1993-05-04

[Stage Direction]
42 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, May 4, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELECTORAL REFORM


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform for consideration by the House.
We are asking something very unusual. We are asking the government to come back to the House within 14 days with a set of amendments for consideration by the House so that we can have these suggested changes in law prior to the next federal general election.
Of considerable interest to the House will be our recommendation coming from Lortie that we have staggered closing hours at the polls which will relieve some of the tension in the country. We will not turn on our television sets and find out the election is over before they have even begun to count the ballots in certain parts of the country.
We have dealt with the issue of broadcasting allocation in a fair way that attends not only to history but to current realities of any particular election in a better way.
For the first time in Canadian history we are proposing an all-inclusive definition of spending. We are dividing it into direct and non-direct. We are covering off the famous issue of advertising for parties, candidates and others in a fair way, we believe.
We have always been concerned, and I think in a growing way, with the rights to candidacy for people. Those with responsibility for dependants including children sometimes have a difficult job being candidates. We are proposing a generous 75 per cent rebate for those kinds of care expenses. For people who seek candidacy in Canada and have a disability requiring special treatment there will be the same kind of reimbursement. We think it is fair. We think it is time. We think it is appropriate for the year 1993.
We as a House have finally responded to a long-standing request from the Chief Electoral Officer and the Lortie commission to take the enforcement issues and divide them into administrative law and criminal law instead of having a whole bunch of administrative matters falling under the criminal system. It will be less expensive, less traumatic, and missing a deadline will not have quite the same trauma attached to it as it has had historically. We think that is long overdue as well.
Some of my friends across the way will be interested to know that candidates who are elected as Independents will have tax receipting powers that continue from election to election. They will be treated in a manner analogous to parties with the same responsibilities as well as opportunity systems. I am seeing some nods on the other side. We hope that is the kind of change spoken to in terms of the debate on Bill C-114. We did pay attention and we are recommending it.

May 4, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Members of the House should get a copy of the report as quickly as they can. If they find flaws in it they can let us know. We need to move quickly if these changes are to be in place. We are suggesting again to cabinet that maybe 14 days is appropriate to return to the House with a bill with suggested amendments.



INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to present, in both official languages, a copy of the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development, on a subject that is important to all Canadians. The report entitled "Beyond Excellence", deals with the future of Canada's networks of centres of excellence.
You may recall that in 1989 the Government of Canada created centres of excellence in universities and industry to keep Canadian researchers in this country. In the course of the committee's hearings, we met many people who submitted briefs to the committee and who confirmed this was an excellent initiative for the future of our researchers, our young people and Canada.
Over a period of four years the government has invested $240 million, funds which were put to good use, as confirmed by the reports we received.
Our report's first recommendation is to make these centres of excellence permanent. The program would have to be automatically renewed after every four or five year period and thus remain as a tool essential to the future of this country.
Since this report is probably the last one before the summer recess, I would like to take a few moments to thank all members who worked with us this year. I see the member for Willowdale, our vice-chairman. I would like to thank him and our support staff as well. I may add that the clerk of the committee, Ms. Fisher, and our researcher, Ms. Fawcett, made an invaluable contribution to the work of our committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]



INDOOR AIR QUALITY ACT


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-430, an act relating to indoor air quality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of my constituents to introduce a bill entitled an act relating to indoor air quality. It seeks to regulate indoor air contaminants in all federal department buildings and Crown corporations while setting national standards for provinces to follow.
It arises out of the closing of health and welfare's district headquarters in Chatham, the Judy LaMarsh Building, after the fumes from renovations sent 235 employees home for one week. Sick building syndrome has been described as the illness of the nineties by leading doctors.
The purpose of this bill is to promote improvement in the quality of indoor air in Canada. It calls on the federal government to conduct extensive research and to formulate plans and designs for the control and abatement of indoor air contamination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Crawford moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance the petitioners are asking Parliament to ensure that the CR.TC takes a hard look at the type of language used on radio and television to supposedly entertain and inform.
May 4. 1993

They point out that what happens very often verges on the abusive and is at limes violent. They ask that Parliament do its job in this regard.

The same petitioners indicated that often what happens on radio or television goes against the principles parents want to teach their children.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in the second instance a group of petitioners ask that the government review its policy with respect to the goods and services tax on books and reading materials.
They point out that no modern democracy has such a tax and that we have never had one since Confederation.
It goes counter to the basic principles of a democracy that is getting people involved in learning and contributing. It is also counteracting the government's stated principles of increased productivity and more competitiveness.
The petitioners say it has been very hard on publishers and other industries including groups such as artists, students and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners therefore call upon the government to remove this pernicious tax.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from people in the Sault Ste. Marie area of Ontario. They request that we deal more harshly with people who molest children and that people who commit murder of children at the time of molesting them suffer capital punishment.
I think the petition bears a lot of good sense.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of depositing another petition which puts into the thousands the number of senior citizens who are
Routine Proceedings
asking the government to re-evaluate the Canadian Old Age Security pensions so that they truly reflect the real needs of Canadian seniors.
The response from the government to the other petitions I have deposited leaves me and many of our seniors bewildered. They say that 82 per cent of those over the age of 65 felt that their current income and investments satisfied their needs either adequately or very well and that 70 per cent of that age group whose incomes were under $10,000 a year say these incomes were either meeting their needs adequately or very well.
I really put that into question. I suggest we do another survey on seniors who are earning under $10,000.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting two petitions which include the names of hundreds of people from in and around the riding of Elk Island.
The petitioners are from communities like Tofield, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, Beaumont, Ardros-san, Bruderheim and the county of Strathcona. They are concerned about the Young Offenders Act and are asking Parliament either to strengthen the Young Offenders Act or replace it by legislation that will act as a stronger deterrent to criminal activity among our nation's young people.
The petitioners are primarily concerned with repeat violent offenders and ask Parliament to bring in legislation that would make young offenders more accountable for their crimes.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulflslands):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am privileged to present a petition from hundreds of my constituents who are very concerned about increasing violence in our society.
The petitioners say the present laws are inadequate and fail to deter those who commit violent crimes. They ask Parliament to enact with great speed greater protection for the public and laws with harsher penalties to deal with these offenders.

May 4, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my second petition relates to the North American free trade agreement.
The petitioners are pointing out that the North American free trade agreement cannot be remedied through renegotiation. They are calling upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use its termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from many hundreds of p< he around the province of British Columbia, all t: ~ way from Coquitlam to Queen Charlotte city.
They note that teachers in our public and secondary schools, as well as those in post-secondary institutions, bear the burden of extra-curricular expenses to improve their professional skills and to acquire academic services and materials to further the education of our children.
They also note that the income tax provisions allow self-employed professionals and business people to deduct their operating expenses to improve their businesses and their offices, but unfairly refuses to allow teachers the same kind of deductions which they incur to better their teaching abilities.
They call on Parliament to request that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue take action to amend the present income tax provisions to allow teachers who teach in educational institutions in Canada deductions for professional expenses made in the course of their employment.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker,
I have a second petition which calls for certain changes to the Young Offenders Act.
I do not agree with the changes that are being proposed, but on behalf of these constituents I will table this petition in the House.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting petitions signed by citizens of Canada, most of them from the greater Toronto area.
They are humbly praying and calling upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children. They are also asking that relief and support be provided to women as mothers to protect their children and emphasize the need for abuser rehabilitation. They are also calling for a concentration and special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and long-ignored problem.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 422 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 422 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: With respect to public opinion polling contracts awarded by the government since April 1, 1992, (a) what was their total cost (b) what is the name of each Department requesting the poll (c) the name of the polling company (d) the value of each contract (e) were any of the contracts awarded by public tender offering and if not, why not?
Return tabled.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
May 4, 1993



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale) moved:: Thai this House is of the opinion that the budget is, as put by the
Chief Government Whip, "a disgrace".
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that our party will be using only 10-minute speaking slots.
It is very easy to agree with the chief government Whip that this government's budget is a disgrace. I hope that the chief Whip will be here to participate in the debate to add to the voices from this side. We look forward to his voting with us in the House tonight.
Without having the benefit of his voice here to elaborate on why he finds the budget a disgrace, let me speculate. I think this budget will come to be known as the document which outlines the decline and fall of the Canadian economy. The most obvious symptom of this budget's inadequacy is the fact that today in Canada we have official unemployment rates of 11 per cent and this budget predicted that next year it would go down to only 10.8 per cent. It is devoid of hope and devoid of strategy in order to get Canadians working and to get our economy going.
The future of our country as a high-wage nation is in doubt today. We saw how Statistics Canada reported that the standard of living of the average Canadian family today has fallen to the level it occupied in 1976. We have heard the words of caution of a former deputy minister of finance of this government, Mickey Cohen, who said that we may be a high-wage society but our challenge today is to ensure that we are not a jobless society. Therefore, because of these challenges before us which were not addressed in the budget, and I shall elaborate, this budget is a disgrace.
Let us look at what the Tory legacy to Canadians is today. Since 1989 Canada's ability to compete globally has fallen from fourth to eleventh place. Since 1988 Canada has lost 16 per cent or 350,000 of its manufactur-
Supply
ing jobs. We have been losing them at more than twice the U.S. rate.
What is even more alarming perhaps is that since this government took office in 1984 Canada's manufacturing productivity has grown at only two-third the rate of the G-7. Since 1980 according to recent studies by the Bank of Canada, our manufacturing productivity has declined 25 per cent against that of the United States.
Concerning hope for our young people, in 1984 Canada had a high-tech trade surplus of $1 billion. Today that surplus has gone to a deficit of $30 billion. Where are the jobs in high tech going? They are not here in Canada for our young people we are training.
Part of the reason we face a very bleak economic future based on what I have indicated is that this government has continued in its recent budget the policies it has adopted throughout the course of its history. It has been obsessed with the debt, but really it has not been able to get our deficit on an annual basis below $30 billion since it has taken office, even though that was its chief plank. Instead we have seen a high tax, high interest, high dollar policy designed to drive every inch of inflation out of this economy even at the expense of costing us jobs and growth.
This government failed to realize that the only way it was going to get this deficit really under control was to get the incomes of Canadians up, to get Canadians off unemployment insurance and welfare so that they could become taxpayers. But no, it has adopted the alternative route of squeezing every ounce of vitality out of this nation. It does not realize that if we could take every unemployed Canadian off unemployment insurance and welfare today, we would have more than the some $30 billion needed to deal with our annual deficit.
Canada is not without hope in spite of the legacy the Tories have given us. It is not going to be easy to reverse our economic decline. I suggest that we have to take a number of long-term measures which will require investing today and also a number of short-term measures so that we can enjoy a better future.
First, this deficit did not talk about education, but we have to address the issue of national standards in education and testing.

May 4, 1993
Supply
In science and technology this budget did not address the Mexican challenge, the challenge that Mexico is graduating four times as many engineers and scientists today than is Canada.
It did not address the issue of research and development. Since this government took office in 1984 that has actually declined and is now at 1.37 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. It is falling and is less than half the level of that of our major world competitors.
Another area where we have to invest for the future today is in the 40 per cent of Canadians who lack the language or mathematical skills to cope in the modern work place.
Instead of this government's spending about .3 cents a day for every Canadian who is illiterate, .3 cents a day less than a dollar a year, we have to have a concerted investment program to reduce the rate of illiteracy in Canada to half of what it is today by the year 2000. As this budget did not touch on it, we have to deal with the fact that 38 per cent of Canadian high school students drop out before they get their education.
We have to link their plight to the need for better training programs and apprenticeship programs in partnership with industry. None of these fundamental defects in our current economic plight were dealt with in this budget and they have been ignored throughout the entire course of the government's rule.
Over the short term we could do many things to change the situation and get employment and growth growing. We call for a major infrastructure program where the federal, provincial and municipal governments each contribute $1 billion a year for five years to deal with our necessary sewers, roads, bridges and environmental clean-ups that are so critical.
If this government could get the one million small and medium sized businesses the financing they need to get them over the hurdles that they face and if each of these businesses could hire just one more employee, we could reduce our unemployment by 500,000.
Why did the government not address our declining manufacturing productivity directly? Why did it not adopt our suggestions to bring forward a manufacturing productivity council that could give consulting services
without a bureaucracy and without cost to the public purse to our manufacturers?
Why has the government not adopted the Canadian Manufacturers' Association ISO 9000 program to work with our industry, to get quality standards introduced throughout Canadian businesses?
Why has it not done more to establish a primary industries enhancement council that would work with our primary producers to ensure that we had more value in jobs before our abundant natural resources are exported and create high value-added jobs abroad?
In short, what this country needs is a comprehensive economic strategy and unlike in the past our fiscal, monetary, science and technology, research and development, training, education and regulatory tax policies must all be judged on how they affect and contribute to our ability to compete.
Without such a comprehensive economic strategy we are doomed. We will never enjoy the fruits of expanded trade opportunities and this is why. Because of its failure to address the real issues confronting the future of Canada, this budget is in the words of the chief Whip, a disgrace.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on my colleague's opening presentation by first expressing my sympathy to the Minister of Finance.
Fie must feel in the very dregs of despair when his own protege, the chief Whip of the government, somebody who he has nurtured in his political career, has now broken free from the fetters and has said in an echo that is raised by all Canadians, that the attempt of the Minister of Finance to once again fool Canadians is a disgrace.
I also sympathize with the Minister of Finance because at the very last gasp of the Toiy years, he is being forced by his colleagues to engage in a dance of the seven veils to blow smoke, toot whistles, dance in gyrations to cover up the sorry record.
Unfortunately for the Minister of Finance, he cannot hide from the facts, facts that appear this morning in the report from Statistics Canada; not a think-tank which has been bought and paid for by the friends of the Tory party, but an objective analysis of what is happening in the economy.
May 4, 1993

What does it say? Perhaps it is the most chilling statistic that has been issued yet in a year of horrible bad news lor Canadians and is one of the most chilling reminders. It says that the net family income for families in Canada has dropped substantially and has been gone back to a level of over 15 years ago. Whatever happened to the notion of progress? Whatever happened to the notion that people could have some expectation that they and their children would have a better life?
Under Tory years, we have reduced the standard of living of Canadians and created a climate of uncertainty. The human face of these statistics is borne out in the fear and the uncertainty of unemployment.
Young people with good education are having to go home and live with their parents because there are no jobs out there for them. This weekend in my riding I bumped into a young man with a masters degree in engineering who sells lottery tickets part-time. It is the only job he can get. That is what we call building a new economy, taking a highly skilled, talented young man and putting him to work selling lottery tickets part-time.
The disgrace is seen in every city and town in Canada with the food banks that are there by necessity. What a horrible commentary we hear from the member who spoke out and keeps lambasting the food banks as if they were somehow a concoction of those who want to generate employment for themselves. In my city of Winnipeg, 10,000 people a week are fed by the food banks. Many of them were in the middle class only a few short years ago but have lost their jobs, lost their employment and because of the unravelling of the safety net have fallen through to hit bottom. Now their only recourse is to live on social assistance.
These people are looking for some answers and some solutions. They had hoped the budget would provide at least a blueprint that would set out some incentive to create employment and some incentive to create jobs.
Is it not fascinating that we are told as we watch the Conservative leadership race that we are now in the era of the new politics. Is it not interesting that the new politics does not include the unemployed. I have yet to hear one leadership candidate in the Conservative campaign talk about the fact that there are close to two million Canadians unemployed. The minister's own
Supply
figures predict that this tragic disaster which affects virtually every family in this country will continue for the next five years.
Have we heard one leadership candidate in the Conservative campaign talk about the enormous suffering, tragedy, anguish and pain that unemployment provides right across the board?


An hon. member:: No we have not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Not once have we heard it.
It is not just the budget that is a disgrace; it is the Conservative Party that is a disgrace because it refuses to recognize the harsh reality of what is taking place in this country.
We know what the agenda is. We heard it last week in Calgary. The minister of defence is now saying that the only solution to the health care problem is to apply user fees.


Mrs. Sparrow:: She did not say that.


Mr. McDermid:: She did not say that. That is not true. That is not what she said.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, she said it yesterday. "I am going to experiment with user fees". Is it not interesting that here we have a budget-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now listen to them. Now we have Conservatives across the way totally and completely rejecting the position of the minister of defence. They will have their opportunity. Vote against her. They will have every chance to tell her she is wrong. Vote against her.
The fact is that the budget should have been addressing the serious problems of our health care system. It should have been looking at ways in which we could provide restraints on costs and proper funding. There is not one word in the budget about the serious problems in our health care system. The only answer we get, the only way the minister of defence defines the problem is to make people pay more for it, to break the fundamental principle of it. She said in that twisted sense of principle: "I do not like user fees, but I am prepared to have them".

May 4, 1993
Supply
That reminds me of somebody who stands on one leg and hops to the other. This is the backward gymnastic verbal flip-flop of all time.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: No principles.


Lloyd Axworthy: The budget is a disgrace because it does not address unemployment. It does not address the health care costs. It does not even address what should be the great touchstone of Tory philosophy, how to deal with the deficit problem, how to come to grips with these costs. It just says business as usual and the only answer is cut back more.
There is a fundamental economic logic that somehow escapes the Minister of Finance and his colleagues. That is if you have a million and a half people unemployed, drawing down unemployment insurance at $19 billion a year, increasing and escalating welfare costs, increasing social costs, no revenue coming in, your deficit problem is not going to be solved. Deficit problems are solved by getting people back to work, generating income and revenue and tackling the problems in an innovative way.
We hear none of that. What we hear is the fantasy land prophecies of the Minister of Finance, of which we have had nine years of projections, every one of which has been wrong. However that was not good enough because the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment say that even the Minister of Finance is wrong and they can solve this deficit problem by slashing expenditures by 20 per cent or 30 per cent a year. This will bring our unemployment rate to 15 per cent or 20 per cent and we will have revolt in the streets. That is their solution to the economic crisis.
When I saw that picture of the Prime Minister in Disneyland with Mickey Mouse I realized where the Conservatives get their economic policies. They go to fantasy land to find them because they certainly do not consult anybody who has any economic good sense.


An hon. member:: I felt bad for Mickey Mouse.


Lloyd Axworthy: If they pay for their ticket to get in, Mickey has to consort with all kinds of people.
Let me just draw your attention to ways in which we could provide innovation. What is the government doing once again in the budget? Slashing regional development
funds, betraying the fundamental principle that the federal government has a responsibility to distribute economic opportunities fairly across the country.
What it ignored is the opportunity to have a brand new approach to regional development, to begin working with the regions at a new level of economic co-operation to bring about joint projects, to bring about savings by bringing down barriers and to have a combination of activities that would result in cost savings to government.
As some members of this House know, for the past two years I have been out promoting the notion of western economic co-operation so that we can find some ways of redeveloping the western economy to take advantage of the new opportunities in the Pacific and other areas. Along the way we said that we could generate a brand new level of economic activity.
The proof of that thesis, of that idea, is now seen in the numbers that were prepared by the Canada West Foundation, a very respectable group out west. It points out that if the federal government took the lead on regional co-operation, it could generate a dividend of $5 billion that would bring about a substantial reduction in our deficit. This would create 28,000 new jobs that would allow us in the health care field alone-listen to this. The Minister of National Defence wants to have user fees, but what we could be doing if we had joint procurement and rationalization of our health care system, according to the Canada West Foundation, is save $600 million, far more than anything that would be acquired by the user fee philosophy. It would be a way of creative government, smart administration, effective management and real leadership.
That is the problem with this budget and why it is a disgrace. There is no leadership, there is no creativity, there is no imagination, there is no political will to come up with answers that really meet the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes of questions or comments.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to both my colleagues when they spoke to the motion on the floor concerning the budget that was presented last week by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. It was interesting what they mentioned.
May 4, 1993

The budget that was delivered last week had $30.7 billion in cuts over the next five years, and that only listed cuts within the discretionary spending of the total fiscal budget of the federal government. The Minister of Finance did not touch any of what we call statutory spending, which includes the transfer payments. My colleague from Winnipeg mentioned a great deal with regard to health care through the leadership speeches.
It is quite interesting. The $30 billion comes out of the discretionary. Let us just take a look. The federal government transfers $41 billion to persons in this fiscal year. That figure includes OAS, which totals $20 billion, and UI benefits, which amount to $19.4 billion. That is $41 billion there. We transfer $26.4 billion to other levels of governments, the provinces. That totals $67.4 billion, which is about 63 per cent or 65 per cent of all our expenditures.
The message I am getting from people across Canada is: You did not cut enough, Mr. Minister of Finance. What he did is look at discretionary spending that this House has some flexibility on. We are not about to act unilaterally with regard to transfers to the provinces until he sits down with his colleagues on May 30 and 31 to discuss EPF, which includes health care and education. They will discuss CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, which looks after our social programs and they will discuss equalization.
Now 65 per cent of our budget goes out in transfer payments, and we are looking after the total social security system that has been in Canada for some time. This will be the next move.
I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg, with regard to making further cuts and making this country more economically viable and the fact that we must get our expenditures down, how would the member treat the provinces in the transfer payments?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is prepared to come to grips with re-priorizing her own government's spending priorities.
Maybe she could begin by making a direct appeal to her colleague, the minister of defence, to eliminate the helicopter program costing $5.8 billion which is designed
Supply
to buy a piece of equipment that is no longer required. Thereby, beginning this year we could save $300 million a year in commitments and contracts that are being signed.
Just think of the number of young people we could put back to work with that $300 million. We could reduce the unemployment rate of young people, which is now close to 20 per cent, in half if the government was prepared to spend that kind of money on them rather than buying equipment to chase Russian subs which are all docked up in port because they do not have the money or the fuel to go out to sea again.
If the member is really serious about looking at cuts that make sense, that really go to addressing real issues and real concerns, then how can she be part of a government that persists in buying outmoded, outdated, and obsolete military equipment at the same time that she is prepared to have 20 per cent of our young people unemployed?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to my hon. friend from Winnipeg.
As usual, he stands up and rants, raves and yells. When his points are not that well made he makes a lot of noise. He did not say one positive thing about what the Liberals would do.
I have to give credit to my friend from Willowdale. He had some ideas that are worth pursuing. However my hon. friend from Winnipeg stands up in this House and, as he has year after year ever since he got in opposition, rants, raves, and carries on.
First of all, I want to make a comment about his visit to Disneyland. Mickey Mouse spoke very highly of him when he took his son there. As a matter of fact, Mickey said he felt a real kindredship with the hon. member from Winnipeg. I do not know why he is knocking the Prime Minister for taking his young son to Disneyland. That does not make too much sense.
Let me comment on some of the things that my friend has said about the budget and about comments made by a couple of the candidates for the leadership of the party. First of all, this is a scurrilous motion that my hon. friend from Willowdale has brought forward. He is having some fun with the leadership and I understand that. If we were in opposition we would be doing the same thing. I understand what he is up to.

May 4, 1993
Supply
I also understand very much that the Liberals are very concerned about the leadership race. The Liberals are extremely concerned because they see they are going down in the polls, the Conservatives are coming up, and the NDP are disappearing off the map. It is going to be a race between the two old-line parties of Canada in the next election.
I understand their concern because the quality of the candidates the Progressive Conservatives are putting forward is wonderful. They are exemplary and will be fine candidates no matter which one becomes the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I have great faith in all of them. They are wonderful candidates and they will all make great Prime Ministers. I will be participating quite actively in this leadership convention.
My friend from Willowdale talked very eloquently about the importance of high-tech jobs in this country. He spoke of the importance of creating an opportunity for young people to obtain high-tech jobs and maintain them and so on.
Then my friend from Winnipeg got up and said: "Let us have a make-work project, throw money at municipalities for make-work projects but cancel the construction of the helicopters". He was talking about 30,000 jobs which the Liberal make-work projects would create. The helicopter purchase and construction in Canada will create 43,000 person-years of work. It is also going to provide our Armed Forces with a helicopter that can ily in very inclement weather when we must have them for search and rescue. Our country has the largest coastline in the world which must be covered to protect our fishermen and those who sail the seas. They need the best equipment.
The Liberals' plan is to take 35-year old helicopters and refurbish them for a five or ten-year period. Then they are going to have to do something with their 40-year old helicopters. This government is not prepared to put our Armed Forces, our service people in that kind of equipment. We are going to provide them with the best equipment.
The opposition called them sub hunters and that kind of thing. That is ridiculous. They are going to have state of the art equipment. By the way, this will be manufactured in Canada by Canadians. It will be assembled in Canada by Canadians. I want my friend to go down to Halifax and tell the aeronautical workers in Halifax that he is going to cancel that contract because they are going to be putting it together there. I know he does not care about that because it is a Tory stronghold so he can write that area off. I understand how the Liberals operate. I understand that is not a priority area for them. There are contracts being let across this country for this project. They do not say this contract for the helicopters is over a 13-year period. They fail to mention that the money is being spent over 13 years.
How can they take money and throw it at make-work projects, part-time jobs and not high-tech jobs? That is exactly what the Liberals are advocating. They are saying: "lake this money from the high-tech business and throw it at make-work projects". That is exactly what was proposed by those two speakers today.
My hon. friend from Willowdale stood up today and talked about this government's high interest and high dollar policies, and I have to give him full marks because he did it with a straight face. As he sat here in the House between 1980 and 1984 I saw him squirm a lot during that period of time.
The hon. member talked about this government's high interest and high dollar policies. I heard him talk about this and I heard him very clearly today. He was in the House when the Liberals raised interest rates to 23 per cent and when inflation was at 13 per cent. He has the gall to stand up in the House and claim the Progressive Conservative Party, the government and the Prime Minister, is a high interest rate, high dollar organization.
Where is our dollar now? Our dollar is at around 79 cents today. Where are our interest rates? We have the lowest interest rates in 30 years. Where is inflation? We have the lowest inflation in 20 or 30 years. Where are our mortgage rates? They are as low as we have seen them in 35 years.
That speaks volumes of the criticism the hon. member has put forward. He is just totally off base when he makes those accusations.
The next thing he proposes are national standards and testing. That is an interesting proposal. It is something that we have been looking at, especially in the field of
May 4, 1993

science because we want to encourage more and more of our young people to get into the sciences. His proposal on national standards and testing is an interesting one that should be pursued.
However, I will warn him about this because we have run into the same problem. The provinces are responsible for education and the provinces balk at this. They do not like the federal government horning in on their sphere of responsibility. There have been objections from the provinces on that issue.
I am not saying whether they are legitimate or not. I believe that a standard across Canada in a myriad of areas would help the economy. It would help apprentices because in some areas apprentices in Ontario do not qualify in Alberta or do not qualify in other provinces. A national standard there would be very good. National testing could also be all right. Again, it must be done in co-operation with our partners in Confederation, the provinces, because it is their responsibility. I agree with my hon. friend that it is an area we should co-operatively look at with the provinces.
The member also talked about literacy. The Liberal government cut out all literacy training many years ago, again because it felt that education was a provincial responsibility which it is. However I believe illiteracy is a national problem; I agree with my friend from Willow-dale. It is hurting us in the work place and it is hurting us economically across this country. The federal government does have a role to play in literacy and is playing it.
The hon. member says we are not spending enough money on literacy in this country. I agree whole-heartedly that we are not spending enough money on that. We are not spending enough money on a lot of things. However, at the same time there is one person that money comes from, and that is the taxpayer of the country. One taxpayer pays these taxes at all levels of government. In some areas there are five levels of government, in many there are four and in most there are three.
The taxpayers of Canada are saying to us: "Do not raise taxes, we have enough taxes". The opposition is saying the same thing. We are listening to the taxpayers. We did not raise any taxes in this budget nor did we create any new taxes. They are also saying: "Cut back on your spending".
Supply
Federal government spending is primarily a transfer of funds to other levels of government or to people. Therefore, when we examine the type of spending we do and the cuts that have to be made I believe that the Minister of Finance made a very responsible move both in his December financial statement and in the budget of 1993, which was a continuation of that statement. He made very, very difficult but necessary cuts in the expenditures of the Government of Canada.
Those cuts included cuts to the operating budgets of departments and cuts in defence spending. International assistance will be held to 1.5 per cent annual growth. Most grants and contributions to the myriad of organizations will be cut. Regional development funding has to be cut. Certain economic and regional development agreements will not be renewed. Operating subsidies to CBC and VIA will be reduced and so on.


Mr. Milliken:: All next year.


John Horton McDermid: No, no, this year, next year and the years following. The hon. member is saying next year. In the financial statement of December the Minister of Finance cut for this fiscal year. The hon. member has a good memory, but it is short. My friend from Kingston rolls in here every morning and sits and rants and raves all the time, but he never listens to the facts. I am just asking him to sit still while I give him the facts.
The two major areas of federal government spending have been exempted. We felt we had to do this. They have been exempted from cuts.


An hon. member:: Exempt.


John Horton McDermid: Exempted, do you want me to spell it for you? I will speak a little slower. Maybe then you will understand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You are not saying anything anyhow. You may as well speak slowly.


John Horton McDermid: The provincial governments are having trouble with their budgets as we are seeing from all the provincial budgets that are being brought down. They are having trouble with their rising deficits, so we are not restraining the transfer payments to the provincial governments in this budget. In the second grouping we have exempted old age and veterans pensions, job training measures, which we feel are very important, and we are

May 4, 1993
Supply
spending now some $3.8 billion in training and programs for the disabled and family relief.
Certain members opposite have a problem with these measures. They view them as a disgrace. Perhaps they should listen to the comments made by the International Monetary Fund's Michel Camdessus who was quoted in The Toronto Star last week. Referring to our efforts on the deficit, he said:
The last developments are positive, including the budget which was
announced two or three days ago-My impression is that there is a
very significant effort to take care of the public debt in Canada.
1 was encouraged to see that there is an agreement between the
central government and the provinces to work together on that-
That is rising provincial deficits:
- and to take measures together to bring that under control.
That is exactly what this budget does and tied in with the financial statement of the minister back in December 1992.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was your Whip who said it was a disgrace.


John Horton McDermid: I have sat in this House now for 14 years.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Too long.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member says too long and maybe he is right. I do not know. He is not going to have a chance to swing at me much longer, but maybe he is right. Maybe I have been here too long.
However this government over the last nine years has maintained the increase in spending at some 3.5 per cent. If my friend from Willowdale this morning would have had the same fire and fervour as when he talked to his brother when he was the premier of the province of Ontario who increased spending 10 per cent per year, year over year over the same period of time, we all might not have the same problems we have today. I say might, we might not.
We have gone through a recession that has been difficult on everybody, but the high spending of the Liberals in Ontario was followed by the high spending of the Liberals in Ottawa. The interesting thing is when they got defeated in Ottawa all those that ran the Liberal Party federally moved to Ontario to work with the
premier of the province of Ontario and carried their same spending habits to Ontario which put us somewhat behind the eight ball.
I heard them this morning talking about predictions. They were talking about all these terrible things that are going on in Canada. The predictions for Canada in the next two years are the best growth, the best job creation and the best economy of all the countries in the G-7. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is pretty impressive.


Mr. Bevilacqua:: The high unemployment rate, but it is not the highest.


John Horton McDermid: We will still have a high unemployment rate, but it is going down. Our work force is growing faster than other countries too. There are more people coming into the labour force in this country so we have to balance that off and the hon. member must understand that.


An hon. member:: He does not want to.


John Horton McDermid: No, he does not want to admit that. He does not want to admit that we have more people coming into the work force than other countries, which has an effect on that. If we had the same entrance rate as other countries, we would have the best unemployment rate as well. My hon. friend is totally wrong there.
I am not sure how much time I have left. I want to touch for a moment on health care because the Liberals are very worried about leadership candidates. They go after the minister of defence and they go after my friend, the Minister of the Environment, and so on.
After listening to my friend from Winnipeg today making wild claims about the minister of defence, I want to read exactly what she said because one of the questions in the leadership debates was: What do you do about user fees? I am quoting from Hansard, page 18739 of April 30. This is what she said:
"There are disagreements over user fees. You know I am of the school, so for medical programs I am of the school of Benoit Bouchard..I have talked to a lot of economists who specialize in this area and who do not think it is the most effective way." This is referring to user fees.
That is in solving the problems of health care.
May 4, 1993

"On the other hand it may be that provincial governments who
administer the programs would have some latitude to decide how they
are going to cover their costs. I want to sit down with the provinces
and talk about it."
What is wrong with that? All the provinces are running into spending problems.
Health care is important to this country and that is one of the reasons the Minister of Finance did not change transfer payments to the provinces which covers some of the health care costs. Canada spends the highest-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: We never cut transfers to the provinces. We never cut. It increased every year. We never cut. Our transfers to the provinces have increased every year so the hon. member is totally all wet. He must have been in Kingston Bay on the weekend. He is totally wet. The transfers to provinces have increased every year. He is totally wrong.
I just want to make one final point. In health care we spend the second highest per capita on health care in the world. I think most health ministers, most finance ministers, most governments, most people in the health care field say that more money is not the answer, but to administer our health care system better. That is what we in co-operation with the provinces will attempt to do over the coming years.
I want to say that I understand the Liberals' concern. I understand why they brought this debate forward. They are very concerned about our leadership candidates. I understand that. They will have a great time of it over the next few weeks. All I can say is enjoy it now because when the election comes there will be a new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and Prime Minister who will lead us to our third majority government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the minister. I was surprised that he did not touch on the small business community. He supported the minister's economic statement in December where the minister stated that this was the area where we had the greatest hope of new job creation.
The problem that I continue to have is with the Small Businesses Loans Act. We were given an undertaking by the government, by members of the cabinet, the Minister of Finance and others, that they would lean on the
Supply
financial institutions and make sure that they would aggressively promote and utilize the Small Businesses Loans Act. This is an act, for those who are listening, where the Government of Canada will guarantee 90 per cent of a loan given to small business if their business plan works and if they want to expand or grow their business.
I have two points that I want to make. Even though we try to promote this at our own riding levels and we are taking a very non-partisan approach to this, there are still tens of thousands of small businesses which are not aware of the act. I continue to hear day in and day out that the bankers are really not co-operating with the small business community on this.
My question is a very constructive one. What can be done to make sure that the Small Businesses Loans Act is not just a piece of legislation on a piece of paper but that it is actually working and that the bankers of Canada and the credit unions of Canada actually work with the small business community so that we create some hope and get people back to work?
Mr McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is genuinely concerned about the small business community as we are. The amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act were evidence of that. We have the lowest tax rate for small businesses I think of any countries in the G-7 and so we have great concerns for small businesses.
I want to tell my hon. friend that I personally have spoken to the Canadian Bankers Association in this regard to encourage it and to encourage its members. I have spoken to some of the bank presidents on this, one just recently. It is my understanding that two of them now have set up small business programs tied in with the Small Businesses Loans Act with very good rates for small business.
They still have to make the decisions as to who gets those loans and who does not. Some qualify I guess and some do not. That has always been the case. I am encouraged by what I am seeing from the banks now regarding small business. They now know of the programs. It will be a process as I understand it to educate their managers in the field to this particular program.


An hon. member:: It is not happening.

May 4, 1993
Supply


John Horton McDermid: I am sorry, but it is happening. It may not be in all banks but in two banks that I know of it is happening.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What are the two banks where this is happening?


John Horton McDermid: The Bank of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce both have small business programs. I can tell my hon. friend that in the competitiveness of the financial world I would imagine that the other banks will not be too far behind. That is what this is all about. That is why these amendments were brought in. I share the concern.
My hon. friend sits there and yaps away at me when I am on my feet. I am telling him right now that I have the same concerns that he does and we are working on it.


An hon. member:: Work harder.


John Horton McDermid: I believe that the banks are coming around on it as well.
The other thing that this government has done in changing the Financial Institutions Act is to permit trust companies to do commercial loaning as well. I think that is going to provide more competition as they set up their commercial lending activities which they now are permitted to do.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the focus of concern over this government's budget.
There seems to be a fixation in the country with deficit reduction. I say a fixation because I think it is once again the error of linear thinking. I would like to ask the member opposite a question. What demonstrated support is this government showing for the environmental deficit that this country is suffering?


John Horton McDermid: This government brought in one of the most comprehensive environmental programs which was universally praised by environmentalists. This program is being put in place.


An hon. member:: What have you been doing?


John Horton McDermid: What have we been doing? I can tell the hon. member that as a young person I spent a lot of time on our Great Lakes. I spent a lot of time for example at Lake Erie. The difference in Lake Erie today and what it was when I was kid is phenomenal. I can see
bottom again in areas where before I never could. The environment and the work that is being done by provincial and federal governments and municipalities is working.
My hon. friend talks about this fixation with deficit reduction. I am not sure whose side she is on. I am not sure if she is on her leader's side or Bob Rae's side or Steve Langdon's side or Roy Romanow's side or whose side. But the provincial governments also understand that deficit reduction is a priority, including the two NDP governments I mentioned, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
The Department of the Environment is paying its share by cutting back operational budgets. There is no question about it. Its funding has been cut back but the green plan funding is still very substantial and it is doing an excellent job. The secret of environmental spending by the federal government is to make sure it is multiplied many-fold by the private sector and that is exactly what is happening. For a few dollars spent by the federal government, the private sector is spending more and more. We are seeing our industries clean up.
The city of Sudbury, for example, is no longer the butt of jokes. It is a beautiful city. It has cleaned up its act tremendously and has done a marvellous job. We are seeing that everywhere in Canada. I am the first to admit we still have a long way to go but we will get there.
The Department of the Environment along with other departments has had to pay its share in keeping costs under control which the public has demanded. The Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and I did pre-budget consultations and that was the constant message from people of all walks of life. Whether it was handicapped associations, business organizations or social organizations they all understood that if we did not get deficits under control these programs they now enjoy, although being cut, might disappear entirely. They understand that and are supporting the deficit reduction of the federal government and I am sure they will be supporting the provincial governments as well.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member did not talk much about the motion. I can understand why he did not want
May 4, 1993

to mention the chief government Whip's statement about the budget being a disgrace.
I wonder if he would agree with a point I made in my speech on the budget the other day. I said the government is engaged in a bit of bookkeeping fraud with the public by deferring the payment of $600 million-odd in GST payments into the next financial year and claiming thereby to reduce the deficit. If he were a chartered accountant he would not recommend such a course to any of his clients.


John Horton McDermid: It is not a fraud at all and the hon. member knows full well that it is not designed to reduce the budget by lumping payments twice yearly. It is designed to cut back on the cost of administering the program.
The hon. member is criticizing a government that is trying to streamline the administration to get its costs of operating the government down. The same money is going to be spent on those people who are receiving GST rebates.
I might add that when the Liberals were in power they had a hidden manufacturers' sales tax which we inherited. The Liberals never gave one penny of rebate to the low income people in this country. The former minister of finance, now Minister of Industry, Science and Technology was the first to bring in a tax credit for low income people because of the sales tax. The Liberals never did it.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, we have a unique situation in the House today because we have a motion put by an opposition member that we agree with the chief government Whip. The chief government Whip has just described the government's budget as a disgrace. He is a highly respected member of the House, a highly respected Albertan and in Calgary on Friday he said that this budget is a disgrace.
I want to associate my party with the comments of the chief government Whip as well. I hope the Conservatives will get up with us later today and vote in accordance with what the chief government Whip has said in describing this budget as a disgrace.
It is a disgrace for many reasons. The chief government Whip is right. The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance does not have a plan. It does not have a vision about where this country is going to go. That is why this budget is a disgrace.
Supply
The Conservative government has pretty well destroyed this country economically if we look at the facts. Let us look at the facts here for a few minutes.
First of all we now have tens of thousands of people lined up at food banks every day because of what this government has done to our country's economy. Second, we have an unemployment rate in Canada of 11 per cent. Over 1.5 million Canadians are out of work. Another one million Canadians are underemployed. Many Canadians are on welfare because of the policies of the government across the way. The Whip is right. This budget is a disgrace.
Many farmers today are being forced off the land because the government made a promise for more farm aid and it has not fulfilled that promise to western farmers.
The government brought in a GST which has slowed down the economy and thrown people out of work. It brought in the free trade agreement that sold out our country, our sovereignty and our independence to make decisions in this country. The chief government Whip is right. This budget is a disgrace. It does not have a plan and it does not have a vision.
The last reason this budget is a disgrace, which is not something Conservatives like to talk about very much, is the whole question of the debt. We are now the most indebted country in the industrialized world.


John Horton McDermid: You have to include provincial debts.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Provincial debts as well.
Under the Conservative Party the debt has gone from $160 billion in 1984 to $458.6 billion today and the projections for the fiscal year 1993-94 are for $491.2 billion.
Those members are talking about fiscal responsibility and fiscal and monetary policy. That is like asking a chicken to vote for Colonel Saunders. There has never been a government in this country that has had such a sad and pathetic record in terms of managing our economy as the Conservative Party.
Maybe we should learn from history. Who brought us the Great Depression in the 1930s but the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Bennett? My grandfathers used to talk about the Bennett buggy in those days. They would take the motor out of the car, hitch up some poles to the front of it, put a horse in front and drive around. That is the legacy of the Conservative Party of the 1930s

May 4, 1993
Supply
and it is happening once again in the 1990s with the Conservative Party.
There are a number of things we can do about this kind of legacy. There may be some areas where there have to be some cutbacks in terms of oversizing of government agencies and departments. That is not the main way to go about debt control in this country.
There may also be some waste. I think of the millions of dollars spent on government advertising. There are millions of dollars spent on polling by the government across the way.
I ask my friend from Calgary whether she supports that kind of spending. Compare the spending on polling and advertising now to a government eight, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago and you will see a tremendous increase in polling and advertising by the federal government. I think that is wasteful.
The other problem is the question of priorities. Why spend $5.8 billion over 14 years on helicopters we do not need?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: We need them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We do not need to spend $5.8 billion on those helicopters today. That is a question of priorities. We can spend that money on job creation, economic development, training people, child care and things of that sort.


John Horton McDermid: That creates 43,000 jobs.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sure you create jobs. You create jobs by spending in certain areas like helicopters but you can create a lot more jobs by putting that money into a national child care program which was promised by the Conservative Party in 1988. It made a promise and broke the promise. It is on the record. That is the legacy of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Another reason we have a tremendous debt in this country is the whole question of interest rates.
For years the Conservative Party practised a tight money policy that kept our bank rate much higher than the bank rate in the United States. My friends across the way know that. For many years our bank rate for short
term interest rates in this country was 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent or even 5 per cent higher than the American bank rate. Because of that we have a tremendous deficit today that otherwise we would not have.
In fact a document was released at a press conference only a few minutes ago in this building. The government quotes Professor Ernie Stokes in the document who in a recent article in Canadian Business Economics said: "If we had a 2 per cent gap between Canadian short-term interest rates and U.S. short-term interest rates the projected federal deficit for 1993-94 would be $4 billion not $34 billion, a savings of some $30 billion".
The government across the way has deliberately had a high interest rate policy in this country which has driven up the cost of borrowing money and created a federal deficit that would not be there otherwise. As this professor said, if the bank rate in this country was kept within 2 per cent of the American bank rate, it would save money for the federal government as well as the provincial governments. The Canadian consumer would save money if the bank rate was lower. Farmers in my riding would save money if the bank rate was lower. People could borrow money, stay on their farms, buy machinery, expand small businesses, get mortgages, buy and renovate homes and pick up consumer loans.
The Conservative government has strangled and twisted the neck of the Canadian economy. As a result hundreds of thousands of people are out of work today. They would not be out of work if we had a bank rate that was even 2 per cent higher than that of the United States. It has done this deliberately in a desperate effort to fight inflation and keep up the value of the Canadian dollar.
No government since the 1930s has done as much to harm the Canadian economy as the government of the Prime Minister who sits across the way. As a result of the high interest rate policy, the GST and a government that is tightening the Canadian economy, we now have high unemployment in this country. Because of high unemployment we now have hundreds of thousands of people out of work who are drawing unemployment insurance and who are drawing welfare from the provincial governments paid for on a cost-sharing basis by the federal government. This is costing us billions of dollars a year.
May 4, 1993

On the other hand these people are not paying taxes. When people are unemployed they are not going to be paying taxes to the federal or provincial government. This is another reason we have a debt and a deficit problem in this country. It is because the government has driven hundreds of thousands of people onto the unemployment rolls with the misery that comes along with it. Its high interest rate policy and the GST have slowed down our economy. The debt and deficit problems have been created mainly by the Conservative Party that sits across the way.
The last reason we have debt and deficit problems in this country is because we have an unfair tax system. Our tax system is putting more and more of the burden on the middle and lower income people in Canada and reducing the tax burden for the wealthy. We should have serious tax reform where the tax loopholes are plugged and the $100,000 exemption for capital gains is eliminated except for people's residences and farms.
There is no reason that someone who makes $50,000 or $60,000 in the stock market should get a tax exemption for that capital gain. If we were to plug some of those loopholes the rich would pay their fair share and we would not have a debt and a deficit problem like we have today.
These are the facts which are being faced daily by the people of this country.


John Horton McDermid: Aren't you paying enough income tax?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have a story in the press today that says that family incomes have now dropped to 1976 levels. We are now going back to the past. It is back to the past. Average incomes are dropping year after year. It is now 1993 and we have income levels that are back at the rate of 1976. I say that is a disgrace. That is why the chief government Whip had the courage in Calgary to say that this budget by the federal government is nothing but a disgrace.
I encourage members of the House of Commons to stand up and vote overwhelmingly in favour of the chief government Whip's stand that this government is a disgrace.
Supply
Now what do we do? We have a tremendous human deficit as well. People are suffering because of the policies of the government across the way. We have people on welfare, people unemployed, people suffering emotional nervous breakdowns, children who are hungry, people living in poverty and people lined up at food banks. That is the legacy of the Conservative Party. That is the human deficit out there today. There is no vision, no direction and no dream about what this country could be in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
We need a government that will lay before the people a jobs plan to put people back to work. That has not been done. Instead we have been going in the opposite direction. In the budget the government is cutting back by $500 million a year, money going out from the federal government for regional development to places like Newfoundland and the Gaspesie. "Why cut back on regional development", asked the member for Calgary South.
Why does the Prime Minister, for example, not cancel his farewell tour of the world which is going to cost about $1 million of taxpayers' money to go and visit his friends in Paris, Moscow and London in a week or two? Why this extravagant spending by the government on a farewell tour by the Prime Minister? I remember a few weeks ago he jetted down to California to say goodbye to Ronald Reagan, Uncle Ronnie. He then went over to Dallas to try to see George Bush before flying on to Florida.
These are the things that cost money. They are not the kinds of examples we should be giving to the Canadian people: on one hand, extravagant spending by the government and the Prime Minister on his farewell tour and, on the other hand, saying to the people in Newfoundland and the Gaspesie: "We are going to cut back by $500 million in regional development because the government is broke".
It is a question of priorities. It is the same thing when it comes to farmers. There was a unilateral announcement in the budget that farmers will have another cutback in the Crow benefit of some 10 per cent in the next fiscal year unless they agree to change the method of payment. That is blackmail, that is bribery and if the farmers do not agree they will lose another $72 million next year. I

May 4, 1993
Supply
ask again: Is it not a question of priorities in how we put people back to work?
Another thing in the budget is the GST tax credit. This tax credit goes to the poorest people in our country. It is paid out four times a year, every three months, as agreed three years ago in legislation in the House. The government is going to change that and pay the tax credit to the poorest people not four times a year but twice a year. Do you know what it saves? It saves $7.5 million a year.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It is the same amount of money. It is called efficiency.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The government saves $7.5 million and the people get the same amount of money, but for the poor people who need a cheque every month or every three months it will now not come every three months but every six months. That is why the Whip is right when he says this budget is a disgrace. That is why members on every side should stand up with us in the opposition and say that this budget is a disgrace. It lacks in vision and lacks a plan as to where this country should be going into the year 2000.
We need a jobs plan. Our party said about two months ago, which the Liberal Party has still not said, that we do have a plan and a vision of how we can put the Canadian people back to work. Our leader announced this plan about two months ago. We are saying first of all that our government should be investing to build a stronger infrastructure in terms of transportation and communication. I also think of the sewage being dumped in lakes, rivers and streams in this country. I believe a lot of municipalities are dumping raw sewage into the waters of Canada.
These are the kinds of things we should be doing: investing in the infrastructure, building a stronger country and putting people to work. When people have jobs they pay taxes. They will be off unemployment insurance and welfare. That is something we should be doing and yet there is nothing at all in the budget about infrastructure.
Second, as a party we are saying that we should begin a national investment fund so that we have a pool of capital in which to make some equity investment into businesses, small businesses, co-operatives and different businesses across this country. That is something we are lacking today.
We are suggesting that this should be an investment fund that is funded not just by the federal government but by the provinces and the municipalities so that we have some kind of a national investment plan and a national investment fund where we can put Canadian entrepreneurs to work to create jobs and build a stronger Canada.
Third, what our leader said in this plan-and it is all in detail here if you want to have a copy, Mr. Speaker-is that we should start spending more money on research and development than we have in the past. In fact, looking at our figures and statistics, you will find that we spend less on research and development than almost any other industrialized country in the world.
We spend as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product about half of what the Japanese spend, half of what the Germans spend, half of what the French spend or the Swedes spend. Of course a large part of that is the private sector. One reason the private sector does not spend much in research and development is that so much of our economy is owned and controlled by foreigners and they do the research and development in the United States or elsewhere.
We are going to have to spend more in research and development. If we invest in research and development we will do the innovation in this country. We will create the goods and products that are now being created elsewhere and imported from the United States, Japan or western Europe.
We have to spend more money on training and retraining of our workers. Again, if you compare our country with western Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans, on a per capita basis we spend less money on training of our workers for the jobs that lie ahead and for the new technologies.
Finally, we have to say to the Canadian people what our party has said, that if we want to regain control of our economy, regain control of our country and the sovereignty, we need to make our own decisions, the time has come to abrogate the free trade agreement with the United States. I say to the member across the way, if she goes out and talks to the ordinary people in this country, they will say we should abrogate the trade deal. They agree that the government has sold out our independence, sold out our sovereignty and has given away too much for too little. You hear that when you talk to the Canadian people.
May 4, 1993

I do not know what the member from Calgary does when she goes out and talks to the people, whether she listens or not, but if she listens she will know that this is what the Canadian people are saying. That is one reason we have such high unemployment in Canada, particularly in Ontario. Every week, week after week, we have an announcement of a plant closing and moving to the United States.
Now the government wants to expand the free trade agreement to include Mexico with the North American free trade agreement, called NAFTA. Plants have already moved to the United States. Now plants will close here and move to Mexico where the job rates are very low, where environmental standards are basically nonexistent, where the social programs are very archaic compared to our programs.
The Conservatives are selling out our country; they are selling out our soul; and they are selling out our jobs. They are selling them out for a small price to the United States and pretty soon to Mexico. The time has come for our country to take control of its own destiny, to abrogate the free trade agreement, to not proceed with NAFTA, to come out in Parliament with a national plan of how to put Canadians back to work.
That is not happening in this budget. That is why the chief government Whip had the courage to get up in Calgary the other day and say that this budget is a disgrace. In my days in Parliament, it is not very often when a cabinet minister or chief government Whip will, a few days after a budget, get up and say: "I disagree with the budget, there is no vision here, there is no plan here and this budget indeed is a disgrace".
We have a chance to do things like no other country in the world. We have the resources and the people. We have a country that is blessed with many resources and great abilities to do great things in the 21st century. If we do not take control of our own country and set the priorities again where we have a national dream, where we have a national vision and where we work together east and west, we are going to lose this country entirely. So much of our country now is north and south.
No Prime Minister has changed this country as radically as the present Prime Minister and the government across the way through privatization, deregulation, free trade with the United States and now with Mexico and with the GST. The vision of the Conservative Party in terms of what this country should be is nothing more
Supply
than the Republican Party north. That is exactly where this party across the way stands.
Hugh Segal, the former chief of staff of the Prime Minister said: "In this party, the Conservative Party, we are all Mulroney Conservatives". It does not matter who the new leader is, a Conservative is a Conservative is a Conservative. Be it the Minister of Justice or the Minister of the Environment, it will be the same old policies with a new face. That is why the people this summer or next fall should say no to the Conservative Party and say yes to a new government in this country.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Saskatchewan and I can tell him that yes, I do listen to the people in the riding. I will tell him what they are telling me. It is that there should have been more cuts. Yes, we do have a vision of this country. It is a vision that will take us into the next century so we can compete globally. There have been major changes.
I want to get to the basics. There is only one taxpayer, whether that taxpayer is paying municipal taxes, provincial taxes or federal taxes. There are no new taxes within the finance minister's budget.
Also, over the five-year fiscal period, there are $30.7 billion worth of cuts. Those were done with regard to discretionary spending that the House has at its disposal. We did not touch the $67.4 billion going out in transfer payments to either people or to other levels of governments.
That is about 60 per cent to 65 per cent of all our budgetary expenditures. This takes into consideration OAS, UI benefit payments, EPF, CAP and equalization payments. They are a very important part of the social security system.
This government is not going to act unilaterally. We are going to work with our provincial counterparts and the people of Canada. In the finance minister's budget he said May 30 and 31 were the days that he would sit down with his colleagues in the provinces.
I have some questions for my friend from Saskatchewan. Where is the rebate for the Ontario sales tax, if he is complaining about the GST? He has a jobs plan within his party. Where is he going to receive the funds for that without increasing the taxes or the deficit?

May 4, 1993
Supply
Also, the hon. member wants an investment fund that is funded by the feds, the provinces and municipalities. They have to get the money from the taxpayer. The taxpayer has no more. He says he wants more money spent on R and D. Great, but we have one of the best tax credit systems in the western industrialized world. We need to get the private sector investing in that.
As far as free trade, I think if the hon. member would step one foot inside the province of Alberta he would realize since January 1, 1989 our exports to the United States have gone up by 48 per cent. I stand for free trade and I support the NAFTA.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is no surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Calgary Southwest supports NAFTA and supports the free trade agreement.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You bet, yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is no surprise whatsoever, but she does not reflect the Canadian people. The Canadian people think the government sold this country out.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That's not true, Lome.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Absolutely true in terms of the free trade agreement. If we look at any polling in this country today, we will find that the majority of the Canadian people are against NAFTA. They feel it is a further sell-out of our country.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is not true, Lome, and you know it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is a fair debate. In the election campaign we will have a debate about NAFTA and a debate about free trade and the Canadian people will make a decision.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: What is the matter with our exports?


Mr. Marchi:: Most of them are jobs, you are exporting jobs.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people believe they have been sold out. She asked where we will get the money from. There are some $70 billion sitting in family trusts in this country for the wealthiest of Canadian lamilies, $70 billion untaxed. It is going to be sitting there until the youngest child dies. If the government wants to get some extra money, how about taxing some of these family trusts?
If it wants some extra money, how about cancelling the $5.8 billion for helicopters that is going to be spent over the next 14 years? These are a couple of priorities that the government could change if it wanted to get extra cash.
Finally, if the government had had an interest rate policy in the last five or six years where interest rates were more in line with the American interest rate, we would have billions of dollars of extra cash in the coffers of the federal government.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the concerns and views of the member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. I think he was very effective in pointing out the deficiencies of the national economic strategy of the Conservative government.
He also touched a raw nerve. In essence he talked about the faltering Ontario economy. He talked about plants shutting down. He talked about the constant exporting of jobs from Ontario, which is the chief and major industrial belt in our country. When he says that he also has to know, as he surely does, that the Ontario government bears some kind of responsibility.
Not to exacerbate the debate that is going on in their caucus, and clearly that is going to be at the forefront of their special meeting with the emissaries from Premier Rae, I am just wondering if he could perhaps expand on his views in terms of whether the Ontario government is pursuing the type of factors that he wants the federal government to pursue in terms of stopping the economic bleeding in Ontario, and what kind of message he personally will bring to the two emissaries from Premier Rae when they meet tomorrow.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First, I am sure my friends in the Liberal Party of Ontario would agree with my answer, which is the reason there is a big problem in Ontario is that we have had a recession in this country. That is a major factor right there.
Second, there has been no province hit harder than Ontario with the consequence of the free trade agreement with the United States. Many plants have closed down or have moved south of the border. Ontario has been hit harder than any other province because the manufacturing base is in the province of Ontario.
May 4, 1993

Third, the federal government has cut back on the rate of increase for transfers to the provinces in terms of Established Programs Financing and other federal provincial programs. That has cost the province of Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars a year over what it was to receive.
I know in my own province of Saskatchewan, which is very small with a million people, the cutback on the increase in the amount of transfers has cost our province this fiscal year alone over $500 million in cash that our province would have received but we are not receiving now because of the cutback in the rate of increase of transfer payments to the provinces.
Those are the reasons. I wish the members across the way would open their eyes and look at reality. In the last four or five years we have had cutbacks in the rate of increase of transfers. The government acknowledges that. It has made things very difficult for many premiers; Premier Wells in Newfoundland, Premier Romanow in my province. It has affected British Columbia and Ontario also, although not as radically as some of the smaller provinces, but it has affected them as well.
Those are problems that are being faced now by the provinces, again as a result of policies of the federal government across the way.
Premier Rae in Ontario is doing the responsible thing. He is trying to handle this, he is trying to tackle this. He is saying, yes, he has got control of the deficit debt problem in his province. Do not forget that in the provinces over half the debt is held offshore, not by Canadians but by foreigners. Something has to be done about this otherwise more and more money will go out of the country.
At least Premier Rae in Ontario is sitting down with the public sector unions and trying to negotiate what must be done. In Newfoundland, Premier Wells did not do this. He just unilaterally said: 'Look, this is what we are going to do, like it or lump it". In Manitoba, Conservative Premier Gary Filmon announced one day that public servants in that province would be expected to take time off without pay. Again, that was not negotiated, it was not discussed with the public sector unions. At least in Ontario Premier Bob Rae is sitting down and talking to the public sector unions because those are the people who speak on behalf of public
Supply
servants. He is saying: "Look, we have a major problem in Ontario. Here are some ideas on what we think we should be doing about it. What do you think? Let us sit down and negotiate a social contract".
I say that in principle that is the thing to do. That is not what has been done by Premier Wells in Newfoundland or Premier McKenna in New Brunswick or, indeed, the Conservative premier Gary Filmon in the province of Manitoba.
When it comes to making tough decisions, the New Democratic Party sits down and negotiates with the ordinary people of this country in the tradition of Tommy Douglas and Allan Blakeney in my province, and that is exactly what Premier Rae is trying to do in Ontario and what Roy Romanow and Premier Harcourt have done in the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, part of the problem with Premier Rae is very much that he is not cut from the same cloth as Tommy Douglas and the others he pointed out. But that is for another day and another debate.
Today we debate a motion put forward by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Willowdale, who basically quoted that the chief government Whip essentially reflected popular Canadian wisdom about the budget when he classified it as a disgrace, which it is. Why is it a disgrace?
Essentially Canadians have been reduced to worrying about two issues in a profound way. One is keeping or obtaining a job. We know what the recession has done, we know what the government response has been. Therefore it does not bring any pleasure or sense of relief to that number one preoccupation because there are not enough jobs to go around and there are not enough jobs being created and stimulated.
Their second preoccupation is to try to maintain a semblance of accessible affordable medicare. That is the second major preoccupation when you really get down to brass tacks. When one of the leading candidates for the Conservative leadership, a member of Parliament from Vancouver, suggests that she would be in favour of user fees, think of what that does to working middle class families across the country.

May 4, 1993
Supply
This is just at a time when they are scared stiff about where the next job is going to come from, of where the next pay cheque is going to come from. Now they also have been given the plum of worrying that perhaps the next time they have to visit the doctor because their kids are sick they will on top of that preoccupation have to pay cash for that visit.
She talks about the politics of inclusion. That is none other than the politics of fear. At the very worst time Canadians are being saddled with unnecessary, unfair and mean-spirited solutions to very serious problems.
The budget was a disgrace because the budget essentially suggested that we stay the course. That is what it suggested. It said let us stay the course, as if that course is the right one, as if that course is working on behalf of Canadians.
Why do we not take a look at what defines that course? What is the picture that is being painted across the land after nine years of national Conservative rule? Reports in today's media about the average family income having been reduced to 1976 levels really tells the tale does it not? It suggests in a very profound way that people are working longer and harder for less.
That was the same message that President Clinton brought to the Americans when George Bush had blinkers on. One of his central premises was that Americans were working longer hours and harder, not only to stay the same but for less.
Today's report of the average family income is telling Canadians the same message. We are not ahead, we are not even the same. We are working for less.
What is that course, what is the face of that picture? The National Forum on Family Security really painted that picture yesterday when it talked about the decreasing economic vitality of the average Canadian family.
Look at that course. Since 1989, 450,000 full-time jobs have disappeared. The unemployment rate for Canadian youth is at 17 per cent. The proportion of Canadians living below the poverty line has increased over the decade by almost one million people, bringing the total number of Canadians living under the poverty line to 4.2 million.
Of those people living in poverty 1.1 million people are children. In terms of the same poverty rate among single
mothers caring for dependent children that has hit 62 per cent of all single parent, women led families. Tire number of Canadians on the welfare roll exceeds two million people, 40 per cent of whom are children.
They also talk about the age distribution, that the percentage of poor among younger Canadian families has increased from 21 per cent in the mid-1980s to almost 37 per cent. That is the course on which this government has steered this country.
.(1155)
When we talk about economic vitality, I look at my province of Ontario and my city of metropolitan Toronto. What is the course there?
Ontario has lost 225,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990, just during the period of the recession. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates that over half of those jobs will not be coming back when the economy rebounds.
Unemployment in Ontario last March, over 551,000 Ontarians unemployed; bankruptcies, 1992, 31,400 bankruptcies in Ontario, record number; 1.2 million Ontarians on welfare.
It is the same picture in metropolitan Toronto. Look at the homeless statistics. There are 50,000 people in Toronto classified as homeless. Fifty per cent of those people are under the age of 18. Welfare, 310,000 people in metropolitan Toronto alone are on welfare. Food banks, over 162,000 people depend on them on a regular basis.
Over 10 per cent of Toronto's population have used food banks at least once. Last year alone 75 million pounds of food were distributed, not to Biafrans or to any other needy human beings across the globe legitimately, but to Canadians through food banks, and this government has the unmitigated gall to give Canadians a budget that stays the course.
How irresponsible can a government be? It hides behind the deficit and debt situation. Yes, it is an issue and it is a concern. Yes, we must be fiscally responsible.
Clearly there is a need for a new course. Clearly there is a need for new solutions. Clearly there is a need for new ideas because the course that this government has brought us on is not a very enthusiastic course at all. Those statistics, unfortunately, paint a very dire picture
May 4, 1993

of human misery in different forms. Not to exaggerate, but there are a lot of Canadians that are hurting. They at least need some hope and some confidence that things will improve, that they will get better, that father John will have a job that they can tell their kids about, that they can hold on to their house.
This government tells us to stay the course. Does it really know what is going on in the country? More important, does it really care? What about a growth strategy? What about a job strategy? What about a strategy that will pick up our Canadian businesses again and create the dynamism that is there? What about shaking the banks a bit and saying: "If you are so entrepreneurial, where is the risk taking in small business?" What about a strategy that talks about putting people first and putting Canadians back to work?
They talk about staying the course. No wonder their chief government Whip said that the budget was a disgrace and he is absolutely right.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to my colleague's remarks with regard to the budget. I indeed was in Calgary on Friday night and heard the statement that he refers to and have also been in my riding, Calgary Southwest, in the last few days with regard to the budget. The message I am hearing is that there were not enough cuts.
My colleague mentions the unemployment level. It is too high in Canada. He mentions more people owning their homes. That is absolutely true. It is a good point. I hope he refers back to the December 2 economic statement of the finance minister wherein we extended the RRSP contributions to home owners. With regard to small business and the Small Businesses Loans Act amended a month or perhaps two months ago, the banks are now working with small businesses to create equity.
It has been very interesting. The $30.7 billion was cut through discretionaiy spending and we have to make more cuts. The best we can do for all Canadians, and more important for our children and grandchildren, is to get the deficit and debt off their backs.
Supply
The $30.7 billion in cuts over five years is not enough. Where else can we get it? Let us look at transfers. All the provinces are having extreme difficulties meeting their budget requirements without increasing taxes or deficits. We have another place in which to move and it happens to be with regard to transfer payments to people and to the provinces.
We have one taxpayer and we are going to balance the books. Where is he going to cut?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with dogmatic, neo-Conservative, economic fairyland. It is absolutely economically dishonest to suggest to Canadians that if we reduced the deficit as their candidates are saying, one in five years and one in four years, somehow our economy will be purring nicely again, people will return to work, and things will be happy forever and ever.
We need a balanced economic strategy. This member says: "We cut, cut, cut and we need to cut some more. On top of that, if you have a little more we will cut that too". That is a one-track economic tunnel vision that has painted the picture that is Canada 1993.
There is not one suggestion from the member saying: "Hold on, perhaps cutting is only one aspect". How do we expand an economy? How do we create more jobs? How do we create economic stimulus? How do we create economic confidence? They cannot only talk about cut, cut, cut as if that is the exclusive solution to getting the economy on its feet again, even if they slash every program.
What does that say about job creation? What does that say about small businesses? What does that say about bringing people off the welfare rolls or off the unemployment lines? If they are cutting so well how come the line-ups at the food banks are getting longer?
The minister of multiculturalism yesterday rose in his place in response to a question by the member for Mississauga East and said: "Do you know what? Our health care plan is better. We are taking care of the job situation and we have done more things to help the poor people than anybody else".

May 4, 1993
Supply
If that is the case why for the love of God are those line-ups getting longer in every municipality and city across the country? In other words average Canadians would ask themselves: "If things are so good why are they so bad".
The government hides and wants Canadians to believe that if it cuts, cuts, cuts only and exclusively and more on top of that, the economy will fix itself. That is wrong. It is economically dishonest to say such a thing.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to denounce a stand fast budget presented by the minister who does not dare to make waves for the leadership candidates. This long-awaited budget does nothing for the people of this country, nothing to revive the economy and above all it does not create jobs. But the ordinary people know that is not the way to manage a budget if you want to survive.
It seems that the minister has thrown in whatever he could to have something to present to the House. It is ridiculous. The best example of the government's pettiness may very well be in its plan to reduce the number of GST rebate cheques from four to two.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Shirley Maheu: Just a minute and I will explain it to hon.
members.
After deciding to compensate seniors and the poor for having to pay this unfair tax, the government is telling them that in order to save money it is reducing the number of cheques from four to two starting in January 1994. Was the Minister of Finance hoping that we would not catch on to the fact that if one GST rebate payment is sent in January and the other is in April the rebate of nearly half a billion dollars goes into the next fiscal year? By shifting the date of the rebate he is making the deficit only appear to improve.
We know he is doctoring the books to make the deficit picture look better. However it is only an illusion. We saw it for what it was: deceit yet again. Canadians will see this as well.

Since the Conservatives took office, the country has gone from bad to worse. We are in an unprecedented economic slump and it seems that the more the government tries to solve the problem the worse it gets. Maybe the government does not see the obvious or maybe it just does not have any idea of how to manage. If not, this is an excellent bluff.
The public debt and unemployment have become such everyday occurrences that Canadians despair of overcoming these problems some day. Every year when the budget is presented, the government promises economic recovery and job creation. Officially nearly three or four million unemployed are still waiting, not to mention those on welfare. These unemployed people, who just want to work, trusted a government which has really let them down. And what about all those on welfare and the homeless?
Is this what a healthy society should be? Is that what the government considers a sound economy?

The country cannot afford another Conservative government, a government that does not seem to know how to manage a budget and to get us out of the red, a government that is scared of cutting its own cabinet but expects everyone else to survive on less, a government that will not touch the MP pension plan and set an example of restraint. There are ways to find money here and there. Adding it up it could make a difference.
If the government were really serious about cutting the deficit, making real inroads into the deficit or the public debt, it would have looked into restructuring certain policies and programs that are outdated. If programs are fulfilling a mandate that is no longer required, then get rid of them. The needs of the public change. It is time for the government to be more responsive to this need for change.
We need an efficient and effective bureaucracy that helps Canadians. After nine years of Conservative government it is time for a real change. The government needs to put into place programs that will help Canadians get jobs. Every time the government says we have created so many jobs it forgets to mention that many more were lost, and this is forever, because of its economic mismanagement.
May 4, 1993



We have a very beautiful country with great resources and immense human potential.
Since the Conservative government came into power, everything has gone downhill. The resources are there but the human potential is disappearing for lack of encouragement and work. To what has the party in power led us? To cynicism and despair. Canadians wonder more and more if their troubles will ever end.
For decades the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out publicly to denounce an intolerable social situation. It happened again this year. The bishops blame the economic policies of the last decade. Unemployment is costly in every way, and unfortunately many people have passed the point of no return. The loss of human potential since the Conservatives took office cannot help but tarnish Canada's image, and this must change.
The finance minister's farewell budget is like his government; a government which certainly does not want to face its responsibilities; a government which certainly does not want to cut its own benefits but does not hesitate to cut the benefits of those who are in a bad spot; a government which Canadians will remember at the next election; a government which has had its last mandate for decades to come.
Canadians want a government of action and we in the Liberal Party are prepared to take over and get the country back on its feet.
[English ]


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from the Liberal Party mentioned that we need a managed budget in order to survive.
One thing the Minister of Finance did relatively well was control the spending cuts with regard to the economy of Canada. Over the last few years all the countries in the western industrialized world have been restructuring. Hindsight has 20/20 vision but if during the late 1970s and early 1980s Canada had restructured to meet competition at that point we would not have the problem we have today.
Supply
We certainly rested on our laurels, on that low Canadian dollar. Then up went the wages and we flatly could not compete, specifically with our biggest partner, the United States. Our wages increased by about 35 per cent to 40 per cent, but in reading the Financial Post this morning we are certainly getting that under way. This restructuring is going to prove very beneficial for the country.
I have a couple of points and a couple of questions for my colleague. She mentioned pensions of members of Parliament and asked why this government had not acted. I would just like to remind her that on February 8 the President of the Treasury Board announced a public inquiry through an actuarial firm to review the total compensation package. Thanks to my private member's bill on which I spent two years, the minister is saying that the total compensation package must be reviewed. I know she will want to participate in that as well.
As for restructuring and programs that no longer serve a need, I agree with the member. We could look at all levels of governments but let us just take our own House here. Perhaps we do not need as many departments and we do not need 38, 39 or 40 cabinet ministers. I totally agree. With regard to restructuring of the Public Service, we do need a strong Public Service to service Canadians across the country. Many Public Service positions have been cut and this particular budget will cut another 16,500 positions in the next five years.
I want to hear more about this because all of us realize that we must restructure government. Perhaps the member could inform me about some of the areas she feels could be merged or shut down.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southwest for her comment. I agree, 39 cabinet ministers and 39 parliamentary secretaries, 39 chauffeurs and 39 limousines-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Parliamentary secretaries?


Shirley Maheu: All right. Parliamentary secretaries do not have chauffeurs. They have taxi chits.
I cannot knock everything that is going on. When we say that restructuring will get us out of this mess, then where do we find the jobs? Where are the jobs going to be created with this type of restrictive budget?

May 4, 1993
Supply
We keep saying we are controlling spending, that we are cutting spending. We are only cutting the spending on the public's purse-string. We are not controlling the public that is spending, and I mean this House of Commons.
Consider the total loss of jobs in Canada. Fifteen per cent, or 319,000 jobs, have been lost in the manufacturing industry. To get things rolling again, to create jobs and get people back to work, where are we going to find these jobs? The manufacturing industry has gone. In that same period the United States only lost 7 per cent of its manufacturing jobs. So much for this north-south deal we are supposed to have.
I cannot help but agree with the chief government Whip when he says this budget is a disgrace. Indeed it is.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words today with respect to this opposition motion concerning the budget.
The motion and its wording could best be characterized as mischievous. It is an attempt to poke fun, an attempt to have some fun and games at the expense of one of the leadership candidates of our party.
The budget is a very serious matter and Canadians want to see it discussed in a very serious way. That is the way they want all of the business of this House to be treated. I was interested to note that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated publicly during the past few weeks that if he had the opportunity to form a government he would make sure that the business of Parliament, the business of the country was conducted in a very serious way.
I am surprised to find a motion of this sort, which is really a mischievous kind of a motion and one that does the Leader of the Opposition no credit.
The subject matter of the debate is the budget. I believe that the Minister of Finance got it right in this budget. He was right on when he said that Canadians want less government borrowing. They want lower taxes and they want more jobs.
In this budget the Minister of Finance did not lower taxes but he did not announce any new taxes or any tax increases. A year ago, in his budget of February 1992, he
actually lowered taxes. That is what Canadians want. As the parliamentary secretary said a short time ago, there is only one taxpayer in this country. Whether we are paying federal, provincial or municipal taxes it all comes out of the same pocket and the same person. Canadians want lower taxes.
The only Canadians who appear to not want lower taxes are those who run the Canadian Bond Rating Service. When they made their comments which respect to the budget and their credit ratings on Canadian government borrowing and financing they were asked what they would have proposed and they suggested that perhaps we should have had a 2 per cent increase in the GST.
I do not think that is representative of what Canadians want. What Canadians want is exactly what the Minister of Finance said: Lower taxes.
If we are going to get lower taxes it is important that all of the levels of government in this country, and in fact all Canadians, get together on this and do not act at cross purposes. Unfortunately that is the sort of thing that has been happening in this country and happening for too long.
We saw a prize example of that last year. One will remember that in the February 1992 federal budget the Minister of Finance cut personal income taxes by reducing the surtax from 5 per cent to 4 per cent effective July 1, 1992 and down to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1993.
He did this quite clearly to do the sorts of things that some of the opposition members have been talking about today. He was trying to put some more money in the hands of Canadians, have them spend that money, cause them to buy consumer goods and inspire the private sector to invest, expand and create some of those jobs.
What happened with that kind of a tax cut that was put into effect by the Minister of Finance in his 1992 budget, part of which took effect January 1 of this year? As one may remember, about two months after the federal budget the province of Ontario brought down its own budget. Ontario did not hold firm on taxes or lower taxes but in fact it raised the Ontario personal income tax surtax from 54.2 per cent to 55 per cent.
May 4, 1993

In fact it killed the job-creating stimulus that the Government of Canada provided in its 1992 budget and provided a counterproductive measure that was at cross purposes with the intention of the federal government and federal fiscal policy aimed at creating some jobs and getting the economy moving again.
All of this illustrates how important it is for us to get our act together federally, provincially, territorially and municipally. It is important then, as the Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget, that we get together with the provinces and territories and the federal government. We must sit down and work out a common strategy for dealing with the economy so we are not acting at cross purposes.
I was pleased to see that in the budget. I am optimistic that when everyone does get together we will be able to work out a common strategy. That kind of meeting is something that is being called for by all of the leadership candidates in the leadership race in our party including the chief government Whip. I am sure he would applaud this initiative on the part of the Minister of Finance to get together with the provincial and territorial treasurers in order to get our act together and stop acting at cross purposes to one another.
In the budget as well the Minister of Finance also said that Canadians want less government borrowing and he is right again. Canadians are yearning for the day when we are going to stop borrowing and stop having to borrow to pay interest on the national debt. In fact we are going to start paying down the national debt.
I am one who truly believes that Canadians understand we now have an operating surplus and that our revenues exceed the cost of program expenditures. In fact they have since 1985.
I am one who believes as well that Canadians understand the growth in the national debt since 1985 is entirely the result of compound interest on the national debt that we had in 1984 and 1985 when the government came to office in the first place.
While Canadians understand that, that is not good enough for Canadians. As we know and the hon. member who is trying to cause an uproar in the House knows as well, Canadians really want to see us start to pay down
Supply
the national debt. They want to see it actually going down.
Words, promises and forecasts are not really good enough any more. For Canadians, seeing is believing. That is what they want and that is what the Minister of Finance wants for sure. That is what we want and all Canadians want.
While Canadians understand all that and while we know that Canadians want that, we know that it is not quite as easy to achieve as snapping one's fingers or making a budget speech. In fact, it is easier said than done. You and I, Mr. Speaker, and a great many members of this House have been in this House now for some nine years or more. We have seen the difficulty that there is in cutting back on expenditures and not raising taxes in order to get at the root of the problem, eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt.
I wish it were simple. However, I have been here for nine years in this House and at least once in each of those years I have seen the Minister of Finance stand up and announce very substantial spending cuts. Every budget and every economic statement that has been pronounced in this House as long as I have been here, for nine years, has contained very substantial spending cuts.
However, in each of those nine years we know that our friends in the NDP over there have opposed each and every expenditure reduction. At the same time those members complained about the size of the deficit and at the same time complained about the size of the national debt. If the voting records of this House were examined for the last nine years we would see that the NDP had not supported one expenditure reduction in this House.
As well, each year for the past nine years while I have been here and when ministers of finance have brought down these spending cuts, the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, has opposed each and every one of those expenditure cuts. I have sat here dumbfounded as the votes took place, one after another, and listened to the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, getting up to vote against each and every cut that has been proposed and been put into effect by the government in the past nine years. Again, if the voting records were examined we would see that that is the case.

May 4, 1993
Supply
It has amazed me that at the same time these members voted against those expenditure reductions they stood up in Question Period and were critical of the government. They say that the national debt has multiplied twice while the government has been in office and while they have been voting against these expenditure cuts.
It is interesting, however, that at the same time they ignore the fact that while they were in office for the last substantial period of time the national debt did not go up twice but 10 or 11 times. However, we ignore those facts because that seems to be the nature of this place. We are not here to deal with trying to address problems seriously. We are here to try and score debating points. We are here to try to be partisan. We are here to be a government which is for everything and an opposition which is against everything.
There is another thing I have noticed in the last nine years. Almost every day for the last nine years I have been getting letters from Canadians. I recently received one from the president of the national downhill skiing association meaning the national alpine ski team. This is typical of the kind of letters that I have been getting almost every day for nine years. Recently I had a letter from every one of our national amateur sporting teams. I had a pile on my desk about a foot high as a result of these letters and they were all very similar.
This one is from Mr. James Miles who is the president of Alpine Canada. He says: "Dear Mr. Redway: As a taxpayer I am concerned about the deficit. As president of Alpine Canada I am concerned about the proposed cuts outlined in the Minister of Finance's mini budget. While I recognize the need for responsible government action, spending on sport and fitness is an investment that pays dividends. I urge you to support the effort to maintain the current levels of spending on Canada's sports programs".
That is typical. I am afraid that that is an example of why it is so very difficult and easier said than done to cut back on all these expenditures we hear about and that are complained about constantly.
In fact when I read an article in The Toronto Star on April 22 of this year by the national affairs columnist,
Carol Goar, it reminded me of this letter I just received from Mr. Miles from the national alpine ski team. The headline on that article stated that almost half a million dollars was being spent for the table tennis association. She has a great question mark on it. That certainly would cause a question mark in my mind. It quickly brought back the pleas of Mr. Miles and all of those young people involved in all these good activities across the country who are devastated by the fact that we would have to cut back on expenditures because of the deficit and the national debt.
In this article Carol Goar goes on to refer to a number of other examples. She refers to the Fur Institute of Canada for example, which is an organization that gets money from the Government of Canada to help promote the fur trade and the livelihood of native Canadians who are trappers and who are in peril of having their livelihood cut off as a result of the European fur ban which may go into effect in 1996.
That is the reason for support of that kind to the Fur Institute of Canada. I suspect one could imagine the concerns that would be raised if we cut that off. We would hear it from the people who are concerned, and rightly so, about natives in Davis Inlet who are isolated and have no economic resources and no basis for an economy. They would be wondering why we were destroying the only livelihood that these natives have. That is what money to the Fur Institute of Canada goes to assist. It is that sort of thing.
Ms. Goar refers as well to the Consumers' Association of Canada, the International Federation of Library Associations and the Planned Parenthood Federation. All of these are causes that I suspect a great many Canadians support and would be upset about if their funding was cut, as they have. I suspect that soon I will be getting letters like the one from the national alpine ski team referring to those kinds of cuts as well.
Ms. Goar also refers in this article to the Canadian Labour Congress getting a substantial amount of money. That I know because the Ontario Federation of Labour is in my riding. I know that that money goes to promote literacy in the work place. This is something that all members of this House would get very upset about if suddenly we cut it off, I suspect.
May 4, 1993

She refers to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Again we have heard already from the National Action Committee its concerns about having its funding cut.
I think it is significant in this article by Carol Goar that while she points out these examples there is nothing that specifically says to cut them off. This is because we know if we did cut them off that we would be hearing from The Toronto Star, from the rest of the media, from our friends in the NDP, from our friends in the Liberal Party and from Canadians right across the country. We would be hearing great cries of outrage and concern that we were an uncaring and unfeeling government.
I felt exactly the same way when I picked up The Globe and Mail on April 30. There is a long editorial entitled "The index of the indispensable". It then lists an awful lot of things where the Government of Canada pays out money. It goes mainly to a lot of businesses for job creation.
All of these items are just listed. They do not say to cut these all out. They do not say to eliminate all these items. In my view they do not say that for a very good reason. They want to leave the door open so if that ever happened they could turn the tables around and be just as critical for cutting it out as they were for spending it in the first place.
All of this brings to mind the problems that this government has had in trying to cut in the past. It brings to mind the fact that when we closed down a military base a few years ago we were accused of destroying the economy of a province. It brings to mind that when we reduced the subsidy to VIA Rail we were accused of destroying Canada's national dream. When we reduced the subsidy to the CBC we were accused of maintaining an assault on Canadian culture.
All of this to my mind just goes to point out how difficult it is to cut, even though people want cuts. It is because of that that we really need a mandate from the Canadian public. The Canadian public has to tell us for sure that it is not going to complain about cuts like cuts to these things that are the index of indispensability.
The Canadian public has to tell us that it is not going to complain about cuts to the Canadian alpine ski team, the Consumers' Association, the Federation of Libraries,
Supply
the Planned Parenthood Association or the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
That is what the candidates in our leadership race for the leader of our party and the next Prime Minister of Canada have been saying. In fact, one of them, the Minister of the Environment, has been indicating that what we really need in this country and what the next election must produce is a mandate to make these spending cuts that have been so difficult. They have been opposed by the NDP, the Liberals and many Canadians who will be hit specifically by those cuts.
I would like to go on and deal with the third point in the budget of the Minister of Finance, the need for jobs and the desire of Canadians for jobs but I see that my time is up. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to comment on that in the time for questions and comments.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it was with interest that I listened to the remarks of the government member who I know is a fair and reasonable person.
That is why I would like to address this question to him. We can recognize the need for savings and the ever-growing deficit that adds to the accumulated debt. It has increased the amount of revenues that go to pay the interest which is like a cancer that is really killing public programs.
There is a need for savings and there is a need to reduce the debt, to start saving money and reduce the amount that we pay in interest every year.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment. There are some studies that suggest that cuts in certain areas are counterproductive. For example, in Toronto a study was done called the Vanderhoof study. It looked at the budgets of arts groups. In fact it took 60 performing arts groups and calculated the effect of the cutbacks to the Canada Council.
The Canada Council was cut back. In turn, the Canada Council cut back on these performing groups. These performing groups are now putting out less production. They have laid people off. The study showed that the decrease in GST collected, the decrease in income tax paid, the increase in UIC payments and in welfare payments had a net result that the federal government was losing more money than the value of the cuts to the Canada Council.

May 4, 1993
Supply
Here you have a case of where the cuts are counterproductive. That might be true in several areas as well. Notwithstanding the fact that obviously money has to be saved, is it not true that intelligence has to be put into the deficit reduction exercise so that in those areas where cuts become counterproductive, as is the case in the arts and the cultural industry, the government should not proceed with cuts in those areas?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, certainly intelligence has to be used in cutting. Intelligence has to be used in the entire fiscal policy.
I believe that we need and Canadians want us to be producing some more jobs for them as well.
Fortunately some aspects of this budget can produce jobs. I would point out to the hon. member that in the budget the Minister of Finance has indicated there are to be tax changes to improve the treatment for rapidly depreciating new equipment, help business access new technologies and improve incentives for small innovative companies. He has also announced further infrastructure projects which will create another 15,000 person-years of employment.
All of those things are extremely important and necessary. The one big problem with the budget that everybody has focused on is that the forecasts may be suspect because in the past the forecasts were inaccurate. If we look at the forecast last year and compare it with the actual from last year, we will find that the actual program spending was $1 billion less than forecast last year. The actual money spent on paying interest on the national debt was $700 million less than was estimated in last year's budget.
The big problem was the whole revenue side of the picture that was down by some $9 billion. We have to get people working again so we can turn them into taxpayers and make sure we address that side of the equation.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member used the occasion not to answer my question but to give the last part of his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member attentively. He shares part of the community with me in Toronto and I want to ask him a specific question related to the General Motors van plant in Scarborough where many of his constituents and my constituents work.
This is the largest shutdown ever in our country of an automotive factory that has been making money. This factory made close to $2.2 billion in the last 10 years according to General Motors' numbers. It says it is one of the most efficient plants. Thirty-five hundred people are going to be out of work this Thursday. These men and women are skilled craftsmen which means they create spin-off jobs as well from suppliers that bring auto parts to this plant assembly.
They are going to be on unemployment insurance and eventually welfare. In one year the cost to the treasury just in disbursements for unemployment insurance and welfare not to mention health care costs and other costs will be anywhere from $500 million to $700 million.
Would it not be a better investment to sit down with General Motors and assist in bringing some newer technology to that plant? I understand from the Canadian auto workers that for approximately $200 million that plant could almost be state of the art. There is demand for the product and those people could go on working, paying taxes, supporting the restaurants, supporting the retailers and all the other things that happen in a community.
To my way of thinking it is better to spend $200 million of taxpayers' money on a high-tech plant that will keep people working, rather than shutting it down and paying out $700 million a year on UI. It all has to be paid by the same taxpayer.
Would the member address that, please?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the greatest sympathy for those who are affected by the shutdown of the van plant in Scarborough, no question about it.
It is not just those workers affected by this whom I have the greatest sympathy for. The hon. member shares a community with me and knows it had a terrible time in this recession. We have lost an enormous number of businesses and jobs. It is a general problem that relates
May 4, 1993

to the Scarborough van plant but certainly to many others as well.
I agree that we should be working with the employers involved to see if it is possible to put together some plan to save plants when they are in jeopardy. The hon. member will know that was done with de Havilland which was in exactly the same position. There were about
5.000	direct jobs involved at de Havilland and another
5.000	to 10,000 indirect jobs. The federal government and the Ontario government put together a plan which allowed de Havilland to survive and continue.
I hope the same kind of effort can be put forward in as many instances as possible by all levels of government and all Canadians. I applaud the hon. member for his suggestions. I watched him in the debate yesterday. He put forward some ideas on this and I think they are good ideas. That is what we need in this country. Rather than standing in this House battling each other on a partisan basis, I think we need to get our heads together and try to do something about the problems of this country.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, before I get into my main remarks I take it by the member's answer that he supports the view that a $200 million investment in a retrofitted plant that would continue to make money for General Motors and also keep all those people working is a much better investment than spending $700 million on UI and welfare.
This government will go down in the next election because in the name of deficit and debt reduction it has ground things to a halt. When we look over the books and records in the last nine years we see that between unemployment insurance and welfare charges we have disbursed Canadian taxpayers' money to the tune of about $165 billion.
There has been tremendous cost to the treasury. Almost 35 to 40 per cent of the total debt of the country was disbursed in the last nine years on UI and welfare. We have very little to show for that.
I know there is a global recession but I would much rather face taxpayers and say we spent $160 billion of their money during this global recession but we have a modern plant in Scarborough; a modern auto plant in Brampton; new infrastructure in terms of sewers and
Supply
roads; or we have done things with the environment to protect our most precious resource of all, our water.
I think that in the long run Canadians would much rather have an asset at the end of the period, even though they might have some debt, than have all this debt and over three million people sitting out there frustrated and broken-hearted who do not really feel any sense of hope.
The thing that really disturbed me about the Minister of Finance's latest budget was the fact that this is the government's last budget and he had one last chance at comprehensive tax reform. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was naive to think that the minister, for whom I have an infinite amount of respect was really going to take it on.
I am referring specifically to the idea that I have been putting forward for the last three and a half years in this House. It is the notion of comprehensive tax reform with the idea of a single rate of tax on the corporate side and the personal side where we would just flush out all the loopholes and tax preferences.
The government talks about cutting this program and that program and cutting grants but the biggest area in government expenditures is that of tax expenditures. Most of these tax expenditures go to multinational corporations. There are about $40 billion to $50 billion worth of tax grants buried there and the government did very little to address that particular area of tax grants.
This is what the people of Canada are crying out for. They are crying out for fairness in the tax system. They are crying out for efficiency. They are crying out for simplicity as well.
Maybe the government does not want to address an idea that was put forward by a Liberal. I have heard many members on that side of the House and the NDP express interest in the notion of comprehensive tax reform and a single tax but maybe the government feels it cannot go near that idea because it came from the opposition party.
Last Friday night I watched a portion of the Conservative leadership debate. The member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore, one of the leadership candidates, put forward the idea of comprehensive tax reform. He initiated this and said he supports the idea of a single tax

May 4, 1993
Supply
with an income assistance plan for people during job loss periods.
The member for Calgary North has been working on this idea for many years. In my latest householder on the single tax I give him credit for this idea because I think he is on the right track. The fact that he is a Conservative with a great idea does not bother me. But the point is that the leadership candidate from Etobicoke-Lake-shore put forward this idea in the debate.
I was amazed that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment who are both leadership candidates essentially supported the idea. Now how do we explain that when we are sitting here in the opposition and see that on television? We say: "Well if those leadership candidates are supporting this idea and they have access to the Minister of Finance, much better access than we have, and two of them are cabinet ministers, well then where were they in cabinet meetings?" Where were they when they said that the number one issue in this country, along with putting people back to work-and that is how we address the issue of deficit and debt reduction when people are paying taxes rather than being a cost to the Treasury-was the issue of comprehensive tax reform?
The leadership candidate from Etobicoke-Lakeshore initiated that idea and was followed by the environment minister and the defence minister. I was totally shocked because when the government Whip made the comment about this budget being a disgrace, emotionally I felt the same way when I heard that. During that debate the situation was almost hypocritical because two senior cabinet ministers who were leadership candidates were pushing and promoting this idea. Obviously the Minister of Finance walked away from it and walked away from something the people of Canada really wanted.
This government has really missed the boat. It has been so obsessed with the GST that the same thing is happening with it. It quotes the numbers that the GST is bringing in. It brings in $30 billion worth of gross revenue and it nets $15 billion. In other words it is supposed to have $15 billion which it contributes to the treasury, but the government does not calculate what Canadians have gone through in order to generate that $15 billion.
What I mean is that when it does its cost-benefit analysis-I do not believe it has done this-it does not put forward certain costs. It has not costed the paperwork for small businesses. It has not costed what it has done to the tourism industry which is our greatest job creator. It has not costed what it has done to our retail businesses, our food service businesses and our restaurant businesses. The government has not done any of that. One will find when one calculates all of those costs into the equation that the GST has done nothing for this country but break its spirit.
I believe the people of Canada are not going to be fooled three times. I think the people of Canada are wise to the fact that the tax policy of this government is not working. Look at the notion that one can dismantle a nation and cut and slash programs that create assets and dignity for people. There is the fact that the government has cut these programs and thinks that it is going to get away with this propaganda and illusion and make people believe that it is doing it for the good of the country.
I do not believe for a second that there is anyone over there who means to do ill to the country. I just really believe that government members do not have any idea how to manage it. That will be shown in the next election when the people of Canada have caught up with them.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join in such an important debate sponsored by my colleagues and to support the government Whip in his description of this budget as being a disgusting creation.
The debate comes at a very interesting time. Yesterday there was a press conference in town by a group working on family policy. Also yesterday the C.D. Howe Institute released the book The Partnership in Trouble talking about the difficulty in fiscal federalism that was not attacked at all by the Minister of Finance.
More important, Statistics Canada just released a new document called Income After Tax, Distributions by Size in Canada 1991. The previous speaker whom I would like to question knows full well the importance of income tax on individual families.
May 4, 1993

One will notice that the average family income after tax in 1991 was an estimated $42,612, which was down 2.6 per cent from 1990 after adjusting for inflation as measured by changes in the consumer price index. Real income after tax declined in the early 1980s, followed by a steady but modest growth between 1983-89.
The two years of decline in 1990-91 left after-tax income a full 4.3 per cent lower than in 1980. If one goes through the statistics more carefully one will notice that the range is amazing. If one forms part of an elderly family then one's rates can be as low as $30,000 compared to the average of $42,000. For female lone parent families it is $19,000. For elderly males or females living alone it is $19,000.
I have a very important question for my colleague about the importance of income tax. The point I would like to make and the question I would like to ask the member is this. In support of what he thinks about income tax is it not about time that the government addresses the impact of income taxes on family income?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The way to motivate people in terms of productivity today is through fairness. The only instrument that the national government has to touch everyone in this country is the tax act of Canada.
The current tax act is biased against the middle income earner. In other words, we can see the situation in this House where some people's incomes are over a million dollars and they are paying absolutely no tax. This is while a tax law is passed-we on this side of the House voted against it but the government brought in closure on it a couple of weeks ago-where family trusts in the billions of dollars have not been touched for 21 years.
Even though this was a Liberal initiative 21 years ago this government rammed it through for an indefinite period of time. When that kind of unfairness in the tax system is out there it affects people's spirits and it affects their attitudes in terms of the work place. When one multiplies that right across the country it has a devastating effect on productivity, profitability and everything else.
I believe passionately that if we are going to really address the notion of fairness then we are going to have to strip our tax system right down and go right back to basics. It is only when we have a transparent system where everyone is in the loop that we will once again
have a tax system that is fair to families and ultimately fair to everyone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1.01 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the Ottawa Food Bank's annual spring food drive accumulated over 8,200 bags of food for further distribution to the needy in the national capital region.
At the same time the Tory chair of the subcommittee on poverty suggested that people use food banks not because of need but for frivolous and selfish reasons. In the U.S. another legislator continues to send out a different message. Congressman Tony Hall, chairman of the select committee on hunger, endured a 23-day fast to protest the abolition of his committee.
It is not surprising that some politicians would like to close food banks. They are a constant and visible reminder of the existence of millions of Canadians who are jobless and dependent on charity and public assistance for their basic needs, a fact that makes all of us uncomfortable and conscious of the failure of traditional economic policies.
I prefer to stand with Tony Hall who strives to give voice to those who would otherwise not be heard thereby obliging policy makers to confront the reality of hunger at home as well as elsewhere.


PEACEKEEPERS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, following the incidents involving members of the Canadian forces in Somalia, General Gordon Reay, commander of the mobile force, blamed politicians and the media for passing judgment on the Canadian peacekeepers before the facts were known.

May 4, 1993
He said they tarnished the reputations of hundreds, even thousands of his troops, without a shred of evidence. He went on to say there were thousands of Canadian soldiers throughout the world who were doing a tremendous job, including the troops in Somalia. He hoped that people would remember this.
Instead of accusing individuals and making all kinds of assumptions about the situation, people should wait for the results of the investigations, which are carried out according to a rigorous procedure under the jurisdiction of the Judge Advocate General.
It is the responsibility of opposition members in the House of Commons to ask questions and to find out the facts. However, when there is no evidence, instead of making comments that give the impression the army is staggering under the weight of its problems, perhaps those Liberal and NDP members would care to go to Somalia and do the same kind of job in extremely dangerous conditions. I am anxious to hear from them.


HEALTH PROTECTION BRANCH
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, a new book by Montreal Gazette reporter Nicholas Regush suggests that Canada's Health Protection Branch has become the drug company protection branch.
Take Imitrex. Warned by scientists of its dangers bureaucrats nevertheless caved into the manufacturer's pressure and approved it quickly. As a result there was a new $70 million factory but there were also 70 people with serious drug side-effects.
Or take Halcion. Despite 450 cases of side-effects, including nine violent incidents, Health and Welfare Canada refused to remove it from the market. Then there is Toradol, from which six deaths resulted before Health and Welfare Canada got around to expressing concerns.
Lay-offs of drug evaluators, the closure of the natural products section and a more collaborative relationship with industry have been the Tory agenda. The message may be that yet other Meme transplant fiascos will be
the future order of the day unless the Health Protection Branch is allowed to return to its proper work of protecting not the drug companies but the Canadian people in need of care.


PENSIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, last week Alberta Premier Ralph Klein announced that he was scrapping pensions, including his own, for members of the legislative assembly elected since 1989. Yesterday Bob Rae agreed to review Ontario MLAs' pensions after PC leader Mike Harris called the plan a gravy train.
Why is this happening? It is happening because millions of Canadians share the views of Joan Taillon of St. Constant, Quebec who wrote me recently to say:
All these fancy frills were introduced during good times and today is not good times. We're broke! The well is dry! There ain't no more.
They also share the views of Robert J. Brown of North Vancouver who wrote me to say:
What makes many voters unhappy is the treatment of MPs as some privileged class who can make their own rules behind closed doors and decide whatever they want as long as it can be paid out of public funds.
When will the President of the Treasury Board review pensions of members of Parliament?


GREEK CIVILIZATION EXHIBIT
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the House the efforts of the city of Montreal, Mayor Jean Dore and the Societe du Palais de la Civilisation who have organized one of the most impressive art and archaeological displays on Greek civilization. It is called Greek Civilization: Macedonia Kingdom of Alexander the Great.
Such events enhance Canada's multicultural heritage and help us to understand the origins of the Hellenic community in Canada. Through Canadians of Greek origin we have a direct link to classical Greece, the cradle of western civilization.
May 4, 1993

I wish to commend Mayor Jean Dore and the Greek diplomatic representatives as well as the Societe du Palais de la Civilisation for all their hard work which has made this exhibition possible.


MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House today that the week of May 3 to 9 is Mental Health Week.
During this week the Canadian Mental Health Association sponsors events aimed at raising the public's awareness of the special difficulties of those who suffer from mental illness. It aims to reduce the stigma of mental illness and to encourage the acceptance of those who suffer from it. This year's slogan is: "Mental health is priceless".
The theme of the campaign is income security and how it relates to mental health. Although mental illness is not caused by poverty it does contribute to mental problems.
I invite all Canadians to support the Canadian Mental Health Association during Mental Health Week.

[ Translation ]


PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House are as happy as I am at the very good news that Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa has fully recovered his health.
Mr. Bourassa is playing a major role in the harmonious development of a modern Quebec. Often that role has not been easy, but he has always come back to his task with passion and enthusiasm.
We wish him a prompt recovery, since he seems to be in excellent health, and I think that under the circumstances it is appropriate to mention this happy turn of events for Quebec, a Quebec that is seeking a modern identity, a Quebec that wants its economy to be ready to meet the challenges of a modern society.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Forest Week, and the purpose of this annual event is to make all Canadians aware of the important role played by forest resources in our lives.
Today society is starting to realize how important our forests are to human beings and the environment. A year ago, the Canadian forestry community developed a new national forestry strategy based on sustained development.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that forests play a major role, not only in this country but throughout the world, in providing for the survival and prosperity of the people of this planet.
Canada was instrumental in formulating an international policy statement on forest conservation and sustained development at the UN Conference on the environment and Development, held in Brazil in June 1992.
National Forest Week is a time to reflect on these achievements and to prepare for future challenges.
sfc *	*


ENVIRONMENT
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Maurice Strong, chair of Ontario Hydro, former chair of the earth summit in Rio and founder of the United Nations Environment Program, expressed his grave concern with this government's course of action.
Mr. Strong was particularly disappointed by the recent cuts to foreign aid and the current restructuring of CIDA, calling it a fundamental mistake.
He was also critical of this government's lack of action in meeting its commitment to a cap on 1990 levels of C02 by the year 2000, commitments made under the international climate change convention.
I have repeatedly called upon this government to explain the difference between what it says it will do and what it actually delivers. Yet this government continues to place all Canadians at peril.
Let me quote Mr. Strong. He says:

May 4, 1993
If we continue on our present course, life as we know it will not
survive the 21st century.
I advise the members opposite to sit up and take heed of that sage prediction.


CHILDREN
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4,1992 the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced the Brighter Futures program, a five-year $2.6 billion initiative to address the conditions of risk that threaten the health and well-being of children.
The new child tax benefit, which represents an increase of $2.1 billion in federal government assistance to families over the next five years, began in January 1993.
Negotiations are under way with provincial and territorial governments to expand prevention, intervention and health promotion efforts for children and their families in high-risk communities.
A memorandum of understanding has already been signed in Nova Scotia and we expect that agreements will be signed in all provinces in the near future.
Close to 30 other programs which deal with such issues as childhood cancer control, missing children, healthy babies and strengthening families have and will continue to address the needs of Canadian families with children.
* sfc *


NEWFOUNDLAND ELECTION
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the morning after feels mighty good, if one is a Liberal.
Yesterday's election victory is a great tribute to Clyde Wells' leadership and to his team, including the thousands of Liberal workers who delivered the vote. It speaks volumes for voter horse sense, which chose competence over bungling, vision over fuzziness and realism over fantasy.
There was plenty of fantasy. The NDP dreamed aloud about getting 30 seats. It got one.
The Tories promised gain without pain. Our own federal minister of fisheries did his bit by having one of
the candidates announce a fisheries aid project before it was ready and by issuing a gag order to his officials to prevent them from telling the truth about phantom wharf projects.
Newfoundlanders did not swallow the Tory bait. Canadian voters will not swallow the Tory bait. One down and one to go.


FOOD BANKS
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that people abuse food banks or that people who use food banks are free-loaders. I have never attacked food bank employees or volunteers.
I agree with food banks that we should eliminate the need for food banks. They are humiliating and degrading to some people and inaccessible to others, such as the disabled, seniors and women with small children. They are a poor way to deliver basic social services.
In those provinces where welfare is insufficient to cover basic needs it should be increased. Where welfare is sufficient the emphasis should be on programs that help people to help themselves.
A bag of food lasts a day. Learning how to cook and shop thriftily and eat more nutritionally can bestow a lifetime of savings and better health.
The subcommittee on poverty is considering recommending new poverty measures that will help us to evaluate whether welfare is adequate and whether government programs and economic changes are helping or hurting the poor.
It is my hope that one of the uses of these measures will be to focus attention on those families in Canada who must depend on charity to meet basic needs.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CULTURAL EDUCATION CENTRES
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, recent federal government cuts in spending are threatening the very existence of important First Nations programs like those that deal with culture.
May 4, 1993

Cuts to the National Association of Cultural Education Centres will affect the operations of the national organization and its 72 centres across Canada. One of the centres hardest hit is the one in Saskatchewan which serves all First Nations people in my province from its office in Saskatoon.
The First Nations cultural program has been serving aboriginal people since 1972. It began because of the recognition that culture is an integral part of learning. This is so important that the national association is promoting legislation that would protect and safeguard the cultural interests of First Nations people.
I support this important and decentralized initiative which delivers programs dealing with culture, language, history and heritage to people at the local level. I condemn the federal government for cutting the funding which makes this possible.


ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies is a federation of 21 community based groups dedicated to the provision of programs and services to women in the criminal justice system.
At the national level the society works toward longterm law reform and social change. It is also committed to providing increased opportunities for federally sentenced women to speak so that their voices are not silenced.
The majority of women in conflict with the law has experienced various forms of violence: physical, psychological and/or sexual. Many have experienced racism and poverty. This violence is peqretuated by a system which all too often works against the needs of women. The separation from family and inadequate legal representation are but two examples. The result is further disem-powerment of women and lack of healing.
The aim of Elizabeth Fry Week is to raise public awareness of the situation of women in the criminal justice system. Greater awareness will in turn encourage greater exploration of alternative ideas to end the cycles of violence which further victimize women involved in the criminal justice system.
We salute Elizabeth Fry Week.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

But before doing that, I would like to join the hon. member for Saint-Denis who noted with satisfaction, like all members of this House, that the Premier of Quebec has largely won his big battle with cancer.

We have learned today that Statistics Canada has confirmed that for all families in Canada income has gone down 4.8 per cent since 1989.
Last week the Minister of Finance painted a rosy picture of the future, but I would like to know from him when they will come forth with some policies that will give the middle class of Canada a break. Over the last four years, because of the wrong economic policies of this government, those who are working very hard to make a living in Canada have lost substantially. When will this government introduce some real policies that will give some hope to hard-working Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we have been in a world-wide recession which Canada has not escaped. It has certainly taken its toll on the economy and on a number of individual Canadians.
I remind the hon. member that during the 1981-82 recession when he was in government family income fell by about 6 per cent. This is not an unusual occurrence but, as is noted in the Statistics Canada release, government cash transfers to individual families have increased from 7.9 per cent in 1980 to 12 per cent in 1991 which means, for example, that low income families with the lowest average income in 1991 saw their incomes rise from $5,535 to $16,316.
I should say as well that in the 1992 budget we put in place a child benefit program which is providing some $2.1 billion in family assistance over a five-year period to low and middle income families. As well, I did provide a reduction in personal income tax. The combination of

May 4, 1993
Oral Questions
these two measures have infused $1.7 billion into the economy.
While I acknowledge the point that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made, I think it is quite obvious the government has responded very positively.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a report of the National Forum on Family Security clearly states that the situation in Canada has deteriorated steadily in recent years and that the gap between rich and poor has not narrowed but actually widened.
When will the Minister of Finance understand that to give Canadians a chance, the only valid social policy at this time is job creation, because there is no better social policy than putting Canadians back to work? When will the Minister of Finance understand that unless we have a job-creation policy in this country there will be more misery instead of less?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my hon. friend when he says that the best social security is to have a job. That is precisely what we are trying to do: create the environment and put in place fundamentals that will allow the economy to grow and will allow jobs to be created.
Quite frankly, based upon the December 1992 statement plus the budget, we have taken a number of initiatives to stimulate and reactivate the small business sector, to provide more funding for training and skills upgrading and retraining and to provide moneys in a joint provincial-federal cost shared program on infrastructure. Those are the things that are now being transformed into action and jobs are being created.
I remind my hon. friend that as of last month 48,000 new jobs have been created since August and 202,000 full-time jobs have been created. In the last three months we have had GDP growth of 4 per cent. That is pretty positive. It is the best in the G-7.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Minister of Finance
finds some satisfaction when a week ago he predicted that the level of unemployment would remain at 11 per cent not only this year but next year.
Now that he is talking about creation of jobs, why does the Minister of Finance stubbornly refuse to take advantage of what the municipalities and the provinces are asking at this time? They would be willing to put in two-thirds of the money if this government would put one-third of the money into developing infrastructure in all the municipalities of Canada to create jobs right away for people who want to earn a living, and not a year from now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that Canada is not alone. Four of the G-7 countries have double digit unemployment. He may be interested in knowing that the IMF and the OECD have indicated that Canada's employment growth will be 2.3 per cent this year and 2.6 per cent next year. As a matter of fact, since November our employment growth has been in the order of 2.8 per cent.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: That does not make it right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says: "Why don't we borrow some more money and go deeper into debt?"


Mr. Fontana:: We never said that.


Mr. Harb:: He never said that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is exactly what he is saying. Quite frankly there is only one taxpayer. The federal government would have to borrow the money. The provincial governments would have to borrow the money. The municipalities would have to borrow the money. We are trying a pay as you go basis where we are cutting expenditures. We are stimulating and bolstering the economy so that it will create jobs and long-term durable growth.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, no wonder Canada could not maintain its triple a rating with this triple f government.
Statistics Canada reveals that Tory Canada has three classes of citizens: the rich, the not yet poor and the forgotten poor. In the recession middle class families lost three times as much of their income as did high income families, the kinds of people who benefit from this
May 4, 1993

government's $600 million tax break on private trust funds.
Will the Minister of Finance explain why he wore new soles on budget day but presented an indecent proposal that caters only to the well-heeled?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while I note on an ongoing basis that members opposite do not rule out the possibility of tax increases to fund their grandiose schemes and policies, we are of the opinion that in order to deal with the deficit we must rearrange our priorities and reallocate spending in those particular areas that will provide productive investment, that will generate wealth and generate jobs, and that is precisely what we are doing.
We have tried and we continue to try to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
When the Minister for International Trade was the Minister of Finance he brought forward tax reform proposals that provided for some 850,000 low income Canadians being removed from the tax rolls, 250,000 of whom were seniors. A further nine out of ten Canadians aged 65 and over saw their federal tax reduced. That is clear evidence of the commitment we have made to seniors and those on lower incomes.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. Canadians are tired of being forced to play the crying game with this government.
According to the national forum on family security, after nine long years of Tory torture the only thing that has trickled down are the incomes of the middle class.

After nine years of an oppressive Conservative government, there is no hope and no future for the middle class and the next generation.
Middle class families are confronted with a Conservative regime that has done nothing in terms of employment for Canadians. I ask the Minister of Finance why he does not consider middle class Canadians as a priority on the government's agenda. Why does the minister take pleasure in creating a modern version of Les Miserablesl
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my hon. friend's question. The premise was totally false and the facts used are confusing to say the least.
I would draw my friend's attention to a recent study published by the University of Chicago, which I will quote for her.


Sergio Marchi: Not that again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "Not that again". It is an analysis that might interest my hon. friend inasmuch as it responds to her question.
It states: "Canada spends two to three times as much per person as the United States on programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance. By leaning against the wind Canada has managed to lower poverty rates during the decade when slow economic growth and structural economic change has made it exceedingly difficult. If the United States had adopted Canada's welfare policies during the last decade it would have avoided the trend of rising child poverty that Canada has managed to avoid so successfully".


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I want to join with the others in saying how delighted we were this morning when we heard that the premier of Quebec had made such great progress in his fight against cancer.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, universal health care in Canada is a sacred trust. My question for the Prime Minister this afternoon is based on the C.D. Howe Institute report which says that the federal government should abandon its role in medicare and let the provinces dictate the health care services they provide.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that when his government took office in 1984 the federal government was funding 43 per cent of health care and that by the end of this decade it will be reduced to less than 23 per cent of health care?

May 4, 1993
Oral Questions
Does the Prime Minister not agree that what the C.D. Howe Institute is advocating today the federal government has been doing since it took office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, transfers to provinces have over the last nine years been increased on an average of about 5.2 per cent a year.


An hon. member:: Not for medicare.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Transfers to provinces have been increased on an average of 5.2 per cent which now greatly exceeds the rate of inflation. Transfers to provinces exceed in large measure the amounts of rates of increase in program expenditures and management exercises in Ottawa.


An hon. member:: By a long shot.


Martin Brian Mulroney: By a very considerable long shot. That indicates not only our philosophy but our willingness to actively support vital programs such as medicare.
I suppose I have a small question for my hon. friend. When he began by saying in his prefatory remark that he spoke on behalf of his colleagues, is that a statement that binds all his caucus?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that in a press release the other day Ernst and Young, looking at the financial situation of the province of British Columbia, said: "Because of the federal cutbacks to the cost shared programs it will cost $1,200 for every household in the province this year alone".
The Prime Minister is aware that by 1996-97 for the province of Quebec, cash transfers will have all gone. By the year 2009, cash transfers to the provinces for health care will be zero..
Will the Prime Minister not admit that when cash transfers are zero it will be impossible for the government to ensure that the National Health Act can be enforced?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend forgets a very small matter. Tax points are cash. Transfers take place in cash and tax points. He has just neglected a very significant part of the equation.
No wonder NDP members are having trouble with their economic policy. No wonder the economic spokesman has resigned or been fired. In point of fact, since 1984-85 total transfers to provinces, EPF, equalization and CAP have gone from $25.6 billion to $40.4 billion. That is a very significant increase which reflects almost a 5.5 per cent increase every year.
How the money is used when it is received by some provinces is a different kettle of fish. If they insist on giving employees, for example, in the past, wages of 12 per cent and 15 per cent, as has been done in some jurisdictions, then they do not have enough money left over to fund medicare the way it should have been.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if the government continues along these lines in reducing cash transfers to the provinces, the government's ability to control and ensure that medicare is available in every province in Canada will be eliminated. That is the reality.
My question is very specific. The Minister of National Defence has suggested that we ought to test user fees now with the provinces. Unfortunately even the Leader of the Official Opposition on Sunday did not come out clearly against user fees.
Will the Prime Minister now stand in his place and make clear for the Canadian public that his government will never impose user fees on the health care system in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend about the Leader of the Opposition. I have been reading his interview with Mike Duffy and I never thought that I would live long enough to say this, but Duffy was a model of clarity compared to the answers.
I agree with my hon. friend there is a very worrisome policy shift developing in the Liberals because the Leader of the Opposition appears to be saying now, and he can well check the transcripts again, he is not necessarily against user fees. This raises a very serious question because it represents a policy shift for the Liberals.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre: Table it. Don't play these dirty games.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre asked me to table it. Please may I read it before I table it? I can assure you it does not get any clearer, Lloyd. I will be delighted to table it. I can assure
May 4, 1993

you that in the next election campaign this will become an historic document.
With regard to the question of my hon. friend, there has been no change whatsoever in government policy nor do we contemplate one.


THE FAMILY
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will be happy to know that for clarity and clarification, when the Prime Minister reads that transcript very carefully, our leader says not once, not twice but seven times, no to user fees.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the National Forum on Family Security severely condemned the government yesterday for having absolutely no strategy to deal with the plight of families. He will also know that Statistics Canada released yesterday the fact that for the average single parent family headed by a woman, the average income after taxes is $19,000. It has dropped $2,000 in real terms in the last decade.
When will the government, after nine years of doing absolutely nothing to help the family, recognize the dilemma it has created and begin to act with a coherent social and economic plan to help Canadian families?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows full well that, for example, with regard to the tax changes and government initiatives to help children and low income families, the government and the minister of health have moved in a very significant way. I think my hon. friend from time to time has had the occasion to compliment the minister on the nature of some of those policies.
While everything is not perfect, there have been some significant and important changes-as the University of Chicago study reveals-in favour of families and in favour of giving more equality of opportunity to low income families.
Oral Questions
My hon. friend says that we have misunderstood or distorted the transcript in regard to this very important question about user fees and poor families. It is very important for poor families.
The question from Mr. Duffy to Mr. Chretien was: "Will you allow the provinces as Prime Minister to have some form of user fees? Chretien: There it depends on what they want to do".
Next question: "You are saying you don't want them? Are you saying as Prime Minister you would not allow them? Chretien: "I don't intend to allow them." Aha.
Question No. 3: "Mr. Duffy: You won't say as Prime Minister 'I will not allow user fees'. Chretien: I don't want to have user fees, but the real problem-I don't want to have them but the real problem is nobody has defined exactly what they are".
People have defined exactly what they are, and you had better make up your mind whether you are for or you are against. That is the issue.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. This party would be very happy to start the campaign on the question of medicare. For 26 years this party has stood up and defended the principle of universality.
I would like to remind the Prime Minister when he checks yesterday's Hansard he will find that his minister sitting beside him refused to defend medicare as a sacred trust. Read it.
My supplementary question is this. Every member in the House has received phone calls from constituents who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who are in a near panic about the economic plight they are in. Yet last week the budget made absolutely no mention at all of the economic plight of Canadian families.
I ask the Prime Minister again, when is the government going to put together a plan to help Canadian families survive their economic strife?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows full well that the delivery of these programs is already in train and is beginning to have-after a difficult recession it is true-beneficial effects.

May 4, 1993
Oral Questions
No one has suggested that perfection has been achieved. There are very significant advances and these are being widely acknowledged by the IMF and the OECD.
My hon. friend refers to the commitment of his party and others some 26 years ago. I ask him to reflect on this statement:

"Quebec has enough private insurance companies that could probably provide a better service than the government and do so far more cheaply."


An hon. member:: Who said that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition's new right hand man, Camil Samson, when he was in the Quebec National Assembly.


David Walker: It's not working.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
His government has consistently maintained that Canada's hungry really are not hungry and that Canada's poor really are not poor and that all these individuals are nothing more than "freeloaders".
Given that documented trends now indicate very clearly that significant numbers of middle class families are now falling victim to the ravages of poverty, how can this government possibly defend a stay the course economic agenda when so many working and middle class Canadians are crying out for changes and improvements to their economic realities? When will the Prime Minister stop quoting us studies from Chicago and actually do something for Canadians?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, because of the structural change within our society over the last few years a lot of people are suffering. This is one reason why over the last few years we have developed many programs. Let me emphasize a few.
One program has to do with the child tax benefit that the finance minister introduced January 1 which is based
on net family income. It is targeted at those really in need.
The Brighter Futures program, which is $500 million, went right to the people who need it, specifically natives and young people. We have drug abuse programs and family violence programs. The family means a great deal to us and it means a great deal to our society in Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Prime Minister who seems very content and comfortable with the situation in this country.

The number of young Canadian families whose incomes recently fell below the poverty line has almost doubled in the past 10 years. Is this government at all concerned about the fact that the country's future generation is increasingly losing the battle against poverty? How does the Prime Minister and his government intend to reverse this very dangerous trend?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone on this side of the House is comfortable when we have people in poverty.
What we have done specifically is target our programs at those people who are in need. I mentioned two or three of the programs.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: You are missing the target by a long shot.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I also have to mention the finance minister's budget which was brought down last week. It deliberately exempted transfer payments and assistance to aboriginal people who are very much in need.
We do not give up on the family. In fact that is exactly why the finance minister exempted those, to protect them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my friend the hon. Minister of Finance.
We heard today that family incomes on the average have dropped to 1976 levels. The average family now is about $2,000 poorer than it was about 10 years ago. To top it off, since 1990 the average drop in income per family has been minus 2.6 per cent except for the top 20 per cent at minus 1.2 per cent.
May 4, 1993

I want to ask the Minister of Finance why we have government policies that are hitting the poorest 20 per cent of Canadian people much harder than the wealthiest 20 per cent of Canadian people, who are his friends. Why policies that penalize the poor?
Hon. Don Ma/.ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend would know, I am sure, that real average family incomes grew by 9 per cent over the period 1985-90. Almost all family types in all regions experienced this increase. Particularly there was a very major increase in incomes for women.
I indicated earlier that we have gone through a long and difficult recession and obviously that has had an effect. As the Statistics Canada release noted, government cash transfers have increased from 7.8 per cent to 12 per cent.
As my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare observed, we have restructured a number of programs to zero in on the low income people, particularly the low income people who are working, the working poor.
I think if the hon. member were to look at that again, he would find that under the provisions of the child benefit package that was introduced on January 1, 1993 there is a very significant improvement in targeting income support for the working poor and those with moderate incomes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is very moving because Statistics Canada said that families have been hard hit in the last 10 years and that we are all poorer, especially the poor of this country.
I want to ask the minister why an increasing tax burden has been put on the poor people of Canada. From 1982 to 1990 income tax increases for the poorest 20 per cent of people in this country went up by 232 per cent. During the same period the richest 20 per cent had increases of 82 per cent.
Why is there this discrepancy: 232 per cent for the poor, 82 per cent for the rich? I know that Tory times are tough times, but why penalize the poor and support his wealthy friends? We want to know the answer to that question.
Hon. Don Ma/.ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's observations are totally inaccurate. As I indicated earlier, through tax reform 850,000 low income Canadians were taken off the tax rolls, 250,000 of those were senior
Oral Questions
citizens and 9 out of 10 Canadians who were 65 years of age and over in fact saw their taxes reduced.
I should also point out, in contrast to what the hon. member suggests, those with total income less than $20,000 declined to 15.8 per cent from 18.6 per cent in 1985, totally contrary to what the hon. member is suggesting.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday General Motors is going to close the doors to its very profitable van plant located in my riding of Scarborough West and relocate its operations to Flint, Michigan. This will result in a loss of jobs for 3,000 highly skilled auto workers, affecting thousands of families and causing more job losses in related industries.
I ask the Minister of Finance exactly which elements of his stale budget, the flawed free trade agreement and his government's failed economic plan will help these 3,000 workers and the families that his government pretends to care about.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend looks at the experience that we have had in the automotive sector, he will see that Canada has increased its share of the production in the automotive sector over the course of the past 10 years.


Sergio Marchi: What is Chicago doing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That does not take away from the fact that these people in Scarborough and in some other parts of the automotive sector have lost their jobs, but over-all in the industry we have increased employment, we have increased production and we have increased our share of the productive capacity in this country.

May 4, 1993
Oral Questions


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Thanks for the auto pact.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
We in Scarborough are losing 3,000 skilled jobs and a valuable facility which has earned General Motors a net profit of about $2 billion over the last 10 years. This highly skilled work force is now being disbanded and liquidated and decent hard working families are now being devastated by this plant closure.
I ask the minister of employment: Why did the government permit this tragic economic loss to occur?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to mention that in December 1991 GM announced its plans to retire 74,000 employees in all of its operations.
How did we cope with the situation at Scarborough? It was by working as a department along with the province of Ontario, GM and the Canadian automobile workers to establish an industrial adjustment committee which is in place. It is there to help those workers and the work is ongoing.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: They want a job, not a handout.


Bernard Valcourt: These people affected can benefit from all programs that are in place at the federal level, at the provincial level and work with the union in order to help these workers retrain and have access to other jobs.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister should be aware that since 1985 the Challenge Program for youth has had its budget slashed by more than one-half, from $205 million in 1985 to $101 million for 1993. The youth minister talks about a $5.1 million increase this year for SEED, summer employment initiative, yet what he does not say is that in rural Canada SEED budgets have been slashed dramatically.
Why is the minister discriminating against unemployed youth in rural Canada? Why is he cutting the budgets for rural youth?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again this is totally ignoring the facts. The facts are that the workings of the SEED program were changed this season. They were changed in two ways.
First, in Ontario the budget for SEED was increased by $2.2 million to $28.5 million. That is one change. It was continued in the budget. The other change is this summer there will be more emphasis placed on urban centres because of the employment situation in cities across Canada.
When you look at the level of unemployment in the cities for youth along with the rural areas, you come to the conclusion that rural areas were getting an unfair share of the funds. To re-establish balance and equity we have increased the amount for urban centres.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk the unemployment rate is 21 per cent. The unemployment rate is well above the national average. The minister should check his statistics.
The Prime Minister should be aware that one-third of street kids in urban centres come from rural Canada. Therefore, cutting funds to SEED in rural areas only encourages youth to leave their communities for cities. This only compounds these problems in the cities.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment today in this House to restore this funding to rural Canada and to give the rural youth the much needed hope that they deserve?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in these times of fiscal restraint when the government is cutting expenditures the hon. member is not telling his colleagues in the House and all Canadians that this program, instead of being cut, has been increased.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Take it or leave it for rural Canada.


Bernard Valcourt: Under the job creation program for students more Canadian students will be working this summer than last summer. Moreover, with the economy rebounding the private sector will create more jobs for students, thanks to the policies of the Minister of Finance.
May 4, 1993


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In a report published yesterday Statistics Canada revealed that in the past 10 years the average family income in Canada dropped nearly $2,000 in constant dollars. However, although the Canadian family is getting poorer, the minister had the nerve to bring down a budget without a single measure to boost the economy.
Does the minister realize that doing nothing about this substantial drop in Canadian family income is irresponsible? Has his government's apathy affected the minister to the point that he is now resigned to throw in the towel?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question once before. As I indicated, real family incomes grew by 9 per cent between the period 1985 to 1990. This growth has occurred in all regions and across all levels.


Mr. Benjamin:: You mean StatsCan is lying?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact, while we have come through a difficult recession, a difficult economic setback, much of this has been compensated for by the increase in the level of government transfers to individual Canadians from roughly 8 per cent to 12 per cent. That has helped cushion that blow.
The hon. member is quite well aware that when you have these kinds of setbacks, the automatic stabilizers kick in and provide that sort of comfort to Canadians.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to hide behind the figures, but the fact remains that in Montreal alone, 700,000 people are living below the poverty line.
The minister cannot hide the fact that across Canada, one child out of five is living in poverty. And Canadians will not forget a statement in yesterday's report that says a lot about the failure of Canadian federalism: in Quebec, the average family income is $4,000 below the
Oral Questions
Canadian average. Could the minister tell the House what he intends to do to correct the injustice perpetrated by Canadian federalism on the people of Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, now we are getting to the point. Now we are not talking about political options or economics. Now we are talking about blaming Canadian federalism. What do they do in France in a recession? Who do they blame?


Bernard Valcourt: The English.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And in England who do they blame? Germany is also going through one of the worst recessions ever. My point is that international trends are having an impact on all countries, including Canada. However, I thought the hon. member would have been interested in some very important facts like the number of full-time jobs which increased by 48,000 in February.
When we talk about people on low and fixed incomes, the inflation rate is an important point. Inflation eats away at the purchasing power of people on fixed incomes and the poor. Today, the rate of inflation is down to 1.5 per cent, the lowest in 30 years.
Mortgage rates are at their lowest levels in 35 years. For instance, on a $75,000 mortgage the average taxpayer will save $3,300 annually. Those are important results that help the average citizen and, with all due respect for the hon. member, I think Canada can take the credit. The IMF and the OECD have just stated Canada will rank first in the world, and I think we can all be proud of that, including the hon. member.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of trade.
News reports say that GATT has issued a ruling on the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States that bonds imposed by Americans were contrary to GATT. If this is the case, can the minister confirm to the House how much of the $15 million in bonds U.S. authorities owe Canada have been returned

May 4, 1993
Oral Questions
which the minister said on December 9 he would aggressively pursue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has pointed out, this is a decision that has just been handed down. The position of the Government of Canada continues to be that we will pursue this as aggressively as possible to ensure that 100 per cent of those bonds will be returned.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly appreciate the minister's hard and diligent work in getting our money back.
My supplementary is the following. This Thursday another decision is expected on the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. U.S. lumber lobby representatives have already said that they will challenge any ruling that goes against them. If they lose the challenge they will lobby to change American law to keep Canadian lumber out of U.S. markets.
Will the minister admit that the free trade agreement has done nothing to guarantee access to U.S. markets for Canadian products? Will he admit that it is time to scrap the agreement now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us go back to square one here. How did that particular decision get taken by the GAIT panel? Because the Government of Canada took the issue aggressively to the GATT panel we got the decision that came out.
The other point that my hon. friend says is that there has been no access to the United States market under the free trade agreement. Where did that 13.5 per cent increase in exports last year come from in a period of slow economy in the United States? Did it just develop out of fresh air? Did it just happen?
It happened because there was a reduction in tariffs. As tariffs on our Canadian products going into the United States market go down, whereas tariffs to other country's products stay the same, we get an advantage. What have Canadians done to take advantage of that advantage that comes from access to the United States market? Under the free trade agreement we increased our exports-


Mr. Speaker:: I do want to move on.


FORESTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. In last week's federal budget, the government announced that it would not renew the regional economic development agreement for forestry.
Can the minister tell us today if the $200-million Canada-Quebec forestry development agreement will be maintained until 1996 in Quebec?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give my colleague that assurance. It is true that the budget, as I said yesterday, made a provision that the FRDAs will be phased out over the duration of the present agreements.
In the case of the province of Quebec this agreement has another three and a half years to run and $76 million of the $150 million which was allocated to agreements with Quebec is still to be spent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister about the situation in Bosnia.
The Canadian ambassador to Washington has said that Canada opposes any air strikes. At the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that no military option had been ruled out. Yesterday we had the Prime Minister saying that we are prepared to consider an additional number of troop commitments in Bosnia, but the minister of defence in Calgary on Friday said that no new commitments can be made unless there is new investment in defence spending, but we have reduced the number of ground forces by 35 per cent.
I think the Prime Minister will recognize that these are serious contradictions. I would like to ask the Prime Minister before he leaves on his European tour if he will make a very clear statement in the House on the position of Canada in Bosnia, the mandate of the troops and the resources we would use. Surely Canadians and Parlia-
May 4, 1993

merit have a right to know what our position is before any further commitments are made.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, they would indeed be serious contradictions if the statements were as related by my hon. friend. Let me just take the statement he imputed to our ambassador to the United States. He did not say that.


Mrs. Finestone:: What did he say?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Read it and see what he said.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have read what he said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Read the transcript. He did not say what my hon. friend has just imputed to him, as a result of which it is difficult to follow the rest of the logic.
There have been consistencies throughout our position, although I acknowledge to my hon. friend the situation in Bosnia is very fluid because of events that transpired in Athens at a moment when the United Nations was seeking ratification of that, looking for a vote within hours, that might mean the end for the moment or perhaps for a longer period of time to hostilities, while at the same time the United States was initiating its own policy in respect to action that might take place should Vance-Owen fail in Athens. Because of the time frames it was extremely delicate and difficult to take definitive positions.
I did however convey to both the President of the United States when he called me Saturday and to the Secretary General of the United Nations that our priority was the well-being of our men and women in Bosnia at the moment and that we wanted to make absolutely certain that any change in that mandate wherein Canadians would be affected would take place only pursuant to a new resolution brought to and approved by the Security Council of the United Nations.
I told the President of the United States and I told the Secretary General very carefully that our priority was precisely that and I obtained from them the assurance that those provisions I think I made on behalf of all Canadians would be fully respected.
Point of Order


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale - High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I will abbreviate my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Should an offensive military action become necessary, Canadians and our UN peacekeeping forces want to know if our forces will become part of this offensive action or will the UN peacekeeping troops be pulled out for their own safety?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is, as my hon. friend knows, a completely hypothetical question and I think it would be imprudent to answer it at this point because what we are hoping for is that our presence there at the moment, and we have one of the largest forces in the world on the ground in the former Yugoslavia, will help to persuade the recalcitrants to sign Vance-Owen and precede the beginnings of an embryonic peace.
For me to speculate on what might happen should it fall apart and will we then be part of a military action would, I think, be counterproductive.


POINT OF ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made it a point as a matter of courtesy to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if she would be here in the House today. She assured me she would be.
I am informed by a reliable source that the minister was advised that it would be better if she was not in the House today.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a point of order. I cannot go into what discussion took place. The hon. member will have to pursue it in another way.


WAYS AND MEANS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a Notice of Ways and Means

May 4, 1993
Tributes
Motion to amend the Income Tax Act and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.


POINT OF ORDER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, further to the question of the hon. member from Winnipeg, I am pleased to table the transcript of the interview which took place last Sunday, I think, between the Leader of the Opposition and Mike Duffy.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


THE LATE COLIN BENNETT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished Canadian who passed away late last week. The Hon. Colin Bennett made an outstanding contribution to Canada as a parliamentarian, as a judge and as a respected business leader.
Colin Bennett was born in 1908 in the town of Meaford, Ontario where he attended public school before graduating with a degree in political economy trom Victoria College at the University of Toronto in 1931. After attending Osgoode Hall Law School he was called to the bar in 1936 and he returned to Meaford to practise with the law firm of Albery and Bennett.
A veteran of the Second World War, he served in the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1941 to 1945 and retired with the rank of group captain.
Colin Bennett was first elected to this House as the Liberal member of Parliament for Grey North in 1949.
He sought election after many years of public service including the time that he spent as town clerk and solicitor, as chairman of the board of stewards of Meaford United Church, as manager of the Meaford Intermediate Baseball Team, as president of the Meaford Curling Club, as a master in the Masonic Lodge, as secretary of the Meaford Chamber of Commerce and as a member of the board of Meaford Hospital.
My colleague for Bruce-Grey and I are very privileged to follow such an outstanding individual as representatives in this House for Grey County. During his time in this House he was Canada's representative on the Legal Committee and alternate delegate to the General Assembly at the United Nations in Paris in 1951. He served as Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1953 and was appointed as a Queen's Counsel in 1956.
After serving eight years in the House of Commons, Mr. Bennett left Parliament before the 1957 election when he was appointed to the bench at the County Court of Grey County. He went on to become Chief Judge of the County and District Courts of Ontario and was the first chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board where he was active as an arbiter and conciliator in labour disputes.
He also was a leading member of the business community when, after resigning from the bench in 1974, he served as president and later as honorary chairman of the Victoria and Grey Trust Company, now known as National Trust.
I am hard pressed to think of anyone who gave so tirelessly to his community and to his country as did Colin Bennett. He represents everything that is good about this country and set a very high standard for those of us who followed him in this House.
His accomplishments in public life, while extraordinary, were not his greatest achievement. His role as a husband, father and grandfather is what gave him the most pride and satisfaction. He is survived by his wife, Fern, and the three children, Cynthia, Laurence and Mary Ellen.
It is to them that I would like to not only pass on the sincere condolences of this House and of the people of Grey County, but rather I would like to thank them for giving him the personal and family support that allowed him to make such an extraordinary contribution to this community and to Canada.
Colin Bennett will be greatly missed.

May 4, 1993


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute from this side of the House to a former member of this House, Colin Emerson Bennett.
He was born in Grey County, Meaford, Ontario, attended the public and high schools there, the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall. He was called to the bar in 1936 and practised law in Meaford on his graduation. He served this country with the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1941 to 1945 and attained the rank of group captain. In 1949 he was elected to this House for Grey North and he was re-elected in 1953. From 1953 to 1957 he served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On April 15, 1957 he was appointed judge in the County Court of the County of Grey in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Bennett was popular as a politician and a judge. As a judge he was witty but meticulously fair. In the early 1960s he was promoted to chief judge for Ontario. In the early 1970s upon leaving the bench he was made chief executive officer for Victoria and Grey Trust. In 1982 he was made honorary chairman of the board.
Colin Bennett will be missed by his family including his grandchildren. I extend to them our condolences from this side of the House. Colin Bennett spent a lifetime serving his community, amateur sports, his county and his country. His contribution has made Canada a better place for all of us.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to join my colleagues in offering the condolences of myself and my party to the family of Colin Bennett, a member who served Canada, served Canadians and served his riding.
Clearly, from everything that has been said by the two members who spoke previously, he was one of those Canadians who stood out among his peers. We should all be thankful for his service to Canada and his community.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Peterson (p. 18849).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the sitting was suspended for lunch, the Liberal Party still had up to 10 minutes left.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to stand in the House to address some of the key issues of the day in the name of the people of Sudbury.
I have to say I fully support the motion on the floor today. This budget is an absolute disgrace. I am appalled that the government in power would use its power for political purposes the way it has and that this particular Minister of Finance, this particular government and this particular cabinet would agree to send out the kind of messages they have sent regarding the debt and the deficit. They led the Canadian people and the bond rating agencies into believing we were in an absolute crisis situation. They present a budget which does nothing more than play around with the figures. They try to make themselves look like they are doing things when they have really done nothing except cause more pain for the poorest people of our country.
The cuts they proposed were cuts that were already on the books, at least most of them. One major cut was the $636 million deferral of payments to the poorest of the poor who receive a GST rebate. They will have to wait an additional three months for cheques to save this government $7 million in administration fees. At the same time we have an outgoing Prime Minister who is willing to spend over $1 million of Canadian taxpayers' money to go on a tour around the world.
It is unconscionable that a government, if it takes the issues of debt and deficit seriously, would allow the leader of its party to spend the amount of money that will be spent over the next few weeks to play with the feelings of Canadians. To pretend that it has nothing to

May 4, 1993
Supply
do with the serious debt and deficit problems we are facing is an absolute sham. This is the same government that pursued high interest and high dollar policies. It insisted inflation was the monster that had to be killed and at the same time caused our debt to increase because of its own high interest rate policies.


An hon. member:: Misplaced policies.


Diane Marleau: Misplaced. It brought down a budget which caused the Canadian bond rating agency to downgrade our credit rating and caused an increase of 33 basis points in our interest rates.
One might say that is not a very large amount. Maybe, if one is only borrowing $1,000 or $2,000, it is not a large amount. However it is large when we consider the amounts of money the government has to borrow on a day-to-day basis. I say: "Shame. You have played with Canadians one more time. You have cost us and you continue to cost us dearly. Meanwhile you go off on your trips, spend money and do what you want, pretending all along that you are the ones who are fiscally responsible".
If this government were fiscally responsible the first thing it would do is ask the Prime Minister to stay home and write a letter, make a phone call or send a fax. It would be a lot more cost efficient. We could deal with a number of other issues such as the renewal of contracts to its friends before the election. Again it is an extremely costly endeavour. The renewing of leases will cost Canadians millions of dollars but benefit the friends of this government.
They cannot speak from both sides of their mouths. These people have done it and continue to try to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes. Canadians know better. They understand that the Tories are the people who have caused the mess we are in today.
I read an article today in a newspaper which I do not have with me. It indicated that the Tories have caused the poor to become poorer, that Tory policies in effect have decreased the average take home wages of middle income Canadians and that they are in effect no better off today than they were in 1976.
I say to the Tories shame. This whole sham has to stop. We have to start speaking honestly and openly. We are not in an auction as to how fast we can pretend to decrease the deficit. We have to be realistic.
We have to represent average Canadians, the ones who foot the bill for the nasty programs this government has put in place. They are the ones whose children are in their twenties and do not have jobs. They are the ones who are worried about losing their own jobs, about making payments on their homes, about educating their children and about sending them on to university in the fall when tuition fees are rising. These same young people do not have jobs.
There is nothing we need more than a new government that will change the focus and start considering average middle income Canadians who make up the bulk of this country. Until we start considering what happens to them this country will not survive. The sooner we can start working together again for honest and realistic goals, the better off we will be.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on a question or comment perhaps the hon. member for Sudbury who is attacking this budget could tell this House why the Liberal Party voted last Wednesday for a national child care program, for an infrastructure program and for a national jobs plan.
The national child care program has been priced at $20 billion. A year ago her party suggested $5 billion from the provinces, $5 billion from the municipalities and $5 billion from the federal government on an infrastructure program, for a total of another $15 billion. I do not know what a national job plan would cost but presumably it is more billions.
In view of the veiy conservative-type speech she gave about debts, deficits and bond rating agencies I was wondering whether she could explain the consistency of her vote last week and her speech today.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no problem answering the concerns of this worthy gentleman across the way.
We have to set goals for ourselves. We have to pick priorities. It is not a question of absolute dollars and cents. It is a question of what we think is a high priority. The highest priority is not a helicopter flying on some unknown and probably unnecessary mission.
The question is: What do we do with all our young children out there, most of whom or at least large numbers of whom are being raised in single parent homes? Is it not better to place them above fancy toys? I
May 4, 1993

believe it is better and a national child care program has to be a goal of the government.
When it comes to the infrastructure program it is far better to invest in lasting things such as roads, sewer and water. Sooner or later these things have to be replaced. Whether they are replaced today or tomorrow when they are built they are something lasting. When moneys are paid out for unemployment insurance, for welfare or for a study, for that matter, nothing of real lasting value is being created. However when moneys are spent building a road that needs to be built, not only are jobs being provided for people but the people create a long-time lasting benefit. That is important. It is not whether we spend the money here and there. It is a matter of focusing the money on the best long lasting value such as infrastructure programs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, budgets provide an opportunity for government to account to the country on the spending, the anticipated spending and the programs for the upcoming year.
This particular budget was really an annual accounting because the bulk of the changes made that would have normally been made in this budget were made earlier, indeed last year in the financial statement of December. This budget has to be read with the December financial statement to indicate the totality of the government's attack on a very serious problem: the effect of a recession and a very serious restructuring. It is not easy to deal with problems. Our debts have been growing exponentially, but this budget keeps us on track and still forecasts the deficit at $32.6 billion for the current year.
There have been all sorts of suggestions, and indeed I have made them myself, that we should have had a budget with a whole host of methods by which we could more seriously attack the public debt.
I might point out this budget in its forecasts estimates that we will not have to borrow fresh money from the marketplace after 1997-98.
Be that as it may, I believe it will probably be necessary for the new government under a new Prime Minister,
Supply
whether it is from this side or that side, to attack the long-term economic problems of this country.
The issue in the next election in this country will be the question of the national debt. There will be no other issue. A political party that wiggles and wangles like the Liberal Party does and like the New Democratic Party does, will not be elected by the people of this country. The people of this country are not going to vote for a political party that at the same time as our debt is being attacked and our financial figures are being attacked votes to spend $20 billion a year more on a national child care program, $15 billion on a further infrastructure program and more on a national jobs plan. In other words they will spend more.
I have been speaking in this House on the question of our debt for a long time. I dug out a speech that I made on July 19, 1982 from Hansard in which I dealt with this question of trying to spend ourselves rich. I said then:
I want to say that there is no evidence whatever that government spending, particularly government deficit spending, is in any way stimulative. It may be said that when you spend money at least you put people to work, that people are doing something. But when you spend borrowed money that costs a minimum of 17 per cent for interest-a good part of it now at 19.5 per cent-you wind up with a situation whereby the dollar borrowed at 17 per cent doubles itself in three and a half years or so, depending upon the compounding.
That is from Hansard of July 19, 1982.
This is a serious matter. When in government the Liberal Party attacked the last recession by trying to spend its way out of it. In the process it placed an unconscionable debt burden on this country. We have yet to be able to break that debt burden.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You've made it worse.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The debt burden has become worse because we have never been able to tax enough or cut expenditures enough to pay all of the interest on all of the debt.


An hon. member:: That is your problem.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The member says that is our problem. It is the problem of this country. It is the problem that this nation must face. We must face it tomorrow because we have to face it. It cannot be left outstanding any longer. It has to be dealt with.

May 4, 1993
Supply
This budget could have done a number of things but all of those things would have required extensive legislative change. For example, we could start priorizing some of our expenditures. We would have to have a real priorizing effort. We could have a conference. We could have a finance committee meeting. We could have a session in this House about priorizing expenditures. The fact of the matter is that we cannot afford all the government we presently have. The country does not have the sufficient ability to raise revenue, to pay taxes, to pay for all of the government we presently enjoy and pay the debt.
We will have to priorize our expenditures. That priori-zation will take legislation. It will take the elimination of programs, the rejigging and re-tailoring of programs, and the restructuring of our whole economic system from the federal point of view.
We could attack transfers to the provinces. The Prime Minister earlier today said there was something like $43 billion transferred to the provinces for medicare, postsecondary education, Canada Assistance Plan and equalization. The actual out of pocket cash is about $26.5 billion. That is a great deal of money. It is not enough to pay the interest on the debt but it is a great deal of money. We could rejig that amount of claim.
This budget does not affect those claims. It allows those claims to continue to grow in accordance with the existing program criteria. If this budget had reduced those claims to the current level of claim increase by the federal government the federal government would have shown a decrease in its deficit over a five-year period of $9.1 billion.
We have to deal with these transfers. We have to figure out, as a country, how we are going to finance the kind of things that are supplied by government. It supplies a great many of them through joint programs with the provincial governments.
We will have to have, and we will be having, a federal-provincial conference dealing with these issues. However the federal government cannot continue forever and ever to cut the kind of cheques it has been cutting to the provinces for these programs.
This budget does not affect the $22 billion we pay out in old age pensions, guaranteed supplements, spousal allowance and veterans' pensions. Those are still left and
they are still indexed. They are not touched. These expenditures are growing at an exceptionally high rate, about 4.5 per cent per annum. They are not touched.
Can we as a country continue to have a pension program, an entitlement program, that continues to expand the way our current entitlement programs expand and pay our bills? We will have to inquire into that. We are going to have to take a look at that.
There are other places we can go. We can go after national defence, but we are cutting national defence over a five-year period by $5.6 billion. We can go after national defence but somewhere along the line in this very unstable world we have to be prepared to stand on guard for Canada. We do not stand on guard by eliminating all of our national defence expenditures. Does the Liberal Party want to advocate that? Does it? I am not sure and it is not sure either.
We can all attack the deficit in the grand total but we all have a NIMBY attitude. Two of our members on this side have already asked the Minister of Forestry: What about the ERDA program dealing with forestry? That is cancelled in this budget or will be cancelled or phased out. It will not be renewed. NIMBY programs, we all want our own programs. We want the deficit cut but we do not want to suffer. We do not want to cut. We do not want to attack ourselves. We want, want, want.
What we have to do is come to a very strong agreement in this House as to what we can afford with what we can legitimately take in taxes. Until we do that we will continue to have large deficits, and that cannot go on. We have to cut back on the demands we make on the public purse.
. (1535 )
We have to cut back on those things by priorizing them. We have to come to an agreement as to what items can go first and what cannot go. I have asked the rhetorical questions on a number of occasions: Would you rather have the old age pension or the CBC? Would you rather have the veterans' pension or the National Film Board? Would you rather have the GIS or VIA Rail?
Tell me where we should be. Tell me what government expenditures should be on. Would people prefer to extensively expand the program in Indian and northern affairs or say that enough is enough? How will that work with our requirements to assist native people?
May 4, 1993

We have to understand where we are going in this country. We do not have an unlimited pocket-book nor an unlimited ability to pay bills. Those in the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party who continue to advocate new measures, new programs and new expenditure patterns have to understand what the coffee smells like.
Bob Rae said that we have to smell the coffee because it is not as easy as all that. We have to priorize our payments and until we do we will not be able to really get at some of the problems of government.
We have been through a very serious restructuring in the business world and we are still going through it. Businesses are modernizing. They are changing the way they do things. Banks are changing the way they process paper.
The other day the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce decided that it could somehow eliminate another 300 of its bill collectors and cut down the number of offices it had across Canada. Why? I could do so as a result of new technical equipment, fast transmission of data, the movement of what was once upon a time paper by non-paper methods and all that type of transaction technology that is now available.
What we have to do in government is the same thing. We are doing it. We are closing offices of employment and immigration by consolidating their work in various places across the country. We are having more of it done by mail and so on. All these things take time but they have to be done.
It is essential that we again priorize the kinds of things the Government of Canada is involved in. Do we really need the Government of Canada in the housing field? After all, constitutionally Canada cannot rezone land, cannot control rents, cannot control building standards and cannot even file a subdivision. Should Canada really be involved in housing? The answer probably is no. We should probably phase out that activity.
Should Canada be involved in forestry? Most of the forests of this country are on provincial Crown lands. They are not federal Crown lands, they are provincial Crown lands. While we have forests on Indian reserve land, parks and so on, the bulk of the forests in this country are on provincial Crown lands. Is forestry not really a provincial responsibility? Should we have a
Supply
minister of forests? Perhaps not. Perhaps we will have to make that decision.
These are the kind of calls we must make. We cannot continue to supply all the government that we presently supply because we cannot afford to supply it. We have made some progress. The budget lays out the situation as is. It is a stand pat budget. It does not get at solving the problems that I have talked about today but it does leave it available for the next government to do that.
It does not tie the hands of another government. The minister could have come here and made all sorts of legislative-type proposals, but we in this House all know that those legislative proposals could never be passed in the time available for this House before the next general election.
We would have a budget that would attempt to tie a future government. Surely a future government at this stage of the House now need not be tied. This budget does not tie a future government. It does not make any great changes in legislated programs or deal with the total restructuring of government. That will be for another prime minister who will probably be from this side because there is nobody on that side competent to run the country. In any event it will be another government and it will move further in the restructuring of our country.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I always had the impression that to govern meant making decisions and setting priorities as soon as one took over the reins of power. It is the very essence of the Canadian political system.
When a member of the present government tells us, after nine years in power, that there are other things to consider and that no decisions can be made today, that is totally at odds with what Canadians expect from their government.

I would just like to remind my colleague opposite that government is all those things he said it is, but because it has governed for nine years it must assume full responsibility for the outcome of decisions made, decisions deferred or lack of courage in making decisions that he

May 4, 1993
Supply
suggests today ought to be taken by members of the Official Opposition.
I am not sure that the government's ability to establish priorities for those issues which are of great importance to Canadians' well-being both economically and socially has been shown to be anything but faulty. Let me just give you an example. They have had the wherewithal to make those decisions from a parliamentary point of view. The member knows that his government has used closure to ram through legislative items that it thought were important to its agenda. And yet he says he cannot today make decisions because he cannot expect that they will be put through this House.
Mr. Speaker, just think about this for a second. Over the course of the last nine years in terms of priorities established it cut energy taxes to the tune of 17.5 per cent. There is a 50.6 per cent drop in the relative value of energy taxes as indirect taxes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I would remind the hon. member that it is not time for a speech. It is time for a brief comment or to ask a question of the previous speaker. There are other members who want to ask questions. Briefly, please.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. I was confused I guess when I saw all other members retreat by the curtain to allow me to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry. The hon. member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well, that was a great ramble anyway and I rather enjoyed it. The member only has to look at the calendar. We have another three days this week and five next week. I was told the other day we have a total of 17 government days left but I suspect it is now down to 14. There are some opposition days involved and this is one of them. The fact of the matter is that to do any serious legislating one would have to be a Houdini. Legislation that involves very radical changes to the programs of the country has to be written, passed through the committee stage and so. I do not anticipate that would be at all possible. My friend knows that.
It is true that we have had to do a number of things over the past period of time. Every bill involving budgetary changes and reduction in government expenses has had to go to closure over the opposition's protest. You
see, Mr. Speaker, they only want to criticize and spend, they never want to cut or curtail.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Mississauga South because he was elected a long time ago. He was certainly a very active member in the House when his party was sitting in opposition.
He will probably remember when the present government was put into office in 1984 the question was whether it was going to cut expenditures. The promise in that election was that a new Conservative government under the Prime Minister would cut expenditures and balance the budget.
What have we heard in the last speech by the finance minister? He told us the government will not cut anything. It will just continue the budget. It will lay the foundation for the next budget and the next government. It had nine years to balance the budget. The government has not done it and the Liberals have not done it in the past. Why should people in Canada now believe that any of the parties are able or willing to cut expenditures and not just say they cannot because of transfer payments and this and that.
The hon. member knows very well that if there is a will it can be done. Naturally I believe if he had been Minister of Finance instead of the present Minister of Finance he would have done it but he is not and I do not think he will be.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I know each other fairly well and I always enjoy his comments.
I want to say that this is not an easy matter. The government has tried for a long period of time to grow out of the deficit by curtailing expenditures bit by bit and it has done that. It has curtailed an enormous number of expenditures but the things the Government of Canada does today are infinitely smaller than the number of things it attempted to do when it took office.
Unfortunately the debt compounds and it is in a situation where compounding debt requires action much more serious than it has had before. Part of the problem of course is the fact that there is a serious recession. Consequently income is way off. Tax revenues, as the hon. member will know, are off at least $10 billion from what was forecasted for this year. That $10 billion makes
May 4, 1993

an enormous difference in the debt position of the country.
Incomes for individuals are off. People are not earning and that means they are not spending and paying goods and services tax for example. The problem is that payments are being made to support a social net structure to keep people going at the same as there is a great reduction in income.
I do not think it is going to get that much easier. We are going to have to do some really hard thinking to break the cycle of debt.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. Perhaps I should just remind members and those who may be paying attention via the television about the motion that we are debating today. It is an opposition day motion and it says:
Thai this House is of the opinion that the Budget is, as put by the
Chief Government Whip, "a disgrace".
I think it is a good thing that such a motion was found to be in order because it permits us to debate the budget and also to call attention to the fact that there seems to be a division of opinion on the other side as to the merit of the budget which just goes to show that these things happen. It just goes to show that there is a variety of opinion in all caucuses on a great many things.
I think it is interesting that the government Whip said this but I do not want to dwell too much on that. I think what happened with this budget is that we basically had a budget so that the government could not be accused of not having a budget. That was basically the only purpose that the budget served. Had it not brought in a budget because it did not want to saddle a new Prime Minister and a new leader of the Conservative Party with a real budget, it would have been open to criticism for leaving the country budgetless. It brought in something and called it a budget. By doing so it deflected any criticism that might have originated in that vein.
I do not think that they have been able to avoid legitimate criticism because in spite of the fact that it was
Supply
not much of a budget there were measures in there that are nonetheless objectionable. There were other things that could have been in there and we objected to their absence.
I will start with some of the things that we find objectionable. It is something that I have spoken on in this House many times. It has to do with the continuing attack by this government on VIA Rail, which is the passenger rail service in this country. I believe the budget said that there would be a $50 million cutback and then a $100 million cutback per year thereafter.
What does this tell everybody who lives outside the Montreal-Windsor corridor? It tells them basically that passenger rail service anywhere outside that corridor, where there is a slim chance of making a profit, is expendable. It says that the rest of the country does not really count and that commitments made by this government-as a government and when the Conservatives were in opposition-over the years to the maintenance of a passenger rail service in this country have proven to be rather empty.
It is not as if this is the first thing it has ever done. I am sure we will recall the great evil that was done to VIA Rail in the announcements made in the fall of 1989 that took effect on January 15, 1990. I would remind the House that despite promises to the contrary and implications to the contrary that many people who lost service at that time, thanks to those cuts, still have not had their needs met.
I am thinking particularly of people in my riding who for many years were able to access their summer cottages by rail and are no longer able to do that in the way that they used to. We are now entering into the fourth or fifth summer and some of those people still cannot access their cottages because the promises that were made by various ministers of transport to enable, facilitate and to fund alternate modes of travel such as roads have still not come to pass.
I am not in favour of these alternate modes except in the absence of a return to the rail service. I would prefer that we saw the wisdom, not of constantly paring back passenger rail service, but of finding ways to use the train more and not less.

May 4, 1993
Supply
I say this not because I happen to represent an area which is identified with rail service and has a rail shop in it but because environmental reasons show this as the way to go.
It is a form of perverted bookkeeping to say that we are saving money over here by cutting back on VIA Rail and at the same time opening up areas through the eventual building of roads that were to this point not opened up in that way. This will put more people on the Trans-Canada Highway between Winnipeg and the Mi-naki road, increase traffic, increase hydrocarbon emissions and cause all those things that are harmful in the name of saving dollars in one set of books.
What we do not do and what budgets seem incapable of doing, at least to this point, is to keep that big set of books. We are not doing what might be called metabookkeeping. We need to do that if we are going to take into account both the effect of budget measures on the environment and the effect of budget measures on social reality and the social costs that come with particular government measures.
I talked a bit about what is in the budget and concentrated mostly on the VIA Rail end of it. I would also like to talk about what was not in the budget. This budget, like every other Tory budget before it, was very heavily laden with the rhetoric of deficit reduction.
One of the things that we have pressed, and I have particularly pressed the government on as the NDP tax critic is to say if it is serious about reducing the deficit and it wants to demonstrate that seriousness and have credibility with ordinary Canadians when it comes to deficit reduction, then it has to show that it is prepared to ask something of not so ordinary Canadians-the rich in this country and the corporate elite-particular sacrifices in order to reduce the deficit.
When it has done that and it is still able to show that it has a deficit problem then it will have what I consider as the moral high ground. It will be able to say: "We have done that and we still have a problem".
That is not what this government has done. It has not demanded those sacrifices from the people who have a great deal to sacrifice and a great deal to give to the common treasury.
There are a number of examples. Not too long ago we went through a debate in this House that was eventually brought to an end by closure with respect to the way in which private family trusts were having their capital gains tax exemption extended beyond the 21 years that was given to them in 1972 by the Liberals.
There was an opportunity for the government to show that it is not just ordinary Canadians that have to pay up in order to reduce the deficit but people who have the good fortune to have these private family trusts. In some cases they have tens of millions of dollars in these family trusts but were they asked to make a contribution in this way? No, they were not.
Other tax loopholes have been identified over the last several years many of which I raised in this House with the Minister of Finance before the budget for instance.
I mentioned the business and entertainment tax deduction. I realize that this is a controversial suggestion. Many people in the restaurant business think that this would be harmful to them but I would say that it probably depends on which part of the country one comes from and maybe even which part of the city one comes from. I am sure that most of the restaurants in my riding do not depend on business men being able to deduct the cost of their lunch from their taxes. They depend on the business of ordinary folk coming in and using their restaurant because it is a good restaurant, because they like to eat out or whatever the case may be. I thought that the government might have looked at that. I understand that it is being looked at south of the border.
So often in this House we hear that we cannot do things because they are not doing it in the United States and therefore we would be uncompetitive. Competitive so often seems to mean a sort of uncritical imitation. Nevertheless this is changing in the United States. I thought I heard from the Minister of Finance at one point when I raised this that maybe he was looking at this. I was genuinely disappointed when the budget came down that he had not at least tried to reduce it. Maybe he felt that he could not eliminate it, but it could have been reduced to 80 per cent or 50 per cent.
May 4. 1993

This has been done away with in other countries and all the restaurants have not boarded up their windows and gone out of business. There was $1 billion. One might ask what is $1 billion when it comes to the kind of deficits we are talking about. It all adds up. It not only adds up but it gives credibility to the government when it is asking sacrifices of other people. Certainly $1 billion more than covers the money that the government is going to extract by cutting back on VIA Rail, the CBC and other institutions that have helped define Canada over the years. I think Canadians value these things a whole lot more than they value the opportunity of the business community to deduct their lunches or their season tickets at the Forum or the Skydome or whatever the case may be on their income tax returns. There was a choice that could have been made but was not made.
Tax loopholes were identified by the Auditor General in his most recent report. There is the way in which Canada is being used really by companies that borrow here and deduct the interest on the loan. They invest in some other country that is probably a low wage country, which is a tax haven in itself. They make a profit but do not pay any taxes because of this tax haven. They transfer the profits back here in the form of dividends and do not pay any taxes on that because of the dividend tax credit. There are all kinds of ways that people have of literally ripping off the Canadian public but in a very legal way.
The government could have moved to do something about that but it did not.
All of this says to me, as it says to so many other Canadians, that maybe the government is not serious about the debt and the deficit. Maybe, as we have always suspected on this side of the House, for every ounce of genuine concern about the debt or the deficit there is another ounce or two of political duplicity involved. It could be using the deficit to cover what is basically an ideological agenda and to do certain things that it would like to do anyway for a priori philosophical reasons that it does because of necessity and because it has no choice.
I think there are choices. I think that even when we do face genuine problems with deficits and debts there are still choices to be made. It is not just a question of necessity. It is also a question of, when one does arrive at
Supply
a situation where one has to address debt and deficit problems, how to do it and not just do something that one might otherwise want to do and justifying it by citing the debt or the deficit.
Where does the deficit come from? I think there is overwhelming evidence that much of this deficit is self-inflicted by the government. In particular I am thinking of the matter of interest rates and the way in which the government increased its own deficit by having the interest rate policy that it had for years. This goes back before even this particular government. I will get to this later if I have the time. In particular, to the extent that we owed the debt to ourselves, that was the extent to which our own interest rate policy was self-inflicting and compounding a debt on the country.
Not so long ago a Statistics Canada study showed that up to 50 per cent of the debt was attributable to that kind of expense. Another 44 per cent was attributable to revenue forgone in the form of the tax loopholes I have just spoken about. It is not just the ones I have spoken about but many others, most of which were created by Liberal governments in the seventies. Six per cent of the deficit was created by social spending.
Why is it that social spending is always being made the scapegoat? I go back to my earlier point that it is an ideological agenda. It may be that once we have the problem we cannot go back and change the interest rate policy. We cannot go back and recover all the money we have lost through revenue forgone thanks to tax loopholes, although we can close those loopholes and begin to collect the money now.
It may be that a government in a tight spot has to look at all kinds of spending, including certain forms of social spending, but it should not do it in the context of having blamed these programs in the first place.
Yet that is what has happened because it suits the philosophical frame of mind of so many people on the other side of the House who never liked these programs to be begin with. This is why they do not have any credibility when they attack them and when they cut back on them. Nobody really believes they actually regard this as a painful exercise.
189G2

May 4, 1993
Supply
I do not see any pain in their faces. All I see is joy. It is concealed sometimes, barely concealed, straining not to smile while they are announcing what they are doing to family allowances, to VIA Rail, to some Crown corporation, or to some other element of the Canadian fabric which a majority of Canadians accept but which Conservatives have always regarded as part of the problem with Canada. They are trying to get rid of all those so-called problems that have distinguished us from our neighbour to the south and make us more like the America that so many on the other side, particularly the Prime Minister, wished they were citizens of and have acted like they were citizens of ever since he became Prime Minister.
What about free trade? Is it just a coincidence that Ontario in particular but Canada in general has had all these economic problems in the-last two or three years or that the manufacturing sector has been gutted? It is not just the recession. It is a fundamental restructuring of the North American economy thanks to the free trade agreement. To the extent we even talk about the recession, we are using language which conceals rather than reveals what is really going on.
I am not going to talk about the recession any more. I am going to talk about the free trade agreement. Often on the other side we hear that the recession is not just in Canada but is global. Yes, the recession is global because not just this government but the United States, the British, the European and many other governments have been following the same kind of neo-conservative policies throughout the 1980s. If we have a global recession it is no wonder. It is due to the adoption of policies not just by this government but by governments almost worldwide, even by governments that do not want to adopt the policies but have them forced on them by the IMF, the World Bank or others that demand their particular view of life and its implementation be the condition of credit or any consideration by these international financial institutions.
I see you signalling, Mr Speaker. I assume that has something to do with my time expiring. I will try to wrap up, I have so much more to say. The fact is that I was hoping to get into the whole question of debt and deficit a little more thoroughly than I have had the opportunity to do.
One of the things people are coming to realize is that part of the problem with the deficit is the whole question of foreign borrowing. I was reading an article this weekend by Professor Rueben Bellan of the University of Winnipeg. He has always been a critic of those who have been in his view overly concerned about the deficit. He wrote a book about full employment and how employment rather than the deficit is the real problem. Even he, if I read him correctly, seems to be concerned about the question of foreign borrowing. His argument in the past has been that we owe this deficit to ourselves and therefore it is not as great a concern as some people have made it out to be.
I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to continue my argument for a few more minutes. Could you seek unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, just for a few more minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give more time to the member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I will not abuse the goodwill of the House. I was talking about the fact that Professor Reuben Bellan of Winnipeg sees a problem with the whole question of foreign borrowing. That is a distinction we did not make in the past because we owed so much of the money to ourselves and people like Professor Bellan used to argue that this was not a problem. That is the view we have traditionally taken in this corner of the House.
There are many ways in which foreign borrowing becomes a problem. Professor Bellan would argue that it makes us uncompetitive. Others have argued that it means in the final analysis, if the debt load to foreign borrowers is significant enough and gets out of hand, we are not governing and they are governing.
That is a fair point and I accept that point, given what I would regard as the sinful nature of international finance. This has become a fact for so many Third World countries, many of which have tried to operate outside the demands of those institutions and have failed, there is a point at which governments may want to make choices before choices are made for them. I would like to see the debt dealt with so we can do something about the environment, so we can have discretionary money to
May 4, 1993

clean up the planet. We will never clean up the planet if we do not have any disposable income to do it with.
There are some very pressing reasons why we need to get control of this situation and have money to spend but not on consumer items. We need to be talking about how we might use this so-called deficit crisis, because I still think that elements of it are exaggerated, to talk about a new global frugality, about the fact that we cannot live like we live now and not just fiscally. The whole world could not live like we live now because if the whole world lived like we live the planet would collapse next week.
We have to come to terms with things, not in terms of the deficit but in terms of our whole way of life and in terms of the whole image we have of the good life. That will be much more difficult than tackling any fiscal deficit that happens from year to year. If we could somehow mix those two tasks, if we could integrate those two tasks, and I am thinking on my feet now, we could be on the right road. Certainly that is what I will be giving my musings over to in the next little while.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I listened to the distinguished member for Winnipeg Transcona. He touched some very important points. Maybe the last one was the most important, that is Canada's foreign debt. As we look at the statistics, probably in 1980 it was over $100 billion. Now it is about $300 billion that we owe foreigners, different countries. As the member said so well, once we lose control of our debt it goes into foreign hands and we lose control of the country.
If we do not address this problem, I do not think we will ever come out of the recession and we will never have control in Canada of our economic and social policies. They are going to be dictated by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others.
How can we come out of this situation? I think the first thing is to have a fiscally responsible government and policies. To do that I think we will, as some have said, have to tax those who can afford taxation. One of those is certainly big corporations that have not been paying adequate taxes in the past.
Supply
As well, we have to look at the situation globally and say: "Are we efficient as a country?" The member has touched on the question of VIA Rail and transportation.
I would like to ask him a question on that point because we have reduced our railway system. We have cut it off.
Most of our heavy traffic by rail goes through the United States. Naturally our railways are losing money. We are losing jobs and at the same time we have increased traffic on our highways. I do not think this is the way to go because we have a very cold climate and it is not an efficient mode of transportation.
Could the member elaborate on the question of the International Monetary Fund and as well on transportation?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would love to elaborate on the international financial institutions.
There is an interesting irony here. Basically what I was saying is that at some point debt becomes a sovereignty issue. People who are totally in hock to somebody else have no sovereignty, personally speaking. Countries that are totally in hock to someone else do not have any sovereignty.
The irony here is that you can either deal with your deficit in order to be independent of the international financial institutions or you can deal with your deficit because the international financial institutions have told you to deal with it.
It is two different spirits. If you are dealing with your deficit because the IMF, the World Bank or some New York bond rating institution or whatever have said you should behave in a certain way, then you are not increasing your sovereignty.
In a way you are doing what somebody else is telling you to do. I think that is what is wrong with the way the government has approached it. It has no commitment to economic sovereignty. It thinks that notions like economic sovereignty are either ideologically anathema or outdated.


Alex Kindy: Passe.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Passe. That is why they are able to enter into these free trade agreements. They want to see the most fundamental decisions about the economy made not by government but by the private sector and by the multinational corporate elite.

May 4, 1993
Supply
The difference between me and the government, if I was in charge of trying to eliminate the deficit, would be that we would be trying to eliminate the deficit so that the government that we were in charge of would have the money to act in a sovereign way and to re-establish some community input, control and values to our economic life.
People on the other side here want to get rid of the deficit not to do that. They want to do it for the same reason that they are willing to sign free trade agreements and talk uncritically about globalization and whatever. They think the people who run these international financial institutions are the people who you listen to. They think they are the people with real authority.
I say their authority is coercive and unacceptable. The reason I would like us to deal with the deficit is so that we never have to pay any attention to their particular view of the world ever again.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed listening to the remarks of my colleague.
In the past few days we have been dealing with the budget that was introduced by this government. Whenever the opposition has criticized the fact that it does very little in reality of reducing the amount of debt and the debt burden, the government comes back and makes the claim that all the recommendations and efforts it has done in the past to reduce the deficit have all been voted against by this party. I would like to turn that around.
I know my colleague is a revenue critic and he has over the past numbers of years made recommendations and suggestions both in terms of expenditures like the helicopter program as well as on the revenue side in terms of tax changes. The changes that he has recommended would also have reduced the deficit.
My question to the hon. member is this: Is it fair to say that all the suggestions we have made that would reduce the deficit have been voted against and turned down by this government?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is fair to say that every single suggestion that I have ever made to the Minister of Finance has not
been taken seriously. We will constantly hear: "Do you have an alternative, do you have an alternative?". We have suggested alternatives. Not only have they not been implemented but they have many times not even been dealt with substantively when they are raised on the floor of the House. That is the worst part.
The government is entitled to its view. It is entitled to its argument of why a particular tax loophole was better to have than to not have. But it is not even willing to engage most of the time in that kind of a debate, with the odd exception. I would say that sometimes the Minister of Finance has been willing to engage in that kind of debate-sometimes-depending on what I was raising.
Whenever I raised questions that really went to the heart of the matter, and that is the way in which the system is so stacked in favour of the really wealthy in this country, I would always get a non-answer. It was as if I had come too close; that there are certain things we are willing to talk about in this country and then there are other things where it is just as though you had never said them. I found that when I talked about the trusts. I found that when I have talked about a few other things.


Mr. Heap:: Those trusts are sacred.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Some things are sacred in this country. You almost feel as if you have breached some kind of taboo, that there are some things you just should not talk about. When you do talk about them, it is like you had brought up the subject of sex in some kind of Victorian home, like you never said anything about it at all, that the word was never uttered, and life will carry on.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, in Calgary's debate on Friday I used some strong language to describe the apparent inconsistency between the fiscal and economic policies of two of my opponents for the leadership and what had emerged in the April 26 budget.
I termed that inconsistency "a disgrace". That is stronger language than I normally use, gentleman and consensus-builder that I am. Well, now, full of mischief and devoid of creativity, the hon. member for Willowdale has sought to fill the Liberal policy vacuum with a vacuous motion of his own.
May 4, 1993

I think it would be appropriate to set the record straight on what precisely was said in Calgary that has triggered this mischievous motion. I quote from the Calgary Herald of last Saturday:
Jim Edwards, the government Whip and MP for Edmonton Southwest, did his best to cement his standing as Alberta's local Tory hero by slamming Charest and Campbell for not insisting the federal budget take a tougher line on current government spending. The budget which included a forecast deficit of $35.5 billion and put aside all serious spending cuts until after the next election, is a good beginning but it does not go nearly far enough, said Edwards. "What I want to know is where were these two ministers when Maz drew up this budget" said Edwards, terming their conduct a disgrace.
The motion which we have before us today is framed, to put it gently, in inexactitude. I think it would be appropriate to stake out what is my position on the budget of April 26 since that is the subject of our debate today.
I quote from a statement I released the evening of the budget, April 26.
My first reaction to the budget speech of 1he hon. Don Mazankowski is one of support and co-operation. I am pleased at the tone and direction of the budget, the emphasis on expenditure cuts, deficit reduction and the renunciation of tax increases as an option to deal with Canada's fiscal issues.
While the measures are a move in the right direction, this budget does not go far enough. Our annual budget deficit is too high, our deficit to GNP ratio remains too high, our mounting debt level is too high. I remain convinced that real economic recovery, real job creation through the small business sector and rising income and standard of living for Canadians can only occur as our debt burden is lifted. I believe that greater fiscal prudence and action are required.
What must be done, what can be done? We must implement real fundamental restructuring based mainly on expenditure cuts to a minimum of $10 billion. Allow me to outline a basic plan for Canada.

First, a 10 per cent cut in salary for the Prime Minister, as a symbolic gesture; second, consolidation of departments and ministries of state to not more than 20; an immediate, in-depth review of Canada's defence policy, including a review of all public procurement options; an immediate freeze on Canada's financial support for the European Bank for Reconstruction and development; accelerated privatization of all large Crown corporations,
Supply
including Petro-Canada, Atomic Energy, CN, Marine Atlantic, VIA Rail and CMHC; and to promote technological innovation and research and development marketing, establish a program for privatizing federal government laboratories, especially those working in agriculture, energy and advanced materials.

Radical realignment of budget allocations in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs away from paternalism and the Ottawa bureaucracy towards selfgovernment and local native initiatives; removal of funding for interest and lobby groups; additional cutbacks in the overseas offices of the Department of External Affairs including the sale of unnecessary houses and apartments for ambassadors, consuls general and senior officials as well as curtailment of travel, perks and expense entitlements of officials; a major restructuring of government controls on departmental spending, including the introduction of departmental internal audits, streamlining of middle management and responsibility accounting based on performance; a review of parliamentary and civil service pensions with a view to eliminating anomalies with the private sector and unfair indexed allowances; cutbacks to the environmental green plan with cost savings partly compensated by market-based incentives, especially for new technologies and support for small business; phase-out of agricultural subsidies and substitution of a new policy of export-based trade promotion; a phased program of civil service cutbacks of 25,000, more than half by attrition during the life of the next Parliament; a parliamentary review of all tax expenditures, that is tax write-offs with a view to tax simplification and fairness.
That is my position on the budget.
The next point, and this is the genuinely mischievous aspect of this motion from the hon. member for Willow-dale, is his implication that my use of the strong language in last Friday's debate was in some way critical of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Finance's budget.
The Minister of Finance entered elected life almost 25 years ago. It will be his 25th anniversary in Parliament on June 25 of this year, having been elected in 1968 after

May 4, 1993
Supply
serving as a political worker for some time and having had a successful career as a farmer and a businessman.
The Minister of Finance has served, in the words of more than one journalist, as minister of everything in the Government of Canada. In reality he has been the chief operating officer of the government, at least since June 1986. The minister served as transport critic and chairman of the PC committee on transportation and communications prior to being appointed Minister of Transport in the 1979 Clark government and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
In June 1986 he was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and was also named government House leader and President of the Privy Council. During that year he initiated and developed the highly successful western diversification program.
The member for Vegreville became President of the Treasury Board on August 27, 1987 which brought new responsibilities relating to government expenditures and labour management relations.
On March 31, 1988 he was named Minister Responsible for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs and relinquished his Treasury Board duties.
In September 1988 the member for Vegreville was appointed Minister of Agriculture. In a cabinet reorganization on January 30, 1989 he retained the positions of Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture. In the agricultural portfolio he spearheaded legislation designed to bring economic stability to Canada's agricultural community. The Farm Income Protection Act received Royal Assent on April 11, 1991.
The member for Vegreville was named Minister of Finance on April 21, 1991, retaining the position of Deputy Prime Minister. He serves as vice-chairman of the priorities and planning committee of the cabinet and is a member of the operations committee.
He is vice-chairman of the security and intelligence committee, sits on Treasury Board and is an ex officio member of the cabinet committees on economic and trade policy, environment, foreign and defence policy and human resources.
That is the official c.v. To round out the description of this man whom I have had the honour of knowing for over two decades I will say that he is a man characterized by humility, loyalty, sheer integrity and strength of
character, and unrelenting dedication to whatever task is before him. He is an outstanding political mentor.
We have had some criticism brought forward by hon. members during the course of this debate. The member for Winnipeg South Centre has suggested there has been some sniping on my part toward the Minister of Finance. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the exasperated last gasp of a frustrated tentative leadership pretender of his own party.
We ought to examine the opposition record, particularly the record of the Official Opposition, with regard to government restraint because these are the people who purport to be experts on the issue of restraint and are criticising the budget that is before us.
I would remind hon. members that the Liberals voted against the Spending Control Act, a law that places a limit on federal government spending. That was Bill C-56. They voted against making the Public Service more efficient and responsive. That was Bill C-26. Other measures in that bill gave women, natives, persons with disabilities and visible minorities better chances to be hired and promoted.
There is more. Listen. The Liberals voted against ending the 1991 Public Service strike, and in so doing they also voted against a freeze on MPs' salaries. That was Bill C-29. They voted against winding down six Crown corporations that duplicated work done elsewhere. That was Bill C-63.
Besides all that, they voted down seven other bills which cut spending to keep the deficit down, Bill C-19, Bill C-26 and Bill C-69 in the second session and Bill C-ll, Bill C-20, Bill C-32 and Bill C-76 in the third session.
Not once has that mob ever voted in favour of spending cuts. Each time they voted against spending cuts.
In the realm of privatization, they voted against privatizing Nordion and Theratronics. They voted against allowing the federal government to sell its shares in Telesat Canada. They voted against the privatization of Petro-Canada.
On social policy, the Liberals voted against the new child tax benefit. This new benefit is better targeted to low and middle income families than the programs it replaced. They voted against improving unemployment insurance maternity benefits and against making job training a major focus of the UI system. They voted
May 4, 1993

against new rules which will better manage our immigration system.
They voted against setting up the Canadian transportation accident investigation and safety board. They voted against establishing a federal environmental assessment process. They voted against improvements to the equalization program that would provide $600 million over two years to the seven less wealthy provinces that qualify under the program.
Those members voted against a $24 million increase in transfer payments to Yukon. They voted against meeting the costs of Canadian participation in the gulf war. They voted against $164 million in assistance for fishers affected by the northern cod moratorium.
This Official Opposition is bankrupt of policy, bereft of ideas and becalmed in bemusement. What about the other opposition? I think the hon. member for Yukon would be well prepared to preside over a scaled down cabinet. At the rate she is losing her caucus members she would have just about 20 at about the right time.
I want to dwell on a couple of aspects of what this budget provides us with. My position on the budget is clear. I said on April 26 that what this budget gives those of us who are seeking the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party is a springboard that has lots of bounce to it to move forward and reduce government spending further, as Canadians are now requesting and our economic reality dictates.
The Official Opposition prefers to ignore this reality. Its voting record on the very many significant restraint measures, as I have illustrated, is the proof.
The real disgrace is the voting record of members opposite. Even in the New Democratic Party Governments of Ontario and British Columbia there is a recognition that fiscal restraint is imperative if we are to meet the challenges ahead of us.
We have an opportunity in the coming years to complete the reversal of the overspending habits this government inherited in 1984. This government, this Minister of Finance and his predecessor, the current Minister for International Trade, have succeeded in changing conventional wisdom in this country. Canadians know that reducing government expenditures is
Supply
essential to our future. This is a legacy that I am proud to carry forward.
In conclusion, I want to advise hon. members opposite that this Whip has acquired a lash. This Whip is prepared to gather the Progressive Conservative Party together to provide for another generation of leadership for this country, to go on to win for Canadians a better future in company with the hon. member for Sherbrooke, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the members for Halton-Peel and Etobicoke-Lakeshore and a host of others from across this nation.
I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House that I will be voting against this silly, foolish, scabrous and mischievous motion.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a litany of all the measures against which the Official Opposition in its rightful role has voted against.
I would like the House to know what the government member opposite and his colleagues have voted for in the last nine years. Here are just a couple of items.
The Canadian public will be pleased, and I say that with some sarcasm; to note that the member opposite and his colleagues voted for an increase in income taxes, which totalled $26,967 billion in 1984, to $61,222 billion in 1992. In nominal dollars that is an increase of 127 per cent.
That is what the government member opposite voted for. He voted for a 20 per cent increase in the relative revenue for government from income taxes. What he also voted for and what all of his government colleagues voted for was a 33 per cent drop in corporate taxes, in relative terms, from 1992 to 1984.
The other thing that he and all of his government colleagues voted for in the last nine years was a declining rate of GDP growth.
They voted for measures that caused the rate of growth of the GDP in this country to go from 4.8 per cent in real growth in 1985 to 3.5 per cent in 1986, to 4.2 per cent in 1987, to 3 per cent in 1988, to 2.3 per cent in 1989, to negative .5 per cent in 1990, to negative 1.7 per cent in growth in 1991 and to a mere .9 per cent growth in 1992.

May 4, 1993
Supply
If we take a look at the voting record of the member opposite and all his colleagues we can see that they have managed, with their voting record and the policies that emanated from that voting record, to destroy the lifeline of the Canadian economy, which is international trade. The member opposite will know that we had a $19.8 billion surplus in 1984 and after nine years of a Progressive Conservative voting record we are now down to $9.4 billion. That is a tremendous drop. If we take a look at the current account balance over the same period, we can see that the current account balance went from a surplus of $3.06 billion to a deficit of $28,563 billion.
If the Official Opposition in fulfilling its obligations to the Canadian public has voted against the measures introduced by the government opposite we can look ourselves in the mirror and face the Canadian public and say that we did it because we opposed the kinds of measures that have brought ruination to this country's finances and destruction to the economy of our Canadian society. Can he defend that? He would probably not be so foolish.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, ruination, tarnation. The reason this government has had to raise income taxes, and my hon. friend forgets the reduction in income taxes that took place in 1988, is the following.
This is from Hansard on July 2, 1975. The present Leader of the Opposition said: "We have decided that restraint is necessary. In order to exercise restraint we had to cut back on planned expenditures". What happened? A 28 per cent increase in program expenditures that year.
Another quotation: "I believe we must reduce our deficit and our borrowing requirement substantially". That person is now a senator but was the Minister of Finance in 1981. There was a 14.8 per cent increase in program spending, hard on the heels of a 16.5 per cent increase the previous year.
Here is another one: "I continue to state the government's intention to hold the growth of expenditures between 1975 and 1976 to 16 per cent or less". What was the record? There was a program increase of 20.1 per cent. There is more, there is more.
Here is one from the finance minister in 1982 who is now adorning the other place. Here is a quote: "Some say the government should print more money. Others say it should let the deficit rip but that would fail
miserably. Inflation and unemployment would get worse, interest rates would rise even more, Canada would price itself out of world markets and recovery would be postponed". He let her rip. There was a 19.8 per cent increase in government expenditures. That is what we are trying to cure. We have turned the country around from an overhang of expenditure over revenue of $16 billion in 1984-85 to a positive balance of over $6 billion in the current fiscal year.
Here is a last and final one: "There are programs that are duplications, there are programs that are wasteful, there is administration that is wasteful, there are programs that are no longer useful, there are programs that no longer serve a purpose and I am going to cut that down". That was the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra on July 25, 1984. What was his increase of expenditure? It was 10.3 per cent. We are reaping the whirlwind of profligacy and we are trying to deal with it. Only this government has had the guts to deal with the irresponsible criminal activity of the Liberals. May the Canadian people never again reward them with office.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I must say some travel across the country in his leadership debate has sparked him right up. I am not so sure Albertans would be pleased with that.
I would like to ask the member a question. He and I share a province and I think we both share many political views about deficit reduction. I think many Albertans would cheer the fact that he did in fact say the other day: "This is a disgrace. There are cabinet ministers sitting in cabinet who are wanting more and more". So when he talks about deficit reduction it is understandable.
However, when we look at the figures here I would like to know from this member if he in fact is in favour of the chart in the budget on page 67. When the government talks about cutting $30 billion is it actually talking about savings not cuts? In terms of absolute dollars between the 1992-93 and the 1997-98 fiscal years we are looking at absolute increases of real dollars, $13.4 billion. How could a fellow Albertan come and say: "We are in favour of deficit reduction" when he knows that in terms of absolute dollars we will never decrease this deficit by increasing spending over these fiscal years between now and 1997-98, $13.4 billion in absolute dollars?
May 4, 1993


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to get a question from my hon. friend from Beaver River. I do not think I have ever had that honour before. Oh yes, once before. I am delighted to respond to her question.
We do agree on a few things, she and I, because I think we listen to the same people. The Canadian people are calling for restraint and are prepared, if they see the kind of responsible leadership that they are looking for, to make the necessary sacrifices to turn this around. I think my hon. friend would share with me the goal of eliminating the national debt in our lifetimes. I would ask her to join with me in that particular venture.


An hon. member:: Put on an Edwards' button. Come and work.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I think most Canadians would share that view as well.
In response to my hon. friend's question about page 67 and table 3 of the budget, this is a retrospective document and it is a prospective document. What it fails to take into account is the program which I enunciated in some detail, the 16 points that I enunciated just a few minutes ago in my speech on this opposition motion. I would ask my hon. friend to join with me. There is always a light in the window for reformers who are basically frustrated Conservatives. Come home, Deborah. Join me in my 16 point crusade against the deficit and the debt and tell this House whether you would embrace the goal of eliminating Canada's debt altogether.
There are those who say there is no shame in having a mortgage but it is far better to have clear title to your own country.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I was just listening to the chief government Whip, the member for Edmonton Southeast-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: West.


William Warren Allmand: Southwest. Excuse me.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Don't take David's seat away from him, he will lose it soon enough.


William Warren Allmand: Time will tell. I do not speculate about elections. The people will decide.
The chief government Whip and member for Edmonton Southwest repeated something that the Prime Minis-
Supply
ter has said and repeated something that the Minister of Finance has said and that is that while they on the government side have proposed many measures to cut the deficit, we on this side have voted against them all. In some way he implies that by our voting against these things we are against the reduction of the deficit and that we are against good government policies.
It is quite correct that we voted against every one of the measures that have been put forward by the government over the last nine years or four years or five years to deal with the economy and to deal with the deficit. We voted against them because they were wrong.
It was wrong economically. It was wrong politically and it was wrong socially. At the time we said it was wrong but history and the times that have followed those budgets have proven that it was wrong.
Just this morning we read that the average Canadian family is poorer this year over last year by $1,913 and that Quebecers are even worse off. This is the second consecutive year that real income for Canadians has fallen drastically.
Those budgets that we voted against time and time again have led to record high unemployment, record bankruptcies, an increase in the deficit, an increase in the national debt and I could go on. We in Canada are almost world leaders in food banks per capita for an industrial country. We have people sleeping in the streets everywhere. I said in a speech I gave in this House yesterday that there are now 20,000 individuals sleeping on the streets of Montreal who are without homes.
The chief government Whip expects that we should have voted for the measures that led to that situation. He implies that these were measures that would have saved the country.
Despite our voting against them, they passed anyway because the government has an absolute majority. It rammed them through year after year and we are left with the economic situation that we are in now in this country. It was not just the budgets. It was the free trade agreement. It was the GST. It was deregulation. It was privatization. It was a whole lot of things which this government did over there and which it rammed through

May 4, 1993
Supply
in this House against the votes of the people on this side. I am proud to say that I voted against it.
As a matter of fact, I think that the government should be ashamed that very few of them voted against those measures, including the chief government Whip. By the way now that he is in the leadership race, and that is the subject of this debate today, when he is in debate with the other candidates for the leadership, he condemns the budget. Yet he comes into the House today and tries to defend it. I do not know how the delegates in the Conservative Party will react to that. He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time or on different dates, depending on the forum. When he speaks in this House he sides with the government and supports the budget. When he is in combat with his opponents for the Conservative leadership, he opposes the budget and condemns it in rather strong terms.
We in this party do believe that the deficit has to be dealt with. We believe that measures have to be taken to reduce the national debt not by cutting alone or by cutting willy-nilly every measure whether it is one that will produce revenue or one that does not produce revenue.
We need to have a strategy for economic growth which this budget does not have. We must have a strategy for job creation which this budget does not have.
This budget accepts bold face, standing right there in the budget, that the unemployment rate will be near 11 per cent until 1995 and remain high until 1998. The Minister of Finance blatantly stated that in the House but the budget contained no strategy to deal with that horrendous situation and no strategy for economic growth.
How do we produce the revenue we need when we have such large numbers of people unemployed? When balancing a budget whether it is a home budget, an individual budget or the budget of a corporation, we can do it in two ways: by cutting some expenditures by increasing your revenues, by having a strategy for growth and for profits. We just do not cut and do nothing about the growth side, the revenue side. As a matter of fact we do not cut to the extent that we hurt the growth side,
that we kill the growth side. That is what this government is doing.
It is cutting so indiscriminately, it is so negative in its approach to the economy, so small c conservative, still following the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney of course, that great triumvirate, that it is concentrated to the ignorance of all other pertinent matters which come to play in the economic development of the country and it is concentrating just on these cuts.
As I say those policies that the government has been putting to this House over the last five years are not working. They are not ending up with people in jobs paying taxes or companies producing goods and services.
On the other hand, what is happening as a result of this government's strategy? People are collecting unemployment insurance benefits and welfare. The more it puts people out of work the more people there are collecting unemployment insurance and the more people there are collecting welfare.
I ask the government how this helps dealing with the national deficit and the national debt. Should it not have a strategy whereby those people that are on UI and collecting welfare are put back to work so they can be paying taxes and so that companies instead of going into bankruptcy will be making profits and paying taxes?
This does not mean that taxes have to be raised to deal with the deficit or bring in new taxes. If we had people at work, if we could bring down that unemployment rate and bring back some economic prosperity with the very same tax rates, revenue would increase in a very substantial way and then the deficit problems would be on the way to being solved.
Of course we have to cut out fat and we have to live within our means but we also need a plan to stimulate growth, jobs and investment. When an individual, any one of us, or our families are deep in debt we cut out the frills. We may shift from a high price car to a low price car. A renter may shift from a larger house to one that is more acceptable to their budget.
May 4, 1993

We do not sell our tools. We do not cut out our transportation which gets us to work. We do not cut out our night courses which will help us upgrade our skills. We do not sell our house altogether and go and live on relief. We do not take our children out of school. We continue to do those things that we need to do to earn an income. We have to continue to buy our tools, to upgrade our trades, to get to work whether it is by car or by subway or by bus or whatever.
My point is this. As a nation we have to continue to invest in those things which will bring in the revenue, bring in the profits, bring in the taxation at the ordinary rates that will put the country back to work.
I have harped over and over again about the municipal infrastructure program. Here we have a program which was agreed to by all the municipalities in Canada, a program to renew municipal infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewers, water purification, sewage treatment and so on.
It was agreed to by the Canadian municipalities, agreed to by the provinces but not agreed to by the federal government. It was to be financed out of a tripartite fund whereby the cities would put in a third, the provinces a third and the federal government a third. It is not going ahead because this federal government will not do it. That plan alone would have not only renewed municipal infrastructure but it would have renewed these cities to attract business investment, to attract commerce and it would also have put thousands and thousands of people back to work.
I think my time is up unfortunately but let me say this. We are saying that there are members in that party over there who really do not agree with this government's economic policy and budget and that has come out during these leadership debates that they have had.
If these members on the other side were true to their conscience and did what they really believed was right, which we hear from time to time outside of the House, they would then vote for this motion tonight criticizing this budget in this House as well as outside.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I listen to the hon. member speaking about the last budget the government introduced.
Supply
What I would like to point out to him and have comments about is the fact that the chief government Whip who sits not in cabinet but who meets the Prime Minister every week on Wednesday morning and has a lengthy conversation about the state of affairs of the party normally should have some influence on the budget.
The member for Edmonton Southwest has been criticizing the budget and I agree with some of his programs, but why did he not influence the Prime Minister to introduce a budget that would reflect the feelings of the people of Alberta? He is as influential with the government as a minister. He has been criticizing the other candidates for the leadership and disagreed with them. Why did he not, as the chief government Whip who is a very influential person, put his point forward to the Prime Minister? That is the first question.
The second question concerns Canada's need for an infrastructure. As the hon. member knows our roads are in very bad shape. Our cities are suffering. People could be put to work. The government should have introduced some measures that would have helped the cities to put the infrastructure in better shape.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. He puts to us a very good question.
We have the chief government Whip who meets on a regular basis with the Prime Minister every week-it might be even more frequently-and yet he has not been able to convince the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and others that this economic policy is wrong and causing a lot of people a lot of harm.
I give credit to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. When he disagreed with the economic policies of the government he had the courage of his convictions to at least get up and leave and speak openly against it. He did not simply kowtow to the government when he believed it was wrong in principle. He had the courage of his convictions to step aside. I do not agree with him on all measures but at least he was honest to his conscience.

May 4, 1993
Supply
Obviously there are people over there who will say one thing outside the House but when they get in the House they will say something else. It is not just the chief government Whip but also the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Defence. One talks of completely eliminating the deficit in five years and the other says four years. They are sitting around the cabinet table. Why do they not give those particular secrets on how they are going to do that to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister? I am sure they would be pleased to listen to these two ministers. If they have a secret formula that will completely eliminate the deficit in five years or in four years then why are they not putting that forward at the cabinet table?
I was a member of cabinet. We all had a say around the cabinet table. I cannot understand this. There is a lot of what I would call show and tell or a lot of window dressing out there and a lot of politics of rhetoric that does not get to the core of these problems. This is a serious matters and if members were honest with their own consciences they would stand up and vote against that government on many of these budget matters.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, one can tell when one is doing reasonably well in politics because one is attacked by opponents. The chief government Whip of course in reading out those comments clearly shows how nervous he and his party are with respect to the Liberals and their leadership. Keep it up. We love the attention. Certainly it does not alarm us at all.
There were some other preposterous things that were said. Mr. Speaker, I know you to be a fair person. The chief government Whip said: "We inherited this tremendous economic mess". I have a signed letter, and I say it with a great deal of pride, from the former Minister of Finance who says with his signature that the debt when his party formed the government was $167.8 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I know your ability with statistics and mathematics and your knowledge of the interest rates. If you compute the interest rates over that period of time, there is absolutely no way that you could come up with the debt that we have today of over $450 billion. That was preposterous and to be perfectly frank it was a disgrace.
There is another thing that is never mentioned. The debt will triple very shortly. It is almost there. Not only has it gone up at an alarming rate but the deficit has been roughly the same over nine years. Yet it tries to convince us that it can manage the deficit and the debt. There have been almost 40 tax increases. I know that you know something about this, Mr. Speaker, because you pay those taxes just as I do, as my colleagues do and as Canadians do. There were almost 40 tax increases.
When we look at the debt and the deficit we have to look at it in the context of the taxation that is going on. It has been preposterous.
Look at what the newspapers have said about this particular budget. I have not found one single positive article. Why were there not a few or even several such articles especially from those particular newspapers that favour this government. We call them sometimes Tory newspapers.

Nothing positive is said about this budget in any of these articles. I find that a little surprising. If this budget was really as good as the government members claim it is, something positive would certainly have been mentioned.

There was nothing.
The chief government Whip was always parroting a list of things that we Liberals had voted against. We are very proud of some of the things we voted against especially the goods and services tax. We voted against that, remember? There are a number of other measures we voted against. We voted against the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that they conceived. That was an ill-conceived agreement. We voted against that because we try to vote for those policies and those pieces of legislation that place people first.
We would not vote for a sham because these pieces of legislation to which my colleague referred were shams. Why do I say they were shams? Because the deficit is basically what it has always been and the debt has almost tripled. They were shams. If they had been restraining measures then we would have seen some progress. What have we seen? We have seen no progress.


May 4, 1993

They talk of controlling the debt. They like to flaunt those figures about. Of course it claims to have controlled the debt because it has put it on the backs of the provinces and the territories. That is what has happened. The provinces and the territories have put it on the backs of the hospitals, the colleges, the universities, the school-boards and the citizens who pay higher user fees than they have ever paid before. It is very easy to control the debt if one passes it on.
I have debt. I could go into my home tonight, if my wife and daughters would permit me to do so, and say: "Here is what belongs to my wife. Here is what belongs to my daughters". I could get rid of my debt. What a noble, courageous, brave action that would be. That is what it has done. It has put it on the backs of the provinces that have put it back on the backs of the hospitals, the colleges, the universities and the school boards. Then it comes out and brags about controlling the debt. It is shocking.
There is one thing that is positive about this particular budget and that is that one of the leadership candidates for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had the courage to say that it was in fact a disgrace. What about the others? This is interesting because the other two leadership candidates are sort of getting tripped up. They have not said anything like that because they are watching their sides: the right side, the left side, the upside, the downside, the backside and what have you. What do they say? They say that they would control that deficit and that debt in one case within four years and in the other case within five years. Canadians will ask why in the world they have not done something in the last eight and a half years. If it is that easy then why all of a sudden do that? That is a disgrace as well.
What was it doing during those last eight and a half years? Remember the almost 40 tax increases. It came in with revenue at roughly $70 billion and that revenue now is $130 billion. If there had been no recession it would probably be $140 billion. It would have doubled. Here is the question that we need to ask. Why is there still this huge deficit, this mounting debt with all of these tax increases with revenue that has almost doubled?
Why could we also call it a disgrace and legitimately so? It is because the finance minister-and I do not say
Supply
this unkindly for he is a fine person and I know that he intends the very best-in this particular case put his party before his country. Why do I say that? He probably did not have a whole lot of choice. There is going to be a new leader. The Prime Minister is still in place. However, because he has indicated that he will not run, because he cannot get re-elected again, then obviously he is trying to come out with a budget that will live and permit the Prime Minister's successor, and probably the successor to the Minister of Finance, some latitude and movement and future flexibility.
Surely that then is putting the party first and not the country. Surely we need to have people and politicians and political parties who put their country first.
What the finance minister was trying to do-and that was a disgrace-was to keep his party in power.
Let me ask a couple of questions. A budget should bring hope to a nation particularly a nation that has suffered like ours has. What hope is there in terms of reduction of the deficit?

What about debt reduction? What hope is there for the unemployed, for these 1.6 million plus Canadians who would like to work but cannot find a job? What hope do they have?

There is no hope for reduction of the deficit or the debt or the unemployed or for those 2.7 million Canadians who are getting social assistance this year. Is there any hope for them? None. Is there any hope for those who are not only on social assistance but for the more than 2.2 million Canadians who will be fed at food banks? No.
Is there any hope for those of the lost and losing middle class who earn substantially less today than they did a number of years ago? Is there any hope in this budget for them? No, there is none.
Is there any hope for the despairing youths who want to work and cannot do so and who want to contribute to the building of this country but are not being given the opportunity to do so? There is no hope. There is no hope for any of those particular groups.

May 4, 1993
Supply

There is no hope in this budget. It is a bad budget. But we must understand that this is a budget produced-I repeat produced-to promote the political party in power and make sure the Prime Minister's successor will have some leeway when he or she calls an election and goes before the Canadian people.

I find that disgraceful behaviour.
I applaud the chief parliamentary Whip for having had the courage to come out and say that this budget was a disgrace. I have always known him to be an honourable and honest person and there is some evidence that that is in fact so.
I would like to see his colleagues who are seeking the leadership of his party to be as forthright. I would like them to stop exaggerating the claims that they have made that they can in fact get the deficit and the debt under control in four or five years.
Again, a budget should provide hope for Canadians. What hope has this provided for the unemployed, those on social assistance, our aboriginal peoples and our groups and our regions that do not have enough to respond to basic necessities of life. There is no hope in this budget. It is a disgrace.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I think that Canadians are obviously very concerned right now about the deficit. We know that.
I think that in many instances we see ping-pong in this House back and forth. The Tories will say the Liberals created this debt while the Liberals say that it is not really their fault. They say the Tories are responsible for doubling it.
I think that we could read the Canadian public effectively by saying that the people do not really care where this thing started. They want it to stop now and for us to get back on the right track. Granted, when the Liberals went out it was at $167 billion and, as the hon. member indicated, it is now $460 billion. Regardless of who brought the deficit and the debt to where it is today,
I would like to ask specifically what this member and the Liberal Party would do to eliminate the deficit on a three-year or five-year program?
It is one thing to say we need money for jobs, for infrastructure and for these other things, but we certainly realize as does the Canadian public that there is very little money here. How would he priorize social spending? How would he look at cuts to government programs? We must consider the fact that transfer payments make up 56 per cent of total government program expenditures.
These are the realities with which we have to live. How would the Liberal Party specifically work on eliminating the deficit if elected next time?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague put a question and she makes a number of excellent points that I want to address.
Where it started is not of any significant importance to Canadians. That is partially true. To my knowledge she has not done this but other members of the Reform Party have been quick to identify the Liberals as spendthrift and irresponsible. I say not her because it was not her, but I have heard it and I hope she is setting an example today that will be followed by others. The reason I address them, and I want my colleague to understand it, is that by making those kind of exaggerated, misleading statements they are trying to suggest we could not in fact manage the country. That is why I address them.
.(1715)
With respect to what we would do, there are several very specific measures that have already been announced by the leader. First, he has acknowledged that the deficit and the debt are major problems. Second, he has indicated there are basically three ways in which to respond. Programs can be cut. That is always extremely difficult and that is the difficulty I have with the plan of the Reform Party. It can be done.
I am a former deputy minister. I used to cut programs but we always had to look at what we were going to cut when we cut programs. Obviously it has some impact. Our leader has indicated there is no doubt that certain programs would have to be cut. To date, to my knowledge, he has not identified those programs but that will come.
He has made a third point. Obviously we can raise more revenue through taxation but that is not very popular today and he does not want to do that. That does not suggest however, and I want to be very clear, that if there are some people who are hoarding moneys elsewhere and not paying their fair share of taxes they will not have to do so. That is in fact something we will want to address.
May 4, 1993

His fourth and main point is to focus on growth in the economy. When the economy grows there are two major benefits. The first major benefit is that there are fewer people pulling from the public purse because there is less unemployment. An unemployed person costs us roughly $20,000 a year. When there are fewer unemployed they require less assistance from the public purse and they are contributing to the public Treasury.
We could increase taxes but the leader of my party has indicated he does not want to do that. He is quite willing to look at those people who are able to dodge taxes. The third one is to concentrate on growth in the economy.
With respect to two other points that are very important, he has indicated that the over-all dollar amount must be reduced. That is a public statement. He also indicated that the ratio of the current debt to our gross domestic productivity must be reduced.
The reason I like that, and some people might want some clinically fine figures, is that it is doable. Those are reachable goals. Over a period of time we would begin to manage the deficit and the debt.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the member from Manitoba. I find it interesting that in his presentation, or certainly in his response to a question, he talked bout the goals of the Liberal Party. He said that one of the goals of the Liberal Party was to reduce the over-all debt in relation to the Gross Domestic Product. That is very commendable. We have been doing that for quite some time now.
He did not talk about another goal. Maybe he was ashamed to talk about the goal of the Liberal Party to reduce the deficit as a per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. They can accomplish goals one and two that he talked about by accomplishing the goal of the Liberal Party to have the deficit come in at 3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product.
The Liberal leader has said quite comfortably: "We can carry on ad infinitum with a 3 per cent deficit as a per cent of Gross Domestic Product and our problems will be solved". They will be solved except for one thing. Every year the debt will go up by some $20 billion to $25 billion. How do they consider that solving the problem?
Supply
In this budget we have said that 3 per cent is not a good enough target. In fact in this budget we have said that the deficit as a per cent of the Gross Domestic Product would be less than 1 per cent in the five-year timeframe this budget deals with, knowing full well that we will go a step further.
The fact of the matter is that in the presentations of all members on the opposite side who have talked about the deficit, the debt and government spending, I have not heard them talk about which programs they would be prepared to keep under spending control. I am not talking about which ones they would cut or which ones they would feel are unnecessary to the role of government. I have tried to listen to what they would actually reduce in cost so that we could deal with the deficit in the long run.
Previously in some of the debates we have had members opposite say: "Give us a chance. We will cancel the helicopter contract". Of course the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of National Defence and the government have been supportive of the EH-101 purchase.
Today the minister issued a capital cost comparison of what the Liberals and the opposition would propose dealing with helicopters versus our proposal. In the life of the helicopters we have with some refurbishing and so on dealing through to the year 2020, to implement the Liberal proposal would cost us $6.8 billion. To implement the Conservative proposal would cost us $4.4 billion. At the end of it we would have some new helicopters rather than a bunch of old ones that are falling out of the sky. That is the proposal of the Liberal Party. That is how it would prefer to spend money, spend more today so that we have less tomorrow. That is an example there.
The Liberals talk about some job creation schemes. I have heard them talk about infrastructure and how important it is that they spend money on infrastructure, that it would create jobs. Yes, it would. I did not hear one of them say where the municipalities in Ontario, in light of the fact they are the ones I represent, would get their one-third. They are asking us to put up one-third or so. Never mind where we would get it because there is no room for that in our budget. Infrastucture is a municipal or provincial jurisdiction in the majority.

May 4, 1993
Supply
However, for argument sake, they found the $1 billion. I do not know where. Where do they think the municipalities are going to find $1 billion? Should they borrow it? In the municipality I live in that is the only choice it has. What makes it worse is that the municipality I live in and the other two I represent over the years have been spending an awful lot of money to upgrade their infrastructure. They have been doing that under the structure of existing financial arrangements, the municipal grants from provinces that come through to municipalities and their own property tax base.
What will happen under the proposal of the Liberal Party is that all of a sudden my constituents will have to pay more taxes so that some other municipality in Canada that has been derelict in rebuilding its infrastructure will have the money to rebuild. Obviously it will be done on need. We will have places like Montreal and Victoria that have not put a nickel into treating sewage stepping forward and saying their municipality has real need for a new sewage treatment facility. We will look at it and say: "You are absolutely right. The way you handled it is absolutely terrible". To good old Ajax, Pickering and Whitby we will say: "You do not need one because you have a state of the art modern plant which is being paid for by the taxpayers". We will increase the income tax of constituents in my riding to fund infrastructure requirements elsewhere in Canada.
The fact of the matter is if those municipalities and provinces had spent their money the way they should have spent it in the first place, they would not have the infrastructure problems they have today. It is a sop that the Liberals across the way should come into this House and say the Government of Canada ought to borrow an extra $1 billion so that the municipalities can go into debt another $1 billion and the provinces can go into debt another $1 billion to deal with something that is not federal jurisdiction.
That is part of the problem in this country. Too often governments, whether they be federal, municipal or provincial, get into things that are none of their business. It is time they stayed out. I find it offensive the opposition should come in here and on the helicopter program want to spend an extra $2.4 billion and on infrastructure another $1 billion. That is a $3.4 billion
stroke of the pen without one suggestion about where it would get the money or what else it would cut in return.
The purpose of today's debate is to deal with a supposed statement by one of the candidates for the leadership of our party. I am proud to say we have some really good candidates for the leadership of our party. They are bringing forward some very useful suggestions.
The opposition is saying that it supports the comments of the member for Edmonton Southwest. I have been listening to the debate today and I have been looking at some of the actions of the opposition in the past. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest proposed, for example, a salary cut for the Prime Minister and cabinet. The last time we had that opposition members voted against it. It is funny in listening to speeches today I did not hear one of them say that suggestion to cut the salary was a good one. I did not hear that from one of them.
I will go a little further. He has talked about freezing the support for the European Bank. I did not hear one member of the opposition say that was a good idea. Yet I have every confidence if a motion came forward in the House to freeze Canada's involvement in the European Bank those people opposite would vote against that particular suggestion.
He has also proposed an increase in the privatization of Crown corporations, an increase in the transfer of some of our services into the private sector. I know members opposite, particularly those from the Ottawa area, would be totally opposed because every time we talked about that kind of move in the House they objected to it. Heaven knows members of the NDP would ride off on horses if they thought we had another privatization scheme.
When we get some good suggestions from Conservative MPs fortunately I know that as time progresses they will be implemented in spite of the fact that the opposition will oppose them all the way through.
He suggested, for example, that we cut interest group funding even further. In this budget we have cut them another 10 per cent, from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. Yet I notice not one opposition member has stood in the House and said it was a real good one. I have not heard one of them get up to say that. Yet the fact of the matter

May 4, 1993

is that the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest is proposing that we go further. I have not heard one of them over there say that we should go even further.
We could turn to external affairs offices being cut. I have heard members opposite say we ought to have more embassies and more consulates around the world. In this budget we are cutting eight different government offices world-wide and the member for Edmonton Southwest is proposing more. Those people on the other side are opposed to the eight we are cutting, never mind the ones the member for Edmonton Southwest is suggesting we add to the list.
When I listen to the members opposite and then see the subject matter of the debate I think they are doing the House a disservice. They had the choice on what the motion could have been today. I have heard them on many occasions demand of the government a special debate on what should be the role of the Government of Canada in peacekeeping in Yugoslavia. It would be very useful to debate that subject in the House because an awful lot of Canadians are concerned about the position we are putting our men and women in who represent us in a very difficult circumstance. I think that would have been a very useful debate.
Another very useful debate would be one I have heard members of the NDP suggest: the role of Canada as it relates to the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank. Some members of the Liberal Party have even asked about that. That kind of debate may have been very useful. The opposition could have said it was going to debate that matter today.
We could have been debating, if opposition members had decided, the role of the Canadian forces in Somalia. I have heard quite a number of suggestions about their concern as to whether we are doing the right thing and our forces in Somalia are being used to the maximum advantage.
On a day like today when members opposite can specify what the debate should be I thought they would have chosen one of those subjects. Did they? No, they chose to debate a subject about a single statement of the member for Edmonton Southwest on the budget. Did they concentrate on his statement on the budget or just one word? I have not heard them talk about the restructuring of departments and streamlining middle
Supply
management as proposed by the member from Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that if that suggestion had been put forward in some concrete fashion by opposition members today we could have had a very useful debate on what would be an appropriate restructuring of the Government of Canada with their input. It would be their motion. They could have brought it forward as they so pleased.
We could have talked about agricultural subsidies. Generally the only benefit my constituents get out of agricultural subsidies is that they get to pay for them. We only consume. We do not produce agricultural commodities in my riding. That is fine. That is fair. We could have debated that subject.
I congratulate the member from Edmonton for saying that we ought to review this kind of thing. It would be a very important addition to the debate in Canada. In fact there is a change to agricultural subsidies in the budget. The transportation subsidy that is given to western Canadian grain farmers is changed. It is in the budget.
I know that members opposite will vote against the budget. They will vote against the reduction in cost to the taxpayers. Why? During the debate on what a member in our party had to say, they did not have a word to say on that.
I have listened to some of the debate. Today we had members talking about changing the pension benefits of members of Parliament. I support that. I think that the pension benefits we in this House have are well in excess of what they should be. I have not heard one member opposite in today's debate say: "Well, I agree with what the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest had to say. I think we should adjust MPs' pensions".
They take one word out of a five-page presentation and say they agree with that word. But all the other things that the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest proposed, the most constructive ones are the things that they have totally ignored. That is the way the Liberal Party and the NDP prefer to do things.
We have also heard some members opposite talk about how the government has transferred the debt. They say that instead of the federal government having the transfers, it is the provincial governments to whom we have given the debt. He used the reference of going

May 4, 1993
Supply
home to his family and saying: "I no longer have the debt, my kids have it".
I do not think the provinces are our kids. I am sure he was not intending it in that kind of a relationship. Every year the government has not given the provinces less money, it has given them more money.
In this year's budget the government is giving them just over 4 per cent more than they got last year, which was more than they got in 1991, which was more than they got in 1990 and so on all the way back to 1984. If the debt of the provinces has gone up, it is because they have not controlled the cost of their programs. We in this House do not control the costs of their programs. We did not say to the province of Ontario that it should increase its health care costs in 1991 by giving the nurses in Ontario a 26 per cent raise. Even if we had there was nothing we could have done about it because it is not our jurisdiction.
The point I am trying to make is that although the government transfers each and every year money to the provinces, each and every year they got more money than we have by way of an increase. They got a bigger increase than has been allotted to the programs under federal government control. Yet the hon. member opposite says we are transferring debt. That is nonsense.
If the provinces had controlled their costs they would not have a debt problem. I speak particularly from the perspective of the province of Ontario, as can be appreciated. I reside and represent a constituency in that province. It has increased its spending at such a dramatic rate that there would have been no way on God's green earth that money could have been transferred to the province at the same rate. Ontario increased spending on an average of 13 per cent to 14 per cent a year. I have no idea where it thinks the federal taxpayers can find that money. But I can tell you one thing, it is impossible for the Government of Canada to increase transfers to the provinces the way they have been increasing spending.
I am happy to report that in this budget the government recognizes that this debt problem is not just a problem of the federal government. It is not just a problem of the provincial governments. It is a problem that we collectively have to address. The way the Minister of Finance has addressed it in this budget is
very appropriate. The minister has said we will continue in 1993-94 to transfer to the provinces the exact amount of funds that they should receive based on the formulas that are in place. He also said that he would like to bring them all together so that they could review the whole system of debt and spending to see if there was some better way to deal with the problem.
As well, some have suggested that there is not much room in this budget for improvements in technology and spending. They obviously have not read the budget very well. I am happy to report that in today's The Globe and Mail there is an article by Peter Browning on small business. If these people had moved from page 1 toward the end of the budget they would have found there were a number of changes in the regulations dealing with the taxes of small businesses.
For example, for those who want to buy patents and the rights to use patent information, there are changes in the regulations that make is easier for them to access these patents. This is very important to small business.
The capital cost allowance system has been changed. There are so many new pieces of equipment out there. A company that bought a computer yesterday has discovered today that it has an out of date computer. We have changed the capital cost allowance to adjust and deal with some of these issues. It is very important that small business keep up to date with new and modern technologies.
Then there are some additional changes for research and development which will encourage small business to invest money in technology. Those are some very positive steps for small business.
On the other side we have cut grants and transfer payments for business. We have cut grants across the board. For example we have in the budget some economic development agreements. We have cut those. That is what business was demanding.
I find it interesting that provincial governments say the government has not done enough. I have an article from the The Chronicle-Herald of Nova Scotia which says: "Nova Scotia leaders disappointed". The article talks about how terrible it was that the government did not make some real cuts and then complains about cuts to the programs in their province.
May 4, 1993

I will just quote one paragraph from an article from St. John's, Newfoundland because this sounds typical of many Canadians, particularly in the opposition.
He explained areas of Canada that are doing well, like British
Columbia, should receive less funding because areas such as
Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have greater needs.
That is typically Canadian. Cut. Not in my backyard. Cut in somebody else's backyard.
Members opposite keep citing statistical surveys. I have a survey that was done in my constituency of Ontario in 1990 versus 1989 of 100,000 Canadians. They filed an income tax return in 1991. In 1991 they paid $59 million more in income tax in total than they did in 1989. My constituents say they are not interested in paying any more income tax. Those who want to spend more money had better figure out where else they are going to get the money from because the constituents in my Ontario riding do not want to pay it.


Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a number of comments regarding the hon. member's presentation in the debate regarding the budget and in relation to the comments by one of the leadership candidates for the Conservative Parly in which he terms the budget a disgrace.
The member opposite has listed a number of reasons why he considers it a useless debate and yet uses up 20 minutes of our time with very rhetorical, platitudinous comments, wasting a lot of time. I would like to ask him about some real issues. Maybe he could take a note and perhaps give me some answers.
I would like to know if he expects an area that has a very high cost for transportation which is solely reliant on air transportation like the Northwest Territories to pay back as much as his area, which he indicates does not want to pay any more taxes.
In fact, if we want to think about everything in relative terms, the member should realize that some of these areas do not get the moneys they should from the resources extracted from them such as oil and gas. A lot of the minerals are extracted, including gold and some of the other minerals.
Does he consider the fact that these particular areas like the Northwest Territories are essentially off the transportation grid? For instance, the Northwest Territo-
Supply
ries was perhaps anticipating the establishment of a CBC daily television news broadcast for the northern part of Canada. It is the only region in Canada that does not have a daily television news broadcast. Perhaps the hon. member was not thinking of these in real and relative terms. I believe we have 10 minutes for comments and questions and I am making my comments. Perhaps he was not thinking of the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is questions or comments period not a time for a speech. It is time for a short comment or to raise a question to the previous speaker.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Okay, I will make my comments very brief and short.
Is this a ridiculous debate on the budget as he indicated? Perhaps it is not as ridiculous as the budget itself. In fact, one of the members of the House of Commons said that if we did not call it a budget we would not have spent 10 seconds on it or 10 pennies on it.
The other thing is, what does he say to the Arctic co-operatives that have had reductions in their budgets? They no longer get the $1 million they used to get for the Arctic managers program. What about the housing crisis in the north? Those are real issues and real concerns. These are the things that have to be dealt with. We cannot just say forget about it, not deal with it. I am not making a speech but I am asking a question predicated on a comment. What can the hon. member tell these people who are marginalized economically, communica-tions-wise, transportation-wise and employment-wise? What can he tell them?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could tell those people in the constituency of the Northwest Territories or the extensive aboriginal community that lives in other parts of Canada, not in the Territories, that this budget is the kind of budget they ought to be supporting.
I can appreciate how important it is for local television news to be broadcast in the Northwest Territories. If you are asking me, would they rather have the right to watch their own news broadcast funded by the taxpayers of Canada or a job or economic activity or housing infrastructure or all of those kind of things, I guess I would suggest to the member that even I from southern

May 4, 1993
Supply
Ontario would believe that they would sooner have good economic activity than the right to watch the news.
If the member had read the budget she would have noticed that programs like native housing were not included in any of the program cuts. Transfers to the Northwest Territories were excluded from cuts for all of the native programs that exist in this country. Although she may not want to portray an image in the Northwest Territories that this budget has dealt with the concerns of the Northwest Territories, the fact of the matter is that people in need in this country have not been hit with any cuts in this budget.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it on record in response to the hon. member when he said nobody from the opposition side here said yes to further subsidy cuts, I am saying yes. I am saying yes in terms of going further in what this sham looks like for $30 billion in cuts which is not true. I say yes, go further.
With regard to MPs pension reform, I say yes. It is high time that this was actually happening and not just bantered about in the House of Commons.
Regarding the member for Edmonton Southwest whom he defended in his speech, I have listened and looked at the reforms that the member for Edmonton Southwest put forward in his economic plan. In fact, I know them inside out because he has plagiarized them from the Reform Party blue book. When someone is invited to come home, I dare say that I should be inviting the member for Edmonton Southwest.
I would like to ask a question of this member regarding targeting. The finance minister has targeted in this budget $30 billion worth of cuts. What this deficit was targeted to be five years ago certainly is a far shot from where it actually is today. We are still looking at a deficit over $32 billion this year. This is not targeting a five-year plan. It is one thing to have a five-year plan and another thing to be able to achieve it.
I would like to ask the hon. member, if I could refer him to page 51, the chart in the budget, where in fact this is not $30 billion worth of actual cuts. This is $30 billion of savings on projected rates of increase of spending. I would like to wind up my remarks and ask him for his comment on this by giving an example of something I heard from one of my high school students several years ago, before my election. It is the example that this government is living with. It shows what a fraud it is.
It is this: A husband came home one day and said to his wife: "Honey, I just saved 75 cents by running home behind the bus. What do you think of that?" She said:
"Well, that's great, but why didn't you run home behind a taxi cab and save $5?"
This exemplifies that this is not actual cuts but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the vote and recognize that there are times when members vote inappropriately. I wonder if the chief government Whip actually voted appropriately during this vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops knows it is completely improper to question the motivation of a vote of an hon. member.
Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service and establishing a system of multi-modal passenger transportation terminals, and building rail links between airports and urban business centres, and between certain airports, such as Pearson International and Hamilton Airport.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience and for the attention of the House. I want to say at the outset that I speak with some kind of fondness for rail passenger service. I get up now in sorrow and in some anger because two successive governments have neglected what I call the federal government's main orphan.
The federal government has failed to properly support that orphan, which is the worst kind of neglect. New equipment, new and renewed routes as well as additional routes are required to keep this orphan surviving.
The first thing that this government has not done with regard to this orphan is provide it with a legislative mandate. I must confess to forgetfulness or whatever you like, although I wrote my motion two years ago.
I have made it an essential thing and I hope my colleague will insert it for us. What I omitted was a legislative mandate. There is the Canadian National Railway Act and there is an Air Canada Act under which they are allowed to operate. It is an umbrella that provides them with the law under which they can function. The government introduced the bill in 1986 and it died on the Order Paper. We were not particularly happy about that bill but they have never done it before or since.
They still do not have a legislated mandate that gives them some legality. They are still operating under a $1 item in the budget, a $1 dollar item in the estimates. It is a hell of a way to run a railroad.
We need to be investing money in Air Canada. I want at this point to compliment the staff, the officers and the president of VIA Rail for doing such a good job and making do with what they had left to work with.
They have been operating with used equipment that is 35, 40 and 50 years old. Millions have been spent to refurbish it and that equipment is good for another 10 years at the most, if we are lucky. They need three years lead-time just to order it and get it delivered. They should be ordering new equipment now.
My motion also provides for the government to consider a multi-modal transportation centre. Here I have some bitterness. There is Union Station in Regina, which is beautiful. That building is nearly 100 years old. I had
all the players, the Government of Saskatchewan, the bus company, the city, city transit, VIA Rail and the then Minister of Transport, and tried to get them to agree on a multi-modal transportation centre that would provide for the use of the building. It is still sitting there, mostly empty. What a tragic waste and a tragic loss.
We need this in dozens of places across Canada. It would be a place where people could go for all the facets of travel service.
All the government has to do is consider my motion. There are no requirements on it, but surely to goodness the time has passed when it must do it.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to my hon. colleague's motion.
My hon. colleague opposite calls for a system of multi-modal transportation terminals and rail links between airports and business centres. It is clear that multi-modal terminals could be given a more important profile in the development of an efficient transportation system. These terminals could involve many modes: intercity and urban bus, rail, commuter rail, subways, taxis and, in some instances, ferries. The terminal would thus become a focal point for both intercity and regional transportation, with a primary function to be to facilitate the transfer of passengers and baggage from one mode to another.
It might be interesting and instructive to set out what multi-modal transportation means in practical terms. Such a facility would be used in one of two ways by the carriers involved: either competitive or complementary. In the competitive form of relationship the carriers compete for the same traveller, whereas in the complementary form one mode brings customers to the other.
We can see that three levels of joint development are possible, requiring successively greater co-operation and co-ordination between the parties involved.
The first level is a simple joint use of facilities where each carrier uses the same facility and pays a pro-rated share of the total terminal costs.
May 4, 1993

The second level of development is the integration of service, which involves arranging schedules so that arrivals and departures allow for transfer from one mode to another.
The last level is that of joint operation in which daily terminal operations are fully integrated.
The underlying philosophy of such integrated transportation facilities and services would be that the modes must complement one another and be able to act as one large unified system. The degree of integration would necessarily have to be high, encompassing not only a joint transportation terminal but also common ticketing and integrated management.
A true multi-modal terminal therefore requires the carriers and terminal operators to work together to produce a more efficient and convenient interface function. This co-operation may include such items as joint scheduling, common management, coordinated fare structures and cost sharing.
The advantages of such arrangements are obvious. In the rail mode, for instance, a multi-modal terminal would raise its profile in the community and enable the industry to operate more economically.
There are some disadvantages though for a carrier. While one would expect that in most cases a carrier may reduce its operating costs, it may find that in other situations it has incurred certain new terminal costs. It may also find that it has lost control over some costs as it is committed to a terminal which it does not entirely control.
In many European countries and some American cities we do find examples where all modes of transport are located under one roof. Additionally, there can be a direct bus and/or rail link between the terminal and the airport.
One may ask why such an integrated transportation infrastructure has developed in Europe. There are many reasons. Some are certainly historical, including a reaction to saving space which meant that new types of transportation were added to existing terminals.
The Europeans and Americans are not alone in then-support of multi-modal terminals. Here in Canada the idea of intermodal integration of transportation facilities and services is already strongly supported by section 3 of the National Transportation Act, 1987 which calls for a
Private Members' Business
network of viable and effective transportation services making the best use of all available modes at the lowest cost.


An hon. member:: That is not what we have!


Jean-Marc Robitaille: As I was saying, for my colleague opposite, there is already a basis in section 3 of the 1987 act, and I would ask him to refer to it.
Mr. Speaker, I am not unsupportive of such an objective. It should be recognized though that the establishment of specific facilities and services is a matter that can surely be worked out by carriers and other directly involved parties. In other words, inter-mo-dalism should not be a forced solution. Inter-modalism is considered in federal plans for transportation facilities and services where that can be done. For example, the federal-provincial feasibility study into high-speed rail is specifically looking at the feasibility of linkages with other modes of transport, including access to airports and urban business centres, just as the hon. member wishes.
As well, the National Transportation Act Review Commission has recommended that inter-modalism be specifically recognized in section 3 of the National Transportation Act as forming an integral aspect of transportation policy.
We also see that the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation recommended that all agreements for the sale or lease of federal transportation infrastructure should include provisions that oblige the operating authority to grant open access to all intermodal connectors on equal terms and conditions.
These recommendations are under review by the government. On this point, the Minister of Transport has established a working group to review these two important reports, and has asked for a status report to be available this fall.
For its part, VIA, as our national rail carrier, is poised to pursue the establishment of multimodal terminals wherever appropriate opportunities exist. It must be remembered that VIA cannot do so without the co-operation of not only other carriers but operating authorities as well. For example, CN, not VIA, is the owner of Montreal's Central Station. In Toronto, CN and CP own the main station. These are two of the largest terminals served by VIA.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
It may come as a surprise to some but there are already cases where VIA has successfully negotiated the establishment of a multi-modal transportation facility. For example, its Pacific Central Station in Vancouver will be officially opened next month. VTA Rail and Greyhound Lines of Canada, as well as other bus and train services, will operate out of this one central location. In this particular case, VIA management recognized that participation made good business sense and they took advantage of the opportunity that was presented.
We believe that this arrangement will benefit rail and bus passengers by providing modem amenities. By sharing the facilities, Greyhound and its partners and VIA Rail will all realize cost efficiencies.
I am also pleased to say that the newly structured VIA is deliberately focused to rethink the conduct of business for passenger rail, not only within funding levels set by the federal government but, more importantly, to meet the challenges of increasing its passenger volume while pursuing a cost effective practice.
Much of this success is due to VIA's own awareness of its product, image and service to the travelling public. In other words, I believe that market conditions must be the basis of rational business decisions about the practicalities and feasibility of multi-modalism, and it is about time that we move in that direction.
In conclusion, the development of a system of multimodal terminals will depend on the objectives of all parties concerned: VIA, bus carriers, air carriers, transit authorities, other operating authorities and definitely not forgetting the final decision-maker, the public. Whatever we might say, although the idea is interesting, it is up to all those concerned, to these partners, to move in that direction. Ultimately the market and the public will decide.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to again rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West, in my home town, this time to speak to the private member's motion, M-282, presented by the member for Regina-Lumsden.
When the government saw fit to downsize the standing committees, including the transport committee, we literally shrank from a membership of 14 members of Parliament from all the different parties to a membership of 8 members and lost the wisdom and the years of experience given to the committee by the member for Regina-Lumsden.
Not to be forgotten at all, the Benji is back and this time with a motion that asks the government to:
consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service and establishing a system of multi-modal passenger transportation terminals, and building rail links between airports and urban business centres, and between certain airports, such as Pearson International and Hamilton airport.


Iain Francis Angus: Where is that?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: This is the point I was going to get to but the transportation critic for the NDP is asking where Hamilton airport is. This motion is a good idea. It is a good motion from the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, but not, and I repeat, not a new idea.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know. Who said it was?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: He admits it. The hon. member who moved the motion says: "I know".
I would be very surprised if the New Democratic Party caucus or even the transport critic supported this motion because God knows that each and every time that I have discussed Hamilton airport at meetings of the transportation committee, of which I have been a member since its inception in 1988, I have been laughed off-yes-by the government members of the committee but more notably by the NDP members on the committee, especially the NDP transport critic, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: There is only one of us.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Now there is only one of you. Before Benji was on the committee with us.
If the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is against the expansion of Hamilton International Airport and its designation as the primary alternate to Pearson International, then and only then by logical extension the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan cannot in all honesty be in support of his colleagues Motion No. 282 which demands that the government consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service between
May 4, 1993

Hamilton International Airport and Pearson airport at Toronto.
He cannot possibly support it. In fact I have to truly question the sincerity of the NDP at all on this motion given what has been said.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order, order.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Now get me, Benji. Given what has been said in the past by none other than the member who moved this motion today, the member for Regina- Lumsden.
Let me quote in responding to heckling here in the House. The member for Regina-Lumsden said in Hansard dated May 28, 1991 on page 706.


Mr. Belsher:: You just happened to have it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: No, I did not just happen to have it. I researched this motion. Here is what the member who has moved the motion today said about this:
It was done backward at Pearson. It can still be corrected. TVvo more runways must be built immediately-I want to say something else to my hon. friend from Hamilton.
Referring to me because I was heckling him at the time.
I have listened to him for a couple of years about using Hamilton airport. He still has to find somebody who will use it.
I believe that the Ministry of Transport could order cargo flights and the like into Hamilton.
Exactly what we have been saying all along. Let us divert some of that traffic from Pearson International to Hamilton airport to free up the slots, to free up the times, the arrivals, the departures, et cetera.
Then my hon. friend for Regina-Lumsden said:
I am sorry to say to my hon. friend that if Hamilton or Buttonville or Oshawa has visions of grandeur, of becoming some kind of big international airport, he is dreaming in Technicolor.
If we return to the motion being presented by the hon. member which says " consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service" between places like Pearson and Hamilton, why the heck are we going to build the rail line there for?
Private Members' Business


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have talked me into it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I have talked the hon. member into it. Well then I have accomplished my work here today and I feel terrific but he is not the one I have to talk into it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have talked me into it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I cannot talk just you into it. I am glad I have done that. I have to talk the government into it because it is the government through Transport Canada that has to make the logical next step in the transportation system of southern Ontario in the airline industry. For airline policy's sake in this country, for the interests of the entire country, we should have an airline policy that does not expand Pearson. This have a look at an intermodal system of transportation in southern Ontario.
Having gone through all the partisan arguments, a solid partisan debate, allow me to address some of the substance. Pearson at Toronto is the principal and busiest hub in Canada. In 1980 over 18 million passengers used that airport and there were over 300,000 movements.
In the interim report of November 1992 the federal environmental assessment review office was empanelled to review the government's proposals to add three new runways to Pearson International. The report concluded that the government should not-I stress the word not-proceed with new runways at this time.
However our Minister of Transport in the government states that the government will proceed. Despite the objections with the construction and despite the panel's recommendations not to build it he is going to go ahead anyway. Why we have these environmental reviews I do not know. Why bother with the thing? How much did it cost us? The recommendations and the report of that panel are put on the shelf and they proceed with their agenda anyway.
The persistent development of Pearson as that single mega airport is illustrative of the government's lassitude. Even the former Auditor General Ken Dye in his 1990 report noted that Transport Canada remains unprepared for deregulation and lacks a concrete plan for aviation in southern Ontario. We have heard it. We have said it time and time again.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
In the same year Transport Canada released a study. It was entitled "Aviation in Southern Ontario, A Strategy for the Future". It concluded that the government must address capacity problems at Pearson before serious repercussions occur. That is what was said.
The House has heard me time and time again make comparisons between Toronto airport and Hamilton airport. We have demonstrated time and time again in this House and the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan knows well that I have tried to demonstrate to this government that around the world where it is moving to, it is there. We see it: New York with JFK and LaGuardia; London, England with Gatwick and Heathrow; California with Oakland International and San Jose at San Francisco.
We have examples. We have proof that it works and we are not doing anything about it. Oh yes, the government is. The Tories are going to expand Pearson even though it has been recommended that they do not do it.
With foresight and with creative planning, Hamilton airport can become the second principal airport in southern Ontario. That system would be a model for the future of multi-modal transportation and like other parts of the world where dual operating airports are an integral part of the transportation infrastructure, proper road and rail links between the two facilities would showcase new technology, benefit the economy of southern Ontario and improve and facilitate rapid transit.
I thank the House for its time. I thank the member for his motion and his support for Hamilton airport.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of my colleague's motion and also in support of my colleague from Hamilton West who has raised the matter of the importance of Hamilton airport a number of times. Yes, we tease him in committee and we tease him in the House, but I think he will agree that the motion put forward by my colleague makes a lot of what he wants to do for Hamilton airport possible.
I want to come back to that, but before I go on I would like to move an amendment to Motion No. M-282:
Thai Motion M-282 be amended by adding the words:
and that in the further opinion of this House the government
should consider the advisability of establishinga legislative mandate
for the government to maintain a defined level of passenger rail service.
I will leave that with you, Mr. Speaker, to review and to determine the appropriateness. I have not signed it so I guess I have to get it back.
Let me go to the motion as presented by my colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden.
I want to respond to the comments by the member for Hamilton West in a very specific way. I represent a riding that by necessity uses air a lot. The vast majority of our traffic is to Pearson airport, not because we are going to Toronto necessarily but because that is the hub and we have to go elsewhere. One of the concerns that we had over the proposal to divert traffic, pass new traffic to Hamilton -


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Cargo.


Iain Francis Angus: The member says cargo. I agree there is no problem moving cargo there and would support that, but there were other proposals, not necessarily from him, to divert passenger traffic. In fact, it was suggested that charter operators should operate out of Hamilton, freeing up the gates and what have you at Pearson. That creates real difficulty for people from northwestern Ontario, particularly those who are trying to do it just in time, which I think is crazy, to use a scheduled carrier to make a two-hour connection for a charter connection for the sunny south. To be forced to do the transport by land from Pearson to Hamilton was a major barrier for us.
However, if the Government of Canada accepted my colleague's motion and actually did something with it and developed a high-speed rail link between downtown Toronto, Pearson airport and Hamilton airport then that would facilitate their ability to use the Hamilton airport for that kind of thing. There would be baggage and line service so that when one checked into the Thunder Bay Airport and said one was going on flight XYZ out of Hamilton that the baggage would go right through to Hamilton and one would not have to be carrying it. We have a lot of seniors and a lot of snowbirds who fly south.
While we may tease the hon. member for Hamilton West we recognize that there are real needs at that airport. There are also solutions that will make it possible for that airport to be part of the package of
May 4, 1993

southern Ontario in terms of the provision of aviation services.
Let me move on to some of the other elements. Let me stay with the whole multi-modal situation. We have seen some examples where VIA Rail has joined with I think it is Greyhound to develop a joint facility in Vancouver.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Kapuskasing is another one.


Iain Francis Angus: In Kapuskasing they have another one. We have seen in Thunder Bay that two bus lines have amalgamated their operations and they do not necessarily compete with each other. They have a different area of jurisdiction but one can now go to one bus terminal in Thunder Bay. That was a private sector decision. My colleague is calling for the Government of Canada to take a lead role to ensure that this kind of thing happens. It cannot happen overnight. Not all the bus routes go by all the train tracks and all the airports. There are very few cities that are in a situation like that. VIA Rail has a Dorval stop close to the airport there. A further linkage would make sense. We need to be innovative. We need to take a look at our options because it is a long-term plan.
Although I may disagree with the planners who decided that Montreal needed a second airport, I was pleased as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport when we were studying the question of highspeed rail to learn that the planners thought far enough ahead to build a train station under the basement of Mirabel airport. At the point in time where we decide collectively as a society to get into high-speed rail, we have an opportunity there to make that kind of linkage.
On the other hand we saw this national capital eliminate its tracks downtown and eliminating the station. It was moved out to a decent cab-ride distance, whereas it was much more accessible to people here. It was really multi-modal in the sense that urban transit was connected to it for members of Parliament. They could just walk up to the Hill to their office and so forth.
All these kinds of things make sense. It is an efficient use of energy, there is less damage to the environment and it is easier for the people who are using the services. We need to go beyond the bricks and mortars. It is more than just a central location where one goes from the train to the bus and what have you. It is also the
Private Members' Business
ticketing. It is the ability to call up a local travel agent and get a ticket that takes one from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg by air, puts one on VIA Rail to Vancouver and on a bus up into the interior with one ticket. It is not three phone calls, three different tickets and routes and schedules that do not match but a streamlined process that gets you from A to B to C in the most efficient time and cheapest way possible based on one's ability to pay. We have to do those kinds of things as well.
Let me move to the motion that I put forward to the amendment. My colleague, the member for Regina- Lumsden, explained it in his presentation. VIA Rail does not have its own legislative mandate. There are no rules of the road so to speak. Air Canada has them. The Air Canada Act specifies where the headquarters shall be. It specifies where the maintenance shall be. It specifies the language of service and a lot of other things. The Canadian National Railways Act has all sorts of parameters in there as well but nothing for VIA. It is an orphan, as my colleague has described it.
Part of the problem that we have had over the last number of years is that without legislative authority VIA Rail is subject to the whims of the Minister of Transport or in a lot of cases to the Minister of Finance who has cut and slashed rail passenger services in this country.
It is important for the government to actually do what it promised to do. It went so far as to table the legislation in the House. We had qualms about the way it was worded in some areas but certainly the concept of rail passenger legislation makes sense.
That is why Amtrak survives. It has its own bill. Their rights and responsibilities are laid out in legislation. That is all we are asking for.
Here is my final point. My colleague says the government should consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service. A lot of us would just like to get back what we used to have. Thunder Bay lost all its rail passenger services when the cuts to VIA Rail were made. This is so for almost every community on the north shore of Lake Superior such as Dryden and Kenora. The most populated section of the transcontinental rail service in northwestern Ontario was eliminated. We want back what we once had.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
Figures today show that the revenue of VIA Rail in Thunder Bay was close to $900,000 a year. That is not small change. It is an indication of the number of people who used it and it is an indication of the value of that usage.
I wish I had 20 minutes or 30 minutes. Members know I can go on and on because VIA Rail is very important to me. It is very important to my constituents and it is very important to this country. It is part of what keeps us together.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It leaves out Regina too.


Iain Francis Angus: It leaves out Regina as my colleague reminds me.
VIA Rail is an important linkage to allow people from western Canada to see eastern Canada and vice versa. It allows us to see who we are. I urge the government to support this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate it if the mover of the amendment would indicate to the Chair who the seconder of the motion is. I regret that the mover of the main motion cannot be the seconder of the amendment motion.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of courtesy I will second the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is in order.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the pursuit of an enhanced passenger rail service and the establishment of multi-modal passenger transportation terminals proposed by my hon. friend from Regina-Lumsden, these are not new concepts and it is not the first time that he has proposed these things.
With regard to the former we are now exploring the possibilities of high-speed rail whereas our experience with the latter in Canada, namely the multi-modal terminals, has been somewhat varied.
At the outset I would like to indicate that the federal government certainly has no problems with encouraging private business interests in the development of such
systems. In fact, I am sure the hon. member is no doubt aware that provisions of the National Transportation Act encourage the development of a network of viable and effective transportation services for making the best use of all available modes at the lowest total cost.
It should also be noted that while the government supports the principle outlined in the legislation, this government is of the view that it is up to private carriers, passengers and business interests, and not up to the government, to build and support such passenger system terminals.
In other words, without the involvement of the private sector such pursuits are not possible as passenger transportation costs are essentially time based. There has to be clear evidence of time cost advantages for passengers and profits to be made by carriers prior to the infusion of the massive capital required to build both high-speed trains and multi-modal passenger terminals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They build airports.


Ross Belsher: The hon. member says: "They build airports". In fact the Vancouver airport has been turned over to a private group and the expansion of the third runway at the Vancouver International Airport will be paid for mainly out of an airport departure fee. They started to collect the airport departure fee as of last Saturday, May 1.
It can be argued that in Canada we already have evidence of a multi-modal approach to passenger transportation. For example intercity buses and cabs service airports, train stations and bus terminals. There is even co-operation between the bus industry and VIA. This is particularly the case in the maritime provinces where efforts have been made since 1990 in the restructuring of VIA to enhance other connections between remaining passenger services.
As well there is the example of the Ontario Northland Commission which operates both rail passenger and bus services in northern Ontario. There is also the distinctive double-decker GO transport system which runs in conjunction with an extensive bus feeder network. I might add it carries many thousands of people every day in and out of Toronto.



May 4, 1993

It should be remembered that not all multi-modal efforts necessarily are limited to rail or bus transportation. For example, the Acadian lines in Nova Scotia operate several of its intercity bus services through the Halifax International Airport.
The hon. member is no doubt aware that the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor has been the subject of numerous studies with a view to ascertaining the feasibility of implementing high-speed rail in the Quebec to Windsor corridor. To date we have no conclusive results.
The Ontario-Quebec rapid train task force report released in June 1991 represents the most comprehensive work on the subject. In its report the task force concluded that on the basis of its study it was not possible to make a final decision with respect to the project and recommended further study.
The Governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec have established a federal-provincial team with specific tasks. The team has undertaken a pre-feasibility study using the Ontario-Quebec report as a starting point. This exercise currently under way consists of various component studies that are examining such detailed issues as routing, technology, forecasting, institutional options, industrial strategy, modal impacts and studies. A report is expected in the fall. I am sure it will prove of much interest and value in this ongoing debate.
With specific reference to the member's suggestion that the government should build rail links between airports and urban business centres, I would like to point to one of the studies done in that regard in 1990. The National Research Council carried out a preliminary analysis of an integrated multi-modal chiefly air-rail passenger transportation approach in the high density Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor. The air link is a recognized progression in the evolution of commercial passenger transportation. Indeed it is currently operational in Germany. The Deutsche Bundestag and the German Federal Railway have closely integrated its high speed rail services with those of Lufthansa, the German national airline. This in effect incorporates the benefits of multi-modal with high-speed rail.
In its preliminary analysis the NRC study looked at high-speed rail interconnections between Pearson, Uplands, Mirabel and Dorval airports. Under this concept the rail link would be used to shuttle passengers
Private Members' Business
between airports for improved access to national, international and long distance flights.
Downtown access to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal would be provided by extensions of existing urban transit networks such as subways and/or bus trimodal modes. These can be at or near airports with the rail terminals being provided with extensive parking facilities for automobiles.
There is one serious disadvantage to this kind of motion. Even if we can ignore all the jurisdictional questions like provincial responsibilities for commuter transportation, and assuming we can convince all the municipalities that such a route invariably traverses, there is still one small problem and that problem is money and more specifically taxpayers' money.
I know the hon. member opposite and his party often suggest that money is not the problem. They suggest it is just a case of having the will to do it and the money will find itself. In reality governments do not have a lot of money and essentially must be very frugal as to how they spend the money. We in government have to make tough decisions about fiscal responsibility and we will continue to do so.
In closing I must say that the pursuit of multi-modal terminals and high-speed rail links are complex matters that require further assessment before any decisions regarding enhancement of passenger rail services can be made. Those decisions will not be possible without informed and co-operative input from the other levels of government and the private sector.
Suggesting the federal government should take on these responsibilities and pay I do not think is in the cards at this time. Therefore I cannot support the motion. I thank the House very much for the opportunity to speak to the motion.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the motion of the member for Regina-Lumsden concerning the enhancement of passenger service. I want to congratulate the member for all his years of service and wish him luck and Godspeed. I am wondering if this debate might merit mention in the biography I understand he is writing right now. Certainly we will hear a lot about transportation issues in that biography.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
As we have heard, the objectives are in themselves very worthy of pursuit, and I will certainly not argue to the contrary. I do, however, have a concern about any proposal regarding the federal government's financial participation in their achievement.
As we have witnessed in the budget of April 26, funding available for VIA Rail, our national rail passenger carrier, has had its reference levels reduced in order to help address this country's serious deficit problem. It was not an easy decision. Nevertheless we must not be turned aside from our program of deficit reduction which is designed to ensure economic security for all Canadians in the future. This government is not afraid to take such difficult decisions, and they are very difficult decisions.
What this must mean is that the federal financial resources available for rail passenger services must necessarily, at least in the foreseeable future, be limited to projects which are commercially viable.
To illustrate my point, let us examine the funding reduction that will be applied to the operations of VIA Rail Canada. Starting in 1995-96 the federal subsidy to the Crown corporation will be reduced to produce total savings of $250 million by the end of 1997-98. There is no doubt that the government is providing VIA Rail management with a major challenge. How this challenge will be met will be a subject of future corporate plans. What we must realize now is that there is every reason to believe the corporation will meet this challenge with success as it has met past challenges with success. We know this by experience.
Allow me to put our present position into context by returning to the challenge this government placed before VIA management in 1989 when it was announced that we would reduce federal subsidies. The actual amounts represented went from a high of $607 million in 1988-89 to $343 million, the current level, in 1993-94. A subsidy of $607 million was reduced to $343 million, still a huge subsidy.
To meet this challenge the federal government gave VIA a new mandate in 1989. That mandate was to prepare and implement a new business plan which respected the corporation's new funding levels and
ultimately would see VIA operate services in a way that imposes an even lower burden on Canadian taxpayers.
VIA has met this objective. With every successive year since the network restructuring of January 15, 1990 the corporation has succeeded in continuing to improve product quality. At the same time it has lowered the cost of the rail passenger network to Canadian taxpayers. This success has been achieved despite a downturn in the travel market in recent years.
Mr. Lawrence Hanigan, VIA's former chairman, was reported by the press as saying that in hindsight the decision'to reduce the size of the company and cut some unprofitable lines in January 1990 was painful but right.
He said:
We have been able to improve productivity, use better equipment
and improve the quality of services on board -All of this is paying off
right now. That's why, with less money, we're able to do more.
VIA's 1992 annual report, which was tabled in the House on April 27, 1993 shows that revenues which totalled $155.8 million in 1992 represent an increase of $5.7 million, that is a 3.8 per cent increase over the prior year. This occurred during a recession.
In terms of government subsidy, operating funding per passenger mile decreased in 1992 to 41.2 cents from 43 cents in 1991 and 52 cents the year before that. How did the corporation achieve this? It did so through improved customer service, various productivity improvements and the fostering of a team-building spirit within the company, and that is important.
To further expand on this matter let me quote from Mr. Lawless' address of February 16, 1993 to the Standing Committee on Transport and it reads as follows-I am sorry I am missing that quote.
As it has done in the past, VIA Rail will review options for expenditure reductions and develop a business plan which will respond to reduced financial support while taking into account all such measures that are available to it to improve its bottom line. This will require some difficult adjustments. Nevertheless, the corporation has publicly stated that affected employees will be treated fairly.
*
wmmmsmmsm
May 4, 1993

Furthermore, while it is premature to consider service adjustments at this point Mr. Lawless has been quoted in the press as stating that VIA is committed to preserving the national network.
I want to state that while we have not underestimated the challenge now presented to VIA, we have not underestimated VIA's capacity to meet that challenge.
To sum up my reaction to the hon. member's motion, in light of my comments about VIA I have to say that while enhancing rail services and increasing multi-mo-dalism is a laudable goal we must always keep before us our first priority, which is to the taxpayers of this country.
That is not to say that present systems cannot be enhanced. Indeed they can. However we must be wary of any proposal that amounts to a carte blanche to spend money.
The opposition day after day wants to spend more money on services to buy people's votes. As Premier Wells found out last night, as the people of Newfoundland stated last night, the taxpayers do not want to be bought with their own money. They want us to keep on facing the challenges that we have before us, to improve service, to improve productivity and to improve quality.
We have done that with VIA Rail. Those decisions were difficult. I applaud the hon. member for his motion but at the present time I cannot offer it the support I would like to because of our financial constraints.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps members opposite will allow me the opportunity to say a few words.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: You have about six minutes.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's motion put by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden which suggests that the government should consider the advisability of enhancing passenger rail service, establish a system of multi-modal passenger transportation terminals, build rail links between airports and urban business centres and between certain airports such as Pearson International in Toronto and Hamilton airport.
My perspective I guess is from someone who represents a sparsely populated area on the southern prairies, an area which in fact lost its passenger rail service a few
Private Members' Business
years ago, a passenger rail service that was rather sporadic at best. We had one train in and one train out each day. Sometimes it arrived on time and sometimes it did not. I believe that on average three or four people boarded and three or four people got off at the various stops within my constituency.
I believe I received two representations from my entire constituency lamenting the loss of that passenger service. The reason was because even then, a few years ago, people and certainly my constituents were sensitized to the need to deal with government spending and government deficit. They were cognizant of the kind of deficits that passenger rail service in Canada were running. I have forgotten the numbers now but I believe that every time someone steps on a train in this country it costs the taxpayer something in excess of $100.1 maybe understating the figure when I say that. So I have considerable difficulty coming from that background to find an enormous amount of enthusiasm for this motion.
This motion sort of flies in the face of contemporary thinking in this country. It speaks about enhancing passenger rail service, establishing a system of transportation terminals and building rail links. Those may be very fine hopes and aspirations but at the end of the day someone has to pay for them. I have a feeling the source the hon. member who put this motion has in mind is the Government of Canada and ultimately the taxpayers. I really would question the affordability.
It is unfortunate that the cost of passenger rail travel and freight movement has become so expensive. I would like to quote from volume I of the National Transportation Act Review Commission which deals with one important aspect of the cost of rail service. It is interesting because it talks about labour productivity. While it indicates that railway labour productivity has improved in Canada it has not done so to the same extent as in the United States.
For example, just comparing railways: In 1991 the productivity for an employee at CP Rail was only 60 per cent of the level achieved by the employees at seven leading U.S. railroads. CN employees stood at 56 per cent of their U.S. counterparts. I do not have the figures relating to VIA and Amtrak and passenger rail service in the United States, but I would be surprised if there were substantial differences.

May 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
One of the really major expenditures has been the cost of labour downsizing associated with severance payments. For example, the NTA report indicates that in 1991 the cost to CN of employee separations amounted to $94 million. CP Rail wrote off $251 million in restructuring charges that same year. The report indicates that severance payments of this generosity obviously erode the economies achieved by downsizing. This situation should not have been allowed to develop.
It goes on to point out the differential between wages in the trucking sector and wages in the railway sector. The average railway employee receives something in the order of $43,000 per year in Canada.
The commission asked why railway labour compensation is so high. They say it may have been due in part to the regulatory protection given to the railways over many decades, in part the inability and/or unwillingness of railway management to countenance strikes and in part to the speedy intervention of government on the rare occasions when strikes have occurred. Government railway management and shippers, all unwilling to face
strikes, have played a part in this development, they go on to conclude.
I raise this because it is one of the fundamental problems the rail industry faces in this country, these incredibly high labour costs. Then of course when the companies run the huge loses they come crying to government for more and more in the way of taxpayer involvement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 7.15 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 5,1993