reacts. Somehow, surprised at the furore that this snub created in my province, the Tories did what they always do. They scrambled about and they made yet another of their "sacred trust" promises. They said: "No, of course we did not forget about British Columbia. We will give your shipyards the Polar 8 contract". Now, just a short time later, we see those words were just so much hot air. The budget wiped out this promise to B.C. It cancelled the Polar 8 contract.
We see how much the finance minister cares about British Columbia. We see how the Tories govern. They make one promise to get elected and rescind that commitment when the whim suits them.
I would like to remind the government of one thing. It is not a whim to want to be employed. It is not whimsical to fight to keep your shipyard in your province viable. The finance minister may be talking about some abstract numbers in a ledger book, but what I am talking about is reality and real people who want jobs.
His government has failed the people of British Columbia. This government has said to my home province: "Your jobs are expendable". He has said to them: "My government is not a government that operates on fairness or on equity". It is a government which picks and chooses which promises are convenient to keep and which are to be discarded like old Tory election pamphlets.
Where are the voices of the 12 government members of Parliament from British Columbia? What about the four cabinet ministers who come from my province of British Columbia? What influence do they have with this government? It appears the answer is very clear. They have no influence as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned. The Tories have abandoned B.C.
The Tories have long toyed with the lives of all Canadians and this budget is just one more example of the Tory disregard. Under this budget, the finance minister has given the green light to forcing more and more Canadians into unemployment. He has approved plans which will see incomes falling in the next two years. These are not just idle threats thought up by naysayers. These are projections from their own budget documents. If more unemployed poor Canadians is his idea of
March 5, 1990

prosperity, I really think that he should recheck the definition of the word.
The minister also froze the Canada Assistance Plan payments for British Columbia. Of course, this will hit the hardest on those who have the least. The poor in British Columbia are not less poor than the poor in other regions of this country. They hurt just as badly. They line up in the food banks. I have seen them. I have been there. I have seen the food banks in British Columbia simply and solely for women and children. As I said, this will hit hardest on those who have the least. People in any province who battle poverty need help in breaking out of the poverty cycle.
What the minister has done is to take the poor of British Columbia and to say that they are expendable. It is fundamentally and morally wrong to treat Canadians in this way. The lives of Canadian women and men are not numbers to be pushed over from one column of the ledger sheet to another. They are not statistics to fill up some glossy Department of Finance budget document.
Canadian women and men are people struggling to keep their jobs in the face of industries closing down and moving southward because of the Mulroney trade deal. They are individuals struggling with the burden of 32 tax increases since this government came into power and since we have had this finance minister. They are senior citizens who are struggling to make ends meet, who watch the government hack away at their old age security programs. They are single parents living below the poverty line who will now have to pay another 7 per cent on their children's clothing, on their children's boots and coats. They are workers in a shipyard in British Columbia grappling with the question: did the Conservatives kneecap their industry out of sheer ignorance? Or was this a deliberate attempt to kill off this valuable industry in British Columbia?
I have also thought about that question and I cannot really decide what is going through the minds of those on the other side of the House. I do know one thing. I know that we cannot afford to have our jobs taken away. I know that we cannot afford this GST, this regressive form of taxation which will fall on the backs of middle-income Canadians and poor Canadians. Poor and middle-income Canadians will pay the same amount of tax on a pair of shoes that the millionaire on Bay Street will pay. I know that we cannot afford that. We cannot
The Budget
afford the high interest rates that this government has brought us nor the high unemployment rates.
As a matter of fact, Canadians can no longer afford to be governed by the Tories.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in face of the growing national debt, I would like to ask the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, does she believe that any cuts in any government program ought to be undertaken?


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, there are countless tax write-offs that are available to large corporations under this tax reform that the government has talked about for a number of years. They have just introduced legislation that will make it more attractive for rich Canadians to salt money away into an RRSP, where lower-income people do not have this advantage. There are a number of areas, if the government was really serious about cutting back on expenditures. The increases to the military budget are one avenue that the government certainly could have looked at with a fresh eye.
What this government has chosen to do is target the women and the native peoples of Canada. It has chosen to attack any environmental programs that may have had some significance. It has chosen to try to silence the voices of the women of Canada. It has chosen to try to silence the voices of the native people. That is a deliberate strategy, because the women and the native people in this country have been fighting back against this government's arrogance, torture and lack of consideration for women and the disadvantaged in our society. It is a deliberate strategy because it does not want to hear from these yappy women any more who have been telling it that they do not want these Tory programs, they do not want to have the big heavy foot of the Tory government on their necks any longer.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it will not go unnoticed that the hon. member decided not to answer the question. What she would like to put before the House is a list of little fox chases that might distract some people. She mentioned that there could be more cuts to national defence. She herself would know that national defence is not an agency simply to be prepared for a hot war. We must also be there to protect our country against international polluters, to protect our ocean resources, to protect against drugs coming into this country, to protect against terrorism. If the NDP had their way and did away with the Department of National

March 5, 1990
The Budget
Defence, the country would be vulnerable to all those international attacks.
The member gave the specific example of shoes, saying that the rich and the poor would pay the same tax. Since today there is a 13.5 per cent tax on the manufacture of leather products, does she not believe that it might be somewhat more purposeful for those in lower income families, who will be better off after the GST is in place, to pay only 7 per cent rather than 13.5 per cent, or has she some mysterious view that 13.5 per cent is smaller that 7 per cent?


Dawn Black: It is interesting that the member on the other side would raise that question. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that prices will come down when the MST comes off. There is nothing to ensure that prices will drop by 13.5 per cent. I will be very surprised if right across the board prices come down by 13.5 per cent and go up by 7 per cent.
When we talk about the people who will be paying taxes on their shoes, we are talking again about a regressive form of taxation that puts the burden on the middle income earners disproportionately. This is not fair taxation. This is regressive taxation. Canadians recognize it for what it is and they are fed up with it.


An Hon. Member:: What is your alternative?


Dawn Black: Our alternative has been tabled in the House. It makes a lot of sense. Why do you not take the time to read it? You might learn something.
The member asks me about the Canadian military, and stated that the Canadian military was necessary to fight pollution, to protect our fisheries, and for a number of other things that I do not even recall.
We had a major oil spill in December of 1988, in my province, right after I was elected. I toured the devastation on the east coast of Vancouver Island in a helicopter. It was horrific. There was no military there. Members of my party called for the military to come in and help with the clean-up. I also recall that there was no military helping with the tire fire two weeks ago in Hagersville, Ontario.
There was absolutely no sense to the member's question. He knows what this government is doing. He knows that once again the Tories are putting the burden on the backs of middle income people, women and children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have two more questioners. The hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River, and the hon. member for Surrey North. I will recognize the hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have been here five and a half years now and I keep hearing over and over again from NDP members about average Canadians. Every time I hear a speech from one of them, I receive confirmation that they have no idea what it is like out there in the real world.
There were some very tough decisions made in the 1990 budget. There were choices that had to be made. What is right is not always popular. This government could be the most popular party this country has ever seen if we opened up the cheque book and wrote a cheque to everybody who demanded money. But that would not be the responsible thing to do.
I think it is a very sad commentary on the NDP policy that to solve every problem, you throw money or write a cheque. That is their solution.
During her speech, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby mentioned principles. I do not question her principles. I do not question the principles of any member of this House, and I do not like having my principles questioned because I am a member of the government. Let me tell the member the basis of my principles.
I have three teenage children at home who will soon be in the workforce. They are going to wonder in the years that I was in the House why I did not support policies that got government spending under control so that my children and my grandchildren are not paying for a debt that I incurred while I was a member of the House of Commons. I will repeat the question that my colleague asked. If we are going to control spending, where do you do it?
We had an NDP government in Manitoba for eight years that never cut back spending anywhere, but increased taxes, the highest we have ever seen in the
March 5, 1990

province of Manitoba. So we have seen how the NDP can talk about policies and theories. We have seen them in action in Manitoba. It does not work.


Dawn Black: The member opposite said that they had tough choices. I agree that they had tough choices. But I have to really question how they came to their answers. He talks about cuts that they had to make. There also were increases in this budget. There was an increase to CSIS in the amount of $33 million. There was a $14 million advertising budget for the GST, a tax that no one in this country wants. It has been made very clear that people see this tax as an unfair tax.
The cuts to women's programming were $1.6 million. When you look at the increases to CSIS, the security system for Canada, and the massive budget to advertise this regressive taxation, the GST, $1.6 million looks like peanuts in comparison to these increases.
Therefore, the choices that were made, the cuts that were made, were very deliberate. Again, they are cuts to silence the voices of women. They are cuts to silence the voices of native people. They are cuts to silence the voices of the disadvantaged. I have got news for this government. If it thinks that is going to work, it is wrong. The women of this country are angry. They are very angry, and the voices will not be silenced.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The member mentioned the fact that the 19 previous Tory members became known in the last Parliament as "the silent 19". Now they have become known as "the invisible 12". They are nowhere. They are not here to defend the rights of British Columbians when it comes to the GST, to defend the rights of British Columbians when it comes to free trade, to the UIC cuts, to VIA cuts, and now to the budget.
The Tories keep talking about what we would do to make sure there was a balanced budget. I would like your comments on just one piece of legislation that was introduced recently. The tax give-away to the wealthy was increased under RRSPs by another $400 million a year for people earning over $86,000 a year. What they are doing is giving their rich friends more tax concessions. Next year RRSP contributions alone will cost this country over $11 billion. Who benefits from it? It is people earning over $50,000 a year.
The Budget
Members opposite can talk all they want. They can mutter and moan. The reality is, if you wanted to balance this budget, there are a lot of ways. Stop your tax concessions to your wealthy friends. Stop the tax concessions to the large corporations and quit attacking the poor. Quit attacking women.
I would like your comments on that one program alone. Would you, if you were a government person, stand up and say: "We are going to cut women's programs." At the same time, give a tax concession to those earning over $86,000 a year, which will cost an additional $400 million a year?


Dawn Black: My colleague from Surrey makes a very good point. It is honestly very difficult to understand the workings of the minds on the other side of the House. At the same time as they are saying women must receive these drastic cut-backs in their budgets and that native people must lose their funding and will no longer receive funding for newspapers and communications, they are increasing the tax deductions for the wealthy of this country. It makes no sense. It is not fair.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this budget debate.
This debate is about choices. It is about resolve and commitment. It is about having the presence of mind to take a hard look at the harsh realities we face. The choice is there before us to meet our responsibilities head on, or to look the other way. For too long we have seen governments follow a policy of looking the other way. This was not a viable alternative in the past and it is definitely not a viable alternative now. The test is here. It is before us and we have got to face it with resolve and commitment. We have to dig down deep within ourselves and muster up all of our resources to address the formidable and dangerous monster that menaces our every move. That monster is the national debt.
Every day that the debt goes unchallenged is a day that the debt grows stronger and we, as a nation, grow weaker. It is an undeniable fact that the fight with the debt is a zero sum game. For too long it was allowed free rein. It grew into a powerful force with which to be reckoned. We all know that the reasons for the debt's growth was the adherence to unsound financial policies that had charted a course of destruction.

federal government spending has been held at less than 4 per cent. In fact this year's federal spending will rise by only 3 per cent.
It seems to me that this is not an unreasonable limit to suggest. It is definitely not a cut by any means. Some programs have been frozen for the next two years. In the case of the established programs funding this puts the onus on the provinces to employ better management when they are distributing the money that they now receive. They will still receive increments in case of population growth.
Some programs have been reduced. Areas such as Secretary of State, multiculturalism and citizenship have been affected. Critics cry that this government lacks commitment. This government is creating a department of multiculturalism and citizenship. This does not sound like a lack of commitment to me.
Some programs and projects have been eliminated. The Canadian Exploration Incentives Program has been eliminated. The Polar 8 icebreaker has been cancelled, and the support to the Other Six Leases Operation, or OSLO, as been cancelled. In light of the changing circumstances that are taking place in the world the completion of these projects would not produce the results that they were intended to produce. As such, it is simply not prudent to continue at this time. As beautiful and as labour intensive as buggy making might be, it is not prudent in light of technological changes to continue production in competition with motorized vehicles.
Significantly, we are proposing to privatize Petro-Can-ada. For years we have heard calls for privatization. Many of these calls have come from the chairman himself. I say if Mr. Hopper, the man who runs the company, does not know if the company should be privatized, then I would submit that no one knows. But members of the opposition say: "Man, it is terrible. You should not do this". What we have here is a company that will be allowed to borrow money on the open market instead of coming to the government and asking for funds from the taxpayer. What is so wrong with that?
We see before us a prudent budget. The changes are prudent and realistic. There is nothing untoward in this budget unless, I dare say, it does not go far enough. That is what the people at home are telling me, it does not go far enough. Yet I listened to my hon. friend from British
The Budget
Columbia ridiculing the fact that we are cutting some of the expenditures. The people I have listened to in British Columbia are saying: "You did not cut enough".
The members also cry foul and say that this budget goes too far. They say that this is what the majority of average Canadians believe. I would submit to you that the opposition is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The average Canadian is smarter than that. We know from the explanation of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech that to implement cuts instead of restraint would result in a definite negative impact on the Canadian economy. To impose rash cuts would not be prudent, at this time or at any time. That is why it will take us well into the mid-1990s just to address the deficit problem. We will not be able to tackle the debt until after the deficit is out of the way.
We know that it will be a long and drawn out process. In fact, the members also say, "You have had six years, why have you not erased it already?" It cannot be done overnight.
We know that we must work within a realistic framework. Yet what I hear from the critics is that this government is out of touch with reality. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is out of touch with reality when they harp at the government to continue to spend more money, when there is not the money coming in?
It is those folks opposite who are out of touch with reality. These are the same critics who talk about the need for more spending without thinking about from where the money will come. They want action but they do not consider the consequences, and they say they represent the majority of Canadians.
In my most recent householder I provided my constituents with the opportunity to tell me what they thought about government spending on the debt problem. I provided them with an abbreviated balance sheet of the public accounts and asked them to consider what was being done and what they thought might be reasonable areas of change. This was a difficult exercise because I had to condense the public accounts into one source. A great deal of information was left out but, nonetheless, a message came through loud and clear.
That message was: Cut back government spending. My constituents were not asking us to spend more, they were asking us to spend less. The perception was that

The Budget
spending in many areas was too high. The prescription was not tax increases but a reduction in spending.
This seems to bring two problems out into the open. The first problem is that perhaps many people do not understand what is involved in government spending. The second problem is that a significant portion of the people that I hear from usually want me to cut the other guy but not them.
The first problem seems to be one of communication and that can be easily rectified. The second problem seems to be one of attitude. Unfortunately, attitude is not so easily changed. Canadians have been conditioned to expect the government to be there for them from the cradle to the grave. They seem to think that the government can somehow access an unlimited amount of money to help them.
What can we do? We have avoided the calls for across-the-board cutbacks of 5,10, 15 or 20 per cent. We have opted for restraint in most cases. In this our sixth budget we have continued in what is proving to be a successful approach to fiscal responsibility. It is a slow, painstaking process but it is sure and it does not cause undue damage to anyone. We are dealing with the government's finances in a reasonable way.
I say to my constituents of Fraser Valley East, to all Canadians and to this House that it would not be prudent to make across-the-board cuts of from 5 to 10 per cent, as attractive as that might have seemed. This is just as true when it comes to spending. It would not be prudent to continue spending in a reckless manner. A balance must be achieved.
That balance is what has been presented to us in this budget. The minister has felt the pressure from both sides. Programs and commitments must be continued. The minister and the government feel the pressure from those who call for cuts. Spending must be restrained. The minister and this government feel the pressure from those who would have more spending, yet the minister and this government persevere.
There is a way to achieve the balance needed to meet commitments and to deal with spending in a reasonable manner. This Minister of Finance and this government are committed to ensuring that we follow the best route for Canada. We have seen that commitment in the past
five budgets and we see it again in this budget. We see a serious response to a serious problem. The government must be disciplined and compassionate at the same time. We are dealing with a national debt here. It is not simply a federal debt. That is why the government has asked the provinces to share in their responsibility. Again we hear the critics cry foul.
It is not unreasonable to ask the provinces to hold the line on the Established Program Funding for two years. I say it is not unreasonable to continue to limit to 5 per cent the growth in the Canada Assistance Plan. It is not unreasonable to cancel certain projects and make management decisions that include privatization. No, this is reasonable beyond a shadow of any doubt. We are committed to certain programs and that commitment stands, but we are also dealing with a serious debt problem that must be dealt with lest our ability to meet our commitments diminishes entirely.
Yet we have amendments made to condemn this government. It is preposterous. There are no tax increases in the budget, yet we are to be condemned for imposing increased tax burdens on Canadians in this budget. This hits of course at the GST which replaces an archaic and a counterproductive federal sales tax system in place today.
We have imposed limits and management has been tightened. We are condemned for abandoning health care, post-secondary education, veterans and regional development. We refuse to interfere with the Bank of Canada's interest rate policy and we are condemned.
We are acting prudently, and we are to be condemned. It is amazing. Instead of giving money away as if it grows on trees, we are providing repayable contributions, a system that has proven to be very successful in the Department of Western Diversification. Members also say we are abandoning our commitments to regional development.
It seems that the only ones abandoning anything are the members opposite. They are abandoning their senses.
I cannot forget that the New Democrats want to condemn us for failing to protect the environment. I tell them to wait until the Minister of the Environment

brings forward his policy paper later this year. Then let us talk about failure.


An Hon. Member:: We waited months and months. He was going to bring it forward in April.


Ross Belsher: That is fine. It is a long document and it will take time to prepare it.
They say that we are failing to protect the family farm. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture is spearheading a comprehensive policy review of the whole agrifood industry that will put the family farm on stable and fertile soil. That does not sound like failure to me.
This government has reformed the income tax system. We are providing more actual cash-in-hand to low income Canadians than ever before, yet we are accused of abandoning those who need assistance with child care.
We are helping Canadians, not hindering them. These are successes, not failures. The sky is blue, it is not red. Water is wet, it is not dry. The truth is the truth, despite what members opposite would have Canadians believe.
This government has provided leadership on all fronts. We have worked hard to achieve prosperity for all Canadians. We have been constructive when the policies of the opposition have been destructive. We have acted responsibly with commitment and consistency.
This budget builds on our previous successes and sets the stage for future growth. I believe that time will prove yet again that this government has acted as it always has, in the correct and prudent manner that Canadians have come to respect. I would have it no other way.
I for one would be glad to vote in favour of this budget. I would encourage members opposite to vote for this budget if they really care about our country and what the national debt is doing to it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. government member opposite said, and I quote: "The members opposite say we should not cut spending". What drivel. What nonsense. Let us get the facts straight.
Here is another fact for the hon. member. For example, if we want to talk about cutting spending, let us talk
The Budget
about the federal Department of Public Works which directed the purchase of a facility for a Customs and Excise training facility even though Customs and Excise said that the facility in question did not suit its purposes. The facility located in the newly-appointed Solicitor General's riding was purchased for $5 million. As the Auditor General stated in his recent annual report to Parliament: "In our opinion, the initial contracts did not provide for a realistic evaluation before the decision to proceed. When the construction began in 1986, it was to meet needs established in 1976 and not re-examined at all since then".
Although the consultant's report stated that the property would be adequate and some renovations required, the cost of the renovations has so far been $35 million-on a building that cost $5 million.
The Auditor General also states that there are many loopholes existing in the income tax system which the government could close. These are loopholes amounting to $350 million. Can you believe it? So for a government that preaches this new-found fiscal responsibility, six years of this fiscal responsibility, when all we see are problems we now see these measures. Would it not be easier to have a look at these needless expenses rather than replacing a bad tax with a regressive bad tax? Has the hon. member had a close look at the Auditor General's report? Has he examined government waste, how government money is being spent needlessly, as in this case, on a $5 million building, $35 million in renovations? Has he had a look at all those situations-


Lee Richardson: What about the $200 billion?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: We have already heard all the arguments from this hon. member over here screaming, "$200 billion, $200 billion". Let's get realistic. Six years have gone by and all we get is a doubling of the debt. It makes no sense. So here is a suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member has to put his question. Put your question, please.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it is a sensible question. We all know where the debt is.


Lee Richardson: Ask the question.

March 5, 1990
The Budget


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The Speaker has asked me to ask the question. The hon. member to my right is getting all excited and all in a tiz2y. The question is a legitimate one. Has the member looked at the Auditor General's report about all the waste, loopholes and problems in an attempt to roll that into a fiscal plan to try to reduce that debt and deficit? Has the hon. member done that?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing up the Auditor General's report. If he were to go back and read some of the reports himself he would see that the Auditor General has been complimentary of this government and the way it has followed his recommendations. That is in the 1987 report.
The gentleman also brought up a point about a specific expenditure. Yes, there will still be problems. I readily agree that there will be problems and there will continue to be problems to be identified. It is an ongoing thing. However, what the Auditor General has recommended in his report does not deal with dollars in such a way that would get a handle on the national debt and the amount of money it is costing to service the debt.
The fact is that when we came into office in 1984 the structure was in place for spending $16 billion more than was coming in. That is what was inherited. We have had to turn that around. As I said earlier, we have been able to make a $25 billion turnaround. Now $9 billion more is coming in than is going out in programs. It is still not enough. So we are saying no more raising of taxes, let us go at the expenditure side but all we hear is "foul, foul, foul" from the other side.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East this afternoon. I thought he was trying to tell us a great deal. He mentioned in the last part of his speech that the government had a very comprehensive farm policy. I was surprised to hear that because I read in The Globe and Mail this morning that the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Grant Devine, cannot even keep his own farm. Mr. Devine says in an interview with Geoffrey York of The Globe and Mail Regina service:
My farm, like everybody else's, is in trouble. Everybody's working as hard as they can to keep it all together.
The article goes on:
Mr. Devine refuses to give details of the financial troubles on his
farm, but he acknowledges that his family is finding it difficult to
make payments-
The member says the government has a great farm policy. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have always responded to demands from Mr. Devine. For instance, in October of 1986 the government responded with $1 billion. When the Premier was in financial difficulty he phoned the now Governor General, the then Minister of Justice, to demand $1 billion in the face of that situation.
Here we are four years later and, according to The Globe and Mail report, the premier is facing the loss of his farm. He put out a press release demanding that the government provide $1 billion to Saskatchewan alone, even though there is a problem in Manitoba, Alberta and in areas of southwestern Ontario.
I wonder why this budget has a comprehensive farm aspect to it, according to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. I looked through it. I could not find anything except that the transfer payments to most provinces were being cut. However, according to the member this is a comprehensive program. If there is a comprehensive program for agriculture, where is it in this budget so that we can save the farm of the premier of Saskatchewan from being lost?
I hope that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East can explain this. He says that it is in the budget, that it is a comprehensive program. We want to know. I know that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Prime Minister want to see the premier of the province lose his farm.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the member opposite is so concerned about the farm of the premier of Saskatchewan.
I guess what the member opposite has failed to realize is that there have been several years of drought in Saskatchewan. In fact there have been six or seven years of drought in Saskatchewan. Consequently, there certainly is a cash flow problem in the family farm.
Thinking back to what I said in my speech, I said that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture was spearheading a comprehensive policy review of the whole agrifood industry that will put the family farm on stable and fertile soil. I did not say in my speech that this budget was addressing the family farm or agriculture

Adjournment Debate AGRICULTURE
alone. I said that these were some of the things that this government was doing. That is what this is about.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to get this opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member.
My colleague talks about no new taxes. What is the goods and services tax going to be called when it is implemented in 1991, unless you intend not to implement it? What about the partial indexing and the deindexing? Is that in fact not going to require new money?
If the member disagrees with me with respect to the following, check with the premiers please. Will the reductions in transfer payments not in fact require additional new taxes of provinces, municipalities or individuals? Will it, or will it not?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, this budget does not have any new taxes in it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Belsher: These people opposite obviously were not listening or did not read the budget that the minister gave in this House.
The GST bill that is now in committee has different lines of revenue in it. That is a replacement tax which will come in next January. Yes, the EPF funding is capped at this year's level for the next two years. It can grow if there are population shifts, but it is capped.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I believe that there is unanimous consent to call it seven o'clock and go into the "late show".


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on November 20, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to draw to his attention that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool had called on the Prime Minister to provide funding to the extent of some $500 million to support the western grain industry. That figure reflected a resolution passed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Similar demands have been made by farm groups in Manitoba, where there was a very severe drought in the southeastern part of the province, and by groups in Alberta where there was a drought, as well as by groups in southern Ontario where there was a drought this past year.
That resolution went on as well to demand that the government not unilaterally cut government programs. That is what has been going on this past year. Some $500 million in government programs have been cut. Everything from the Canadian Dairy Commission, to the rebate for farm fuel, to support for advance payments, to western programs for crop insurance and eastern programs for crop insurance have all been cut in this past year.
The situation has been exacerbated as well by the United States Export Enhancement Program. That enhancement program was supposed to guarantee that the United States or Canada would not use export enhancement programs without due consultation and consideration of each other under the free trade deal. Yet it goes on and on and on. We see sales of wheat being made to Russia, China, Algeria and other traditional customers of Canada. With gay abandon the United States is not only stealing away those markets from Canadian wheat producers but is driving down the world price of grain.
We see a demand by the premier of Saskatchewan who, as I said earlier in debate today, is facing the loss of his own family farm, according to a press report this morning in The Globe and Mail. He is demanding additional funding to compensate farmers not only for the drought but for the very low commodity prices in farm grains as well as the overriding debt problems. These are debt problems which have also been noted in a recent press release dated February 26 by the Ontario Com Producers which points out: "Ontario farmers' financial turmoil deepens".

Adjournment Debate
The press release goes on to outline the fact that farm debt review boards are facing larger numbers of farmers under financial stress and that the price of com and soybeans this fall will not meet cash flow because the commodity price is below the cost of production.
We have a triple whammy here with drought in many areas of the west and some areas of the east, serious farm debt problems and the problem of veiy low commodity prices. We are now within two or two and a half months of the planting season and we should not have to wait around for months for the government to make a decision on this.
Every time we raise this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and with the Prime Minister we are told that they are gathering data, that they are consulting, that they have committees working and that they are considering the matter. In fact, the budget itself has a crippling impact on this because massive amounts of money-several hundreds of millions of dollars-have been taken away in transfer payments to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. If the government proposes a cost-shared program with the provinces then it will have that much less financial capacity to carry out a special program of assistance for farmers.
Of course they have taken away the advance payments, so $4 million or $5 million of cash flow was not available this past winter interest-free. It was available at 12.75 per cent interest but not available interest-free as it has been in the past.
The government must stop pussy-footing around and respond to the demands of groups like Ontario Com Producers, soybean producers, the three prairie pools, and the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta governments, all of which see a desperate need for an injection of cash into the western grain economy. A crisis has been brought on by these three elements of extended debt, low commodity prices, and the export enhancement program in the United States driving down the world price of grains and wheat while at the same time taking away Canadian markets.
We have a very serious problem facing agriculture in this country. There are a number of additional concerns such as marketing boards and so on, but just dealing with the western and eastern grain industry it is time to act now if the government really wants to see a crop seeded
this year. Moisture levels are very low because of lack of moisture in the fall and this winter. Still, without that cash injection into the economy of Canadian agriculture, there will extreme difficulty in planting crops this coming spring. Within two or two and half months of that season, surely that is enough lead time for the government to realize that it is essential to make a commitment now.
I know that the parliamentary secretary is in the House tonight. I know he is committed to agriculture. I know that he will want to announce it unilaterally. He will not want to leave it to the Prime Minister or to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture. He will want to announce it himself here tonight.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do hate to disappoint the hon. member, but I am always very happy to defend the government's record on agricultural trade and support for our farmers in this great country.
The hon. member is partly right when he says that the trade war between the U.S. and the EEC is continuing. We are still pressing the United States to stop using its export enhancement program and the EEC to restrain its use of export restitutions or subsidies. With world prices up there is no need for the export enhancement program so we are urging them both to stop using the programs.
It is also true that the trade war is not nearly as intense as it was a couple of years ago. The U.S. has eased off on export subsidies from a high of $74 a tonne in 1986 to a level of about $12 to $20 a tonne today. At the same time the EEC has reduced its export restitutions from $185 a tonne to about $80. In terms of net levels of subsidies there has also been progress.
Australia, for example, has reduced its subsidies by about 33 per cent, the U.S. by 31 per cent, Canada by 27 per cent, the EEC by 24 per cent, and Japan by 4 per cent. There has been some progress notwithstanding the fact that it is not happening as quickly as we would like it to happen.
The Special Canadian Grains Program was put in place in 1986 and 1987 to compensate producers for low world prices caused by the trade war. Since then the world situation has changed. Stocks are low, subsidies are down, and prices have increased to levels well above the levels at the height of the trade war.
March 5, 1990

Canadian Wheat Board final payments have increased from $134 per tonne in 1987-88 to $197 per tonne last year. This is a 50 per cent increase in price from one year to the next. The initial payment for spring wheat for 1989-90 has been increased from $155 per tonne in April to $165 per tonne today. The ability to make an interim payment and final payment worth about $295 million to Saskatchewan farmers is an indication of the higher average prices for wheat the Canadian Wheat Board was able to obtain on sales in 1988-89.
Therefore justification for an ad hoc payment to producers for 1989 cannot be made on the basis of low prices caused by the trade war. As for 1990, it is still too early to tell precisely what the prices will be. However, given the low world stocks, prices are expected to remain reasonably strong.
During the 1986-87 crop year the world price of wheat had fallen to a low of about $130 a tonne as a result of the trade war between the United States and the EEC. For the 1989-90 crop year world prices had recovered to about $200 a tonne.
Low world stocks and higher prices have lessened the impact of the trade war. Both the volume of exports assisted with the export subsidies and the size of export subsidies have declined since 1988.
For example, total sales under the export enhancement program have declined from a high of 22.7 million tonnes or 64 per cent of total U.S. wheat exports in 1987-88 to 20.4 million tonnes in 1988-89 or 53 per cent of total U.S. wheat exports. For the first seven months of this crop year, export enhancement sales have totalled just over 5.8 million tonnes.
Nevertheless, despite the easing of the trade war, we recognize that these underlying causes are still present. That is why we are continuing to work through the GATT multilateral trade negotiations to resolve these trade problems.
Along with other members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired.
Adjournment Debate TIEM CANADA


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight because I want answers to important questions which I raised some time ago. There are no partisan politics involved whatsoever.
TIEM Canada was set up to assist small and medium sized businesses, initially to start up new businesses and later also took on the role to expand certain operations or businesses.
The questions that are of most importance obviously are those that involve public funds. Where is the roughly $12 million in interest-free start-up loans? Is it being paid back because this particular company was shut down? What about the CEIC funds for jobs created, supposedly close to $6 million? Is this being recouped? Third, what was the Federal Development Bank involvement in this operation? Were any funds lost?
Those are the basic questions and the most important ones. I want to refer to my question as it appeared in Hansard of December 15, 1989, at page 6991. It reads as follows:
TIEM Canada was a national company located in five cities including Winnipeg. TIEM was designed to assist small and medium sized businesses. It received huge amounts of public funds. In May this year it closed its doors.
Why did the ministers involved in providing huge amounts of public funds refuse to renew its contracts?
Why didn't those departments, including the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and the Federal Business Development Bank, renew these contracts and why won't they give us the report on this company's performance?
The minister indicated at the time that he did not have the file with him and would get back to me later. I accepted that. By the way, part of the evaluation has been provided.
I wrote as a follow-up to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on January 4, and I also wrote to the minister responsible for the Federal Development Bank on that same day. Here are the questions that I raised at the time:
Why did the government decide not to renew its contracts with TIEM?
How much was provided, in contracts or otherwise, by your department to TIEM?

Adjournment Debate
Will you make public any evaluations of the viability of this investment which were made prior to funds having been provided?
What, if any, communication occurred between the Federal Business Development Bank and the Department of Employment and Immigration with respect to the closing of TIEM?
Will you make public the performance evaluation which your department produced before cancelling its contracts with TIEM?
I did receive a reply from the Minister of Employment and Immigration on February 6, promising a lengthier response. It was really a letter of acknowledgement. I did receive a letter of reply from the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank on January 19, 1990, which redirected my correspondence to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
I point this out because I was surprised that the minister would retain the question in the House of Commons, yet receive my letter and then redirect it.
I received a reply from the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism on January 24. Basically it describes what the operation is; something that I knew. It indicates that this had been attempted in a number of other countries, for example the U.S. and the U.K., and people wanted to know whether or not it would be useful here.
These were not responses to my question. Again, I wanted to know what public funds were in fact used to support this operation and whether they were in fact recouped. I have identified three possible departments involved.
To be more specific, here are the questions of greatest interest that now fall out of all of this: What evaluations were done of TIEM's business plan before providing DRIE funding? Will these evaluations be made public? Was any of the $11.8 million invested by DRIE repaid? What accountability was attached to the funds? Was there any monitoring or site inspection? What criteria were applied to select this company, TIEM, for funding?
How could one company in its development stages be able to get funding from two separate government departments plus, from what I can gather, the Federal Business Development Bank? Was bank financing not available or was it refused? Has there been any action taken against the principals of TIEM Canada to recover
the $11.8 billion start-up loan. Has any minister followed up whether or not CEIC agreements with TIEM required the company to return paid job credit amounts for jobs created if these jobs did not continue after two years take place?
Will the minister confirm that as reported to us the job credit amount was approximately $14,000 per job created? What is the status of the Vancouver based business development group? I am told it was owned by TIEM that had secured original ownership through government financial assistance as part of the over-all financial package.
There was, I believe, $2.7 million allocated by TIEM to the Manitoba small business growth fund. What happened to this money? Was any TIEM money applied to Capidem, a $10 million venture capital fund in Quebec? What is the status of the approximately $1 million in investments made by TIEM in various entrepreneurial activities throughout the country?
I terminate by saying that a number of questionable operations were occurring. I can detail those if it is of use to the government. Was the government aware that it was funding in fact an operation that did not have a business plan or was not meeting its own criteria or reaching its job targets?


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously raised many more new questions than I could possibly answer in three minutes. I would like to say on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration that I am pleased to be able to discuss the renewal of the TIEM Canada contracts.
Employment and Immigration Canada's funding of TIEM Canada was provided through the innovations program. The objective of the program was to support pilot projects which test new initiatives and approaches to labour market problems before applying such approaches on a larger scale.
In any experimental initiative the risk of failure is present and many trials will have negative results. When Employment and Immigration Canada entered into a contract with TIEM Canada, one of the purposes was to test the effectiveness of a six-part approach to the
March 5, 1990

establishment and successful operation of new small businesses.
The six elements of the approach were:
(1)	the TIEM centre was conceived as the initial step. The entrepreneur and the business concept would be screened and, if accepted, the entrepreneur would receive preliminary management training, legal accounting, and marketing advice.
(2)	Entrepreneur growth fund-TIEM was to work with investors to raise money for investment and startup companies.
(3)	The business opportunity program-business opportunities in specific communities were to be identified and matched with appropriate entrepreneurs.
(4)	Business and technology centre-TIEM was to work with government and community representatives to establish business incubators in each TIEM location.
(5)	Targeted employee training service-TIEM was to work with existing training organizations to provide skilled employees for the emerging small businesses.
(6)	The community advisory board-TIEM was to establish a volunteer group of community and business leaders who would act as a sounding board for the local TIEM centre and its entrepreneurs.
A second purpose of the agreement was to test whether or not a private enterprise such as TIEM Canada, using the six elements and with initial government assistance, could become profitable in selling its services to new businesses. After three years of operation, which is the maximum duration of an innovation's contract, TIEM Canada managed only to implement fully one of the six elements: the TIEM's centres located in several urban locations.
The contract stipulated that the company was to become financially self-sufficient after support under the Innovations Program expired. The company did not successfully make such alternate financial arrangements and it was clear that TIEM could not continue its activities without ongoing federal government funding.
Adjournment Debate
Following an evaluation, Employment and Immigration Canada concluded that the objective of its contracts with TIEM had not been met and would not be met if the contract was extended.



Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 1985, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. The government appointed a special committee on equality rights around that time, an all-party parliamentary committee to examine the implications of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and to determine what laws and policies must be changed to ensure that equality was a reality for all Canadians.
I had the honour of serving as a member of that special parliamentary committee on equality rights. The committee reported to this House in the fall of 1985. In a unanimous report concurred in by the five Conservative members of the committee, as well a Liberal member of the committee and myself, representing the New Democratic Party, the committee made a series of strong recommendations to ensure that the words in Section 15 became a reality for all Canadians.
One of the recommendations was that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include specific provision for the concept of reasonable accommodation, to ensure that minorities, particularly visible minorities, should have their concerns recognized in law. Indeed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission submitted a special report to Parliament urging that action be taken on this. In the spring of 1986 the government indicated that speedy action would be taken to implement that recommendation. As well, in its response to the special parliamentary committee on equality rights and to that unanimous recommendation, the government dealt with the issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The unanimous recommendation of the special parliamentary committee was that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination to the other grounds. The committee went on to recommend that the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP bring then-employment practices into conformity with the Canadian

March 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Human Rights Act, as amended, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The government responded to that recommendation on March 4,1986, four years ago yesterday. What was the response? The government stated it believes that one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether one can perform a job or use a service or facility. The Department of Justice is of the view that the courts will find that sexual orientation is encompassed by the guarantees in Section 15 of the charter. Finally, these words: "The government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction."
It was four years ago that that commitment was made to all Canadians, not just to lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, but to all Canadians. Four years later, we are still waiting for that promise to be kept.
The courts have indeed ruled with respect to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Charter. Indeed, in November 1989 in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, Mr. Justice Dube ruled that Section 15 should be read as if it implicitly included sexual orientation. Judge Dube said that sexual orientation is not a prohibited ground listed under Section 15 but "-in my view, it is an analogous ground recognized by provincial and territorial human rights acts as well as by the House of Commons parliamentary committee on equality rights."
He pointed out that a characteristic common to the enumerated grounds is that the individuals or groups involved have been victimized and stigmatized throughout history because of prejudice mostly based on fear or ignorance, as most prejudices are. Certainly, that is the case with respect to the lesbian and gay community.
There have been a number of advances in the last four years. A tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has recognized a relationship between two men for purposes of bereavement leave. As well, there are a number of challenges before the courts. Jim Egan and his partner of 42 years, Jack Nesbitt, are seeking the spousal allowance under the provisions of the Canadian pension regime. That case is going to the courts. Karen Andrews is seeking health insurance for her partner of some nine years. Derrick Dwyer and a young woman, a former officer, are challenging the policies of the Canadian Armed Forces, one of the last major bastions of institutionalized homophobia in this country, the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is ironic that I, as a gay man, could one day become the Minister of National Defence-the Prime Minister's ultimate nightmare-but I could not join the Canadian Armed Forces today. That is surely unacceptable in this country.
Last June, the Minister of Justice promised legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. We are still waiting. There is strong support for this amendment from many groups. The ad hoc committee on AIDS, chaired by the hon. member for Rosedale, has unanimously recommended that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act to help us in our struggle against this terrible epidemic.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women; the former Minister of Justice, the member for St. John's West, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, many churches, labour groups and others, are calling upon the government to keep its promise.
Finally, I want to call upon the new Minister of Justice, recently appointed, the member for Vancouver Centre, to move on this as a priority. She personally promised, during the election campaign, her constituents in Vancouver Centre that she would support this important amendment.
We have waited far too long for equality in this country. We have been infinitely patient and it is time, surely, that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community in this country was treated with full dignity, equality and respect. It is time, indeed it is long overdue, that this government moved on this important promise to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to the principles of social justice and equality. To give effect to this commitment, the government has undertaken a range of initiatives including the introduction of the Employment Equity Act. In many other areas the government has moved on a pro-active basis to address issues of equality and social justice.
March 5, 1990

In the area of equal pay, it is the law at the federal level, as provided by the Canadian Human Rights Act, that men and women be paid equal pay for work of equal value. In addition, Labour Canada has an equal pay program to ensure that equal pay is implemented in the private sector. The Treasury Board, as well, has a large scale joint union-management project under way to identify and correct any pay deficiencies in the Public Service. The government is committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
The hon. member will know that the government is committed to eliminating sexual discrimination from all areas of federal jurisdiction. The position of the government is that employment and advancement in the federal Public Service and in all government services are equally available to all individuals without regard to their sexual orientation. The government is examining the issues that arise in these circumstances because we know they are of concern to Canadians.
Adjournment Debate
The government is committed to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to incorporate the principle of reasonable accommodation. Consideration is being given to the best way of doing this. The government is examining this and a range of other issues relating to the Canadian Human Rights Act, including suggestions made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The government is moving as quickly as it can to complete its review of these matters. The government continues to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of equality and social justice and to give effect to these principles on a pro-active basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 6,1990