1991-02-28

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question of privilege.
The matter giving rise to my claim for privilege arose in the month of December last. On December 18 I rose in the House and gave notice of my intention to raise a matter of privilege. At that time I indicated that the matter might better be raised and discussed at a point in time later. Subsequent to December 18, of course, the House adjourned. It did come back to deal with the gulf war, and this week we have been dealing with the budget.
During that time there have been discussions between a number of parties involved in the events that gave rise to my claim. These discussions have enhanced, in my view, the understanding of the issues among the parties, but the matter has not, unfortunately, been dealt with.
The first thing I have to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to show to you that a prima facie case of privilege exists here, and I want to outline just precisely what that is now.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter which the hon. member is raising was raised, as he has very properly pointed out, some weeks ago.
I may have to interrupt the hon. member before his submission is concluded because I have some procedural difficulties with hearing this application at this time.
However, I would invite the hon. member to put, not in extensive argument, but briefly the point that he wishes to make. I may have to interrupt him at that point. If I do have to interrupt him, I want it made very clear that that does not in any way preclude the hon. member from raising this matter at perhaps a later time.
I am not trying to preclude the hon. member, but the Speaker may be in some procedural difficulty here. I will explain that if I have to.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. If I may just comment very briefly, I believe I have the general sense of what the member is concerned about.
I do not believe, from what I know of it, that it is a case of privilege. However, I think it is an issue that is important to the House and therefore if the member were to be brief, succinct and to the point, I want to signal to the chair that we, on this side, are prepared to listen to his arguments.
I would have some brief comments after, if that would be allowed by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I do know, of course, about the issue. I think all hon. members do. It is an issue of terrible importance to the public and I think to all members of this House.
I will accept the hon. parliamentary secretary's invitation to hear the hon. member.


Derek Vincent Lee: Simply on a point of order, would it be preferable, Mr. Speaker, if I were to defer making this case to a later time today when the hon. minister has completed his work in connection with the estimates?
If that is the difficulty, I would be prepared certainly to postpone my argument until Orders of the Day had commenced. The reason I say that is because I do not believe the privilege matter I wish to raise here lends itself to a cursory introduction.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
I believe it is more complex and important to the House than that. I would prefer to place all of the case at one time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should say this to hon. members and again to the public which is listening and watching. I do not take anything away from the hon. members' advocacy.
This matter arises because a committee has indicated that it wishes a minister to release certain information in a confidential report that relates to an individual who escaped from custody and committed offences while he was out of custody.
That is the issue. That is the subject matter of the issue, but it is not the procedural issue that I have to face.
The matter has been reported by the committee back to the House. It has not been dealt with yet by the House. For me, that creates certain procedural difficulties.
If the hon. member wishes to let this matter go for a little while longer, I most certainly of course will consider that as an adjournment of the question of privilege and I will hear the hon. member further.
I want to make it very clear that I understand, very clearly, not just as Speaker of the House but as a member of Parliament why the hon. member does not want to just make a cursory comment.
It probably would be better, now that the hon. member has raised it for the second time in the House-I appreciate the hon. member's co-operation in this-that it be adjourned further. That does not preclude the hon. member from raising it.
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for indicating that there is agreement on the government side for that course of action.
I also want to say to the House that the co-operation and the attention that the hon. member has given to this matter and to the information that has been given to the Speaker-not just, by the way, from the hon. member but also from the other side of the House-is helpful to the Chair.
I thank hon. members for that.
The hon. member on a point of privilege.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not raise points of privilege very-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there has been an error somewhere, but the Chair does not have any notice of the point of privilege.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I could have perhaps run up to you and given you this while you were in the midst of a ruling. I understand that points of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say to the hon. member that my difficulty is this: The rules are very clear. I certainly can hear the hon. member later on in the day, but I don't think I can hear the hon. member a ce moment-ci.
Perhaps the hon. member would give me notice, and I will take it under consideration and hear him later in the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in support of the Estimates I should also like to table Part I, the Government Expenditure Plan; as well, on behalf of my colleagues I will then file with the Clerk of the House Part III of the Estimates which includes the expenditure plans of 87 departments. These documents will be distributed to members of standing committees to make it easier for them to consider the borrowing authority sought in Part II of the Estimates.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 81(4) and 81(6), I move:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1992, laid upon the Thble earlier this day, be referred to the several
Standing Committees of the House as follows:
February 28, 1991

Since there is a detailed allocation of the Estimates to various committees and the list is lengthy, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be appended in Hansard as if it had been read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5,10,15, L20 and L25
lb the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45
lb the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95
Secretary of State, Votes 1, 5, 30 and 35
lb the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship
Secretary of State, Votes 15 and 20
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 1, 5,10,15, 20,25, 30,35 and 40
Finance, Vote 35 Governor General, Vote 1
Industry, Science and Ifechnology, Votes 100 and 105 Parliament, Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council, Votes 1, 5 and 35 Public Works, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Secretary of State, Votes 10 and 25 Supply and Services, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Treasury Board, Votes 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 lb the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council, Vote 15
lb the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 1, 5,10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35 and 40
lb the Standing Committee on Environment
Environment, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
lb the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade
Routine Proceedings
External Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10,15, 20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
lb the Standing Committee on Finance Finance, Votes 1, L5, L10, 15, 25 and 30 National Revenue, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 Privy Council, Vote 25
lb the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Forestry, Votes 1, 5 and 10
lb the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons
Justice, Vote 10
lb the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 Privy Council, Vote 40
Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40
lb the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 35 Labour, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15
lb the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament, Votes 10 and 15
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5,10, 15 and 20
lb the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women
Employment and Immigration, Votes 30 and 40
National Health and Welfare, Votes 1, 5,10,15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
lb the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Finance, Vote 20
lb the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Ifechnology, Regional and Northern Development
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 30, 35,40 and 45
Industry, Science and Ifechnology, Votes 1,5, L10, L15,20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, L60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95
Western Economic Diversification, Votes 1 and 5
lb the Standing Committee on Ttansport
Privy Council, Votes 10 and 30
Ttansport, Votes 1, 5,10,15, 20, 25, 30, 35,40,45, 50,55 and 60

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
That Privy Council Vote 20 be referred to the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours
thereof.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling today the government's Main Estimates for the 1991-92 year.
The Main Estimates provide a host of details on the way the government will spend most of the $159 billion earmarked for budgetary expenditures, as announced Tuesday by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
By tabling the Main Estimates, the government is asking Parliament to approve new spending authority totalling $47 billion, while the remaining $110.5 billion is authorized under legislation already approved by Parliament.
The Main Estimates reflected our absolute commitment to expenditure control and keeping a tight rein on the cost of government operations.
Since it came to power in 1984, our government's first priority has been to reduce the cost of government operations while continuing to provide Canadians with the programs and services they need. We made it clear that we were committed to sound management and the judicious administration of tax revenues.
Orderly management of a country's finances requires a strict and continuous review of federal programs and services, and a lasting commitment to spending restraint. In this area, we have achieved major results over the past six years. I will understand if you do not applaud, Mr. Speaker, in view of your duties in this House.
The annual increase in program spending was kept down to an average 3.7 per cent between 1984-85 and 1990-91, well below the rate of inflation.
The annual increase in operating and capital expenditures, including Public Service wages, dropped to an
average 3.3 per cent during the six years our government has been in power. Again, this is well below the annual rate of inflation and far less that the average of 10.4 per cent we saw during the first half of the decade.
The Public Service has become leaner since 1984-85 and is now about the size it was in the middle of the seventies. This happened despite a significant increase in the volume of work involved in programs and services, increased air traffic, a larger number of travellers going through customs and larger numbers of pension cheques being delivered each month.
The heightened efficiency of government operations was the result of more than strict expenditure controls. We also made a point of focussing on better management of the government itself.
Since 1984-85, operations and maintenance expenditures have been controlled very carefully, and departments and agencies have had to absorb any cost increases due to inflation.
Better financial management made substantial saving possible. Measured wage increases have helped to maintain the government's wage bill at a reasonable level.
Altogether these measures have sent a clear message to Canadians that the times when governments were spenders were over. This is particulary important now that we are going through a period of economic recession, marked by unpredictable external pressure that are likely to generate new expenditures.
[English\
Program spending for 1991-1992 will amount to $116 billion. This represents a year over year increase of 6.9 per cent or under 3 per cent after discounting temperate factors such as high unemployment insurance benefits and support to grain producers.
Public confidence in government expenditure control remains a key to restoring the economy to good health. To bolster that confidence and to keep the plan of deficit reduction on track, we will need to reduce program spending further and to take other steps to increase the efficiency of government operations. Tliis requires more than simply a frugal continuation of business as usual. Previous spending cuts and other internal economies have taken the fat out of government operations.
February 28, 1991

The spending cuts we are implementing are bound to have an impact on internal operations and on the level of services that the government provides, but every effort will be made to minimize adverse impacts.
Although departments have not yet determined the precise areas that will be affected, there are some cases where reductions are already known. These range from the elimination of internal government publications, such as Dialogue, to the elimination of direct federal spending on National Crime Prevention Week, to the phasing out of land use planning in the north.
To achieve the savings necessary to sustain a healthy economy and a sound financial position for the government, there will have to be fundamental changes in the way that programs and services are delivered to the public. Departments will have to rationalize their delivery systems and perhaps reduce the number of points of service delivery.
This is a program of expenditure reduction and restraint, and I make no apology for it. We will not ask Canadians to spend more on government than the country can afford.
In the budget the Minister of Finance announced a number of measures intended to bring about both immediate savings and lasting efficiencies in government programs and services. I am announcing today details of some of these measures.

The linchpin of this restraint program is the extension of the expenditure control plan and strict controls on the cost of government operations.
The measures we are introducing this week to control the cost of government operations will generate a savings of nearly $870 million for 1991-92. Over the five-year fiscal planning period ending in 1995-96, cumulative savings will exceed $5.2 billion.
These initiatives will have a direct impact on the Public Service, at all levels. We are introducing a three-year wage restraint program which, depending on the outcome of collective bargaining, may result in the loss of 6,000 jobs. Management levels in departments and agencies will be reduced, and the number of management level employees will drop by 10 per cent.
Routine Proceedings
However, although cost reduction is vital to the well-being of our country at this time, it is not the only reason for these changes.
The measures announced today Mr. Speaker, reflect the realization that we can no longer justify the present complexity and cost of government operations. To serve Canadians well, the government must innovate in the way it provides services and depend on organizations that are managed far more efficiently.
We are convinced that these reductions and reforms are necessary if the government is to have sufficient funds for essential programs and services and if it is to set an example to other employers in this country.
All these measures will substantially change the way the government runs its operations.
There will be a freeze on operations and maintenance expenditures and on capital spending related to existing programs.
To accomplish this, the operating and capital budgets of each department will be reduced by 3 per cent in the Main Estimates. As a result, overall spending on existing programs in 1991-92 will be maintained at 1990-91 levels.
The government is taking other steps to reduce spending on grants and contributions that are not otherwise affected by measures already included in the Expenditure Control Plan.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Vice-President of the Treasury Board, my colleague, the Hon. Harvie Andre, will review current spending on grants and contributions. This review will ensure that current spending is reduced in line with government priorities and with a minimum of inconvenience to the public. Mr. Andre will submit recommendations on how best to target grants and contributions, promote autonomy and reduce duplication.
These additional measures, Mr. Speaker, will generate savings of $75 million in 1991-92, which will reach $125 million by 1992-93.
As indicated by the Minister of Finance, the government will introduce a bill to limit expenditures. Canadians can be assured that program expenditures management will be done in the context of the fiscal plan.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings

Given the seriousness of our fiscal situation, the government must look carefully at its wage costs. Our approach to collective bargaining must also reflect our commitment to the inflation targets announced by the Minister of Finance.
The government has a responsibility to show national leadership in wage restraint. We are not prepared, therefore, to contemplate wage settlements at greater than 3 per cent annually over the next three years. We believe that this can be accomplished under the current collective bargaining system. We are prepared, however, to introduced legislation if necessary to maintain essential services and to avoid excessive third party wage settlements.
Salary budgets for 1991-1992 will not be adjusted to compensate for new collectively bargained wage increases. There are simply no additional funds available to compensate departmental operating budgets for increased wage settlements.
Any increase in wages must be paid, therefore, through other reductions in the wage and salary budgets, largely through a reduction in Public Service employment. The tradeoff between wages and job losses must be clear and direct and must be understood by all concerned. Each 1 per cent will result in a reduction of about 2,000 jobs so that if agreements are negotiated at 3 per cent the resulting reduction would be in the order of 6,000 jobs.
The choice between wage increases and job losses is not one that is easily made, either by the employer or the bargaining agents, but in the present circumstances of restraint this choice must be faced.
I have already met with the heads of the Public Service unions to seek their support in minimizing job losses. Departments have been asked to identify the job reductions that would be entailed by potential wage increases of up to 3 per cent annually.
Should settlements force a reduction in employment, it is the government's hope that this could be achieved wherever possible through attrition rather than outright lay-offs.

In this time of restrictions, the government feels that senior officials wage increases should not exceed that
which their unionized counterparts obtain through collective bargaining. A certain degree of relativity must also be maintained between managers and the union members under them.
Therefore, the wage increases for members of the Management Category, deputy ministers and heads of Crown corporations will be restricted and will not exceed the average bargained rate of increase for the Public Service.
The number of managers in the Public Service will be cut, as I mentioned earlier, by 10 percent or approximately 475.
This reduction in personnel will be carried out through a government-wide program aimed at bringing down to three the number of management levels under that of deputy minister. It will enable us to rationalize departmental activities, cut costs, speed up the decision-making process and give more powers generally to the officials in the regions and at points of service.
The departments have been asked to develop a plan to eliminate layers of management and reduce managerial staff by 10 percent. These plans will be implemented starting on September 1, 1991, and the personnel will be reduced over the next two years.

The government will improve the matching of payments it makes with any money it is owed. Revenue Canada, Taxation, will improve the collection of debts owed to governments through its matching and post-assessing activities. These programs are designed to ensure taxpayer equity and the integrity of the tax system. This will be done through the verification of income reported by taxpayers, the examination of claims for deductions and exemptions.
Since 1984, the government has been intensifying its efforts in the area of user fees. Revenues from external user fees now exceed $3 billion, which is more than double the 1984-85 levels. The government is continuing to look for new areas where the application of user fees is appropriate.
Transport Canada will continue to increase the amount of cost recovered from specific users of its services so that the burden of cost on the general taxpayer for these services will be reduced.
February 28, 1991

The government's privatization program has already moved more than 18 Crown corporations and other corporate holdings to the private sector and other levels of governments.
The government will privatize CN Exploration, an oil and gas company created to exploit CN's mineral rights in Saskatchewan.
Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, PCIAC, will be wound up. Canadian foreign aid in the energy sector will continue to be delivered through the Canadian International Development Agency. This will rationalize Canada's energy aid and result in administrative savings.
Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration is being wound up. Residual functions will be taken up by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the National Energy Board, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Privatization remains a key priority. Given our experience to date, however, and our desire to streamline government operations further, there is no longer a need for a separate agency dedicated to this function. Accordingly, the Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs will be dismantled.
The regulatory review functions of that office will be transferred to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Responsibility for the co-ordination of future privatization activities will be assumed by the Department of Finance.

The government firmly believes that numerous tasks are best and most efficiently carried out by civil servants. However, the government also considers it is important to be able to provide services to Canadians in a variety of ways.
That is why we made sure we could contract out certain functions outside the Public Service when that is in the public interest in terms of costs, efficiency or quality of service. The Canadian people expect nothing less, from a government committed to the sound management of the country.
We have negotiations ongoing with the Public Service unions regarding the development of a new labour adjustment policy which will be eliminating barriers to contracting out.
Routine Proceedings
Should it become obvious that it is impossible to reach an agreement before the existing policy expires on March 31, 1991, the government will introduce in Parliament a bill to confirm its right to contract out, thereby eliminating any existing barrier.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: You agree. I can feel it. But you do not want to say so.
Mr. Speaker, our objective is quite simply to give the government enough leeway so that Canadians may derive maximum benefits from the taxes they pay.
Special operating agencies are a major government initiative designed to improve the delivery of public services. In the past year we set up five organizations, including the passport office and the Canadian government printing services, and the results are quite encouraging. By establishing such organizations we hope to enhance the quality of services and increase the over-all value of taxes paid by Canadians.
In his remarks the Minister of Finance referred to the creation of three new agencies: the bureau of intellectual property, a government agency to monitor racetracks, and the Canadian Grain Commission.
We made that decision to implement private sector management techniques more systematically so we can operate on a commercially-oriented basis for enhanced cost recovery.
I am pleased to announce today that the government will give six additional units serving a wide range of clients the status of agency. Here they are:
Office of General Standards of Canada;
Transport Canada Training Institute;
Canadian Administration of Indian Oil and Gas Lands;
Correctional Services Professional Development Program;
Canadian Heritage Information Network;
Canadian Conservation Institute.
I also asked the Treasury Board Secretariat to co-operate with departments to define, assess and create other agencies over the coming year, particularly the kind of organizations which serve the public directly and whose future outlook is most promising.

Routine Proceedings

There should be no ambiguity about the steps we are taking today: they reflect the government's continued determination to reduce the costs of government programs and administrative overhead; they reflect the need for significant changes in the way in which government operates; and they show our commitment to look for the most efficient means of delivering services to Canadians.
These expenditure reductions and other management initiatives form an essential part of the government's broader national agenda: for economic recovery for the continued reform of government.
Change is seldom easy, and significant change can be painful as well as difficult. But significant change in the way the government does business is no longer an option, it is a necessity.
Federal Public Service employees have worked hard to maintain services to Canadians over the last six years of restraint. I am confident that they are able to respond to these further changes and challenges.
Canadians will welcome changes that reduce the size and cost of government while better equipping it to provide the services that taxpayers are entitled to expect.
But the basic message should be clear: we are serious about restraint and we are serious about reform; we are determined to cut expenditures, and to organize and operate the government in a manner that suits the real needs of Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition has a short point of order.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is in the House with his parliamentary secretary, I wonder if the minister would check to make sure that the courtesies which have been extended to opposition parties in the past would be delivered upon today. We have an example whereby copies of the estimates are not readily available to members of the Official Opposition.
They were not distributed to our lobby as was done for the New Democratic Party. I am wondering if the
minister and his parliamentary secretary would forthwith embark upon that particular mission, to make sure that that common courtesy which has been extended to us in the past is indeed provided today.


Gilles Loiselle: I do apologize. I was not aware of this and the next time I will make sure that you get the documents to which you are entitled.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my friend, members of my caucus got the the documents. We did not receive any preferential treatment.
I would also like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to determine why government members were seen in the tunnel between this building and West Block carrying estimates even before the House began its sitting for the day, let alone before the minister rose in his place to table the documents. That, I think, is unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the minister will check into it. Maybe it was just too heavy for the minister to carry. On the same point of order?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give the House an undertaking that he will report to the House on the matter which I and my colleague for the New Democratic Party have raised? Will he report to the House by day's end as to what has happened with regard to this particular matter? It is a tradition which has been followed in this House and there seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the delivery of those estimates in the minister's department.


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to tell the hon. gentleman that I came to the House directly from my office, getting into this House at 11 o'clock, so I did not follow very carefully what was unfolding. I am aware that vast numbers of documents were made available, that some briefings were given to members, as is customary, and that from my knowledge everything that had to be done was done, but I will certainly check on the matters that have been raised in this House today.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning to respond to the comments of the hon. minister with respect to the estimates tabled today, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to join, I am sure, all of my colleagues and all Canadians in expressing
February 28, 1991

my profound happiness with the fact that the war in the gulf has ended. May I express, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces our great appreciation for the valorous, competent and professional way in which they have conducted themselves.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


M. Douglas Young: I wish to begin my very brief remarks by referring to part of the conclusion of the text of the hon. minister in which he said, and I quote:

"Canadians will welcome changes that reduce the size and cost of government while better equipping it to provide the services that taxpayers are entitled to expect".
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether Canadians, after listening to the Budget speech made by the Minister of Finance on Tbesday and today's statements by the President of the Treasury Board, really believe they are now better equipped to pursue this country's economic development.
I think most Canadians will share my concern that in the Budget and the documents tabled with the Estimates, the Government of Canada has demonstrated its approval of the Allaire report. I fail to see why the Tory government does not state its position clearly, as so many others have done. If it wants to see this country dismantled, let it come out and say so.
The Allaire report has been questioned by many people. Not long ago, Canadians drew some assurance from the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada had said once again that he was a great federalist. He was, and we have to take his word for it, during the referendum in Quebec in the early 80s. But now, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden the Government of Canada decides to introduce a number of tax measures that prove to Canadians that the federal government has no, or very little, reason to exist.
Make no mistake. If the federal government admits it no longer has any reason to exist, reflected not only in what it says but also in the measures in this Budget and the notes on how the Budget will be spent, what does this mean for Canadians who seek leadership and are
Routine Proceedings
asking the government to show that it wants to maintain a form of Confederation that will include Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic?

I and my colleagues, in the weeks and months to come will, like all Canadians, be looking very closely at the estimates and at the budget. Already there has been reaction.
It seems to me that many Canadians will be astounded that the government has chosen the budget documents to do exactly what has been rejected by federalists in the Quebec Liberal Party, such as Mr. Paradis, Mr. Ryan and many business people. The Conservative Government of Canada, at a time when the Spicer commission is looking for reasons to keep Canada together, when we are anticipating the Campeau-Belanger report, is accepting the premise that is clearly stated in the document called the Allaire report, and I quote:
The central government will continue to exercise exclusive authority in the following areas: Defence and territorial security; customs and tariffs, management of the common debt; currency and equalization.
That is all that is left of Canada as far as the federal government is concerned in the vision put forward in the Allaire report. That is nearly identical with the vision, if that is what one can call it, that is being put forward in the budget and in the estimates.
Surely there has to be more the Government of Canada can do in indicating its commitment to the future of this country. This is a total abdication of government. It is an admission that it has become irrelevant. I think the implications go far beyond the budget and all the talk we are hearing about what has been improved as a result of moneys being spent or how much an improvement we are going to see in control of the deficit and the debt as a result of restraint.
Those elements will all, undoubtedly, be debated. However, I would be extremely surprised if Canadians who look into this are not struck by the approach the government is taking, of abdicating its responsibility for national programs. It makes no difference what aspect of it you look at; the government has said there really is no need for a strong, central federal government looking at maintaining some national standards and equality among the peoples of this country from coast to coast.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The government recognizes, as we all do, that one war apparently has come to an end. On Tuesday and again today, the government confirms that they are declaring war on the regions of the country. They want the provinces now to go to war because it is the only way they are going to be able to survive as a result of some of the measures in the budget and the estimates. They want public servants to go to war among themselves, to fight among themselves for raises and/or jobs.
Surely Canadians expected a budget and an attitude on the part of this government that would reflect the unease that we have as to whether or not we can maintain this nation.
I suspect that the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board are going to bask in the same kind of comments as the Prime Minister did a couple of weeks ago when he made his return to federalism in speeches in Toronto and Quebec City in terms of the comments of Mr. Parizeau, the leader of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec. Mr. Parizeau thought that the Prime Minister's comments were very apropos and made no bones about stating that. I am sure we are going to hear from Mr. Parizeau and probably people who sit in the Bloc Quebecois who are going to tell us that this government has confirmed what they have been saying, that there is no need for a federal government because it no longer has any commitment to Canada, to the regions of Canada, the poor of Canada, the students of Canada or the elderly of Canada.
My colleagues, in the next few weeks, will not derive any pleasure in pointing out where the national government has abdicated its responsibilities.
We talk about trust. It is a quality that many people discuss and many people seek in others and in their institutions. It is not something that is often found these days, but my colleague from Newfoundland yesterday was quoted widely on his description of the budget.
Much of the jargon around these days is related to what has happened in the Persian Gulf. Certainly, if one were to continue in that vein-plagiarism is not always something that I get involved in-surely the prime example of what happened to this government, its lack of direction and its lack of commitment to the country
could be as what some might describe as the "mother of all commitments".
This is what the Prime Minister had to say a few years ago, in 1983. The Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition of course, said: "I have said and repeated dozens of times as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, medicare is a sacred trust which we will always preserve".
I wonder if anybody in the country can be expected to have any trust in what anybody says, if that kind of a comment is weighed in the light of what has happened in this budget and what we find in the estimates with respect to how Canadians can look forward in the next year to receiving services from their government.
The vicious people in this country might suggest that one of the truisms is being proved by this budget and these estimates. The R.B. Bennett syndrome is certainly back among us. Tory times are tough times. It has often been said and there are a few people around who can remember that as an axiom.
Surely this whole notion of being tough, standing up, talking about deficit and restraint in a very dispassionate way brings back memories to those people who either lived through or who have made themselves familiar with Conservative Party policy in previous hard times.
This is the first time that the Conservative Party has had to deal with tough times in this country since the 1930s. I think the elderly in our country are going to shudder when they see the consistency in the approach that this government is using.
The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board today indicated that they had very limited choices, very restricted choices. There is no doubt that that is true. I think every Canadian understands that we are faced with extremely difficult choices with respect to the level of debt, the burden that that debt places on us and the resulting deficit.
Even when there are limited choices, the choices we do make should be guided by a vision. I am sorry to say, but I believe that this government has taken on a dark vision of Canada, a negative vision, a divisible vision, one lacking in any optimism. It is nearly a scorched earth policy where I suppose, at 15 per cent or so in the polls,
February 28, 1991

you say it does not matter too much so at least we will play to those few people who still support us across the country, who insist on inflicting hardship on the poor, the under-privileged, on disregarding the realities of regional disparity and so on.
There is very little to be upbeat about today. I want to speak for a moment or two because of the last year's experience that I and many Canadians had with the policies of this government with respect to interest rates, monetary policy, the value of the Canadian dollar and so forth.
The conversion on the road to recession that has been experienced by the Minister of Finance is really something to behold because to suggest that the estimates are going to be able to achieve what the Minister of Finance has suggested and what the President of Treasury Board has suggested is unbelievable, especially when you consider from whence it comes. These are the people who said that high interest rates had to be maintained, that high unemployment levels had to be allowed because that was the way to control inflation, so inflation was at 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent, depending on which month you choose in the last year or so.
Now, after the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Council on Business Issues and all of these people begged the government to reduce interest rates and had those pleas ignored and refused, the rates have come down. This is the weird and wonderful world of Wilson. With the interest rates coming down, so is inflation. The projections are that if everything turns out according to the budget and the estimates, inflation is going to be reduced to 3 per cent and then 2 per cent, interest rates are going to drop to 9.5 per cent and 9 per cent. Imagine this conversion that the recession has wrought. For months and years we have had people's pleas for interest rate relief and some adjustment of the artificially high Canadian dollar downward fall on deaf ears. All of a sudden a new combination comes forward with lower interest rates, mind you continuing high unemployment and even higher unemployment, and we are going to wind up with very, very low rates of inflation.
I wonder how the people who are going bankrupt and the nearly 1.5 million people who are unemployed are going to respond to this new theory of economics being put forward by the government, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, but most significantly, by the architect of much of this.
Routine Proceedings
When interest rates are high, they are kept up there by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. When they drop, we get the royal 'we' and the Minister of Finance says we have reduced interest rates.
The interesting thing is that yesterday, as far as I know, in an unprecedented press conference, the new Crow doctrine had been put forward and that is that we can achieve lower inflation with low interest rates. It is going to be interesting in committee and so forth to find out how this new alliance was forged between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada because the formula of high interest rates and high unemployment and a high Canadian dollar led to inflation, as I said, at 4 per cent, 5 per cent, and even as high recently as 6 per cent. Now we are going to go the other way. We are going to have lower interest rates and we are going to have lower inflation.
The confusion that seems to be obvious inasmuch as no one understands what is taking place is not the result of people not being able to deal with facts. It is because we are faced with a government that has no commitment, no plan. It is not what I said or predicted yesterday that matters. It is what I am telling you today. But you have to believe that what I am predicting today will come true six months or a year from now regardless of my past track record.
The reason I spoke of conversions is that not so very long ago, because the Minister of Finance likes to relate back to the early 1980s for very obvious reasons, he, in the early 1980s had a great deal to say as well. For example, he spoke about the funding of the established programs and he said that if they decreased, it would lead to a decline in the quality of post-secondary education and an increase in bitterness and confrontation between the federal government and the provincial governments. We do not need a decline in post-secondary education said the then finance critic. We need an increase in the quality of post-secondary education. That was in November 1981.
Speaking of established programs funding, he said that the cuts could have disastrous effects on universities and on colleges and on the operations of hospitals. Let us not make hospitals, universities, and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us not solve those problems on the backs of the hospitals and universities. This is the present Minister of Finance in the early 1980s.

Routine Proceedings
Well, I think that we can probably put as much faith in what the Minister of Finance had to say on TUesday about what is going to be happening a year from now as people generally should have put in the statements of the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition in the early 1980s.
The last point I want to make with respect to the record of the government is what they have had to say about management because that has been, from the government's point of view, its strong suit.
What is unfortunate is that that self-analysis is not shared by outside observers, even among the best friends of the government. When people look at the budget and look at the estimates, I am sure they will keep in mind with respect to management what the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had to say in December 1990. Restrictive monetary policy, large federal sales tax hikes, among others, have directly raised inflation rates and put the economy into a recession and caused large job losses.
Mike McCracken, president of Informetrica says: "The government chose to put the economy into a major recession". Well, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Council on Business Issues all share the view that the government has mismanaged the affairs of this country. The unfortunate thing is that now the people will have to pay.
Hopefully, over the next few weeks and few months we will be able to demonstrate to Canadians that there are many of us who still believe in this country, who still believe in a strong central government, and that not everybody will buy the approach that this government has taken through the back door of fiscal policy and through budget processes and estimates to demonstrate what it was not able to say up front, that it supports that view of Canada where all the national government does is manage the debt, take care of national defence, and be responsible for currency.
I think the people of Canada ask and demand a great deal more than that. I expect that the Government of Canada will find that pitting provinces against the federal government, pitting public servants one against the other, will not be a very appropriate or acceptable way for it to continue to mismanage the affairs of this country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, but I cannot say I am particularly happy with this opportunity, because I do not think there is anything in either this budget or in these estimates to make any Canadian happy. I could stand here, I suppose, and say amen to most of the remarks made by my friend from Acadie-Bathurst, but that would not be in the tradition of the House, so consequently I will add a few points.
First of all, I want to say that the estimates, which were tabled in the House today, were put there for the enlightenment not only of members of Parliament but also for the enlightenment of the people of Canada. They should do that. If you take a look at them, you will find they do a considerable amount of confusing rather than enlightening. For instance, there are several neat rows of figures which add up to a particular amount which are said to be the estimates of the Government of Canada. However, last year's Main Estimates which are listed there do not include any Supplementary Estimates, and consequently are incorrect for a good portion of the departments.
If you wish to compare them to the 1991-92 Main Estimates, these estimates do not include a number of commitments made, restraints in some cases and increases in other cases, in the budget just a few days ago. When you have 1991-92 Main Estimates which are also listed and which are also incorrect, these estimates do as much to confuse as they do to enlighten the people of Canada.
As I said before, we have a document with two neat rows of figures, both incorrect. Surely a government that spends as much money as it does on keeping track of funds could do better than that in providing the kind of document that would make it back to the people and to members of Parliament.
There is in this document another confusing element. That is the fact that there is a very sneaky way of reducing payments in any particular year and reducing the amount of money in a particular year. If you look at these estimates, you will find for instance that a certain amount of money is designated over five years. In the budget the other day this was extended to six years.
February 28, 1991

However, the figures in the estimates are still those of the five-year program and consequently are also incorrect. But enough about the incorrect part of these estimates.
There are a number of things in the estimates which need to be discussed. First, there is a real attempt in here, a real direction as far as the government is concerned, to move away from person years. This has been recognized as a concern in the public accounts committee and other groups in Parliament, both on the government side and on the opposition side, of recognizing some concern with the establishment of person years as a method of controlling expenditure. But what the government is doing here now is not reducing the control of expenditures by moving away from person years. What it is doing is establishing a method of privatization which is in the process, or may in the process eliminate, as it has suggested itself, as many as 6,000 jobs, which was threatened in the budget speech. This move away from person years gives the government an opportunity to move into more contracting out.
In the past, when asked, the government has been unable to justify contracting out as a method of saving money, that in fact many senior civil servants consider it more costly than in-house operations, as well as more inefficient. They say this because when somebody is contracted, you have to teach them what they are supposed to do. After the contract is through, you have to fit what they have done into your program. You as the manager in a particular department have to designate people to do that kind of work. It may take as much time as the contract took to get it back into the situation where it is worth while. In the end, you have paid more money for the operation than you would have if you had had the job done in-house.
The minister said in his speech: "Should a new agreement not be reached by the time the current policy expires March 31, 1991, the Government will introduce legislation confirming the right to contract out. This will eliminate any barriers to contracting out that may now exist".
This really is a new wrinkle in labour relations.


An hon. member:: Union busting.
Routine Proceedings


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The government is going to pass legislation to make sure that the union cannot take action because there will already be legislation in place giving it the authority to eliminate their jobs. That is another factor of contracting out I think we should look at because we know from experience that contracting out by this government has been another way of patronage to its friends. If you increase the amount of contracting out what you are able to do is pay more of your friends for their support.
There is another concern in this process of legislation and reduction of civil servants. The minister said in the budget speech the day before yesterday that there is going to be a trade-off between wages and job losses. As my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst indicated, this pits one employee against the other. It affects the morale of the departments, the morale of the Public Service considerably and it is a way of inviting labour unrest rather than making for people who will work hard and effectively for the government and for the people of Canada.
It is very interesting also that in the minister's speech he indicates that the government House leader and vice-chairman of the Treasury Board will lead the review of the current spending of grants and contributions. In other words, he will take charge of the review of the grants and contributions. That covers every department of the government. Every department contributes a certain amount to organizations that are involved in their particular area. It covers every department and it is a major factor out there of the outreach of the Canadian government to the people of Canada: heritage grants, grants to exhibitions. This is the main contact between the Government of Canada and the people on the street.
It is given to a minister who is going to review it, and he is going to take into account the government priorities.
He is going to improve targeting, promote self-reliance, and reduce overlap. It sounds very good, but this sounds like a way to punish those who do not agree with government policies. That is what was done the last time there was a reduction in grants and contributions. We remember the impact on newspapers, on communications from native groups. It is a way to punish the people

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
who do not agree with the government. Or, is it a method of providing further patronage to one's friends?
One thing that this government is obviously working toward is that in the third year of the government we need some money to expend. I can remember back in the old Liberal days when the senator from Saskatchewan, Hazen Argue, had a considerable slush fund that he used around Saskatchewan, which did not work out particularly well because they elected no members.
However, the development of a slush fund is also part of this government's approach to these estimates. For instance, there is the slush fund of $3.3 billion, which is designated as such. It is a reserve, with nothing attached to it.


Mr. Milliken:: Does it say slush fund in the estimates?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Not quite, but it could be; it might say slush fund if one interprets it right. It is there, but besides that there is a number of areas in which the government has funds available.
In forestry, there was a 7 per cent cut across the board, but several agreements have not been put in place. The government is going to make these agreements and then is going to have to go to this $3.3 billion slush fund to find funds to support that forestry development.
In the budget speech the minister indicated a $1.2 billion amount of money for agriculture. It does not appear in the estimates. GRIP and NISA, which people from the west and from the agricultural community will recognize, are not mentioned in the estimates. In the budget speech, $1.2 billion was set aside for agriculture but was not designated for GRIP and NISA.
Therefore, it is there as a slush fund, to buy votes, if you wish, by this government, or to buy votes for a provincial government, as we have had a certain amount of experience with in the past. In B.C., the forestry funds are leading up to the B.C. election; in Saskatchewan, the funds for agriculture from this government are leading up to an election in Saskatchewan.
Let's take a look at the impact of UI. There was a $3.1 billion saving by pulling out of UI, by Bill C-21. They have taken all this money out of the department, and they have taken it out this way: $20.7 million from labour
development, $100 million out of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
If one did not know the priorities of this government before now, one should be able to get a bit of an inkling by this. Who are they worried about? To whom is this budget directed? Whom is it supposed to help? Obviously, not the workers.
What the workers are getting is increased premiums. If they lose their jobs, they are going to get less training and generally less concern for job development across the country. When they got out of the UI operation a while ago, the Minister of Finance said that the government would cover the shortages in the UI fund.
What happened? In this budget, in this particular instance, he has increased the premiums to make up for any shortages within the fund.
Again, the workers are not being helped by this budget in any way. The cost of unemployment insurance is up 55 cents per $100 of insurable earnings. If they spend half of it on goods and services, it will be 3.5 per cent. Inflation is still up around 5 per cent. CPP payments are being increased. There is nothing in here that would indicate that we should be happy with this budget.
There is no doubt that the priorities of the government show through every area, even where it has proclaimed increases in expenditure. There has been a deliberate move to downgrade services to people. There is a total abdication of the government role of services to Canadians. The tax on medicare via reduced payments to the provinces, the tax on the unemployed by a reduction of training and services, the tax on the workers by UI premiums, GST, CPP increases, continuing inflation and wage restraints, the tax on small business with the GST and UI, and the withdrawal of training from jobs-all these are reducing the impact of government on assisting and making life more bearable for a large number of Canadians.
As need grows, the commitment of government reigns and goes where it will help the multinational corporations make more.
I hope that the committees are able to deal with these estimates. Some of them have not met for a considerable length of time. This is not a people's budget and it is confirmed by these estimates. We should not have
February 28, 1991

expected anything different, because this is not a people's government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the twelfth report on the activities of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians.
The report refers to a meeting of the Bureau de la Commission politique et de 1 administration generate, held in Paris from December 7 to December 9, 1990.
The purpose of this meeting was to review the way contributions are calculated.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or practice of this House, the House meet at one o'clock p.m., Monday, March 4, 1991, to resume debate on Government Order Ways and Means Proceedings No. 18, in the name of the Minister of Finance.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


GULF WAR
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition, in accordance with Standing Order 36, from more than 300 people, residents of Toronto and Montreal.
They respectfully call upon Parliament to declare its absolute commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict, to oppose any offensive military actions against Iraq, to withdraw Canadian forces from the region, and to use our tax dollars for useful social programs such as child care, pensions, health care and education, and not for military bunkers in the Middle East.
I have another petition from over 270 persons in Toronto and other parts of Ontario, who condemn this war and Canada's involvement in an offensive military action against Iraq.
They urge our government to disengage our troops from the theatre of war and to redeploy them where possible for humanitarian and medical purposes under United Nations auspices.
They also urge our government to take all possible measures at the United Nations and elsewhere to bring this tragic war to an immediate end and restore peace to the region through an international peace conference on the Middle East.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of many parts of Canada who point out that the overwhelming weight of informed opinion is that economic sanctions and political pressure need more time to work against Iraq.
The petition was completed in January, but of course it was not possible to introduce it before the present time. They also point out that Canada should have a vital role to play as a peacemaker in that region.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the government to use all means available to encourage UN member states to give sanctions a chance to work and to refrain from offensive military action against Iraq.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
They further ask that the government not commit Canadian Armed Forces to offensive action against Iraq.


URANIUM MINING
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise to present two petitions signed by people from Saskatoon, St. Brieux, and Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, and from Waterdown, Hamilton, St. Catharines, and other locations in Ontario.
These people are very concerned by the regulatory meltdown which led to the spill of 2 million litres of contaminated waste into Wollaston Lake in 1989. They are appalled that the Eagle Point mine is proceeding under the same Wollaston Lake without the proper public hearings ever being held.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to convene immediately a comprehensive, independent, public inquiry into uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan and northern Canada, which effectively involves aboriginal people and northerners.
They are also calling on this government to halt development of that Eagle Point mine until the proper public hearings have been held.


RURAL CANADIANS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present.
The first petition is from a group of people from Humboldt, Saskatchewan, who call on Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life by immediately implementing new economic and social policies to enable rural Canadians to work and live in their communities while still being able to provide a decent quality of life for their families.


CANADA POST
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a second series of petitions from the people of Munster.
This is the second group of petitions I have had from Munster. They are pleading with the government to keep the kind of post office they have at the moment.
The petitioners humbly pray to ensure that Canada Post operated rural post office remains intact, with the permanent postmaster/postmistress and staff personnel in the town of Munster.
They so pray and ask the government to take this message to the Canada Post Corporation so that it can maintain the kind of post office they need in the town of Munster.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from a good number of people from all over Canada: from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.
Although cuts have been made to VIA Rail, people are still concerned over those cuts given the thrust toward new environmental awareness and whatnot. These petitioners are concerned about the cuts that the government has made. They are calling upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's national network.
They are asking further that the service of VIA Rail be upgraded with new equipment, and that VIA Rail be given a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
These people, as I do, see VIA Rail as part of what is necessary in keeping Canada together as a unified and united country.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, and it has been certified as correct.
This petition comes from many Canadians all across Canada. Whereas the railway services carried on by VIA Rail is an essential means of transportation for many Canadians, whereas the Government of Canada has announced the cuts of $400 million over five years in its operating grants to VIA Rail, they are urging the government to maintain this essential service and to get back into the transportation of people across Canada in a more efficient and orderly manner.
February 28, 1991


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 426 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 426 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ferguson: 1.	What studies, research, working papers etc. and responses by author and title has the government conducted, commissioned, or funded on: (a) Ethanol (b) grain ethanol (c) ethanol as an oxygenate (d) ethanol as an automotive fuel (e) ethanol and its effects on the environment (f) ethanol and its effects on human health and other living organisms (g) ethanol and its neurological effects?
2.	Is the govemement aware of studies or research papers that have been conducted by the private sector or educational institutions in Canada or abroad on any of the subjects listed above, and if so, what are they, by author and title?
Return tabled.


STARRED QUESTIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 443 and 444.
Due to the length of these responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as read.

STORING WASTE FROM NUCLEAR FUELS *


Mr. Saint-Julien: Since 1977, have Atomic Energy of Canada and Environment Canada had Canadian universities and/or other academic institutions carry out studies, research or visits north of the 49th parallel in Quebec, for the purpose of storing waste from nuclear fuels, and, if so, and for each organization (a) how many studies have been undertaken (b) what are the titles of the studies (c) how many visits were made (d)
Routine Proceedings
what areas were visited e) by how many Canadian universities and
academic institutions (f) which ones?


Albert Glen Cooper: Insofar as Environment Canada is concerned:
No Canadian universities and/or other academic institutions have carried out studies, research, or visits north of the 49th parallel in Quebec since 1977, at Environment Canada's request, for the purpose of storing waste from nuclear fuels.
Insofar as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is concerned:
No, AECL has not had Canadian universities and/or academic institutions carry out studies, research or visits north of the 49th parallel in Quebec for the purpose of storing waste from nuclear fuels.
However, following the inception of a study by researchers at the University of Waterloo under NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) funding on the subject of saline groundwaters originating from the Canadian Shield, AECL contributed funding to the University for the collection of water samples from five operating mines for geochemical analysis. The information obtained through these samplings would allow a greater understanding of the geochemical characteristics of deep groundwaters from the entire Canadian Shield and, as such, would be useful, in generic terms, to the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Program. The dates and locations of samplings taken by the University of Waterloo are as follows:
Location	Date Sampled
Sigma Mines Val d'Or, Quebec	June, 1984
Lamaque-Teck Corp. Val d'Or, Quebec	June, 1984
Selbaire Mines Joutel, Quebec	August, 1985
Matagami Mine Matagami, Quebec	February, 1985 July, 1985
Norita Mine Matagami, Quebec	February, 1985 July, 1985

February 28, 1991
Privilege


STORING WASTE FROM NUCLEAR FUELS
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Saint-Julien: Since 1977, have Energy Mines and Resources, Atomic Energy of Canada or Environment Canada carried out studies, research or visits north of the 49th parallel in Quebec, for the purpose of storing waste from nuclear fuels, and, if so, and for each Department (a) how many studies have been undertaken (b) what are the titles of the studies (c) how many visits were made (d) what areas were visited?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Environment and the Atomic Energy of Canada as follows:
No studies, research or visits north of the 49th parallel in Quebec, for the purpose of storing waste from nuclear fuels, have taken place since 1977.
For more information, see reply to question No. 443 answered this day.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call Orders of the Day, I believe the hon. Speaker will listen to a point of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, given that I had begun to address the matter earlier today, I will not belabour the items that I raised at that time. I will continue roughly where I left off.
I would point out that following discussions with colleagues opposite I will delete from my remarks a number of factual items that perhaps, while relevant, may be seen by some to be collateral and not directly on a point in making a prima facie case.
I want first to refer the Chair-and I am sure I have no need to do it in detail-to precisely what we mean here when we are talking about privilege. I will make a number of references. I will not read all the materials, but I will cite them.
The first item would be the definition of privilege which has been read in this House many times and cited.
I would just refer to two parts of it: that is that the privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and the last portion which states:
-privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent
an exemption from the ordinary law.
I will refer to that later. That citation is from Beau-chesne's and is also contained in the current document called Privilege in the Modem Context published by the House.
The second item I want to refer to is the particular right as one of the rights and privileges that I address here. That specific right is the right to institute inquiries, call witnesses and demand papers. That is a collective right of Parliament and its committees. That right is listed as one of a number of rights also at page 2 of the document Privilege in the Modem Context.
The particular right breached is the right to obtain information through committee orders. I note a second citation in Erskine May, page 69, twentieth edition, where he states that:
When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or
attacked, the offence is called a breach of privilege -
I maintain that the failure or inability of the minister, in a manner that I will refer to later, is a disregard of that right.
I would also refer to section 18 of the Constitution Act 1867 which codifies, generally, the rights and privileges of Parliament as we knew them in 1867, Sections 5 and 6 of the Parliament of Canada Act which restates them, and section 108 of the Standing Orders which provides the existing codification of the mandate of the House and its committees. I will not read them into the record.
I would point out that in all of these there are no restrictions on the right of Parliament in committees to obtain information other than the limiting subsection referred to in the Parliament of Canada Act and the
February 28, 1991

Constitution which confines those rights and privileges to those existing in 1867 and it is not to go beyond those.
I had hoped to cite a reference-it will take up too much of the House's time given my earlier discussions- of an unfortunate individual in the British Parliament named Mr. Lee who, in the year-roughly 1704-had failed to comply with an order of a committee and was taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and brought to the House. I will resist the anecdotal recital of that, as amusing as it might be.
My obligation here is to show you a prima facie case that the right and privilege has been breached. The standard I must achieve is not that of beyond a balance of probability, nor is it beyond a reasonable doubt, it is simply a prima facie case and there may, in fact, be justification, as will be put forward as I hope the procedure will evolve here.
The facts on which the claim is based originated in June of 1987 when an inmate of the Edmonton Institution escaped. Following that, the Commissioner of Corrections commissioned a report pursuant to section 14 of the Penitentiaries Act. In December 1989, the report was tendered to the Corrections Commissioner and the report was made public. However, there were portions of the report deleted. There were deletions of pages and paragraphs and two of the conclusions and recommendations in that report were deleted.
In May 1990, the Standing Committee for Justice and the Solicitor General were reviewing the mandatory supervision provisions of the Parole Act and asked for an unexpurgated copy of that report, which has become known as the Weir report. At the same time, the committee asked for an unexpurgated copy of what has become known as the Legere report, a report which dealt with an escape of an inmate in New Brunswick.
In our request for these documents, the committee was unsuccessful. On December 4, in the face of the refusal or inability of the Solicitor General to provide the requested unexpurgated version, the committee formally ordered that the Solicitor General provide this report. I believe I should read that particular order into the record at this time. It reads:
That pursuant to the Committee's own mandate, the Committee order the production before it of the uncensored version of the reports to Correctional Service Canada by one, Mr. Weir, governing the escape of Daniel Gingras in the province of Alberta and, two, by
Privilege
the Board of Investigations concerning an offender (Allan Lfegfere)
unlawfully at large in the Province of New Brunswick, pursuant to-
And here we have the recital of the statutes I had earlier brought to your attention.
-and that the documents be delivered within seven days of the date of this order.
The Solicitor General was not able to comply.
I have with me, and it may be appropriate to table, the written reply of the Solicitor General to the order of the committee. He states that he has carefully reviewed the motion and the request for copies in each case without deletions. He recites a section of the Privacy Act and states:
With regret, I must conclude that the public interest does not
outweigh the invasion of privacy which would result from a release of
the unedited copies of these reports.
In the case of both reports the conclusions, the reasons, and most of the supporting testimony have already been made public.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the courtesy of the hon. member to let me intervene for a moment on another matter.
I would like to make it very clear that in the mind of the Chair, we are in Government Orders. That will have some consequences, perhaps, at one o'clock and I just want to make that very clear to the House. Would the hon. member please continue.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, following that reply of the Solicitor General the committee reported to the House of Commons with the seventh report of the committee.
I wish to match those facts with the law stated earlier. In the face of that clear order of the committee which was properly and effectively delivered to the Solicitor General, and in the face of clearly defined rights and privileges of the House, often referred to as the undoubted rights and privileges, the Solicitor General has declined to comply with that order, contrary to the will and wishes of that committee.
Now the Solicitor General has stated that he is prevented from complying because of provisions of the Privacy Act.
The House has therefore been blocked in the completing and the carrying out of its work. We in the committee, collectively and individually, are being denied the information we need as legislators to do our job.

Privilege
The matter has been discussed with the Privacy Commissioner and I feel that the Privacy Commissioner as he then was, Mr. John Grace, should be noted here because he has commented and on May 24, 1990, a very short quote in a reply to a question from our colleague, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Grace says: "And if a legislator cannot see it, my goodness, who is seeing it?"
That is cited from the minutes of the justice and solicitor general committee on May 24, 1990.
I will not review the provisions of the Privacy Act. I do not believe they are necessary to the making of the case here, but I will refer to one thing and that is this: Although I am of the firm view that the Privacy Act does not derogate from the rights and privileges of Parliament, some may argue that it does. I have heard the argument and I believe, although I will not attempt to characterize what the Solicitor General's view is on this, that he is attempting to confront the issue reasonably. In any event if someone were to suggest that the Privacy Act did, I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Privacy Act does not mention Parliament in any of its rights and privileges, and it does not attempt to bind Parliament in the restrictions that it places as part of the general law of the land.
It does however place restrictions; actually it gives rights to certain groups and institutions as courts and investigators. They are specifically given rights to override the restrictions of the Privacy Act. Parliament is not referred to in the act other than a reference to the right or ability of a member of Parliament to obtain personal information where he or she is acting on behalf of a constituent.
I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the element I raised earlier in the definition of privilege and the section which states that privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law. I commend to you that concept in viewing the effect of the application of the Privacy Act in this.
This is not a partisan approach to this issue. Although many Canadians see the House of Commons from time to time being very partisan, this is apparently not. The committee was unanimous in its order and there have been a number of discussions between members on this
side and members opposite in connection with this. All parties have participated in good faith in those discussions.
It is my view that this motion I make to you today is an assertion of the rights of everyone who put us here in this Parliament.
There are three other quick points I would like to leave with you because I believe they are relevant and will assist you in reaching your decision.
If the committees, as now structured, do fail in their ability to obtain information in the manner that has transpired here, then the committees will fail in doing their work. If the justice committee fails, then other committees will also similarly come up short.
Second, if this is a contest between the rights and privileges of Parliament and the obligations of members of the government-that would be ministers in this House, or let us simply speak of the executive branch of government-if it is a conflict between the rights and privileges of Parliament and the executive branch of government then you, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, have a duty-and I know you understand this-to uphold the rights, privileges and powers of Parliament in the face of that.
Third, if you do find that there has been a prima facie case made that the collective rights and privileges of members of this House have been breached in this instance on the facts of this case, then I am prepared to move to an appropriate motion. However, I would ask that the Chair allow 24 hours, a day, that would permit me and others, including the chair of the justice committee to consult with the House leaders, the committee chairs, and the Solicitor General in constructing a motion that would serve the needs of Parliament and all of the members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, unless you wish me to, I will not address the conceptual issue of the difference between a procedural motion for concurrence and the privilege claim that I make here today. If you wish me to, I could do it very shortly, and it might assist.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I want to say to hon. members, and also to the public, this is one of the finest arguments that has been presented to me in my years as Speaker.

I want to say to all hon. members on both sides of the House that I am very aware that this matter is being brought to me after a great deal of co-operative discussion among many members.
I accept very much the invitation of the hon. member to get into a further stage of the discussion. However, if I am reading correctly the hon. member's remarks, it is not necessary at this time. I would ask the hon. member perhaps to conclude and I will then hear the parliamentary secretary.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, it would only be necessary for me to address this in the event that you felt there was a conflict between that procedure and the privilege procedure. If I might, for the sake of the 30 seconds it might take, I think I will address that.
There was some thought among members and staff here-


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot help but intervene by saying that if we get to that point, I will certainly give you more than 30 seconds.


Derek Vincent Lee: Well then, I will pass on that in the hope that if further argument is required, I will have an opportunity to address that.
To conclude very briefly, the order of the justice committee on December 4 was a valid, subsisting, uncomplied with order. The order materialized or crystallized a right of all members of this House: a right to obtain information, a right to require production of papers. The right to require that, to achieve that objective, has been breached by the failure of the Solicitor General of Canada to provide the information that was clearly, specifically outlined in the order.
The failure to do it in the way that was cited earlier in the quotation from Erskine May, and I will just note it very quickly: "That when any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked the offence is called a breach of privilege and it punishable-" et cetera. We are not into punishment here. We want to resolve a conflict.
In my view it is clear that the right is there, the privilege is there. The breach occurred, it is unrectified and that you, Mr. Speaker, must find that there has been a breach of privilege, and if I may use the term, collective privilege because it is not my privilege alone, it is the privilege of every member on that committee. That has
Privilege
been breached and the House must deal with that breach.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I too want to add to your compliments to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River on a very, very thoughtful and well-done argument.
I have had the privilege over the last 11 years of participating in several points of privilege and order. I have to say that the hon. member has made one of the best and more thoughtful arguments that I have heard in some time. I do want to compliment him on that.
Having just said that, I do also want to say that I do not agree with him. He has made a good case but I do not think, in this particular case, that he does have a point of privilege.
I want to come back to that in a couple of moments. But I want to address what I think is the issue here. We really have two conflicting issues that put the House, the committee and the members of this House and I guess to a certain degree the Chair as a result of this point of privilege, in a difficult spot.
The conflict is this. First of all, we have a committee pursuing a subject in which the committee has a great deal of interest. They have pursued it with diligence. They have done a lot of work on the issue. They have come up with a report, or I will describe it as a report, an order in the end, and that is what this House is then seized with.
None of us in this House argue with that process. In fact, we consider that a fundamental part of our parliamentary procedures and therefore, we want to support that tradition, we want to encourage that tradition. We do not want in any way, if possible, to limit the powers of committees. We see them as absolutely fundamental to our process of government and to democracy, as we see it, in this country. That is the first part of this issue.
The second part of the issue, and the one that causes us the difficulty, is that this particular committee has made a request of a minister for a document. Unfortunately, the minister is faced with a difficulty in complying. I think the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River put the right tone on that when he indicated that it was for the minister a difficulty. It was not as though he

Privilege
was trying to be obstructive or difficult with the committee. In fact, all of the signals I have received is that he would like to comply but he is in a difficult situation.
What is that difficult situation? The difficulty is that he has legal advice-which is an interpretation coming out of the Privacy Act-that in fact if he were to respond to this particular request of the committee, he would be in violation of the law and of the Privacy Act.
Of course, any time there is legal argument, there are always two sides, or we would not have a court case; we would simply throw it out of court and it would be decided there.
But in this case, I think we all agree that we are up against legal advice, which certainly appears to be sound legal advice, legal advice which may be debatable but nevertheless is advice that I think all of us would argue has the right to at least have a hearing. It is sufficiently strong advice that it cannot be ignored.
That is the conflict we are faced with. We are faced with a situation where all of us want to see the committee succeed in its work, and support the concepts of committees having the right to information, the right to pursue a subject unfettered. At the same time we then have another principle which we support, that being that we, as parliamentarians, whether we are backbenchers or ministers of the Crown, are not above the law. We have to comply with the law.
I do not agree that the member has a point of privilege. I do not think I have to go into a lot of argument about that, because most of us would agree that in fact he does not have a point of privilege. He certainly has a point of order, and he has a point of grievance or concern, which I think he has demonstrated and argued veiy well in the House. But he does not have a point of privilege.
As you know, when there is a concern arising out of a committee, there is a fixed process according to our Standing Orders-Standing Order 117 being the one that I think is operative-that prescribes for the committee a particular process by which this House is seized with the issue.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe he has a prima facie case of privilege. As I said, he makes a very valid argument, one that I think is fundamental to those of us as members specifically, to those of us as members generally, and certainly to the House and its traditions.
I would therefore put before you what I think would be a reasonable suggestion, one that I hope the hon. member will accept and I think other members of the House will accept; that is, that we refer the issue of the committee's right to pursue information-and the concern that the minister has, were he to comply with the request of the committee-to our Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and Procedures, and that that committee have an opportunity to examine the issue, to report back to this House, and to then not only pursue an issue that is of great philosophical importance to us but also of practical purpose in this particular circumstance.
Therefore, I think that would provide for the House a resolution to a difficult conflict. That having failed, we have no choice. What do we as a House have left to us? We are then faced with a concurrence motion. Of course that puts all members of this House in a very difficult position of how one would vote on a concurrence motion, because we are up against two concepts, two principles, two fundamental values that we see as being important. I think it puts the members and the House in a very uncomfortable and awkward position.
I think the best way to handle it, therefore, would be to refer the issue that my friend from Scarborough-Rouge River raised-and as I said earlier, raised very well-to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That would give us an opportunity to pursue it, to have a look at it, and to give some advice to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: We are witnessing today some extraordinarily thoughtful and good arguments. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I notice that there are others who wish to rise. I will recognize now the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to bring to the Speaker's attention a couple of matters of which he may not be aware.
I was not able to hear the argument of the hon. member who raised the point in its entirety but rather
February 28, 1991

only the end of it. That reference was made to Beau-chesne's citation No. 625 on page 198 of the fifth edition where it is noted:
(1) Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their Orders of Reference.
Further, I assume, reference was made to citation No. 626(1) on page 199, where the only stated condition on that is noted and it would seem, in my submission at least, not to be pertinent here.
I was a bit surprised to hear the hon. member opposite who just spoke refer to Standing Order 117, which is a Standing Order governing the maintenance of decorum in committees. I do not know that that is directly pertinent in this instance.
However, the other matter that I would wish to bring to the Speaker's attention is that the document over which this is all being carried on has in some senses already been made public. That was done in the edition of the Edmonton Journal of Saturday, January 6, 1990, in which excerpts from the so-called Weir report were published including sections of that report which were expurgated in the copies of the report forwarded by the minister to the standing committee. I do not know that that will bear directly on the Speaker's decision in this regard, but I would note that that being the case, it leaves members in the awkward situation, especially members of the committee-and I would note, Mr. Speaker, that I was present and voting at the committee on the day the unanimous decision to seek the unexpurgated report was made-of having to rely on reports in a newspaper for the full story of what I think by any reasonable person must be seen as the legitimate contention that the committee ought to have available to itself in the normal conduct of its work.
That that continues not to be the case is I would suggest correctly identified by the member who raised the matter as a matter of privilege.
I sympathize with the Solicitor General in his difficulties, at least his apparent difficulties, under the Privacy Act-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to certainly allow the hon. member for Edmonton East to continue. In the interest of making sure that all hon. members know some of the background of this, it was my understanding, and I stand
Privilege
to be corrected, if necessary, that whatever appeared in the press was not done so as a consequence of the minister releasing any information. Would the hon. member affirm that, if that is the case, because I think that is very important in this matter.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, to the very best of my knowledge that is in fact the case. The reporter who authored the story that included the excerpts from the report never did identify the source through which he received a copy of that report, but I feel safe in assuming it was not the minister, for some fairly obvious reasons.
Mr. Speaker The reason I intervene on that point is that if a minister had revealed information at one point and then took a position later to not give the information to a committee, it might make quite a difference to the position of the Chair in having to rule on the circumstances. I thank the hon. member for clarifying that particular matter.


Ross Harvey: Of course, were that the case, the matter would be much clearer than unfortunately it is.
I would just like to note that I cannot believe that it was the intention of Parliament in establishing the acts and regulations under which the Privacy Commissioner pursues his or her duties thereby to constrict in any way the privileges enjoyed by this Parliament. Therefore, in this instance, even if it is established that there is a conflict, I would suggest that as the servant of this House, Mr. Speaker, you must in defending the rights and privileges of this House rule that privilege holds sway in this instance.
Mr. Speaker The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, perhaps the hon. member could help the Chair.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a very brief intervention which is really consequent on the excellent one by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River in presenting his case. I wanted to comment on the parliamentary secretary for his very thoughtful remarks, but I had a couple of comments on them and there are two aspects that surprised me and I thought in dealing with your Honour's decision on this matter you might want to consider this point.

February 28, 1991
Privilege
It surprised me that the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the question of the propriety of the minister delivering the report was an issue. It seems to me that the committees of this House and the House itself have certain powers of a court and courts clearly have jurisdiction in respect to the Privacy Act to receive documents that may be otherwise protected under that act and determine whether the documents in fact should be made public.
It seems to me that a committee of this House must have similar powers. It was, after all, a statute passed by this House that created this act. Parliament has the residual powers of a court for certain purposes. It has power to examine witnesses and call for production of papers and those powers have been an inherent jurisdiction of this House and of its committees from time immemorial. It is one of the privileges of the House to be able to exercise that jurisdiction, in effect the jurisdiction of a court.
The committees of the House are creatures of the House and have similar powers, and I am surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary arguing otherwise. I leave it at that.
The second aspect of his remarks which I think deserves comment was his suggestion that the issue of the propriety of the minister complying with the committee's request be referred to another committee.
Certainly as a member of the privileges and elections committee I would be more than happy to embark on such a study because it seems to me that it is an interesting point if, in fact, he is right on his first one, that somehow the committee lacks jurisdiction to make the determination that a court could make.
If he would like the issue studied, it could be studied there or by the committee that has already done so much work on this issue in dealing with this matter, and I am happy to support that part of the suggestion if your Honour feels it is necessary. But my argument is that I do not believe it is necessary for the minister to be concerned about the propriety of him making the release to a parliamentary committee.
Similarly, he should not be concerned and I am sure he would not be if he were releasing this document to a court of law at the order of the court. I do not know why
the request of a parliamentary committee should be treated any differently than the order of a court, and I am surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary suggest otherwise.
I invite your Honour to look at the origins of parliamentary privilege, to look at the juridical basis for them and the similarity between the privileges of Parliament and the inherent jurisdiction of a Superior Court and determine whether that jurisdiction exists. I think it follows that this document should be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: I began by complimenting the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and thanked the parliamentary secretary for his thoughtful contribution. I extend the same compliments to the hon. member for Edmonton East and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I think a suggestion has been made which I would like to ask the House if it would be prepared to concur in, a suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary that the matter be referred to the committee of privileges and elections.
It would seem that this might be an appropriate way to resolve this without putting the Speaker in a position where I have to rule on what is clearly a very difficult case. If I were to decide that there were a prima facie case on the basis of the eloquent arguments of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, that is if the House supported my notion that there was a prima facie case, it would go to that committee.
We have a suggestion in front of us, and it seems to me very sensible, from the hon. parliamentary secretary from the government side that if there were a disposition of the House to put it in front of that committee that we allow it to go there. In a moment I am going to ask the House if the House will agree to that.
I want to make it very clear that this is a very difficult issue indeed. The subject matter is the release of a person in custody who, during that time of release, overpowered a guard and committed another crime; a matter that strikes right to the fundamentals of our system of justice.
This is a matter of very intense importance. On the other hand, as the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, the Solicitor General is in a dilemma because of an act of this House.

As Speaker, I am not in a position to rule on the interpretation of an act of this House. I am confined to the question of privilege.
The hon. member for Shefford has just joined us, and I hope that he has been able to have been following this difficult, but I think intensely important, matter. He is a member of the House with many years standing, and he might very well want to discuss with his colleagues the general suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary.
If the hon. member for Shefford would like any more time, I would of course extend that to him. He indicates to me that that is not necessary.
I think the appropriate thing to do at the moment is to put to the House the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary which seems to the Chair to be a very sensible one and that this matter be moved by unanimous consent to the appropriate committee.
Is that agreed?


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Is there any discussion on the proposed motion?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a motion. I am asking for consent to proceed to put this matter to the committee. It was suggested by the parliamentary secretary. I happen to know there have been discussions that preceded this in the best tradition of this place.
It is not a question of debate. I have to put the recommendation to the House. If there is a question of clarification, then I would, of course, want to hear it.


Coline M. Campbell: On that point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the difference between whether it goes to the member's committee or the existing committee because I think you are taking away powers of the committee.
The reason I say that is that it could go in camera and discuss any document with the idea that it would not go outside of that. I have seen it done when there were international negotiations and when there are other things. It goes into in camera without press, without anything, just for the information of the members of the committee.
As you take away more and more powers of a member of Parliament-I say this in all honesty because for the first time in my life, I had to send five dollars to get access to information because I wanted it within a month and not within a year from the date of the letter.
Privilege
As our rights here become more and more infringed upon by some ministers who will not answer letters for a year or six months, I feel that Canadians have a right, through their elected representatives, to have access, at least in committee if the committees are meeting, to the business before that committee.
Second, it was in the press, so outside people had access to it that members of Parliament do not have. I just think that if the committee itself is not going to be able to deal with this in camera then I am sure that we can debate it forever before another committee or with a time limit.
It will just cut back on some of our rights as members of Parliament because majorities are in these committees. You, Mr. Speaker, have a right to guard all members of Parliament's access.
I think that whatever happens out of this, we will be watching to see how much the rights of members of Parliament will be infringed upon in access to information.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for South West Nova for her intervention. She is a member who has been here for many years, and I cannot quarrel with much of her thesis.
What we are dealing with here is a very difficult situation. The minister has received advice as a consequence of an act of this House. If that advice is correct, he is put in the position where he says, by law, he cannot give this information. This is the kind of dilemma that ought to be deliberated upon by a committee of this House, because out of that deliberation may come a solution to the problem.
But clearly there is a dilemma. There is no difference of opinion in the Chamber as to the necessity to resolve this dilemma, and there has been the clearest understanding on both sides of just what it is we are facing.
The suggestion has been made, and I sense agreement in the House. Having taken into account the remarks which the member for South West Nova has made, with which I cannot quarrel, what we now have is an opportunity, by consent, to put this matter in the committee that it would go to if it were debated and voted upon in the House, in any event.

Privilege
It seems to me a very sensible way to try to deal with what is a very difficult problem and a matter, by the way, which the public is very much aware of.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question on clarification.
If we agreed unanimously, Mr. Speaker, to your suggestion, which I think has has a lot of merit in one respect, that we would end up there anyway, as you said. But what happens if in the next two or three weeks we prorogue and the committees are disbanded? The justice committee has worked on this issue since 1988. We have had endless witnesses on it, as late as last week again. What happens in this committee that we are referring it to if prorogation occurs in the next month?


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to answer immediately, but I thought that under the circumstances it would be best if I asked for some counsel on this.
I think it is very clear that the matter would, for all practical purposes, die if the House prorogues, if the government should prorogue the House. But that is going to happen whether I put to the House that there is a prima facie case of privilege and the House supports that. It will happen, in any event.
Just to be absolutely certain that we all understand what we are doing, that of course does not mean that the matter cannot be raised again when the House comes back into session. Of course it can. The issue does not go away. The proceedings are nullified because they were in the last session, but it can all be raised again; it can be brought right back to me the day that the government decides to bring the House back, if it prorogues, with a throne speech.
If the House accepts the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary today, which seems to the Chair very sensible, that at least is a recognition we have a problem which all members realize is very serious, and on an issue of great seriousness. It puts it exactly into the committee which it would get to if I were required to make a ruling.
I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary and then I will come to the hon. member for Mississauga West.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify very quickly a point that was made earlier.
Citation 625 of Beauchesne's fifth edition refers to the whole question of the power of committees to summon witnesses, papers, and so on. Citation 625(2) states:
(2) The procedure for obtaining papers is for the committee to adopt a motion ordering the required person or organization to produce them.
That has been done. There is no dispute over that. It continues:
If this Order is not complied with, the committee may report the
matter to the House, stating their difficulties in obtaining the
requested documents. It is then for the House to decide what action is
to be taken.
That to me is the nub of this whole argument. That is why I feel is so essential that we come to an understanding, because if we do not come to an understanding we are faced with a very difficult dilemma.
What do we do? Do we vote to ask a member of this House, a member of the cabinet, to comply with the committee request which advice says he may be breaking the law to do so? That is the nub of the question. That is why it is so difficult for members of this House to make a decision on that.
I do not think it is wise for this House to divide on that particular issue, because I think if it divides we lose both ways. If we make the reference to the committee, then I think we have an opportunity to explore this very difficult problem to make some recommendations as to how we handle those situations should they arise again and I think we then resolve the problem. But if we do not do that, we then are faced with a very serious conflict of ideas, of law and of interpretation of law. That is why I put forward the suggestion that I did, because it is only the House that can decide this issue.
If we do what I have recommended it takes the House out of a very difficult dilemma, and by that I mean members of the House.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the standing committee out of which this problem arose, I want to point out that I did follow the procedures outlined by the parliamentary secretary in Beauchesne's. I did report to the House and that unanimous consent to have the House look at the motion was refused.
February 28, 1991

However, I think it is a reasonable proposition that the parliamentary secretary has put forward. There are always rumours of prorogation and the possibility of prorogation. Well, that is fine. If there is to be prorogation, we know it can be lost and, as you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, the issue does not die; the issue can be taken up again.
However, before I give unanimous consent, does the Speaker of the House have the right to ask that committee to move expeditiously, or does it have the right to put time limits on the committee to look into this?


Mr. Speaker:: I will try to respond to the hon. member. The Speaker is the servant of the House. As hon. members know, it is not the Speaker's place for the most part to interpret what goes on in committees and, second, certainly not to tell committees what to do.
However, there is a sort of rule of general common sense that applies even here despite what others may say. This discussion is taking place in the most public of arenas. I can only say that I would hope the committee meets very rapidly and gets on with it.
In that spirit and picking up a cue again from the parliamentary secretary, I think the hon. member who has raised this matter, after consultation with his colleagues, would perhaps like a moment or two to wrap up, and then I am going to put the question to the House.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am of the view-and I am sure all members are of the view-that what we are dealing with here to some extent may break some new ground. I realize and have some sympathy for the position of the Speaker in single-handedly having to take on this issue framed in privilege. I would like nothing better than to offer, along with colleagues in the House, a mechanism that would lift some of the burdens we have here in dealing with this issue.
I fear being toyed with by procedure; not by people, but the procedures that I have experienced over my last couple of years here I find to be a little unwieldy from time to time. If we were not to deal with the issue of whether or not this is technically a breach of privilege, if we were to accept that there is a problem and to put it to a committee, I am of the view that we should do that only on terms which would make it veiy clear to whichever committee dealt with it that the issue had to be resolved on certain terms. To send it to a committee without terms might, given the way things often evolve here,
Privilege
simply consign the issue to a committee report and the House may never have a chance to deal with it until another issue of a similar type arises.
I would like to suggest to the Speaker that from my point of view as a member who has raised an issue, I would find it acceptable. I would take no umbrage if the Speaker deferred going through the process of making a decision for another day and permitted members on all sides of the House to confer on the framing of an order that would accomplish the goals of the justice committee and hopefully the needs of all members of the House and in the end possibly obviate the need to deal with the technical issue of whether or not this is a breach of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not often that the House gets so close to making up its mind about something and then lets it slip away. I do not know whether to call on the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I am in a position where I know very extensive discussions have taken place.
I am in the hands of the House, and yet it seems to me that the attempt here has been to put this in a committee of this place, which is exactly where it would go if I were to rule that there was a prima facie case of privilege. The committee, of course, could decide whether it is privilege. The committee could decide how ministers are to deal with things which are apparently contradictory between a law that has been passed by this House and the ancient laws and traditions of this place. Sooner or later somebody is going to have to look at this. We have right at our fingertips the opportunity to do so at this point.
I can only say that the whole approach that has been taken up until now seems to make a lot of sense and would be a very great help to the Speaker, because what comes out of that committee would be a very great help to the Speaker in subsequent cases.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I came in late on the debate, but I just wanted to offer any assurances to the hon. member who raised this point of privilege that this is viewed, in the government's perspective, as a genuine dilemma for which guidance and so on is sought and on which we need to have the kind of discussion and evaluation that the committee could ascribe to it.

The Budget
Leaving it just a question of privilege, because of the adversarial nature of the House and the nature of the direction, puts the government in an awkward position. We might, quite frankly, argue that nothing the minister has done has breached any privileges and so on. We would be forced to in that sense. I think that would be too limiting. I think that would be inappropriate.
If there is concern, as I understood, about prorogation and what effect that might have, you certainly have my assurances in regard to that whatever order of the House is necessary to carry this on through any prorogation and to pick it up after prorogation. You have my assurances of full co-operation in that regard. There is no attempt here to put it aside or into a closet, but rather some attempt to address this fundamental problem that the Solicitor General has at this time. One does not have to be too imaginative to hypothesize many of these kinds of dilemmas. If we can make progress and resolve it, I think we are serving the interests of the House. I give my assurance of full co-operation.
Mr. Speaker I know that this might lead to some sense that members need to speak further. I think it is appropriate for the Chair, though, to say that the matter has been not only very well debated following the splendid lead of the hon. member for Scarborough- Rouge River, but very fully debated.
Perhaps I can say this. I have been a member of this House since 1972.1 have never seen a very serious issue so close to being resolved by agreement as I see it in front of me now. That does not mean that what comes out of the committee will necessarily satisfy everybody, but what it does mean is that we have a committee of this House dealing with what is essentially an extraordinarily difficult issue and an issue which, by the way, was not even dreamed about several hundred years ago at Westminster.
Is the House in agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members. I know that hon. members will allow me to say again that I thank very much the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River for not only the excellent position that he took, the
excellent address, but the manner in which he brought this matter to the House. I extend that compliment to all members who have taken part in this. This is one of the better moments in our long history. Thank you.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West) (p. 17722); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 17725).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Etobicoke North had 10 minutes left in his questions and comments. The hon. assistant whip on a question or comment.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for an excellent speech. It was very good. It is clear from his speech that this budget is long on optimistic forecast but very short on policies that would produce these desired results.
What did this government fail to accomplish over the last six and a half years in the face of what is happening now with this recession and these economic difficulties? What alternatives could it follow in order to help our economy rebound?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent question.
The real point about the budget is not what the government has done; indeed, the budget itself relies almost entirely on statistical smoke and mirrors. What the government has failed to do over the past seven years, as the member has noted, instead of undertaking the kind of economic restructuring so frequently promised, the government has relied on ad hoc cuts which have only served to whittle away the existing apparatus.
February 28, 1991

Instead of addressing the root causes of inflation in the economy, that is to say the structural barriers in the marketplace and in the under-employment of Canadians and of Canadian resources, it has relied on the blunt and inequitable tool of high interest rates.
This is what comes from an economic philosophy which holds that the government has no role in the economy and a political agenda that only serves to aggravate regional, social and economic differences.
In essence, this budget is the logical outcome of this government's refusal to address the fundamental problems in the economy. It is a hamstrung budget, one which demonstrates the extent to which this government, through its own policies, has backed itself into a comer from which it appears unable to extricate itself.
In 1981 the Liberal government of the day employed a counter-cyclical fiscal policy to bring Canada out of recession. By contrast, this government's failure to reduce its deficits over the following seven affluent years, resulting in a $400 billion international debt, means that it is now in no position to undertake such steps. The government projects record growth and productivity based on lower interest rates which, in turn, relies on historical low inflation rates, but it offers no policies which could produce the desired results.
The member has asked what alternative policies might the government have followed. I am certainly not one to argue that the solution to Canada's economic malaise lies in turning back the clock in attempting to re-employ the old tools of state intervention.
Nor would I for a moment argue that the government should attempt to rebuild Canada's trade fortress walls in attempt in some way to isolate itself from the global economy which has emerged in recent decades.
I would, however, suggest that there are ways in which public involvement in the private sector can bring benefit to all Canadians, one where government focuses less on creating economic activity than on creating the circumstances within which economic activity will naturally flourish. That is to say, one which takes as its priority supply-side, as distinct from demand-side, intervention.
The Budget
Under the present government, the foundations that must underpin productivity have been eroded, both through neglect and through growing national divisions. The new rule for the state should be to rebuild these foundations from the bottom up.
Such a strategy, for example, could include working with the provinces to improve educational standards, enhancing our communications and transport infrastructure, removing interprovincial barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and people and working towards sustainable development by building environmental costs into the costs of production, distribution and consumption.
Industry will need access to long-term, competitively priced capital in Canada if it is to invest in the high value-added sectors of the future. This government should have done more to foster the formation of indigenous capital. Instead, we have seen the government engaging in siphoning off domestic capital and generally weakening the economy. A policy of deficit spending has burdened Canadian industry with the most costly capital in the industrialized world.
This, in turn, has forced industry to turn increasingly to offshore investors, reducing domestic control of the economy and leading to the current balance-of-pay-ments deficit.
Government must also re-examine, in answer to the hon. member's question, the ways in which our financial institutions are structured by looking again at how Canadians channel investment into Canadian industry. We should enable Canadian industry to have access, not only to long-term capital, but to capital that is domestically owned and controlled.
Finally, there is a need to develop mechanisms in our country for enhancing co-operation among business, labour and government and, indeed, among the various sectors of the economy. Unless a broad census can be achieved about the direction the economy should take and the way economic restructuring should occur, there is little hope that Canada's technological, industrial and natural resources can be channelled efficiently and painlessly into what Canada does best.

The Budget


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to rise today to participate in the debate on the budget which was brought down on Tuesday. But before I begin my discussion of that, and I realize I will not have an opportunity to finish before we adjourn, I do want to make a few comments about the events which occurred overnight in the Persian Gulf.
I think we all rejoice to know that hostilities have been suspended. We are waiting anxiously for results from the UN Security Council meetings. They met this morning and will be going into formal meetings this afternoon, with the hope that Iraq will have acceded to the conditions and will ensure that prisoners of war are exchanged, that reparations can be paid and all the elements of the cease-fire are met so that, indeed, it can be a permanent cease-fire and we can get on very challenging task of rebuilding and restoring peace and order in this difficult part of the world.
I think it is perhaps also appropriate this morning to mention that our thoughts are with the people of Kuwait. They have suffered such atrocities and such devastation of their country; we have seen some of that on television over the past few hours. It will take time to not only rebuild the physical infrastructure of their country but also to, I think, rebuild the people so they can once again live without fear or terror which they have been subjected to over these past months. Of course our thoughts are also with the families of those who have been killed or injured during these hostilities.
It is also a time to give thanks. I want to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my thanks to so many who have worked so hard over these past seven months, and no more so than the 2,500 Canadian men and women who are serving in the Persian Gulf and those who have served during the earlier rotations. They have done an outstanding job and I think we can be very proud of the contribution that Canada has made and Canadians are playing in this situation.
We have seen that some of the personalities on television, Commodore Summers, Captain Dusty Miller, Colonel Lalonde, Denny Fireball Roberts, and all the others who have been so vigilant: on the navy side with the ships and air component, with the CF-18s and those
working in the hospital. There are 550 Canadians who have worked there as well.
My thanks also go out to our Prime Minister and our Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the story of this situation is written, I hope it will be documented in a way that will truly show the outstanding leadership which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have played throughout; their efforts of diplomacy, and the continuing strength that they have shown to the United Nations and to our coalition partners.
It has been an extraordinary time which has brought nations from all over the world together and to say that they will not countenance aggression and have put actions behind those words.
We give thanks as well to the United Nations because it is perhaps now a renaissance in the history of the United Nations and we hope from the successful role that they have played in this situation, they will become the beacon of hope and really be able to help establish international peace and order.
I want to give thanks to the families of our service personnel. I have had the opportunity of visiting with many of them over this past month in the many bases across the country and many cities and communities. They have been stalwart and strong in their support. I want to give thanks also to the support we have received from so many communities and so many Canadians. It has been overwhelming but I think it is indicative of the kind of Canadian spirit and fortitude to show their support to our people.
There have been many others back here in Ottawa and across the country, many women who serve in the Armed Forces, were not in the Persian Gulf but enabled our activities to take place and who have worked around the clock for nigh on seven months; I want to pay tribute to them as well. They have really done an outstanding job, both on the military and civilian sides.
Now we wait and we hope and we pray that peace will come and that this will provide the opportunity for the world to reflect anew and through the auspices of the United Nations to ensure that we have mechanisms that can maintain peace, order and stability in this world and that we know where there are words there are also actions.

I think Canada and Canadians can stand tall today to know that they have made their contribution to this most just and important end.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, let me now turn back to our discussions on the budget. I think it was a very important budget. It was our Minister of Finance's seventh budget. We have seen through these seven years a constancy and a consistency. But this budget perhaps more than any other that I have seen over these years really reflects what is so important for us to be doing in this country. It not only responds to the needs of Canadians in this recession, but most importantly it positions Canada for economic recovery in the months ahead.
This government has had to make difficult choices with respect to the Persian Gulf. We now are making the difficult choices which will ensure that Canadians can enjoy economic prosperity, that our young people can look forward to a Canada that is going to have a sound economy in the future.
In order to maintain the standard of living that we have all come to enjoy and in order to provide the very social services that have made Canada an envied nation around the world, we must be able to compete effectively in the marketplace. We know so much of our economy is based on our ability to trade and to be competitive.
Our social services will not survive if Canada does not prosper in the new globalized economy. Indeed, our gains in employment equity-something which I have a great deal of concern and interest in-would be undermined if we were to lose our market share.
Certainly, Canada's economic prospects will be dim so long as we must continue to spend 36 cents out of every dollar on servicing our debt. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government this year must pay $43 billion in debt charges. In fact, it is the largest single spending item. How much easier it would be to respond to the recession and to our options today if we were not shackled by paying $43 billion for what previous governments had borrowed in the past.
This government has no intention of mortgaging the future of Canadians. Through this budget, the Minister of Finance has outlined our plan for recovery. It will be a recovery that is based on some very fundamental princi-
The Budget
pies which I think every individual understands as we do our own budgeting, as we do work with our own financial affairs.
It is a budget that is based upon lower inflation and lower interest rates so that stable prices by the mid-1990s will mean that families will be able to budget with confidence. They can feel more secure. It will mean that the elderly and the unemployed, the working poor, people on fixed incomes will have less fear of the future because they will know that they will not be hit. One of the worst things that can happen is runaway inflation.
The budget is not content simply to tighten our belts while giving us promises of better times to come. This government will help those who have been hardest hit by the current recession. Restraint is not a burden that will be carried on the backs of those in greatest need.
As you examine the budget, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the additional expenditures include more money for seniors, the unemployed and for farmers, who have been particularly hard hit by falling grain prices.
I would remind the House that the expenditure control plan that was introduced in last year's budget, with certain programs exempted from the restraint. Among those were major transfers to persons. Transfers to persons comprise the largest component of federal program spending. It is about a third.
These transfers include old age security benefits, the guaranteed income supplement, spouse's allowances, family allowances, veterans' payments and unemployment insurance benefits.
In other words, these are government cheques that go to the people who are most in need. Particularly in a time of recession I want to assure this House that these are the expenditures that are not being touched.
We have to recognize that our population is aging, and because seniors' benefits are fully indexed to inflation, benefits to the elderly are one of the fastest growing areas of government spending. In fact, the elderly are the beneficiaries of about half of government's spending on social programs.
From my perspective, I know that as a result of differences in life expectancy, the majority of these seniors are women. In fact, when we examined the portion of our senior population over the age of 85, we found that in 1989 there were more than twice the number of women than as men.

That is why in my portfolio responsibilities as Minister responsible for the Status of Women I am very pleased that this budget calls for an increase of $1.6 billion in the amount spent on the elderly. It also calls for $3 billion to be spent on the unemployed. Unemployment insurance continues to be one of the most important elements of Canada's social safety net. The government will continue to use the unemployment insurance programs to provide for those who have lost their jobs.
Just another example of how our recovery will not be sought at the expense of the disadvantaged, I think then we can turn to the new initiatives to help disabled Canadians. Last November my colleague, the Minister responsible the Status of Disabled Persons introduced a strategy to promote equal opportunities for Canadians with disabilities. This budget implements many of those proposals.
The disability tax credit, something that the disabled community has been asking for, recognizes that Canadians with disabilities face higher costs of living and working. It will be increased from $575 to $700 in 1991. As well, the budget recognizes three new disability related expenses in the medical expense tax credit. This change is expected to benefit $35,000 Canadian households at a cost of $20 million. In the past allowances for the disabled, such as subsidized parking and transportation, have been treated as taxable benefits. This budget drops these requirements.
In order to promote more opportunities for disabled Canadians to go into the workforce, and that after all is one of the objectives, one of the cries of many from the disabled community, the business costs of modifications for the disabled, such as wheelchair ramps, will be totally deductible in the year they are incurred. This measure, I believe is fully consistent with this government's commitment to employment equity, a commitment that has helped create new opportunities for the disabled, as well as native Canadians, visible minorities and women.
Let me turn now to another area of the budget and one in my other portfolio that I have a particular interest in; the impact on defence. As my colleagues know, this past year has presented the Department of National
Defence with some extraordinary challenges. Certainly foremost among those has been the conflict in the gulf. Our government's decision to deploy 2,500 Canadians to the gulf region has imposed significant and unforeseen pressures on our national defence budget.
Our servicemen and women have played a vital role in the coalition effort. They are serving Canada, they are serving the cause of international peace and security with great skill and dedication, which I mentioned before. I know the vast majority of Canadians have supported these efforts. They have supported our forces serving in the gulf because the cause that they have served is just. Like previous generations of Canadians in wartime, we must be prepared to pay the costs. Where necessary, these are costs to help ensure the kind of world that we want for our children and for ourselves.
It goes without saying that the Government of Canada, through the Department of National Defence, has a responsibility to support those who have served in the gulf, to ensure that they have the equipment, the training and the support that they need to fulfil their mission. The government has been fully committed to this end. In the Department of National Defence, supporting our force's operation in the gulf is currently our highest priority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister will have four minutes left in her debate, plus ten minutes questions and comments.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget brought down Thesday by the Minister of Finance is a full-scale attack against the Atlantic provinces and rural regions.
February 28, 1991

The $2.3 billion cut in transfer payments for health care and education will cause the provinces to either increase taxes or cut back on their services.
The Tory Budget proves this government is economically brutal, not fiscally responsible.

Instead of providing a job creation strategy for the 1.4 million Canadians who are unemployed in the midst of a recession, the finance minister has slapped them in the face with a $100 million cut in the Canadian Jobs Strategy fund. Where is the funding for the job training the government had promised in Bill C-21?
Rural and Atlantic Canadians have been served a budget that cuts job creation dollars, ignores national unity, attacks health care, education and labour and continues the Prime Minister's policy of transfer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the budget presented by the Minister of Finance on TLtesday is a balanced and fair budget, with the exception of the tobacco tax.
This increased taxation will have a devastating effect on the tobacco farmers of Elgin-Norfolk, many of whom are already suffering from Canadians' declining consumption of tobacco. I would hope the minister will be able to provide some ray of hope for these farmers by ensuring that funding is available to assist them in diversifying into other crops.


THE DISABLED
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has made new tax benefits available to the disabled, in addition to an increase in the tax credit from $575 to $700. Mr. Speaker, I hear the travelling minister, the hon. member from Sorel, who is always complaining about members on this side of the
House. We could call him the "best travelled minister since 1984."
Mr. Speaker, the range of deductible medical expenses has been expanded to include services ranging from attendant care to the purchase and maintenance of a guide dog.
Families supporting a disabled child or adult will also see their deductions increased, and the government has introduced incentives for employers to make changes that will improve building access for the disabled.


CANADA POST
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 31 regarding the village of Watford's recent experiences with Canada Post.
Their efforts to deal with this in a responsible, positive way have been bureaucratized and aborted by the deceit and mistrust of Canada Post.
Canada Post has finally shown its stripes: For example in a letter from the reeve of the village, he points out that the alleged retirement of the postmaster this spring was not factual.
The village's request for information promised on financial issues never came. It must still be in the mail.
Canada Post privately told favoured individuals to tender before the public was offered the same opportunity.
It awarded contracts without doing credit checks and asking for bondable contractors.
It offered contradictory information through its bureaucrats and then set deadlines that were unreasonable.
Village negotiations for the purchase of the Canada Post building whose site is shared with the cenotaph honouring the men and women who served Canada in the world wars are under way. The village is understandably very concerned about dealing with Canada Post on this matter, given its past record of misleading statements and the withholding of information.
I call on the minister responsible for Canada Post to hold the corporation accountable for its actions.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the GST is a tax that is not only outrageous and regressive in principle, but is producing abuses in practice.
Under the law, non-commercial tenants are not required to pay this lousy tax on the rent for parking spaces, even if it is not in their lease, the money is paid to another company, or the parking is in an adjoining building. But Crown Life in Montreal, collected over $5,000 in illegal GST payments since January from tenants in the La Cite complex in Montreal for their parking spaces.
That is $5,000 that Crown Life is going to have to pay back to those tenants, Mr. Speaker. I reported this abuse to Revenue Canada and they promised to get the money refunded. But members of Parliament should not have to pressure Revenue Canada to have the law respected. It is Consumer and Corporate Affairs which must stop this illegal taxation, which I am told is Canada-wide.


JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for someone to take a serious look at the Department of Justice.
Yesterday, after two years of foot-dragging and two years of stonewalling, the justice minister announced she will not reopen the David Milgaard case. There was a mountain of evidence that cast serious doubt on Mil-gaard's murder conviction of 21 years ago. The place to clear the air was the courts, but the justice minister, with little explanation, slammed the door.
She has never explained the process of investigation. Where did Milgaard's application fail? There are charges of cover-up, Mr. Speaker. Is the department really fit to carry out an investigation of this kind? After all, it is asked to investigate itself. It is time to have a public inquiry. Canadians have a right to know whether the Department of Justice is deserving of its name. In the meantime, the spectre of an innocent man languishing behind bars continues to haunt us.


GULF WAR
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the world rejoiced last night with news of the cease-fire in the gulf. All Canadians can take pride in the effective role played by our Canadian men and women in the gulf. We are equally grateful that it would appear that there will be no Canadian casualties.
Nevertheless, these people have put their lives on the line in support of what not only Canadians but the nations of the world believed was essential.
I commend the government, the Ministers of National Defence and Veterans Affairs for having recognized the gulf area as a special duty area, with the benefits and allowances that the designation implies. The leadership and encouragement which these ministers have provided throughout the conflict is to be commended, as is the contribution of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Needless to say, the leading figure throughout this crisis has been the Prime Minister of Canada, who has shown Canadians and all parliamentarians the true meaning of political leadership, indeed, the true meaning of statesmanship. Thanks to all for a job well done.


STATISTICS
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the government has come up with a rather ingenious way of bolstering its image. Believe it or not, it is now hiding the bad economic news. It is doing so by cancelling the collection of statistics.
We learned recently that the government has cancelled the annual census of construction. It has also cancelled the mid-year survey of business investment intentions. In early January, we learned the government was planning to discontinue collecting all science and technology statistics.
Given the Prime Minister's promises to increase Canada's scientific efforts, this would have been acutely embarrassing to the government, you will admit, Mr. Speaker. So, the minister ordained that Statistics Canada should continue to collect science and technology statistics. But, apparently, construction and business investment were less sensitive targets. There is only one
February 28, 1991

possible conclusion to come to, Mr. Speaker, the government has made such a mess of Canada's economy that its only recourse is to hide the evidence from Canadians.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this government has increased its transfer payments to the provinces by 3.7 per cent over last year. And yet, I keep hearing about how we have cut our payments to the provinces and therefore health care and education will suffer.
The provincial governments are well aware of the fact that these transfer payments are block payments made to them with no strings attached. It is up to the provincial governments to make the appropriate allotments. But, of course, it is far easier to blame the federal government for not giving more money than it is to examine the province's spending habits.
It is time for the provinces to realize that they must be part of the solution. They must stop blaming the federal government for their fiscal problems and set about getting their fiscal house in order.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the government's estimates tabled in the House this morning, the new forestry department is getting another kick in the teeth. Funding is being cut by 7 per cent, largely because forest agreements with the provinces have not been signed. These agreements give the department its ability to deal with the provinces on many important forestry and environmental issues. We are told that the agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario might be funded out of the government's reserve funds.
These agreements expired in March 1989, and still the government has not done anything. Even Western Diversification has sat on the funds for these so-called partnership agreements. When is the government going to get its act together and treat our forests with the priority that it should?


RED CROSS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the annual Red Cross fund-raising campaign in Quebec was launched in Montreal. On that occasion, Mr. Claude B eland, president of the Mouve-ment Desjardins and honorary chairman of the campaign, reminded Quebecers of the importance of the traditional role played by the Red Cross in our society.
Mr. Speaker, the Red Cross is a lot more than blood donor clinics. The Red Cross is active in water safety and other areas, and when there is a disaster, it provides victims with on-going humanitarian support. I am sure that if we could help a person in danger, we would, without hesitation. However, since we are not in a position to do so, the Red Cross does this on our behalf, and with our donation it will be able to continue to finance its activities. The Red Cross urgently needs funds, Mr. Speaker. Give generously!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, this government, by its own hand, has reaped economic devastation from coast to coast in this land, as illustrated all too graphically by the 12,000 businesses and 43,000 personal bankruptcies racked up in the last year.
In the ultimate act of contempt, the government refuses to take responsibility for the thousands of shattered lives and dreams that result from these cold statistics. In P.E.I. bankruptcies are up by 19 percent. In Ontario, nearly 20,000 personal and business bankruptcies. Behind each statistic there are real people, many of whom have had their lives shattered forever, who have lost their businesses, lost their jobs, their families, who have lost their pride, all because of this government's insane economic policies, which have driven a stake through the heart of the Canadian economy.
In the ultimate act of contempt, it brings in a budget that offers no relief but just promises more of the same to those businesses and individuals who are still hanging on by their nails. The people of Canada do not need a new budget, they do not need a new finance minister,

they need a new government, a Liberal government and, for the sake of all Canadians, the sooner the better.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have so much to be thankful for today. In the Persian Gulf our forces have fulfilled their mission with courage and expertise and all Canadians across this country share an immense pride in our men and women in the gulf.
At the same time, Canadians at home are searching for answers that will make our country stronger and more united. Lucille Hilston is one of my constituents in Niagara Falls who feels very strongly about her country. Mrs. Hilston has written an anthem celebrating Canada's birthday entitled "Happy Birthday, Canada". She hopes that it will promote positive feelings across the country, especially at this time in our constitutional history. I will read a couple of lines from this inspiring song:
II is time for celebration The birthday of our nation Land of love and liberty Historical creation Of many years duration
This is just one person's response to help promote a united and happier Canada. I thank her for her efforts. Anyone who would like a copy of that, please write to me in care of the House of Commons.


THE BUDGET
John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt after the budget speech that this Tbry government is continuing its seven-year program of attacking low and middle-income Canadians, a peek into the 1991-92 estimates document lays that doubt to rest.
At a time of recession and high unemployment, this government is slashing $3.1 billion from the Employment and Immigration budget and stealing $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. It is threatening job losses as a direct result of any wage increases to public servants as it pits employee against employee. It further damages the collective bargaining process to legislate its right to contract out work presently performed by its employees.
With the $60.3 million in cuts to transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, it has again shown its contempt for ordinary Canadians by attacking those programs that Canadians are most dependent upon.
When the Prime Minister said his party was best to manage change, Canadians had no way of knowing how drastic or how devastating those changes would be for our country.


POSTAL RATES
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, management of the papers La Terre de chez nous and Les Affaires had an unpleasant surprise when they heard that as of April 1, 1991, they would no longer be eligible for third-class mail rates. This decision will increase mailing costs by over 600 per cent and will soon lead to the demise of these two periodicals.
How can the responsible minister justify this increase when most Canadian-owned periodicals will face an increase of only 5.5. per cent? I think it is arbitrary, to say the least, that two magazines that reflect the values of Quebecers and their desire to be well informed are being penalized for the fact they are printed on newsprint, not stapled and appear more than 48 times a year. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware of the role played by these two publications in helping Quebecers stand up for their rights. La Terre de chez nous is a symbol to Quebec farmers. It is their main source of information as well as a touchstone for rural values in Quebec. Les Affaires-



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, when the Liberal Party said that the government was trying to destroy medicare, the Minister of Health accused us of scaremongering. In the government's estimates, tabled less than three hours ago, the government is planning a $1 billion cut in medicare payments.
I want to ask the Prime Minister how he can claim on the one hand that his government is protecting medicare and how his own estimates, on page 19-8, predict a $1 billion cut.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the transfer to the provinces under the Established Programs Financing is made up of both tax points as well as a cash transfer. She has only referred to the cash transfer. The total transfer, tax points and cash transfer amount to an increase for the provinces, as a whole, equivalent to approximately 1 per cent.
In addition to that, there is the equalization program of which seven provinces are beneficiaries. That is also used to help those provinces support medicare, the post-secondary education programs, as well as any other program they wish to apply it to. And that is increasing quite substantially this year, on top of the tax transfer and EPF.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am going to read for the Minister of Finance from his own estimates: "Insured Health Services Program Main Estimates 1990: $5,448,000,000."
And in 1991-92, Mr. Speaker, the same Insured Health Services Program, $4,400,000,000, for a cut, Mr. Speaker, of over $1 billion.

The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that today, the Quebec Minister of Health predicted that the government's budget policies and cutbacks would pro-
Oral Questions
vide ammunition for the separatist position. Those were the words of the Quebec Minister of Health. My question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Since we have a secure universal health care program that is used by all Canadians-in Quebec, Ontario and across Canada-why is the Prime Minister encouraging the separatists with these cutbacks in health care funding?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, there are two kinds of transfers to the provinces: cash transfers and additional transfers in the form of tax points. The hon. member only referred to the cash transfers. So I repeat, the figures mentioned, which were indicated in Thesday's Budget, will not have any impact on transfers for the coming year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
There is a billion-dollar cut predicted in his own budget. He will know that the Minister of Health in Quebec has stated: "That this government with its cuts is nourishing the argument of those who would like to separate from Canada."
I would like to ask the Prime Minister very specifically, knowing as he does that medicare is one of the building blocks of our nation, why he is prepared to cut one of the building blocks out of our nation.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health from Quebec was also the campaign chairman of my hon. friend when she ran for the leadership of her party.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The minister of health from Quebec knows full well that the amounts of money from the federal government to the provinces are going to increase, which is not the case with a decision that he and his colleagues took in Quebec when they off-loaded hundreds of millions of dollars on to the municipalities of Quebec.
When next you are speaking with him, ask him that.

Oral Questions HEALTH CARE


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister has given us any explanation why there is any cut in any funds in the estimates for health care. Bearing in mind the need for quality health care in this country, their evasion of an answer speaks volumes for Canadians.
My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, when asked about his government's plan to phase out federal money for medicare, he said that our concerns were simply Liberal scaremongering.
Yesterday, Dr. Lionel Lavoie, President of the Canadian Medical Association, speaking for the association said, and I quote:
The Government of Canada is financially strangling medicare.
Health care will suffer.
Will the minister now admit that when his government is in effect pulling the plug on life support for medicare it is not scaremongering; it is simply the truth?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that when the Liberal Party of Canada distorts the facts and suggests that the fact that money is shifting between cash payments to the provinces and transfer of tax points represents a retreat on the part of the government on medicare to the tune of $1 billion, that is simply false. It is the Liberal scaremongering I referred to yesterday.
What threatens medicare and what threatens quality social programs in Canada is the fact that today the first 35 cents out of every dollar that goes to Ottawa in Canadian's taxes is going just to pay the interest on the national debt.
It is a time for honesty. It is a time for opposition members to make it clear. Do they favour a higher deficit? Do they favour higher taxes, or do they favour cuts? It is time to come clean with Canadians.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Minister supposedly for National Health and Welfare to come clean with Canadians and to say whether he is accusing the President of the Canadian Medical Association of scaremongering when the president of the association says that the government's budget
is financially strangling medicare. Is he going to stand up and make that accusation? I bet he does not have the guts to do that.

Dr. Lavoie went on to say that he was, and I quote:
surprised at recent government decisions with respect to medicare,
during a national unity crisis.
I therefore want to ask the minister how he can stand idly by when the Minister of Finance and the government are dismantling Canada and fundamental programs such as our medicare system?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, Canada spends about $2,000 for every man, woman and child in this country on health care. Only the United States with its disorganized system spends a higher percentage of GDP than Canada does on health care.
We are transferring this year some $14 billion to the provinces. It is a commitment that remains.
It is only the friend of the hon. member for Hamilton East who has proposed that the federal government should vacate responsibility for medicare. It is her responsibility to explain his position, not ours.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Statistics Canada announced today that the effect of the recession, the impact on people, is even greater than this government would have had us believe. Yesterday, the National Association of Food Banks said that in the last year almost 200,000 children relied on food banks. I point out to the Prime Minister that not veiy long ago he was up speaking in this House, and he was chairing a world summit, on the poverty of children.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Given that there are real needs and human needs out there, why has this government chosen almost $2 billion in cuts to post-secondary education and health services, to the kind of services that fulfil people's needs? These are not frills that we are talking about.
February 28, 1991

In 1981 the Liberal recession was fought on the backs of the poor, of those who needed health care and the unemployed. In 1991 we do not see one new idea.
What is the Prime Minister going to do for those Canadians, those children today, in 1991, who have real needs?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the most important thing the government can do is to get the economy moving again, to bring down interest rates, to allow Canadians to find jobs, to allow Canadians to move off welfare, out of poverty, and into decent paying jobs, into security, and into a future.
Members of the NDP profess to care about our children's future. Yet, what they say is that we should be spending now on this generation and sending the bills to our kids. It is time to stop stealing from our children.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I and I would think most Canadians would fail to see how having children for the next generation go hungry does something for the future of those children and for the future of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. The provinces and the territories all agree that health care social services and education needs are growing. When times are difficult, Canadians across the country count on their government to do something. Instead of cutbacks, when doesn't the Prime Minister reconsider his decision and stop punishing the least advantaged in our society?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
budget cutbacks and economic decisions announced by the government have had, as the Minister of Finance clearly pointed out, the effect of lowering interest rates. Only a few hours ago, interest rates in Canada were lowered again this week, for twelfth or thirteenth week in a row. So that is good news for the economy.
I agree that, coming out of a recession, we do have social problems. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare just explained, the government has a range of programs to help those who are less well-off in our society. However, on the subject of reducing the number of people living in poverty, he noted that today several hundred thousand fewer Canadians are living in poverty
Oral Questions
than in 1984. And despite the negative impact of a recession, Canada has continued to make substantial social progress. Our views on economic ideology differ from those of the New Democrats. We intend to focus on the private sector and lower interest rates, because we believe the private sector will be able to contribute more towards creating new prosperity for all Canadians, starting with durable jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister wanted to help that business sector which creates the most jobs, he would help small business, and those are the ones that are being hit by this budget.
The estimates issued today estimate that the increased costs of the Senate are going to be some $5.6 million.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Surely at least a large percentage of these costs will be associated with the eight GST senators whom the Prime Minister appointed. At the same time, the Minister of Finance has announced that there will be almost a $2.7 million cut to the Northwest Territories for aboriginal language programs and a phasing-out of land use planning in the north where of all places in Canada it is most needed since we have land claims and since we have a fragile environment. That has both environmental consequences as well as consequences for the development of the north.
Would the Prime Minister not consider getting rid of some of the GST senators, using that money to invest in the north where the future is?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is very interested in the concerns of the small business community. I am sure she realizes that the small business community has one of the lowest tax rates of any small business community in the industrialized world. I am sure she also realizes that one of the things not only the small business community has asked for, but Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Exporters Association, the Manufacturers' Association and social groups have all asked for is low interest rates. That is precisely what this budget is designed to do.

Oral Questions
We are not just walking around snapping our fingers saying: "I hope, I hope, I hope that interest rates will come down". We are taking the policy decisions which will put in place a framework that will ensure they will come down. That is the essential message of this budget.


THE ESTIMATES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Main Estimates tabled this morning contain a special allocation of $600 million to cover the cost of maintaining Canadian forces in the Persian Gulf during the next 12 months beginning April 1.
Given that the gulf war is now over and that the outstanding men and women of our Canadian forces will soon becoming home, will the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is a great shame that the government party would not take this opportunity to applaud our forces and not make cat-calls.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell the House what portion of the $600 million set aside in this morning's estimates for the next 12 months, money which will now not be used because the gulf war is over, can now be made available to assist Canada's projected, the minister's own projection, 1.5 million unemployed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government included in the budget amounts of money to make sure that the outstanding men and women who serve Canada in the military receive the full and complete support of all Canadians, whether they are serving overseas or whether they are here.
The government will make sure that the needs of the military are met because when the government brought before the House of Commons a commitment to send the military to fight a war on behalf of freedom, we committed to them that we would give them everything that was required, and the members of this House and this government stood with them then and we will stand with them now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And we agree with that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there is $600 million-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Given that there is $600 million set aside this morning for the next 12 months beginning April 1, given that we do not anticipate on this side our force being in the Middle East for the next 12 months, therefore we anticipate a savings, is it not time to give Canada's unemployed a peace dividend by restoring the $100 million cut to job-creation funds made by this minister in his budget a few days ago?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian Armed Forces serving in the gulf will appreciate the expression of support from the hon. member.
But they will be somewhat perplexed at the fact that he proposes or would recommend that these amounts be withdrawn before they even return.
I think my hon. friend will recognize that the forces are there. They may be there for a considerable period of time. We still do not know. The Government of Canada will continue to deploy all resources to make sure that the men and women who served Canada in such a courageous way receive the full support of the government and the people of Canada.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Minister of Finance.
February 28, 1991

Officials of the Department of Finance have now confirmed-they confirmed it this morning-that they will be deducting from the equalization payments of the four Atlantic provinces $60 per head of population each year to recover what they call the largest overpayment ever in equalization grants given to the four provinces, and that the overpayment took place some three years ago.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Why do the people of Newfoundland, on top of the restrictions on the transfer payments announced in that terrible budget, now have to repay $58.3 million in payments of over $1 million every two weeks for the next two years, and the maritime provinces will have to do the same thing?
The Government of Canada forgives moneys owed by foreign nations and foreign banks. How about giving the people of Newfoundland and the maritimes a break?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard correctly that the hon. member referred to that terrible budget.


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why is it that the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Winston Baker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -of Newfoundland, had some words of praise about that budget?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He said: "All governments generally have reached the limit of spending beyond their means, which spending will have to come out of the pockets of people 10 to 15 years down the road".
The President of the Treasury Board of Newfoundland does not agree with this being a terrible budget. He thinks it is a good budget. I do not know why the hon. member would use those words. He should speak with his brother.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member has asked a serious question that deserves a serious answer. That is not to say that my first response was not a serious response.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker The hon. member.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that on this question I am not my brother's speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


George Baker: Will the Minister of Finance now admit that his budget and the estimates tabled today are really taxation by the back door. Will he not admit that these place an undue onus on the shoulders of provincial governments and on the backs of the managers of our Public Service who are now being order to lay off 2,000 employees for every 1 per cent increase in their salaries? The government is treating our public servants like a pack or rats and the minister thinks he is the exterminator.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to my hon. friend's first answer is, that is the brother of all answers.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister would answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend has referred to the steps we have felt bound to take in controlling the wage costs of the government. This is something that we do not like to do, but we have to recognize the difficult fiscal position the country is in and the difficult deficit and debt problem the federal government has.
We have asked our public servants, as we have asked all members of the House, to participate in solving this problem. We have to take into account the fact that other parts of the country, other people in the country are suffering from wage cuts, salary cuts and from lay-offs. In that broad context, if we as members of Parliament, as members of the Public Service, can help get this country back on its feet again, can help get interest rates down, can help get the economy moving again as we expect it will be in the second half of the year, then I think that is a good move on the part of all of us.

Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
My mother used to say, "eat your greens", but it looks like the Minister of Finance took it literally in his budget on Tuesday. The Minister of the Environment tried unsuccessfully to make a silk purse out of a sows ear yesterday with his claim that a $600 million cut to the Green Plan adds up to a 20 per cent increase. Today's estimates, in fact, show that the environment budget increase is below the rate of inflation and today's estimates reveal that the Green Plan has been kept as a secret political slush fund, quite separate from the environment estimates.
Would the minister justify for the House the continued secrecy of the Green Plan slush fund and would he justify the 50 per cent cut to environmental assessment and his colleague's cuts to alternate energy and to conservation, supposedly the pillars of the minister's plans to deal with global warming?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that my colleague from Skeena reads carefully both the budget and the estimates.
He will find in the budget a clear commitment to spend an extra $250 million for the Green Plan over and above what this government was spending last year on the environment. That is, indeed, on a base of $1.3 billion, a 20 per cent increase, as I stated yesterday.
He will find in the estimates that over and above that, the A base of the Department of the Environment is increasing by 4.8 per cent. That is above the 20 per cent. When you add the two, you get a very major indication of this government's commitment to the environment.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A moment ago, the Prime Minister was talking about the importance of the creation of wealth, yet every single person in the world seems to know, and the finance minister seems not to recognize, that the creation of wealth in any modem industrial state is dependent upon research and development, technology and a highly educated and trained work force.
My question to the Minister of Finance, as he points in various directions over there, is when is he going to stop this empty-headed and catastrophic attack on research and development, on post-secondary education and on training? When is he going to realize that such attacks are directed towards the deindustrialization of Canada and its conversion to Third World country status, and that in fact it will lead to a yet higher deficit in the final analysis?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, what will lead to the deindustrialization of Canada is the continued high interest rates that this country has to go through because of the deficit.
If you want to look at research and development, you will note-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William C. Winegard: I have lots of time, Mr. Harvey.
Science and technology has a very preferred position in this budget. It is one of the highest increases that there is in the budget, and that indicates that the Minister of Finance has been listening to me.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Canada Health Act, introduced by the Liberal government and which became law in 1984, is a source of national pride. In contrast, Bill C-69, which was forced through the House and became law this year, cuts the legs from under medicare and is a national disgrace.
The government now says medicare protection will be legislated as the budget, which further freezes transfer payments, escapes enforcement power from the Canada Health Act.
What other means does this government have in mind to help enforce the Canada Health Act that are not already in this act? And would the minister admit that weakness lies, not in this health act, but in the government not willing to act?
February 28, 1991


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased with the statement by the Minister of Finance that measures will be taken to ensure that as the balance between tax points and cash changes under the transfers that we are making to the provinces, they will be able to protect the provisions of the Canada Health Act.
The important point to make is that the government, this year, will be transferring for health care some $14 billion to the provinces.
Transfer payments to the provinces have gone up since the last year the Liberals were in office in 1984. They have gone up by over 50 per cent. I think that is an important increase and I believe our commitment to ensuring the health of every Canadian is an important commitment to this country.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Americans demanded the removal of the federal subsidy to unemployment insurance during the free trade negotiations. Last year, this government capitulated and did away with that subsidy. Now the same government is retreating from its commitment to medicare. I ask the minister to unveil his government's next scheme to further harmonize Canadian social spending with his American model?
What is the next sacred trust to be foreclosed?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that particular canard was flown by the Liberals in the last election and rejected by every Canadian because they knew that the attempt by the Liberals to frighten the elderly, the sick and the poor was simply a reprehensible political tactic.
Members opposite inherit a world where it is possible to spend without having to worry about where the money is coming from. Back here on planet earth where ordinary Canadians have to live, we realize that governments cannot repeal the laws of economics, that it is important that governments follow the same rules as every homemaker, every family farmer, every businessman, and recognize the fact that if you keep spending more money than you are bringing in, you will have very
Oral Questions
serious problems, indeed. We will protect Canada's social programs by putting Canada's finances in order.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The unemployment rate in Montreal is very high. Perhaps more than others, new Canadians find it difficult to land a job. Would the minister explain how a $ 100-million cut-back in employment planning can possibly help these people find ways to survive?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to note that in Montreal as in other cities and urban regions of Canada a lot of money is allocated for immigrant language courses and training.
It should be noted as well, and I take this opportunity to mention it, that this year the government has earmarked in excess of $3 billion for employment training and assistance-$500 million more than last year.


SPICER COMMISSION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
With respect to an article published in today's Le Soleil, Mr. Robert Normand, who sits on the Spicer Commission, said, and I quote the article in Le Soleil: "Mr. Normand finds rather strange the fact that some of his fellow commissioners are working on the basis of 30 days a month at $600 a day. According to him, five or ten days a month with a few more intensive periods now and then would be more normal". He goes on to say: "Apparently some commissioners have hired $40,000-a-year executive assistants and huge amounts have been paid for overtime for mostly unknown reasons".
Prime Minister, my question is this: What corrective measures do you intend to take in this case?

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Normand very well, not only an excellent man but also an outstanding administrator who sits on the Spicer Commission.
The hon. member would know that when the government appoints royal commissioners they are free to conduct their business as they see fit. I saw today's statement and I am sure that the Commission Chairman, Mr. Spicer, will read it carefully and, if need be, take all corrective measures required.
We should keep in mind that the government gave Mr. Spicer a wide-ranging mandate about which he is expected to report in relatively short time. Still Mr. Spicer is fully aware of all federal government management standards and we also know him as a man of utmost integrity. We know that his commission will fully abide by these standards.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This budget is an attack on working families. The minister has laid the claim for his economic policies at the feet of public sector workers. He said in the budget that he would listen to the anguish of people, yet there is nothing in this budget to help those who have lost or who are about to lose their jobs.
In fact, when the estimates are compared to the budget, it is clear that more dollars than anticipated were taken from the Canadian Jobs Strategy at the last minute. Could the minister explain what, at the last minute, became more important than training unemployed workers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important to this government than training unemployed workers. I appreciate her support on this issue. It is too bad she did not support Bill C-21 sooner and we could have had funds at work last year.
I also want to point out to the hon. member and repeat what I said earlier, that over $3 billion is going to be
spent this year on training, on training allowances and on employment initiatives all across Canada. That is $500 million more than last year and $900 million more than two years ago.
That is directed at unemployed workers, at workers who need to upgrade their skills and to meet exactly the requirements which the country has for a better trained workforce, as well as to give individual workers a more satisfactory life and a stable source of income.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 1990, the finance minister said in the House there would be no changes to the UI premiums for three years and that the government was planning accordingly. He even said, and I quote, "If there is any shortfall, then this will be made up by the government". The minister should know that a nation out of work cannot work as a nation.
Why is the Minister of Finance putting the burden of the deficit on the backs of working Canadian families and on the backs of the unemployed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member totally misunderstands the objective of this budget. What we have set out veiy clearly in the budget statement itself is a series of ways in which we are going to get interest rates down further from the 400 basis points, the four percentage points, that we have already seen interest rates come down.
You cannot just wish interest rates to come down to help the unemployed workers that my hon. friend is concerned about. What is necessary is taking the steps to make sure that it does happen.
What I am hearing from both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party is that they would have started with that $35 billion deficit that we were looking at when we started the budget planning this year and increased the spending. All I have heard today are suggestions for increased spending from both the New Democratic Party and from the Liberal Party. If they are going to have an increase in spending on top of that deficit number of $35 billion, interest rates would not have gone down; they would have gone right up. That would have done far, far more to-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi.
February 28, 1991


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Quebec mining association strenuously objects to the proposed amendment to the Financial Administration Act concerning cost recovery in marine shipping, especially in the ports of Quebec City and Montreal, as far as the mining industry is concerned.
My question is this: Could the minister inform the House today whether Bill C-91 will have a disastrous impact on the economy of certain regions, especially in the mining industry-copper, iron, zinc and salt-by making it more attractive for Canadian freighters to go through U.S. ports instead?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board has stated, Bill C-91 has no bearing on the government's authority to implement cost recovery proposals. The existing section 19 of the Financial Administration Act is the legal foundation.
I should also tell my hon. friend that we are still consulting on cost recovery measures. As late as this morning I met with officials of Stelco and I am sure that when we do develop a proposal that it will be acceptable to the industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West, a single question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister has told Public Service employees if they want to feed their families they have to axe their friends.
In 1982 the same minister said about wage controls: "There is no flexibility when a limit is placed on everyone, whether a clerk, SX-3, deputy minister or president of a Crown corporation".
Why has the minister changed his mind? Why does he now find it perfectly acceptable that the president of a Crown corporation, making as much or more than $300,000, can now have an increase this year equal to the entire salary of 70,000 public servants, equal to the entire
Oral Questions
salary of a clerk living on a poverty wage needing every cent to feed her children?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member read very carefully what our proposal is. There is indeed a lot of room to manoeuvre within our proposal. This is not a freeze. We said that we are living in difficult times.
I remind her again of what I told the union leaders of the Public Service at a time when Canadians are hurting and being thrown out of jobs, renegotiating their agreement in order to help their company. As I went around the country preparing for the budget and pre-budget consultation, they all said, in Ottawa and in the government, you must do your share and I think, rightly so, we all have to do our share. The Public Service has done its share in the past and I am sure it will do it again.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec.
It seems the Quebec Minister of Health and Welfare recently accused Conservative members from Eastern Quebec of sabotaging the forestry agreement, on political grounds. Could the minister perhaps clarify this statement?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I may add that Minister Cote accused Conservative members from Eastern Quebec of doing a very good job, and I think we agree on that score.
In any case, the agreement to which the hon. member referred is a federal-provincial agreement under which $18 million was allocated for R&D in the forestry sector, with funds managed by the federal government. We tried to consult with the Quebec government, which suggested amendments that were turned down by local consultation committees. At the unanimous request of all local consultation committees in Quebec, we have decided to implement the agreement as signed as of April 1, 1991, Mr. Speaker.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Shirley Coppen, Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip, Government of Ontario, and to the Members of the Standing Committee, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. Would he be so kind as to explain to the House what the business will be for the remainder of the week, and Monday and Thesday of next week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the budget debate, as well as on Friday and Monday. On Thesday, it would be my intention to call second reading of Bill C-97, the borrowing authority bill and, quite possibly on Wednesday, I might make that an allotted day or an opposition day. I will be in discussion with my colleagues on the other side in regard to this.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, during the break a committee of the House met on gun control and submitted a report. I wonder if the government House leader is in a position to say whether the government will be bringing back Bill C-80 before the House prorogues, or will that bill die?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct, there was a committee of the House that looked into the subject matter and came forward with a number of recommendations in that regard. Apparently, the Minister of Justice is examining and she will be proposing the proper course to follow, whether it is to amend C-80 to reflect these changes or, perhaps, a more expeditious way might be to bring forward a new bill. The Minister of Justice will be bringing forward recommendations in that regard.
While I am on my feet, before we get to Orders of the Day, I understand there has been discussions with the opposition critics and general agreement that we would revert to Statements by Ministers at this point in time for a short statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, followed by statements from the critics of the two opposition parties in that regard.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions and there is agreement from this side for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to proceed with a statement at this time, a short statement as I understand it, followed by my colleague from Winnipeg and, I assume, that the time will be added on to the remainder of the day and the vote will be taken later than 5.45 this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa met in special session on February 16 in London to discuss Commonwealth policy in light of recent developments in South Africa, including the statement made by President de Klerk on February 1, 1991 which committed the South African government to repeal the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid.
Members will recall that both the Prime Minister and I welcomed the courage and the leadership shown by President de Klerk in making these announcements as we have welcomed the determination of black leaders to work more closely together.
I want to report briefly today to Parliament on the work of that committee which Canada chairs and to seek permission at a later point in the proceedings to lay upon the table a copy in both official languages of the communique.
February 28, 1991

Participating in the committee were Commonwealth foreign ministers from Australia, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, the Secretaiy General of the Commonwealth and the former foreign minister of Guyana.
We benefited from the participation of Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Director of the International Department of the African National Congress and Ron MacLean, Canada's Ambassador to South Africa.
The situation in South Africa is changing quickly and profoundly. Many white South Africans, personified by President de Klerk, have re-examined their consciences and undertaken to change not only public policy, but also personal practices and beliefs.
Many black South Africans, particularly Nelson Mandela, demonstrate a generosity and vision that are extraordinary in people so long oppressed. Others, including leaders of Inkatha and the Pan African Congress, are beginning to show flexibility, a willingness to experiment, to compromise. And still other South Africans, black and white, are victims of anger, ignorance, fear.
The world is involved in South Africa precisely because the system of apartheid is so powerful and so deliberate a denial of basic human equality, so singular an instrument of racial prejudice. Just as many South Africans show remarkable responsibility in facing their new challenges, so must the world community weigh and apply our influence with great care. The moral imperative remains: to end apartheid. Now, with change in the air, the question of how we contribute to that goal becomes more complex.
Commonwealth foreign ministers, after extensive debate, reflecting the representative nature of that group, agreed unanimously on a position that recognizes a commitment to real reform, but will only reward actual changes which dismantle the system of apartheid. We believe our strongest sanctions should remain until the system is, effectively, abolished; but that lesser sanctions should be lifted in response to tangible proof of a determination to end apartheid irreversibly.
The committee, therefore, decided to adopt a "programmed management approach" that would reward concrete action in South Africa. The first stage in the program would be reached when the remaining political prisoners are released, when the way is cleared for exiles
Routine Proceedings
to return home, when repressive provisions of security legislation are repealed and when the group areas act, the Population Registration and Land Act are repealed.

These changes may all be implemented by the next meeting of Commonwealth ministers, to be held in late spring or early summer. At this meeting, ministers will look at the kind of progress that has been made and decide whether there are grounds for lifting certain sanctions such as visa restrictions, the embargo on tourism and air traffic and restrictions on official contacts.
My colleagues and I were afraid that the present security legislation would be a major obstacle to political freedom. We appealed to the South African government to stop detention without trial, to lift restrictions on public meetings and to grant South Africans the universal right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and due process of law. The record must show substantial progress on the return of exiles and release of political prisoners by April 30 this year, as agreed in the announcement from Pretoria last August.
The committee also addressed the question of sporting contacts. In future, the embargo on sporting contacts will be treated independently from other sanctions. The committee agreed to be guided by representative sports bodies at South African, African and, in the fullness of time, international Olympic levels. These organizations will provide the signal for the re-admission of South African sports to international competition. Indications are that this will probably take place on a sport-by-sport basis.
The committee agreed that Commonwealth support and encouragement for the unity talks in South African sports organizations are a high priority.
In order to support the process of negotiated change, the committee further agreed to provide constitutional expertise and funding for research and conferences which will contribute to the birth of a new, non-racial and democratic South Africa. For its part, Canada is providing $1.8 million in 1990-91 and has earmarked $2.3 million for this purpose next year. Canada has also committed $5.8 million to assist with the return of exiles and released political prisoners.

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The committee also welcomed the interim report of the Expert Group on Human Resource Development for a Post-apartheid South Africa, which the Conference of Foreign Ministers established at our Abuja meeting. That committee is chaired by a Canadian, Mr. John Harker. We endorsed the expert group's call for an enhanced Commonwealth program of training and work placement to prepare black South Africans to take senior jobs in a post-apartheid government.
The meeting demonstrated the continuing unity of purpose of the Commonwealth. The concept of the "program management approach" marks an important policy development for the Commonwealth and for the international community. Sanctions have been crucial in bringing about the changes that have occurred to date, and will go on being crucial if the destruction of apartheid is to be ultimately assured.
South Africa is starkly different from what it was. There is a long way to go. Canada has played a steady, constructive role in moving that change forward, and we intend to continue on that course.
With the permission of the House, I would like to lay upon the table a copy, in both official languages, of the concluding statement of the committee which met in London on February 16.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the right hon. gentleman have permission to lay that on the table?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for presenting this statement to the House. It comes at an important time. It is worth observing that, for the past several months, we have all been quite obsessed and preoccupied with the events in the gulf and perhaps have not given the importance to other international events that have been taking place.
It is important that this House, which over the years has expressed a strong interest in the issues of South Africa, in general part, has provided consensus on the approach to be taken. I think virtually all Canadians have had general support for the thrust and direction that
have been taken by successive governments toward the actions of South Africa. It gives us an opportunity to make a brief re-examination of the circumstances that now ensue as a result of the quite important statement that President de Klerk offered on February 1.
In this, I would like to join the Secretary of State in also congratulating the de Klerk government for the initiatives that they are taking. In some ways, they are courageous.
We know that there are very strong political forces in that country that are railed against the present government and are trying to impede that progress.
Equally, I think we must congratulate the efforts being taken by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress and the way they are changing their own policies. I think we are all encouraged by the recent meeting between Nelson Mandela and Buthelezi in terms of coming together to provide a more common front in South Africa to allow some kind of progress toward reform in which the black majority of South Africa can work in a more directed way.
Also, I think it is important to pay some tribute to the many Canadians, particularly those in the churches and non-governmental organizations who over the past several years have maintained this as an issue of priority and have provided, as we all know, a continuing sense of encouragement and support for the actions in Parliament.
I think they can begin to now see some fruits of those long years of struggle when it looked like no progress was being made. In fact, I think we can say that two or three years ago, anybody in this House who would have predicted a South African government making the announcements about the changes in the apartheid laws that were made on February 1 would have considered it to be impossible.
The predictions at that time were that we would be facing a horrible feeling of violence and racial conflict. It looks now that there is a good chance for a peaceful transition, not an easy one-it will not be easy-but at least a peaceful one.
February 28, 1991

Again, we want to offer our continuing support as the Official Opposition to any efforts that can be made both to the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers and the very important work that they are doing.
It is my own belief that the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group is perhaps the most important group dealing with the issue of apartheid at the international level.
I would hope that the Secretary of State, because he is chairperson of that group, might use that position to also make the views known directly to the European common market ministers, who were meeting at about the same time, about the need to follow what they called their "plant management approach". I think it is very important that this area work in concert.
If I might be allowed just to still raise some words of caution. Time is running out. We know that there must be a constitutional meeting by 1991 and I believe the mandate of the de Klerk government begins to run out by 1994.
If significant changes are not taken and we do not encourage those changes then we might find ourselves in a position where all the progress that has been made up to now will be lost. It is very important that we consider the kind of dilemma that the Secretary of State has offered.
How do we, in fact, maintain the constant pressure of having applied sanctions over the years and at the same time provide encouragement? It is an extraordinary act of international skill and diplomacy that we maintain this balance.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, if you will give me a small moment's indulgence to comment on sanctions themselves-it is a topic much discussed in this House for the past several months-I think the Secretary of State himself has recognized sanctions can work and can be effective. They have worked in the case of South Africa, not with the speed of military action but certainly without the kind of side effects that we have seen so dramatically displayed.
It is important to recognize that because sanctions must not be discarded. They are an important tool in the arsenal of the international community coming to deal with things of the serious nature of both apartheid and of aggression. I would hope that we would sit back and reflect more carefully about how useful and effective sanctions are.
Routine Proceedings
In that case, we agree with the approach being taken, that the existing economic sanctions must be maintained until we see action taken to underline the words. We support that and will continue to give the government support in that area.
I would like to make, if I might, a major recommendation to the Secretary of State that he could communicate to his colleagues. We think it is also important at this time that a serious review be done in Canada about what has taken place in South Africa, and in particular, what kind of criteria or steps would be taken to further induce, encourage or support the reforms that are under way.
I think the Standing Committee on External Affairs might be the proper body, so it would not be just an inside decision of the minister and his advisers but would give Canadians an opportunity to come and be heard and to make their cases in terms of the direction they would like to see the future Canadian government policy take, as this is a crucial area.
I would strongly urge the minister to communicate with the standing committee chairman, as we will, that this kind of review be undertaken as one of the priorities so that when he goes to the meetings on April 30, and perhaps to the First Ministers' meeting in Harare, he can carry with him and the Prime Minister the full weight of a general basis of Canadian opinion and they can express it at that point in time.
I have one other point to make, if I might, Mr. Speaker, before I leave. I would like to offer an observation. One of the unique and important contributions that Canada has made in the whole debate over South Africa has been the support for the front-line states. I think we, among many other countries, have given special attention to their needs. What we must do now is realize that their needs are even greater.
In talking just recently to one of the ambassadors of the front-line states, he told me that his own country since the inception of the gulf war has suffered a net income loss of $800 million and that that kind of experience is repeated in the other front-line states, in fact in virtually all the African states.
It is very important, therefore, that when we come to the question of how we deal with the economic consequences of the gulf war we recognize that there is a host of nations-front-line states of Africa among many others-that are suffering deeply and terribly as a consequence of this war. It is going to be a real

February 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings
responsibility and obligation of countries like Canada to come to grips with how do respond.
I say that with great sadness, looking at the budget of Tuesday. It is again a further restraint or restriction on our ODA budget. It does not give us the kind of manoeuvring room or the kind of resources we need. I also look at the kind of negative response that was given by the government to the committee report on Third World debt, wherein the recommendations were virtually all rejected.
It would have been another important way in which we could be moving to provide a more active and positive source of relief for those states. That is even more important now as a result of the war. I do not think the war is the only pretence, because the problem was always there.
I would again urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who in the past has shown particular leadership in dealing with the front-line states, to recognize that they now face even more serious problems than they faced six or seven months ago.
In that case we would say there is a lot of work yet to be done. We in this Parliament can help this government to provide that work both by using the full resources of Parliament to help develop the future policies which the minister can use to advise his Commonwealth colleagues but also to come to grips with the continuing and enfolding tragedy of some of these states, both in those related to South Africa and in the entire African continent, that are facing very troublesome and difficult times.
We appreciate the opportunity to make this statement and to say to the minister that we hope to be able to continue to work with the government not always in concert with his views, but certainly with the general thrust that we must have apartheid come to an end, and the sooner the better.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to express our strong support for the Commonwealth foreign ministers' decision to maintain sanctions against the South African regime.
I also want to signal the contribution that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made in his role as the chairperson of that very important and crucial body. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Winnipeg South Centre with respect to the very difficult situation facing the front-line states. My hope is that our government will recognize that and will continue to provide the kind of support they so desperately need, particularly in light of the developments in the gulf.
I was also pleased to hear the remarks of the member for Winnipeg South Centre with respect to the importance of sanctions. Unfortunately it was not until the mid-1980s that the Government of Canada finally took the step of enforcing firm and effective economic sanctions on South Africa. I very much regret that predecessor governments did not take that important step, that they allowed South Africa to continue its system of apartheid without in fact implementing those kind of firm sanctions that should have been implemented long before the mid-1980s.
We in the New Democratic Party share the view of the African National Congress, the Organization of African Unity, the African Commonwealth States, and human rights groups here in Canada and South Africa that while the South African government has made important preliminary steps toward dismantling apartheid, the foundations of this repressive and racist system remain untouched.
I want to join in commending the Canadian NGOs that have been so active in this area, the many individuals who have worked hard through the voluntary fund and elsewhere for these long overdue changes.
As one of those individuals representing a very important organization, Anne Mitchell of the International Defence and Aid Fund for South Africa, recently wrote: "Repression continues. South Africans continue to be detained and imprisoned, harassed, tortured, and even killed because they are known to oppose a system of apartheid".
There were more political trials in 1990 than in 1989 despite the reforms which have taken place. Political prisoners remain in jail. Political exiles remain outside their country. Repressive legislation remains on the statute books.
February 28, 1991

I would note that it is not just a question of legislation, but issues such as housing, education, training, literacy, unemployment and health must all be addressed in South Africa as well. The fact, for example, that the per capita spending on social services in the last year, in 1990, was five times more for whites than it was for blacks in South Africa.
I would hope that in a new South Africa, in a democratic South Africa, there would be a major commitment to attacking the desperate poverty of blacks, the fact that some 70 per cent of blacks live below the poverty line, by addressing the inequitable distribution of both land and wealth in that country.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is well aware also of the serious concerns that have been raised by Amnesty International on the question of the existing security legislation and abuses under that legislation in South Africa. Indeed, at the current meeting of the 47th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, at which Canada is very ably represented by Ambassador Reynell Andreychuk, serious abuses of human rights were documented by Amnesty International. I would hope that they would continue to be addressed vigorously by our government.
We believe that the existing sanctions must remain in force until President de Klerk has fulfilled his promise to release the remaining 2,500 to 3,500 political prisoners who are held in South African jails and to allow the some
40,000	political exiles to return home freely.
As well, South Africa's strict security legislation must be revoked, particularly the Internal Security Act which provides for detention without trial and the banning of public gatherings. Most important, existing sanctions must continue until blacks are guaranteed full democratic rights in the South African Constitution; in short, until there has been irreversible change in the evil system of apartheid.
We support the concept of a constituent assembly. I would commend to the South African government, as I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would, the experience in Namibia which I think is quite relevant in this context. Long before the convening of a constituent assembly in Namibia, all of the political parties in Namibia were able to agree unanimously on constitutional principles and later, even during the heat of their election campaign, they again agreed unanimously on a code of conduct. I would hope that that kind of example is one that would be followed by South Africa.
The Budget
I would hope as well that they would address the homeland system, which is an expression of the system of apartheid and some of the measures that are taken to ensure that all people of South Africa, including those in the so-called TBVC states, participate fully in the future of their country.
While we commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his recent important work at the Commonwealth conference, we strongly encourage him not to abandon Canadian sanctions until all of these conditions have been met.
I would suggest in closing that we owe nothing less to the black majority of South Africa, to their courageous leaders such as Nelson Mandela, and to the memory of all of those who have died in the struggle for democracy, for justice and freedom in South Africa, including Steve Beeko imprisoned in 1977, those who died at Sharpeville, those who died at Soweto, and those who continue to die until this evil system has finally been eradicated.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West) (p. 17722); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 17725).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Associate Minister of National Defence has the floor. She has four minutes, plus ten minutes questions and comments.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period, I was just talking about the impact of the budget on the Department of National Defence. I would just like to conclude those remarks by indicating that the costs of our operations in the gulf have been running about $105 million a month. We have absorbed much of that within our regular budget. We did have a supplementary estimate in the fall, about one-third of which was directly related to the operating costs in the gulf.

The Budget
In this budget there is provision for $600 million to look after some of our costs, some of which will be incurred in this fiscal year, but not paid for until the following year. We also anticipate there will be some continuing costs over the period of time.
I have already heard from colleagues on both sides of the House that perhaps that money will not be needed and that they want it for their particular programs. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that DND will be using that money as frugally as possible. Any remaining, however, will be going back to reduce the deficit, not for any individual programs that members might promote. I want again to assure that we do have the funds to look after the men and women, the equipment and the transportation that will be required during this period.
Finally, coming back to the budget, I think all members of this House, no matter which side of the House they are on, would want to congratulate the Minister of Finance. What he has done is walk the very fine line required in this time of recession. We know that times are tough, and we know that many Canadians are suffering in one of the worst economic downturns in years.
But in responding to those troubled economic times, the Minister of Finance has avoided hampering our economic prospects for tomorrow by imposing band-aid solutions. He has responded, first of all, by helping those Canadians who are hardest hit by the recession but, more important, he has positioned us for an economic recovery that will take advantage of low interest rates, low inflation, and new opportunities for Canadians.
Who will benefit as a result of this budget? All Canadians will benefit. As we emerge from the recession with stable prices, with government spending under control, perhaps the greatest beneficiaries will be future Canadians, our children. They will thank us for taking strong measures now to reverse the mistakes of the past and pave the way for tomorrow's opportunities.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the associate minister, which arise from her comments about defence spending and the budget.
I personally was a little confused about comments in the budget that came down yesterday. I went back to the expenditure noted in the 1990 budget to find that last year we had budgeted under defence $11.87 billion and for 1991-1992, this year, we were to have an expenditure of $12.46 billion. In the budget that came down this week, we see the budget for this year instead of $12.46 is $12.7 billion. However, we did have in Supplementary Estimates, a vote which increased the defence budget to cover the costs of the gulf war.
Repeatedly I have asked at the joint meeting of external affairs and national defence, which has been sitting while the House was adjourned, about the cost of the gulf war. I have heard the minister of defence say that all the funds that were voted in the expenditures in December covered all the costs of the war up to and including the end of March 1991. But when those Supplementary Estimates were voted in December, we were not at war at that time. We know that we have had additional costs since then. He assured me that all those additional costs were included in the Supplementary Estimates.
My confusion is: if they estimated that was to cover us up to the end of March and we are presumably today, thanks be to God, seeing the end of that war in the Gulf, I cannot understand the need for $600 million in addition to the regular budgeted additional funding to defence this year. I wonder if the deputy minister could explain that, please, the associate minister.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the same difficulty many people have. It is the associate minister. The deputy is of course our very fine deputy, Mr. Fowler, who gives us excellent advice on so many issues related to defence.
Just to bring us back to what we are talking about in the defence budget, we have received 5 per cent nominal growth in the defence budget, this year over last year. That is not including the $350 million. That did not become part of our base, Mr. Speaker, so you take our old base and add 5 per cent. There have been some adjustments because we no longer have to pay GST. That

came out of the budget, but we basically have $12.8 billion for the coming year.
The $350 million which was allocated in the Supplementary Estimates was not all for gulf related expenses. There was expenses for Oka in that, $16 million; some for the operations in the gulf; and some for capital. For example, $100 million was for the acquisition of the additional Hercules aircraft, the transport aircraft. Some of the additional $600 and million will also probably go toward that capital will be required, but there will be expenses that will flow into next year. We have incurred expenses that I am sure will not get paid for until the coming 1991-92 fiscal year, and the expenses have been going up.
The deployment of the field hospital was not taken into account in our earlier estimates, so our costs have risen, running now at about $105 million a month. We have been accommodating about $70 million of those in our regular expenditures and about $35 million we are looking to come out of the additional allocations. All the bills are not in; it is hard to say. We do not know what the costs are going to be to bring our people home or how long they are going to be there. The hospital, for example, might stay for a period of time if there is a need for it, if the British or others require it. There may be a need for the ships to remain for a period of time.
Really until we see how things unfold at the UN Security Council, what the future is going to be, it is a little hard for us to predict what those kinds of expenses are going to be. But we will be monitored on the $600 million. We are not allowed to spend it on just ordinary things. They are going to make sure that it is used for its purpose. What we do not spend goes back to reduce the deficit.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the associate minister. The first springs from, of course, the effect of the end of the gulf war for which we are all, no matter what our differences on how we arrived there, grateful. All of us have also shared a great admiration for the professionalism and competence of our forces there. We differed on the instructions the government should have given them, but we supported their role in the sanctions and supported them in their professionalism and on the work they have done.
The Budget
There is now the question of what happens next. The Huron is half way there. The Restigouche has orders to sail on March 5, which is coming up very quickly. The people of our area, greater Victoria, are obviously very concerned as to whether the orders will change as a result of the outcome of the war. The government, it seems to me, owes it to the families and to those who are on board those vessels to make an immediate decision as to whether those orders should be changed or whether they should be confirmed.
Let me say that the situation is such that it would seem to me imperative that the government not only review the orders quickly, but in fact make a change in the orders. Our forces would no longer face an enemy that is armed and equipped to attack the naval forces in the gulf.
Sanctions may be continued, presumably for a relatively brief period of time, in order to enforce the remaining UN resolutions, but sanctions will not require a significant military force from countries outside the gulf in order to enforce those sanctions. The naval forces of Bahrain, Qatar and the other countries in that region are entirely capable of enforcing the sanctions in the current situation.
We would call on the government to make an immediate decision, to bring our forces home and to reverse the orders given to the Huron and the Restigouche.
Let me ask one other quick question. Our forces who served there, all of our forces who served there, served in a veiy dangerous situation. Our CF-18 pilots actually were in effect in combat, and our naval forces worked under the threat of Iraqi missiles and planes.
The war veterans legislation provides that veterans of other wars be given pensions under that legislation. It will require an amendment to the legislation to cover the veterans of the gulf war.
I would ask the minister to make a commitment on behalf of the government, that legislation will be introduced to provide that those who served Canada in the gulf be treated as veterans of other operations.
While the minister is on her feet, would she also make a commitment to those who have served in peacekeeping, because they too have served Canada in a dangerous and risky situation?

The Budget


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions there.
First of all, I believe it would be imprudent to make decisions today about the arrangements for our ships until we know the outcome of the Security Council deliberations which are going on as we speak. Until we know for sure that there will be a permanent cessation of hostilities and until there has been some agreement on what the future regime is going to be with respect to sanctions or continuation of any kind of a presence, we want to continue to be ready to deal with the rotation of our ships. The Athabaskan and the Terra Nova have been there. We have committed that we are going to bring them out as quickly as possible.
If for some reason there should still be a need for a Canadian naval presence over the next couple of months, we would want to make sure we had our other ships there so the Athabaskan and the Terra Nova would be relieved and be able to come home, as we have promised them.
At this time, we have, in fact, told the Huron to continue on its voyage. We are, of course, reviewing the situation. Our senior military advisors are in touch with our commanders in the field, with the members of the other coalition forces to assess just what should happen and will make other decisions relating to these matters as quickly as possible.
Until we have all the facts, until we have all the information, I think it would be foolish to make precipitous decisions.
I might say that from my understanding, the sailors ready on the Restigouche probably want to go. Even if they got down to Hawaii and had to come back, I think they would probably prefer that rather than staying in port.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. minister, particularly for the clarifying comments she has made.
We both know that the B.C. government has been very critical of the federal government for the fact that we don't have a balanced budget such as the one they are so proud of in British Columbia. Yet we have been making real progress, I think, in this budget to come to a
balanced budget. Mr. Vander Zalm, has continued to be extremely critical of the federal government.
I was just wondering if the minister could clarify for Mr. Vander Zalm why this budget is such a good thing, not only for Canada, but particularly for British Columbia.


Mary Collins: I would be pleased to reply to my hon. friend from British Columbia.
I know that in British Columbia they often enjoy fed-bashing. I am not particularly keen on provincialbashing. But I must say that in this instance, the premier is wrong. This budget is good for British Columbia. After all, British Columbia's economy is based on trade and a viable, vibrant economy and low interest rates, low inflation, which are absolutely critical to the expansion of the economy of British Columbia. Those are the kinds of initiatives we are undertaking.
The initiative in this budget to legislate spending limits is the kind of thing I would expect the province of British Columbia to applaud. It would seem to be consistent with their philosophy. The provisions in this budget to set up a special fund into which the net revenues of the GST will go, guaranteeing that they will go to reduce the deficit, not for other programming expenditures; a fund to which the profits from privatization will go; a fund to which individuals can contribute to help reduce the deficit. These are the kinds of measures that the province of British Columbia should be applauding, because they are the kinds of measures that will ensure that we have economic growth and that we have the entrepreneurship flourishing in British Columbia.
One other thing. Just prior to the budget I had the pleasure of announcing in Vancouver, that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, was approving amendments to the Income Thx Act which would allow for the establishment of international maritime centres. This is something the province of British Columbia has been asking for and something I have had the honour, as the minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific initiative, to work on over the past two years. That initiative by my colleague, by this government, is going to result in a considerable number of jobs, some of which have already been announced this week when the first company announced it is moving its mine and management operations from outside Canada to Canada, to Vancouver, bringing 80 jobs. That is one week. We have lots more to come.
February 28, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a minute and a half if he would like to ask as very succinct question, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona on debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to make a succinct comment to the minister. I listened to her speech with some interest. She talked about the dreadful deficit situation that this country was in, which she of course neglected to mention was the fault of the government of which she is a member, which has doubled the debt in the last six years. In fact we are going to hit $400 billion sometime during this financial year. It is a shocking statement of the government's abdication of responsibility; it keeps trying to shuffle it off as though it was the fault of someone else.
I am glad to hear the minister talk about her conversion to this necessity for restraint on government expenditure. But I would like to ask her why it is that the Minister of Finance who has been in office after all now for six or seven years-this is the seventh budget-and he talked about the need for restraint in year one, why it is that his policies have been such a disaster for Canada? If he believed in restraint from the beginning as he says he did, why did he not impose this restraint at the beginning and solve the problem we are now faced with and that is continuing?
I note that the deficit has gone up this year. It is going up again next year and he does not seem to be doing anything constructive to bring that figure down.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length on this, because we have. Do you not recall that in 1984 we inherited a deficit of $38 billion? We brought it down to below $30 billion. We have made real progress in terms of reducing the deficit in some difficult times. We have had marvellous economic growth through these years to the extent that we are one of the leading countries in the OECD.
I am delighted that the member is now talking about restraint. Perhaps his colleague, the Premier of New Brunswick, who talked about how governments must conduct themselves like private citizens: borrow if neces-
The Budget
sary for capital assets like your home, but pay as you go for current expenditures like groceries, that is the kind of approach this government is taking. I wish the Liberal Rirty-it is not reflected in his leader, or his deputy leader, and their comments in this House. Perhaps he might heed the Premier of New Brunswick and understand that this is the kind of initiative-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tkanscona):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear Liberals and Conservatives arguing with each other about who has responsibility for the deficit. It is like two Mafia families arguing with each other about who has been able to commit the most robberies in their respective jurisdictions.
The fact is that the deficit owes its origins to the policies of both of these parties over a great many years.
This is a budget allegedly preoccupied with addressing the problem of the deficit. TTiis is a budget which calls in glowing terms for all Canadians to do their part. But the big corporations that finance the Conservative Party and that financed the promotion of the free trade agreement have emerged unscathed and unchallenged. They apparently are not part of the larger Canadian community that is called upon to face economic reality and pitch in.
Yet everyone else is being called upon to contribute to a debt problem that has its origins, as I said just a few minutes before, in the tax breaks that these same people, these same large corporations, received over the last 15 years, many of which-that is to say these tax breaks- had their origins in the policies of Liberal governments.
This budget eliminates not a single such tax break. So the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to get poorer, and middle-income Canadians will increasingly be taxed until they, too, are poor.
The boys over at the Business Council on National Issues will be breaking out the champagne. Others, and not them, thank God, are called upon to help their country. Oil companies whose profits have risen since the gulf war also get off scot free while working Canadians are asked to pay more taxes to help pay the cost of other working Canadians fighting in the gulf.

The Budget
Average Canadians are to suffer a tax hike through increases in Unemployment Insurance premiums, a measure that will also hurt small businesses.
The unemployed, themselves, see their job creation programs chopped: $100 million from the Canadian Job Strategy.
Those who could benefit from new social housing see that program cut back.
Provinces are hit with the next stage in the step by step withdrawal of federal commitment to cost-shared programs and by the limiting of deductibility of provincial payroll and capital taxes. A revenue neutral measure, so the Minister of Finance says, that could therefore only be vengeful in nature and hardly a contribution to national unity. And all Canadians who use provincially administered services like health care will become the victims of further cutbacks in their respective provinces.
Meanwhile, the rich will continue to be able to afford to send their children to private schools to avoid the effects of cutbacks in education. They will continue to be able to fly to U.S. hospitals to avoid waiting lists for surgery in Canadian hospitals increasingly overcrowded and burdened because of under-funding owed to the fact of federal cutbacks in EPE
And, in between, they will also be able to enjoy the over-all fact that their debt burdened country is still not asking them to contribute in the form of a truly progressive income tax system, in the form of increased capital gains taxes, in the form of wealth taxes, or heaven forbid, not being able to deduct their business lunches.
They may also take comfort in the fact that the dividend tax credit remains and that the corporations that many of them work for or own will continue to receive the subsidy of the 5 per cent federal sales tax credit, the subsidy for business lobbying and other political activities and the subsidy for Canadian multinationals investing overseas.
Nor will they have to fear the dreaded minimum corporate tax. Real estate developers, in particular, can relax and continue to enjoy all the breaks that enabled so many of them to become millionaires at taxpayers expense.
These people, all of them great critics of the welfare state, but not a peep out of them when it is they who have their nose so deep in the public trough.
A budget truly committed to deficit reduction and burden-sharing would have asked the corporate sector in this country to put up or shut up about the deficit. Indeed, there were some indications prior to the budget that the business community was asking for it, that they were asking to be asked to contribute, but they were not.
Instead, we have a budget that by its own words is more committed to "tax competitiveness" than "tax fairness".
Unfortunately, "competitiveness" is the euphemism employed by Conservatives for the growing immorality and unfairness of our tax system, recently capped of course, by the GST.
One can only suppose that the tax system in various military oligarchies, like Guatemala, where income tax itself is seen as radical, is the ideal of tax competitiveness to which good Conservatives aspire. The long-range goal of the hemispheric free trade agreement makes this more than just political rhetoric. Not for the Conservatives, the many European examples where social justice and competitiveness have gone together.
If a budget is more than just a tool for managing the economy, if it is also a statement about the values that inform the organization of that economy, then this budget is a failure on both counts.
I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the House because he said he did not want to miss the speech and I can understand that because I hope to talk about the whole question of Established Programs Financing and the future of medicare and, perhaps, while he is here I will have the opportunity to engage him in conversation about that.
I think what is happening to Established Programs Financing and to the programs which it it intended to finance, i.e. medicare and post-secondary education, is indeed worthy of all the rhetoric which has been used to describe the government's budget in the last few days.
The problem is that there is no one decision which, in itself, is the end of medicare. It is a bit like the story of the frog which will allow itself to be boiled to death if you simply turn up the heat one degree at a time. There would be no point at which the frog feels the increase in the heat enough to jump out of the boiling water. Yet inevitably at some point, the frog will be done so to speak and dead.

This is the case with those programs in this country which are being, over time, step by step, starved to death by the federal government. This process started not with the Conservatives but with the Liberals in 1982. It was former finance minister Allan MacEachen who was the first finance minister to unilaterally change federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
The last time the federal-provincial governments agreed on this sort of thing was in 1977. I see the hon. member for Mississauga here. He will know what I am talking about. It was in 1982 that the Liberals unilaterally changed and cut back on federal transfer payments to the provinces under the rubric of the established programs financing, a move which at the time was denounced as the most dastardly deed possible by the Conservative opposition.
Yet unfortunately, what the Liberals did at that time set a precedent which has been followed religiously, and not just at the five year intervals of renegotiation, but in almost every budget, of unilateral cutbacks to federal transfer payments to the provinces.
There is no point at which in cutback after cutback after cutback we can say: "This budget kills medicare." What we are able to observe from 1982 onward-and an inescapable fact is that for most of the years since then the Conservatives have been in power-is a trend which if not stopped and reversed will eventually lead to the destruction of medicare as sure as I am standing here.
One cannot expect the health care system to be carried by the provinces, which are being asked to carry a larger and larger share of the burden. The share that the provinces have been asked to carry has grown. They may have benefited in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, but from 1982 on and particularly from about 1984, their share of the burden has been increased and their ability to carry the health care system has been affected.
What will be the results of that? Eventually, people will try to find ways; that is, provincial governments will try to find ways to supplement the reduction in funding and particularly if they are Conservative provincial governments, they will look for various ways of getting private money into the system.
The Budget
That will happily coincide with their ideological views in the first place because many of them have a philosophical objection to medicare. And so we see everything falling into place, not to mention the effect of the free trade agreement in the long term on medicare.
One must do some analysis to see all this, but it is there. That is why I feel no intellectual or political embarrassment whatever in getting up and saying: "This budget is part of the end of medicare." Not tomorrow, not even next year, but it is part of a process that will eventually lead to the end of medicare. I rest my case with respect to that because I have other things I want to say.
I want to go back to the question of tax loopholes.
It seems to me that this is the glaring economic and moral flaw in a budget which calls upon everybody to sacrifice, that not one single sacrifice is asked of the corporate sector in this particular budget. Not only that, there are more benefits to come for the corporate sector. Just the other day, the Minister of Finance released draft legislation with respect to providing a capital gains tax exemption for people who have had their money tied up in trusts over this 21-year period that began in 1972 and which ends in 1993. The government has brought in draft legislation which proposes to extend the 21-year exemption for the taxation of capital gains from trusts until the last beneficiary of the trust dies. Under current rules, the government would have collected billions in revenues from trusts starting in 1993.
The current legislation, implemented in 1972, requires trusts to include in their income capital gains every 21 years. This legislation would allow the trust to extend the 21-year exemption, as I said, until the last beneficiary dies. The billions saved by trusts would be a gift to the top 1 per cent of wealthy Canadians who benefit from these trusts.
This exists at the same time as all these other measures in the budget which scapegoat people who work in the Public Service, the unemployed, and a variety of other people, and make them out to be the cause of the deficit. One of the causes of the deficit-a principal cause of the deficit-is the tax expenditure account that government after government refuses to significantly change.

February 28, 1991
The Budget
I see the member for Mississauga South. He will recall that in 1979 when the Conservatives came to power, they released a thing called "The Thx Expenditure Account", because they had promised to do that. They have not done it since. They were then defeated and they were out of power for four years. When they came back, they decided that maybe that was not such a good idea. I don't know why.
The fact is that in 1979 the tax expenditures-that is to say, that money which could have been collected in the form of taxes but which was not collected-amounted to $32 billion. And the deficit for that year was $14 billion. So, at that time what the government did not collect in the form of tax expenditures, loopholes, shelters, super depreciation allowances, write-offs, was twice what the deficit was for that year.
It is those kinds of policies, cumulatively, which result in the fiscal situation that we find ourselves in now. I think if the government were serious about the deficit, it would get serious about closing some of these loopholes.
Surely to God, there is no reason on earth why we have to maintain something like the business and entertainment tax loophole. Many other industrialized countries of the world have done away with this, and their economies did not shrivel up and die. Many other industrialized economies in the world have wealth taxes; their economies have not shrivelled up and died. Many other countries in the industrialized world have more progressive income tax systems than we do, and they have not shrivelled up and died; in fact, many of them are more prosperous than we are.
So, I think that the government, if it is really concerned about the deficit, should look to asking those who have, and have in abundance, to pay in abundance in order to bring down a deficit that owes its origins to their abundance in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I see you waving your finger at me. Twenty minutes goes by very fast.


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: And you said nothing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Somebody over there said that I did not say anything. I don't think that person was listening, Mr. Speaker, because what I have done is go over a variety of things, concrete loopholes that the Minister of Finance could have closed. The Minister of Finance is always
saying: "Come up with suggestions". We have come up with suggestions. Year after year we have made suggestions, but those suggestions are not heard. Why are they not heard? Because if those suggestions were implemented, the people who run the Conservative Party of Canada and who run this country would not be very happy. The people down at the Business Council on National Issues or at the Canadian Clubs and the Carleton Clubs and all the other clubs where decisions are made about the country, they would not be very happy. Maybe the Tories could not go down there for lunch any more. They might have to go to some cafeteria somewhere and eat with ordinary folk.
I will not believe that the Minister of Finance is serious about deficit reduction until he hits these people. Until he does, I believe that the Conservative Party is using the deficit as a political cover for doing things that they would ideologically prefer to do in the first place.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member for Winnipeg Transcona in the finance role he has now taken on. It would be wonderful if he could come to the finance committee meetings and go over tax expenditure hearings and give us some excellent advice.
The tax expenditure material is available. The finance committee did major studies on that at the time of the last major tax reform on income tax, going over every particular allowance to see what could be done to reduce any tax expenditure and I did not hear any great suggestions coming from him or his members or the member on the committee, his House leader, at that time. But perhaps he could get together with his House leader and find those various ideas.
Really, what he has said is that we should have no deficit. What we ought to do is make the rich pay. That is the kind of argument I heard once in an election from a Mandst-Leninist candidate. I was wondering if the member would like to define to this House who are the rich. How much more would he want us to increase taxes for those earning $28,000 a year, for those earning $58,000 a year? How much more would he want to put on their backs? Would he be specific? Make the rich pay. Well, who are the rich and who should pay? Give us the names, give us the people. What are the rates?

Let us not have any more of this ballyhoo, let us have the rates.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing to have the member for Mississauga South accuse anybody else of ballyhoo, because the one thing he could have done when he got up would have been to have answered the long list of tax loopholes I pointed out that the government has not changed. But he never chose to comment as to why the government did not close them down. In the same way the Minister of Finance responding to me yesterday in the House only chose to debate me on one point and completely ignored all the rest.
It simply lacks all credibility for the member to get up and suggest somehow that I might regard people who make $28,000 a year as in the category of the rich. If the finance committee has done even a fraction of the study that the member claims, he would know just how ridiculous a claim that is.
The member knows to whom I am referring. The member knows absolutely and perfectly to whom I am referring. He knows about all the large profitable corporations in this country that pay absolutely no taxes at all on the corporate side. He knows that his own party has reduced a number of categories in the income tax system that results in a case where somebody making $60,000 a year pays the same amount as somebody making $600,000.
Perhaps the member could get up and tell us why he continues to defend real estate developers who receive all these tax credits for write-offs, for mergers and take-overs and all these sorts of things. Why is he a defender of the paper economy by which so many people have made millions by doing absolutely nothing over the last 10 or 15 years?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the member has commented on how there are countries as prosperous or more than ours but nevertheless, for example, tax wealth. They tax some of their well-to-do people much higher on income tax than Canada does and yet he says those countries have not had their economies shrivel up.
The Budget
The kind of taunt that is very often tossed against the member or others who make that comment is that the wealthy people if they were taxed at all according to their ability to pay would simply run away to another country and take all their wealth with them.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the conduct of this country for the years during World War n and for two or three decades after when the tax rates were much more fair regarding people's ability to pay, how this country fared in those days and whether the wealthy people ran away from this country then.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. He points out that the balance which used to exist in this country between the tax burden which was borne by the corporate sector and the tax burden which was borne by individual Canadians has disappeared. The burden on individual Canadians has risen, both in the form of incomes taxes and also in the form of consumption taxes, the latest incarnation of that being the GST, and the burden on the corporate sector has gone down, down, down, down until it has almost gone off the graph.
The question concerning whether if we were trying to reverse that, that people would leave, is interesting- that is to say rich folk would leave, because poor people generally have to stay where they are, and generally they are more dedicated to their country anyway because they have not been brought up in private schools where they learn to be dedicated to money rather than to countries or to society.
The fact of the matter is that if there are any Canadians here who think that the tax system would be enough to make them move to another country, then I have only one thing to say to them: "good-bye, good riddance, get lost, go somewhere else," because we can build a country without those kinds of people. In fact, we can build a better country without those kinds of people.
The fact of the matter is that if we were willing to enter into a long-term investment strategy to build up infrastructure in this country, technological capability, skilled worker capability and research and development, we would to create a certain kind of country that people would want to live in, work in and invest in anyway. This is what is called in a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly by Robert Reich "the virtuous cycle" rather than the "vicious cycle" which this government has got us into by trying to lower wages, not spend on infrastructure, and attract foreign investment. But when you lower wages

February 28, 1991
The Budget
and you do not spend on infrastructure, things get worse, people are not willing to invest, then you figure you have to lower wages one more time. You get into this downward spiral of degrading your own country, socially, economically and environmentally.
I would recommend to the government that it have a look at that article and consider getting out of the vicious cycle it is in now and get into what Mr. Reich has called "the virtuous cycle", which I think other countries-not the United States-but some European countries have been in for a long time, where they do not have a problem in attracting foreign investment because they have created the kind of skilled work force and technological adaptability and other forms of social benefits and strengths that make people want to invest and live there regardless of the fact that they have to pay taxes in order to create that kind of society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, forgive me for kneeling like this on my seat, but it is the best I can do in my condition.
I am happy to speak on these seventh Estimates presented by the Conservative government. What is most disheartening about the comments made on these seventh Estimates is that the Opposition is repeating the same thing every time. We have heard seven times now the same negative comments on the seven Estimates the Minister of Finance has tabled. Nevertheless, these have been gradually bringing the country back on the right track.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to review briefly the economic situation of Canada over the past ten years. But first, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague who just made reference to corporations which allegedly pay no tax among other things. That is false, Mr. Speaker, absolutely false. Since we came to power, in 1984, legislative amendments were brought forward so that Canadian corporations now pay their fair share.
Again, the hon. member provided no specific example of tax shelters for corporations in Canada. There is a good reason for that, Mr. Speaker: All tax shelters have been eliminated. There is even a tax for big corporations. Corporations have to pay taxes whether or not they make profits. Unfortunately, the hon. member failed to mention that. He failed to mention what this government has accomplished for social justice, as he failed to point out that all Canadian taxpayers, every individual, man or woman, are subject to a minimum income tax and that no one can avoid paying income tax through whatever mean or tax shelter.
Let's not forget that the taxation system established two years ago, which has reduced the tax burden of Canadians-and this is something else my friend forgot to say-; it is a system which is more equitable, fairer, a system with only three brackets, where people earning less pay less tax, and where those who earn more pay more. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something he forgot to mention.
At the beginning of my speech, I wanted to mention it to him.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read extracts from an editorial which appeared in Le Nouvelliste, an editorial written by Mr. Claude Bruneau and entitled Beyond the Budget, the deadlock remains. Mr. Bruneau said, and I quote: "Canadians everywhere urge Mr. Wilson to achieve two aims: reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy. But at the same time, they forbid him to use two means of going about it: tax hikes and pumping new money into the system, or spending". And he went on to say: "You can't ask one to do the impossible". And further still: "And in all that has been said in the last two days, we can find no trace of the ideal budget which would solve the problem without causing a public outcry".
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these few words by Mr. Bruneau show that Canadians have come to realize how important and serious the deficit and the national debt have become.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we must not delude ourselves. When we speak of services provided to Canadians by all levels of government, federal, provincial, and municipal, as well as by the schools, we are speaking of services which have to be paid for. Canadians are starting
February 28, 1991

to realize that, in effect, when they pay their taxes, it is for these services that they do it.
The question today is this: Are we willing to spend more to keep the services we have? That is the question. This year, we have a deficit of $30 billion, and without the cuts and the extraordinary performance of our Finance Minister, we would have had a deficit of $35 billion. And we also have a national debt which, as was pointed out earlier, has doubled in she years. Mr. Speaker, 87 per cent of the increase in the national debt is due to the interest we have to pay on the debt we inherited in 1984-87 per cent! This means that although the government has reduced its annual deficit, it is still and it must keep working on reducing its annual deficit, Mr. Speaker, because this debt is not the debt of Ottawa's elected representatives it is the debt of every single Canadian. Mr. Speaker, 36 cents out of every federal tax dollar goes to paying off the interest on the debt.
Not a single family in the riding of Trois-Rivieres or in your own riding, Mr. Speaker, could survive if it had to spent 36 cents of every dollar on interest payments alone, without even paying back the capital, Mr. Speaker. No family could manage that. And we can't manage it, either. That is why these and other measures that will be taken are so severe. That is why provincial governments have a debt average of 11 cents per revenue dollar, which we could call reasonable.
Municipalities don't have the right to have a deficit. They are lucky. We, Mr. Speaker-thanks to the careless management of the previous government, which did have the right to incur a deficit, to have a national debt-had to pick up the pieces.
Mr. Speaker, in 1981-82, people were talking about a recession. This was 1981-82. The deficit was $14 billion. The government at the time doubled that amount, Mr. Speaker. The deficit soared to $28 billion in one year, the excuse being that Canadian men and women had to be helped through a difficult period. You know the results. The inflation rate was 10 per cent. Interest rates were around 22 per cent. The deficit doubled and it didn't solve a thing.
The Budget
Thking money out of the pockets of some Canadian taxpayers and trying to put it in the pockets of other Canadians is no way to deal with a recession or inflation or interest rates. They tried this in 1981-82 and it was a real flop. Mr. Speaker, our Finance Minister has brought down a straightforward budget for economic recovery. He didn't raise taxes so he didn't stimulate inflation. He didn't spend more money, so he didn't make inflation go up, and he is taking care of lowering interest rates.
This is a budget to put companies and individuals on the road to recovery. It is realistic and adapted to the present situation, Mr. Speaker. The opposition's comments are typical. They keep talking about giving away money, investing money, but the question is always: Sure, you can invest money but where do you get it? I repeat, as Mr. Bruneau pointed out so eloquently, there is no one on the opposition side, to my knowledge and his knowledge, who has found a way to raise revenue which we have left untried.
Mr. Speaker, that is the major problem we have to face. There are no draconian cutbacks in this budget. There are no major cuts that might shock Canadians. And I am glad to see there is nothing that effects the riding of Trois-Rivieres. However, Mr. Speaker, there are two extraordinary new measures. First, legislation to prevent departments from overspending their budget. And that Mr. Speaker, is news.
I think it is important, something which was positively emphasized in general. The other excellent measure is that specific legislation will be introduced to make sure that, by law, all revenues from the Goods and Services Thx will be allocated solely to bringing the public debt under control. Thanks to this excellent legislation, Canadian men and women will be assured that this government is using revenues from the GST to reduce the deficit and not to finance new spending programs which the Opposition is asking for daily, because they constantly ask us to increase spending.
When, as a young boy, I asked my father for money, sometimes he would say: "Where do you want me to get it?" Now, I am asking the Opposition where do they want the government to get the money? It is all very nice to keep on asking for money, but the time comes when the debt must be paid. The credit card is at the limit. Canadians understand now that such is our situation.

February 28, 1991
The Budget
They will talk again about the so-call cuts which the Federal government is making in the transfer payments to the provinces. There are not such cuts. There are mainly two kinds of transfer payments to the provinces, namely the established financing programs and the equalization payment programs. Minister Wilson said that as far as Established Program Financing is concerned, the amount is frozen. Freezing and cutting are two different things. That is for one program. As for the equalization payments, they continue to increase.
Which means that from one year to the next, the provinces will get more money, especially those which are getting equalization payments and which are considered less affluent. For instance, Quebec received $8.2 billion in 1984-85; it will get $10.2 billion in 1990-91. This is a large amount which accounts for 30 per cent of Quebec's budget.
The provinces all together will get $36 billion-not $36 million-per year and as the Auditor General said, the Federal government transfers to the provinces $36 billion without getting a receipt. The provinces are free to spend that money as they please.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that because all departments here in Ottawa-the departments of my colleagues at Health and Welfare, the Secretary of State or Transport Canada-have to account for every cent they spend. And so they should. The Auditor General is responsible for checking all that, except for the $36 billion transferred to the provinces. The federal government has full confidence in the provincial administrations and let them spend that money as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Canadians are aware of the extent of the problem in this country. And there are other problems besides that one. You will hear other people claim that the deficit is a minor issue, that the Constitution is more important. We each have or own priorities. When the economy is in the doldrums, everything else is down. That is the message Mr. Wilson wanted to convey. First things first, all Canadians must have bread and butter on the table. So what does that call for. It calls for business people who have faith in the administration of their government. It calls for business people who are satisfied that this government can indeed administer public finances, opt for harsh measures, and have enough political courage to implement them.
Criticizing comes easy to members opposite. I have been here for six and a half years and have yet to hear an opposition member make a positive comment on any of the legislation introduced by this side of the House. Never did I hear members opposite say: Well, this is a good piece of legislation. We agree it is good. Others we feel are not good, but this one is. Never, Mr. Speaker! Not one piece of legislation ever got their approval. It is mathematically impossible for a government not to pass a good piece of legislation in six and a half years. And the best evidence in that respect-all mathematical considerations aside-is that the people-


Mr. Wappel:: Nonsense!


Pierre H. Vincent: -in 1988, the people acknowledged what we had done and we were reelected.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see we woke up someone on the other side. That is nice to see.
.
Mr. Speaker, again I must point out that this is not a cut-back but a freeze on established programs financing and an increase in equalization payments. I would suggest that the provinces-all provinces have boosted they expenditures by about 5 or 6 per cent a year since 1984 while our government has kept its yearly increases to 3 per cent-should examine their own performance. They have to look at the current situation in this country-they are part of it-and realize that if the federal government cannot afford increases over 3 per cent perhaps they too should consider imposing some restrictions.


An hon. member:: One of the three people on the other side, since that is all there is!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, we were finally able to wake them up! That is a good sign.
So, Mr. Speaker, no one had the guts to say we had introduced some good pieces of legislation. This year, with this budget, and given the economic situation we are in, the opposition should support the budget and all the work that is being done to facilitate the economic recovery in Canada.

February 28, 1991

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me my time is almost up. In conclusion, I would like to read two articles, two editorials, one of which was published in La Presse yesterday, the second one, in Le Soleil. In Le Soldi, the article is entitled "Wilson sets an example". I think that title says a lot, not only to the provincial and municipal governments, but also to the business people. "Wilson sets an example".
In La Presse, Mr. Speaker, the editorial was entitled "An Honest and Far-Seeing Budget". Mr. Speaker, we often hear that a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, I would say that these two titles are worth a thousand words.
Mr. Speaker, again, I invite the opposition to support the budget and the government in its effort to trigger Canada's economic recovery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I get into questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 27 minutes this day.
The government Whip, on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber for the following motion:
Notwithstanding Standing Orders 33(2) and 84(4) the time to be
added to government business this day as a result of ministers'
statements will be added immediately following the division on the
subamendment of Mr. Langdon at 5.45 o'clock p.m.
That would enable us to keep the timetable we had planned for the votes this evening, and yet not deprive members of the opportunity to speak on the major debate. I think you will find that the Whips of the other two parties would like to make a comment.


M. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of cooperation and to keep the House proceedings running smoothly, we give our consent to this motion.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations. One of the things Whips strive to do is to have a degree of normalcy in a place that is not known for such. We wanted to avoid the confusion that was occurring because of the delay.
The Budget
Members have established their travel plans based on something they thought was fixed in the schedule of this House. I just want to say to some of my colleagues who were advised that the vote might be delayed that it is now back to where it was scheduled, so when you hear the bells, please come running.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Next time would you consider the chair officer too after the vote?
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond somewhat to my colleague from Trois-Ri-vieres.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I have only been here for a little over two years, and I was elected as a member of the Liberal Party. I personally worked on a bill to amend the pension system in Canada. Not only was I in favour of this bill, but my Party supported it and voted for it.
Now, if my colleague on the other side of the House-


Mr. Gagliano:: It is not the first time we hear the hon. member for Sudbury talks through her hat.


Diane Marleau: -if he paid more attention to what is going on in the House, he would realize that when government members are prepared to act in a reasonable and sound way, we on this side are also willing to serve the Canadian people. We are often told: "We know everything, we are the best there is, and you know nothing." Decisions are made by people in high places and imposed on people who would often have a lot to say, even things worth listening to.
If we were more attentive to what they have to say, our country would fare better, I think. You know, we hear people say things in an attempt to put the blame on others, who of course did everything wrong. But that is not the way to manage a country. It is high time we, as elected representatives of the people to the federal government, put an end to all of this. It is time we realize we have a country, with a lot of problems, and the way to solve them is not by tabling budgets that make no sense at all and claiming to have the answers to everything.

February 28, 1991
The Budget
Sure, the debt is causing a lot of problems, that is obvious, but the recession is giving us problems too. The budget you brought in did not provide any solutions; you made forecasts based on projections that-


Alfonso Gagliano: Never come true.


Diane Marleau: And we do not even know where you got them. You decided that within two or three years, the deficit will go down to $25.6 billion. That would be great if you were able to do that and show us how you will achieve it.


Alfonso Gagliano: In 1985, they told us they would make it go down to $18 billion.


Diane Marleau: You are always promising things, but meanwhile we lose many jobs; people are unhappy, our country is coming apart, we do not know where we are going.
So, don't you think it is high time to begin thinking a little about people, particularly the neediest ones-and it looks like there are more and more of them. Do you want us all to be like that, do you want this country to become divided, finished, because there is nothing left? You know that when we do not invest in the future, the dollar we do not spend today will have lost two or three times its value in five or six years. When Conservatives came to power, you had years of extraordinary growth. So, do not try to put the blame on us if the debt kept growing, if it doubled. You, ladies and gentlemen opposite, have a lot to answer for.
If you were to try to justify the projections you have made in previous years and if you could explain those projections, then maybe, and I say maybe, we could believe you, but it is very hard when you change history as you go. I know I speak for my constituents and thousands of Canadians when I say you have lost all credibility.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member because I remember I worked with her on the bill, and I remember she agreed to do that. I apologize, because I remember now.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that since 1984, the number of individuals and families that has managed to rise above the poverty line has increased. There are fewer poor people now than there were in 1984. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something the hon. member will have to recognize as well.
As for the debt, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member brought this up but I would like to remind her that in 1984, the debt was $200 billion. Since that time, interest payments on the debt are roughly equivalent to our annual deficit. The hon. member can check this: 87 per cent of the increase in the national debt represents the interest payable on a debt that existed before I was here. I know she doesn't like to hear that, but it's the truth, Mr. Speaker. We have to live with it, she does and I do and all Canadians do.
That's the problem. That's why I say that every time her party asks or she asks for more money, it has to come from somewhere. The question is, where do we get the money we need to pay for the expenditures she wants, in whatever area? Of course, as a government, we can spend in practically every area. There are plenty of opportunities for spending. But where do we get the money? That is the question.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to the hon. member, that when she talks about divisions across the country, last year her caucus helped to create those divisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Further questions? The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I noted that towards the conclusion of the hon. member's remarks he said-I am relying on the translation-"We need a government in which business can have confidence".
Given the indulgence, not to say the bottomless generosity, with which this government has treated its soulmates in the Business Council on National Issues, I should think that big business- big corporations and the wealthy in this country-would not only have confidence in this government, they would be enchanted with it. Anything less could only be seen by fair-minded people as the most churlish ingratitude on their parts.
February 28, 1991

However, the hon. member started his speech saying that my confrere from Winnipeg was out to lunch when he was claiming that there were people in this country who were not paying taxes.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Revenue Canada produces annual statistics for which 1988 was released in November of last year. It showed that of all those Canadians earning $250,000 or more in 1988, 140 of them paid no tax. That was up by 40 per cent from the same figure for 1987. Of those earning $50,000 or more, fully 5,430 paid no tax and that was up by a whopping 87 per cent from the year earlier.
How this can be construed by anyone as evidence of a fair taxation system quite escapes me. But I would be fascinated to listen to the hon. member's attempt.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I don't have offhand the figures that the hon. member mentioned. However, I hope he will understand, since he has been repeating the same thing for two years, and I hope too that the Canadian people will understand.
There is now, in the Income Thx Act, provision for a minimum personal tax, and there are only three tax reduction schemes. First, the person has suffered a loss. He or she can deduct it from his or her income, and this is only fair, if you lose money you should be able to claim the loss.
Second, the person has made charitable gifts, and third the person is paying alimony. These are the only three possibilities allowing a person earning, say $100,000, not to pay income taxes. If that person does not pay taxes it is because he or she is entitled to these deductions, and they are the only three. My colleague might not understand that, but if he had lost $50,000 last year he would be glad to be able to deduct that loss from his income. If it is a loss it can be deducted, but these are the only three reasons.
I will conclude by saying that my colleague should go back to his books and try to understand the system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Central Nova. I am sorry; the hon. member for South West Nova.
The Budget


Coline M. Campbell: If I had the
power of the member for Central Nova, I would do a few things differently, Mr. Speaker.
In the finance minister's budget speech this week he spoke solemnly of the need for realism and I quote:
-we must deal with the world as it is, and not as we might wish it to be.
That is the finance minister's view of the world, but he neglected to add that the uncertain world Canadians now face is largely of his making.
This, after all, is our first made-in-Canada recession, and given this government's trade and economic policies, recessions may soon be the only thing we will be able to make in Canada. It falls to the members of the Liberal opposition to set the record straight on both the extent of the government's responsibility for economic mess and how its prescription for recovery will affect average Canadians.
We have to put a human face on this government's so-called "plan for economic recovery". I think of it as a continuation of the government's plan for the end of Canada, a Canada as we used to know it.
Somebody said that The Gazette this week showed a picture of the Prime Minister with Schefferville behind with an X through it and he was holding Canada in his hand with a question mark. I have tried to trace that cartoon because I think it is very real as to what is happening in Canada.
Let us talk about the deficit. The member from Trois-Rivieres has his ideas. I commend him for his ideas, but I would also like to talk about it from the other side.
In every budget since 1984, the Minister of Finance has loudly proclaimed his unshakeable commitment to get Canada's public finances in order, to correct "the mess" he claimed the Liberal government had left for him to clean up.
In this budget he made the same claim. On page 2, he says:
We will put government finances firmly on the course to a
balanced budget.
As an aside to that, with the GST revenues he should be able to.
The time has come to call his bluff on this one. When he took over finance in 1984, the annual deficit stood at $38 billion and the accumulated public debt at $187.2 billion. This is high, to be sure, but understandable when you consider that Canada was coming out of the worst- not a made-in-Canada recession-international recession; forces that were beyond Canada since the depression.

The Budget
This, we are told, is a made-in-Canada recession, forces are in the direct control of this Minister of Finance. Nobody else can be blamed. He is the Minister of Finance. It is a made-in-Canada recession, not international, not when all the other countries in the Group of Seven had high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment.
In 1991, the annual deficit is forecast to be $30.5 billion, and the total debt-this is the minister this week-has exploded to $388.2 billion, going to $400 billion this year. This is incredible when we remember that for most of this government's time in office, we have seen unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, and no attempt to control their deficit or to reduce the total debt.
Rather than attempt to retire the accumulated debt during the good times, this government made no progress at all. Now we find ourselves in a serious recession, a downturn that may be worse than the one in 1981-82, a made-in-Canada downturn, and the minister is saying that he has no room to manoeuvre. The minister is telling us he has no ideas; no room to stimulate the economy, no room to give Canadians some hope for the future.
Today the government is saying that we are going to have lower interest rates, lower inflation, but higher unemployment. Given the minister's poor track record in meeting his own targets in the last budget, it is unlikely that his interest rates and inflation goals will be achieved, and one has to fear that the unemployment rate will be even worse than he predicted this week.
What little progress the minister may have made toward controlling expenditure during the good times was made exclusively on the backs of the average Canadian through massive tax increases, not through any enlightenment by the minister for finding new means to create something in Canada.
Since 1984 when this government first came into power, individual Canadians have been hit with 31 major tax increases-between 1984 and 1989. Average Canadian families have suffered as much as a 176.3 per cent increase in their tax bill. The Canadian Tax Journal of
March, 1990 reports that the tax changes since 1984 have seen the average Canadian family pay about $1,000 more in tax while 640 Canadians earning more than $100,000 paid no tax at all in 1987.
Other figures show that where the 1984 tax system is still in effect, Canadians households would be paying some $11.1 billion less in taxes. That $11.1 billion could have been circulating in the economy. It could have been generating wealth and creating jobs. It could have been supporting demand for Canadian goods and services.
This year Canadians will have to put up with the goods and services tax and the additional 7 per cent burden on all their purchases. They will face this 7 per cent every day and not just when the quarterly rebate cheques come out.
I do hope that the government follows through on its plan, that it did put this 7 per cent tax in without having said why it was putting it in. But in the budget this week, the minister said he would now bring forward a new fund to show how it would reduce the accumulated debt. In the meantime, until we get that, it is going into general revenues. I do not think that is a fair expectation. The Canadian people do not want to see the government spend this money irresponsibly; not when that GST is so severe on so many Canadians.
Since 1984, during unprecedented growth and prosperity, no effort was made by the government to plug loopholes in the tax system.
I think of capital gains. Perhaps we did not need them, if you tax the working poor to the extent that they are being taxed. When speaking of capital cost allowances and inventory cost accounting, Mrs. Maxwell, when she appeared before the committee, said that those were areas that could have been closed.
Even the RRSP: Canadians were savers in the past. They used their own savings for their own direction. Maybe it is time that the RRSP should be looked at, because it certainly is not the lower income Canadians who are using the RRSP. We hope on this side that our tax group which is looking at tax reforms will look across Canada to find solutions. This government certainly does not seem to be talking to ordinary Canadians.
February 28, 1991

They should have looked at some of the program expenditures. I can mention one: ACOA, $2 billion. Where did the $2 billion go? As it now stands, ACOA is using the money to help some businesses. I don't know how some businesses get it and others don't, but that is the discretion of somebody in ACOA, creating, in my opinion, unfair business advantages. It has created an unfair playing field for many entrepreneurs, when it should be spending to upgrade the regional economy generally.
What do I mean by "upgrading"? We need to improve water and sewer services, transportation services; we need to improve skill development; we need to ensure that economic development will be environmentally sustainable. I take note, with considerable regret, that these latter two-skill development and environmental protection-have taken a serious blow in the budget. We need to develop this regionally so that the region, as a whole, can compete more effectively in the Canadian, North American and world markets.
Unless such basic infrastructure changes are made, we will continue to see ACOA-funded businesses fail, like the closing of Dominion Textiles, a textile plant that had existed for 115 years or more. So many jobs are gone just like that. They have gone to Quebec, when it started in Nova Scotia as a textile plant. We have to ask ourselves why did it go to Quebec? Why is it more effective to have a textile plant in Quebec than in Nova Scotia?
I myself think that it will not just stop in Quebec, it will go to the U.S. Under the free trade agreement that is where some of the jobs in Yarmouth have already gone.
The Atlantic Defence Industries, with several millions of dollars of both provincial and federal assistance has gone under. It has a life of six months to finish the contract.
Why this? Why the selectivity and not longer lasting? Why is ACOA not telling us what is wrong?
We will also see the tourist business go under, because we see big grants to some hotels and not to others. You can take probably any area and find that one was funded by ACOA and an existing business is not getting the funding. It is not a fair playing field.
Had the government been genuinely creative in addressing the deficit over the past few years, it might not be in the ridiculous position of trying to balance the books during a recession. It is too late to do that now. You cannot, in my opinion, balance the budget when we are in a recession. You cannot balance a budget with growing unemployment. You cannot balance a budget
The Budget
when business bankruptcies are running at record levels. You cannot balance a budget on the backs of the unemployed and the under-employed, the working poor, and those working in unstable part-time and low-paying service sectors.
Let me talk about the budget as it relates to Nova Scotia. Let's look more specifically at the effect of the budget forecasts in cuts, as it will affect my own province.
The minister forecasts an unemployment rate for 1991 of 10 per cent. This is a national average, of course. In Nova Scotia, we usually have a higher rate than the national average. In 1989, for example, the Atlantic rate was 9.9 per cent, 2.2 per cent above the national rate. When you consider the lay-offs that are hitting my area alone, in Yarmouth where 300 jobs will be lost at Dominion Textile plant, in Bridgetown where Atlantic Defence Industries may soon close-and that has only been around since the last election project; that was an election project. Atlantic Defence Industries may soon close for good, taking some 200 jobs with it and, of course, the effect of the new individual quota system on Scotia Fundy inshore fishermen and processors alone may cost one-half of existing employment. The rate is only going to increase. The rate of unemployed has to increase.
Remember that the unemployment insurance rate does not account for the many discouraged workers who have given up looking. I am looking at something in which the Canadian Labour Council states that the real unemployment rate in Canada is 14.6 per cent in December because about 738,000 Canadians have been forced either to drop out of the work force or take part-time work.
The real rate of unemployment is not what the minister is talking about. He is just talking about those who are still in the labour force survey.
No, it does not take into account the hardship facing young people, the elderly, who make up the 175,000 of Nova Scotia's 1986 population of 873,000. We understand that large numbers of people have been left out in the cold by this plan for economic recovery. No, it does not take into account many thousands of Nova Scotians. We just know that the rate in Nova Scotia, even if it stays at 10 per cent, will mean that 41,930 people in Nova Scotia who were collecting unemployment insurance last November, in 1990, when the provincial rate was 10 per cent, can look forward to another year of unemployment, thanks to this government.

The Budget
They might survive if the new unemployment insurance rules brought in by this government do not force them on to the welfare system first.
The topic of welfare leads me to discuss the extension of the freeze on Established Programs Financing transfers. I should say here that the minister through government should not reduce the deficit through Established Programs Financing cuts in 1991. The minister himself said that in 1982.
I have a quote to which I will not refer, but he was talking here in this House.
The Established Programs Financing cuts will hit Nova Scotia particularly hard since Donald Savoie said in his recent report, "Reaching Maturity for ACOA", that people in Nova Scotia earn about 15 per cent of their income through transfer payments compared to the national average of 11 per cent.
Preliminary estimates show that the extension of the freeze will cost the province another $423 million in health care and post-secondary education funds. When added to the previous established program funding cuts by this government, the extension brings the cost to Nova Scotia to upward of $1.5 billion in the fiscal year 1995-96.
What does it mean to the people of Nova Scotia? It means fewer students attending our universities and colleges because tuition fees will have to go up to pay for the cutbacks. For those students who do go, it means classes that are in the hundreds and in deteriorating facilities.
Imagine the hypocrisy of our Prime Minister loudly proclaiming his commitment to upgrading our labour force skills as he presides on the systematic dismantling of our post-secondary education system. It means hospital beds being closed and longer line-ups.
Apart from their direct effect, these cuts will have an effect on provincial budgets. They will also have an indirect effect on municipal budgets and ultimately on all the people because they will see their services being cut back by the provinces not being able to share in the 50
per cent dollars under the Canada Assistance Program and also being cut back by the Established Programs Financing freezes.
A person could talk quite at length, but I have to say that the saddest part of this budget is that it does not take into account the problems that exist in the manufacturing areas in our province. In the Atlantic economy review of 1990, in agriculture, for instance, in Nova Scotia, the total farm cash receipts in 1989 were $229.9 million. In 1990 they had decreased; $228.5 million.
In fishing the total of all groundfish-and this is a sad one- caught in 1989 was 197.5 tonnes at a return of $132 million. In 1990 the amount of fish caught was 178.7 tonnes and the value of it with a higher dollar was $138.7 million. We are not giving responsible manufacturing approaches to the regional economy of our area.
We have a Minister of Fisheries who will not talk to businesses. We have a press release, I think was put out today, by the Maritime Fishermen's Union saying, unless the province and the federal government start looking at what they are doing to the inshore fishery, unless their policies are not directed to big companies, the multinationals, we are not going to have anything left of the inshore. I quote from the Maritime Fishermen's Union: "As well, the maritime inshore ground fishery cannot survive DFO's individual boat quota system which allows large companies to buy inshore quota and fish it with larger vessels. It is only a matter of time before the inshore will lose complete access to groundfish stocks, thus eliminating inshore ground fishery."
It does not listen to people. The Liberal task force on the recession heard that this government is not listening to Canadians. If it listened, this Minister of Finance might have new and innovative ideas. He will not listen.
I say to the minister; come down and talk with the Minister of Fisheries who will not talk to Nova Scotians in the fishery. I say to him; come down and talk to the people and he will know that this is not the budget that is going to take us out of the recession.
February 28, 1991


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech, focusing on an issue that I think we have seen to be a hallmark of the Conservative government and that is, very simply, not listening to people.
I was interested in how my colleague focused in on her area of the country, which is something we sometimes forget. When we look at a budget, we look at budget papers, we look at averages, we look at numbers, we look at statistics and, of course, we forget about people. We see that the unemployment rate is forecast to be an average of 10 per cent. Of course, my colleague reminded us all that, indeed, in her area of the country it is very likely going to be much higher.
She invited the government to listen, but did not have an opportunity to tell the government what she heard when the Liberal task force went through her area. So, I would like to ask her if she would be kind enough to tell me and, hopefully, some members on the other side who might just listen, exactly what was heard when the people of Nova Scotia spoke.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think there were probably three things that came through. The representatives of the Chamber of Commerce for Nova Scotia said that the interest rates of the government had brought on an awful lot of the problems and that they had lost control of that. They also felt that the free trade agreement, for whatever it was, was certainly taking away from the manufacturing sector and that the jobs created were certainly lower paying service industry jobs, rather than manufacturing.
I tried to point out in my speech that if you lose agriculture, if you lose fisheries, you are losing high paying manufacturing jobs. Whereas, if you are creating in the service industry, you are starting at a very minimum wage and chances are those people are not going to have full-time employment. Let us say Sheraton is going to build in New Brunswick under a lot of ACOA funding, how is it to compete with other establishments there? They can start with very low wages as well. The other thing that was heard was that they are not listening to people. The mayors said that if they would just leave it as a fair playing field then we could compete, but they are not doing that. Their policies are from one point to the other.
The Budget
The third thing, of course, being in my area, they heard from fishermen who have been involved in the fishery. They have asked for the minister to come down and he will not. I cannot understand how the Minister of Fisheries can be a Minister of Fisheries, take responsible taxpayers' money and still not go and see where the concerns are for his job. I cannot understand a Prime Minister who would have a Minister of Fisheries who has not gone in to see the inshore fishery in Nova Scotia. I just show you the Maritime Union. That is not the larger boats, but the smaller boats.
The other thing that people are hearing is that this minister talked about realism. Well, reality means that disabled persons have to live on fewer dollars a month. It means that young children are going to bed at night cold and going to school in the morning hungry. It means family breakdowns, the increase of family violence and crime, all of which impose their additional costs and have to be covered somewhere in the system.
It is the ultimate irony. It will mean a reduction in the type of social services designed to help people and families who are going to be in that situation.
I want to give one example. I had a person who came in. He had a full-time job. He was entitled to unemployment insurance. He worked part-time at K-Mart. He was married and had two very young children, one of whom was sick. He was in his mid to late 20s. His take-home pay was about $400 and he was able to supplement it-some people do not realize that you can get UI benefits to supplement your income per week- to, I think, about $600. However, he needed more than $600 for a family of four to live on, even in Nova Scotia.
I phoned welfare on his behalf. When you looked at the budget, he was entitled to $41 more a month out of such a rich country. There were no jobs. He would have liked to have gone on training, but there was no training. He would have taken anything. In a country as rich as Canada is, to see that time and time again in the three constituency offices in my riding, it begins to hit home that something is wrong.
How do the people tell this government that its policies are not working? Where do they want them to go? They do not even have money to take them out of Nova Scotia let alone train them for other jobs that they might be able to go to. You know, $600 is not much to live on for a family of four. The man wants to work and he is working part-time. If there was a full-time job he would be working. That is what people are saying.

The Budget


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member who just spoke would tell the House this.
One of the problems that we have with the people on the other side in the government is that it seems to me they are primarily concerned about an upper-income constituency in Toronto or Montreal. I cannot say Ottawa any more in light of what they have done to public servants here, but the Forest Hill, Bridal Path, Upper Rosedale set, I think, is their natural constituency. I wonder when they cap education programs, welfare-


An hon. member:: You should be gentle to your ex-buddy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The wealthy Kilgours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have one minute left. The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast will put his question.


David Kilgour: Before the member was rudely interrupted, would you tell us how these cappings on education, welfare and so on are going to affect the provinces, including the maritime provinces, which I suspect some of these people with us today have never been to.


Coline M. Campbell: I want to say that the member is a welcome addition to our party. I have had some good conversations with him, and I am sure his question today shows this House exactly what will happen.
I can tell you what will happen. You just have to take an area under a school board, Mr. Speaker. It used to be that the province could get 50 cent dollars to pay for some of the services that they are giving. Now, they have to squeeze it somewhere else.
If they have to squeeze it from the school board, then the school board has to go to the municipal councils and say: "We need more money to maintain that remedial teacher," or, "to maintain our classes at 30 or 40 students." Who is hit again ultimately because of this minister's improper measures and improper ability to judge how far he can go? It's the Canadian people.
The people have been over taxed. They have a new GST to try to cut the deficit, but he has nothing stimulating to keep them going and employed. If they are not employed, there are not going to be taxes for those services. Again, we are going to become third class citizens in a wealthy country that we should not be.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the budgetary process in Parliament since 1979. I have been involved in lockups with Ministers of Finance since then.
I remember the budget of 1979, as I am sure you do, Sir, where the hon. member for St. John's East presented a budget that would have balanced. It would have provided for a tax on gasoline of 18 cents a gallon and would have given mortgage interest deductibility.
At that time in 1979, the funded debt of the country was $44 billion. I say "funded debt" because that is really the debt we should be talking about. What do we owe the bondholders? What do we owe the people from whom we borrow money on treasury bills? What do we owe people who have Canada Savings Bonds?
At the end of December 1979, we owed those people $44 billion. Then came the government that was elected in February 1980. By the end of its term, the funded debt for this country was $163 billion.


An hon. member:: What is it today, Don?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We are coming to that.
That funded debt was increased by that party in one Parliament only, four and a half years, a little better, by $119 billion.
Today on February 22, 1991-the last Bank of Canada statement on the amount of outstanding funded debt in the hands of the public-the amount we owed was $272 billion. I am rounding. That means the debt has increased in the six and a half years we have had the Minister of Finance in charge by $109 billion.
In terms of what we owe the public and not what is in the national accounts, not what we owe from one pocket of government to the other pocket of government, is $272 billion. That is an increase of $109 billion. All of
February 28, 1991

that increase is a result of compound interest because we have not, in the course of managing the country, been able, despite massive cutbacks in expenditures and despite tax increases, to get the matter turned around as well as we would like.
I will come around to the turning around as we go along, but I want to let my friend from Edmonton Southeast, who is an expert writing on finance matters but never comes to finance meetings, have some information. The amount we are going to have to borrow this year will be $21.6 billion, plus or minus whatever has to happen in the exchange fund.
I might point out to the member for Edmonton Southeast that we presently have $23 billion in the exchange fund if we converted it to Canadian dollars. It costs money to keep an exchange fund.
Perhaps we ought to be able to reduce some of that exchange fund, but we are concerned of course about the trading value of the Canadian dollar. It would be impossible to reduce the exchange fund and not increase the value of the Canadian dollar right away. A lot of that is built up by trying to keep the Canadian dollar reasonably modest in the exchange rate with the United States. We have to treat the exchange fund as an asset, but it is an asset that does cost the country some money to carry.
I do not want to underestimate the cost of the debt and the problems we face, but let us not get carried away with crazy figures saying: "You owe $400 billion and $450 billion", and so on. The facts are set out weekly, for the member for Edmonton Southeast, in the Bank of Canada statements. All he has to do is look at them. He has been around here long enough, and I am sure he gets them delivered to his office every week. Why does he not look?
We have had a problem with the cost of running the country. On average since 1985 the cost of expenditures on program has been restrained to a 3.7 per cent annual increase. That is less than the rate of inflation. Despite increases in taxes, and despite keeping costs less than the rate of inflation, we have not yet been able to get to the point where we do not have to go to the market to borrow further money.
The Budget
Hopefully, we will be able to do that, but this is not an easy matter. I want to speak, as I have spoken in the past, to this House on that matter.
We have a system that is a bit out of control. There are two things we have had to do and we must continue to do. First of all, we must look at the fiscal balance between ourselves as a federal government and the provinces and the responsibilities of the federal government and the provinces.
Second, we must eliminate the overlapping and duplication and triplication and quadruplication in some cases of government activity where the taxpayer-and there is only one taxpayer-pays bureaucrats.
Ihke Environment as an example. It pays bureaucrats in this government. It pays bureaucrats in the provincial government. It pays bureaucrats in the regional governments in Ontario. It pays bureaucrats in the municipal governments in Ontario and in every conservation authority it pays further bureaucrats, all dealing with environment, all with separate rules, all with separate ways of looking at things and all at enormous costs because they all get paid from one person. That is you and I in our taxes or you and I or our children when we borrow the money to pay them.
What we have to do is very seriously reduce and eliminate overlapping and duplication in government and very seriously priorize our claims on what we want from government, so we get our demands against the public purse reduced to the lowest amount possible.
Let me deal first of all with priorizing. A lot has been said about medicare. In the minister's speech he says that we treat medicare as a must. I think all of us and our constituents treat medicare as a must, but we have to do some priorizing. We cannot go on. The member for Winnipeg Transcona spoke about medicare and the erosion. We cannot go on the way we are going. We have to priorize.
I can just give a few examples. If one asked my constituents whether they would rather have medicare or the CBC, I bet they vote for medicare. If one asked them whether they would have medicare or the National Film Board, I will bet they vote for medicare. If one asked them whether they want medicare or VIA Rail, I will bet they vote for medicare. If one asks them whether they want medicare or the DIPP, I bet they vote for medicare. Let us have some priorization, and let us have

The Budget
some suggestions of priorization so it is not just duplication. It is the question of priorization of expenditures.
I take a look at some of the things we do, and those things we do, for example, in a field that comes before my committee, and that is the field of financial administration for the banks, trust companies and so on. A trust company in this country has to go to be disciplined by provincial inspectors and by the federal inspector. Both governments have offices of financial administration where they run their own show and they have their own separate rules and laws. All of that cost is borne not by government, but by you and I because you and I are the taxpayers for both of these governments.
I think what we have to do is realize that we have to restrain ourselves, and in the restraining process the federal government has in this budget brought that restraint directly to the attention of the provinces by cutting back, again in this budget, with some of the transfers.
My friends opposite decry that. I think it is important that we realize that the expenses for operating the Government of Ontario through 1984 to 1990 rose at an average rate of 10 per cent a year, back to back, one year after another. The cost of running all of the other provincial governments averaged across all provinces 7.2 per cent every year, back to back. The cost of this government has been 3.7 per cent. Somewhere along the line we have to get together with the provinces and reorganize the distribution of income, the distribution of responsibilities, and rationalize that because we cannot carry on as we are going in any realistic fashion.
I want to deal for a moment with the issue of unemployment insurance. That is a nasty question to talk about when we have a lot of unemployed people, particularly in a society where this year we will be paying out $17 billion in unemployment insurance, a full $4 billion more in unemployment insurance than last year as a result of severe unemployment.
One of the problems in this budget, in trying to balance things, in trying not to increase the public debt, is that the minister has found it necessary to increase unemployment insurance premiums. Let us take a look at those premiums to see whether we can really afford this program the way this program is written.
Under the minister's suggestion in the budget, the premiums are increased for individuals-that is individuals who work-to 2.8 per cent of payroll to about $28,000 a year. For companies which employ people, that is everybody they employ, 3.92 per cent of payroll to about $28,000 a year. That is a total of 6.72 per cent of payroll as a payroll burden. Think about it: a 6.72 per cent payroll burden represents three weeks' holiday pay for every single working person in Canada.
Do you really think your constituents would willingly give up three weeks' holiday pay for unemployment insurance premiums? These are the things that we as a Parliament have to look at. These are the costs that we have to take into account when we say to taxpayers that they have to pay for this fund or they have to pay for that fund, or we are going to have to increase their Canada pension contributions.
These costs are being borne by our constituents and these costs injure the productivity of the country because they make it more expensive to employ people. They make it necessary for companies to pass their wage costs on in their prices. They make us uncompetitive, or less competitive, than we should be in world markets.
What we have to do as a country is become more competitive. What we have to do is take a look at all of these things and ask: can we really go along with what has been happening year after year with no real change, or should we again take a look at the programs and say: "You know, we have got to change that program?"
We have got to get along with a little less benefit. We have got to get along with different criteria. We cannot just sit back and say that every program of government is all of a sudden a sacred trust and nothing can be altered, because there is only one person who we have as a constituent-and that is you and I and our friends, our neighbours and our constituents who pay taxes-the taxpayer. That person can only bear so much.
I think it is in our obligation not to just decry the problems of the budget, not just to decry the fact that taxes are going up, not just to decry the fact that programs are cut back, but to come at the cost of government by giving that cost of government a rethink.
February 28, 1991

I want to say how impressed I am with the minister's ability to cut back bit by bit on the borrowing requirements. This year the minister will require about $21.6 billion to borrow on the marketplace, depending on how the exchange fund works. Next year the minister's budget calls for $14 billion in borrowing, the following year $5 billion in borrowing, and it puts us in the position where we start paying back the national debt in 1994-95.
Compare that deficit situation with what we inherited. When we took power in 1984 the deficit was 8.6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. This year the United States will have a deficit of 5.7 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product and our percentage of debt to Gross Domestic Product, expressed the way they express it, expressed on a national accounts basis, is 3.5 per cent.
In other words, we have reduced the shortfall from 8.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to 3.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, and bit by bit we are turning it around.
But we cannot go on the way we are. We cannot go on with income taxes because of the inflation, partial deindexing rising year after year. Families cannot go on with the payments they are asked to make on income tax, on goods and services tax. My friends on the left call for capital taxes. We cannot go on this way and build a competitive society.
What we have to do, therefore, is learn how to train our demands on the state to what we really can afford, what we really need, not what we would like or what would be jam. Let us get our costs and our demands on government back to a more realistic level.
Our problem is very simple. For a number of years we were trained by government that any time you needed something you went to the government in prayer. You went to the government in prayer. You said: "Mr. Government, I have a problem. I want to start a business. Give me a grant. I have a problem. I need an assistance program." I need this, I need that. Give me, give me, give me. Thke it to the Lord in prayer. And what we did is we got used to receiving $1.1 for every dollar paid in taxes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
The Budget


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments in about two minutes. The hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They will get at me, I am sure. What we have to do is understand right now, as we try to conquer our debt problem, that we are paying about $1.25 in taxes because a great part of it is going in interest, and we are only getting about $1 worth of benefits. We have to change that around. We have to change the cost to government around and it is up to this House to do that.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment first, and then ask my hon. colleague, who is also chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance a few questions.
I would like to remind him that, not long ago, when the Finance Committee held hearings on the GST in Vancouver, the mayor of that city appeared before the committee and' taught us a lesson, or should I say lectured us, on the tax system. He said that it was time to stop reaching into other people's pockets, which meant that the federal government, to cut expenses, passes the burden on to the provinces, which pass it on to municipalities. But everybody forgets about the taxpayer.
I hope the chairman of the Finance Committee gave that advice to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, but judging by the last budget, he did exactly the opposite. So I would like to know what he thinks, Mr. Speaker, because we see, year after year, that the Minister's projections are wrong. In 1985, he said that the deficit would be about $19 billion this year; we still have a $30 billion deficit. So we do not need his projections because we know that they never materialize.
I have another question. Earlier, my colleague said that he was very concerned about the debt service, and therefore about the debt itself. I would like to remind him that the total debt accumulated in 177 years since Confederation was doubled by his government in the last six years. It is something that has to be said, Mr. Speaker.
But I would like to ask him a question. If they really want to reduce the debt, they must not do it by making cuts in the programs designed to help needy Canadians. How come-read the estimates tabled today-how come the government is spending $3 billion a year on advertizing, consultations and public relations? If we are in a recession, instead of making cuts in programs for people

February 28, 1991
The Budget
who need a hospital bed or for people who need affordable housing, a roof over their head, or for people who need jobs, why not cut in government's expenses on consultation, advertizing and public relations it does not need in any case?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously my friend has not been paying any attention. Let me give him some information for his record. He will note that this is the only Minister of Finance that has ever come anywhere close to being accurate with respect to his forecasts on borrowing requirements and his forecasts on public accounts debt.
On the public account debt he forecast $28.6 billion last year. He came in at $30.5 billion, but he made a change in forecast part way through the year as a result of interest rates. If he goes back to the prior year, he will find that the minister was able to come in $.5 billion less than he forecast.
On borrowing requirements, the minister forecast to borrow $21.5 billion and he had to borrow $23.5 billion. But this is the only Minister of Finance and the only government that did not do what the last government did, and that is have two borrowing authority bills a year. In one case it had three borrowing authority bills because they could not get they act together. They kept spending more money than they even forecast themselves, so they had to come back to the House time after time for more borrowing authority.
My friend from Edmonton knows that. He was there at the time. He remembers the extensive debates on borrowing authority. Perhaps he would like to tell us.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, knowing that he is and has been known to be very frank and very truthful. Having sat on the finance committee with him and knowing that he is the author of the term "gouge and screw" tax, I know he will give me a level answer. I want to know on behalf of members of
Parliament and the people of Canada something about the debt servicing reduction fund.
If we look at page 13 of the minister's budget speech, he states:
As part of our Plan for Economic Recovery, we will ensure that all GST revenues are allocated solely to the effort to bring the public debt under control.
Then if we turn to page 78 of the budget and we look at the second paragraph it says:
The Prime Minister has given a commitment that any above-projected revenues from the GST will make a contribution to deficit reduction rather than provide the leeway for an expansion in discretionary government spending.
The next paragraph goes on to say:
The fund will be established to a specified purpose account to which will be credited net GST revenues and from which will be debited public debt charges.
The attitude that seems to be given is the one that all GST revenues after the administration charges, in other words approximately $16.5 billion, will go into this specified fund and will pay down the debt at that rate per year.
My question to the member is: Can he tell us openly and honestly, as he has with the "gouge and screw" tax, the definition of "all" or the definition of "net revenues", so the people of Canada and I, in fact, will know the amount being paid into this fund?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am delighted. That is a sensible question.
The goods and services tax is a gross tax that has certain rebates to it. In particular, hospitals, schools, charities and so on receive part of their tax back. You take the gross of the tax, and those people who receive part back and that comes off the receipt of the tax.
The same applies with respect to real estate. We have a tax of 7 per cent on the transfer of a house, but if you buy a new house as a single family owner you only pay a
4.5	per cent rate, so that really there is a rebate of 2.5 per cent of the tax.
Those rebates come off the gross tax. Also coming off the gross tax is the refund to low income people that is paid quarterly. That brings it to the net tax. That is the amount of net tax that goes in the deficit reduction fund. There is no other deduction from that.
February 28, 1991

This is an honest and straightforward way of saying to the people of Canada: "We know you didn't like this goods and services tax, but we are putting it toward the debt and that is where it belongs. When we get rid of the debt maybe we can get rid of the tax".


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of interesting questions to ask the hon. member opposite. He talked about unemployment insurance and how we should carry our fair share of that particular burden.
The Mayor of Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories said: "Increased unemployment insurance contributions will cost $154 a year for each worker for the city of Yellowknife. It means $35,000 to $40,000 increase in employer contributions". She goes on to say: "What may be saved at the federal level and avoided at the territorial level, will eventually be passed on to the ratepayers and municipalities. Needed infrastructure may not go ahead unless municipalities and municipal governments pay for it by raising mill rates".
With regard to the north, there is 60 to 90 per cent unemployment. The Canadian Jobs Strategy cut of $100 million is going to have an impact because unemployment is so high. Essentially unemployment insurance and training programs are like a sub-economy. I know the minister to have had an attitude toward specific groups who he feels get free stuff. He had this validated and verified in a survey that he did.
I would like to know what initiatives he would use to kick-start the economy in the north, rather than gouging and screwing the constituents of the north.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 84(4) and an Order made further earlier this day, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Resuming debate.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau on a point of order.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, during the vote I noticed that the member for Fraser Valley West voted, rose and left. At least one other member rose and left whom I could not identify. I would say that at least that one vote should not be counted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Crowfoot on the same point of order.


Mr. Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the same point of order because it may very well be that we should have the rules clarified.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West, who is my seatmate, did in fact leave after the vote. He had to catch a plane. That is the rule of the House, and perhaps the rule ought to be respected.
It is also the rule of the House that in Question Period, questions should not be argumentative. It is also the rule of the House that questions should not have a preamble. It is also a rule of the House-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member for the NDP would like to pick and choose rules, to have rules that he thinks might damage some members of Parliament-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a convention-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can stay here until 11 o'clock if you would like.


An hon. member:: Is that a promise or a threat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a threat.
The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair has a point of order?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is probably the most fatuous intervention I have heard in all the time I have been here.
February 28, 1991

The rules are clear and unambiguous. Members are required to remain here until the vote has been completed and the count has been released.
Even this hon. member should understand the consequences of the waiver of the rule, and it is that immediately after each one of us has voted, we could very well have left. You could imagine the spectacle that that would represent.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a convention in this House, and it is under Beauchesne's citation 223(3):
If a Member who has heard the question put should inadvertently vote contrary to his intention, he may not be allowed to correct the mistake; but his vote must remain as first recorded. Debates, July 1, 1926, p. 5311.
Shall we carry on with debate? The hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso has the floor.
A point of order, the hon. member for York South- Weston.


Mr. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the point put before you for consideration was the fact that an hon. member of this House left before the vote was announced. By not removing that particular member's vote from the official record, in effect, Sir, you would be setting a precedent. That precedent would be that once you stand and your vote is recorded, you could vacate or leave the House. That is not the convention of this House. In the seven years that I have been here, it has been very clear that in order for your vote to be counted, it is essential that you remain in your seat until the vote is announced. By allowing this particular incident to carry on, as I indicated, the precedent would be set whereby throughout the course of a vote you would see members standing and then leaving the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will go to Beauchesne's Citation 223(2):
A Member must be in his own seat should he wish to vote and should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result announced. Journals, April 18, 1956 -
There is convention here that members should remain in their seat, but it has not been done here in the last six years that I can recall. New members have come into this Chamber. I will listen to the hon. member's point of order, but there has to be a little more decorum so the
The Budget
Chair can see what is going on too. It is pretty hard to see if members walk in and out getting their drink of water while the vote is going on, and that has happened here in the last six or seven years that I can remember.
I think that we should just leave it at that. I will check and see if we can find out if this has happened. The hon. member is an honourable member. If he feels that he should come in after he has taken his trip back home, if he has caught his plane, and if he feels that his vote should be withdrawn, he will stand up in the House like any honourable member and do what has to be done. Otherwise, I think we should carry on with debate. We had another 26 minutes left. We only have about another 17 minutes left in debate.
The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair has another point of order.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have no alternative, as I am sure my colleagues have no alternative, but to express considerable concern about the manner of the ruling.
The Speaker, in the first instance, ruled on an issue that was not at all raised, and then the Speaker read from the rules of order to find that if in fact the hon. member did absent himself before the release of the count he had abrogated those rules. His colleague, sitting right next to him, concurred with the hon. member behind me in respect to his having left before the vote was completed.
It seems to me that it would have to be self-evident to the Speaker that if his ruling was to form the pattern of behaviour in this House, the House would be reduced to absurdity. I would ask the Speaker to change his ruling with some thought behind it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that we on this side of the House have no problem at all should the Chair decide to enforce such standing order.
I do want to emphasize to the Chair that we would be happy to have the Chair do that, but we will also insist that Beauchesne's be followed to the letter in all cases.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just before I recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot, the convention does not provide for sanctions by the Chair. He must be in his seat to vote, but he should remain in his seat. That is fine. Now that is all there is to it.

February 28, 1991
The Budget
Now can we get back to debate, please. The hon. Whip for the NDP.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. In all seriousness, I think that it would be appropriate for the Chair, in consultation with the table officers, to reflect on what has happened in the last few minutes and come back at some later point to the House to review the matter, rather than continue it at this point, and allow us to get on with the debate. I would like to suggest that we not leave-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hoped that the hon. member would have suggested that 10 minutes ago. Thank you.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see so many government members have waited for this speech. I want to address as an Atlantic Canadian some of the serious issues touched upon by Tuesday's budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know that they are trying to reflect on the Hill Times, but I know the hon. member has a very serious speech and I wish he could get to it.


Francis G. LeBlanc: I know they are jealous, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recommence my speech. I hope I will be able to complete it before the time is up.
I want to address as an Atlantic Canadian some of the serious issues touched upon by Tuesday's budget. These are issues which go to the heart of Confederation and Atlantic Canada's place in it.
Recently, with some of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Atlantic Canada to see first-hand the effects of the recent recession on people in Atlantic Canada. During this time I heard the views and concerns of Atlantic Canadians about the impact of this recession, the government response to it, and what impact that is having on their lives.
In Yarmouth we listened to Bob Anthony, the warden of Yarmouth County and a small businessperson. He told us of the crushing burden of high taxes and interest rates on small businesses hi his region.
In Saint John we heard Allan Kurtz of the St. Stephen Retailers Association describe how his community, along the border with Maine, was being turned into a ghost town because of cross-border shopping since the free trade agreement came into effect.
In Harbour Grace and in Comer Brook, we were told repeatedly how federal mismanagement was killing the Newfoundland fishery and how nothing was being done to create a new and better future for Newfoundlanders.
I learned above all else that hundreds of communities in Atlantic Canada are suffering under the economic policies of this government. I cannot shake the sinking feeling that this government simply does not care.
In November 1984 the finance minister presented Canadians with an agenda for economic renewal. Now, seven years later, he presents us with a plan for economic recovery. What does Canada have to recover from? It is the consequences of the misguided and failed policies of this Tory government; that is what.
Real interest rates, which have never been so out of line with those of the United States, are throttling our businesses and are a daily reminder to investors of the economic uncertainty into which this government has plunged Canada; an unacceptably high dollar which is crippling our exporters; a trade agreement which is leading to the deindustrialization of this country and forcing Canadians to downgrade their social programs to the level of those in the United States.
Now we are presented with the Minister of Finance's seventh budget and, God willing, his last.
I firmly believe that once Canadians have had a chance to comprehend fully what this document is attempting to do, what this government is attempting to do with this budget, they will understand the devastating implications of the Conservative agenda now laid bare for everyone to see.
Let us examine the facts. In 1984 when this government came to power it promised economic renewal. It promised to reduce the deficit and to curb the growth of the debt. Above all else, it promised jobs, jobs, jobs.
What have the government's economic policies brought us? They have brought us our first made-in-Ca-nada recession, where interest rates have been pushed up past the breaking point for many Canadians; where today nearly 1.5 million Canadians are out of work;
February 28, 1991

where inflation is growing, not diminishing; where 34 consecutive tax increases by this government have foisted the tax burden squarely on the backs of lower and middle income Canadians.
The Minister of Finance now expects Canadians to believe him, that he has a firm grasp on what must be done and that Canadians should trust him and they should hang on just a little longer. I ask the minister: Why should Canadians believe him now? Why should we believe his deficit projections which have been so consistently wrong? Why should we believe his interest rate predictions which were so out of line in last year's budget? Why should we believe his Pollyanna promise of 2 per cent inflation in three years? His policies and especially the GST have actually increased inflation.
What the minister fails to make clear, what he fails to mention in his budget document, is that the consequence of trying to achieve these inflation targets will be unacceptably high unemployment.
We are now expected to believe that the Minister of Finance who got Canadians into this mess can get us out with this hocus-pocus plan for economic recovery. That is like asking Saddam Hussein to supervise the rebuilding of Kuwait.
His projections for the deficit this year stand at $30.5 billion. After several straight years of economic growth in the Canadian economy, is this the best he has been able to accomplish? How long are Canadians expected to hang on? Many Canadians are past the point of hanging on. Far too many have seen their jobs disappear. Far too many are fighting a losing battle in simply trying to keep their families sheltered and clothed and their children properly fed.
These Canadians have been ignored by the minister in this budget and, by ignoring them, the minister is punishing them, punishing them for being at the wrong end of the economic spectrum.
As members of Parliament we have often been accused of being cut off from the realities of day-to-day life in Canada. We have been accused of being insensitive to the needs of ordinary Canadians.
The Budget
Some people ask: How can we understand the plight of a man in his fifties who without warning has lost his job and is unable to get adequate retraining as he watches his unemployment insurance benefits run out? How can we appreciate what it means for a single mother to be forced to line up at a food bank, for a young person to come to the realization that he or she cannot afford to attend university, for or a fisherman to have to sell his livelihood and that of his father and his father's father because he is being squeezed out by bigger and more competitive companies?
Maybe we cannot fully comprehend what these things mean to the people directly affected, but that does not mean that we should stop caring. That does not mean that we can fool ourselves into thinking that with brave projections as to likely economic trends, we will ultimately be helping these people. Economic indicators mean little to those who are desperately looking for work.
In Canada, people need help today, right now. This government has forgotten about them or has chosen to ignore them. They point to the pages of The Financial Post or The Globe and Mail and claim their actions are justified. No one is more guilty of this than the Minister of Finance.
I truly wish the minister had joined my colleagues and me in early February when we toured Atlantic Canada, asking ordinary Canadians what could be done to reverse the tide of economic woes which had befallen our country. I wish the minister had experienced the frustration these people are feeling and the desperate sense they have that their country is falling apart.
Again and again, the same issues were raised: aging infrastructure and the unwillingness of the government to address the problem. Excessive taxation which has left Atlantic Canadians with less money and less earning power, the gross mismanagement of the fisheries which has left fishermen and fish processors crippled, and a level of unemployment which some believe the government will never address.
Nowhere I believe are these feelings more passionately felt that in my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Can-so. Unemployment in Cape Breton is now over 17 per cent. Cutbacks in job training and increased UI premiums have left Cape Bretoners feeling that the problem is only going to get worse, because they feel this government does not care.

February 28, 1991
The Budget
What else are they to think? Last January the government cut VIA Rail passenger service from Truro to Sydney, and repeatedly CN has sought to downgrade portions of its service on the island. The application to partially close the swing bridge at the Barra Strait is yet another example.
In December this government closed the CBC station in Sydney and ended one of the most popular CBC programs in Atlantic Canada, Land and Sea.
This government has refused to support the request by Scotia Synfuels for assistance to establish a coal liquefaction plant at the Strait of Canso, which would use Cape Breton coal in an environmentally friendly way.
Indeed the minister of industry refuses to meet with the principals of this important project which has the support of community and business leaders across the island. Decreased transfer payments have jeopardized the ability of my riding's most famous institution, St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, to provide a quality education to its students.
It currently faces an $800,000 operating deficit, which is forcing it to reconsider many of the programs currently being offered. What makes this all the more ironic is that St. FX is the Alma Mater of the Prime Minister himself, the self-styled education Prime Minister who has claimed on the one hand that education and skills training are vital to Canada's ability to compete internationally. Then, on the other hand, he has allowed his Minister of Finance once again to continue the freeze on transfer payments, crippling our universities and forcing drastic cuts in job training programs.
My constituents need take no lessons from this government about the impact the recession is having on our economy. My constituents understand what this latest budget is about. It is about more unemployment, more cutbacks, more essential services lost, and more economic desperation. All this in the part of the country that has already seen more than its fair share. I say this knowing full well that what is true for Cape Breton Island is also true for much of Atlantic Canada.
What is most disturbing about this budget from an Atlantic Canadian perspective is what it does not do. It provides essentially no hope for the people who are feeling the brunt of the recession.
Rather than provide for additional retraining funds for the unemployed, the government has cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. Instead of encouraging businesses to hire and train unemployed workers, this budget increases unemployment insurance premiums by nearly 25 per cent. These higher UI premiums are a direct tax on jobs, a new tax on lower and middle income workers and on the businesses across the country.
This is a new tax being levied right in the middle of a recession, on the heels of the government's most massive and complicated new tax grab, the GST. It is yet another tax which will force additional businesses to lay off workers and drive others closer to the brink of bankruptcy. So much for Tory economic logic. So much for Tory compassion.
Farmers will receive $1.3 billion in this budget. That is something, but for fishermen in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere still facing a crisis in their industry there is nothing. How should the fishermen feel, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you how they feel. They feel forgotten, ignored and betrayed.
Fishermen understand what recession is all about. They also know what it is to be cast adrift by a government that has simply stopped caring about what happens to them.
In talking to fishermen over the last couple of days, one question has been asked of me over and over again: Who is supposed to represent us in cabinet? Why, when we are facing a crisis at least as serious as the one facing farmers, are we being ignored?
The answer is simple. The current minister of fisheries has simply grown tired of dealing with fishermen and representing their concerns. He does not care any more. In fact, the same minister was recently quoted as saying that he wants to spend less time dealing with the crisis in the fisheries and spend more time dealing with the issue of national unity.


February 28, 1991

That is a fine thought. If this minister does for national unity what he has done to the fisheries, then we may as well all pack up and go home right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.37 p.m.,
The Budget
this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 1,1991