1990-03-08

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a most serious matter of privilege. The matter deals with the human rights of a Department of National Defence scientist by the name of Dr. Mendoza, and the Human Rights Commission of Canada is seized with that part of it.
The matter involves my rights as a member of Parliament because records indicate that the investigation by the Special Investigations Unit of the Department of National Defence involves telephone calls to my office, including my Prince Rupert, British Columbia, office. If members of Parliament cannot make and receive calls from the public and private, then we have lost the vital thread of our democratic freedoms.
Second, the matter involves the rights of all members of this House. One of the documents from Colonel McCullough suggests that Canadian law be violated, in fact that it be violated by the Minister of National Defence during Question Period. This cuts to the core of the operation of the most senior democratic institution of Canada.
Third, it involves the rights of all members as one of the documents revealed a view by the Department of National Defence that "the House" should not be advised of the specifics of these investigations. This view is one that challenges the basic building blocks of any parliamentary democracy.
There is a further matter involving the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but because of the sensitivity of that part of the file it will have to be held until an in camera meeting can adjudicate upon it. Let me simply say in relation to that that it clearly violates the spirit, if not the specifics, of Canadian law.
If you will give me a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the specifics of just a few of the documents on the record because I think it will give all members of the House some idea of the severity of the question of privilege that is being raised today.
There is a document called "Chronology of Correspondence with Hon. Jim Fulton MP for Skeena concerning CB Defence Activities", and it lists the dates of letters, September 27, 1983, from Fulton to Mendoza, requesting information on teratology toxicity studies under contract on HI-6.
It then goes on, and I will not give you all of the details but it lists letters from October 11, 1983; November 29, 1983; December 19,1983; May 10,1984; and February 27, 1984. These are letters either between myself and National Defence or the minister at the time, in the case of this correspondence to Jean-Jacques Blais. The list goes on to show February 12, 1985 from myself to Dr. Mendoza and May 28, 1985.
Some of these letters were answered by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, some by the Hon. Erik Nielsen who was then Minister of National Defence, and some by the Hon. Harvie Andre who was Minister of National Defence. Some are from myself to the Hon. Jake Epp. Some are from myself to the Minister of National Defence dated August 3, 1988 and November 7, 1988, and answered by the Hon. Perrin Beatty. A letter of December 8,1988 is answered by the Hon. Perrin Beatty. A letter of December 9, 1988 from myself to the Department of National Defence was answered January 18,1989 by the Hon. Perrin Beatty. A letter of December 19, 1988 was answered April 4, 1989 by the Hon. Perrin Beatty.

March 8, 1990
Privilege
There is then a document stamped "Confidential", Annex A to D Police Operations, dated March 1989:
25 Mar 88, Mr. Fulton interviewed by CKO-FM radio, Ottawa where he answered questions about chemical studies at DRES.
That is Defence Research Establishment Suffield.
20 May 88, Change of Circumstances Report on Connolly-Mendoza was initiated by Dr. Kimbell, Chief DRES. 27 Jun 88, SIU-
I have learned that is the Special Investigations Unit.
-responded to Dr. Kimbell's request for investigative assistance.
Dr. Kimbell provided names of persons possibly involved in the
information leak.
27-30 Jun 88, SIU review of background information indicated that Dr. Connolly-Mendoza was the prime suspect.
29 Jun 88, Request for assistance sent by SIUS Calgary to SIUS Esquimalt and Ottawa in an attempt to ascertain telephone numbers of Mr. Fulton. List of long distance calls billed to DRES also obtained."


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The minister is rising on a point of order. I hope the hon. member will realize that he went a little further in his argument before I intervened. When we get back to him I would hope he would keep that in mind.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to jump to conclusions, but at this point in time all of the information the hon. member is talking about is news to I assume everybody on this side of the House. Certainly I was not aware of any indication of something coming.
I have not yet heard any accusation or suggestion of how the member's privileges have been interfered with. He talks about a list of correspondence that goes back in time and by implication of some behaviour that I assume he is going to establish at some point in time interferes with his privileges as a member.
I guess my request is to expect that there be some reasonable response in a reasonable time. I need to have some information from the hon. member as to what accusations are being made so that the required calls can be made to people who might have information and be able to respond. Otherwise we have, in essence, a kind of one-sided accusation with no opportunity to respond and that might create an inaccurate impression which I do not think is in anybody's long-term interest.
I guess my request is that he establish the accusation as quickly as possible so that we might undertake the necessary investigations on this side to be able to respond.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that I was listening attentively to this intervention and feel that you should decide whether there is a question of privilege here, not the leader of the House on the government side.
In the past you have given us occasion to comment on these matters. I was waiting for the member to get to his point so that we would indeed be able to share with him this very important point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has risen. I am sure that he, as has your Speaker, has been listening with very great care to the information which the hon. member for Skeena is giving us.
I must say that it might be helpful, and I say this to the hon. member for Skeena, because given what clearly seems to be the gravity of the situation I have no intention of cutting the iron, member for Skeena off at any point. I am going to listen to what he has to say, but I think there is some merit in what the hon. House leader has said.
I wonder if just at this moment the hon. member for Skeena could sort of summarize or capsulize exactly what is the point of privilege. I will certainly hear him as he gives us what seems to be the evidence he wants to put in support of the point. I think it would be helpful and I think the hon. minister is on good ground here. He obviously has been listening very closely. He obviously wants to make inquiries. He has said, and we must accept his word, that this is coming as news to him.
If the hon. member could give us the point I will certainly hear the rest of the evidence. There is no question about that, but in courtesy to both sides of the House I think the suggestion of the hon. House leader is appropriate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have sifted out as many of the documents that I felt were not particularly relevant to the three points of privilege as I could. These are chronological documents prepared by the Department of National Defence. They refer directly either to me or to the Minister of National Defence, or to proposals for the Minister of National Defence to pursue during Question Period.
March 8, 1990

To deal specifically with the first one, which is where I believe my privileges have been tampered with most directly, it is in relation to the accessing of calls made to my offices. I will just list those in particular, and then I will go on particularly to the one that refers to the Minister of National Defence. I think these are the key ones.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the hon. member. I have been listening as carefully as I think other members have. The suggestion on a memorandum that the hon. member apparently has that someone was trying to get the telephone number of the hon. member is something which I want to hear a little more about. That could or could not be, depending on all of the story, a question of privilege.
If there are other events in this chronology which the hon. member also wishes to bring to my attention as breaches of privilege, could he tell me what they are? Then we will see how far it is necessary to go in reading the evidence. It may well be that the hon. member can table all of this material with me. Of course it would be made available to the hon. House leader and the House leader of the Liberal Party.
If we could just ask the hon. member to address right now the question of the alleged breaches of privilege, then we will hear him out.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will do that very quickly. The concern that I have is this:
27 Jul 88, MWO Ireland, SIUS Calgary, swore an information before Judge Laven in Calgary Provincial Court to obtain search warrant to search Alberta Government Telephone offices at Calgary for records of long distance phone calls charged to Connolly-Mendoza's residence phone. The warrant was issued and executed.
2 Aug 88, Alberta Government Telephone records obtained. Check revealed that during Mar 88, a phone call made from Connolly-Mendoza's residence to Mr. Fulton's constituency office in Prince Rupert.
Then there are references to the Official Secrets Act, which I will come to if you want me to pursue the phone calls.
The most severe matter, I think, in these documents involves the rights of all members of the House. It is a document from Colonel McCullough which I will provide for the record. This is a document between Colonel
Privilege
McCullough, the Director General of Security, and Captain Jean Genest, ADJT SIU.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the date on that document?


James Ross Fulton: This document is dated April 25, 1989. It reads:
I instructed Captain Genet, in the absence of both CO SIU and
DCO SIU, to contact Maj Olexa and ensure that any electronic
record of the 14 Mar 89 interview of Mendoza was preserved as real
evidence in respect of this developing quagmire.
This is the key document. It is: "Department of National Defence, File No. PSIF 438 558 462. Record of Conversation" between Colonel W. J. McCullough, Director General of Security and Below. "Subject: MND Enquiries. Details: Discussed variously with: a. Capt Roy, DG Info- c. LCol Jones, DSC in person", then a name is blanked out, "MND staff. In essence-" a name is blanked out, "-says MND would like to expose Connolly-Mendoza in the House today if" blank "questions Minister on: a. political questions in 14 Mar 89 interview" name blanked out, "prerogatives as a Member. 3. We worked on several approaches designed to demonstrate that the Department has acted responsibly in this case. Unfortunately, that might necessitate abrogation of Dr. Connolly-Mendoza's rights under the Privacy Act."
You may recall that particular period of time, Mr. Speaker, in that my office on the Hill was burgled. Seven days later this scientist, with whom I had had correspondence always through ministers, was picked up and taken to a hotel in Alberta where he was interrogated seven days after the burgling of my office.
The only member of Parliament who was involved in questions in the House regarding this matter was myself. These other documents refer to Dr. Pauline Jewett in earlier parts of the investigation, but she was no longer in the House in March 1989. So these documents refer directly to me and they refer directly to a suggestion that the Minister of National Defence might want to violate the law during Question Period, which I think is a pretty severe suggestion to come from-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I want something to be very clear here. I take it from what the hon. member has said that he is not suggesting that the then Minister of National Defence had necessarily agreed to any suggestion or had made any breach of any law of Canada. Do I understand the hon. member clearly? The hon. member is referring to a document that has come into his possession which suggests that somebody somewhere, in

March 8, 1990
Privilege
writing to somebody within some kind of system of the Government of Canada, has made these suggestions.
I will hear the hon. member a little further.


Mr. Cooper:: He has put a lot of names on record without a reason at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Well just a minute. I think I can anticipate the minister.
I have the hon. member's point with respect to trying to obtain the hon. member's telephone number, for whatever reason. One might divine what the reason is.
It seems to me the second point the hon. member is trying to make is that he has a document which suggests that somebody on the Public Service side of the Government of Canada has made a comment which would imply that a minister of the Crown might be advised to do or not do something in the House which might abridge the privacy rights of Dr. Mendoza. Is that the hon. member's point?
I will hear the hon. minister who seems to be concerned here.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on that very quickly, on the first point where the hon. member talked about the possibility of a breach of privilege he talked about an investigation into Dr. Mendoza where an affidavit was sought from the court; in other words proper procedure was followed, by these investigators to find out the telephone records of Dr. Mendoza. The fact that Dr. Mendoza may have at that time had telephone conversation with the hon. member seems hardly a point of privilege, but I will let the Chair look at that.
But on the second question, he seems to have a document which describes potential strategy being worked out by some officials that might be deployed by the Minister of National Defence in terms of dealing with a particular political issue. But as I heard the hon. member, as they devise the strategy they seem to be saying that unfortunately this strategy would involve violating the law. You are able to conclude from that, if you choose, that they went ahead anyway. If there is evidence to support that I would like to hear it. Or, you can conclude that they have sat down, worked out a strategy and found that unfortunately they could not
proceed with it because it violates the law, which is hardly a condemnation.
I am still waiting for an accusation, if you will, some evidence of action by a member of the government or a member of the Public Service to infringe deliberately on the privileges of the hon. member. By standing up and relating these names and talking in a general sense, implying a kind of conspiracy perhaps and referring to a burgled office and by implication saying they are related, yet without evidence to support that, one could see where at least Colonel McCullough is having his name slandered to a degree here without any evidence being presented so far that he was part of some conspiracy to prevent the hon. member from fulfilling his duties as a member of Parliament, which is what privilege is all about.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if I had been allowed to put everything down in context I think it would be easier to explain. In the record of conversation I quoted it says the Ministry of National Defence "would like to expose Connolly-Mendoza in the House today if" blank "questions Minister on". Then it says that that would require abrogation of this man's rights under the Privacy Act.
But let me go on to point out in the same memo where it suggests that the House of Commons should be dealt with. It says:
Dr. Connolly Mendoza was interviewed by Departmental investigators from Calgary on 14 Mar 1989. The interview took place in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Dr. Connolly Mendoza's place of residence. The interview, originally planned for 13 Mar 1989, was deferred one day to permit Dr. Connolly Mendoza to consult with legal and other counsel -
It would not be appropriate for me to report to the House the specifics of such an investigation. Of course, the member may write to me, but I cannot guarantee full response.
At some point I have been involved over the eight years that I have in questions where I have been misled by answers from the government side, by governments both Liberal and Conservative, on this matter. There has been the Barton inquiry and so on. When one takes the time to look at the documents that I now have, in sum, one can see that there is something going on that is violating the rights of the members of this House.
I do not know on what grounds the Official Secrets Act was launched, but it is quite clear that part of that investigation involved me as a member of Parliament and conversations that I had had, because it is quite clear that they had gone with a search warrant and obtained
March 8, 1990

the record of calls made to my offices, not only here I suppose but clearly in Prince Rupert.
The points that I want to make I think are best made if I am allowed to put the context of some of these documents down, but I rest the matter in your hands. Giving it out by bits and pieces I do not think allows for the seriousness of the matter to be really understood.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the House. What I would like the hon. member to do, if it seems to be an appropriate suggestion, is to put together the documents which he has and let me have them. I think, in fairness, those documents should also be delivered to the hon. House leader and to the leader of the Liberal Party. Let us do that at this point. The hon. House Leader may be able to find information or he may very well want to respond, as may the hon. member for the Official Opposition. But I think that I would be in a better position to know just how to proceed with this if the hon. member could give me that information.
I am taking the hon. member's point seriously. However, I think that that is perhaps the most useful thing to do at the present time. If the hon. member will agree to that, that may be the best way to assist the House. I am in the hands of the hon. member for Ottawa Vanier who is speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition and, of course, the House Leader. I invite comment, if it is necessary, but it seems to me that this would be the appropriate thing to do at this stage.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, just a question for clarification. It is my understanding that should the member for Skeena provide you and the House leaders for the government and the Liberal party with that documentation, at some point you will then allow the matter to return to the House for further argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the hon. member speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party that that is exactly what I intend.
The hon. member for Skeena.
Privilege


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly prepared to do that so long as there is an understanding, and I am sure it can be arrived at, that these will not be considered tabled documents. I will provide them to them as long as they are not made public. There are problems, and I am sure as soon as the two members and yourself see them, Mr. Speaker, you will see why some of them simply cannot be made public because they are people who would be harmed by so doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I am impressed and I am grateful for the comment that the hon. member for Skeena has just made because we may be dealing here with very sensitive information indeed. That does not mean that we should not deal with it, but the caution that the hon. member has put forward is one that all of us, as members of the House of Commons, can understand.
I will hear the hon. House Leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with your suggestion. I appreciate the comments from members of the New Democratic Party that they also concur, and you certainly have my assurance that these documents will be kept confidential for the reasons that the hon. member gave.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier wish to make a statement?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker, except to say that of course we will respect the confidentiality of the documents also.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that people who are watching will see this as an example of how serious people on a serious matter can deal in a co-operative way. I thank the hon. member for the intervention, I thank the hon. House leader for co-operation and the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition. I will receive the documents. I will be in contact with all three parties and we will return to the House at an appropriate time.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, on a point of order.

March 8, 1990
Routine Proceedings POINT OF ORDER



APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SPEAKER

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a totally unrelated matter, I rise on a point of order to seek an indication from the government as to its intention vis-a-vis an appointment or a selection of a new Deputy Speaker. As of last Friday the current Deputy Speaker was moved on and upward into cabinet and that position in effect has remained vacant.
At the House Leaders meeting earlier this week the matter did receive some attention. It was suggested by my colleague, the member for Kamloops, that perhaps now was the time, given that there was a vacancy, to take the next logical step in the democratizing of this House and have the position of Deputy Speaker elected in the same way, Your Honour, that you were elected.


Mr. Speaker:: Before there is any response, I cannot help but remind the House of the words I have just listened to. The former Deputy Speaker I am sure is considered by all of us to have fulfilled those duties with great distinction. I want to say on the record that he fulfilled those duties on behalf of all of us with great distinction.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan says he was moved "on and upward". As Speaker of the House, yes he was moved on, but I am not prepared to say that he was moved upward at all.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with your point that the Deputy Speaker did not move upward. I would like to remind members that we do not have a former Deputy Speaker. We still have a Deputy Speaker until he is replaced. To use the words "former Deputy Speaker" is wrong. If we have any suggestions to make to members of the NDP in their perhaps seeking the position of Deputy Speaker, we would like to have a conference on that.


Harvie Andre: The House leader of the Official Opposition made one of the points. Technically, there is not a vacancy. Appreciating the fact that the Deputy Speaker currently may not be available to share the duties that Deputy Speakers usually do, I will be having discussions with the hon. member and the Official Opposition, hopefully very soon, to discuss how we might proceed.
In terms of the question of election, we should appreciate that the procedures we now use for the election of the Speaker and so on were as a result of the recommendations of the McGrath Commission on Parliamentary Reform. We are following those. If it is appropriate to reconstitute some such commission to look at further changes, that is another question. At this point in time, I think we should carry on with the excellent recommendations of that commission which we now have in place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination which was recently made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


Mr. Waddell:: I wonder if the government House Leader would indicate who the nominee was.


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Communications nominates Fernand J. Belisle, of Kinbum, Ontario, to be a full-time member and vice-chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I am indeed proud to rise today on the occasion of International Women's Day to make my first formal statement in this House as Canada's minister responsible for the status of women.
Traditionally, International Women's Day has been an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality. Indeed, there is much we can cele-

March 8, 1990

Routine Proceedings
brate in this regard. Women in Canada today have access to an unprecedented range of choices and opportunities in employment, in the roles and relationships they wish to pursue, in the lives they want to lead.

However, women know that they must remain vigilant, not only to protect the gains they have made but also to pursue the objectives that are still necessary for them to achieve equality.

The women of this country know that equality is much more than the absence of discrimination. Equality governs one's over-all well-being, one's ability to live life to the fullest. There is no such thing as equality for some; true equality means equal treatment and equal opportunities for everyone in all spheres of life. It is toward that goal of true equality that all of society must be dedicated.

The women of Canada recognize how vitally important their efforts to achieve equality are, not only to the current generation but to all generations to come.
We want the best for our children, our daughters and our sons. We want them to grow and to thrive in a society characterized by harmony and tolerance. We want our children to be free and able to find fulfilment in whatever life path they choose. At the same time, we also want the best from our children. As parents, we invest in our children's lives, not only our hopes for their individual success and achievement, but also our dreams that they in turn will take up the banner to work for the betterment of their own society and the generations that will follow them.
Let us be mindful of our Canadian society of the future as we set our sights on the new decade and the work that must be done to eliminate the remaining obstacles to women's equality.

Today we applaud the fact that women's roles and aspirations are growing and expanding at an accelerated rate.

Those in our society who are dedicated to serving women's advancement toward equality must not only keep pace but also be flexible enough to move and adapt as the goals of Canadian women change and broaden.
To respond to the challenges facing women today, new methods and new approaches are required that are based on co-operation and mutual understanding. New partnerships are required among all the parties who play a role in women's lives, partnerships involving business, organized labour, non-governmental organizations, community and voluntary groups, and all levels of government working together with women to achieve equality and a better, safer and more tolerant society.
Our government is strongly committed to women's equality. The progressive legislative changes already put in place provide a solid basis for further action. Our government will continue to work as a full partner to ensure and promote the rights of women in this country to full and equal participation in our society.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to speak for the Official Opposition on the status of women, on this International Women's Day.

I listened with interest to the words of the hon. minister responsible for the status of women and I congratulate her on her new responsibilities. I must say that I found it interesting as much for what she did not say as for what she did. The button that we were given before coming into the Chamber today is a shame. A black button on dark suits will not be seen anywhere in Canada. I would have thought she would have withheld this button from even being sent on.
The institutional framework which has been put into place since 1970 has facilitated progress on a wide front for women. In unprecedented numbers, women entered the paid workforce. The so-called traditional family

March 8, 1990
Routine Proceedings
mould where the man went to work while the wife stayed home with the children has been broken decisively to the point that by 1986 it applied to only 16 per cent of Canadian families.
Although individual women have achieved in the workplace and have had great successes, the status of the average woman, although improved, leaves a lot to be desired. We still have a long way to go to achieve true equality in the workplace. As long as the wages of women are lower than men, as long as women are treated as a workforce that is available at low wages in bad working conditions, we still will not have equality in the workplace. As long as women have to carry the double burden of working and taking the full responsibility for the family, we cannot have equality.
I am afraid, and I say to the minister in her position that this government's most recent budget shows just how vulnerable the silent majority in Canada is. We have seen this government begin to dismantle the institutions women have struggled so hard to put into place. Funding was almost completely eliminated for some 80 women's centres, often the first line of defence against physical and mental abuse.
Day care is still considered to be a woman's issue. Perhaps that is why this federal government felt safe to renege on its promise to enact national day care legislation. This very day we see day care workers in Halifax and across Canada striking because they are paid so little.
If we continue to allow this government to cut at the infrastructures women need, such as the Canada Assistance Program which funds day care and is being cut in three rich provinces, if we continue to see an unemployment insurance program that in many areas of the country allows women to get into the workforce to be cut back or to put a harder emphasis on it, and if we look at the employment equity bill that this minister was involved in, we will know that the condition of women has gone downhill.
We will also know that it continues to allow the simmering across Canada of impressions. We do not need ministers who continue to use women as the butt of sexist jokes, nor do we need ministers who put up with it.
I do not want to say anything about the new first for a woman minister of justice, but the abortion bill is a harsh piece of legislation for any person. It is a contestable piece of legislation. In other words, we will allow the
continued simmering across Canada of attitudes that allow violence and hate against women in the home and in the workplace. This government has to wake up to that. We cannot have situations such as that which happened at the University of Montreal.
The nicest thing that I have learned being a woman in the working world and in the world in general is that it is enjoyable to have challenges and experiences and to be able to do exactly what everybody here in this House achieved by an equal process. There were no barriers. But that is not what we see out there. We need fair play in the home and we need fair play in the workplace. We will not achieve it unless we are vigilant.
In the words of Sylvia Gold of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women:

The watchword for Canadian women in the 1990s is vigilance:
vigilance to recognize new threats to the social, economic and legal
status of women.
I do not wish to continue, but it gives the direction the government should follow and we do not see that today. We see that the status of women does not attract this government's interest.

I say to the government and the new minister that the 1990s taking us to the year 2000 will be a full challenge for this government and for all governments in Canada, and will improve the situation of the women right across Canada.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to respond to the minister's statement on International Women's Day. I am pleased to have that opportunity. In reference to some of the comments that my colleague from the Liberal party made about the button that we have today for International Women's Day, perhaps the colour of the button denotes something about the budget that this government has just brought down.
I want to congratulate the women of Canada for their dedication to achieving real equality for women. I also rise to join my voice with theirs against this government's agenda for women, which the minister barely mentioned.
The minister talked about an unprecedented range of choices for women, but she did not mention that this government is currently in the process of taking away the fundamental choice for women. With its Criminal Code
March 8, 1990

abortion law, the government is taking away the right to choose the fate of our own bodies and our own lives.
The minister talked about a partnership with voluntary groups. She failed to mentioned that core funding for over 75 voluntary women's groups has been completely withdrawn by this budget. She did not mention this government's constant attack and undermining of the women's program from Secretary of State. For the second year in a row there are big cuts to the women's program budget.
She did not mention this government's refusal to meet with the umbrella organization which represents over 600 women's groups in Canada. Will the government meet with that organization this year?
She talked about a government strongly committed to equality for women. I would like to know where is that government. It is certainly not the government that I see on the other side of this House.
The Minister did not mention that under the government's draconian economic policies the wage gap between men and women has actually increased.
She failed to state that in this budget the funding mechanism for social assistance, the Canada Assistance Plan, has been strangled for three provinces, including my province of British Columbia. This is the program that funds child care. Canada has made international commitments to the principle of child care. Canada has failed to deliver on them. This government has failed to deliver on that.
The Canada Assistance Plan funds shelters for battered women. That has been capped in three provinces in Canada. The shelters that are so desperately needed will not be provided. The minister has failed to report that this government deindexed the family allowance program and put an end to the universality of income support for mothers.
The minister said that she was proud to rise today to make her first formal statement in the House of Commons as the new Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Is she really proud of what she is saying? Is she proud of this government's shabby record on women's issues? I cannot believe it. I hope not.
Routine Proceedings
The minister talked about equality. I say and the women of Canada say that this government does not really know the meaning of the word equality. This government is attempting to silence the voices of women. Our voices will not be silenced. We will join together. Women will continue their struggle for true equality. Women will continue their struggle for social and economic justice for all in our society.


INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR FRENCH SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report on the activities of the Canadian section of the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians.
Since the chairman of the Canadian section was unable to attend the meeting of the international executive, held in France from January 28 to 30,1990,1 had the honour of representing the Canadian section on that important occasion.
As the Canadian section's representative, I therefore welcome this opportunity to table the report on this meeting, and I may add that it was a very interesting experience, and that I was very much impressed by the quality of the proceedings I attended.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I have five petitions with 1,354 signatures. Your petitioners object to the goods and services tax because this new tax will be hidden in the sale price and apply to practically everything Canadians will buy, and because implementing this new universal tax on goods and services will create serious and undue hardship for low-and middle-income Canadians and put an additional burden on small business.
March 8, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 present the following petitions of the undersigned residents who bring their grievance to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, to provide a remedy.
The petitioners state that since September 1984 the Conservative government has imposed 31 new taxes and tax increases; that since September 1984 the manufacturers' sales tax has been increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent; that the government wants to impose a new general goods and services tax of 7 per cent. This new tax will be hidden from Canadians and will be applied to virtually everything they buy. They feel that the imposition of this new GST will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians as it is very regressive. They are also angry because the imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business.
Therefore, they ask the Liberals, on behalf of Canadians, to strongly impose this new GST tax which is an unprecedented grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Therefore, I deposit for your information a group of signatures in this regard.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Madam Speaker, I also have a number of petitions which it is my duty to present in the House. These petitions come from my constituents in St-Paul-de-Kent, Cap Pele, Merry Corner, Cocagne, Moncton, St-Charles, Buctouche, St-Louis-de-Kent, Paquetville and from places throughout the riding.
I also have a number of other petitions, all on the same subject, which object to the government's tax proposals. Your petitioners humbly ask Parliament to reject this new tax on goods and services.


Fernand Robichaud: I also have another petition from people in my riding, particularly
from Pointe du Chene, Shediac, and Shediac Bridge who want to express their views on the protection of life and say that at the present time there is no law in Canada to protect the life of the unborn child from conception to birth. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I also have a few other petitions from people in my riding who want to see the riding's rural areas separated from the Moncton urban area for the purposes of unemployment insurance. Certain changes have been made but the rural area of Westmorland is still classified as part of the Moncton urban area, and is thus at a disadvantage.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from Milk River and Warner, Alberta, who share, with the majority of Canadians, sentiments concerning the proposed GST, sentiments which can only be expressed as great opposition to the imposition of this sales tax which, as we know, they do not have in Alberta. The petitioners claim that this will be an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians in Alberta and will hit them not only with higher taxes, but will produce higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
I encourage people to participate and continue to oppose this very regressive tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
March 8, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 15 minutes beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, since you have just announced that the House will be sitting 15 minutes past the normal adjournment time for lunch I wonder if the government might consider-I know the NDP members are agreeable because I did consult them-sitting through to two o'clock so as to give members of the House an opportunity to debate the budget. This being the last day, I think it would be a good idea if as many government and opposition members could comment on the highlights and let Canadians know that we are opposed to such a regressive and ill-conceived budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, of course we on this side always like to see adequate time for debate. I am wondering if the House leader for the Liberal party is also willing to take the extra 15 minutes tonight that would be consumed by bells and pass the motion on division.
The Budget
We voted on the opposition amendment. We voted on the NDP amendment. Perhaps what we could do is pass the motion tonight on division which would give us another 15 minutes as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I find that absolutely unacceptable. We want to vote against this budget, whether it is at six o'clock, seven o'clock or eight o'clock tonight. We do not care. We will sit later today if the government wants to and debate this very bad budget.
In terms of voting on it, we will sure as heck stand in our places against it.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I too want to indicate that we will be here standing in our places voting against the dastardly budget of this government.
There are still a number of members from all caucuses who still have not had an opportunity to participate in the budget debate. Surely, it would be appropriate to add on the few minutes that there are between the end of this morning's session and the start of Question Period in order for them to have an opportunity to speak.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent.
At the end of yesterday's sitting there was still 10 minutes left to members of the Official Opposition. I will then recognize the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, there are so many worrisome concerns that need to be addressed in this uncaring budget presented as a no-tax increase budget, which is far from forthcoming on the part of the minister or the government. It is hurtful to Canadians in need of shelter. It is hurtful to Canadians who need better education facilities and better health facilities.
My colleagues are looking at these various areas that all need careful examination and should be reconsidered. However, there are some things about this budget that are even more shameful.
There is the supposed cut in the defence budget, the absence of anything on the environment, or anything to deal with drugs, with illiteracy, with child care and today, in particular, which is International Women's Day, the cuts to women's programs, the cuts to the CAP that

March 8, 1990
The Budget
ensures a day care program-in fact the absence of day care is really a tragedy. However, I wish to focus and participate in this debate particularly looking at communications and culture. That is the perspective I would like to address.
First, let us look at native communications. Cuts to the native communications programs at the Department of the Secretary of State which account for the major cuts in that department will affect 16 native communication groups across Canada. Hardest hit and actually wiped out will be the aboriginal language newspapers, many of which have been given six months to close down their operations.
The Inuit Broadcast Corporation says that this program cut wipes out basic communication services for thousands of native Canadians living in small isolated communities. A service most Canadians take for granted is broadcasting and newspapers in their own language, something which just seems so normal. This government has sent a clear message to the founding peoples of Canada. The message is: you don't matter.
With respect to the provisions in the government's budget on the privatization of our telecommunications sector, the privatizing of Telesat Canada shows that it is still trapped in a market force ideological view. It also shows that it has failed to learn that our communications system works well because it has been carefully crafted over many decades. It works well because it all fits together.
You cannot simply remove one element, one wall from the house, without considering the whole system. This government obviously has no vision for Canada, except how to dismantle it. Petro-Canada is another example of that.
Telecommunications are just as important an economic force or an economic lever for Canada that is required and needed for us to be able to move forward into the 21st century. From this government it has been promises, promises for a national telecommunications policy for the last five years. Yet we have had no follow-up on that and no follow-up on the Supreme Court decision that would ensure that this vital sector remains in the federal domain.
However, within this vacuum the government wants to privatize Telesat, a cornerstone of our communications system, purely for profit motives and not from a public policy mandate point of view. It is disgraceful.
It is easy in difficult financial times for governments to slash expenditures on culture, to see it as an extra, as a frill. But I believe that it is in these very hard times that this sector should be supported. These products, these creations, these manifestations of expression of our inner selves need to be promoted and protected, for culture is what a country says to itself and about itself, as well as to others, whether it be through the creative medium of the theatre, film, television, novels, recorded entertainment, painting, architecture, ballet or dance. It is what makes a people interesting. It gives us a presence, a sense of worth, a sense of self-respect worthy of attention on the world stage. It is how the people of a country express their dreams and hopes, and how they talk about their past and their future. It is what they care about.
Culture is about the conservation and appreciation of the past, of our diverse backgrounds, of our heritage. But it is also about the future, about innovation and creation, the creative imagination of who we are and what we want to become.
We believe as Liberals that investment in the arts is an investment in Canada's future. It is a common language that binds and builds for a stronger Canadian society.
We believe that cultural endeavours contribute to what Edward Blake once so aptly described as the cultivation of the national spirit. We could certainly use a good dose of that building of national unity, of shared dreams across this land.
The Canadian vision is not new, but it is just with preserving, cultivating and promoting it which will bring the kind of nourishment and encouragement that is required. It seems to be absent from the leadership across the floor of this House.
I would like to say that Canada's cultural community's contribution to nourish the mind and the soul of its people has been diminished with the revelations of this government's budget and the unveiling of its Estimates. Canadians deserve better.
A recent Department of Communications working paper stated that the impact of vibrant cultural exploration, of striving for creative excellence on performance


March 8, 1990

in all forms of research, creative analysis and innovation is vital to Canada's competitiveness as a society.
We are also told by the Department of Communications that the cultural sector has out-performed most other sectors of the economy in the creation of jobs over the past two decades, and that Canadian cultural attractions have been recognized as powerful assets in the development of tourism.
The value of the economic activity created by cultural endeavours has also been recognized. This is an industry that grosses in excess of $9 billion and directly generates 150,000 jobs.
As well, the employment training and job creation aspects of the cultural sector are impressive. It is labour intensive. Its workforce is highly educated and mobile. The sector's strong contribution to tourism and economic development has resulted because of support reflected in federal, provincial and municipal policies and programs.
It is unfortunate that this government in its latest budget is not continuing that support. At a time when the strength of our cultural life is becoming more and more important and much more deeply appreciated to identify us as a very important and independent nation among the family of men, I find this government's pretence for the support an unconscionable smokescreen.
Just add the planned impact of the GST on this whole service sector-hotel bills, restaurants, taxis, theatres, movie houses, health and sports spas, country fairs, folk arts, museums, libraries, books and magazines. As people pay the tax on the stamp for the postcard they bought, to which the GST has been added, to write home, they are going to be writing: "Don't bother to come. Go elsewhere, otherwise you will be taxed from gas to food to entertainment. In fact, you will be taxed to death".
Any pretence that this government has a cultural policy was put to rest with the Wilson budget. The Conservatives once again took aim at the CBC with cuts of $20 million over the next two years to its capital equipment budget. This comes after $140 million in cuts
The Budget
and 500 in staff reductions. We will have to wait to see if the CBC will be able to continue to provide high quality delivery of programming, not to mention Canadian content.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that last night at the ACTRA Awards we saw cuts and clips from Switchback, one of the programs which was just recently cut.
Furthermore, the $13 million in freeze over the next two years to Telefilm, coming after the decimation of tax incentives for film and video productions, no film distribution bill and no film policy show that this government has no intention of building, let alone sustaining, a Canadian film industry.
This government has pulled the guts out of our most pervasive and cultural mediums-the film industry and public broadcasters. They are the instruments that shape the intellect and the imagination of Canadians, and we are not providing any Hollywood alternatives.
With respect to provincial and municipal spending, if you look at the figures of Statistics Canada, Madam Speaker, you will see that provincial governments spent a total of $1.34 billion on culture in 1986-1987, 60 per cent of which was financial aid to artists and cultural institutions. At the municipal level, municipal governments also sustain the arts. They spent a total of $774.8 million on arts and culture, which represents 17 per cent of total government expenditures at all levels.
With the cuts that are going forward in the federal-provincial transfer grants, there is the potential for a domino effect, and cuts in the fields of cultural production at both the provincial and municipal levels.
As well, an announcement by the President of the Treasury Board in December eliminating existing arrangements for municipalities on radio licence fees for mobile radios used in emergency services, such as ambulance, fire and police, as well as for public works and transit vehicles, increases their costs. Presently, the municipalities pay a flat fee of $236 for one base station and one mobile radio. For example, Orillia will now go up to $6,535. The city of Vancouver will pay $70,174-70 times more than its current budget.
I will tell you that if you have these kinds of increases for fire, ambulance and police, they will be pitted against support for the arts.

March 8, 1990
The Budget
I would like to conclude by saying that Canada's cultural life has been impacted negatively by this Conservative government. It will long remain one of the worse legacies to Canada, if you examine it across the centuries.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's speech on the budget. She touched on a number of areas having to do with the Department of Communications.
On the issue of the Radio Act items which she just touched on, I wonder whether or not she supported those measures in committee. I believe she did. That was a bill which passed through this House in 1986, if I am not mistaken.
On the question of the privatization of Telesat, I understood my hon. friend to say that it was being privatized for a purely profit motive and that there was no policy purpose in the privatization. I would ask her whether or not she agrees that Crown holdings should be privatized when no policy purpose remains in the government holding.
I would also like to ask my hon. friend what her view is of telecommunications policy. Would she like to have the telecommunications bill in the House at the same time as the broadcasting bill is in the House? Or would she rather wait until it is in the other place?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, am I allowed an hour? I thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his questions.
He well knows with respect to his third question-I will go backward with my responses, if I may, although my policy does not go backward-concerning a telecommunications policy bill being in the House at the same time as the broadcasting bill, I think it would make good sense. We would be able to look at both. I had asked the minister, if the parliamentary secretary will recall, as we were in the process of examining the broadcast bill, that if his telecommunications bill was not ready, then at least could he deposit a white paper or a draft bill so that we could look at both bills and understand the interaction between the converging telecommunications and broadcasting fields. I think it would have been a good idea.
If he wants to withdraw a terrible broadcast bill now, I would be prepared to look at-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: You wrote half of it.


Sheila Finestone: Don't faint! I wrote half of it. The half I wrote, I like. The half you did, I do not like.
Let us move on to Telesat. I would suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is a place in public policy for an integrated telephone and telecommunications system. It would be a telephone system that would be universally accessible and affordable. It is through the controls inherent in Telesat that we could ensure that.
With respect to the Radio Act, I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and the government to go back to look at the amendments and the arguments I brought forward. They were specifically related to two things. The first was volunteer services and the potential for taxation in fire departments and other sectors which have equipment which uses mobile phones in the voluntary sector in small rural areas, for example, snow removal equipment. The second was the impact on municipalities. We saw the potential there during the course of dealing with that bill. I tried to bring forward an amendment. However, I received an assurance from the minister of the day, who is not the present minister, that the municipalities would not be impacted negatively. You can see how much that word was worth in today's market-place.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for her presentation. Since today is International Women's Day, I wonder if she could talk a little about the cuts and how they are going to affect women in the field of communications.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I wish there were more women involved in the broadcasting industry, in the CBC, at the National Film Board, in the infrastructure of those organizations which should be reporting under the concept of the Employment Equity Act. Unfortunately, we do not have enough women, as we do not have enough visible minorities, within these particular structures, whether it is private sector broadcasters and cable companies or the public sector broadcasters.
The employment equity bill, Bill C-62, passed through the House. That bill punishes a corporation if it does not deposit a plan of action, but it has no financial penalty within its purview. A positive step forward was not enacted. That is one of the reasons why the government
March 8, 1990

has not been effective in the promotion of women in the arts and culture scene.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the budget debate. I also had the privilege of speaking in the debate on the first budget of this government back in 1985. I was proud then of the steps taken by the government in that budget. I am proud of the fact that we have stayed on the course that we set for ourselves at that time. I am proud that today's budget continues in that tradition.
We have had to do a number of things, none of them, I am sure you would admit, Madam Speaker, are easy. We have had to restrain the growth of certain government programs. We have had to freeze others, reduce some and eliminate still others. But all of them are continuing Canada on the course that was set by the Minister of Finance in late 1984, that is, to tackle the deficit.
We have heard a lot of criticism from the members of the opposition. When I think of being a member of the opposition-and I have never had that experience-it seems to me it would be an easy job to do. They oppose all attempts to control government spending. They oppose all attempts to increase government revenues. To top it off, they propose nothing.
I take it that is a theory of theirs to regain popularity and to regain the government of this country. It did not work for them in 1984. They know it did not work for them in 1988. I am going to suggest to them again, and they can remember me saying this to them here, it is not going to work in 1992. Canadians want a government that is willing to take the kind of tough decisions that the Minister of Finance has been taking these past six years.
I would like to talk a little bit about some of the elements of this budget. One of them is the freeze on EPF, Established Programs Financing, which has been frozen for the next couple of years. I would like to speak specifically with respect to my home province of Ontario.
The first point I would like to make is that it is not that the federal government does not support provincial government services. We do. We believe provincial government services are important. In this budget alone
The Budget
we will contribute over $30 billion to the provinces to help out in the area of provincial concerns.
When we are trying at the federal level to deal with a deficit that is over $300 billion, certain questions have to be asked. Some of those questions are these. Who is in the best position to help out in the funding of provincial services? I can tell you that I know that the province of Ontario can help out.
Let us face the facts. For 43 years the province of Ontario had a Progressive Conservative government that managed this province very well. Since 1984, assisted by the policies of this government, there have had boom times in the province of Ontario. So is the province of Ontario able to help share the burden of providing provincial government services? I think it is.
I can tell you that we certainly got a boost the day before the budget. I noticed the provincial treasurer in Ontario-and I am reading from an article in The Globe and Mail of February 20-had just discovered $952 million in "unanticipated revenues". That was certainly a boost in sharing the burden of provincial services, one that I am sure all of us in this House appreciate at a time when the federal government is trying to come to grips with this difficult deficit.
Madam Speaker, you have heard in this Chamber on many occasions complaints from members of the Liberal party in particular. They complain about the Conservatives referring to the time when they were in office. You have heard it many times, and I heard it just recently on Tuesday afternoon. A Liberal member of Parliament was complaining. He said: "Why do the Tories always bring up what we did in government? Why do they always want to talk about the Liberal record? Why do they not talk about what they have done?"
I can tell them that I am very pleased to talk about the Conservative record, and I will talk about the Conservative record. I have always wondered where I heard that complaint before, that plea, that bleating not to talk about our record here. I remembered where it was. It was from the days before I was a member of Parliament when I was a legal aid duty counsel. I used to represent people on bail hearings. Very often the last thing in the world people who are up for bail wanted to have discussed in court was their record. If you had their record, many times they would say: "Well, that was so many years ago. Do we have to talk about what happened in the past?" That reminds me of the Liberal party. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I am pleased at all times to talk about the Conservative record in 1984, 1985, 1986, right up to 1990. That is the difference between a Liberal

The Budget
and a Conservative. They do not want to talk about what they did in government because they are ashamed of their record.
On the subject of the Liberal record, let us talk about it a little bit. When we took office in 1984 the deficit was over $200 billion. Just the interest on that $200 billion is now $120 billion. So we have $320 billion of debt left to us by the Liberal party. If members of that party want to know how long I am going to talk about it, I will talk about that Liberal debt until it is paid off by our children and grandchildren. That is the length of time that Canadians should remember, and remember after that if they ever consider voting Liberal again. That is how long they should remember that debt. We are still waiting for those Liberal party solutions to this problem.
I was interested to hear that the former Liberal Prime Minister of this country is coming out with a book. I am sure it will be very helpful to the discussions going on in Canada today.
I am going to tell you about the chapter I want to see. If the former Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Trudeau, has so many great ideas as to what this government should be doing, I want to hear what he has to say about the deficit. He and his policies created that $200 billion deficit that has grown to $320 billion. I think it is reasonable to hear what he has to say in terms of being helpful in solving this problem that we all face.
I think that Canadians can accept the directions that have been taken by the Minister of Finance. When people point out to me that we are down in the polls I always say to them: "You don't change economic policy in this country on a month-to-month basis depending on what the polls say".
As well, I tell them that if irresponsible spending would keep you in power, if spending money that you do not have, if spending money that you have to borrow would have kept anybody in power the Liberals would have been in power in a one-party democracy forever.
But it did not work for them, and it is not going to work again in the future.
When I talk about Liberal spending-and I love to do it-I am reminded of so many examples in my area of the Niagara Peninsula. I remember for instance one woman telling me after I was elected: "You know we had a project here, a very worth-while project. We received a cheque from the government and we didn't even ask for it. We hadn't even applied and it arrived in the mail". I said to her: "You know as worth while as some of these things are I can tell you, Ma'am, that the days of spending money, of passing out money without people even asking for it are unfortunately coming to an end".
I see I have only a couple of minutes left. I can tell this House for the benefit of some hon. members in the Liberal party who question whether the Conservative party is behind the Minister of Finance that the members of this party are behind the Minister of Finance. They are behind the policies that he has taken in 1990, just as we have been behind him since 1984. Not only is that good for the Conservative party and is going to keep this party in government, we know it is good for Canada.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary make a fire and brimstone speech in trying to fire up the troops. I can understand they need it when their riding associations are being taken over by anti-GST forces that want to force out the members of this House on the Conservative side who are voting for this silly legislation. They are trying to fire their members out; they want to replace them. I can understand his nervousness and his attempt to fire up the troops and say that the members are all behind this bill because they know they are going to pay a price for supporting this budget and supporting the disastrous policies that this government has instituted over the last five years, policies that have cost the Canadian people billions, and the hon. member knows that.
The hon. member talks about his anxiety to discuss Conservative policies and his willingness to defend the record of incompetence for the last five years. Would he discuss with the House the level of tax increases that we have had? Would he produce the figures on the addition-

al revenue that this government has gouged out of the Canadian public in five years of economic mismanagement and compare the amount it has taken from the people with the size of the deficit?
Let us examine what it has called budget reduction. We keep hearing, and I have heard it at least three times during the course of this debate, that 70 per cent of the cutbacks in the deficit are a result of cuts in government spending. I would like to hear how much of it in fact was the result of increases in taxation which the Conservatives have gouged out of the Canadian people. That is the figure we should be looking at in this House. That is the figure the hon. parliamentary secretary should be referring to. I invite him to come up with those figures now. Perhaps he does not have them.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the member who raised the subject of tax increases. He specifically referred to the GST and challenged me to defend Tory tax increases.
I can tell the hon. member, I do not shy away from them at all. I have said here that there are cuts in government spending, there is restraint in growth in government spending, there have been changes in tax and there have been tax increases in the last five or six years. I have been pleased to defend them because I know it puts Canada on the right track.
I was at an all-candidates debate in the 1988 election and somebody thought they would pin me down by asking: "How could you have gotten rid of the home ownership savings plan? What possible reason could you have?". I said: "It is for the money. The federal government is in financial difficulty. " That is why we have had to overhaul the tax system. That is why we have had to make cuts in government spending, because we know it is necessary.
Now the hon. member talked about the GST. I am going to tell you something. I was more than passing interested in the debates the other night between the Minister of Finance and the Liberal critic on the subject of finance of the GST. I love to look at newspaper articles and certainly to see newspaper articles from the province of Alberta. Just let me give a few examples of what they were saying in Alberta after the finance critic from the Liberal party spoke. One of the editorials in the
The Budget
Edmonton Sun stated: "No new ideas". It was referring to the Liberals. "No new ideas".
The Edmonton Journal states: "A Grit's empty promise". That is what is thought about the Liberal finance policies here. The Edmonton Sun referring to the Minister of Finance, "Mr. Cool should be happy". It says: "Liberal hedges debate pledge. Wilson's leadership shone in GST clash".
In the Globe and Mail: "Confusion increasing over Liberal GST stand". Why should that be any different than anything else? Why should it be any different than the Liberal Party on Meech Lake or free trade or deficit reduction? That is just par for the course. But I will be fair, maybe the Liberals are just confused about the big ticket items. We are behind the Minister of Finance. Maybe the Liberal critic should talk to his colleagues and figure out where they stand on the GST.
The Globe and Mail got it right. I would be glad to table this if any of the hon. members would like me to. Certainly I would be pleased to send this out to any of my constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is over.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Outremont.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, last week, since the House was not sitting, I took advantage of this opportunity to talk to my constituents in Outremont.
I wanted to know more about their concerns, their expectations and their problems. Although age and interests vary, on the whole, the people of Outremont are concerned about the environment, income stability, interest rates, employment, immigration and the future of their community.
I also heard some comments, not always veiy favourable, on the Budget brought down on February 20 by the Minister of Finance Although not everyone was satisfied with the Budget, all the people I talked to saw the Budget and the minister's agenda as an expression of the government's will to provide even more efficient management and to bring the deficit and our national debt under control.

The Budget
Madam Speaker, this is the Progressive Conservative Government's sixth Budget, and once again, it reflects the government's thoroughly consistent and serious approach to meeting its objectives. It is the culmination of five years of hard work during which the government has reviewed and updated regulatory procedures, revamped our tax system by lowering tax rates and eliminating loopholes, abolished trade barriers, improved manpower training programs and turned around the country's economic situation.
Despite gloomy forecasts, over 1.5 million jobs were created since the beginning of our term, and among the major industrial countries, only Japan's economic performance outshipped ours. However, to provide for an even more prosperous future, we must eliminate our deficit and reduce the debt, making Canadians less vulnerable to the impact of interest rates and to inflation which is a threat to us all. They will feel more secure and will be able to operate even more effectively.
We must act now, in a manner that is both effective and compassionate, to control our debt while maintaining the programs and services we cherish. This is the only way we can preserve a climate conducive to maintaining our economic, social and psychological development.
To act now, Madam Speaker, means ensuring that the electorate, the citizens of Canada, become even more aware of their important role in determining the future of their country and our society.
Previous Liberal governments encouraged Canadians to depend on government and often forced them to do so. After the war, the central government was given a mandate to help the country and its citizens recover from a situation that had destabilized the economy. We had to reconvert from a wartime to a peacetime economy. This position was sound because we had a vigorous economic recovery. The reconversion went well. However, instead of letting Canadians continue to become more dynamic, the government decided to keep on exercising power by controlling the economic levers rather than trusting Canadians. It wanted to keep the leading role and increase the process of centralization, thereby keeping the spotlight on its supposedly brilliant performance.
Under Mr. Trudeau, who claimed to have contempt for nationalists, the government and he showed a distrustful nationalism towards the Americans and the obvious differences among the provinces. This mistrust resulted in undue control and supervision, as with the Foreign Investment Review Agency; the nationalization of several industries could only lead to increased dependence.
He succeeded in developing passive behaviour and discouraging, if not killing, creativity and innovation. Everywhere people showed "sweet indifference".
We reached the point, Madam Speaker, where someone who was thinking of starting a new project would first find out what grant programs were available. By repeating that people had rights, we made them forget that they also had duties and resources. We were depriving them of the pride that comes from doing something oneself. We were preparing poorly for future challenges.
We all know that in a competitive world like today's, only the most inventive and most able to benefit from their environment can win.
Experts think that the latest Budget is reasonable, courageous and responsible.
Bernard Landry, the former PQ Finance Minister, described it as a very good budget. He even said that, under the circumstances, it was a tremendous achievement.
Personally, I suggest that this budget opens an era of individual initiative enhancement. It emphasizes the responsibility of institutions, groups and individuals. It is a perfect tool which will allow Canadians to build up their self-esteam based on their own achievements.
Needless to say, the Government will continue to help the most destitute regain their self-sufficiency, increase their awareness of their self-worth while relying if need be on Government programs and services.
Like all the other Members of this House, we, of the Quebec caucus, have emphasized the areas where the Government could continue to improve its administrative efficiency and we shall continue to work toward the implementation of spending restraint.
Finally, the Government will especially seek to improve further the productivity of the governmental process by working toward a closer relationship with the
March 8, 1990

Public Service. We carry out a very careful selection of Government employees and we are anxious to hire the best candidates. By encouraging a climate more conducive to dialogue in the face of a common objective, our Government will successfully reach its goal which is to ensure future generations a superior quality of life.
Madam Speaker, you will note that I am not referring to figures as such. I feel that this Budget is as much, if not more a reflection of a management philosophy as an ideological position.
As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I have stated before in this House that culture comes before economy. From such a statement stems also the fact that a realistic budget must reflect reality as closely as possible. If it is true that a person could not mortgage his or her health with impunity, it is also true that a society could not indefinitely mortage its future. A balance must be achieved. All individuals must put their psychosomatic portfolios in order. Human nature has its needs which no one can disregard.
The Canadian society had reached the point of no return. The machine was starting to overload as a reaction to the consecutive budgets which, before 1984, had resulted from unrealistic expectations, as if the country would never reach the bottom of the barrel, as if there would be no end to growth for growth's sake.
Well, the Canadian people, in their wisdom, have asked this Progressive Conservative Government to stop this hemorrhage. But for a great many years the Minister had to live with past commitments and deal with the law of inertia. Before a crisis, is upon us the minister did talk a Budget which will put an end to this downtrend and put us on the road to recovery.
Madam Speaker, although the Budget may seem tough, the Canadian people generally want it. It is a common sense budget we should all be proud of.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to ask him some questions which might help me clarify a few points for the benefit of my constituents. I have the feeling that I drew the attention of all members of the House the day I rose to ask for a grant on behalf of the Missing Children network. Six-odd months later they finally did get a grant for three
The Budget
jobs, I believe. Jobs, jobs, jobs and the creation of many jobs are issues we often hear about in the House. I do not recollect the exact figures because I think they are not quite correct. When I talk about three jobs in my riding I am referring to three part-time jobs, and that works out to only one job over a 12-month employment period. Would the hon. member for Outremont explain how he can boast about creating so many new openings when in most instances these are really part-time jobs? We might get a more realistic figure if we were to divide by three.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: The question of my opposition colleague raises an interesting and important issue. Indeed it is a basic issue, and all members of the House and all Canadians, I would suggest, have to take a stand and endeavour to find the most acceptable solutions to such a wide-ranging issue. Surely my colleague does not expect me to play the role of the various ministers who have the mandate, the responsibility and, perforce, the wide array of knowledge to respond specifically to such a question. As I understand the question, it has to involve more than three part-time jobs in the riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville because the same thing happens in the riding I represent, just as it does elsewhere across Canada. Indeed, similar concerns and questions are raised in the various university faculties where applications for scholarships or labour income support cannot all be fully entertained.
I conclude therefore that the question of my colleague raises a broader issue. This is why at the end of my remarks I said it was a question of-I will not use the word ideology-but a question of philosophy. Either we decide to centralize even more and, willy-nilly, the people will identify with a process of dependency. This wall-to-wall theory did prevail in Quebec over a number of years. We even saw a Quebec Finance Minister who, after having favoured this wall-to-wall program approach for some time, decided that there was a price to pay for always expecting the federal and provincial governments to have enough money. This redistributed money must come not only from the pockets of Canadian citizens but also from the work they get paid for. Part of their pay is taxed by the government and returned to them as services. This distributive justice operates across the country.

March 8, 1990
The Budget
To conclude, in answer to your question, I repeat: it is a matter of philosophy. The Minister of Finance and the Progressive Conservative Party have more faith in decentralization and believe that individual drive combined with group dynamics will increase production. The return on investment is bigger than with centralization, as we experienced it, fortunately or unfortunately, under the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau, which made our population more dependent and more passive and led to less creativity and innovation.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, this year's budget will be remembered as a budget of half truths and deviousness. It is a nearsighted budget without any vision of the future, a budget that hurts the under-privileged and that does not even try to avoid the impending recession.
The Minister of Finance claims the deficit is now under control. Can we believe him? Since this Tory Government was first elected in September 1984 the national debt increased twofold from $170 billion to the current $350 billion.
The Tories' mismanagement of the economy is reflected in the somber outlook for the current fiscal year. Unemployment inflation, and interest rates will jump up and international financial markets have lost confidence in our dollar.
We are verging on recession, yet the Minister of Finance suggests we should not try and avoid it.
The minister claims there is no new taxes. He simply passed on to the provinces an $8 billion debt. And certainly the GST will be the worst tax grab in Canadian history.
The minister claims that deficit reduction is not harming social programs. But he is cutting health care and social welfare. Social housing funding is cut $165 million over five years, making more serious the situation of the 200,000 homeless Canadians and all those spending more than half of their income on rent.
To cap it all, the minister claims the budget is fair. But regional development assistance is cancelled for all practical purposes, as the Americans wanted.
More than 5,000 veterans under palliative care because of old age will have to pay more than $3,000 each
for their hospital beds. Natives once more are the target of budget cuts. Official Development Assistance once more is cut. At the same time, large corporations are getting govemement tax handouts while defence expenditure, still at a high level, do not reflect the new world political situation.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is unfair and near-sighted. It ignores today's economic problems and includes no agenda for the new decade.

I want to continue by looking at the budget in some detail. As the co-critic for forestry for my party, I think it is important that we look at the forestry sector as well. To do that, I want first to quote from the Minister of Forestry on the establishment of the new forestry department. I think it is a credit to the government and to all parties here that we passed such a motion in the House to develop such a department.
The minister states in his communique: "The creation of the department is an acknowledgement of the government's firm commitment to our forests". That sounds good. The words are nice, but the record shows that in the government's budget last year, the one that was supposed to be committed to forestry, it cut the forestry department's budget by 11.9 per cent. This was a new department cut by 11.9 per cent.
This year, funding has been cut by $47.6 million from $206.9 million, which is a reduction to the total of $159.3 million. If we look at the forecasted expenditures of $231.4 million, the reduction is 31 per cent, a reduction of $72.1 million. One wonders where that commitment is. Words are nice, but the action is not there.
If we examine the forestry department closer and look at the agreements, I must say that the government was wise in renewing the forestry agreements in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That is a positive step in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with that. However, there are four other provinces whose agreements expired last year, namely, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. What is the government waiting for?
This year agreements will expire with Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia. The Estimates will show that there is no money put aside for any new agreements. We must wonder what type of commitment this govern-
March 8, 1990

ment is sold to, or whether it is just going to give us some words?
The minister stated in his budget tabled in the House on February 20 that there will be no new taxes. It is hard to believe. When we look little further into the budget, it deals with says something along the lines of sales tax reform. It also has: "The Impact of the GST". I find it hard to believe that he would say that there are no new taxes. We. never had a GST before. The government plans on implementing it in this fiscal year, and it says that there are no new taxes.
When we add to that the cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces, there will be tax increases. If there are not there are certainly going to be program cuts, so it is hard to believe that someone could say that there will be no new taxes.
While I am on the point of taxes I would like to read a paragraph from the Liberal minority report that summarizes my thoughts on the GST quite plainly. "The GST proposal would create economic disruption, increase taxes on average families, introduce an unprecedented level of complexity into the tax system, impose further hardship on low income Canadians, remain hidden from taxpayers, shift the tax burden in several important ways in Canadian society without the government fully understanding the long term effects of the shifts, cause financial difficulties for provincial governments and harm many sectors of the Canadian economy." Anyone wishing a copy of that quotation may contact my office. But that sums up what the Liberal Party feels about this GST. It also sums up what most small businesses and most people in Canada feel about it.
When we were in government we talked about fairness too, but at least our words meant something. We were fair. At least we attempted to be fair. Let us look at the budget document a little more closely and study the revenue table. The parliamentary secretary a while ago was talking about the Conservative record and how proud he was of it. Let's look at that record.
When the Conservatives took over in 1984, the percentage of personal income tax revenue was at 41.3 per cent. In other words, the government received 41.3 per cent of its revenue from individuals through income tax. In 1988-89, that figure, lo and behold, is up to 44.3 per cent and rising. But if we look at the corporate sector, in
The Budget
1984 the percentage it paid was 13.2 per cent and now-it is hard to believe-that percentage is down to 11.3 per cent. Individuals are paying more and corporations are paying less. It does not seem to gibe with fairness.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I apologize to the hon. member. I was advised that the hon. member was sharing the 20-minute period. As the hon. member has said, he started at 10 minutes to one o'clock. I would ask the hon. member to sum up, please.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, you are right, 10 minutes was the allotted time. I apologize to the Chair.

I move, Madam Speaker: That this sitting be extended over the lunch hour to give an opportunity to the largest possible number of members to speak on this bad budget.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There not being 15 members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6), the motion is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Arseneault) agreed to.
[Translation\


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's comments were interesting, to a certain extent, although I did find them rather surprising, especially when, in his capacity as co-critic for Forestry, the hon. member mentioned agreements that had not been renewed but are now being discussed. He referred to his own province of New Brunswick, in the Maritimes where he acknowledged the government had injected quite a bit of money. His criticism, however, was mainly directed to various cutbacks in the departments, and he made a point of saying that the Conservative Government had doubled the deficit since 1984. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that when his party, the Liberal Party, came to

The Budget
power in 1968 after 100 years in Confederation, we had a cumulative debt of about $18 billion and no annual deficit, and that the first annual deficit occurred in 1975, when his party was in power, and that their government was the first one to have a deficit, and that in 1980, the annual deficit was $11.5 billion? In 1984, when Canadians dumped the Liberal Party, there was an annual deficit of $38.3 billion. The cumulative debt at that time was $200 billion. Was the hon. member aware of that? And did he know that in 1984, there was an operating deficit of $16 billion? And here I am not referring to the debt. This year, however, is the second year we have had an operating surplus, now $9 billion, down from an operating deficit of $16 billion. Did the hon. member know that?


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He certainly asked a long question with many statistics. I want to tell him that the government's statistics are rather confused, more than ours. I want to assure him that our party did not raise taxes 31 times since 1984, certainly not.
I thank the hon. member for his question. He certainly asked a long question with many statistics and I shall answer him that the government's statistics are somewhat confused, more than ours. I want to assure him that our party certainly did not raise taxes 31 times since 1984. I would also like to tell him that the deficit, or rather the debt, doubled under the Conservative Party. That is a fact.


Maurice Tremblay: It is because of interest rates.


Guy H. Arseneault: It is not due to interest rates. You are the ones who raised these taxes; it is your fault, it is your government, and you are going to pay for it. I have just come from Alberta and I must tell you that you will pay for it because the people of Alberta have had enough of you. The same goes for New Brunswick, and I must add something. You mention agreements, that it is good for New Brunswick, but we are all part of a single country and we should share all together, the whole country. You should not conclude one kind of agreement with some provinces and another kind with some other provinces. We should share. That is the Liberals' philosophy, but it is not the Conservatives' philosophy. It is not your government's philosophy and therein lies the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mrs. Call-beck).


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to take part part today in this budget debate on the last budget which the Minister of Finance has just submitted.
I want to do so in the context of a province that has not yet fully recovered from the last budget, the one that we had in 1989. My province certainly well remembers the last budget because it dealt such a blow to the people of Summerside, in fact to all Islanders, when it was announced that CFB Summerside would be closed.
As Islanders, we have a special pride in the quality of life that exists in our province. Our predominantly rural outlook allows us to maintain a sense of community and unique values which cannot exist within an urban environment. Prince Edward Island has often been called the million acre farm because rural activities flourish from one end of our Island to the other.
We are very proud of our lifestyle, but I can tell you that we certainly are concerned with the government's policies which consistently erode rural life in our province.
We were very proud of Canadian Forces Base Summerside and proud to be part of Canada's national defence program. Last year, the budget really devastated Prince Edward Island with its arbitrary decision to close CFB Summerside. Today, on March 8, practically a year later, we still do not have any firm commitment from the government.
I have addressed the House many times on the issue of CFB Summerside. The government has to come to terms with the enormity of its decision to close the base, and it has to take responsibility for that decision.
The loss of this base has caused severe hardship, economically, socially and emotionally, in Summerside and the whole surrounding area. The government has been asked time and time again to take responsibility for the decision to close the base, and yet the federal government refuses to listen.
March 8, 1990

A budget has been brought down and still it contains no special help for the people affected by the closure of CFB Summerside. This closure announced last April would cost the area approximately 1,200 direct jobs, an annual payroll of approximately $40 million, or more than 2 per cent of the total provincial economy. Certainly our pride as Islanders has not diminished, but our faith has been shattered.
The government's 1990 budget contains measures which will certainly cost Prince Edward Island millions of dollars. The largest cut will come from the money that we will be losing under Established Programs Financing. My province will lose approximately $35 million in five years and about $12 million to $13 million within the next two.
The federal government started cutting these payments back in 1986. The cuts up to 1990 were to have totalled $11 million, but now on top of that we have another $12 million to $13 million, and that is all within two years.
In his budget speech the finance minister spoke about building a secure and rewarding foundation on a solid foundation. That foundation is education, but the government has been eroding that foundation persistently since it came to office and it has truly put this country's future at risk. This policy error is even more serious for a province like Prince Edward Island which needs a well trained workforce to lead it into the 1990s and beyond and to self-sufficiency. With continual cuts to education and the neglect of the Canada Student Loans Program, Ottawa is condemning my province to a future of dependency on the federal government. It is bad policy, it is bad economics, and it is bad for Prince Edward Islanders.
This budget also contains a reduction to Marine Atlantic's operating subsidy of approximately $9 million over a two-year period. This is only the most recent cut for this Crown corporation. Since 1985 the government has effectively reduced Marine Atlantic's subsidy by $52 million. Now 37 per cent of the cost of operation for Marine Atlantic comes from the users of the system, so 63 per cent comes from government subsidy. Here again this subsidy is being reduced. That means that Marine Atlantic will have to cut services, cut expenses, or increase fares. Only time will tell whether rates will have to be increased again.
The Budget
The list of program cuts which affect my province and therefore impact on our economy is lengthy. There is the cancellation of the Postal Services Review Board. This comes at a time when Canadians need a forum to voice their concerns about Canada Post. Certainly across Prince Edward Island many Islanders are upset with Canada Post's policy to close rural post offices. This review board provided an independent body to keep an eye on the state of the postal service in Canada.
Another aspect of its mandate was to help Canada Post achieve its objectives. It certainly leaves the question: what is Canada Post's objective? Here again, it convinces Islanders that the government is eroding our rural lifestyle.
The cut in funding to the Veterans Independence Program is yet another example of where the government places its responsibilities. It plans to streamline this whole program. It is going to cut $18 million out of the program, and that is money that could provide a great deal of care and assistance for those in need.
The intent of this program is to assist veterans in maintaining or improving their quality of life by helping them remain healthy and independent. Without proper funding this program cannot provide the necessary services to veterans who so willingly provided their services. As Canadians we owe a great debt to our veterans and certainly they deserve to be treated fairly. In my province we have close to 1,200 veterans who are in need of the Veterans Independence Program, and approximately 200 of them live in my riding of Malpeque.
The list continues with cuts to programs under the Department of National Health and Welfare. The loss of funding to this department will also contribute to the undermining of the quality of life of Prince Edward Island.
I see that my time is running out. I have a great deal more to say about this budget, and certainly I will be speaking at a later time in the House.


Maurice Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I listened to some parts of the hon. member's speech with great interest. I just want to refer to what she said about her province of Prince Edward Island. If I am not mistaken, she said that, since 1985, we have cut several million dollars if not fifty million or so. How did she get to that conclusion considering that since 1984 up until the last budget, transfers to the provinces increased on average by 6.5 per cent and that this budget provides for an increase of 3 per cent in transfer payments? If she can,

March 8, 1990
The Budget
would she be kind enough to tell us at the same time what were in percentage Prince Edward Island's expenditures in those two periods, 1980-84 and 1984-90?


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, when I say cut what I mean is that we had Established Programs Financing funding in place that was supposed to increase according to a certain formula every year. The government has gone back on the amount of increase. That is what I am talking about. Expenditures are going up every year. There is inflation. The province felt we had a program in place and the government has cut back on that.
In answer to your second question with regard to the expenditures, I do not have them presently here on my desk but certainly I would be glad to get that information to the hon. member.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Madam Speaker, I listened to our colleague from Malpeque very closely and with real interest. With your permission, I would like to ask her a question that might widen her consideration of the matter.
I remember what she said and quote her own words: [English]
We are very proud of our lifestyle. She repeated that information twice.

I think all of us, in Quebec, in the Maritimes and in western Canada are as proud as she is of our way of living.
I will get to my question shortly, but I too would like to go back to 1975 and quote words to our colleague. The then Minister of Finance said: "Last week, the Prime Minister-he was talking about Mr. Trudeau-referred to the extremely difficult situation we are in. He did not promise any quick or easy solution because there is no such solution. However, he showed the way to go to bring back to the country its opportunities to survive economically in a world where survival must keep on subscribing to the principles of responsibility, we must
not give up, we must continue to play a leading role." And the minister back then in 1975 gave Canadiens a sure indication. Mr. Lalonde said: "We must-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let us hear the question.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: It will come, but I had to put in perspective.


Some hon. members:: Get to it.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Yes, I will, give me just two minutes to finish what I was saying.
The Minister of Finance said: "We must cut expenditures." And Mr. Trudeau, back from Bonn, was making an about-turn, talking about government restraints, imposing them, but in any case, the debt kept piling up.

We are very proud of our lifestyle, but someone has to foot the bill.

How would you reply to that, Madam?


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, certainly I can tell the hon. member that we on Prince Edward Island are very proud of our quality of life. I would invite the hon. member to come to the Island any time and experience firsthand what I am talking about. As far as the-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for question comments has now expired.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do think we have a problem in the House when during the question and comment period, be it a five or ten minute period, members who just spoke and who are supposed to be the object of questioning are subjected to what we just saw. Government members get up to make speeches and extenuating statements which do not give the member who made his speech a chance to reply. I think that is unfair.
Possibly we should refer this whole question back to a committee of the House so we can come up with an answer to the problem which has been with us for the last while. Indeed questions and comments have to be short questions and short comments. Otherwise, the whole process of making a debate in this House is
March 8, 1990

becoming a monologue for the government to put its propaganda on the record, and I object to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I understand the hon. member's reaction very well. However, I feel that he should also realize that for some time, when we consider bills like this one, for example, the various parties have the habit or prefer dividing the 20-minute period into two 10-minute periods, which in fact leaves only a 5-minute period for speakers to answer questions or comments following their speech.
I think that the hon. member would agree with me that a 5-minute period is really very short for everyone to have a chance to express themselves.
The hon. member for Malpeque (Ms. Callbeck) took a little more than 10 minutes, which I let her do to finish her speech. We had two minutes for the first exchange and then three minutes.
Obviously, I think that everyone would gain if the period for questions and comments following a speech was really used for short questions and short comments followed by short answers as well.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr.   Maurice@: Madam Speaker, a few minutes ago, there was a motion to continue the debate. I was very kindly asked to make a contribution, and I therefore welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the latest Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance because-I won't be long-it is an excellent Budget and you will see why.
First, somewhere in the Budget it says, and I quote the conclusion:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What page?


Maurice Tremblay: Just a minute, I will get the text if I could just have a few seconds. On page 16 of the French text, in the conclusion, it says in the first sentence, Madam Speaker:
A nation's true sovereignty is determined by the ability of its
people to shape their own future.
The Budget


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sounds great!


Maurice Tremblay: Yes, it does, and this reminds me of the upcoming press conference with your former prime minister on March 20. He says-the press is already reporting his comments-that the Free Trade Agreement is a worse threat to our sovereignty.
Speaking of the Americans, I will try to be objective about this. According to an American sociologist, the Constitution of 1982 is a worse threat to Canadian sovereignty. Not the Constitution as such but the fact that we enshrined the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When we compare American and Canadian institutions, we see that here in Canada, with its Anglo-Saxon tradition in our institutions, here in the House of Commons, for instance, we have a collective hierarchy where rights and privileges are given collectively. In the United States they have the Bill of Rights and the emphasis is on amendments and individual claims. In this particular area, however, Canadians have been assimilated to a far greater extent. Taking a closer look at the Machiavellian schemes of your former prime minister, his purpose in enshrining the Charter was to direct challenges against Quebec's Bill 101.
Madam Speaker, that being said, what damaged our sovereignty most is the deplorable state in which the economy was left by the Liberal Party in 1984.
As I said to the hon. member for Restigouche-Cha-leur, remember that in 1968, because history is important-To plan for the future, we must understand the past. In 1968, a hundred years after Confederation, our national debt was $18 billion. No annual deficit. No constitutional problems. Everybody was part of the constitutional family. The country was in fine fettle. At the time, we were paying 12 cents on every tax dollar to service the debt and we even had enough to pay back part off part of the capital. After 1968, the first time the Liberal Government incurred a deficit was in 1975. Five years later, in 1980, we had a record annual deficit of $11.5 billion. From 1980 to 1984, the previous government went from bad to worse. No cutbacks, certainly not! It increased government spending at an average rate of 15.1 per cent annually, when it already had a deficit of $11.5 billion in 1980. Since 1984, we have managed to bring this average rate down to 5.2 per cent.

March 8, 1990
The Budget
What is even more astonishing, Madam Speaker, is that if we do not include the cost of servicing the debt, the previous government increased program spending at an average rate of 13.9 per cent, and this was only for its operating budget. All those election goodies were part of the 13.9 per cent. Since 1984, however, we have managed to keep increases in program spending down to an average of 3.5 per cent. This year, the increase will be only 3 per cent, well below the rate of inflation.
From $11.5 billion in 1980, the annual deficit grew to $38.3 billion in 1984. This was too much for Canadians. After 100 years we had a deficit of $18 billion. In 1984, it was up to $38.3 billion. When we consider the operating budget alone, without the cost of servicing the debt, it is a real disaster. The operating budget indicates what the government collects in the form of taxes and income tax, and what it spends.
In 1984, the operating budget plus interest charges amounted to a deficit of $38.3 billion, but the operating budget alone showed a deficit of $16 billion.
In 1989-90, we turned this operating deficit of $16 billion into an operating surplus of more than $9 billion, and in fact we did this two years in a row. In the 1990 Budget we are forecasting a surplus of $13 billion for next year's operating budget. Granted, we still have a deficit of $30.5 billion. It is simple arithmetic. With the debt you left us in 1984, and this was $38.5 billion annually, a cumulative $200 billion since 1975-imagine, in ten years, less than ten years, $200 billion worth of debt! If we consider our present debt, $350 billion, $120 billion of that goes to service it, so over the past five years, 80 per cent of our debt consisted of the cost of servicing it. How can you accuse us of doubling the debt when today, Canadians are not really getting their money's worth, because they are paying the bill in tax dollars, and besides, we have an operating surplus of over $9 billion. I don't know whether you are good at arithmetic, but we mentioned earlier what percentage of the debt actually consists of interest charges.
Can you imagine, we would need a budget surplus in excess of $40 billion! And if ever we reached that level the deficit by then would be well over $600 or $700 billion! You have not even an inkling of the predicament your government left us in, yet today you have the nerve to tell us we doubled the deficit. As a matter of fact we
will double it again in the next few years because, if you attended school long enough, you must have learned that we operate in a compound-interest environment. As if this were not enough, remember that when we attempted to reduce some programs-like de-indexing old age pensions-we were faced with endless protests, parades and demonstrations accusing us of being heartless slashers. You never did co-operate-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I should like to remind the hon. member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair rather than directly to his colleagues. I have tried to be discreet about it. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Maurice Tremblay: With pleasure, Madam Speaker. It is all the more pleasant to look at and address such an understanding person.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, not only did we double the deficit the Liberals left us-from $200 billion in 1984 to $400 billion in the not too distant future-but in all likelihood we will double it over again even before we begin repaying the capital, given the unimaginable debt the Liberal Party saddled us with. First things first, we have to pay the interests on the debt if we want to pay back the capital. Still we must go on and this is what I have in mind when I talk about an operating budget. In the last two years and over a five-year period we went from minus $16 billion to plus $9 billion. We have a surplus right now. That is the kind of thing which bears repeating. For five years now we have been criticized for every cut-back, yet now we are told we have doubled the deficit. Well, Canadians deserve an explanation. The fact is that the belt-tightening approach of the government has now given us credibility on the international scene, and we want to put a light at the end of the tunnel so we will eventually pull out of the doldrums. Lets us face it, one or two generations will not be enough to restore the country back to the healthy condition the Liberal Party found it, for example from 1968 to 1975 and even 1980 when they were in power. Madam Speaker, a few generations of Canadians will be needed to help us reach that ideal situation.
Throughout the budget debate a good many references have been made to the reduced payments to the provinces, and just a moment ago the hon. member for Malpeque (Mrs. Callbeck) had a lot to say about that. The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur (Mr. Arse-neault) also mentioned that the federal government was
March 8, 1990

"passing the buck" by shifting its deficit to the provinces. As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, I obviously am from the province of Quebec. We must see things in the proper perspective. Again, since 1984 when we took power, the increases in transfer payments to the provinces have so far always been about 6.5 per cent. This year, the Finance Minister said that for the 40 federal departments, the spending increase, not the cuts, but the spending increase would be about 3 per cent. The same goes for the provinces. The hon. member for Malpeque just said, "Yes, but we had long-term programs planned, which means that we have to readjust." Look, we have an annual budget and that is what the provinces and their finance ministers as well as the Minister of Finance of Canada have to work within.
Do you know, Madam Speaker, how much we pay annually in transfers for the three main programs to the province of Quebec? It is about $10 billion. Bringing the increase from 6.5 per cent to 3 per cent this year will save about $221 million. But this saving must, again, be taken in context: the transfers will still increase, but by 3 per cent, not 6.5 per cent or so, the same as for all departments.
We must remember that the transfers to the provinces are for three main programs: for equalization, it is a very complex formula which is applied in full. The second program is the Canada Assistance Plan. The province of Quebec will have no reduction for these two programs because, unfortunately, Quebec is considered a poor province for this purpose. So those two transfer programs have no cuts. The $221 million affect the third program which is the Cash and Thx Point Program. For the province of Quebec $221 million represent 0.6 per cent of the Quebec Government's expenditures during the last fiscal year, or 0.7 per cent of their last estimates. So when they refer to unloading into provincial yards, things must be put back into context. This is unfortunate, because Quebec is a wrong example in the sense that as far as spending growth is concerned, and this is why I put the question to my colleague from Prince Edward Island, the growth rate in Quebec is in the order of 4-4 1/2 per cent. This is not outlandish as compared to Ontario's 9 1/2-10 per cent growth rate. What I mean is, provinces also are part of the problem.
The Budget
A majority of them spent more than the inflation rate, and the Minister of Finance has led or intends to lead back provinces, which also is the aim of the exercise, to a program spending growth rate that is more appropriate to the state of the economy. Because if the predictions made by the Minister of Finance are accurate and the economy resumes a normal cruising rate, who will benefit if not the provinces? It is therefore important in this exercise that not only Canadians as such but also institutions, governments also do their share, ensure that citizens are aware of the enormity of the legacy we had to tackle, willy nilly. It is not a matter, Madam Speaker, of suggesting how smart and how bright we are, because the figures speak for themselves. From a $16 billion deficit on program expenditures, we have succeeded over five years in achieving a $9 billion surplus, and for next year the forecast is $13 billion. But as you see, we still have a long way to go to level off and then start repaying the principal which-as unbelievable as its may be-will top the $600-$700 billion mark. Imagine the interest rate on that level of debt!
Madam Speaker, when they speak of forfeiting sovereignty, this is first and foremost what is implied-the economic situation. And when they suggest that in spite of what the Minister of Finance said that there is not tax increase they keep referring back to the GST, Madam Speaker, everyone knows and you know in particular that tax reform, this new goods and services tax is aimed essentially not at creating a new tax per cent but at replacing the existing federal sales tax which would you imagine has been around since 1924, and which, as early as 1944, was the target of a royal commission report calling on the government of the day to amend it, to abolish it and to reform it.
For over 45 years, governments have been trying to replace this unfair and inadequate taxation system with a new one. That is the purpose of the GST. Let us not forget that Canada is essentially an exporting nation; 80 to 85 per cent of everything we make is exported to countries with a GST-like system. Producers in those countries are not penalized by a domestic sales tax like ours. How can we put our own manufacturers at a disadvantage when we are essentially an exporting coun-

March 8, 1990
The Budget
try? It is contrary to common sense. If ridicule could kill, Liberals would have disappeared long ago.
We are trying to return to a rational economy and to promote our national growth by allowing Canadians to compete on a level playing field. This is how we will create more jobs for our people who, as workers and consumers, will pay a consumption tax.
The solution is not imposing a surtax on four or five products such as gas, tobacco and alcohol which are now taxed at up to 84 per cent. This shows a definite lack of imagination in finding new ways of taxing people. Our present tax is unfair and inadequate, since most of our trading partners have this form of taxation. It is called for, particularly in light of the current free-trade policy and the opening of world markets. It is important that this government act responsibly and offer the Canadian people an adequate tax reform leading to the prosperity we all want.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for his speech and his energy. I also wish to make a few comments. If my colleague would look at table V on page 142 of the Budget document, he would see that in 1984, when his party took power, personal income tax represented 41.3 per cent of total government revenues, whereas now it is up to 44.3 per cent. On the other hand, corporate income tax went down from 13.2 per cent to 11.3 per cent. Personal income taxes went up while corporate income taxes went down.
I agree with the hon. member that we have a problem with our debt our deficit but I also think that the solution-and I don't believe that the government is insensitive-is not to cut social programs. That is absolutely unnecessary. There are other solutions to consider.
My first question is simple: Can you explain that table? My second question is related to International Women's Day. I would like you to explain why $1.4 million has been cut from the Women's program as announced in the Budget this week.


Maurice Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I do indeed thank the Hon. Member for Restigouche-Chaleur for his question, because caution is required when we deal with figures. Of course, between 1984 and 1988, there was an increase from $41 billion to $44 billion, and we know why. It is
clear. The Government is faced with a huge debt. It is compelled to raise taxes. The Government did not invent anything. But it has discovered a new way to collect revenues.
That is the interesting part. In the second column, under "Corporate income tax", the budgetary revenues went down, as he said, from 13,2 to 11,3. As you know, madam Speaker, we have tried very hard to reform our tax system by eliminating a great many loopholes. A great many more corporations are being taxes: On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that corporations, under a capitalist system, must show profits. Just the same, if we raised the tax rate to 25 per cent instead of 13 per cent, corporations would charge consumers 26 per cent, because they need to show at least a one per cent profit. Otherwise, they close down.
This is the difficult challenge the Minister of Finance had to face and he did it in an outstanding fashion by lowering the tax rate to make our corporations more competitive, while widening its scope, by eliminating the loopholes and by taking into account the consumers' ability to pay.
Finally, I must say I am as unhappy as he is about the $1,4 million cut to the women's centres. In my own riding, Madam Speaker, there are three women's centres whose representatives came to my office asking what they were going to do. I told them that clearly, as citizens, they had to carry their share of the burden. But theirs are not the only cut in the budget. There are 39 other departments.
Except that, and it is very important, that is where the Hon. Member should take action. Personally, we shall try first of all to show some imagination in dealing with these women's needs which we know and are aware of. We must achieve a balance between our ability to pay and our desire to provide deserving programs which we perhaps cannot afford.
As far as women are concerned, I can tell you that I have been in touch with the two Ministers concerned, namely, the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and we are going to make use of other programs to make sure that the women's centres, at least in my own riding remain as unchanged as possible.
March 8, 1990


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I want to participate in this debate even though I am not usually accustomed to participating in budget debates for several reasons. I know there are many colleagues on both sides of the House who would see themselves as being much better informed and more competent to participate in this debate.
I believe this debate is of particular importance to the country and to all Canadians. I think it is important because it represents, if you like, the fruition of a long process of trying to retrieve fiscal and financial responsibility in this country, a responsibility which started to slip away many years ago under the previous government.
I am not going to spend a great deal of time this afternoon talking about that because I think it has been well documented by many of my colleagues. I do want to make the point very clearly regarding the situation which faced this new government back in 1984.1 was not a member of the House at that time, but an observer. I could see that the situation was one which was most unpalatable. It is set out very clearly in the budget document recently produced by the Minister of Finance where he sets out that five years ago program spending exceeded revenues by some $16 billion. I wonder how it can be that members opposite who were part of that government or supporters of that government can, with such alacrity, criticize this budget for attempting to re-establish fiscal responsibility on the heels of the kind of legacy left to this House and to this country.
In the five intervening years, we have seen a shortfall on program spending revenues of $16 billion being converted to a $9 billion surplus. That means a turnaround of some $25 billion in just five years or an average of $5 billion a year.
I cannot, for the life of me, think why many people on all sides of this House are not applauding what is an extraordinary turnaround with respect to the financial management of this country.
When I listen to members opposite complaining from the time this budget was delivered that too much has been done in this area, methinks they do complain too much, that they are going for what many people in public
The Budget
life often do, a kind of short term political response which will, in effect, produce real long term damage.
If we were to take seriously the comments made over the past few days on this budget debate-and the comments have been consistent, I have not read or followed each and every speech but comments like too much of this has been cut and too much of that has been cut-I wonder what kind of a budget we would have ended up with? That same dreary criticism has been repeated over and over again during the course of the past five years as this government has tried to put the financial management of this country in order.
I want to say to all members that while a lot has been said and written about the last election, in which I did participate, about what was the key motivating factor that produced a second majority for this party, I firmly believe that the underlying cause was responsibility, responsibility for the financial management of this country. That is the issue that needs to be addressed in this debate, not the specificity of one particular program cut or change as against another but in fact the bottom line responsibility of this government. I have heard far too little. In fact, I have heard virtually nothing spoken to that matter.
On page 1 of the budget, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote:
Every additional dollar of deficit we incur today means an increased burden of debt for future generations. We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren. To build for them, not to borrow from them.
Surely that is the underlying theme of this budget. I would say that there is no member on our side of the House who is happy with each and every aspect of this budget. We have just heard my colleague from Lotbi-niere state his concern about the program cut on one particular aspect. We have heard others. We have heard almost repeatedly in Question Period and in debate. It may even be that over the course of the next few months and years there may be ways found to cushion or find new support for programs that are well worth continuing.
Fundamentally, what is at issue here is whether or not the country will have the capacity to deliver on all the programs to all the millions of people, provinces, regions and territories for which we have ongoing responsibility. If we give up for the sake of one, two, a dozen, or even 100 specific criticisms, we forfeit the right to govern

March 8, 1990
because we do not exercise our responsibility in any kind of sensible or acceptable manner.
I have to say, as one who has sat here in opposition through half of the 1960s and virtually almost all of the 1970s, that is what we witnessed. We had to try to recover from that terrible legacy of financial and fiscal neglect.
The Minister of Finance said at page 13 of the budget, and I quote:
I have stated on many occasions that it would be irresponsible of our generation if we took the easy option of simply passing our deficit burden to our children. It would also be irresponsible to leave them a legacy of environmental neglect.
These are the two issues which concern me mightily about this budget and this debate, whether it is one of fiscal neglect or environmental neglect, I believe the basis of this budget is a firm foundation for the future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members under Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join with Canadian women and men on International Women's Day to celebrate the many achievements and contributions of women to our society.
Over the years, women's struggle for their rights as workers, mothers and citizens have helped bring about landmark political and social reforms.
Since our government's mandate began, our partnership with women and women's groups has resulted in many social reforms. Senior women have seen a substantial improvement in their standard of living and quality of life. They have benefited from pension reforms designed to ensure women's fair and equitable treatment in their later years.
Policies initiated by our government have also helped to provide women with opportunities to more actively participate in the economic life of the country and to contribute to its economic prosperity.
I applaud the efforts of Canadian women in bringing these and other issues of concern to the forefront. I believe that such efforts will continue to enhance the status of women and strengthen their important role in Canadian society.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tbanscona):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the present session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights draws to a close, and it appears that it will once again pass without producing a resolution on the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.
Despite repeated endorsement by the UN of the right of self-determination and in glaring contrast to the United Nations General Assembly declaration for the 1990s to be the UN Decade for International Law, the Canadian government refuses to condemn Indonesia's actions and show leadership in support of the rights of the East Timorese people, turning a blind eye to massive human rights abuses-abuses which have included a forced sterilization program against East Timorese women.
Tomorrow also marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. As a new spirit of independence and self-determination sweeps the world, for example as it has in Southern Africa and the Baltic states, it is shameful that the Chinese occupation of Tibet continues without significant international attention being paid, as is likewise the case with East Timor.
In both cases, Canadian silence should end, and Canadian respect for international law should be revived.


FORESTRY
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the future of this country depends on our ability to implement sustainable development policies which will protect our resources in years to come. To date, we have seen no commitment from this government, and
March 8, 1990

judging from recent reports, it is unlikely that we will see one. The government's lack of commitment to reforestation in this country is shameful. It has still not renewed the forestry agreement with the province of Ontario.
In 1985, more than $75 million was spent by the federal government over four years to regenerate our forests in northern Ontario. Now it appears that Ontario's forests will get a small slice of the $40 million this government has offered for regional development.
This government has stalled long enough. It is time for it to make a real commitment to regional development and to our forests. I urge the government to renew the Canada-Ontario Forest Resource Agreement immediately and to provide the necessary funding to get the job done. It is time the government put its money where its mouth is.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of New Brunswick announced the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway.
As we all realize, the future prosperity of New Brunswick depends upon a good transportation system. Confidence in the economic future of my province is on the rise, and yesterday's announcement clearly indicates this confidence and, yes, confidence in where we as a nation are going.
Quoting Premier McKenna: "We simply must have financial support from the Government of Canada to finish our upgrading project. I believe the federal government will participate in our efforts to upgrade our major highways."
I support the premier's remarks and point to the budget before this House which will assist the province of New Brunswick to realize its full potential.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, on this 8th day of March, the International Women's Day, those 52 per cent of the Canadian population will have an opportunity once more to show
this Conservative Government they oppose the regressive goods and services tax, the GST. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday next, from March 12 to March 16, we Canadian women, our families and friends can register our opposition and say no to the tax through an electronic petition. The all important phone number to remember is 1-900-720-6052.
I therefore ask each and everyone to dial 1-900-720-6052 and say no to this Conservative Government. We will have none of your GST.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to rise on the occasion of the International Women's Day to pay tribute to all women in my constituency, in Canada and throughout the world and say how much I am proud of Canada's role as a world leader in promoting women's rights.
Our presence for a third consecutive term on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women strengthens our international role. Now working in a special, extended session in Vienna, the Commission is reviewing the implementation of the prospective action strategies for promoting women that were approved in Nairobi and endorsed by all Members of the United Nations during the World Women Conference held in 1985. Canada played a key role in approving the strategies and is actively pursuing their successful implementation.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's commitment to promoting women throughout the world will go a step further in October next when we host the third Commonwealth Conference of Ministers responsible for the status of women. Three cheers for women!



Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day was first celebrated 80 years ago today at the International Conference of Socialist Women. It is a day inspired by the struggles of working-class women who went on strike in the early part of the century to protest dangerous working condi-

March 8, 1990
tions and exploitive wages. Today the struggle continues for economic, social and political equality.
In Canada, the government has chosen to commemorate International Women's Day by scheduling a budget debate in this House, a budget in which women's centre funding is cut 100 per cent and the funding mechanism for social assistance, for child care, and for shelters for battered women is strangled in three provinces of this country.
On International Women's Day, this government should implement its international commitments as a signatory to the United Nations treaties, not just talk about them, implement them to improve the status of women in Canada. It should not be undermining women's equality in Canada and misrepresenting itself at the international level.



Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, since today, March 8, is International Women's Day, we have the opportunity of drawing attention to women's status, accomplishments, concerns and expectations. 1990 is a significant year for women as we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Quebec women's right to vote. The government has made women's equality one of its priorities. The Employment Equity Act, the reform of the Divorce Act, the employment programs exclusively for women are but a few examples of the numerous initiatives taken to improve the lives of women in Canada.
International Women's Day is also a time to think of the work we still have to do to attain equality in every sector and to eliminate all remaining forms of discrimination.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on this day designated International Women's Day, there are a myriad of issues that need to be addressed. However, I would like to take this opportunity to focus on violence against women.
Women, who make up half of the world's population and work two-thirds of the world's work hours, constitute the highest number of the world's poor and abused. They are clearly undervalued economically, socially, and many times as human beings.
Violence against women, which includes assault, mutilation, murder, infanticide, rape and cruel neglect, is perhaps the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights issue in the world. It is also a profound health problem, robbing women of their physical and emotional well-being, both vital to achieving widely held goals for human progress, especially in the Third World. Study after study has shown that women's sense of self is critical in reducing infant mortality and to birth spacing.
Violence against women cuts across all cultures and all socioeconomic groups. In Canada, at least one in eight, or as many as one million Canadian women every year are abused by men with whom they are living. Yet we see the Conservative government not only cutting the women's programs but cutting some 80 women's centres that provide support and information to battered and sexually assault women, and to jobless, illiterate and homeless women across Canada.
Women are targets of violence because of their sex, and it remains a powerful obstacle to human progress. Measured by human costs alone, female violence is worthy of international attention and action, but has seldom been raised at that level, much less addressed.
Setting aside a day to recognize women is important symbolically, but without action it is rendered pointless and ineffective. I call on this government to stop paying lip service to women's rights and reinstate funding vital to Canadian women and to press the international community to recognize violence against women as an important human rights issue.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today, International Women's Day, is particularly significant this year since women will celebrate three important events in 1990: the 20th anniversary of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of the equality clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
March 8, 1990

Freedoms, and the 50th anniversary of Quebec women's right to vote.
Today I am proud to emphasize the priority our government gives to women's economic and social development. Some of our initiatives show our serious commitment to women's progress: a 100 per cent increase in the number of women in decision-making jobs in the federal public service, the appointment of two women to the Supreme Court of Canada, the introduction of a pay equity program and now, for the first time in our history, a woman has just been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this International Women's Day is designed to remind us all of the importance of equality and equity for women, a principle our government is strongly committed to.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the late seventies, a Manitoban was seriously harmed when a confidential Department of Transport report found its way into the files of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
Mr. Ken Podolsky had been involved in a serious accident in 1976 and was cleared of responsibility by an RCMP investigation.
However, based on the Transport Canada report, a study to find out more about this kind of accident, and which guaranteed confidentiality and which was for the department's use only, the corporation came to the conclusion that Mr. Podolsky was 75 per cent responsible for the accident.
In a letter to me, the former Minister of Transport indicated that it is not clear how this report was released. I believe that the Minister of Transport has a responsibility to find out how this information got into the wrong hands. I would ask him to undertake a review of this case immediately. Canadians need to know that when their government guarantees confidentiality, it is a guarantee that can be trusted, that can be counted on.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, this House often pauses to recognize distinguished or well-known Canadians who have died. On Sunday, a young Cree woman from Saskatchewan died in the prison for women in Kingston. She committed suicide. She was the third young, Saskatchewan woman in the prison for women who has committed suicide in the last year.
Two years after this institution was built in 1933, the first report that called for the end to this institution and the closing of it was published. Subsequently, there have been 10 reports that have called for its closure.
I ask the government and the new Solicitor General to make a firm commitment today on International Women's Day that this institution will be closed forthwith and that no longer will the women of Canada and the people of Canada have to put up with this institution. It is a national disgrace and it is time it was closed.


CHILD CARE SERVICES
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, on March 2,1 had the honour to announce, in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), a contribution to the Saint-Jerome junior college under the Child Care Special Initiatives Fund. The money will be used by the CEGEP de Saint-Jerome to conduct its innovative project on video feedback aimed at developing a self appraisal method for day care workers. The workers would be able to monitor their interaction with children and to evaluate their own work.
The instruments will be tested in five day care centres.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the CEGEP de Saint-Jerome is the first French speaking junior college in the Quebec to offer a program for day care workers. The funded project shows once again that college's dynamic contribution to the improvement of day care services.

March 8, 1990
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. As we all know, today is International Women's Day. It marks the progress women have made in overcoming barriers to their full equality, but it shows the extent to which those barriers still remain. Nowhere is this more evident than in the gap between the rhetoric of the government and its actions when it comes to support for women.
In its most recent budget, the government cut some $1.6 million from its women's program. Yet it had the nerve to send across Canada a glossy, expensive poster on International Women's Day. As Carol Greene of Canadian Women's Studies said: "The cost of this one poster project could have kept one women's centre open for a full year."
I ask the Secretary of State, will he today, this International Women's Day, show that there is some sincerity behind the government's rhetoric and enable the 80 women's centres across Canada to stay open by restoring their funding? Will he do it today? Yes, or no?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, today is indeed International Women's Day and it is a day when we celebrate the progress that women around the world have made over the past 80 years in achieving equality, and nowhere more so than in Canada.
The basic way in which women can achieve true equality is having the opportunity to have jobs. The best way to ensure they have jobs and good paying jobs, is to ensure a healthy economy. This budget is to ensure for the future of women, the future of our children, that they will have that equal opportunity for their own future self-worth and their future economic benefit.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will note that the Secretary of State, who controls the women's program, was not able or willing to stand up and answer my question.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women said that the cuts to women's centres are: "are an attack on the heart of the women's movement".
I ask the Secretary of State, if he and the government are committed at all to women's equality, will he stand up today and say he is restoring the funding for the women's centres that are the heart of the women's movement?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the hon. member understands the progress women are making in this country and the role that this government has played in ensuring that progress.
It is not only the Secretary of State's department which assists in the funding of women's programs. It is all departments of government. It is the $40 million program to assist in reducing family violence. It is the $25 million to assist aboriginal women. The Secretary of State will continue to fund and assist aboriginal women, visible minority women, disabled women through all of its programs, to assist advocacy and education.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, still no answer from the Secretary of State. Canadian women have already given up on the minister responsible for the status of women. It is clear that there is a lot of sound and fury but no action for Canadian women.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition could put the question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: So, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In the last election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians a national child care program, but the government has not kept its promise. In his Budget, the Finance Minister set a ceiling on the funds used by the provinces to provide child care services. He also cut the child care initiative fund from $15 million to $13 million.
I ask the minister why the government did not take the opportunity provided by this International Women's Day to restore these funds, to keep its promise and to
March 8, 1990

announce a national child care program today. Why does it not give such an answer, if it really cares about the interests of women in this country?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I guess one has to expect when the hon. gentleman gets up that he will use a gimmicky sort of question like that to suggest that we should unveil a new national child care strategy because it is International Women's Day.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. members opposite ask questions and then shout down the answers.
The government remains committed to putting in place a national child care program. I would point out to the House that if it were not for the obstruction of the Liberal Party of Canada, that program would be in place today. It died on the Order Paper in the Senate because of the Liberal Party of Canada.
That program will be in place during this Parliament. In addition, we continue to fund child care through the Canada Assistance Plan and through the child care initiatives program. All of these are important measures which have been taken to provide child care for Canadians.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, on a day that celebrates women around the world, it is disheartening that in Canada women are having to fight barriers at the highest level. We recently heard a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada say that the courts are biased against females. Now we have the Secretary of State slashing the budget for women's programs. If that is not enough, we have the President of the Treasury Board refusing to recognize the value of women's work.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister support the efforts of the Human Rights Commissioner of Canada and direct
Oral Questions
Treasury Board to correct the inequities for 70,000 public servants who are being cheated out of thousands of dollars in wages?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that first of all it was this government, not any former government, that made the first moves to correct the pay inequities between males and females in this government.
After five years of a joint study with the unions, and after the unions had walked out of the study, we took action, $317 million in retroactive payments and pay adjustments of $76 million a year to correct those pay inequities that were determined by that study.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am not one to be unfair and to question or put down progress, but I have to say that there is unfinished business.
My supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As the minister knows, on January 23, as he mentioned, the Public Service Commission of Canada withdrew from the joint union-management study of equal pay for work of equal value.
Will the minister co-operate and give his commitment that Treasury Board will recognize all of the recommendations of the five-year joint study prepared by both sides and give those female employees the wage adjustments and the retroactive pay to which they are entitled?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that we had moved to correct the pay inequities, a five-year study with concrete results at the end.
I would like to quote Mr. Yalden of the Canadian Human Rights Commission who, when interviewed, said: "On the substance of this thing, I was pleased, very pleased to see that the government was going to, after five years of talks and studies, put its money where its mouth is: $317 million in back pay is a lot of money and we think that's an excellent move in the right direction." That was stated by the chairman of the commission.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was unfinished business.

March 8, 1990
Oral Questions WOMEN'S PROGRAMS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Figures released yesterday suggested that the government has sunk over $111 million into its program to get the goods and services tax off the ground, some $15 million of that on government propaganda and $85 million on furniture and computers.
This does not seem to make sense to the women of Canada who have seen this same government slash those very programs like social housing, cutting spending on health care, post-secondary education, core funding for women's centres across the country, the very programs that could give Canadian women access to equal opportunities in our society.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to the women of Canada, on International Women's Day, what are the priorities of this government. What are the values of this government? Are computers and propaganda on the goods and services tax more important than equality for women in this society?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the priorities of this government are very clear. My colleague, the minister responsible for the status of women, has stated very clearly the breadth of the women's programs that we have brought in during our term of office, the increase in the funding that has gone to those programs.
At the same time, we do have other obligations that we must look after. One of those is to bring in a goods and services tax so that we can continue to finance the programs that are so important to Canadians whether they are for women, whether they are health and post-secondary education, regional development, or any of the breadth of programs that Canadians look to us as a government to provide.
We are making preparations for the goods and services tax consistent with parliamentary practice for many, many years.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is for the minister responsible for the status of
women. Her government will spend $1.6 million just to renovate a Senate committee room. The same $1.6 million is the amount that the government will cut from women's programs. Forty-one centres will close in Quebec, for example. And the $44,000 that will be spent on the Governor General's limousine would be enough to keep four centres open. How can the minister accept such an order of priorities from her government without crying scandal?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had some concerns about how the Senate is spending money. I am anxious to hear her suggestions as to what we can do about the Senate.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responsible for the status of women.
Clearly, the colleagues of the minister responsible for the status of women do not want to answer to the women of Canada. I ask the minister, how is she going to fulfil her mandate to promote opportunities for equality for women in this society when her government has cut back on social housing, women's programs and on the very jobs that women hold? Women work in women's centres. Women work in child care centres. Women work in native friendship centres.
Will the minister explain how she can fulfil her mandate to the women of Canada?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the leader of the NDP has asked this question.
One of the things that we are celebrating today on International Women's Day is the fact that there are now so many women in positions of influence and authority, and indeed that she is a leader of a major political party in this country.
That is the kind of progress that we want to see for women. We want to see them progress in terms of economic equality. The best way that can help them is to have that healthy economy. In fact, there are one million more women working today in Canada, earning money, being able to be self sufficient, looking after their
March 8, 1990

families, than there were when this government took office in 1984.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: I am going to work with my colleagues to ensure that continues. I am going to work with my colleagues on the issues of family violence.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. This morning we heard from representatives of the National Council on Welfare and the National Anti-Poverty Organization. They stated very clearly that they wanted members of Parliament to vote against the goods and services tax proposal that is before Parliament.
Will the minister admit today clearly that he has misinformed the Canadian people and that, in fact, as studies indicate, as the anti-poverty league indicates and as the National Council on Welfare indicates, families in Canada with incomes under $30,000 will be worse off under his GST proposal than they are now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, I do
not accept that conclusion at all, Mr. Speaker, and we made why very clear in the GST documents.
In the committee meeting this morning did the hon. member put out the alternatives that he has for the goods and services tax? Is he telling the members of the committee that if his party ever got into government it would scrap the goods and services tax? Is that the policy? Or are there going to be some more weasel words in there that they will scrap the Conservatives goods and services tax? Will the Liberals put in another consumption tax?
What about the wealth tax that the member is talking about? Are we going to have a wealth tax? Is that wealth tax going to be on the family farm? Is it going to be on small business, on private homes, on bank accounts? What sort of wealth tax is he proposing? What sort of consumption tax is he proposing? Or is he going to increase income tax rates as he was saying out in Edmonton?
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, although the GST bill has yet to be passed by Parliament, the government has already spent over $100 million on it.
Since in his budget, the Minister announced some pretty dramatic cutbacks in programs for aboriginal people, students, veterans and the woman of this country, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he can justify spending over $100 million on propaganda and planning for a goods and services tax that has been massively rejected by all Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you took careful note of how quickly my colleague ran away from the substance of the GST issue because he did not want to put anything else on the table. As soon as I raise the question of alternatives, he turns tail and starts to talk about the moneys that we are using to prepare for the goods and service tax.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He knows full well that a government has the responsibility to make preparations for legislation that is before the House. That is a practice that has been quite consistent in Parliament for many years. When Parliament is considering legislation it is the responsibility of the operating departments involved to make the preparations, to put the planning in place, to put the assets in place, to be able to fulfil the responsibilities when that tax comes in.
We have made it quite clear that the goods and services tax is a fundamental principle of this government. It was referred to in the Speech from the Throne last year. It has been a part of two budgets and these preparations are very consistent with parliamentary practice and the policies of this government.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the obscene plan to spend in excess of $100 million to set up and sell the GST, the most unpopular policy ever imposed by a Canadian government on its own people.

March 8, 1990
Oral Questions
It has been reported that Revenue Canada has already leased expensive office space across Canada to administer the GST, a tax that has not even been approved by the Parliament.
How can this government, at a time when it is slashing programs for veterans and closing women's centres right across this country, justify wasting taxpayers money to set up expensive offices to house his tax police when this regressive and unfair tax has not even been approved by the Parliament of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw my colleague's attention to the fact that it is not just while this party has been responsible for the government of the country but in the previous Parliament in 1980 to 1984 in the case of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Ikx Act, the Forward Averaging bill, the Share Purchase Tax Credit, the Refundable Business Investment Tax Credit and the increase to the child care expense deduction, the government of the day, the Liberal Party that he supports, made expenditures in anticipation of legislation being passed because a government does have a specific responsibility to do that.
Colleagues have complained about this, but let me refer the hon. member to the Auditor General's report where he said: "The government will need to give the planning for the GST the priority and the resources required to ensure the successful delivery of this major initiative." The successful delivery starts on January 1, 1991 and we must be prepared for that.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister's defence of his government's policies and his own tax policies would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Can the minister tell us whether or not his department has conducted any studies to determine the compliance costs of administering the goods and services tax, what level of non-compliance he expects, and how his own tax police are going to treat those poor, small businessmen and women who run afoul of this ill-conceived, complex and unfair tax? What are you going to do? Is the minister going to-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be interested in knowing that part of the resources that we will be devoting to the goods and services tax are to help Revenue Canada people meet with small business people in their offices to help them understand the goods and services tax, how it affects the cost of their purchases, how it affects the prices of their goods and services so that they can be in a position on January 1 to be able to comply with the tax.
Surely my hon. friend would support this type of assistance to the small business community.


BILL C-43
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has indicated publicly that she is in favour of women being able to determine their own reproductive choices.
On International Women's Day will the minister listen to the women of Canada who are saying to her and to her government that the abortion bill will limit women's access to abortion in this country? Will the minister listen to women's organizations across this country who are saying that women must have the fundamental right to choose whether or not they will bear children, and will she withdraw this criminal legislation?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I question whether the hon. member's question is in order. The bill has had second reading in the House and the government's position on the bill has not changed, notwithstanding the change in the incumbency of the Minister of Justice.
I have made my personal views on reasons for supporting the bill very clear in my speech in the House during the second reading debate and will be pleased to discuss the bill further with the standing committee at the end of its deliberations.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard that the answer to the women of Canada was no, that she will not withdraw that bill. Polls tell us that 62 per cent of Canadians are opposed to this government's plan to recriminalize abortion.
The minister, as I said earlier, is on record as saying that she is in favour of choice for women. The minister,
March 8, 1990

as I said earlier, is on record as saying that she is in favour of choice for women. Is this the ticket to the inner cabinet, compromising one's own personal views?


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame!


Some hon. members:: Withdraw, withdraw!


Some hon. members:: Cheap, cheap.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would know that the implication of that remark is clearly not acceptable in this House because that kind of retort can turn this place into absolute disorder. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, if you deem that it is necessary, yes, I will withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for her supplementary.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, we know that access to reproductive health services is already a problem for women in this country. The Canadian Medical Association has indicated that if this bill passes this House access will become worse for women in Canada, that doctors will be frightened of criminal repercussions. Will the minister on International Women's Day, this week or next week, listen to the women of Canada? Will she listen to the doctors of Canada, and will she withdraw this bill?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the bill is before committee, before the parliamentary process. I think this is hardly a time to engage in a debate in Question Period on the merits of the bill. I have stated very clearly in this House my reason for supporting the bill personally before I became responsible for it. I hold the same opinion now and I will be expressing that same opinion on behalf of the Government of Canada in front of the standing committee.


COMMUNICATIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will recall that last August the Supreme Court ruled that telecommunications falls under federal jurisdiction. He
Oral Questions
will also recall that his government tabled a bill to put that court ruling into effect. Some western provinces were not too happy and Quebec is now sabre-rattling. This is a very key interprovincial field and has now been declared a federal jurisdiction.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to exercise federal leadership to ensure that federal jurisdiction is maintained and ensure that this key sector is not going to be Balkanized or fragmented? When is he going to bring that bill into the House and ensure federal jurisdiction?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the hon. member. As the member knows well, there is a bill before the House now, Bill C-41, which relates to the three prairie provinces. However, the minister has given an undertaking to all his counterparts, including the Quebec minister, that there will be a broad-based telecommunications bill introduced into the House in due course.
It is important that he conclude his consultations with the ministers involved before that is done, particularly the three prairie ministers and indeed, if necessary, the Quebec minister.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the parliamentary secretary that the Prime Minister, who I think has something to say in this country, said we will simply not allow our system of communications to be fragmented and broken up by different regulations.

My question was supposed to be directed to the Minister of Communications, who seems to have forgotten his commitment to a national telecommunications policy, made when he was appointed Minister of Communications five years ago. My question is this: What is the minister's policy? Did the parliamentary secretary say-? We are still waiting. And meanwhile, will the bill to implement federal jurisdiction be passed? Why is the minister dragging his feet? Whom is he trying to accommodate and why?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, when the minister announced the new Canadian telecommunications policy last October, he said that in the months to come he would table a bill to implement this policy which is based

March 8, 1990
Oral Questions
on a unique federal regulatory system. The bill is almost ready to be tabled.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


MINING INDUSTRY
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Finance Minister's budget terminated a $126 million mining incentive program, breaking a 1988 promise to maintain the Canadian exploration incentive program until the end of 1990.
Why has the minister's government broken its promise and why is it turning its back on the Canadian mining industry?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member asked me that question because yesterday in a question to me she said that this year's energy Estimates show that a $246 million cut for conservation and alternate energy was in place.
Quite frankly, the hon. member was wrong, dead wrong. I do not know what kind of research she does, but the following were the cuts in the Estimates: There was a change to CDIP, which was the forerunner of CEIP, of $215 million; there was a change to CEIP of $20 million, and that goes back to the question she asked today. There were others relating to energy savings in alternate energy, which had been announced 18 months before, of some $10 million.
Suddenly the $10 million mushroomed yesterday to $246 million. The hon. member was dead wrong then and her numbers today on CEIP are also wrong.


Catherine S. Callbeck: I certainly would like to have a copy of those figures, because we researched this very thoroughly.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. The government not only breached a promise, but a legislative guarantee. Why did the minister not provide the required legislated six months notice provided for in the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act to exploration firms before cancelling the program?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to send the hon. member those figures. She will find them in the Estimates tabled by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. members:: Yesterday.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, I was asked the question yesterday, that is correct. It was wrong yesterday and it is wrong today. I guess if she insists on it, it will be wrong again tomorrow.
On CEIP, the effective date was February 19. The Minister of Finance and I are looking at examples of those who are caught within the framework regarding how we can handle the obligations they have in the market-place. We will grandfather it.
Obviously, this comes down to one issue. By the way, if the hon. member reads the various editorial comments, most importantly in The Northern Miner, she will find that even people who know the mining industry, who are in the mining industry, who first of all criticized CEIP, then said that we should get rid of CEIP because it was not working and often seen more as a tax saving process than actual work for the industry. It is for those reasons that it has been done and it is for those reasons we will grandfather it in a fair way.


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have two suggestions that will not cost her a cent and will help women greatly.
Despite Canada's support for UN conventions that oppose discrimination, she will know that immigrant and visible minority women in Canada still experience double discrimination right here in Canada. Domestic workers face exploitation and abuse and low paid jobs with little time off and no future.
Will the minister introduce enforcement mechanisms to protect domestics from abusive employers? Will she also make it easier for domestics to become landed immigrants?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member is a little bit out of date. As I have announced publicly, we have already undertaken a review of the foreign domestic program. The foreign domestic program is an improvement over the kind of entry level job that we had before it was introduced. It is not working as well as this government would like it to work even though there is provision in the program for upgrading of

training and landing of people who come as domestics. I want to improve the program further.
We have undertaken extensive consultations with immigrant women's groups across Canada, including a couple of groups from the hon. member's own city. I hope to be announcing changes to the program in the not too distant future.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister that women's groups indeed are still writing of their concern in this area and we want action. Today would have been an ideal day to have that action.
Immigrant women who need language training while they are at home with their young children find that the Settlement Language Training Program of the minister's department is a good program but is really too selective in choosing participants and training programs lack continuity.
Will the minister consult immigrant women's groups about this matter and will she adopt guidelines to make this important program more effective?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again this is a program that was introduced by this government. Language training for women who remained at home was something that had not existed before. It was introduced as a pilot project and is in the process of becoming a permanent program with additional funding. We will continue, as we have from the beginning, to consult with immigrant women's groups across Canada to ensure that we continue to make it better.
Let me remind the hon. member that the programs for women, and particularly immigrant women and women in some of the more sensitive areas of doubly disadvantaged groups, are not something one waves a banner for on International Women's Day. They are something we work at every single day, all year long.
Oral Questions EQUALITY OF WOMEN


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women. Since 1984 women in this country have been looking to this government for leadership in establishing a greater degree of equality and fairness in our society. Can the minister tell this House what this government has done and what this government is prepared to do to help the women of Canada attain the equality they seek and deserve?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Unfortunately it would take me an hour to outline the kinds of initiatives that this government has taken and will be taking to ensure equality.
Let me just mention a couple taken in the last five years, things that I have been involved in as a Member of Parliament which I think have been terribly important. There were the amendments to the Indian Act to give native women back their rights. There were the amendments to the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act to ensure that we can go after those who abandon their families. There has been the introduction of employment equity. We have heard today from the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the work for immigrant women.
There are a whole variety of initiatives, legislation and actions which we have undertaken and will continue to undertake to ensure women's equality in this country.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister asked for the facts. Well, they are clear and they are on the record. The Chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, Peter Lush, admits that he is in a conflict of interest. He has declared that he would not have become a commissioner if it meant giving up his exclusive listings which the harbour commissioner was interested in.

March 8, 1990
Oral Questions
Why doesn't the minister advise the Prime Minister to put Mr. Lush out of his misery and call for his resignation?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat the suggestion I made yesterday. If my hon. friend, who wishes to slander people within this House, has evidence of a conflict of interest why doesn't he present it to me and I will look into it?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling Canadians that an appointed commissioner can also be an exclusive agent for property the Harbour Commission wants to buy. In effect, this minister is telling Canadians, "Listen boys, you can have your cake and you can eat it too".
How can the minister assert that such behaviour meets the Prime Minister's standards regarding conflict of interest?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there was an allegation of conflict of interest at an earlier time which was fully examined and vetted by the counsel for the Harbour Commission and it was found that there was no conflict of interest.
If my hon. friend has evidence of a conflict of interest, why does he not go outside the door, why doesn't he leave his parliamentary immunity and go outside and make that allegation? Make the allegation outside.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House assume that the appointment of a new Minister of Industry, Science and Technology signals a major change in government policy. We congratulate the new minister on his promotion. We only hope that industry does not go the way of the VTA Rail.
Last year, foreigners took over a record 376 Canadian corporations in the first nine months alone. Last year, foreign companies brought into Canada $3.4 billion, but they took out over $22 billion in interest and dividends alone.
When is this government going to say no? When is it going to stop this fire sale of Canadian companies? When is it going to stop this haemorrhaging of Canada?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I particularly appreciate the word "promotion". We never know in this job whether it is a promotion or a demotion.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) Investment Canada which, as the hon. member knows very well, deals with any foreign investment in Canada has done a very good job since 1985 and it will continue to do so. In the case to which my hon. friend refers, he knows very well that the Energy Board of Ontario has also to give its consent. I believe that it would be normal practice to await the recommendation of both before making a decision.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, as for Investment Canada's record, since it was formed in July of 1985 there has been not one single turndown. The score card now reads: Foreigners, 789; Canadians, zero.
Is there one single Canadian company that this government is not prepared to see fall into the hands of foreigners?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the hon. member is wrong in his assertion that Investment Canada has not refused any investment proposals. During the two years that Investment Canada proceeded under the Liberal Party there was no major refusal either.


SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and I want to congratulate her on her appointment as Minister of Justice.
Four years ago this week, the Conservative government responded to the unanimous report of the Special Committee on Equality Rights by promising that the government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground
March 8, 1990

of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
In view of the fact that lesbians and gay men continue to be victims of discrimination, of harassment and of increasing levels of violence, and in view of the recent call by the ad hoc parliamentary committee on AIDS for urgent action on this recommendation, when will the minister's government finally move to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes on my appointment.
The hon. member will be aware that the Canadian Human Rights Act is now under a comprehensive review in the Department of Justice. My tenure in the department is not sufficiently long that I am able to give him a full report on the status of that review.
I think it is important to point out that the government's commitment in 1986 with respect to sexual orientation was to do whatever is required. The government has taken the position that it is covered by Section 15 of the Charter.
I hope to report further on the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act as soon as it is ready to be reported to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplemental, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, of course Section 15 of the Charter does not apply within federal private jurisdiction.
My supplementary question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister responsible for the status of women.
The minister knows that the Canadian Armed Forces has a policy of overt discrimination against lesbians and gay men. The minister herself, as a member of the equality rights committee in 1985, condemned that policy.
In view of this discriminatory policy, when will the Government of Canada finally move to end discrimination based on sexual orientation within the Canadian Armed Forces? When will the Armed Forces follow the
Business of the House
lead of the RCMP and stop discriminating against men and women who happen to be lesbians or gay?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that it was my predecessor in this position who suspended certain aspects of that policy pending a governmentwide review of policy on this issue.
As my colleague has indicated, that review is still under way. Of course, when it is completed, our department will be involved in it and will be responsible for implementing the results of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Opposition would like to ask the usual business question. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: You
have read my mind, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the government House leader- [English]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member speaking to me said: "You have read my mind". I thought to myself, I do it all the time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You must be getting headaches. [Translation]
I would like to ask the government House leader what business he will bring to the House next week. Can he tell us what business he intends to bring to the House tomorrow, next week and until Thursday, if possible?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will complete debate on the budgetary policy, and tomorrow, Friday, we will begin debate, at the report stage, on Bill C-5, and then proceed to second reading of Bill C-57.
Next week, I intend to proceed with government order No. 21 concerning Bill C-21, and then with debate, at the report stage, on Bill C-48.

March 8, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
Next Thursday will be an allotted day.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the government's announcement concerning the business for Monday next when I take it we will be dealing with the message from the Senate concerning Bill C-21.
I should like to make a request of the government, and I do this in good faith. A notice to the House is usually given with respect to every government initiative that I know of. The notice to the House gives the government's position or what the motion will be. Thus there is notice given to the members of this House as to the position to be debated.
In the case of the message here, I think it is quite acceptable that it has been the tradition of the House that the minister speaking first in the debate will speak to the message given by the Senate and then will propose a motion at the end of his remarks, at which time opposition members and those other members interested have to respond.
For the sake of good and possibly more effective debate, would the minister be willing to give notice tomorrow on the Order Paper of the government's position vis-a-vis the message from the Senate so that we can adjust our speeches accordingly?


Harvie Andre: If we could have assurances of good and meaningful debate, I would give the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition all the notice in the world. However, I see no advantage in terms of accomplishing what we want to accomplish by trying to surprise the House by way of the contents of that motion. I will endeavour to give as much warning as I possibly can in terms of that motion.
Suffice it to say it will not be that we accept the amendments from the Senate. However, I will endeavour to supply the details as soon as possible, quite probably tomorrow. There is no desire on my part to keep it as a surprise until Monday.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader indicate to us whether one of the items that will be before Parliament next week, in addition to the items that he has already raised, would be the introduction of the legislation promised by the Minister of the Environment dealing
with the environmental assessment review process. Will that be tabled next week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that it will be done next week. I can give him the assurance that the Minister of the Environment is proceeding with it as quickly as possible and we will bring it forward as quickly as possible. I cannot assure him that it will be ready next week.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, March 5, 1990, the hon. member for Kamloops rose on a point of order to suggest that the debate on the budget be suspended and that the Chair review the government bill currently on notice entitled "an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures", and determine whether or not the House should proceed with that bill at this time.
In his submission the hon. member noted that the Government of British Columbia has approached the Court of Appeal to ask for a ruling on the legitimacy of one of the components of the budget, namely proposed changes to the Canada Assistance Plan Act and the responsibility of the Government of Canada under its terms.
He also noted that historically the House has by the sub judice convention restrained itself from discussing questions which are before the courts when such a discussion would prejudice the outcome of those proceedings.
In his presentation the hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party made reference to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 508(4) which states:
(4) 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.
He also referred to the ruling upon which this citation is based.
As I indicated on Monday, I have given careful consideration to this reference, the ruling and the proceedings on which this citation is based, that is the citation which was given to me as the basis of the argument put forward by the hon. House leader of the
March 8, 1990

New Democratic Party. I wish to speak to this in some detail, and I will return to it in a few moments.
I would, however, like to thank the hon. member for his submission. As well, I would like to thank the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for their comments. All were helpful to the Chair.
I would first like to make a few remarks concerning the sub judice convention and the right of the House to legislate. Then I will deal with the citation in Beau-chesne's.

It is accepted practice that, in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to sub judice matters and that such matters should not be the subject of motions or questions in the House. Though poorly defined, the interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker. In Canada, the word "convention" is used as no "rule" exists to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter which is sub judice, that is "under the consideration of a judge or court". The acceptance of a restriction is a voluntary restraint on the part of Parliament to protect an accused person or other party to court action or judicial inquiry from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue. While certain precedents exist for the guidance of the Chair, no attempt has ever been made to codify the practice in Canada. Though the First Report to the House of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, presented to the House on April 29, 1977, provides some guidance for the Chair, uncertainty still surrounds Canadian practice.
The purpose of the sub judice convention is twofold: to protect interested parties in a court proceeding and to maintain a separation and mutual respect between the legislative and judicial branches of government.
In Canada there are some situations in which the application of the sub judice convention has been fairly straightforward. All of the principal procedural authori-
Speaker's Ruling
ties, including Erskine May, Bourinot and Beauchesne, agree that the convention does not apply to bills as the right of Parliament to legislate must not be limited.
This has been confirmed in the House by a ruling of October 4, 1971. In that ruling Speaker Lamoureux noted that no legal proceeding initiated in a court of law in Canada, be it by way of writ of mandamus or any other writ, should prevent the House of Commons or Parliament from continuing or even initiating the discussion of legislation.
In that same ruling he also pointed out that should the House take the view that the sub judice convention applied to bills, the whole legislative process might be stopped simply by the initiation of a writ or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of Canada. This, he noted, would place Parliament in an intolerable situation.

Where criminal cases are concerned, the precedents are consistent in barring reference to such matters before judgment has been rendered and during any appeal. As I noted on Monday, I have had to deal with the sub judice convention with respect to criminal matters before, and I think that position is quite clear.

Our practices as regards civil cases are less certain, however. The Chair has warned on various occasions of the need for caution in referring to matters pending judicial decisions whatever the nature of the court.
However, on February 11, 1976 Speaker Jerome ruled that no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts, particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial. This view I reiterated in a ruling given on December 7, 1987.
As the debate on the budget is generally wide-ranging and touches upon all aspects of the government's budgetary policy, members are at liberty to debate or not debate whatever aspect of the motion they choose. Therefore I must rule that the sub judice convention does not apply in the present circumstances.

Speaker's Ruling
In his submission the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to citation 508(4) of Beauchesne's sixth edition which, as I noted a moment ago, states:
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.
I have to say to the House that having heard that in argument it immediately gave me great difficulty because there sits a statement which, at least on the surface, seems to be clear indeed and seems to be very much in favour of the proposition being put forward by the hon. House leader. I must say that whatever side of the House one might be on on this question, a citation like that in Beauchesne's would I think completely justify the argument being presented to the Speaker.
This citation is apparently based on a ruling by Speaker Fauteux given on April 12, 1948, at page 344 of the Journals. Citation 508(4) is a truncation of Citation 338(4) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which is itself a truncation of Citation 153 of the fourth edition. If members are having some difficulty with this I assure them so does the Speaker. Truncation is a polite way of putting what could be put in other terms.
I now quote:
The reference of a Bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that Bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. On April 12, 1948, the Prime Minister moved that a select committee be set up to consider, inter alia, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Mr. Diefenbaker moved in amendment that, in order to assist the committee, the government submit immediately, to the Supreme Court of Canada such questions as are necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the maintenance of constitutional safeguards of the individual are matters of federal jurisdiction. The Speaker said: "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 those 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. For this reason I feel bound to rule the amendment out of order.
Having reviewed Speaker Fauteux's original ruling and the matter under debate in 1948, I have concluded that
there is a serious flaw in the Beauchesne's citation in the fourth edition which has been compounded in the fifth and sixth editions. That of course refers to the word truncation which I mentioned earlier.
I do not feel that the citation is at all applicable. As the case before the Speaker in 1948 dealt with a motion and not a bill, I would like to summarize the situation then and set the record straight as regards this citation in Beauchesne's.

On April 9,1948, the House began debate on a motion to set up a special committee to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all member states of the United Nations might best be implemented in Canada. This was the same motion as a resolution passed by the House in the previous session on Monday, May 26, 1947 and was based on a report of that committee which recommended that a Joint Committee be set up early in the next session to continue the study of this matter.

During debate on the night of April 9, 1948, Mr. John George Diefenbaker proposed an amendment to the motion that the government immediately submit to the Supreme Court such questions as were necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the maintenance of constitutional safeguards of the individual were matters of federal jurisdiction.
On Monday, April 12, 1948, debate on the motion and the proposed amendment resumed. The Hon. J. L. Ilsley, who was then Minister of Justice, rose on a point of order to challenge the procedural acceptability of the amendment of Mr. Diefenbaker, arguing that since the amendment did not add to the duties, functions or purposes of the committee but directed the government to perform a duty, it was a separate motion and not an amendment.
In addition, he also argued that the function of the committee was to consider what the legal and constitutional situation was in Canada with respect to human rights.
March 8, 1990

The object of the amendment was to take this function away from the committee and place it instead with the Supreme Court of Canada. If that reference were made to the Supreme Court, the matter would then become sub judice and the committee would be unable to proceed during the time the matter was to be considered by the Supreme Court. The two proposals could not exist in the same resolution.

In his ruling, Speaker Fauteux accepted the arguments of the Minister of Justice, that the proposed amendment would ask the Supreme Court to consider the same matter that the main motion would refer to a Committee. He stated:
It seems to me that both those 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. For this reason, I feel bound to rule the amendment out of order.

As we can see, the emphasis in Speaker Fauteux's ruling was that the amendment proposed by Mr. Diefen-baker was a distinct proposition which should have been dealt with by means of a separate motion and therefore was out of order. The implications in the citation in Beauchesne's fourth, fifth and sixth editions, which casts the problem in terms of the reference of a bill to the Supreme Court, implies that the House is prevented from dealing with legislation on any matter before the courts.
I have no quarrel with the argument that was put on the basis of the citation. If I had been in the same position as those who had to consider the matter, I most certainly would have taken that citation and used it as the basis of an argument.
However, this in my view is an extraneous commentary by Beauchesne. The wording of the citation in the subsequent editions compounds the error. In addition, there is a clear contradiction between citations 338(3) and 338(4) in the fifth edition and citations 508(3) and 508(4) in the sixth edition. In the former citations in both editions it specifically states that the convention does not apply to bills. Citation 338(3) of the fifth edition, which is repeated in the sixth edition, is based upon the 1971
Point of Order
ruling of Speaker Lamoureux to which I have already referred.
Having examined the precedents carefully and having reviewed the Canadian practice on the sub judice convention, the Chair has concluded that there is no legitimate basis for it to intervene as the hon. member has suggested.
However, I would like to thank all those members who participated in this discussion, and in particular the hon. member for Kamloops for raising this most interesting matter and allowing the Chair to clarify these issues. Again, as I have complimented the hon. member in the past, the argument was succinct, to the point, and very cogent indeed.
I have given this matter a lot of very serious consideration and I hope the House is satisfied with my judgment.
The hon. member for Skeena is rising on a point of order.



James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be succinct and brief and cogent. This is a matter in which I hope you will take the time to review the record.
This is a matter concerning a motion involving a request to have an inventory of Canada's old growth forests taken and to set aside 12 per cent.
I took this motion to the environment committee where we were hearing witnesses on the matter. For reasons that were never put on the record, the chairman, the member for Rosedale who is here, chose not to put the motion to a vote. At that point I sought the advice of the Table here and was advised that the motion was in order. I sought the advice of the Deputy Speaker and was advised that it was in order.
Yesterday afternoon at four o'clock I chose to take the same motion to the subcommittee on forestry chaired by the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, who is also here, and tried to put the same motion.
The point of order I wish you to look at, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not it is appropriate for the Chair of a committee to refuse to allow a member of the House to even put a motion. The Chair refused to allow it to be

March 8, 1990
Point of Order
put, at which time I appealed. It was a tie vote which was subsequently broken by the chair.
It seems to me that the point of order or question of privilege, which ever it may be, that needs to be reviewed is whether or not it is improper to rule out of order a motion that has never been allowed to be put. It seems to me a rather bizarre ruling for the chair to take and one that certainly does not allow a member to peruse his or her democratic rights as a member of the committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Skeena is referring to the forestry committee meeting of yesterday or the environment committee meeting of the day before. There seems to be some confusion. Perhaps he would want to clarify that.
I would be quite happy to refer to the record of the committee which met on Tuesday. As the member will know, we began at 8.30 a.m. to hear six witnesses and it ran with some intermission for the House and other matters until the time of the vote on the amendment to the budget motion.
The member brought the motion to me and did not have an opportunity either to present it or speak to it until we were literally adjourning because of the vote in the House on the amendment to budget.
At that time as the member will recall, and I have the transcript before me, before the hon. member for Skeena even put the motion I said: "While on the motion, Mr. Fulton, I have had a brief opportunity to examine it. I think the committee is in a considerable difficulty as I read the motion. It in many ways has repeated the motion that you yourself presented in the House which then came to a vote and was defeated. I think that I would like to take the whole matter of the motion under advisement".
That is basically what I said. I think I repeated it several times. I will not burden the House with repeating it. I made it very clear to all members of the committee that I would look at it to make sure that it was in order.
At no time did I rule the motion out of order and the motion was of course not put. I was prepared to give a ruling at nine o'clock this morning. Unfortunately, the
member for Skeena was not present. In respect for his interest in this issue I stood the motion until such time as he is present. At that time I am prepared both to make a ruling and to deal with the motion.
I am sorry that the member did not confer with me at any time since the meeting on Hiesday to know that that would be the case.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has taken the time to clarify. I think there is more on the record that could be read. I simply want to make it clear the concern that I have is not with the environment committee, although the member would certainly want to make clear that I did distribute the motion in writing to every member of the committee more than an hour prior to requesting that the vote be taken. I think the record will confirm that.
The point that I was raising was in relation to the ruling out of order of a motion. It was in fact exactly the same motion, but it was ruled out of order before it could ever even be read into the record. It was never even allowed to be put before it was ruled out of order.
I see the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury here. Perhaps he would like to explain how it is that a motion that has not been put can be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Fredericton- York-Sunbury, who is by the way a very fine fishing companion of the Speaker, wishes to engage in this debate, I will of course permit him to do so. I must counsel all members of the House that this is going beyond either privilege or order, but I will hear the hon. member.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that kind commendation. Even the hon. member for Skeena would recognize that a fine fisherman is never all wrong.
The hon. member for Skeena came to the meeting of the forestry subcommittee yesterday for the first time. He came and gave me veiled warnings or advice as to what he had in mind.
I heard the first paragraph of the motion, which was exactly the same motion he had presented the day before to the environment committee at which I was present, as
March 8, 1990

were at least two other members of the forestry subcommittee. It was apparent what the motion was.
We had before us four citizens of British Columbia, all of whom we had suspected were going back last evening. We had two hours to hear them. I suggested to the hon. member that our forestry subcommittee had a very specific reference from the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries. It did not include dealing with a matter such as that. The very first paragraph of the motion made it clear that it was not within the terms of reference of our subcommittee. Thus I ruled it out of order. The hon. member appealed and sought the support of the committee which he did not receive.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, the hon. member has now made clear to the whole nation exactly what motion he wished to put forward and I suppose the nation can stand in judgment on whether or not it is accepted. There seems to be some indication from at least one of the chairmen of one of the committees that perhaps after some discussion the hon. member might find that his motion would be accepted. I thank the hon. member for his intervention.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap has given me written notice that he will be unable to be present to move his motion during Private Members' Hour on Friday, March 9, 1990. Since it has been impossible to arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94,1 instruct the Table to place this matter at the bottom of the order of precedence.
Private Members' Hour shall therefore be suspended and, in accordance with Standing Order 94, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to the said hour.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.
Business of the House


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have just heard your ruling or your comments, Madam Speaker. I have personal reservations concerning two items slated to come before the House during Private Members' Hour. There are two bills, items numbers 3 and 8, which come from the Senate, that is S-11 and S-9.
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the House might be prepared to proceed with the consideration of these two bills so we could dispose of them. We are given to understand that somebody has decided we cannot go ahead with these items because a recorded vote might be called. If that is the reason, I should like to know because I think we could deal with both Bills S-11 and S-9 in short order tomorrow.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I was delayed at the Table when these discussions began and I missed part of it.
Perhaps I might offer a solution to the House. Could we have the consent of the House, if it would be in order, to call S-5 for Private Members' Business even though the hon. member would not be here? I have been involved with that bill and could work with him on it. Perhaps we could go by consent to deal with S-5 which is the one regarding the Salvation Army.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to derail the proposal but before I could grant unanimous consent I would like to have an opportunity to do a quick review because I did not hear you in the only language I understand, which is my problem not that of the House, but I would like an opportunity to consult if I could.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For the assistance of members, Madam Speaker, I just want to remind members that indeed when a member cannot proceed with the appropriate motion or bill at the time of the calling of that bill, I understand the clerks telephone other people down the list to inquire if they are ready to proceed.
The exception is when a motion or a bill is up for a vote. According to my understanding of the rules, that cannot be moved up higher on the list than it is at that time.
My only question to you, and that is why I raised it, is that S-ll and S-9 are Senate initiatives which are not necessarily going to be the objects of a vote here, unless somebody has decided somewhere without my knowledge, and I thought we could proceed tomorrow with

March 8, 1990
The Budget
study of those two items. That is the point I am trying to make.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, for clarification, could the parliamentary secretary indicate exactly which Senate motion or bill that he wants brought forward for discussion tomorrow? Is it S-5 or S-9?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, it is S-9, an act to amalgamate the two corporations known, respectively, as "The Governing Council of The Salvation Army, Canada East" and "The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Canada West".
There have been considerable discussions on this bill between the three parties and it was my understanding at the last conversations, although none of them are current to these proposals, that all three parties were supporting the bill and that it would go forward without a vote. I do not think we are proposing anything that causes any problem to any party in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank all hon. members for their help. The problem is as follows: as far as S-9 is concerned, the hon. member in whose name the bill stands has refused for us to proceed as he will not be able to be here. So, that settles the question as far as S-9 is concerned.
Bill S-11, as the House may realize, is in front of the committee. We could not proceed with S-11, which is why I had to instruct the Table that we could not proceed with Private Members' Business tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

[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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before Statements by Members and Question Period the Hon.
Member for Rosedale had the floor. He had three minutes left.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes I have remaining I will simply deal with a couple of matters which I had been addressing before we moved to statements and Question Period.
In looking at this budget it is very important to realize that it is a federal budget. It is a budget that recognizes that, in this country particularly, the national management of the country's economic good health cannot happen in some kind of an isolated vacuum.
There are two charts which I think speak loud and clear about the necessity of achieving some kind of fiscal balance in this country which is very important to our future economic and social health. One relates to program expenditures. On page 127 on the English side of this budget presentation, there is a very interesting graph which depicts the statistical situation we are in.
In the course of the last five years, since the mid-eighties, there has been an average increase in provincial expenditures for program activity of some 6.4 per cent, while on the federal side it has been held to 3.6 per cent, which is almost half the provincial average. In some cases, that expenditure has been a good deal higher, particularly in the province of Ontario, where it has been closer to 10 per cent, at 9.5 per cent.
If we look at the opposite page, showing the situation in respect of debt charges, the picture becomes even more dramatic. It is well known to everybody in this Chamber, and in fact now to many in the Canadian public, that our federal debt charges are 35.1 cents; that is one-third of every dollar. But the average on a provincial basis is a little over 10 cents, 11.8 cents. That is a dramatic difference.
The figures on those two charts tells us something. For the better part of the last five years, we have been in a situation where the federal government has been carrying an inordinate load in almost every aspect of program activity and expenditure. What has been attempted over the course of the last five years is to redress that balance in some kind of responsible manner.
March 8, 1990

We have put caps on some programs, not all, and in particular in those provinces which are in the strongest fiscal position to take it, in order that we can achieve some kind of balance.
I think that is very important. A lot has been made of the fact that there are no additional taxes in this budget, but I would say it is almost as important in terms of the future that some kind of balance is being attempted.
Over-all, this is a budget that is as much for the future as it is for the present. I have heard virtually no acknowledgement of that from the opposite side of the House. They have spent their time attacking the budget for doing the very kinds of things that are important to our future. I think our future is important, as I said, not only for economic reasons, but obviously for environmental ones.
I referred to the importance of the environmental legacy. We will have major responsibilities on our plate for the next 10 years in the environmental area. We will in no way be able to meet them unless we get our fiscal house in order and that, I believe, is the priority in this budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, at the outset of my brief remark I would certainly like to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance who for a number of months has been defending day after day with competence and authority, this government's monetary policy. Day in and day out, during each oral question period, the Minister of Finance in his calm and competent way has been defending the political will that is at the core of this government's action, the will to stabilize government finance.
In that respect, I am very pleased to praise the performance of the Minister of Finance who last Monday, during a coast-to-coast TV debate in Edmonton, literally thrashed the Liberal finance critic.
Let me simply quote from the numerous observers who chose the Minister of Finance as the winner, as for instance Mr. Mark Lisac from the Edmonton Journal who
The Budget
said: "Next time the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce invites the Minister of Finance they should choose as an opponent someone of his intellectual calibre, or of a comparable intellectual level."
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this sixth and last budget day to say how much I personally endorse and will vote for this government's fiscal policy.
What I find most interesting, although little known to the Canadian public, is that for a fourth consecutive year, this government I am proud to be part of will record a surplus on its operating budget. It is very often forgotten that, obsessed by the national debt, in the day-to-day government operations, if we add up revenues and expenditures, this Conservative Government, contrary to the previous Liberal governments, has been recording a surplus for some years. The surplus for this year is $9 billion and for fiscal 1990-91, it will be $12 billion.
But, and therein lies the problem, we were left with a poisoned legacy, a legacy that the opposition across the aisle and especially the Official Opposition-either through bad faith, blindness or absent mindedness chose to ignore, namely heavy debt we have inherited and which has doubled in a matter of six years. I am not afraid to acknowledge that. But 80 per cent of that twofold increase are due to compound interests on the debt-they are not of our making. And in that respect, it is interesting to note the comments- As you know, I am a former newspaperman, Madam Speaker, and it is interesting in that respect to quote from people who are not on the Conservative Party payroll. I am thinking in particular of Claude Piche, of La Presse, who is commending the Conservative Government for their efforts in stabilizing public finance. This is what he has to say: "We may lament on the current financial situation, especially the debt, but the only thing we can blame the Conservatives for is the promise they made when they were in opposition to tackle the debt cancer. They did not succeed but-and this is important-nobody can say they did not try. And on this point, he said that the debt was the fault of the Liberal government, which between 1970 and 1984 increased spending at an average annual rate of 14 to 17 per cent, while the latest Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance provides for a spending increase of only 3 per cent. This means a net drop in spending, if we account for inflation. If we consider that

March 8, 1990
The Budget
inflation was around 5 per cent, the government's real expenditures have dropped 2 per cent.
I doubt anyone could do better today, in these difficult times, with a budget that does not hit the disadvantaged or people on low incomes. I stand by what I just said. And I think that with our GST proposal we are doing something to protect those who are least advantaged, people earning less than $30,000.1 hear the leader of the NDP rushing to defend senior citizens. When I talk to my seniors, I tell them that this is the kind of tax reform no previous govemnment had the guts to introduce, a reform that was recommended by many commissions in the past 40 years, and that we are going to implement this reform even if it is unpopular in the short term, and that they are protected. Popularity is not important in the short term. A real politician is interested in the long-term view.
By the way, I have some news that might interest you, Madam Speaker. In the latest issue of Business Week which is now on the newstands, we see that the Government of Ontario, which objected very strenuously to the Free Trade Agreement, is paying for a $600,000 ad. It consists of 8 pages of advertising marked Ontario, with a photograph of the Premier who says how important it is for Americans to take advantage of free trade and come and invest in Canada.

"Under the free trade agreement, most goods move between Ontario and the U.S. without tariffs."

Here is what I think: the Liberals do not have the guts to risk losing popularity in the short term. You know, undertaking a tax reform never brings popularity. They will be the first, in two or three years, to recognize the validity of this tax reform and of the goods and services tax.
That amuses me, Madam Speaker. It was reported in the newspapers the other day that one of the leadership candidates, the hon. member for Lasalle-Emard, promises to scrap the GST if he becomes prime minister. And if you take the time to read the article, you will see this: "When we come into office in 1992,1 will send the GST back to the drawing board", says Mr. Martin, and here comes the interesting part, and I quote: "if it has not already been integrated with the provincial system and if it is possible to abolish it." That kind of political courage
is hard to beat. Yesterday, the Globe & Mail could not do better than this:

"Confusion increasing over Liberal GST stand." [Translation]
It is utter confusion. The Liberal leadership candidates are talking as if there were no deficit problem. They bluster about the environment, youth and so on and so forth, but when they are asked what their proposals are on this capital problem, zilch. Bury your head in the sand as much as you want, that will not make anybody forget these figures: each newborn Canadian is $13 400 in the red. The interest charges on the debt accumulate at the rate of $1,300 a second. I have now been on my feet for four minutes, Madam Speaker. The interest costs for those four minutes have been $12 million. Such is in practical terms the problem we have to face. I think it is extraordinary-


Fernand Robichaud: The cost is much higher.


Charles Deblois: I very much appreciate the comments of the member across the way. I think it is extraordinary that the Minister of Finance has succeeded-personally I would have gone even further-in his belt-tightening approach and I think he acted with proper judgment. This year he is asking the provinces to make a special effort.
You will even notice the average rate of increase in provincial expenditures has been about 6.5 per cent for a number of years while those of the government to which I am proud to belong have been increasing at the rate of about 3 per cent over the past four years or so. Can you beat that?
In this regard, Madam Speaker, I believe we demonstrated responsible management. Along the same line I was using a moment ago, there is an editorial in the last issue of Les Affaires entitled: The poisoned legacy of the Trudeau team, signed by columnist Jean-Paul Gagne, which says: "The national debt which was $321 billion on March 31st, 1989, will exceed $350 billion on March 31st of next year. Out of the $152 billion added to the debt since 1984, only 32 billion can be charged to the Mulro-ney-Wilson administration, but it is still too much. The balance, $120 billion, comes from compounded interest on the debt left by the Trudeau team". It is important that people know that. We are stuck with this cancer, we are stuck with this poisoned legacy. We are trying, we are waging our political future on our will to improve public finance, and I hope that members opposite, whether
March 8, 1990

from the Official Opposition or the NDP, will present alternatives. We are proposing a fiscal reform which, I sincerely believe, will in the end win us consideration and respect of Canadians who will see the value of our reform.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, let me at the outset apologize for being unable to put this question in any language other than English. It is my own failing.
I listened through translation however with fascination as the hon. member detailed his claim that all of the people he is talking to in his home riding and his home province are in fact in favour of la TPS, that the support that it enjoys is commensurate with his estimation of its propriety.
This, I must confess, quite puzzles me because it is my understanding that the results of a Gallup poll undertaken in the province of Quebec that were published about a month ago, showed about 70 per cent of Quebecers in strong opposition to the-


An hon. member:: Who is right?


Ross Harvey: I am getting to that. Madam Speaker, it is an intolerable thing when one is heckled by one's own benches.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair must agree with the hon. member on this point. I would also like to remind the hon. member, if I may, that this is only a five minute question and comment period. To allow the member who just finished his speech to answer, maybe the hon. member for Edmonton East would put his question.


Ross Harvey: Forgive me, Madam Speaker. I shall proceed with celerity. Acknowledging that, for example, his children must be expected to support their father as must his spouse and presumably other members of his family, I am wondering where he gets the rest of these people who are so obviously out of
The Budget
tune with the 70 per cent overwhelming majority of Quebecers.


Charles Deblois: I would like to thank the colourful Member for Edmonton East for his question. In fact, it is a veiy easy one to answer. If you ask people: "Are you in favour of a goods and services tax?", I would be the first one to say no. But, if you let me explain- New Zealand's experience in this regard is very interesting. As that country's former Minister of Finance told the Finance Committee, three months before the GST was introduced, 66 per cent of New Zealanders were against the tax. Two months later, the proportion was reversed: two thirds of the people supported the GST. We are willing to bet that, once the GST has been implemented and the opposition has stopped its witch hunt, people will see that the world did not come to an end and that, on the contrary, we will be better off thanks to increasing exports and to a much more consistent and balanced tax reform.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, today I am making my maiden speech as the elected member of Parliament for the riding of Chambly. I would like to take a moment to say how proud I am to be here among my colleagues, several of whom I already know on both sides of the House. I would also like to thank those who helped me get elected in the riding of Chambly and especially my wife, Michelle, and the militant women in the riding.
In Chambly, we have been particularly affected by the budget of the Minister of Finance and we believe that, in a sense, this budget is what we would call a separatist budget. I will explain.
It is separatist in the sense that the government is trying to shirk its obligations towards the provinces. It is a strange way to sell federalism and it is even the opposite of what I call profitable federalism.
Regarding the importance of the Meech Lake Accord, even in today's context where Newfoundland has proposed to withdraw her support, we, in Chambly, like many others in Quebec think this rejection of the agreement is directly tied to the Finance Minister's budget. I will explain why the Wilson budget does a bad job of selling federalism to Canadians.

March 8, 1990
The Budget
One resident of Richelieu in my riding of Chambly, a farmer, told me the Wilson budget is a little like a man who brings his family to a restaurant, tells them to order whatever they wish, eats and drinks more than anybody else and is quite content, but sneaks out when time comes to pick up the tab. He is nowhere to be found. That may happen once or twice, perhaps, but after that people will no longer be tempted to share a table with that man. That is how that farmer sees the Wilson Budget.
As far as I am concerned, I see the Budget in the context of the social contract that we, the voters, have with the government. Obviously, I am referring to the social contract which Jean-Jacques Rousseau described as a relationship between the government and the people that should be based on freedom and equality. And I find that the Wilson Budget violates that social contract for different reasons.
In Quebec, for example, there is the GST. I have listened to my hon. collegue for Montmorency- D'Orleans. I admire him for his command of the French language and his so wonderful accent from Orleans Island, but I cannot agree with him on the GST because it seems that in my constituency, the GST is now turning the middle class into and endangered species. It is an unnecessary tax for we have other means of balancing the budget.
The cuts in federal transfer payments to provinces threaten the health of seniors. I have talked with seniors in retirement homes in my riding and these people's concerns are very real. They fear the GST, but that's not all. When I think about the social context in which we live, I fear for seniors, for middle-class people, for our youth, for our students. I think that with the cuts in transfer payments to the province of Quebec, we are mortgaging the future of our youth, especially with regards to postsecondary education. This will have disastrous consequences for our society in Quebec.
So the government puts the burden on middle-class Canadians, who are directly affected by the GST, on seniors and on our youth. Very few people escape these measures.
What a reward for Quebecers! Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance had a choice. I still remember, some time ago, when he said: "You had the choice". He
was talking to Mr. TUmer. But this time, it was the Tories' turn to choose. They could have presented an honorable budget respectful of all Canadian citizens, a fair and equitable budget. But they chose not to. It would have been possible because my Conservative friends always ask what are the alternatives. I can name a few. Instead of increasing the defence budget by 5 per cent, they could have cut it by 10 per cent. The US Pentagon has already decided to go that way.
Having spent three years in the armed forces, I know we could save a lot of money in the Defence Department. Sure we could save money, up to $1.2 billion. If we lowered interest rates by two per cent, we could reduce our deficit by $6,2 billion in three years. But I do not ask for the Bank of Canada Governor's resignation because I do not want to stir up a constitutional crisis. However, I think that the government could try to convince him to lower interest rates by at least a few points because right now, there is a five point difference between Canadian and American rates. Never has there been such a gap. It makes for a dangerous situation!
I agree with this proposal made by members of other parties. I remember that even Mr. Chretien from the Liberal Party said that interest rates should come down.
I am not saying that this idea only come from the New Democrats, or only from the Liberal Party. Even Mr. Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, agrees and he is an economist.
I think you will find there is a consensus on the interest rates being too high and that the Conservatives and this government not having the monopoly of truth should ask themselves: Have we made a mistake here? That's it! Ask yourselves that question instead of saying: Ah, we made the tough decisions, the unpopular decisions. You should not wear a lapel badge saying that you are unpopular because people do not understand you. I for one believe that you are not popular because people understand you too well. They understand that your budget is not in their interest.
Another thing that could be done with this budget would be to levy a minimum corporate tax. I was sitting here and heard the Minister of Finance say: Listen, that is difficult because how can we possibly rate small- and medium-sized companies, major corporations and so on? I think that decision has already been made in the United States; and we have seen precious few American
March 8, 1990

companies go bankrupt as a result of the minimum tax levied against them by Washington.
I noticed with interest last month's increase in the number of bankruptcies in Canada over the previous month, in a country where we have no minimum corporate tax, but with the coming recession we have had 30 per cent more bankruptcies than in the past.
Of course the new approach I am suggesting to the federal government calls for courage, the kind of courage which will restore voters' confidence in federalism. Talking about federalism and courage, I should like to refer briefly to the Meech Lake Accord if only because it did take a certain amount of courage on the part of the government to support Meech Lake, and I commend them for that. It did take some courage from all three political parties here in the House-the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party- to vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord.
We understand Rene Levesque's message that it was worth the risk.
When I quoted Rene Levesque, you said: Good heavens, quoting a separatist during a constitutional crisis! I don't see it that way. Let me quote what Mr. Levesque said in September 1984. I think it sounds very brave and very relevant today. He said: "If federalism could be made to work better than it does, if it could be improved, wouldn't this stifle our basic option and put sovereignty on the backbumer? In any case, there is an element of risk. But it is an attractive one, and in any case we cannot afford not to take that risk".
In today's situation, some provinces are not prepared to take that risk, including Newfoundland, and perhaps New Brunswick and Manitoba.
I believe that Canadians must once again find the courage to set aside partisan considerations and their fear of taking this risk. We must support Meech Lake.
As for me, as the member for Chambly, I intend to support Meech Lake, which is the best way, I think, to regain confidence in federalism. I intend to stand up for Quebec, but within the Canadian confederation. I intend to support the Meech Lake Accord and to oppose the GST as well as the new budget tabled by the Minister of
The Budget
Finance. This is the very best way I have found to serve my constituents.
On February 12, the constituents in Chambly sent a very clear message to this House, in Ottawa, which I hope my colleagues on the other side have understood. My constituents are calling for change on the tax issue, including the GST, and on the budget very recently introduced by the Minister of Finance.
And finally, I intend to continue to oppose any action by the federal government to transfer its obligations to the provinces and to make them pay for its blunders. I will oppose that kind of action today and I will oppose it as long as I will sit in the House of Commons. But that will not prevent me from congratulating the government on its good moves. And when the best interests of Quebec are threatened, I will be the first to criticize the government.

For my English-speaking friends, I would just like to say that it is with great honour that I come here elected as the first NDP Member of Parliament from the Province of Quebec and from the riding of Chambly. It is with a great deal of humility and excitement that I come before you, my peers, in order to explain to you that in Quebec we are an intelligent province. We are an intelligent people and we are a tolerant people.
I am an English-speaking Quebecer elected in a riding 90 per cent French. I speak French with an accent. I find that the chaleur humaine-once again I actually forget my words in English-but the feelings of belonging and a full feeling of being a Quebecer-as an English-speaking Quebecer, I have that in my province. I am not an oppressed minority. I believe in Quebec. I believe in the Meech Lake Accord and my party believes in the Meech Lake Accord.
I believe that in Parliament all three parties have distinguished themselves when it came to the crunch and the moment to vote, which was a most important moment here in Parliament, by putting aside the partisan question, the fear of the unknown, and the false fears, and we said: "The minimum conditions of Quebec must be met. Quebec is important for the rest of Canada. We want Quebec integrated in the Constitution." I am proud

March 8, 1990
The Budget
of that, and I believe that the other political parties here can be proud of that also.
I trust that in the future Mr. Mulroney will be able to deal with Newfoundland, Manitoba, and New Brunswick so that finally Quebec will gain its place in the Constitution.


Mr. Couture:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the honorable member for Chambly. Our government has slowed down the growth rate of spendings from 14 percent in 1980-84 to 3.6 percent in 1984-88; the latest budget will reduce it further from 3.6 to 3.2 percent. I would like to know what better solutions the honorable member for Chambly has to suggest.
Here is the second part of my question. Instead of a federal sales tax that is hidden, destructive, and very harmful to all Canadian businesses, the smaller ones in particular, I again ask the honorable member for Chambly what his alternative would be.


Philip Edmonston: First, madam Speaker, about the GST, I must tell you that I do not trust statistics and polls too much, especially not that from government, because I much prefer those from independent sources. A leading article published in The Wall Street Journal on December 26 has made quite an impression on me. My honorable colleague has surely read that article. It was entitled: Ducks Fly North. This fascinating article showed that, after five years in power and despite the fact that its revenues have doubled during that time, the Mulroney government was on the brink of bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal, this bible of the American businessman, so to speak, has in fact criticized harshly the Mulroney government for its management of Canada's finances. I would suggest that my honorable colleague read the article in question. It was so harsh that the Finance Minister had to write back to The Wall Street Journal to ask for some kind of retraction, which the paper never agreed to offer.
As to the second part of the question, namely how to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, you must understand that it has been increased from 9 to 13 or 13.5 per cent-I am not sure which-by the conservative government, which is responsible for this misfortune striking all Canadians. There must be an alternative to the GST
which, according to the increasing number of studies done on this issue, is a dangerous fiscal polity, hurts most Canadians and only benefits the business sector.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the hon. member on his election and on his maiden speech. I remember very well his work as a consumer advocate in Quebec when I was Minister of Consumer Affairs. Obviously, he has continued his good work over the years.
I want to put this question to the hon. member. He is aware of the fact that the budget freezes EPF transfers to the provinces to the extent of $7.4 billion. The cost of the two-year freeze will transfer a burden of $7.4 billion to the provinces. He, like myself, lives in the province of Quebec. We have seen the present situation of health care in the province: emergency wards filled with patients, and nurses on strike because they cannot get a decent wage. I am familiar with the west end of Montreal.
Would he give a lesson to the government members and tell them what these cuts in EPF will mean to health care on the south shore of Montreal, the hospitals, the centres, and the CLSCs, so that they will know what damage is being done to our province by this budget?


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his question. I think it is an appropriate one.
First, I would like to say that the GST has had an incredible effect, almost to the extent of making the Prime Minister's prediction that he was going to make a national reconciliation. He has reconciled the government. He has reconciled the population against his government.
It is incredible in the province of Quebec, and I think I probably represent the latest survey by my presence here. I believe that you can easily see that the discontent is so serious that it cuts across party lines. It cuts across linguistic lines. It cuts across the geography of Quebec. I guarantee that if the government does not take the GST
March 8, 1990

away, it will have a tough time finding a safe Conservative seat in the next federal election.
I spoke with Michel Clair, who is the former President of the Treasury Board of Quebec, and who is presently the President of le Centre d'accueil du Quebec. He gave me some very distressing figures which would respond specifically to the question of my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. Michel Clair has said that the loss of transfer of payments will mean, first, $300 million this year and $600,000 next year, lost to Quebec. That is almost $1 billion we are losing.
When the Minister of Finance says that there are no new taxes, there are new taxes. He also told me-I have seen this in recent reports in the papers-that what is occurring is that the Quebec government is going to have to make up the difference. Right now the manufacturers have addressed some of the responsible bureaucrats from the provincial Ministry of Finance to see if they cannot get a 6.5 per cent goods and services tax on a provincial basis in Quebec. Those are the taxes of the Wilson budget from the Mulroney government.
Another point I would like to make is that the number of people who are distressed and the overloaded emergency wards are terrible. It is unacceptable. This is going to get worse and not better, according to Michel Clair, because these people will either be turned away or will have to wait unduly across the province because the money is not there.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly on his election and on his maiden speech. He said that the Wilson budget was a separatist budget, a budget that is not good for federalism and that is against the social contract. He also said that his constituents are against the GST. I want to tell him that my constituents on the west coast are also against this budget. I think that, finally, we have found something that unites our country.

In other words, we finally found something recently that unifies the country and that is the opposition to the GST.
The Budget
I want to ask the hon. member a double-headed question. First, he issued alternatives such as a minimum corporate tax, lower interest rates and lower defence spending and I wonder if he had any other ones. Also, I wonder-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, the time for questions and comments is now over. There was a minute-and-a-half left. I thought the hon. member could use it, but the time has now expired.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we must ask why this budget, three years after the publication of the Brundtland report, ignores sustainable development. Why, since 1984, is the government retreating on environmental protection? Why does the Environment Department, including this year's increase, receive less than 1 per cent of the federal budget, slipping from fifteenth to sixteenth place on the list of allocations, department by department? That is a shameful record in contrast with the many declarations by this government on sustainable development, including that signed in 1989 by the Prime Minister in The Hague firmly committing Canada to the principle of sustainable development.
We heard about the cancellation of federal funding for the OSFO oil sands project. Why? To save money, not to save the environment. Because of the deficit, not because of global warming. In fact, the energy minister recently assured the oil industry that if oil prices go up, the federal government may again spend millions of taxpayers' money.
The Calgary Herald in a commentary a few days ago called for a realistic assessment of what Ottawa's pullout means for the future of OSFO and oil sands developments. I quote:
-it changes the situation very little, if at all. Ottawa will continue to pay its share of the roughly $ 140-million worth of engineering work that will take the project to blueprint stage sometime in 1991.
The Prime Minister signed the Hague Convention on Canada' behalf. Canada is committed to slowing down climate warming. Why then does he not stick to the promises he makes abroad on environmental issues and start reducing our dependence in future on fossil fuels? Why is the Government of Canada not capable, despite this tired and unimaginative regime, of delivering on what Canadians are demanding in poll after poll, namely, action to protect the environment and global climate, to implement sustainable development, to integrate the

March 8, 1990
The Budget
economy with the environment, to anticipate and prevent instead of reacting and curing, and to deliver social programs where sustainable development requires it. Surely, we have the skills. Surely, there are models, in Sweden, the Netherlands, in Norway.
At home, Canadian proposals are emerging all over the place, including the tax on environmental nuisance, proposed by the Quebec Union for the Conservation of Nature, le Groupe de recherche appliquee en macro-ecolo-gie. It would be a tax on carbon emissions which could eliminate the need for the goods and services tax, and at the same time help reduce carbon dioxide pollution which leads to global warming.
In his first budget in the 1990s, the Minister of Finance fails to put on notice polluters and fails to encourage those who do not wish to pollute. What is he waiting for? What is preventing him from applying green ideas to Canada's tax system? Why is the Minister of Finance not exempting from the goods and services tax products approved as environmentally friendly by the Environmental Choice Program? Why is he not shifting, instead of slashing, funds for the advancement of renewable sources of energy? Why is he not strengthening Canada's research capability in environmental technology? Why is he not accelerating tax write-offs for investments made by business in industrial processes which would reduce pollution? Why is he not developing incentives for the reduction of waste to help municipalities in their Herculean efforts?
The fact that no actions are being taken tells us that the government has understood only that there is a vote-getting opportunity in the environment. It has stopped there. It has not recognized that glowing rhetoric on the environment must be supported by concrete actions. Thus, it allows itself, and quite rightly so, to be accused of political opportunism. A good example is the budget speech.
On the one hand, the Minister of Finance says: "Canadians want action to protect our environment", and then the so-called environmental action plan which was to be announced at the same time as the budget as an economic as well as an environmental statement is postponed. We learned also that the plan will be fiscally responsible. That is an ominous signal that the Minister
of Finance intends to handcuff the Minister of the Environment.
Evidently this government does not understand what sustainable development means. The environment and the economy are seen as separate and competing forces. The government pays lip service to sustainable development but does not want to make tough decisions. Clearly sustainable development ranks very low in this government's priorities.
It is not by accident that the environment department receives less than one cent of every federal dollar spent. It is not by accident that the Winnipeg Centre for Sustainable Development, promised in September, 1988, by the Prime Minister at the United Nations, is still waiting announcement. It is not by accident that the environmental agenda was rejected by cabinet. It is not by accident that this government pays only lip service to renewable and non-fossil fuel forms of energy. It is not by accident that Petro-Canada is to be sold because the government does not recognize its value in developing alternatives to fossil fuels in the future.
This government's attitude to the environment is summed up by the Minister of Finance himself, as reported at page 8609 of Hansard, when he says that as long as the deficit is at the current level "We will not have the money to spend on health care, on post-secondary education, on the environment, on native affairs or on any of these policies".
He goes on to say that if he can reduce the deficit in five years only then will "we have billions of dollars more money either to cut taxes, look after maintaining and improving these programs or look after new initiatives such as the environment".
The environment should, in his opinion, wait five years. Well, a major environmental wave will sweep the Tories out of office by 1992. It will not wait five years.
This budget is silent about Canadians whose survival depends on fish. Globally we have not practised sustainable development harvesting of our fisheries. If we take the necessary but tough conservation measures now, then in a few years we will have thriving fishing communities in Atlantic Canada again. In the meantime though we must support the coastal communities by way of social programs to ensure a stable life until the resource

recovers. Instead, the Minister of Finance remains silent on a burning social issue.
The Minister of Finance in this budget has abandoned social programs. His message to the provinces is clear: "You are on your own". His vision of Canada consists of one word, "deficit".
Canadians must watch out now. Ottawa is retreating in true Meech Lake fashion. The provinces and municipalities are asked to carry the burden. You, who may be in need of housing, family services, health care, women's services, you name it, do not look any more to Ottawa. The solution of social issues has to come from elsewhere. Lower your sights. Look at your provincial capital. Canada, in true Tory fashion, is just a community of communities. It is no longer a strong and proud federal nation. What an abdication of responsibilities.
A long time ago, and yet it could have been yesterday, William Lyon Mackenzie King said this about the Conservative Party: "Tories, allow me to congratulate you, your feet are at last on the people's necks." Yes, their feet are on the people's necks, but only until the next election.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who has just spoken. He mentioned carbons and carbon dioxide. I wonder if he would expound on what this government is doing to try to overcome that and play its part in the international community.
For example, reforestation agreements with six provinces have expired. They have not been renewed. Does the member know whether these are going to be renewed or not since forests are a great asset when it comes to overcoming carbon dioxide and of course for the health of the environment generally? Our fisheries are being depleted. What is the government doing about this? At the United Nations, Canada seems to have been dragging its feet on ratification of the Law of the Sea. Rivers and harbours are polluted all across Canada.
What is the government doing? Does it have a concentrated effort afoot to try to cure some of these things? Is it really doing anything about forestry projects in this country? Is it doing anything to encourage forestry on the international scene. Deforestation is taking place
The Budget
and we need to do something in order to overcome the very serious carbon dioxide problem in the world.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. In brief, the answer is that concerning planet warming and C02 pollution the government is making high-sounding, well-phrased rhetorical declarations abroad. It is cutting research relevant to the subject. It is continuing to fund our dependence on fossil fuels by way of support of mega projects, as in the case of the engineering studies on the OSLO project. Finally, it is not renewing the forestry agreements, which I am sure the hon. member is extremely interested in, with the major forest-growing provinces, namely, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this Conservative budget, let me start by saying that it is a total fabrication to suggest, as the Minister of Finance and other Conservative members have done, that the government's budget policy does not include any tax increases.
The minister's speech on February 20 did not directly mention any new taxes. However, that speech is only part of the government's budgetary policy. The total budgetary policy of the government includes a deluge of taxes beginning with the goods and services tax which is presently being pushed through this House, the bill being in committee at the present time.
In addition to the goods and services tax, we have surtaxes dating back to 1984, the clawbacks on old age security and family allowances, and the increases in contributions for unemployment insurance as a result of the government's Bill C-21.
So while the minister's speech on February 20 might not have mentioned any new taxes, the budgetary policy of the government, of which that speech is only part, is full of tax increases. The goods and services tax alone has been described as the biggest tax grab in Canadian history.
If the bill is passed as it stands and goes into effect in January of 1991, the government will be able to raise, through that tax alone, $1.7 billion in the fiscal year 1991-92. The federal government's tax revenues have

March 8, 1990
The Budget
increased by $48 billion since 1984 as a result of the budgetary policies of this Conservative government.
I have mentioned that those tax increases have taken the form of surtaxes, de-indexation, tax rates, by the clawback on old age security and family allowances which legislation is also going through this House at the present time. By the way, the clawback on the old age security and the family allowances will benefit the government by $2 billion.
While the government is raising this massive amount of money in taxes, what has happened to the deficit? As my colleague who spoke before me pointed out, everything this government does is an attempt to deal with the deficit. But despite that massive increase of $48 billion in taxes since 1984, what has happened to the deficit?
In 1984, the national debt was $170 billion. In March, 1990, this month, the national debt is $350 billion. The national debt has doubled since this Conservative party has come to government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It has more than doubled.


William Warren Allmand: More than doubled, my hon. colleague says. The Canadian people might very well wonder what has happened to the massive amount of moneys that have been raised by the government in new taxes since 1984.
In addition to the tax increases that have resulted from the budgetary policies of this Conservative government, the government has also cut deeply in essential services that Canadians need. It has frozen the Established Programs Financing policy, through which policy we fund post-secondary education and help the provinces fund medicare and hospitalization. By freezing the budgets under the EPF programs for two years the government will charge the provinces with a bill of $7.4 billion. In other words, the provinces will lose $7.4 billion that they would have otherwise received if the government had not put that freeze on the EPF program.
What does that mean for the provinces? We are not talking about trivial services here, we are talking about hospitals, doctors, physiotherapists, and nurses. I put a question earlier to my newly elected colleague from the province of Quebec. Those of us who live in Quebec
know the situation in our hospitals. We know about the crowding and how the emergency wards are crowded with patients that should be in beds. We see line-ups of people at doctors' offices. We know that services are not being performed that should be performed. We had a massive strike by nurses during the past year, nurses who should be paid at a much higher rate but are being paid, in our province, at a lower rate because the funds are not available. How much worse will it be as a result of these cutbacks in the transfers from the federal government to the provinces?
Other speakers in this debate have mentioned post-secondary education. If there is one thing that should never be cut, no matter what the economic situation is in the country, it is education. If times get tough in a family, the last thing we do is take the kids out of school, sell the home or scrimp on medical care. We may cut back on luxuries, on holidays and things like that, but we do not cut back on education. As a nation we should never cut back on education either because education is the basic infrastructure which will lead to economic growth in this country. It is by having a highly educated and highly skilled population that we will increase the productivity and the productive capacity of this country.
So when the government says, on the one hand, that it wants to cut back on the deficit, it seems rather strange that the very policies which will help cut back on the deficit are the policies the government is cutting back. The government is cutting back on education and training which in turn lead to an increase in productivity and additional revenue for the country, which would in turn cut back on the deficit.
In addition to the cuts in transfers to the provinces for medicare, health care and education, the government is also putting a lid on the transfers to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan. That will cost those provinces $155 million. Here we are talking about such things as day care, corrections and welfare payments to mothers with children who cannot work. The cutbacks amount to $165 million for social housing when we have 200,000 homeless people in this country. There are cutbacks to our native peoples in their core programs and cutbacks to women's centres. As a result of this budget the government is shifting a burden of over $7 billion to the provinces.
March 8, 1990

We must consider this budget in the light of the social and economic conditions which are prevailing in this country at this time. Whenever we put questions to members of the government about the social and economic conditions in the country they love to refer to what they say is the great increase in jobs that have been created since they came to power in 1984.
I refer you, Madam Speaker, to a report, which came out on February 14, 1990, just a couple of weeks ago, put out by the Economic Council of Canada which is called Good Jobs, Bad Jobs. What does the Economic Council say about the jobs which have been created in this country in recent years?
First, it says that over 70 per cent of Canadian workers are now employed in service industries. Later the report points out again that over 50 per cent of the jobs created in service industries are in low paying, minimum wage, non-unionized jobs where there is no training, no future and no benefits. The report also says: "Over-all, the growth of these employment forms is undermining the economic security of a significant and growing portion of the work-force. In the long run this may even have negative consequences for the fabric of Canadian society."
That is what the Economic Council has said. It is not what the Liberal Party is saying, although we have been saying that for many years now. I have been saying that in the House when I put questions to the ministers for employment. I have asked them about the quality of the jobs that they say they are creating, Can a person start a family, build a home, build a new life when they are working only 12 hours a week at a minimum wage? No, they cannot. So you have to look behind those unemployment figures.
By the way, the rate of unemployment now has gone up for four consecutive months and we will get another report by Statistics Canada tomorrow on the unemployment situation. Many expect that it will continue to go up. As a matter of fact, even the Minister of Finance has predicted that the rate of unemployment will increase to 8.5 per cent in this year. Yet he stands pat, he does not change his policies for economic growth, he does not change his policies for job creation, and he does not change his policies with respect to unemployment insurance.
We have another recent report as well which says more or less the same thing. This report is put out by the
The Budget
Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. This is an advisory council set up by the Minister of Employment and it is equally critical of the government. It says: "After nearly six years of economic recovery many regions of the country continue to experience double digit unemployment and some have not yet regained their pre-recession employment levels. Although there have been many new jobs, many of these are in the part-time, low paying service sectors."
This is an advisory council to the government appointed by the Minister of Employment. Its report says that many of these policies will have major negative effects which will be experienced in the regions of Canada. The policies to which it refers are cutbacks in regional development, reduction in the growth of transfer payments to the provinces for health, social welfare and education, changes to the unemployment insurance program, closure of Canadian Forces bases, lower subsidies to VIA Rail, lower subsidies to the CBC and postponement of the Polar 8 icebreaker program.
Here we have two independent advisory councils, the Economic Council and the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, both telling the government to do exactly the opposite of what the government has done in this budget.
I understand that my time is up. In addition to containing massive tax increases, the budgetary policy involving massive tax increases, in particular the goods and services tax and cutting back on essential programs in health care and education is also a recipe for recession. If the government continues along the lines that it is going, it is going to push this country over the precipice into a major recession.


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, I take it from my colleague's comment, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that he did not read some articles from the Journal de Montreal which reported that the former Parti Quebecois Minister, Mr. Bernard Landiy, had phoned the Minister of State for Finance to tell him that that budget was quite a feat, a very good budget and that Mr. Wilson was the best Finance minister Canada ever had.
I would also ask our colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace to comment on the budget of one of his former colleagues, who, when he was Minister of Finance back in 1981, stated, as reported in the The Ottawa Citizen of

March 8, 1990
The Budget
Saturday December 19 1981, that he had to modify his budget because it was incorrect.
Madam Speaker, among others things, I have here, in this press clipping, 16 different amendments made by the then minister of Finance, the honorable Allan MacEa-chen. May be, he could compare or share with us his comments on the difference in credibility between the present minister of Finance who, I think, for the last five years, has proven his capacity to make responsible budgets to correct the mistakes of the previous Trudeau government which left us a $200 billion deficit and the situation that we know while the then government was saying: "We will never freeze wages." It is the same government which, a few months later, when it was in office, put a freeze on wages and prices and so on, increasing the tax on gas which rose from 18 cents to over a dollar. Maybe he could comment on the good times when he was a colleague of the then minister of Finance, M. MacEachen.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, with respect to the praise given by the ex-Minister of Finance for Quebec, Mr. Landry, who was a minister of finance for the PQ government in Quebec, I never had any confidence in Mr. Landry when he was the minister of finance in Quebec and neither did the people of Quebec because they threw that government out, including Mr. Landry.
As a matter of that, that PQ government led by Mr. Levesque, of which Mr. Landry was the Minister of Finance, wreaked economic havoc on the province of Quebec. If Mr. Landry is praising the Minister of Finance for his budget, I would caution the Minister of Finance from taking that praise too seriously.
My hon. colleague, who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and with whom I work frequently, quotes articles and editorials from newspapers praising the budget. If he wants to get into a game of matching editorials with editorials I could bring into the House a pile of them, which would be four or five times greater than his, condemning the budget. As a matter of fact, if I had time I would start reading them. I have here a whole booklet full of editorials and comments by various associations,
groups, newspapers and commentators condemning the budget.
No doubt there are some groups in this country, such as the Fraser Institute and others, which think this is a wonderful budget. Most right-wing Tory-thinking organizations think it is a wonderful budget because all they have in mind is the deficit. Reduce the deficit even though you kill our post-secondary education system, even though you throw people out of hospitals. No matter what you do, protect the rich and kick the poor in the ass.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I know, has a lot of editorials and documents that would be of interest to members. I wonder if there would be consent to have them printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mercier.


Carole Jacques: Madam Speaker, on February 20, the Minister of Finance brought down his 1990 Budget. I want to congratulate the minister on another job well-done.
We all know that the economy of the country is based on growth. As a country becomes more prosperous, its economy improves.
When we came to power in 1984, the economic situation in this country was deplorable. We had a national debt of $200 billion and a deficit of $38 billion. Canadians gave us a clear mandate to turn around the Canadian economy. That is what we have done, it is what we are doing now and what we will keep on doing.
Reflecting the wishes of Canadians, since 1984 the federal government has introduced structural reforms in the economy in order to enhance our competitive position and improve our potential for expansion and for creating jobs. This strategy has produced some impressive results. In Quebec, for instance, 356,000 new jobs were created. Unfortunately, our potential for growth is eroded by a crushing debt that has mortgaged the future
March 8, 1990

of generations to come, and this, Mr. Speaker, is the fault of the Liberals who left us this crushing legacy.


An hon. member:: Ha, ha!


Carole Jacques: Shame! The hon. member should realize this is no laughing matter.
No, it is because of you that we are at the point where we have to make budget cuts to deal with this lamentable situation. People criticize us and you criticize us too.
We must therefore reduce the debt to ensure sustained economic growth.
Canadians know that the measures taken in this Budget are necessary to avoid a recession or a disastrous future for all of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I admit that some of these measures are difficult, but they are also absolutely necessary. We will be able to see the positive result of these budget cuts by 1995 when the deficit will be down to $10 billion.
Our government preferred to reduce expenditures instead of raising new taxes. Indeed, Madam Speaker, this Budget has no new tax. Seventy per cent of the actions taken to reduce the deficit apply to spending. We reduced the size of the Public Service by over 12,000. We intend to privatize Petro Canada because that will enable people to own shares in it directly. Cuts will also be made to some privileges of public servants and parliamentarians. Government subsidies and assistance will also be reduced. Some programs will be reduced, others will be eliminated. We are also proposing several changes which will considerably improve the income tax system and make it fairer for all taxpayers.
But, Madam Speaker, we made sure that the most important social programs such as family allowances, benefits to seniors and veterans and unemployment insurance were spared. We recognize our people's essential needs and are striving to ensure that low-income Canadians are affected as little as possible by budget restrictions.
Budget cuts are not always easy to make. Everybody says: "Go ahead and cut but not in my backyard, not in my pockets." How can you take measures that will not affect people? The Liberals have left us in an economic chaos, which I find appalling. By electing us in 1984 and
The Budget
re-electing us in 1988, the Canadian people have given us a clear mandate: reducing the deficit! But if people want us to reduce the deficit, I ask them to do their part. It is not always easy. The situation resembles that of a man who tells his wife that his week's pay was cut. Instead of going to the hairdresser twice, the lady will go only once. Of course, the husband would like to tell his wife to have her hair done everyday, to hire someone to do it at home. But they cannot afford it. But if they keep on saving, one day perhaps, they will be able to hire a housekeeper or some help.
So the important thing is that we must all work hand in hand, help one another and reduce the deficit. We do not have the choice, as I said earlier, it is a matter of economic survival. We decided upon those measures in the best interest of Canadians. Our country's prosperity depends largely on our determination to tackle right now our deficit problems in order to control inflationist tensions. It is with a government like ours, a government that is not afraid to act, that we will succeed in building our country. We will succeed because we have the unfailing support of the Canadian people. It is not by throwing grants left and right, as the Liberals did in the past, that we will buy our seats. Because you know, Madam Speaker, we did reduce the deficit. Listen, I have a very good example for you. When I was first elected in 1984, through the Canada Works Program, which we all know and which has been changed since then, I had $2 million to spend in my constituency. That's awful! We now manage with $700,000 for each constituency. Can you imagine that! Our Conservative government has cut more than one million dollars per constituency. Listen, before the election, my opponent was giving enormous amounts away to churches, half a million at a time. Don't you find that unusual when our people are in need? I found it simply terrible that we would squander money away like that, and then my parish priest was mad at me because I had no money left for him. You don't buy people that way. I thought it was awful.
Madam Speaker, foremost among the budget objectives are the cut-backs which will make it possible to bring the deficit down to $28.5 billion in 1991, then in the three years after that it will be reduced by half, down

March 8, 1990
The Budget
again to $14 billion. By 1995 it will stand at $10 billion and at that time we will regain control over our economy.
Madam Speaker, there being no ready-made solution to the ever growing national debt problem, the steps taken in this budget are therefore essential if we are to bring lasting economic prosperity to this country.
The priority of our government since 1984 has been to get a handle on the deficit and the national debt while restoring better control over our finances. Such was the mandate given to us by all Canadians. When we came into office, forecast program expenditures were $16 billion more than revenues. Now, the government's expenditures are $9 billion less than its revenues. This turnaround of more than $25 billion makes all the difference and proves that we know how to manage our finances.
Significant economical progress has been made because we have controled program and federal service growth. Budgetary initiatives, combined with better management and the implementatioon of the goods and services tax make up the government's economic strategy to restore our country's financial health and improve our economic performance on the international scene.
This budget takes into account the economic situation in Quebec. I want assure Quebecers to know that the extra help they receive through equalization payments will remain untouched. Neither will it be affected by the 5 per cent limit imposed on federal transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan. In fact, major transfers to Quebec should increase overall by some 3,2 per cent in 1990-91, and 3,4 per cent in 1991-92.
In sum, Madam Speaker, Canadians have adjusted well to the changes introduced by this government. The number of jobs created and our numerous achievements prove that our policies are working.
Our mandate is to restore Canada's financial balance, and because of that we are committed to reducing the waste that was a major contributor to the debt. We will keep on making the changes that are needed as long as this country's economy has not stabilized.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that does not balk at taking drastic
measures where needed. This government is not concerned with its popularity when the welfare and future of Canadians are involved. We therefore will keep on acting in the best interests of all.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's response to the federal budget and heard her itemize several components of the budget that we have been held in criticism of over recent days. I cannot help but think, given the limited amount of time a member has in the House of Commons to comment on a particular matter, that there are certain components of her speech which should be emphasized and perhaps highlighted.
I take this opportunity to express to her my concern and also my appreciation for the time and effort she has spent on this speech. I wish she would take this opportunity to comment perhaps from la belle province on a couple of points of her speech that would be of great interest to Canadians generally who are having Quebec presented to them in a misunderstood way.
I particularly make note of her comment with respect to the fact that this government to which we both belong has fielded a budget this year showing that in effect we have a program surplus. However, we are harnessed with this cancerous debt we have inherited that stifles our very sovereignty and we cannot act as Canadians should.
Therefore, I would like to ask her to comment some more on the good government that has resulted in us giving this operating surplus to the citizens of Canada. If the hon. member has any other highlights that she may have overlooked with respect to how this budget affected Quebec, I think it would be in Canada's good interest to know.


Carole Jacques: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Regina-Wascana for his remarks and also for his question.
I would like to tell him that, as was said a few moments ago, this budget is indeed a good thing for all Canadians. Obviously we have to take drastic measures in order to help Canadians reduce the deficit, all that because the
March 8, 1990

The Budget
Liberals wasted money in the past and left us with a debt that affects our country today.
The budget is also good for our economy in that foreign investors will come to Canada and create jobs for our youth. We know that, if we reduce the deficit, young Canadians will not come into this world with that huge debt hanging over their head, as my colleague from Montmorency-Orleans pointed out. I think that is an important measure to ensure a strong economic future for Canada.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would comment positively or negatively and give her true feelings with regard to the cuts to women's programs in the budget. Is she in favour of that?


Carole Jacques: Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague. I cannot tell you whether I agree or not with those cuts in women's programs. But there is one thing I can tell my Liberal colleague. It is because of your wasteful ways that we have to make those cuts.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Does the hon. member still agree with the statement the Minister of Finance made back in August 1984 when he stood up in Toronto and said that as a government the Tories in Canada would never cut the deficit by increasing taxes, that the only way they would go about cutting the deficit would be by cutting government programs? Would the hon. member comment on the authenticity of that remark in today's atmosphere.


Carole Jacques: Madam Speaker, I thank my collegue for his comment and question.
I simply want to tell him that we have not raised taxes in any way in this budget. We have taken means to cut federal government spending in an effort to reduce the deficit.
Again, my dear collegue, we had no choice in view of the legacy you had left us.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Jonquiere for relinquishing his spot in order for me to correct the record on some of the erroneous comments made with regard to measures in the budget affecting veterans.
Certainly I am pleased to enter this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to answer the critics who for purely partisan reasons are trying to create unfounded fear among Canada's veterans. That is simply unfair for them.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This government has always been extremely generous to veterans. These are not just fine words. They are borne out by the facts and by the figures which speak for themselves. Expenditures directly to and on behalf of the veterans of Canada have risen from approximately $1.2 billion in 1984, when we came to power, to over $1.5 billion this year. We have made a great number of improvements in veterans' programs, passed enlightened legislation and new benefits, and we are going to continue to do so.
These include a much more responsive pension system, increased compensation to former prisoners of war, benefits for veterans' widows and their families, and the opening up of a very popular program, VIP or Veterans Independence Program, for veterans who served only in Canada.
This government has great respect for our veterans and has been putting that respect into practice every year since we took power in 1984. This year we will be operating with another record budget. Some cut, Madam Speaker!
From that background, let us look at the budget changes which have been preoccupying my friends opposite.
First, I want to talk about the room and board charges, because I think that is an important issue. Let me immediately refute one cruel exaggeration of the effect of these changes which has been unfairly promoted by some. I have heard idle speculation about increases for veterans who lost legs in the war. That is utter rubbish. Nobody in an institution as a result of a war related

March 8, 1990
The Budget
injury will pay a penny; not now, not on April 1, 1991, and not at any time.
Charges for those veterans who are in institutions because they require long-term care were first introduced in 1949, at a rate at that time of $120 a month. Today's equivalent of that $120, 41 years ago, would be $750 a month.
More than 70 per cent of all non-pensioned veterans are presently paying the $8 a day charge, but because of inconsistent regulations the other 30 per cent are paying nothing. Many veterans have objected to this unequal treatment. Why should 70 per cent of the veterans pay, and 30 per cent not pay? The changes were made after consultations with veterans groups who, incidentally, agreed to correct these inequities and this unfairness. On April 1, 1990, everyone will pay the $240 a month, $8 a day, for their board, for their lodging, for their recreation, for their laundry, and for nursing services. We think that that is a pretty good buy. Everyone will pay except veterans who are in institutions because of war related disabilities. I repeat, they are paying nothing now and they are not going to have to pay in the future.
We have also given notice that the rate will rise to $420 a month on April 1, 1991. That will be the lowest rate charged by any jurisdiction, any province in Canada, and that will work out to $14 a day. On the face of it, it may seem a lot to pay $14 a day for board, lodging, accommodation, nursing care, recreational care, laundry and all the other good things you get, but not if you realize that it has never been raised for six years. In fact, this $14 per day charge is only a small fraction of the $130 a day it really costs on average in Canada to operate a chronic care bed. That is right, that is what the cost is: $130 a day and our veterans are being charged now $8 a day. That is about $4,000 a month or almost $50,000 a year for us to keep a veteran in long-term care or a chronic care bed in Canada.
In addition, the Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion and the Chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations of Canada have said that they find these levels of board and lodging charges fair and reasonable, reflecting as they do the lowest rate available anywhere in Canada.
Doug Fisher who is a veteran and also a veteran of this place-incidentally, he was a New Democratic Party member of Parliament in this place-wrote about the rates that my department charges, in a recent column in The Toronto Sun. He talked about the money he was left by a veteran who had spent some years in one of our contract beds. Doug Fisher, who writes for the Canadian Legion magazine and many veterans publications stated:
The value of this veteran's estate, including liquid cash, had burgeoned in the institutionalized years because DVA levied such low charges. This resulted in a bonus for the deceased's heirs but it was certainly unfair to taxpaying citizens.
I want to underline that members can be certain that every veteran in our institutions now receives and always will receive adequate financial protection.
We want institutions to be a last resort and so do the veterans. They are much happier living in their own homes. But when there is no other alternative, we make certain that no veteran is financially worse off as a result of moving from his or her own home into an institution.
We have income protection features built into the regulations, and we will monitor these features to ensure that they provide adequate protection to the needy veteran who might be on war veterans' allowance.
This government has increased spending on health care for veterans by 136 per cent since 1984. This is something the veterans greatly appreciate and that the government is very proud of.
I want to talk about the Veterans Independence Program. When I hear our critics talk about cuts to VIP, I have to ask myself if they really know what they are talking about. VIP expenditures have increased by over 60 per cent in this year alone. They will more than double in another four years. It has been a soaring success under this government and will continue to do so. The Veterans Independence Program is working and it is keeping the veterans in their own homes for a longer time.
All that is happening is that heavy housekeeping, or what is otherwise known as spring cleaning, is being removed from the lengthy list of services still available to the veteran. However, where there is a legitimate health or safety requirement on the part of a particular client for the provision of a service presently found under heavy housekeeping, I want to assure this House, and indeed the veterans community, that Veterans Affairs
March 8, 1990

will ensure that service continues to be provided to the veteran in need.
Of course normal day to day, week to week house cleaning will go on. The lawns will be mowed, the snow will be shovelled, the ice will be cleared from the steps, the laundry will be done. The Veterans Independence Program will continue to go from strength to strength.
As Doug Fisher pointed out, we have extended the program. He stated:
DVA has chosen to cut payments from the VIP program only
for-annual house cleaning. Better than narrowing eligibility or
capping client numbers.
That is exactly right.
This government's record on behalf of veterans can be found both in our increasing budgets and in the praise I receive across the country from veterans who think DVA, as they call it, is giving them their best ever service.
Veterans in other countries-I have talked to a lot of them, and I suggest the Opposition should talk to the others-are always saying that Canada has the best veterans' programs in the world. That is the way it is now, and that it is the way we are going to keep it.
It was repeated by Doug Fisher that we provide the best programs, the most enlightened legislation, the best benefit programs for veterans in the whole wide world, and we are going to improve on that as well.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, let us leave no doubt about the minister's final statements. The veterans' programs in Canada are the best in the world, but the veterans' programs in Canada have always been the best in the world. The hon. member mentioned only now and in the future. I want to point out to him that it was Liberal governments in the history of this country that brought in the best veterans' legislation in the world for all Canadians, and to a large extent the veterans are benefiting from those to this day.
I want to ask the minister a very serious question. I know he has a very humanitarian feeling toward these things. I have discussed them with him many times. Is there any movement on the part of the government to extend the Veterans Independence Program to the spouses of veterans? As the minister knows, that is a big question in the minds of veterans. They worry about
The Budget
what is going to happen to their partners after they leave.
Is there any movement on that? Does the minister see any future move on the part of the government to extend that program to spouses of veterans?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I do want to comment and I will respond to the hon. member's question. Before I do, I just want to say that my predecessor, the Hon. George Hees, introduced many, many new programs that were not there when the Liberals were in power prior to 1984. I just want to mention that for the record.
This government improved disability pensions. We significantly increased prisoner of war allowances. We expanded the Veterans Independence Program to make Canada Service Only vets eligible. We reinstituted pensions for remarried spouses. We negotiated with the provinces for additional beds all across Canada, and health care benefits have increased 136 per cent since we came to power in 1984.
I know the hon. member is also very interested, coming from a military riding, with regard to the VIP going to spouses. That has been a concern of the Legion and other veterans' groups such as the National Council. It is a matter that I feel very strongly about. It is under consideration by the department now. Hopefully, we will have some news about that particular program in the future.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the minister was complaining about certain remarks. As far as I know, no member in this House, on any side, made the kinds of remarks he attributed to certain people, either inside or outside this House.
The second point I want to make to the hon. minister is that in my experience here for nearly 22 years, and from my reading of the activities of Parliament, the only department in the entire ministry of any government since the First World War that is non-political and non-partisan is the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is the only one. Every time an improvement has been made, opposition parties of all political stripes have applauded the government of the day. There is no argument about that.
In the case of the incomes test for veterans' board and lodging, for a single veteran the incomes test is $9,840 a year. That is $2,000 below the income which the government accepts as the poverty line. In the case of a married

March 8, 1990
The Budget
veteran, the incomes test is $15,808 a year which is more than $4,000 a year below the poverty line.
I am not going to argue with the minister about the incomes test, whether or not we should even have one. However, would the minister agree that in terms of the incomes test it should be at least no less than and should probably be slightly more than what the poverty level is? Would he agree to that?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is interested in veterans affairs. He has had a sincere interest for a very long time, and I thank him for his support when we needed that as well.
When these changes were made-and I am telling the House this and the veterans' groups-they were made after consultation based on the matter of inequities and injustices. The problem is, number one, 70 per cent were paying $8 a day, 30 per cent were not. That is patently unfair.
The other thing is we have 5,000 veterans in beds in institutions. We have 600,000 out there paying their taxes and trying to tough it out in society itself. They were concerned about the inequities of the charges as they were applied to the people who happen to be institutionalized, because some veterans were institutionalized solely because it was much cheaper to be in an institution than to be in their own home. We thought that was patently unfair, there was an inequity, an unfairness, and an injustice and we wanted to correct that.
We do, as the hon. member mentioned, protect the income of both single veterans who are in institutions, as well as people with spouses. We treat our veterans better than any other country in the world in that regard as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We know that. That's not what the argument is about.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is over.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, may I ask for unanimous consent to continue the question and answer period for at least another five minutes?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I hear that there is not unanimous consent.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke).


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I want to say very clearly that the phoniest thing that is being said in this entire budget debate is that there are no increases in taxes.
Here we have a whole list of increases in taxes as a result of what this government has done to the provinces of Canada. Taxes are paid by the general public. If this government is not big enough to pay its own bills and it is going to pass them all over to the provinces, the provinces still have to get the money from John Q. Public. It is a poor way of managing the finances of this nation when you do not live up to your own obligations.
Government members are claiming that they are great financial managers. They feel that they are the only ones capable of managing finances in this country.
I want to point out that in March 1984 the national debt of this country stood at $160 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1990, the national debt will stand at $350 billion, which is an increase of $190 billion. Approximately 45 per cent of the national debt today is attributable to the previous government, 55 per cent of the national debt as it stands today is attributable to this government that claims to be great financial managers of this country. That is one thing that should be laid on the line for the government.
For example, in 1985-86 the government's deficit was $34.4 billion. In 1986-87 it added another $30.6 billion to the national debt. In 1987-88 it added another $28.1 billion to the national debt. In 1988-89 it added another $28.9 billion estimate to the national debt, and heaven knows what it will be in 1989-90 because the figures of the Minister of Finance are not accurate and have not been accurate in recent years. It could go as high as another $30.5 billion estimated. Those figures are garnered from the minister's own Department of Finance. This budget is in keeping with the recent Tory initiatives, its regressive taxation and its cumulative assault on the structure of social security in this country.

March 8, 1990

Unemployment insurance has been attacked. My hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who has been very active in this area and who is a great defender of the average worker in this country, has spoken at considerable length on this. We know that the unemployment insurance program came into force in 1940 as a result of the Rowell-Sirois commission report of 1937. It was to be managed by the federal government. Eventually, the federal government contributed considerable sums of money to the UI program to help the unemployed across this nation.
Now, after several years of an understanding that the federal government is a partner and that the federal government must do its part to help the unemployed of this country, we have the federal government pulling out of the UI financial structure entirely. The government has become the managers only, but who is going to pay the differences? The employers, the small businesses across this country are going to have to make larger contributions to make up the difference. The employees are going to have to make bigger contributions to make up the difference.
The privatization of what has been a very successful mixed economy comes into play here because this government is selling off Crown corporations that have been built up over the years with taxpayers' money. Now, they are being sold when there is a complete industry in place. There is no risk in building up a market for the products. There is no risk in having to go out to hire special help because the employees are already in place, whether it be engineers, technicians, nurses, or whatever. They are all there in the structure. Even trade missions around the world have by these companies. Everything necessary for sales production is in place. The government is selling these off for private enterprise when they could be an asset to the taxpayers of this country in returning funds to the treasury of Canada.
We in this country still have a further alignment with the United States in order to make free trade easier. This government is aligning itself with U.S. policy. Anything that the United States wants it to do is fine, it is just a matter of how high the government will jump to please the United States.
The Budget
This budget brings into the open this Tory government's multi-year plan to terminate the federal role in health and post-secondary education. The government is dumping the load on to provincial governments.
There is another thing that the government is dumping on to provincial governments, in an indirect way, by dumping a bigger load for post-secondary education and medicare. In my own province of Ontario, for example, Mr. Nixon, the provincial treasurer of Ontario had a surplus this year in the provincial budget. But what happens? After the Minister of Finance was finished with the Ontario budget, Ontario had a deficit this year of nearly $500 million. That was as a result of the irresponsible attitude of this federal government in dumping its debts over on to the province of Ontario.
There has always been a great deal of comment about highways in eastern Ontario, for example. I want to comment on the additional debt that this federal government has bestowed on Mr. Nixon, the provincial treasurer of Ontario and, indeed, on to the people of Ontario.
Transportation and highways in eastern Ontario have always been an issue. We had Conservatives in power in the province of Ontario for 42 years, from 1943 to 1985.1 remember when I first came here, the Hon. Joe Green, who was then Minister of Agriculture, the then member for Renfrew South, got up in this House and he called Highway 17 the goat trail of eastern Ontario. That was about what it was.
In the last four and a half years when we have had a Liberal government in Queen's Park there have been all kinds of complaints and talk about road conditions in eastern Ontario. Everybody knows that these things cannot be built overnight. But the provincial government of Ontario has made a decision to four lane Highway 16 from Highway 401 into the National Capital Region. When that is completed in four or five year's time it will be the first time in history that the city of Ottawa, the national capital of this country, has ever had a four lane highway into it from southern Ontario and the Toronto, Windsor, Hamilton, and Kitchener areas.
We go on to take a look at this cut, this nearly $500 million that is being passed over to the province of Ontario. There have been further comments about the Ontario government not doing enough work in eastern Ontario in transportation. The Government of Ontario just recently made another multi-million dollar an-

March 8, 1990
The Budget
nouncement to extend the four lane highway, the Queensway, beyond Arnprior up the valley.
My only comment on that is that I hope it operates better than the Queensway. I say that because it takes me as long to drive from Cobden, Ontario, to the end of the Queensway as it does to come from the end of the Queensway to Parliament Hill.
Here is another expenditure of over $400 million for Highway 416. It will be another $250 million for the first two phases up the Ottawa Valley, going north on Highway 17. All this was done in this very short period of time, in four and a half years. The other part of the highway will be upgraded.
I want to put this in perspective. The extension of Highway 17 up the Ottawa Valley that has just been announced is costing half the amount of the national debt that this government has unloaded on to the provincial government of Ontario. If it had that $500 million on its own that it is now going to have to levy additional taxes to make up for paying the federal debt, it could have extended the highway north. Or it could have taken the whole thing and had a surplus of $100 million left over after building four lanes of Highway 416 from Highway 401 into the national capital from southern Ontario.
Madam Speaker, I see you are giving me the signal here. I think it is time we started looking at these things in terms of what the bad management of this government is doing to the financial structure, both federally and provincially in this countiy.


Clément Couture: Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member of the Liberal Party to compare the two proceeding governments. Under one, from 1980 to 1984, current operating expenditures increased at an average rate of 14 per cent, and in 1984 the deficit was $39.3 billion; the other, from 1984 to 1988, achieved an average increase in expenditures of 3.6 per cent and managed to bring the deficit down from $39.3 billion to $28.1 billion. Through good management, in the new budget, we expect the increase in operating expenditures to be no more than 3.2 per cent.
I would like the hon. member to compare both governments and tell us which is the best.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about an administration that had some human values to it it was the one we had between 1980 and 1984, certainly not this one.
I appreciate the hon. member asking me that question. I think it is a very pertinent one. I would like to point out to the hon. member that we had a world recession in the early 1980s. This government opposite has had some of the best economic years in recent decades to bring in taxes and meet its debts, and it has not been able to do it with the best economy going. That is part of your bad financial management again.
With world recession and with markets falling apart around the world, for many nations in the early 1980s, there was a large number of people unemployed in this countiy. The Liberal government of the day did not turn its back on John Q. Public. It did not cut medicare. It did not cut post-secondary education and destroy the future of the youth of this countiy. It kept those up. It also looked after the unemployed in this countiy, as well as the senior citizens. There was no clawback. This was a human government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am glad when members of this government get up and ask questions like that. I am really happy to lay it on the line. I was here. I know what the feeling was out there across the country. We travelled the country in those days. I will tell you, we did not have senior citizens lining up in front of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill with elderly people telling the Prime Minister of that day that he had lied to the Canadian people, because he did not lie to the Canadian people. He looked after them. They know that. They remember that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, this is a return to the same kind of logic that party used back in the days of the Trudeau government. There is no question about it.
If you look at the record, what did they burden us with? They burdened us with 20 per cent plus interest rates, and double digit inflation. They left us with a debt which, if any reasonable person examined the books with respect to, would see that it was $200 billion plus. It was a burden of debt that no country in the western world
March 8, 1990

could sustain. That is what they left us. That is the legacy of the Liberal party.
The members to my right do not want to listen to that. That is the absolute fact. They left us with a debt that was crippling. They do not want to address it.
What do they want to do? They want to turn back the clock to the same kinds of policies they used in the 1960s and 1970s. Those were the kinds of policies that put us in the position we are in today. We are going to make the tough decisions that have to be made to bring this country into line.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Nipissing.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate, briefly, for two minutes.
On February 20, I listened attentively to the Minister of Finance as he presented his sixth budget. I must say that I was disappointed with the latest episode of "as the debt turns". My first impulse was to move a motion to protect an endangered species, namely, middle income Canadians. It is an endangered species because this government seems to get a kick out of seeing how many Canadians it can put below the poverty line.
What is the plan the minister speaks of when he says that since 1984 this government has been following a consistent and comprehensive plan? We would like to know what the plan is.
This government has subjected Canadians to 32 separate tax increases since 1984. Personal income taxes have increased from $29 billion to $56 billion since 1984. The national debt has more than doubled from $170 billion to $350 billion since 1984. The manufacturers' sales tax, the so-called silent killer of jobs, has been increased four times from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent since 1984.
Corporate taxes have decreased from 13.2 per cent to 10.4 per cent, as a proportion of a total tax revenue, despite the fact that we have experienced five consecutive years of economic growth.
Also, in northern Ontario this measure will widen the regional disparity in this country because of the cutbacks in the regional development programs. This is going to have a tremendous effect on northern Ontario, especially at a time when these regions need them most. As mines close in northern Ontario and fisheries shut down on the east coast and the prairie farmers suffer,
The Budget
this is not the time to be cutting back on the programs of regional development.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry. I must interrupt the hon. member.

It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 84(6), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.13 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.13 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 9,1990