1983-04-28

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Miss Carney (p. 24689).
Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in this budget debate. I think all Members would agree there is nothing more difficult in Government than drafting a budget, and as a colleague and as a fellow citizen, I want to express my heartiest congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on his superb effort.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: I cannot recall a budget which addressed in such a constructive fashion the fundamental issues facing the Canadian economy. As the Minister said in his budget speech, economic recovery is underway. The measures he announced will go a long way toward creating the climate of confidence necessary if the recovery is to be accelerated and our goal of creating secure jobs for Canadians is to be met.
The thrust of this recovery budget is divided into two main areas with respect to job creation. First and more immediate is the direct job creation and Special Recovery Capital Projects undertaken by the federal Government. The second phase, the strengthening of the private sector, I believe is the key to longterm prosperity for all Canadians. As the Minister responsible for Industrial and Regional Development, I would like to address my remarks today to this aspect of our economic renewal program. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, time does not allow me to detail all the measures my Department will undertake in this regard. However, I will try and highlight the key instruments.
It has been said so often and so accurately that the main engine of growth in the Canadian economy always has been and always will be the private sector. However, let us be under no illusions.
Canada's industries have never before faced such a challenge. Increasingly, both developing and developed countries
are competing with us for markets abroad. I do not refer just to foreign markets but also to our own domestic markets. This budget has offered specific assistance to Canadian firms so that they can meet this challenge.
The budget also addresses our current situation in a realistic way. It recognizes that the private sector has undergone tremendous pressure in the past few years as evidenced by the dramatic decline in corporate profits. I do not have to tell this House that without corporate profits there would be no corporate investment. Without investment there would be a continuing loss of competitiveness for our firms, by not maintaining a competitive position results in a reduction in employment. This budget has provided the means which will enable Canadian firms, particularly the small and medium-sized businesses which have a much smaller resource base to draw upon to restore their balance sheets, to get out from under the inordinate debt burden many have been carrying. They will then be able to divert moneys now spent on debt servicing to more productive, job creation activities.
The $300 million Special Recovery Investment Fund announced in the budget will be put to use immediately to lever investment in the private sector. When this year's $100 million and the $200 million next year is added to the approved reference levels for my Department, we will be delivering $2.5 billion of direct assistance to industry in that two-year period.
Our private sector consultations indicate that there are many projects being contemplated by Canadian corporations. We feel we can assist in accelerating these investments because of the incentives these additional funds will provide.
The Government, as Hon. Members know, has brought forward many of its own spending plans so that projects can proceed earlier. Not only does this Special Recovery Program assist in the provision of jobs in the shorter term, it ensures Government financing needs will be drawn from the available capital pool at a time when private sector borrowing will be lower. As private sector investment increases-and that is what we required for the long-term, sustainable recovery- Government borrowings will decrease.
It is clear that within this broad framework established by the budget some very specific activities will occur. One goal, that of increasing our productivity, must be stressed again and again. The Government and the private sector, which includes both industry and labour, must direct their resources to

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lumley
achieving a much more competitive position for our products if we are to maintain and increase our market share.
To facilitate this goal, the budget indicated the Government's intention to fund a National Centre for Productivity and Employment Growth that will be a joint industry-labour effort. My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), with whom I share responsibility for the Government's participation in this centre, will be speaking in more detail about this project this afternoon.
The issue of technology and its place in our future is obviously critical. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) will be speaking at more length on this subject during the budget debate. As far as the responsibilities of my Department are concerned, it is both the development of technology as well as the application of technology to industries in terms of innovation and productivity improvement, that is of importance. If time permitted, I would like to detail our efforts in that regard. However, I will have an excellent opportunity to address this issue in detail when I speak to the National Productivity Awards luncheon for the Canadian machinery and metal working industry in two weeks.
As I mentioned, small and medium-sized businesses are clearly of particular importance to our economic recovery and this budget has dealt with their needs in a number of ways. My departmental and Cabinet colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey), will be speaking about specific measures as well as outlining the new role which the Federal Business Development Bank will be playing.
The Minister of Finance has set out two major undertakings to assist industry. One consists of those projects in the short term that will be delivered directly by the Government. The second consists of measures which will enable the private sector to become more competitive. Only through the growth of our economic base can this country create the sustainable employment required. With the creation of a stronger private sector industrial base, this growth is sure to occur.
There is another aspect to this budget which to me, as Minister responsible for regional and industrial development, is particularly gratifying. The spirit that underlies the budget, the specific provisions it contains and its timing are all extremely fortunate in terms of the developments which have taken place with respect to our Department. I want to take this opportunity to explain to the House what these developments are.
When the Minister of Finance outlined the tax measures being put in place to assist Canadian business, he was describing one of the two major elements that our industry needs. That was one part of the effort to encourage private sector growth throughout Canada.
Today I would like to describe the other major component of that effort. The new Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion was set up to be the federal Government's principal instrument to provide direct assistance to Canadian industry. It will direct this federal assistance through a number of
methods to manufacturers, processors, related service industries, the tourism industry, across the full range from small to large enterprises.
Over the past few months, the basic groundwork has been done to put into place the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion, whose task will be to mount a major effort in industrial development across all sectors and in all regions of the country. The preparatory work, which I would like to describe today, is categorized under several headings: the mandate of the Department; the program structure; the organization which has been set up and the priorities which have been established.
As Your Honour knows, early last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the reorganization of Economic Development Departments and the Economic Development Cabinet Committee. As a result of that announcement, the regional programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were amalgamated with the domestic industry, small business and tourism components of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The integration of those two organizations has now been completed right across the country.
[DOT] (ms)
The mandate that has been struck for the Department is to stimulate national economic growth and help reduce regional disparities through leverage of investment and promotion of industrial development and trade.
Simply stated, the mandate of the new Department of DRIE will be to facilitate and support industrial development and adjustment in order to reduce economic disparities among regions and increase the prosperity of Canadians in all areas.
This will be done by stimulating the innovation of productivity improvement, encouraging the establishment, expansion and modernization of production facilities, promoting development of domestic sourcing to realize Canadian and international market opportunities, supporting industrial renewal, achieving industrial benefits from resource projects and supporting job creation and entrepreneurship.
Our Government remains firmly committed to regional development. Since the creation of DREE in 1969, the basic approach has remained essentially unaltered despite changed economic conditions due in no small measure to the substantial contribution DREE has made to building the basic economic infrastructure. We believe it is now time to adopt new approaches to achieve the same basic objective, reducing economic disparity.
We have had to examine the range of existing programs to see how well suited they are to achieving these aims. While the new Department inherited some programs from DREE and ITC that are well suited to the new mandate, it is a fact that over the years a broad range of programs has evolved serving various purposes, with some duplication and overlap and a great deal of variety in program instruments, program criteria, delivery system and decision mechanisms. Also, program gaps
April 28, 1983

have been identified as, for example, in the areas of encouragement of innovation, productivity improvement, and marketing, areas of highest priority for the federal Government, as the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech.
I am today announcing a new program, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, to be my Department's major instrument to achieve these goals. The program will be available to Canadian industry in all regions of Canada. Through the Industrial and Regional Development Program, the Department will actively assist the private sector as we move to strengthen our industrial base.
The new Industrial and Regional Development Program will offer industrial development support across the country. There will be four ranges of support. These will be graduated according to economic need, with the neediest regions eligible for the highest levels of support.
The basic level of support will be available to firms anywhere in Canada. More generous incentives will be available at the second and third levels, based on economic need. A fourth tier, comprising the most disadvantaged 5 per cent of Canada's population, would automatically receive the maximum level of assistance for eligible projects.
In order to develop which areas are at which level, I will propose to Parliament a development index. We have searched to find an index which is fair, equitable and objective. The index will take three major factors into account; level of unemployment, disposable income and the fiscal capacity of the Province. Obviously, we will have to weigh these factors as they are not all of equal importance. I want to thank members of the private sector from across the country with whom we have had substantial discussions in trying to develop this index.
We have carefully examined what was in place in both the Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion. With that as a starting point, we designed a Department with the best features of both. But in my view, that was not enough. The new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion goes considerably beyond simply merging these two Departments.
Our first imperative was to make the process of delivering federal assistance much simpler and more flexible. Over time we ended up with too many programs that were too complicated. As a consequence businesses, particularly small and medium-sized firms, were often confused as to what we were offering and how to obtain it. Further, it was almost impossible to deliver these programs on a regional basis because of this complexity.
Rather than the multiplicity of programs that were in ITC and DREE, the new Department of DRIE will focus on seven major programs, the principal one being the Industrial and Regional Development Program which will be flexible and efficient. It is designed to meet the needs of the private sector and to direct federal resources to where they will achieve our goal of industrial and regional development.
The Budget-Mr. Lumley
The program will be much simpler for the business community; it will have one set of criteria and one method of application. It will also be applicable to all stages of a firm's development and again it will be available in every region of the country.
The program has six main elements. The first is industrial infrastructure such as industrial parks. Another example would be federal support to institutions such as technology centres.
The second element is industrial innovation. I believe this to be a critical area for Canada's economic well-being. Eligible for assistance in this phase will be, among others, the development of technological capability, the development of new products and processes, and project feasibility studies.
Once products have completed the development stage, it is necessary, of course, to actually go into production. In some cases this requires the building of a plant and the purchase of equipment. For this reason we have made provision to assist with establishment in all areas except those in the most developed regions.
A fourth phase, one that offers significant opportunities, is modernization expansion. There are a number of elements that fit within this category, but one to be stressed is the building of new technologies into our existing products and processes to increase our competitiveness. This will be achieved by acquiring the most advanced machinery, equipment and plants. As I am sure we all agree, we must do more than develop new products to compete in the world markets. It is just as critical that we adapt new technologies to our traditional industries.
This leads me to another element in the process, that of marketing. My experience as Minister of Trade made it abundantly clear that we have to devote more effort in this area if we are to hold and maintain our markets. And I must emphasize that the potential for Canadian firms to replace imports here in Canada is just as important as increasing exports.
In our examination of what was available in the Departments, I have found that marketing has not received the attention it warranted. We have not paid sufficient attention to the marketing of our products, particularly here in Canada. Programs such as a more comprehensive shop Canadian program are being developed by my officials in conjunction with the private sector.
The final phase of our program is renewal. The Government recognizes that some industries must undergo a process of restructuring. We also realize that those who suffer the most in these instances are the workers. To facilitate the process, the Government is prepared in specific instances to offer loan guarantees to assist companies in the short-term assuring, of course, that with restructuring there is a reasonable chance that the firm can become viable.
In some cases a firm's long-term viability is in doubt if it remains as it is structured. In those instances, the Government will consider repayable grants to assist the company to diversify to create alternate employment.

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lumley
While we have been developing this new program, the merged Departments have also been undergoing a major restructuring. This obviously had to occur if we were to achieve our objective of faster delivery and increased regional sensitivity. We have substantially strengthened the sectoral expertise in our regional offices. We have expanded the number of locations where DRIE has offices from the combined total of the old DREE/ITC. More are planned. Under the new Department, for the first time all federal industrial programs will be available in every part of the country.
With the new Industrial and Regional Development Program as the principal instrument of direct federal assistance to industry, coupled with the streamlined delivery mechanism, the only major element missing is the establishment of the priorities on a sectoral and regional basis. This work is already under way with my other Cabinet colleagues, Members of Parliament, provincial Governments and, of course, the private sector.
I wished I had time this morning to detail how everything I have talked about today facilitates the development of an industrial strategy in Canada. Contrary to one erroneous newspaper report, which unfortunately was picked up by several respected journalists and editorialists much to my surprise, I believe we are closer to developing this strategy than ever before.
What I stated in the Finance Committee was my belief that the Government cannot effectively by itself impose industrial development strategy upon Canadian industry. I believe that our strategy has to flow from the intelligent advice of the main actors in industry, namely business management and labour.
Also, I believe that the industrial structure of Canada is such that individual strategies by sector are more effective than any single, over-all industrial strategy. Once again, I believe that in order to achieve success these sector strategies have to be based on advice from business management and labour. That is why we established sector task forces or consultative committees in key sectors to assist in development of sectoral strategies.
These groups, co-chaired by industry and labour representatives, are not Government task forces but private sector task forces. They have been asked to examine their sectors and to report those findings. Other such groups will be established in the future. This process is by far the best way available to ensure Government is aware of specific industry concerns. Using this approach, we will be able to develop sector specific development plans.
There is no question that if we are to be successful in this area, it is imperative that the private and public sectors work in harmony. Perhaps the best example of this co-operative effort was the establishment of the Export Trade Development Board two years ago.
In this regard I will also establish an Industrial and Regional Development Board that will have regional representation, labour participation and sectoral interests. This Board will advise the Government through my Department on broad policy issues and will provide considerable assistance to ensure
that the Government's industrial policy is based on a broad consensus.
I have briefly outlined to Hon. Members today a plan for industrial development in this country. I believe it builds on the budget and confirms that Canadians should have confidence in their future. The new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is committed to working with industry and labour to ensure that Canadian firms become more productive and are competitive in the world markets. Through this partnership we will progress, our industry will grow in all regions of Canada, and this development will mean jobs.
The Government will shortly have before the House the legislation to create the Department and its programs. I would hope for agreement from all sides of the House that the proposal to provide efficient and effective support to our industries, so that we have early passage of the legislation. We will then be able to get on with the job at hand, to put in place the second half of this major industrial recovery program.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister. When the Government put its budget before the House, including its economic papers, it talked about a new reality in terms of unemployment of 12.4 per cent today and even in the long term unemployment coming down no lower than 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Part of the justification for this new reality was the regional nature of our economy.
Given the fact that the Minister announced an Industrial and Regional Development Program today to assist business and presumably to do something about employment, does he expect that the new program will deal with regional disparities in the country in such a way as to have a real impact on employment levels, or does he really expect very little from it other than assisting the private sector? Does he expect that there will be very little in this program in terms of jobs for people?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly, after a substantial amount of time as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and as Minister responsible for DREE, that the new program will address the issues the Hon. Member raised. There are two aspects of the Department's new mandate- industrial restructuring and also emphasis on reducing economic disparities across the country, which is very difficult to do over a period of time. Since 1969 the relative designations have not changed to that degree. Pockets of unemployment even in specific Provinces which do not have designation will rise from time to time. This program will address the real structural problems which exist in Canadian industry today. Much of our unemployment is caused by cyclical problems, as the Hon. Member knows, which will be rectified with not only the renewal of our own economy but the renewal of the international economy.
We need to ensure that the industry is competitive right across the country. There are not only the tax measures announced by the Minister of Finance, but based upon our
April 28, 1983

discussion with businesses there are substantial numbers of projects which business would like to undertake. Because of the debt-equity ratio and cash flow problems, they have not been able to undertake these. We think this new streamlined program which will be delivered on a regional basis will address the major program elements in the life cycle of a company as well as the product. We will be able to achieve the goals we set. My guess is that in fact we will see a far greater change in employment creation in some of the regions that have severe structural problems.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was most interested in the Minister's remarks. I hope he will verify that the new Department, DRIE, is not "dry" as far as a good many ridings in Ontario are concerned, including part of my own riding. The Minister will be well aware of my questions to him time and again as to when he would give serious consideration to extending some of the boundaries. I believe in his remarks he said that that would take place in certain areas of which he was aware. There is a certain section of Central Ontario which is not eligible for DRIE grants under the new set-up.
I am wondering whether the Minister will now have second thoughts in order to help the unemployment situation and speed up the possible enlargement of the area. The Minister, as a former chief magistrate of a very thriving municipality, is well aware how important are those grants. Would the Minister let me have his comments on that?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we will shortly be tabling the legislation. I know the Hon. Member has a sincere interest, having spent time in municipal and regional development, and I hope he will encourage his colleagues to give speedy passage to this legislation. Once that legislation is passed, every single area of this country will be designated. I will be coming out with more details in terms of the designation. The designation will be enriched, depending on the economic disparity in the various areas of the country. On the fundamental question the Hon. Member asked, every single area of the country will be designated for financial assistance, depending on the individual category.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether this new program is a drying up or recycling of DREE. Does it replace DREE? Where does it stand in the picture? Are the two programs running on a parallel basis? How much money will be available for this Industrial and Regional Development Program? How will that money be allocated on a regional basis?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the money allocated, with the additional $300 million the Minister of Finance has given us for our programs next year, coupled with our existing reference levels, will represent approximately $2.5 billion over the next two years for delivery of financial assistance to companies right across the country. With the passage of Bill C-123, which has just had first reading in the House, and the passage of the legislation for the new mandate of the Department of Regional
The Budget-Mr. Lumley
Industrial Expansion, there will no longer be a DREE Department as such.
As the Hon. Member knows, the various line Departments-Agriculture, Forestry, Transportation, for example- will be taking over the old general development sub-agreements as they pertain to their specific responsibility. The general development sub-agreements on, for example, industrial parks will come under the new mandate of DRIE. The Regional Development Incentives Program which formerly existed under DREE will now be rolled over into the new Industrial and Regional Development Program.
We have condensed a substantial number of programs into seven major programs. They will be put into a booklet which the Hon. Member can take to each and every small and medium-sized entrepreneur in his constituency. That plus the regional delivery will streamline the process. We will be able to assist small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in every part of the country in a much better way than they were addressed before.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that tourism comes under another Minister's portfolio, but with the Minister's enthusiasm for the budget today, can he tell us why the budget does not provide any incentive for the tourism industry? Many of these businesses are small, family-operated operations. Tourism is a labour-intensive industry and should have been addressed by the budget. The spinoff is tremendous. It affects building contractors, materials, furniture, appliances, food, entertainment and travel. It is a tremendous generator of taxes. It is a $16 billion industry. I wonder if the Minister would address that question.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I have always made it a policy not to interfere in my colleague's direct responsibilities. As a former businessman, I think the big winner in the budget of the Minister of Finance was the small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in every single sector right across this country. For the first time in many years, the Minister of Finance has addressed the fundamental balancing problems of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. When this economic recovery program works, I cannot think of an industry that will benefit more than the tourist industry because there will be more disposable income in the hands of a few, more Canadians working, more people travelling, more people spending disposable income. The main beneficiary of that will be the tourist industry.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister is talking about disposable income, maybe he can tell us how a $5.7 billion increase in taxation helps disposable income. Can he tell us with regard to his new program called the IRDP when the applications will be available? Is it a grant program? Is it another program that everybody can get or is it subject to ministerial discretion? Who gets the money and on what criteria? We have now had another alphabet soup program announced. Perhaps the Minister can give us the details of this one.

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lumley


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the Hon. Member, who comes from the business community and who has been advocating a more streamlined approach. For example, his area will be designated for assistance for the first time that I can ever recall as a businessman. We have cut down the number of programs to seven major programs. We have a very fair, equitable, objective index now which will be updated once a year. Designation will no longer be by ministerial discretion. I thought he would have been one of the first Members in the House to strongly support the initiatives that the Government is going to take in this regard.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows the clothing and textile industries in all the industrialized countries are under tremendous pressure with competition from low wage countries because of the high labour content involved. The Government in recent years has done a number of things. It has given financial aid, loans, grants and established quotas to try and help the industry in Canada which employs about
200,000	people but despite that the industry continues to decline. Companies which have been in existence for 50 years or more are going out of business. People who have worked in the industry for 20 or 30 years are losing their jobs.
What new plans does the Government have either to help the industry maintain its present position and number of employees or to find alternative methods and fields for the people who work in the industry, many of them in one-industry towns in Ontario and Quebec? They face a disastrous situation if this decline cannot be prevented.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say how much I appreciate the Hon. Member's kind comments with respect to the Government's efforts in terms of helping this industry restructure, providing some assistance and putting in quotas. I hope he passes on his comments to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who obviously did not know that.
The Hon. Member raises a very important point. That is why we have decided to keep the CIRD Program. That program will not be rolled over to the new program. It will be reviewed when the CIRD Program comes up for renewal, I think in two years. Tomorrow, for example, I will be announcing approximately $55 million in financial assistance to the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Some of those grants and repayable contributions will go to companies to help them restructure, to do some new product innovation, to purchase new equipment, to ensure they are competitive, to ensure the stability of the jobs that exist in those plants.
Other companies will be receiving assistance to help diversify the economic base of those communities in which textile, clothing and footwear industries are the major employers. We will continue our efforts in this regard. With the $267 million budget just for the textile, clothing and footwear industries, we are hopeful that when the rationalization takes place and with the modernization of the industry, we will have one of the best in the world.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to speak to the budget following my good friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley). I should say at the outset that I in no way question the sincerity of his commitment to the private sector and indeed the market economy, the spirit of enterprise and the need for Canada to be competitive because of the importance Canada places on its exports, the fact that we rely upon exports for 30 per cent of our GNP. Therefore I appreciate his comments.
I say at the same time that I have some difficulty in extending that confidence to other Members of his Cabinet, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). A brief historical review will clearly indicate that he is associated with the master intervenors of all time. In many respects, they do not have faith in the private sector. They do not have faith in the market economy. They do not have faith and confidence in individual Canadians' ability to do what is in the best interests of the country.
It is in that context that I wish to talk about the budget. I think it is fair to say that on its surface, the budget contains some positive elements. I think the Minister of Finance has used the right buzz words and said the right things. The questions that we must pose are, does he really mean what he says, is he in a position to back up what he is saying, or is it merely a political exercise recognizing that there is now no other way to go since the Government's intervention in the last three years has really killed the spirit of enterprise in the country.
We cannot overlook some of the things that the Minister of Finance has stated over the years. For example, in the introduction to the National Energy Program, at page 20 is the following:
For most Canadians, the only way to ensure that they do share in the wealth generated by oil, and to have a say in companies exploiting that resource, is to have more companies ... like Petro-Canada.
Again at page 51:
The Government believes that a larger national public sector presence in oil and gas is the only equitable way to meet quickly our goal of increased Canadian ownership.
This is the master intervenor that has literally destroyed the Canadian private sector associated with the oil industry, particularly the drilling and the supply and service sector in Canada.
Turning now to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has he really changed? I need only quote from the October 25 edition of Macleans's where the Right Hon. Prime Minister's words over the years are summarized. In 1975 he said this, and I quote:
We can't rely on the free market system any more. We need rules even if they mean that you and I end up being called Communist or Socialist.
April 28, 1983

Again in 1975, he said:
We haven't been able to make it work, the free market system ... the government is going to have to take a larger role in running institutions. It means there is going to be not less authority in our lives but perhaps more.
In 1976 he said, and I quote again:
We haven't been able to make even a modified free market system work in Canada to prevent the kinds of problems we are now experiencing.
In 1977 the Prime Minister said:
If Canadians don't discipline themselves, we will discipline them.
So it is with that backdrop that we must analyze this budget. On closer examination, it is clearly revealed that this is an interventionist budget, that it will rely very heavily on political decision making, that it will rely very heavily on the bureaucracy. The whole recovery program of tax increases and future deficits starting in 1984 will mean that the Government will have a much greater voice in the economic affairs of this country.
One must ask at the outset why, since Petro-Canada's acquisition of Petrofina is now complete, are we continuing the Canadian ownership charge? This will amass a $3'/i billion slush fund that will probably be used for further intervention in the energy sector and for further nationalization of the oil industry. Because of the political decision making by Cabinet Ministers or their bureaucracies that will take place, we run the risk of creating further division and criticism in the country.
The Certified General Accountants of Alberta have already stated, and I quote from a release of April 19:
Eastern Canadians will reap most benefits from Marc Lalonde's April 19th budget-
The release goes on to say:
The labour intensive provinces of Ontario and Quebec will enjoy a massive immediate shot in the arm from the Finance Minister's $4.8 billion Special Recovery Program ... while the effects on the west will be mainly indirect.
Whether that is true or not, that impression prevails in the West. Whenever the Government makes those decisions, it runs the risk of creating that kind of further division and disharmony.
Westerners are now asking about what has happened to the $4 billion Western Development Fund heralded in the 1980 budget. Well, it was dribbled away by transfers into other programs and has disappeared.
The Mayor of the City of Edmonton sent a wire to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) with respect to the Capital Works Program. The wire reads:
Today's announcement concerning the federal Govt's 2.4 billion dlrs capital works program made no mention of any projects in Edmonton.
That is the risk that is run when there is a heavy reliance upon the Government and its bureaucracies to make what really amounts to economic decisions.
I suppose when this budget is compared with previous budgets that were generally disastrous, one can say that it is quite likely that this budget will not make matters worse. It is
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
questionable, however, whether it will improve things; the jury is still out on it.


Mr. Breau:: It is a Conservative budget.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, I am glad that the budget contains some elements that are Conservative. That is quite true. It contains some Conservative elements, but there still is the hand of Government that will intervene because the Government does not have faith in the private sector and does not have faith in the average Canadian.
I suppose we can assume that this budget will not do as much harm as did the two previous budgets. In 1980 we had double-tracking and today we will have fast-tracking. That is one positive thing that can be said about the budget.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the budget, it can clearly be seen as essentially a budget of tinkering. There are really no new innovative measures that address the real chronic and structural problems that we face today. There are very few measures directed specifically toward creating jobs and thereby generating new wealth in the private sector. The budget contains very, very few innovative measures.
The Hon. Member shakes his head, but if he looks at the budget as a businessman would, I am sure in all honesty he would say: "You may be right". The budget contains a number of initiatives in so far as the public sector is concerned but not really quite that many in so far as initiating a resurgence in the private sector. The budget does not create the kind of positive environment that will generate real new wealth.
The Hon. Member mentions the equities. Yes, I support those. For example, 1 think the Index Security Investment Plan is a good plan. I am glad that it has been introduced. The treatment of investment tax credits, yes, will provide some new stimulus in the Special Recovery Share-Purchase Tax Credit. Yes, I believe those are all positive measures. I would be irresponsible if I failed to mention those and I do hope they will improve the climate. Perhaps the changes in income averaging is another good measure, although it is because of the Government inflicted recession that we are in the sort of situation that makes it attractive to use that kind of facility.
It appears that the Government cannot bring itself to trust the private sector. It does not have confidence in the private sector. This lack of trust is manifested in the Minister of Finance's reply when asked why there were no tax cuts in the budget. He replied something to the effect that Canadians cannot be trusted with extra money. He said that Canadians cannot be trusted with tax breaks because they would rush out and blow the extra money on imported goodies, or worse, might even use the extra bucks to go on a holiday abroad. With that kind of confidence in the people of Canada, how can the people of Canada in turn have confidence in the Government.
Mr. Speaker, again I say the budget talks a good line about faith and about revitalization of the private sector, but on close

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
analysis one has to guard very carefully against praising the budget too magnanimously. There will be more programs that will involve more bureaucracy and more political decision making, and I believe we have had far too much of that.
I do not believe that the budget satisfactorily deals with the need to address the basic health of the economy. It has some very serious structural defects. I do not believe it addresses the issue of productivity in an effective manner, the technological impact of worker training, export development and the energy question. The Government has destroyed a good portion of the energy sector in Canada, and it needs to turn that very important and basic industry around because we have failed to turn our energy advantage into an economic advantage.
This budget is more of a publicity campaign than an economic recovery campaign. There is a lot of rhetoric in the budget and I believe it is basically designed to try to turn around the waning fortunes of the Liberal Party, which will probably continue to wane even though there is some interim, positive responses to this budget.
The fact is that we are in the worst recession in 50 years and this is largely due to the mismanagement of this Government. We have had 15 years of economic mismanagement. This Government has wasted its resources in the good years and failed to turn the very many natural advantages of this country into economic advantages. Government has failed to stimulate real growth in this country, to identify the realities of the world, the necessity to be competitive, the necessity for increased productivity and to encourage real growth. It has been redistributing wealth which has basically been borrowed, and the tinkering around in the budget is not going to improve that very much.
Our deficit is staggering. It is $31.3 billion this year and there is another $80.7 billion projected over the next three years. That is $112 billion worth of accumulated deficit over a four-year period and is absolutely irresponsible. That is on top of the $51.6 billion worth of deficit which has been accumulated since this Government was returned to office in 1980.
One has to ask, where will the money come from? We have a large level of personal savings in the country, something in excess of $30 billion. Over 80 per cent of Government's borrowing would be attributable to personal savings, and that will have the potential of raising interest rates. I say to you, sir, that it may very well lead to stalling any natural recovery which could occur. Our interest rates are far too high today. We have essentially a 6 per cent spread between the money which is paid by the banks to people who invest their money, which is at about 6.75 per cent, and their lending rate. For example, the Farm Credit Corporation is asking 12.75 per cent, which is a very reasonable rate in todays conditions. However, there is no reason for a spread of 6 per cent and that issue has not been addressed in this budget.
We must consider how we are going to pay for these horrendous deficits. They can only be paid for in two ways; either by
taxing future generations or by printing more money, which will indeed cause inflation and we will find ourselves in the same old spiral we were in before. We have to look not only at the deficits of the current year and the past years, but we must look at the deficits of the future years. I share the view which was expressed by David Peterson, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. I would like to quote from the April 26 edition of The Globe and Mail. Mr. Peterson said, and I quote:
Instead of building for the future, we have been stealing from it.
He points out that Canadians are running down the resources which belong to future generations through massive public borrowing and failure to invest in productive enterprise. I share that view. That is precisely what this Government has done. Mr. Peterson goes on to say, and I quote:
We are no longer redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. We are transferring it from the next generation to our own.
I say to you, sir, that that is indeed a sad legacy. Notwithstanding the huge borrowings and the huge accumulated deficit, we are predicting growth on an average of 4.5 per cent. We are looking at a deficit which is going to drop by maybe $2 billion a year. We are going to have deficits in excess of $25 billion over the foreseeable future.
The 4.5 per cent real growth will require large cash borrowings from the private sector, and with the Government calling on the massive amounts of money it requires to meet its spending programs, the private sector, with its real job-creating potential, will be hampered. We just cannot continue to run these enormous deficits.
The cost alone of servicing the debt this year is tremendous. For every three revenue dollars, one dollar goes to service the debt. By 1986, notwithstanding the so-called improvement and recovery which is suggested in this budget, we will still be paying $1 out of every $4 to service the debt. That is revenue dollars.
Therefore the Government must address this critical problem. It is not only a problem for today, it is a more serious problem for tomorrow. Government must bring its expenditures back into line, reduce the Government's share of the economy, and tranfer those resources to the private sector so they can be used to create long-term productive employment and long-term productive wealth. The Government, I submit, is not a generator of wealth. We particularly see that today, where all levels of Government are taking almost 50 per cent of the Gross National Product. The projections for the federal Government range from 20 per cent to 23 per cent over the next four-year period.
With respect to employment, Mr. Speaker, the main thrust of the budget was to provide jobs for those who cannot find work. Here again, the fact is that this budget will do very little to improve the employment fortunes of many Canadians, by the Government's own projections, which are 12.4 per cent this year, 11.4 per cent next year, and the unemployment rate will stay at 10 per cent until 1986. I should point out that by 1984 there will be 55,000 fewer jobs than there were in 1981.
April 28, 1983

If we look at the economic record of this Government, we know that since November, 1981 this economy has lost a total of 408,000 jobs, that over-all unemployment increased by
750,000,	and by 1987 we will still have 1.1 million people unemployed. That is not very optimistic, Mr. Speaker. That is a very sad indictment for the future of Canada. We believe that this country could do better. We believe the budget could have been better in addressing the needs of Canadians and providing jobs. It has failed miserably in stimulating the small business sector, for example, which provides some two-thirds of all new jobs created on the North American continent.
I am sorry that time does not permit me to continue to outline some of the things which I would have liked to have seen in the budget as far as small business is concerned. The fact is that this Government has failed to consider the repeal of the 12.5 per cent corporate distribution tax. It failed to deal with the capital cost allowance. If it were genuinely interested in improving the employment prospects of our citizens, it could have provided for employment tax credits. It may have even considered a tax holiday for small business, perhaps on the first $100,000 worth of profit. There are many things which could have been done which would have helped that very important sector.
There could have been a number of new initiatives undertaken in the energy sector as well. For example, there could have been measures to stimulate once again the conventional oil sector, which is the most job productive sector in the whole energy area. That sector is hurting very badly. Out of 400 drilling rigs, only 50 to 60 are currently working. This Government has failed to turn our natural advantages into economic advantages: therefore the Canadian people are suffering; therefore we are going to continue to have massive and unwarranted unemployment.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for the way he puts forward his position and philosophy. In fact, over the years I have found that few Members can put forward so nicely and effectively a bad case. When he talks about economic philosophy, he has omitted one important question. In a time of recession, when it comes time for Governments to react, does he take a monetarist view, or the view that the Government should react-from the point of view of fiscal policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, I think one has to handle the budgetary affairs of the nation not unlike one would handle one's own private affairs. To put it in layman's language, in the good years you have to put a little away for a rainy day. This particular Government has only had one balanced budget in its 15 years and that is a very sad record.


Herb Breau: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am answering the question. The fact of the matter is that this Government has failed to save in the good times or contain Government expenditures in the good times so that now, when we need that stimulus to revitalize the
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
economy and provide jobs, we are forced to borrow much more heavily than we were in the past. It seems to me that the Keynesian philosophy is that you can spend your way out of recession assuming that you are going to exercise good fiscal and monetary practices in good times. This Government has not done that.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member repeated a distortion which people in his Party seem to enjoy. I would like to exercise my right to make a very brief comment to correct that distortion. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) on April 26, said, as did the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) today, that the Government does not trust ordinary people, that we did not create incentives for consumers because of that mistrust on our part. The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) answer to that question was most apt and I refer the Hon. Member to that answer in this House, as reported at page 24858 of Hansard:
I never used the words, "the consumer cannot be trusted". I enunciated the very simple economic proposition that I am sure that the Hon. Member would agree with, that when you stimulate consumer spending directly, some of that consumer spending leaks out of the country to purchase goods made in other countries. That is all I said.
I would remind the Hon. Member, when he tries to distort that statement, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has clarified the matter right in this House.
I also remind him that we followed the advice of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when we followed this policy. They told us not to use a tax cut for consumers because it would be spent on foreign goods and would amount to a Canadian subsidy for foreign manufacturers. They suggested instead that we target our consumer incentives and try and help business rebuild itself. That is not the kind of statement which the Hon. Member is trying to put into our mouths.


Mr. Taylor:: You tell them how to spend their own money.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to clear away a bit of a contradiction. If that was not an accurate interpretation and the Government is not so concerned about Canadians going offshore to spend their money, then why did it see fit in the budget to double the value of goods which can be brought back to Canada duty free? I am not arguing with it, but it seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
Secondly, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister says-I mean, he says many things and we are not sure when he can pass the lie detector test-I go back to the statement he made in 1977 implying that Canadians do not discipline themselves. He said if they do not, "we will discipline them". Meaning that the master Government knows what is best for Canadians.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Hon. Member asks me a serious question and I am happy to provide him with the answer. He asks why we increased the tourism exemption. I can tell him it is pretty much a technical matter. The last time that exemption was increased, I believe, was 1974. This keeps us in line with the

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
cost of living increases which have occurred since that time. If the Hon. Member takes the time to look at the budget papers he will see it is a pretty insignificant measure, costing the Government very small amounts of money this year and next year. As perhaps some of my colleagues have pointed out, it is further proof that the Government does trust Canadians and we are trying to pass this small benefit on to them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You cannot have it both ways.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that over four years this budget gives some $4 billion to the private sector, the business community, through tax breaks and other incentives. At the same time it increases personal income taxes. My question to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is, how does that differ from his call for tax breaks to the private sector? Is this budget not in fact a supply side budget giving incentives to the private sector, and is essentially a Conservative budget, as mentioned by one of the Liberal Members?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is basically a difference in philosophy. The Hon. Member would like the federal Government to take over the whole economy. As a matter of fact, their economic policy would see the total Canadian economy run like a massive National Energy Program. I do not share that view, Mr. Speaker. I share the view that the private sector can provide real, meaningful, long-term wealth and generate jobs. I do not believe the Government is most suited to do that. It is really a difference in philosophy.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes the case for depoliticization of the economy. He talks about trusting the private sector. I suggest to him that begs the question. The question is, who has the responsibility, politically and morally, for the affairs of the economy? It seems to me there is a need for both. Would he not agree that it is a question of political accountability and that judgment cannot be absolute as to when you trust the private sector more or trust the public sector more?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it may be compelling and interesting to talk about greater depoliticization of the economy, but the Hon. Member is a very practical politician. He issued on behalf of his caucus a statement some ten days ago which asks for greater politicization of the economy. How can he square his philosophy with the philosophy of the Lougheed Government, which has had the very good philosophy, in my view, of putting aside money for the future heritage of Alberta? That is clearly a great politicization of the economy which is unparalleled in this country, and I agree with it. So how can he square his philosophy as a Conservative from that Province with the philosophy of the Lougheed Government, which has been for greater politicization of the Alberta economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, first of all, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I think it is a good question and I hope I can respond to it effectively. Essentially what I am saying, and what I think our Party is saying, is that we opt for
a system of incentives rather than grants. Grants require that sort of discretionary power, whereas incentives can be applied in a more across the board fashion. I do not want to be simplistic, but essentially that is the way we view it.
With respect to the Heritage Trust Fund, I think upon reflection, if the Hon. Member would examine the accounts of that fund, he would see that a good portion of those dollars has indeed been invested in hospitals, schools, housing, and in really filling the public need, which would in most Provinces be filled through the normal budgetary process. In this particular case, we identify the resource revenue and ensure that future generations recognize the money was not squandered, that it was used to improve our lifestyle. I do not see it as politicization to look after the needs of senior citizens, to look after the sick and disabled, to improve education. I do not think that that is political. That is meeting a need.


Herb Breau: It is not the private sector.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The private sector is clearly involved to some extent. However, what I am saying is that that is quite different from generating real growth. I should also say that the Heritage Trust Fund does provide funding for agriculture and small business. There is nothing political about that. It is handled in the same manner as the Farm Credit Corporation.
Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Farm Credit Corporation is a political organization? Is he suggesting that the Federal Business Development Bank makes its decisions on the basis of politics and not sound economic-


Herb Breau: Yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, he says "Yes".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find that to be very abhorrent, because I do not believe the Farm Credit Corporation-


Herb Breau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member and I were involved in an intelligent dialogue. The way the Hon. Member is using the word "politicization" is not the same way I was using it. It may be because of my background, or the translation from the French language. What the term means today, when I use the word "political" in debate, is the greater interest on the part of the public sector in the affairs of the nation or a Province. It does not imply partisan, political judgments. It means that a political act is on behalf of the public interest. That is all that it means. The real meaning of the word "political", from the Greek culture, is "caring for people".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks. I do not think that he and I really differ much concerning this issue except that I differentiate between the social need and the economic need. I have not criticized in my speech today, nor I have ever criticized, the Government for further advancing the facilities to meet the social needs, the
April 28, 1983

needs of senior citizens, the disabled and those who are unable to care for themselves.


Herb Breau: That's politicization.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not see that as being politicization. I see that as serving a need. I guess that the Hon. Member and I have some differences, and perhaps it is a matter of interpretation, involving my belief that the Government should not intervene to the same extent in meeting economic needs. When I see the Heritage Trust Fund providing funds to a facility which we have in Alberta, known as the Alberta Opportunity Fund, which provides lower interest rates to small business and for the development of the economic infrastructure, when I see the Agricultural Development Program funds providing for new farmers, I see that as being done on a commercial basis, not on a political basis. One does not have to be a Progressive Conservative or live in a Progressive Conservative riding to receive such a loan.


Herb Breau: That's not what politicization means.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I see that in the budget and in previous programs which have been sponsored by this Government there has been much discretionary power placed in the hands of the Minister and his bureaucrats to determine who the losers and who the winners shall be. I would rather see tax incentives and measures applied more across the board than the kind of grants and grant programs we have which really require that sort of discretionary political decision making.


Herb Breau: I wish we had more time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget, which is the subject of debate today, has responded so satisfactorily to the concerns of the Canadian people that the Opposition was taken by surprise and is now running out of arguments against the Budget. In fact, that explains why they tried to create a diversion the same evening the Budget was brought down and the next day, by trying to obtain a debate on the leak that allegedly occured. After spending last weekend in my riding, I must tell my Opposition colleagues that in trying to force a debate on this issue, they liberally made fools of themselves. In any case, I fail to see why they are trying to make such a big thing of what happened, because it had absolutely no impact on the tax system and there could have been no benefit to anyone at all as a result of this unfortunate occurrence. They just tried to make a mountain out of a molehill and they failed miserably.
Mr. Speaker, I think Opposition members who, like my friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), are claiming that our policy with respect to small-and medium-sized businesses is a failure, were taught a devastating lesson on the day following the budget, and several days after, when the stock market reacted very positively. In Toronto, for instance, there was an increase of 43 points the very next day.
The Budget-Mr. Duclos
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to respond to certain criticisms that were made. It has been said, for instance, that the Budget has nothing for consumers, and I remember a headline in La Presse which implied that the Government was giving to business what it was taking from the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, would it have made sense, at a time when consumers are saving 13 per cent of their personal disposable income, to increase those savings even more by granting income tax cuts across the board? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. We must be realistic if we are to approach these problems seriously and responsibly. What is needed is to create confidence in the economy, and that is why we have emphasized tax cuts for businesses which will help create the jobs that will create confidence and encourage people to spend the money they have been saving in recent years and months.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at personal income tax for the year 1983-84, we see a drop of $75 million. This is partly due to the fact that the employment expense deduction will be increased from 3 per cent to 20 per cent of employment income, meaning a tax savings for working Canadians of $150 million. This measure will benefit four million taxpayers, of whom more than 80 per cent have an annual income of less than $16,700. We have also doubled the child care expense deduction, which will result in a tax savings of $50 million next year. Mr. Speaker, $355 million have been earmarked for our housing policy. Now, I am sure that the people who stand to benefit from this measure are consumers. The Government will be spending $120 million under the Canada Home Renovation Plan and $40 million on the RRAP program. Taxpayers will be saving $125 million as a result of changes in the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, and there is also $30 million for the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan. Are the people who will benefit from these programs consumers or are they not?
Over the next two financial years, this $355 million alone will balance the increase of $290 million in personal income tax. There is a drop of $75 million this year, but there will be an increase of $365 million in 1984-85, which means a net increase of $290, which is more than compensated for by our housing policy.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Indexed Securities Investment Plan and the Special Recovery Share-Purchase Tax Credit are policies that will benefit consumers. The stock market is not just for people in the upper income brackets. There are also people with more modest means who invest their savings in capital shares, and I think these tax measures will provide considerable benefits for small investors, who are also consumers. Mr. Speaker, it has also been our concern to make sure that any tax increases would be paid by Canadians who are in the best position to do so. For instance, we have changed the federal tax reduction. And how did we do this? Next year, as a result of this change, the Government

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Duclos
will be receiving $455 million more in tax revenue. In 1984, the federal tax reduction will be maintained at $200 but will be phased out altogether for individuals earning more than $40,000. The federal tax reduction will be cut to $100 in 1985 and to $50 in 1986. That, Mr. Speaker, shows that this Government is concerned about social justice.
Mr. Speaker, this budget admirably combines both fiscal stimulation and fiscal responsibility. This year, because we know we must support economic recovery, we are accepting a deficit of more than $30 billion, which we intend to reduce next year as part of our fiscal responsibility, because while supporting economic recovery, we must also demonstrate that as far as the future is concerned, we intend to take advantage of that recovery and of additional tax revenues to gradually reduce the deficit. That is why the deficit will be $2.6 billion less next year, dropping from $31.3 to $28.7 billion.
Mr. Speaker, of course we realize it will be necessary to raise taxes to pay for our job creation programs, and I was surprised to hear my colleague from Vegreville, who said earlier, after condemning the Government because of its deficit, that we should have granted even bigger tax reductions to small- and medium-sized businesses. Mr. Speaker, over the next two years, we shall be granting $1.1 billion in tax reductions to small-, medium-sized and large businesses, part of which will be paid for by the special recovery tax, that is, by a 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax, which next year will raise $300 million. I think that once economic recovery is well under way, and our economy is prosperous once more, Canadians will understand and agree to make this contribution towards reducing the deficit, because if we do not take such measures, we may set off another inflationary spiral.
Speaking of the deficit, Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern about the extent of the deficit, and I must say I was surprised at some comments made by the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Parizeau, the day after the Budget speech. The Minister of Finance, a friend of our colleague, the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), expressed his surprise and said that he was concerned about the extent of the deficit. He said that the Budget was not bad but that the deficit was too high. Mr. Speaker, this is the same Quebec Minister of Finance who, during negotiations on fiscal agreements, accused the Federal Government of strangling Quebec financially, and who, as far as equalization was concerned, would have preferred to keep on using the Canadian average as a criterion, which would have resulted in an additional expenditure of nearly $6 billion in 1982-83, and even more this year, $6 billion more than the Government would have paid to the provinces, including more than $2.5 billion to the Province of Ontario, which would have been eligible. The same Minister of Finance is saying today that he is worried about the extent of our deficit and that what
we are doing now, is what he would have done last year, and in fact what he asked us to do last year.
Mr. Speaker, conditions have changed and that is why our policy this year is far more stimulative than it was last year. Last year, we had an inflation rate of nearly 12 per cent, and a policy of stimulation such as we are now proposing would certainly have pushed inflation up to 15, 18 or 20 per cent. But since we expect inflation to drop to about 5 per cent next year, we can implement such a policy without any problem.
Mr. Speaker, because of the policy implemented by the Government, we have gone through difficult times politically, as the polls show, but I believe that the Canadian people will understand that we acted in their best interests, that what we did, we had to do, and that we did not make the same mistake as the Socialist Government in France which resorted to political means to create employment after being elected in May 1981. That is all very well except that France is not any better off today. Unemployment in France is on the rise, while Canada is looking forward to economic recovery. The situation in France is now worse that it was in May 1981. The French Government now has to implement unprecedented restraint policies. I am certain that the Canadian people will understand that we acted in their best interests, even though it was not very pleasant. We often hear people say that we created unemployment voluntarily, but I can assure them that it also hurt us. Members on this side of the House do not find it any more pleasant than Members opposite to have an unemployed worker come to their office and feel powerless because of the economic situation.
Mr. Speaker, it has also been said that, in spite of these economic incentives, unemployment will decrease very little, namely from 12.4 to 11.4 per cent. What must be kept in mind is that these figures can be misleading. What is important is to know that there will be 600,000 new jobs created in Canada during the next two years. If the unemployment rate as such does not drop any further, it will be because the labour force participation rate will increase as people who had left the labour market will re-enter it. That is why the rate of unemployment itself will not drop as much as we would like.
I would like to say a word about the contents of the budget speech. Out of the $2.4 billion allotted to Special Recovery Capital Projects, 70 per cent will be spent between now and the end of 1984. It is important for the public sector to intervene because in spite of the tax incentives provided for businesses in the form of investment tax credits and various tax measures to promote investment by the private sector, we are well aware that there will be some delay, which means that the public sector must intervene, and it will do so through these Special Recovery Capital Projects. In this regard, I want to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to include among these Special Recovery Capital Projects the construction of the intermodal station in Quebec City. Since 1975, we have had a temporary
April 28, 1983

station in the suburb of Sainte-Foy, and I believe that it is time the railway service returned to the core area and a station worthy of the capital of Quebec was built.
Mr. Speaker, on the long term, I believe that the most beneficial proposals of this budget will probably be the Indexed Securities Investment Plan and the Special Recovery Share Purchase Tax Credit. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because our businesses generally have a deficient financial structure with a much too high debt-equity ratio. I would like to give a few figures to show what I mean. For instance, in 1978, 82 per cent of the investments of large industrial companies were financed by their own assets; in 1982, this percentage had dropped to only 38 per cent. As for the interest charges paid by these companies, they increased 32 per cent in 1980, 58 per cent in 1981 and 23 per cent in 1982.
Let me now refer to another interesting figure, namely the long term debt as a source of commercial investment. It amounted to $7.1 billion in 1978 as compared with $12.1 billion in 1982, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a significant increase.
As to stocks issued by businesses to raise new funds, they reached $5.9 billion in 1980 and only $4.4 billion two years later in 1982. Mr. Speaker, that points to the need to revamp the corporate financial structure because a company which has a lot of assets can pull through more easily. The worst thing that can happen is that it may be unable to declare dividends, whereas another one which relies heavily on its debt has to meet its contractual commitments, otherwise it might be forced into bankruptcy.
I therefore think that those measures may well be most important and most fundamental. We must also keep in mind our answer to those who would have the people believe that we are unduly partial to the corporate sector to the detriment of individual Canadians: the private sector will necessarily be the focus of the economic recovery and that is where new jobs will be created. It must be pointed out that, contrary to the views expressed by many people, corporate profits have declined sharply. Corporate profits in 1979 accounted for 13.2 per cent of Canada's gross national product, whereas three years later, in 1982, they had gone down by more than 50 per cent, which was only 6.2 per cent of the GNP. We must be wary of and keep an eye on those who claim that we as a Government have a tendency to favour big business, the wealthy and corporate owners at the expense of the helpless in our society.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to end my remarks by highlighting some of our job creation programs. A moment ago, I referred briefly to our special recovery projects, and I mentioned as well the $2.4 billion tax incentives for businesses over the next four years. And then of course we have direct job creation programs for which an additional amount of $710 million was earmarked in the budget. All told, $1.5 billion will be spent for direct job creation this year, including $180 million more under the NEED Program, $100 million more
The Budget-Mr. Duclos
under the provisions of Unemployment Insurance Act Section 38, special job creation measures of $150 million for labour intensive industries, and an extra $280 million so that young Canadians will find work rather than simply keep hoping. There will be $40 million available for Katimavik and $70 million more for Summer Canada. In addition, the Department of National Defence has set $75 million aside to recruit young people and, finally, companies will receive $95 million in salary grants to hire young Canadians and enable them to gain some experience on the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying this: in the April 26 issue of La Presse, not very long ago then, one could read the following headlines: "World Economic Recovery Well On Its Way Canada Ahead With Strongest Recovery" 1739
And the reporter went on to say:
The strength of Canada's economic recovery puts us first among the seven major industrialized nations.
Although all countries are out of the recession, Canada ranks first for its dynamism.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the conclusion of a fancy analysis by an unknown economist, it is based on a study made public the day before, April 25, by the New York Conference Board.
We have therefore precious little to learn from Members opposite. They should not gloat over the results of the latest polls, for we all know that in horse racing the horse which is running seventh or eighth often waits until the last quarter mile to pull ahead and reach the wire first. I would invite the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) in particular to watch the race as of now, especially when we expect to see a leader elected by kids who unfortunately will not be eligible for the $280 million employment programs because they will be too young at 8 or 9. We have in mind youngsters from age 15 or 16. The others are too young. So we hope they will be kept in school.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by stating that Canadians must work shoulder to shoulder and that with mutual trust, if we can forget the far-fetched and ludicrous suggestions heard from the Opposition benches, we as Canadians will all manage to live through these difficulties and enjoy once again the good life of yesteryear.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) that I am surprised by his speech. I have always thought of him as being on the left-wing of the Liberal Party, but he sounded today like a real Conservative. The Hon. Member did some pretty judicious summarizing of the Conference Board report. This morning's The Globe and Mail reports the Conference Board as follows:

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Duclos
The Canadian economy should show steady improvement this year but there will be no major success in battling unemployment over the short term-
The article goes on to state that unemployment is now 12.8 per cent, that it will come down to 12.3 per cent this year and to 11.5 per cent next year. Why is it with unemployment over 12.5 per cent and with very high unemployment in his Province of Quebec-I suppose the highest of any Province in Canada except Newfoundland-that his Government will spend $1 billion a month to keep the Unemployment Insurance Fund solvent but can find less that $2 billion for job creation? Where is the sense in paying 1.5 million Canadian workers to sit at home doing nothing rather than putting them to work doing the kinds of useful things which the Hon. Member talked about?


Louis Duclos: This is the kind of language we have been used to, coming regularly as it does from people who know that they never will be in power. This is all so easy for people who can get 20, 30 or 12 Members elected at each general election and who have no sense of responsibilities. I explained why-maybe my hon. colleague was not listening, was sleeping, or whatever. But I explained that unemployment statistics are misleading since it is clear that with this economic recovery, there will be an increase in the labour force, and this means that instead of having 58 or 59 per cent-please correct me if I am wrong- but I know that in metropolitan Quebec City, there is possibly 58 per cent of all people between the ages of 15 and 64 on the labour market, whereas a normal rate might be 64 or 65 per cent. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, if you have people joining the labour force, at the unemployment statistics level, statistics that are based on the labour force, a reduction in the unemployment rate as such will not be as dramatic, as if the labour force were stable.
Now as concerns unemployment insurance, my view is that people drawing benefits are most respectable in the first place; they want to work but unfortunately the international situation is restricting this Government's room for manoeuvre, as in the case with every other Government, especially in the industrialized world.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel those points are not too easy to make, and I would invite my hon. colleague to visit us in Quebec during the next election. He will have a chance to express his views, and we will have a chance to answer, because it has been shown that Quebecers do trust the Liberal Party, and my belief is they will continue to do so, whatever the Hon. Member may say.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, this budget's first priority is to help the private sector. Job creation and helping the consumer are not this budget's first priority. My question to the Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) is as follows: How can the Hon. Member support this budget, considering the large number of unemployed workers in this country, especially in the Province of Quebec?


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to make the same preliminary remarks I made when answering the question put by the Member for Winnipeg-North (Mr. Orlikow). I fail to understand ... Perhaps the Hon. Member is not living in the same country or on the same planet. How can anyone see job creation and helping small- and medium-sized businesses as two opposing factors? I remember that some time ago at a meeting organized by a union local in Quebec City, I met a group of unemployed workers, and I remember entering a hall, and feeling the hostility. After talking to these people, I said: Let me say one thing. Maybe you will shout me down, but wait thirty seconds after I tell you what I am going to say now: The workers' best friend is a company that makes profits. I hope my hon. colleague agrees with me on that. Personally, I do not know any entrepreneurs or businessmen who would stay in business if they kept losing money, just to keep people working.
What I mean is that these are complementary measures, and that we have decided to create jobs across Canada by stimulating the private sector, by helping it to invest more readily, by creating favourable conditions, by creating a climate of confidence. That is certainly not contrary to a job creation policy. If my hon. colleague thinks that with a deficit of $40 or $45 billion and a Government that would take 70 or 75 per cent of the gross national product, we could perhaps do more, well, I wish he would look at what is happening in socialist countries, which I suppose he has had a chance to visit. He will see that State control of the entire economy and of all production factors does not bring prosperity.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that in countries which have or have had social democratic Governments, such as Sweden, Norway and West Germany-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: And France.


David Orlikow: -and France, the rates of unemployment are much lower than that of Canada. In fact, Canada has the third highest rate of unemployment of all industrialized countries.
Does the Hon. Member not realize that the reason we have a large deficit is that such a high percentage of our labour force is unemployed? Does he not realize that when they are working they pay income taxes and have money to purchase goods on which the federal and provincial Governments receive sales tax and that companies make profits and pay corporation taxes? The Government has done nothing about unemployment. Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office it has increased every year. If we got the country working and people were employed, does the Hon. Member not agree that the large deficit would disappear?
[ Translation]


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astonished at the Hon. Member's remarks. His examples are odd, to say the
April 28, 1983

least. He mentions the Social Democratic government in the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany, like other industrialized countries, also happens to be in a recession, and I would like to put the following question to the Hon. Member. Did Germany not have elections not long ago? Did the Christian Democrats not win that election? Was the Social Democratic Party not defeated? And is that how German voters showed their appreciation of Mr. Schmidt's social democratic government? The Hon. Member's example is somewhat inappropriate and, by the way, I referred briefly to this in my speech. We have the example of the economically disastrous policy of the French Socialist Government since May 1981. Canada is looking forward to an interesting, major and lasting economic recovery, while France is in a deep recession. No later than yesterday, there were demonstrations in Paris and demonstrations by farmers in the provinces. We have to be serious. To reply more specifically to the question asked by the Hon. Member, I shall simply tell him that we are doing exactly what he said to reduce the deficit, because with fiscal incentives to promote investment by the private sector, we shall be able to create jobs, which will mean more Canadians being employed, more tax revenue for the Federal Government and a gradual reduction of the deficit.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, like many others before me, I would like to make a few comments on the budget speech delivered a few days ago. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) endorse so vigorously the administration of his Government. Like many others, I am convinced that he is very disappointed at what has been accomplished during the last fifteen years, and more particularly the last five years. The Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans is joking when he says that the youth employment incentive programs are not aimed at children of seven or eight, but 1 should remind him that his own Government is responsible for the mortgage of nearly $2,000 being imposed on every newborn child by our national debt. The Hon. Member forgot to mention it.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I must recognize that the budget is an extremely important exercise in the administration of this country. It is difficult as well to give currency to the projections of the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) because over the past 15 years, since I first won a seat in the House, his predecessors have made umpteen projections which were all way off the mark. On the strength of projections based on unbelievably misleading factors and in light of the fact that for 15 years now the Government has been telling us that it will spur the economy and set the country back on the road to prosperity through increased spending, we have no choice but to admit that it has been quite the opposite. We ought to be very concerned indeed that history might repeat itself.
The Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans spoke about the catastrophic situation in certain countries of the world. I would suggest that Canadians are now in a catastrophic
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
situation for which this Government must assume full responsibility. It has taken the wrong decisions, it has failed to take action at the right time in vulnerable sectors and, therefore, it must bear the blame and the responsibility. For a number of years now we have been urging the Government to steer its economic policies so as to encourage the private sector to show economic leadership because it is much better at it than the Government. Someone said earlier that it was a matter of confidence. Of course it is a matter of confidence, and from confidence flows credibility.
Does the Minister of Finance now have the necessary credibility to inspire confidence in investors, businessmen and Canadians generally? We say no. We say no because he has demonstrated unparalleled hypocrisy when he took action and then afterwards heeded pleas from this side of the House to listen to the private sector and promote private investment. That same Minister, when he held the energy, mines and ressources portfolio, drove private industries right out of a leading sector in Canada, and that same Minister, the Minister of Finance, was responsible for Canada's loss of $30 to $40 billion in investments and about 150,000 to 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, particularly in that area. That Minister of Finance carries a lot of weight in Cabinet, a lot more than the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans, we know that. Not so long ago, the Minister of Finance took a bit of a beating in the Gillespie affair, and he made a major blunder when he partly disclosed his budget, an issue on which the lid has been clamped. But still this was a tremendous blunder on the part of a senior minister. How can this same Minister of Finance, with so large a smile on budget night, have the credibility needed to lead the country to the prosperity he referred to in his budget or in his comments? No way, Mr. Speaker! In forsaking that trust, he lost the credibility needed to give Canadians the confidence that is so needed. And on top of that, we see, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rushing in to cover him up on two incidents that called for an immediate resignation, if honour had had its way.
Those are the rules by which we are governed today. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must recognize that the Government's current attempt to call upon the private sector, after having competed and fought with it, points first to unprecedented hypocrisy as I said, and, second, proves that we were right in enticing the private sector to do a better job than the state, which it can do. The Liberals are only now beginning to understand that.
How is it possible for us, Mr. Speaker, to accept the Government's invitation to put our trust in them in order to save the country? As we have seen these past 15 years, the more they are granted additional supplies, the bigger their deficits are getting. And the bigger the deficits, the heavier the cost of our
24946

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. La Salle
national debt and the higher the unemployment rate. Certainly, the truth must be told in this House. I was literally shocked when I heard the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) earlier today trying to defend this Government's unprecedented failure and incompetence. Such is the situation now, Mr. Speaker. Of course, they would not want us to say that in 1968, when I first came here, at the same time perhaps as the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans, there were
358,000	unemployed, and the budget stood at a $12 billion. But in 1982, what a sad performance, Mr. Speaker, that is embarrassing for Liberal members and is reflected in this morning's Gallup polls. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would rather not hear about it. They will tell the public at large that the race is not yet over. Indeed it is not, but Canadians are in an awful hurry to get this opportunity to say what they think of a Government that has been hurting them for too long. And I hope the message gets across: there were 358,000 unemployed in 1968, whereas we now have close to two millions. With a $12 billion budget! That is something Canadians understand. Now it is $100 billion. So they tell us: "We need money. We are going to straighten out the economy within the next 15 years." The budget has increased from $12 to $100 billion, the deficit has increased from $491 million in 1968 to $31 billion this year. The Minister of Finance with his usual big smile has told us in his budget that we are going to have $25 billion deficits over the next four years.
Despite a sad economic situation, those people are asking us to put our confidence in them although they are responsible for this country's unprecedented failure. That is the kind of administration we have, and now this is the kind of administration that we should condemn with all our energies just as we are now doing. Is there one businessman in this country who would have retained managers of that ilk in his business for more than six months? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. Should Canadians also know that the national debt which amounted to $32 billion in 1968 has reached $160 billion this year? With such a record, the Government is seeking, with the investments which are provided for in this budget, and with the assurance that our economy is on the threshold of recovery-
Mr. Speaker, the Government is not telling the truth when it says that our economy is on the threshold of recovery, and when the Minister of Finance claims that unemployment will be maintained at its current level. Of course, our friends opposite will argue that newcomers will arrive on the labour market. But that was to be expected. If current statistics are good for the goose, they ought to be good for the gander too. The Government should have foreseen this, for they say that to govern is to foresee. The Government lacked both foresight and compassion in connection with the unemployment problem it had created. It was dishonest with the Canadian electorate by creating prosperity artificially, especially by going deeply into debt over the past 15 years. And it succeeded during the last election campaign in convincing a majority of Canadians
that things were not so bad, since it was able to spend huge amounts of money and create social programs. Unfortunately, it started to compete with the private sector, the major provider of jobs, and now it is seeking its forgiveness.
We cannot forgive the Government for its poor performance. We cannot forgive the Government for wanting to compete on a daily basis with the provinces and the private sector, by setting unilateral guidelines. It is unthinkable. Good times are over for this Government. It has never felt the need to sit down with the business sector, the unions or the provinces and to behave as a good federalist should, respectful of the provinces, its partners, and to discuss national issues with them. That is the kind of administration we have had for the past 15 years. And it is not seeking the people's confidence. I suggest it is going too far, Mr. Speaker. It has waited too long. It will be judged on its actions. It is responsible for an impossible situation. Earlier, I heard an Hon. Member refer to the great strides made by the housing industry towards recovery. This Government is responsible, Mr. Speaker, because its lack of housing policy during the past three years, for the loss of
500,000	jobs in the construction industry. Today, I support the $3,000 grant for the purchase of a new home, but the Minister is not even in a position to state a specific date and this is disturbing and I think that the Government Members will realize the importance of the matter. The Minister said in his budget speech that the grant could be extended until the end of May. You can see what will happen, Mr. Speaker. Applications will be filed, but because the funds will have already been expended, the applicants will not be entitled to their $3,000. What is the exact date? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said that the $3,000 grants could be extended until the end of May. However, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not convinced. Let us look at the budget. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not really sure of that. Then let us imagine for a moment what people will... Surely that-


Mr. Ouellet:: You did say 500,000 jobs!


Roch La Salle: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not sure that 500,000 jobs will be lost but there are now some two million unemployed so I think that he should also check his statistics again.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that such an irresponsible Minister is wrong when he does not provide for the termination date for the $3,000 grants. I urge the Minister of Finance to tell Canadians that they will be entitled to the grants up to a specific date and if it is May 31, that will be fine, but any application filed within that period should be accepted. If the Minister of Finance fears that the Government cannot promise to pay that $3,000 grant to new owners, he should be brave and honest enough to say so. I ask him to give us a specific date, to set a specific time.
April 28, 1983

Mr. Speaker, I should end now considering the time allotted to me but before doing so I should like to mention that this Government has lost public confidence as is evidenced by public opinion polls. This Government is responsible for the problems which Canadians are now experiencing and is asking us to support proposals which it never made. However, through the force of circumstances, because it was forced to act, because we demanded that the private sector be used in a certain way, it does no longer deserve our support and should be dumped as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, there is a provision in the budget speech of April 19 which has not yet received all the attention it really deserves, for it will benefit Canadian families. Indeed, under that provision, Canadian taxpayers will be permitted to withdraw tax free part or all of their accumulated savings in RHOSP's, that is Registered Homeownership Savings Plans, provided such funds are used to purchase home furnishings and appliances before the end of 1983. They will not be required to close the plan for such withdrawals. Qualifying new home furnishings must generally be purchased between the date of the budget and December 31, 1983. That measure should stimulate consumer expenditures on durable goods. Thus, young couples will participate in the economic recovery. Through the purchase of furniture, refrigerators, washing machines or carpeting, they will contribute to inventory reduction and production of the manufacturing industry. Furthermore I think that mention should be made of that measure and, at the same time, those responsible for it, should be praised.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the revocation of Regulation 16
of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Not only are farmers being burdened with the additional difficulties encountered with the administrative obligation, coupled with high turnover and mobility of agricultural workers, but now, to add insult to injury, the federal Government, with its bureaucratic red tape and usual slowness, has not even made available the proper forms which it is forcing our farmers to use.
In my constituency the farmers of Haldimand-Norfolk will need at least 50,000 forms by June 10 when the 1983 strawberry harvest begins. That is less than eight weeks away. One farmer alone will need at least 2,000 forms by that date. The present forms, as I am sure the Minister knows, are only valid until April 30. That means the only forms available will be out of date for this season.
The new program requires filling out a daily form for each individual worker, complete with Social Insurance Number and other pertinent detailed information. This is a horrendous, time consuming, impossible task for farmers to perform at the eight of the season, especially when dealing with crops such as strawberries. Many farmers employ up to 400 seasonal workers per day.
I understand the Minister is reconsidering this stand and is meeting with the horticultural society this week. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to this group and to take immediate steps to offer some sort of relief to our frustrated farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, it is no secret that agriculture as an industry is suffering along with many other sectors of Canada's economy. An Act that the Government could use to alleviate somewhat the problems in agriculture, particularly western agriculture, is the Western Grain Stabilization Act. That Act has been in place since 1976, and in the seven years since its inception has had a pay out twice, once in 1977 and once in 1978. Currently the fund has in excess of $600 million, and at the present rate of contribution there will be in excess of $800 million in the fund at the end of this year.
The Act is jointly funded by the producers and the federal Government on the basis of $2 of contribution by the federal Government for every $1 of contribution by producers. The producers' contribution is collected on the basis of 2 per cent of eligible grain sales.

April 28, 1983
24948___________________________
The Act is designed to stabilize net farm income over a period of five years. If the Government chose to do so, it could amend the Act so that it would stabilize income over a three-year period rather than a five-year period. If that amendment were made, there would be a payment triggered immediately of something approximating $150 million. That money would be injected into the western farm economy. It would be good for the economy and would not increase the deficit one bit. It would be a step that the Government could take to assist the agricultural industry at a time when it needs help, without increasing the Government's deficit.



THE JUDICIARY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, the appointment of Madam Justice Constance Glube as Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court Trial Division is welcome news, though perhaps not for our friends in labour, as it is the elevation of a distinguished member of the Nova Scotia bench and she is the first woman to be appointed as a Chief Justice in Canada.
The appointment of women to the bench is of ever greater importance now that we have an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because of the Charter the judiciary will influence our lives much more than it has in the past.
Strong representation of women on the bench, indeed equal representation, was a demand of Canadian women's organizations in the Charter debate. Yet the proportion of women appointed to the bench over the last three years has been only 8.9 per cent, the very same as the proportion of women appointed to the bench in the United States by President Reagan, one whose leadership in the feminist cause is hardly to be emulated.
Some extremely bad decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada recently underscored the need to appoint men and women with sensitivity to women's issues. The Leatherdale case of last year repeats some of the horrors of the Murdoch case of ten years ago. Only yesterday a decision was announced which would put the victim of rape on trial for conduct after the offence, a possibility that would never be considered for victims of any other offence. It is time that sensitivity and competence on women's issues become criteria for the selection of members of the bench in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CALL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NON-DIPLOMATIC PRESENCE IN TAIWAN

Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, unemployment is our number one problem today and international trade plays an important part in that problem. For every $1 billion spent on trade, approximately 25,000 new Canadian jobs are created.
Unlike most other countries, however, Canada has not reached its full potential in this regard. For example, one of the fastest growing economies in the world is Taiwan, and although not recognized diplomatically by many nations, virtually all non-communist countries have established some form of bilateral non-diplomatic presence with Taiwan for the sake of promoting trade.
I am pleased to announce today that members of the Cana-da-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Committee, consisting of some 50 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House, have received assurances in writing from the Minster of Foreign Affairs in Taiwan that serious consideration is being given to sending a procurement mission to Canada in the near future in order to buy Canadian goods and services. This, we believe, is only a small step toward utilizing the full trade potential between Canada and Taiwan, a potential that would create tens of thousands of jobs in Canada forthwith.
To this end we urge the Government to join virtually all other non-communist industrialized nations in establishing a non-diplomatic presence in Taiwan in order to take full advantage of the tremendous trade potential for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday President Reagan addressed the combined Houses of the Senate and the Congress of the United States. He asked for more arms for the struggles in Central America. On the same day, Dr. Alfred Gelhorn of the Harvard School of Public Health, and three other U.S. professionals, tabled a report about their visit to El Salvador in recent months. They wrote:
The rate of endemic diseases is rising drastically as social programs are sacrificed so that funds can be allocated to the military.
They went on to say:
U.S. foreign aid must make abundant provisions for such essentials as food, medicine, vaccines, medical equipment, teaching materials for students, and other forms of economic assistance.
Furthermore, they said:
Wherever we turned we found the chilling effects of the ever-widening devastation to health and health care that has been caused by the breakdown in
April 28, 1983

education, the slashing of budgets for national health programs and the repression of human beings by the systematic use of terror.
The doctors went on to say that they had visited a hospital. Ten days after their visit, a doctor had been taken from that clinic by armed men and has not been seen again.
I would ask the Senators and Congressmen of the United States to check their facts carefully. They must realize that the United States was founded in 1776 by a group of people who were able to identify oppression. I believe that if George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were alive today, they would be on the side of the revolutionaries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF 4-H CLUBS TRIBUTE TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the 4-H organization has made Canada a better country. The first meetings of 4-H were held some 70 years ago. In 1933, under the Dominion Companies Act, 4-H was incorporated as a nonprofit youth organization. Canada now has more than 5,500 clubs, with some 75,000 members who complete about 80,000 projects every year.
Every 4-H-er pledges the head for clearer thinking, the heart for greater loyalty and understanding, the hands for larger service, and health for a better and more worth-while life. Members learn to do by doing under the guidance of volunteer leaders who encourage special interests in agriculture and in living and in identifying leadership ability in the members of the club and in themselves.
The basic objective of this educational movement for young people is to provide a well balanced training in citizenship and to encourage the adoption of improved methods in farming and in homemaking. Fifty golden years of service, plus 20 years before incorporation in Canada, together with youth and leaders in some 80 countries of the world, building character by the four "H's", the "Head", "Heart", "Hand" and "Health", have had a tremendous impact for good throughout the world. I am sure every Hon. Member of this House will join with me in saying "Congratulations" and thanks to the 4-H Movement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TEXTILES AND CLOTHING


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, Canadians know that any
economic recovery in this country will be led by the business community. The textile industry, which employs 13 per cent of the people in the manufacturing sector, continually finds that it must struggle with unfair foreign competition, and if this is allowed to continue it will seriously jeopardize the textile industry's more than 80,000 employees and add to the already two million Canadians who are out of work.
On behalf of the over 1,100 textile workers and their families who live in the federal constituency of Hastings-Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington, as well as the other thousands of Canadians and their families who are currently employed in the textile industry, I ask that the responsible Minister and his Government support the Canadian domestic market. Canada cannot be allowed to sink gradually deeper and deeper into foreign control of our domestic market.
Canadians must provide for Canadians so that we are in the driver's seat for our future, and the Government must help us drive forward, not backward. I ask the Government to show the understanding and co-operation which will support and encourage industry to grow for the future, and thus prevent loss of jobs in Canada.



PETRO-CANADA SELLING TIRES IN COMPETITION WITH INDEPENDENT DEALERS

Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a matter which has been brought to my attention by the Atlantic Provinces Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association which represents approximately 30 tire dealers in the Atlantic Provinces. These dealers employ over 1,000 people and have built up their businesses over a number of years with private funds. They are deeply concerned over the fact that Petro-Canada Tire Centres are offering ridiculously low tire prices which make for extremely tough competition.
These privately owned businesses would like to question the Government's responsibility to the public when it has gotten into the business of selling tires as a Crown Corporation in competition with tax-paying businesses which have built up reputations in their local communities. The Government also pays out large sums of money to advertise special prices for huge sales of tires in full-page $1,000 advertisements, using taxpayers' money.
It is extremely difficult for business people to stay in business and make a profit in today's harsh economy, let alone compete with a company using subsidized tax dollars. I, on behalf of the Atlantic Provinces Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, urge that an immediate halt to such business methods, at the cost of over-burdened taxpayers across the country, take place, and that the Government be held responsible for the detrimental effect this practice is having on our business sector.

April 28, 1983
Oral Questions HEALTH



FUNDING FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, the House will be aware that as a result of the application of the six and five program to the funding for the Medical Research Council, only 12 per cent of the new applications for research funding which were made this year to the Medical Research Council were approved. This is the result of this cutback in funding.
The concern is that we may be sending the wrong message to young people who are studying in our universities in order to do important research. We may, perhaps, be sending them the message that they would have been better to go into land speculation because the Government does not have the right sense of priorities if it applies the six and five program to medical research. Government will create a sort of lost generation of young people for work in scientific research if it does not smarten up pretty soon and start making medical research a priority, instead of relying on devious and dubious means like the proposed sports pool for the funding of health research.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Special Recovery Program, and it relates to the disbursement of funds under this Program to the various regions of Canada. Bearing in mind that the unemployment rate in British Columbia has reached an all-time high, and one of the highest in Canada, will the Minister confirm for this House that some $400 million of funding under the Special Recovery Program is being allocated to British Columbia? And is he prepared now to designate those projects, those important public projects, which will qualify for portions of this funding?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in response to a question which should be directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who has responsibility for this project, the $4.8 billion in the Special Recovery Program was split into two parts, one a $2.4 billion program designed to assist in the construction of capital works projects right across the country, which would create jobs immediately. The majority of that funding will be in place in the next six months. The second part, Madam Speaker, was the $2.4 billion which is tax related, connected with the Income Tax Act, and directed toward stimulation of the private sector.
I assume the Hon. Member is referring to the capital projects part of the Special Recovery Fund. I indicated yesterday that the Minister responsible will be making those announcements, or Ministers on his behalf, in the next few weeks. There are over 100 of such projects right across the country. The amount of money allocated to each project on a provincial basis or on a regional basis, Madam Speaker, will be apparent as the announcements are made.


SELECTION OF PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, referring to the budget speech of last week, it is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance said, "More than 100 projects have been selected." I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the need for secrecy here. This is potentially the biggest patronage fund in Canadian history.
Will the Minister confirm that important public projects in British Columbia, such as the pipeline to Vancouver Island, the need for funding for important expanded post-secondary and technological training facilities, and other projects, will be funded to a degree proportional to British Columbia's population share of this major patronage fund?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in addition to the 100 projects to which the Minister referred on budget evening, we know that an additional $200 million was allocated toward projects which fall into the category of capital works funds projects. The Hon. Member said, "have been selected". I responded by saying, yes, a lot of preliminary work was done prior to the budget, but actual approval for those projects had not been given prior to the budget.
I would like to assure Hon. Members that the announcements which have been made thus far, for example, the purchase of water bombers, were not made on a regional basis or on a political basis. Indeed, an announcement which will be made in Metropolitan Toronto tomorrow will be made in a riding which is not held by the Liberal Party. Therefore, Hon. Members, I argue, Madam Speaker, are going against the facts when there is an implication that these announcements apply to a particular part of the country, or to people of a particular political stripe.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister continues to hedge and stonewall. The budget said very clearly, "100 projects have been selected", and there is no need for secrecy in this matter.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, or someone else who is qualified to answer, as the Minister of Transport is not in
April 28, 1983

the House, why a major contribution has been made to building large off-shore Coast Guard vessels when the Cross Report on Coast Guard revisions requires that small high speed pursuit vessels be acquired, and in fact those vessels are already being purchased from Britain? I would like to know why it is that the Minister, in allocating some of this special recovery funding to the building of large sea-going Coast Guard vessels, is completely contradicting and overlooking the recommendations of the interdepartmental report on search and rescue?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is speaking of a report relating to search and rescue, I have not seen that report. I would be pleased to review its contents. However, I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the announcements we made on Monday relating to the Coast Guard acquisitions we are going to make. I indicated quite clearly that the allocation of the contracts would be sensitive to regional distribution. The Hon. Member's region is on the West Coast and we are sensitive to his interests concerning the alloaction of work under the Program to the West Coast. I am sure he will follow that very closely and I would be pleased, privately or otherwise, to provide him with any additional information I can freely give him.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Air Canada has announced it is going to be laying off 420 workers on September 1 unless unions accept cost-savings agreements. There will be 120 mechanics laid off in the Winnipeg area. It is unfortunate that Air Canada does not practise what it preaches. I would like to ask the Minister if he will use the authority of the Government to have Air Canada stop its ridiculous $30 million move to elaborate new corporate headquarters, a move under investigation by the RCMP, and use that money to keep those 420 employees working in Air Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has made representations to the Government. I will draw these to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


REQUEST THAT LAY-OFFS BE HALTED
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister can bring this to the attention of the Minister of Labour. By law the airline is required to give four months' notice of a lay-off to the Department of Labour. I would like to point out to the Minister that many of these mechanics being laid off had to pay their own
Oral Questions
travel expenses from Dorval to Winnipeg recently, and were guaranteed employment. Will the Acting Prime Minister see that Air Canada is not allowed to lay off these employees, and will he use his influence to stop its unnecessary $30 million move to elaborate new headquarters?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member stated that Air Canada has violated the law, or that there was a law that ought to induce Air Canada to behave in a certain way. I believe that, if there is such a law, then Air Canada should obey it, like all other corporate bodies or persons in the country. I will also draw that matter to the attention of the Minister, in this case the Minister of Labour.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment. Yesterday in Committee the Minister accepted the view that we are going to continue to have high unemployment even in boom times. This follows the Minister of Finance's rather bizarre notion, as expressed last week, that 8 per cent or 9 per cent unemployment should really constitute full employment. Instead of dealing with the problem, the Government is really redefining the issue.
Considering that an all-Party Committee of this House, following the last election, recommended to the Government that it accept a level no higher than 4 per cent as the definition of full employment, why does the Government not accept this definition and then set targets to achieve it?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in Committee yesterday, and it is unfortunate that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party did not attend that meeting-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: He says he is interested in the issue of employment, and this would have been an ideal opportunity to have exchanged points of view.


Miss MacDonald:: Tell him to come tonight.


Lloyd Axworthy: I invite him to attend this evening, if he is free. If he does not have a social engagement he would be free to come tonight and talk about these issues.
What we pointed out during that discussion, Madam Speaker, was that we are very much committed to job creation. The budget was designed specifically to achieve that objective. But at the same time as we begin to create more jobs, and we have now had three consecutive months of increased job creation in the country, it also has the result of bringing more

April 28, 1983
Oral Questions
people into the labour market. So statistically you do not see the improvement because the participation rates continue to improve; going up at the same time and run in a simultaneous fashion.
It is certainly our intention, and it was very clearly stated by the Minister of Finance, because of the measures introduced in the budget to stimulate action in the private sector-supplemented by the major effort we are making in direct job creation-we will be in a position of creating about 600,000 jobs over the next two years, which will be a very high average in that period of time and will put a lot of people back to work.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister gets more banal every day. What he has just said is that the unemployment statistics continue to go up because the participation rate increases. What that amounts to saying is that unemployment continues to go up because men and women are looking for jobs. How ridiculous can the Minister get!


REQUEST THAT UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET LEVEL BE ESTABLISHED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that certain countries in the world today have unemployment of 4 per cent or less-Austria, Sweden, and Japan, to name three-and considering that is because they have had political leadership which set that level as a target, why will the Minister not now answer the question I put to him in the first place and accept as a minimum target a level of unemployment of 4 per cent for this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party points to countries such as Austria and Japan as examples. I would point out that those two countries have adopted programs such as work sharing, which Members of his own caucus have spoken negatively about and have opposed. So I suggest that, if he is interested in achieving the results of some of those countries, Members of his caucus should get on side and support some of the initiatives we have taken, instead of always being critical.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for a second time the Minister has refused to answer the question put to him. I simply say to him that the programs introduced in the countries he has alluded to were made more equitable in the first place, and they work. They make sense there, whereas the ones he has put into place here are not equitable and they do not work. That is why we oppose them.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for the third time I would like the Minister to deal with my question. Why does he not set 4 per cent as a target to work toward? If the Government refuses to do that, will he acknowledge that what the Government is really saying to young men and women, although not to them alone, is that they have to give up looking for a job, they have to lower their expectations
or do what the Prime Minister suggested a few years ago, leave our country in order to get a job? How despicable!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate tendency on the part of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and certain Members of his caucus always to think what is devised or developed in a foreign country is somehow preferable to what is happening in Canada. It seems to me it would be much more helpful to the Canadian public if he looked at what was happening in Canada rather than always looking at what is happening in Sweden, Japan or Austria.


John Edward Broadbent: We are looking at what is happening here.


Lloyd Axworthy: They should be concerned about what is happening here. I would point out that, if he was prepared to do that, he would look at the report we tabled during the budget debate where we set out a very clear strategy to deal with the changing job market in Canada. In that document we have pointed out how, at the present time, training programs of this Government are helping over 120,000 young Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are spending over $2.5 million per day for young Canadians. We have introduced a new youth employment program for young Canadians.


Mr. Kempling:: With a million and a half unemployed.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is about time that the Leader of the New Democratic Party started looking at what is happening in Canada rather than always looking abroad.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Tuesday RCMP investigators visited the offices of The Toronto Star in what appears to be an effort on the part of the Minister to plug leaks in his Department, as referred to in Frank Howard's column in The Ottawa Citizen this week. Apparently the RCMP were interested in questioning Mr. David Vienneau with respect to a report he had possession of, as a result of the questioning on the floor of the House of Commons concerning the Coalgate or Alastair Gillespie affair.
Why does the Minister feel it is necessary to bring in the RCMP and involve himself in this program of harrassment of the press and media of Canada, and also for the purpose of intimidating his own departmental employees with respect to items and information which should be available under the Freedom of Information Act which has been passed by this Parliament?
April 28, 1983


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I did not call the RCMP at all. I think there is some internal procedure in every Department to deal with people who give information which should not be given outside. There are some rules presently in the regulations which were there when the Hon. Member was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The regulations have not been changed. If there is an inquiry, it is through the normal process of the Department, and I have not even been consulted about it.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General, who has responsibility in the House for the RCMP. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has now said that he did not instruct the RCMP or engage the RCMP to investigate leaks with respect to the Coalgate or Alistair Gillespie affair in this House.
There is a record by the Government of using the RCMP in order to cause investigations and raids to take place whenever there is a politically embarrassing situation which arises. I refer to the raid on the Toronto Sun in the Peter Worthington matter, under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. I want to know whether the Solicitor General will direct the RCMP not to become involved in investigations the only purpose of which would be to save the political hide of the Government.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: I think the suggestion is totally unworthy of the Hon. Member. It is certainly unworthy of the RCMP. They are not directed by the Government in criminal investigation matters, and they do not require direction of the Government to investigate criminal matters. They have the code, the rules, their own traditions, and they are self-starting. The Minister may call on the police, or any citizen may call on them, when wrongdoing is suspected, but the suggestion that they are being used by the Government is totally unjustified.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence, which is a little unexpected, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question. Since yesterday, he and the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice have had 24 hours to consider the implications of my question. Could the Solicitor General please tell the House when the criminal investigation into the Air Canada matter started, and when it is to conclude?
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Again, Madam Speaker, I do not think that question should be answered, and I have no intention of answering it. I am surprised that the Hon. Member is asking questions and making allegations which might prevent a fair trial from taking place in the event that a decision to lay charges is reached by the RCMP. I would ask him to respect the well-established tradition of allowing the investigations to proceed on their own, without the direction or allegation or suggestions or improvisations of the Hon. Member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will start to respect traditions when the Government starts to respect any type or tradition of political morality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary question, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, is unfortunately directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Separate and apart from the criminal investigation, would the Deputy Prime Minister check with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to see whether the Minister of Transport is aware of and is investigating a series of serious abuses of the office of the Chairman of the Board of Air Canada which, if true, would require the immediate dismissal of the Chairman?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is polluting the atmosphere with these allegations which may or may not be valid, but in a way which may eventually prevent an individual from having a fair trial, and prevent a trial from taking place. I urge him not to lend the authority of his position as a Member of Parliament and spokesman for his Party to allegations which are nothing more than allegations at this point. An investigation is proceeding. That has been confirmed. I think he is entitled to ask about that. He has received his answer concerning that. Surely he can leave it at that, knowing that the RCMP are perfectly capable of conducting investigations without his input.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday, in a radio interview, Tom Maxwell, chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, confirmed the Conservative Party's view that the high interest rates and tax increases generated by the Liberal budget in the future will abort the economic recovery under way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 28, 1983
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: In our official response we said that the budget measures could derail the economy by increasing interest rates and imposing massive taxes as the recovery is gathering steam. Now the Conference Board states that these measures will bring the economy to a screeching halt in the next two years.
Since the budget admits that the Government cannot cope with unemployment, how does the Minister respond to the Conference Board forecast that the budget will put the brakes on the economy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of reading the report to which the Hon. Member has referred. She has indicated that she, herself, heard a news report by Mr. Maxwell. I similarly heard reports, and we must have heard different radio reports because the one which I heard, on the contrary, did not at all confirm the protestations of the Hon. Member.
The report of the Conference Board is at best neutral concerning the design of the budget, which is to add a stimulus to an economy which is presently growing and showing some strength, with a plan to support the economy immediately, through the next year and some months, and then to recoup those moneys added as a stimulus by way of taxation at a later date when it could be afforded by the private sector. That basic premise was not the subject of the report of the Conference Board. Indeed, if it had been, it would have been a prerelease of the budget which the Minister introduced Tuesday last.
Therefore, in reply to the Hon. Member's affirmation that the Conference Board criticized the strategy of the Minister of Finance, of adding stimulus at this time, but in a responsible way, putting a plan forward which would call for a reduction of the deficit at a time when the economy was strengthened, I suggest that that statement was not criticized by the Conference report, and the Hon. Member is distorting that report at best.


CONFERENCE BOARD ASSESSMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, it is yet to be seen whether the Government is acting in a responsible way or just adding more mad money to the pork barrel. I will send the Minister the transcript of the radio interview in which Mr. Maxwell made his assessment. I would like to point out that those in the Official Opposition are not the only people making this assessment of the Liberal budget. Mr. Maxwell stated in his interview, "I think we are very much in line with what most people are saying". Do these assessments disturb the Minister? Is the Goverment having sober second thoughts?


Paul James Cosgrove: Not
at all, Madam Speaker. We believe, for example, that the stock market has responded favourably to the strategy of the
Government, of the Minister of Finance, that is, of moderate stimulus at this time. However, with the concern about a reduction in the long-term deficit, we think that that is why there has been an improvement on the stock market. We think that is why the budget has been well received on the international financial markets and why the Canadian dollar has strengthened. We believe that the strategy has been supported by the majority of writers, critics and economists who have studied it. Yes, of course, there are differences of opinion. There always will be. However, they are in a minority, just as is the Hon. Member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Three years ago, during the referendum campaign in Quebec, the Federal Government promised $225 million in economic spin-offs, in the form of a production plant for the F-18 in Quebec. It appears that yesterday, a contract worth only $3 million was signed by McDonnell Douglas and UDT. My question, Madam Speaker, is as follows: Is this one more promise the Liberal Party has broken?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the question. I think the contract signed Tuesday by UDT and McDonnell Douglas is one that was signed by two independent companies. The Government had no involvement in this matter as far as deciding who would get the contract or how it was to be signed. McDonnell Douglas decided which company best served their purpose, and it selected UDT.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. According to the newspaper La Presse, the Minister said, and 1 quote:
It is not the first time politicians state figures they are later unable to support.
My question is as follows: Could the Minister give the House the assurance that in the near future, further contracts will be signed to make the total economic spin-offs for Quebec amount to $225 million, as promised by the Liberal Party three years ago?


Mr. Lamontagne:: When projections are made, and this applies to all contracts, the economic spin-offs may increase or decrease, depending on the contracts given to the company. And that was more or less what I answered.
As for the economic spin-offs in connection with the F-18, our concern is to see to it that Canada derives maximum benefits from the economic spin-offs of the F-18 purchase, and that both provinces, Quebec and Ontario, get their fair share of those spin-offs, and that is what we are going to do.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. I heard the Minister of National Defence dissociating himself from his Government's commitment during the referendum campaign. Can the Minister inform the House that he intends to meet the commitments made by his Government three years ago during the referendum campaign? To win over Quebecers, it was agreed that Quebec would benefit from this F-18 contract. I think the people of Quebec ought to know what the Minister's intentions are today.


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think Quebecers know perfectly well what the Government's attitude is toward Quebec, that is, the Government is exploring all avenues to promote employment and economic spin-offs for the Province of Quebec. It is quite obvious that the friends of the Member for Joliette are using the F-18 issue to make political gains. I think it is important to ensure that Quebec's position in the aviation industry is preserved and that is what we are doing, with great diligence.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I received a number of phone calls from Greymac and Seaway depositors who have $20,000 in mature GICs. These individuals were concerned about their inability to withdraw the accumulated interest. Following Royal Assent of the Bill concerning the new insurance limit, will they now be allowed to make such withdrawals?


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can confirm that these depositors with Seaway and Greymac will indeed be permitted withdrawal to the $60,000 limit as a result of the passage of that legislation yesterday. I would stress that there must be maturity of those instruments in order that they quality. I would point out as well that the waivers that have been requested thus far at the
Oral Questions
$20,000 limit will apply as well for those people who are now applying for the $60,000 limit.
I would also say that I think that the legislation's speedy passage by Parliament demonstrates that the Government and Opposition in Parliament working together can respond to the economic conditions in the country if they really want to.


EDUCATION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State on parliamentary business, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I am sorry that I could not give him notice, but I sent it to the Minister of Finance.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance have recently announced measures to ease repayment of student loans for unemployed graduating students who are in financial difficulty. In the meantime many unemployed graduates are being relentlessly pressed with collection procedures used by the Government of Canada and its agencies. Will the Government cancel collection procedures until the new program is in place?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs) Madam Speaker, my experience is that there usually is not a relentless pursuit of these students who may be faced with financial difficulties. We have always taken a sympathetic attitude toward these students, and we will do the same in this particular instance.


J. Robert Howie: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer and the sympathetic approach to students which he has mentioned. There are apparently incidents of which the hon. gentleman may not be aware and of which I will advise him.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUSPEND COLLECTIONS
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, the pursuit has been relatively aggressive by some collection agencies. I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in keeping with the sympathetic policy he has announced, if he would consider suspending collections until the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance have had an opportunity to place before Parliament what are, on the surface at least, some good measures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I could not undertake to suspend these procedures but I will draw the Hon. Member's representations to the attention of both Ministers.

April 28, 1983
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


RESULTS OF POLL
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Canada's special ownership charge on oil was ostensibly placed to pay for the purchase of Petrofina. It has not been rescinded in the recent budget. The Gallup Poll shows that some 69 per cent of Canadians make absolutely no effort to buy their gasoline at Petro-Canada stations and 45 per cent think that the Crown corporation should be sold. Will the Minister tell the House that the Government is now willing to accept the fact that this is a costly and obviously unpopular burden to the taxpayer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have to disagree with the Hon. Member because the difference between the Gallup Poll and the reality is that the reality is that, last year, Petro-Canada increased its share of the Canadian market while the private sector lost a share of the Canadian market. It is a good opportunity to show the Hon. Member that he should not pay too much attention to Gallup Polls.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: There is one particular Gallup Poll which Members opposite should look at. It says that 52 per cent of Canadians want the Conservative Party to form the next Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADVERTISING SLOGAN
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, if the biggest fraud that is now being perpetrated is not the claim of Petro-Canada advertising "its ours", then I would like to know what is. If it is ours, will the Minister tell the House and the Canadian people when he will be issuing the shares and/or dividends to the Canadian people so that it is theirs?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would do well to take a closer look at Petro-Canada's activities. It is one of the companies that are most active in developing oil exploration both in the Canadian North and on the Atlantic coast, and it is also involved in retail sales. As I said earlier, last year Petro-Canada considerably increased its retail sales while other companies saw their share of the market diminish. In fact, Canadian taxpayers have really benefited from the establishment of this company, since by buying gas from Petro-Canada, they demonstrate their preference for buying from Petro-Canada rather than from the multinationals established in Canada.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has been arguing lately that if we had the same kind of participation in the labour force as in the 1960s, the unemployment rate would be down to only 5 per cent. I presume that the Minister is aware that we are in fact in the 1980s and not the 1960s. Would the Minister tell us what he proposes to do? Would he like to see women leave the labour force and go back home at a time when we have no pensions for homemakers, for example? Or does the Minister have any concrete proposals to meet the conditions of the 1980s when there are large numbers of women and young people wanting to have jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, once again I would invite the Hon. Member to attend the discussions we have been having on my Departmental Estimates where we have had the opportunity to open up these discussions in a much broader way.


Mr. Parker:: Do something.


Lloyd Axworthy: If she had attended those meetings she would know that what we have done is put forward-


John Edward Broadbent: Bring it in the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: -for the interest and, in some cases, the education of Members of the House, a document on employment in the 1980s in which we have set out not only the reality which Hon. Members over there refuse to face, but also a strategy designed to open up access to employment for all groups in our society. In this document we have put forward very specific proposals relating to new training programs, new job creation programs, new employment service programs and new job adjustment programs. I would recommend very highly that the Hon. Member read this document, and then we will have an exchange about it.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues have attended those meetings, and I do not think that has helped very much.


UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, we do have evidence from other countries. Reference was made earlier to Sweden, to Austria, to West Germany and to a number of European countries where unemployment is at the 2 per cent 4 per cent and 5 per cent levels. Women in those countries have a long history of labour force participation. Since the Minister pooh-poohs using any of these countries as a model country for a great deal more economic planning, would he consider the fact that there are other countries which
April 28, 1983

do combine low rates of unemployment with high levels of participation by young people and women in the labour force?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that was an interesting statement. I am not sure what the question was.


John Edward Broadbent: You wouldn't answer it anyway.


Lloyd Axworthy: In fact, I am not sure there was a question at all. Perhaps we cannot hear the question because the Leader of the New Democratic Party is bellowing so loudly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: But what we have tried to do in the "Perspectives on Employment" is outline the reality in Canada in our own country, based upon the kinds of projections that we have and the fact that the policies of this Government have gone a long way to encourage substantially the growth of women in the labour force, and the recognition that we have devoted a number of new programs to ensure that women get access to the new skills they will need to meet new jobs.


Sidney James Parker: Give us some hope.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would suggest again to the Hon. Member that there are some very important issues that must be faced, but we will not face them simply by hiding our heads in the sand or always looking elsewhere. We must look at our own country first.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and concerns a strike that has been going on for five months and is affecting all Canadians living in the Atlantic Provinces. Madam Speaker, the purpose of my question is to find out what the situation is with respect to negotiations with the CTC, and also with EPA and CP Air, regarding the issue of joint air fares, and other negotiations that are going on with the president, manager and administration of EPA and senior officials of CP Air.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Restigouche has raised a matter that is of great interest to us all, and I would like to inform the House that the Chairman of the Labour Relations Board had many meetings last week to discuss the strike and has started preparing a decision that is expected to be submitted in the near future.
Oral Questions


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker,
I had a question for the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Agriculture, but since they are not here perhaps I could ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister for Western Canada, a question having to do with the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This Act was designed to stabilize farm income over a period of five years. Would he be prepared to make representations to the Minister of Transport on behalf of western farmers to see that that Act is changed so that the stabilization period would be three years instead of five? In doing so, it would immediately trigger a pay out of approximately $150,000-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but that question should be addressed to another Minister, not to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. McDermid:: He is the only Minister from the West.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry. It has to do with the announcement made by his colleague, the Minister of Industry, last week of the establishment of another task force and permanent study group to advise that particular Minister and the Government on the difficulties, and on the opportunities available to the forest industry and sector. What is it that the Government is confused about?


Mr. Nielsen:: Everything.


Frank Oberle: Why can that Minister not rely on the excellent advice the Minister of Forestry is already getting from the forest sector advisory committee and, indeed, the Council of Environment and Forest Ministers of the Provinces?


Madam Speaker:: There is not a Minister of Forestry in the House as far as I know. That is the Minister of the Environment.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer the question, I think that if there is any confusion it exists in the mind of the Hon. Member, not on this side of the House. It is well known, and I think the Hon. Member knows it because we discussed it in the parliamentary committee, that a very important aspect of issues relating to the forest industry falls within the purview of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that is on the marketing and the industrial support side. The Minister has, I

April 28, 1983
Oral Questions
think quite wisely, established this committee which we think will be a great help in advising the Government on improvements in policies in that area.
There is an overlap between that committee and the Canadian Forest Advisory Committee which relates to me as the Minister responsible for the Canadian Forestry Service. The two committees are working together. We have, in fact, a coordinated approach. We have taken several recent decisions, of which I hope the Hon. Member is aware, which will have dramatic impact in supporting the forest industry.
What we have done is put together a system of streamlined committees which advise the Government to co-ordinate better the activities of a variety of Departments as they focus on our forestry problems. We have done that with extraordinary success, and I hope the Hon. Member recognizes that.


DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I would prefer it if the results and the evidence could prove on the forest floor how successful this cold war between Industry and Commerce and the Canadian Forestry Service has been. The reason the forest industry is in the dilemma it is, and the reason it is running out of feedstock for our mills is precisely because there are too many bureaucrats fighting among themselves in different Departments of Government.
Does the Minister not agree that what has been done now is the rekindling of the cold war that has been going on, at least since 1965, between his Department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce? When will this Minister responsible for forestry assume his responsibility and restore the Canadian Forestry Service to its rightful place and, in so doing, restore our inventory?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, that is really a most extraordinary statement coming from a Member of Parliament who, I know, actually does know something about what is happening in forestry. It is a most extraordinary statement. He knows that we have increased the funding for human development on the forestry side by over $15 million. He knows we have upgraded the status of the Canadian Forestry Service. He knows that we have announced we are signing reforestation agreements with the Provinces which will lead to expenditures of something close to $130 million by 1985-1986, over virtually nothing.


Mr. Paproski:: Do you know?


John (Moody) Roberts: He knows we have just announced that we are going to purchase, through a $147 million commitment, something like 20 planes to fight forest fires. He knows that we are going to make further announcements in the next couple of weeks which will emphasize the strengthening of the forestry research facilities. Virtually everything the Hon. Member has asked us to do we have done, and he does not have the simple grace to stand up and say thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question once again is for the Minister of Public Works. 1 have asked a number of questions in this House regarding Mirabel, and I hope he has some answers. First, has the Minister checked the number of subdivisions of farms in the Mirabel property? Second, can the Minister give me the number of properties that were sold to civil servants and resold before the closing? Third, is the Minister going to sell the additional 50,000 acres that is surplus to the airport property?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have learned by experience that, when the Hon. Member asks a question, I not only have to check for the answer but I have to check the assertions in the question. For example, he said something about dividing land in Mirabel, indicating that we had allowed a greater subdivision. The reality is that we have fostered and encouraged land assembly. If he were to look at the agricultural profile of Mirabel he would see real signs of improvement. On his question as to whether or not houses were bought and sold by public servants, I know some were and they were very carefully controlled. I will check the second allegation to see whether there is any validity to it, but I really must say that it is my experience that the Hon. Member is receiving his information from a very narrow and very limited spectrum of the information.


Mr. Clark:: The people who have been expropriated.


Thomas Scott Fennell: On a supplementary-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member asked three questions in one, so I guess that is it.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Wednesday, April 27, 1983, meets the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I would like today to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. April 28, 1983

Nielsen) concerning the removal from his office of certain carvings. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was good enough to write to me on April 22 and draw my attention to a ruling given by Speaker Lamoureux on September 4, 1973 in relation to another case, as he did allude to it in the course of his presentation.
I have made an investigation, as I promised, into the matter and ascertained that the carvings were in fact removed by officials of the Department of Public Works from the conference room of the Leader of the Opposition just next to his office. They were removed in order that certain work which had been authorized could be carried out. Nevertheless, the Department should have contacted the Sergeant-at-Arms to seek his permission before doing so. The fact that they did not do so is regrettable, and I apologize to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. But I am satisfied that it was an honest oversight and was not done with any questionable intention. No break-in occurred and the employees were accompanied by a security guard when the carvings were removed.
The purpose of removing the carvings was to comply with our bilingualism policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Members are not in favour of that? The purpose was to translate the postings and inscriptions so that they should appear in both languages. However, upon examination of that particular case it became obvious to me that it would not be proper to attempt a translation of these particular inscriptions which turn out to be part of our anecdotal history. They should be left as they are. 1 have ordered that the carvings be replaced in the conference room. They were removed on a Monday; the matter was raised on a Thursday, and they are now in place as of yesterday morning at eight o'clock, I might add with the full permission of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
There is no doubt that unauthorized entry into the office of a Member of Parliament can constitute a breach of privilege and a break-in would certainly do so. There are precedents to this effect. However, the precedent quoted by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in his letter to me and in his presentation did not really involve unauthorized entry. In that case police officers entered a Member's office and questioned her staff without having first sought permission from the Speaker to do so. The offence lay in the actual interrogation of the staff, not in the entry into the Member's office. This was ruled by my predecessor to be "an apparent breach of a Member's privilege", even though no actual break-in was involved.
On the matter of entering Members' offices, it is important to distinguish between unauthorized entry for a nefarious purpose and entry for a legitimate reason. I refer Hon. Members to the fact that if a fire broke out in a Member's office, someone would obviously have to enter it. Cleaning personnel and security enter Members' offices, but of course these two particular instances are understood and accepted.
In the case of which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition complained there was no break-in, although it is acknowledged
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
that the officials concerned should first have sought the permission of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition before removing the carvings. The circumstances of the entry were not consistent with anything which could constitute a contempt of Parliament or a breach of the Hon. Member's privilege. Therefore I rule that there is no question of privilege, but I thank the Hon. Member for having raised the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I regret my absence over the last couple of days, thus delaying the explanation which you had undertaken to bring down. Upon entering the office this afternoon I noted that the carvings had been returned to their original place and for that I thank the Chair, if indeed it was the Chair that gave those instructions.
However, I am concerned about the fact that this could have happened at all. The Chair has stated that the offices were entered for the purpose of performing work which had been authorized. It has not yet been explained to Hon. Members of the House, particularly myself, who was the authority that authorized the work. The purpose has been laid out by the Chair. The concern I have now is-and this would apply, for instance, to the French words on the coat of arms above the door to my personal office, "Dieu est mon roi"-that it would be ravaging the historical nature of this building to attempt to add the English translation to those words on that inscription.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am as concerned as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) will be, whose responsibility it is for the maintenance of these buildings, about changes which are occurring without the knowledge of Hon. Members. I do not think Members realize that there is some authority for bringing about these changes. If changes are to be made to the historical or heritage nature of these buildings, surely there should be an all-Party Committee of the House which could be consulted before they are carried out.
I have read various accounts in the media. Whether or not they are accurate I do not propose to say. Apparently there may exist some committee of bureaucrats-and I use that term in the kindest possible sense-that is making these decisions. Surely these decisions should be made in consultation with Members of the House, because alterations to these buildings or premises are the direct concern of all Hon. Members of the House. All Members have a right to be consulted before any such changes are made.
I would like to have the assurance of the Chair that it will examine the feasibility of requesting the House leaders to consult their caucuses in regard to setting up such an all-Party committee for the purpose of consultation and to work with whatever other machinery may be in place so that we achieve not only the letter but the spirit of the law of the Official Languages Act and at the same time keep within the determination to preserve the heritage nature of these buildings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 28, 1983

Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I am just wondering whether the Hon. Member rose on a point of order or on a new question of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member just rose, I guess; he was asking a question which I am pleased to answer. I reassure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that some of the inscriptions, such as the one he just mentioned, "Dieu le veut", "Honour the King" and others should not be translated and cannot be translated in any circumstance. In this particular case there was a divergence of opinion among committee members who had to deal with the matter and somehow instructions were given to deal with the inscriptions in the conference room. Having myself examined them, as I said in my ruling I feel the particular expressions should not be translated.
As for the broader matter of who gave the instructions, the initiative to have the law on bilingualism apply to the House of Commons is, of course, left to the Speaker. Obviously the Department of Public Works, which looks after the physical aspects of the House of Commons buildings, would not act except on instructions or a request from the Speaker. That is exactly the procedure which was followed. Advice was sought from experts such as architects in all cases where it was thought the postings should be bilingual. I think this was done, if I may express an opinion, in the best of taste because we did require the advice of those who are knowledgeable in these matters.
As for the matter of consultations which the Hon. Member touched upon, I must say that it is very difficult for the Speaker to administer the budget of the House of Commons, which is quite considerable, $141 million, through constant consultations. At some point the Speaker consults because the Speaker feels there is a controversial matter that will in some way disturb some Members. Therefore the Speaker does have consultations. In general, that is my approach.
Sometimes I do proceed without informing a committee or consulting caucus because I interpret it as being my responsibility and administrative duty to proceed. There was a committee set up, not of Members of all Parties, but all of those who have a responsibility for the physical buildings in which we carry out our function. It is a matter of choice as to when to form a committee and when not to proceed in that fashion. Hon. Members must understand that I cannot constantly be forming committees to proceed with most of the administrative decisions that I have to make. I am vested with certain authority and I exercise that authority, I hope, to the satisfaction of Hon. Members.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to take up further time of the House with this matter. I intend to write to you formally, Madam Speaker, on behalf of my Party requesting in a formal way, not to be consulted on everything concerning the discharge of your proper responsibilities, but certainly
to be consulted in an all-Party sense when it comes to changing the heritage nature of these buildings.
That is going to be extremely important 100 years from now, just as it is important 50 years from the time these buildings were completed and those carvings, incidentally, were placed on those walls. It is just as important from the point of view of all sides of the House as it is for both English and French-speaking Members that those heritage features of these buildings be retained. We have a responsibility as Members.
I am sure you will, Madam Speaker, be willing to consult and advise members of that committee as to what the next steps are going to be if any further changes are contemplated. I will expand on those views in a personal letter to you, Madam Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he can give us some idea as to the business for the next week. Since we did not have the opportunity for a meeting, I remind the Government House Leader that last week, in referring to the property rights amendment, the Prime Minister said: "If we can have the agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and pass it in 24 hours, I will undertake to do this".
After caucus discussion, the Leader of my Party indicated to the Government House Leader that the agreement was there, that the only agreement required was the agreement of the Conservative Party to a debate. As far as we were concerned, the agreement was completed. I would ask the Government House Leader when it will be possible to deal with that very important amendment to the Constitution on a one-day debate as agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as far as the last question is concerned, I answered this last week. In so far as House business is concerned, tomorrow is an Opposition Day.

Next week Monday we shall resume and complete debate on the Budget, Monday being the fifth appointed day for this debate. Tuesday will be the sixth and last day of debate on the Budget, and the proceedings will therefore be interrupted at 5:45 p.m., pursuant to Standing Orders, for the final vote on the Budget. Next Wednesday will be Private Members' day, and Thursday we shall either proceed with debate on second reading of a Bill that will be tabled within the next few days, enabling the Government to borrow certain sums of money, or it will be designated as an Opposition day. I shall be in a position to confirm our decision to the House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties at the beginning of next week. That
April 28, 1983

will be the business of the House for next week, Madam Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: With all respect to the Government House Leader, is this an indication of a change of heart on the part of the Government with respect to the property rights amendment? We undertook to give it a one-day debate. That is all the Prime Minister required. It was discussed in our caucus. We feel very strongly that we met our terms of the agreement as laid down by the Prime Minister. We very much want that amendment to the Constitution and the Prime Minister indicated that the Government did as well. We understand from the media that the NDP have dealt with it. Perhaps next Thursday, May 5, we could deal with it early in the day.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the answer to the question is no. I do not like to repeat myself. The same question was put to me last week; I have given a full answer. The answer to the Hon. Member's question is no, we have not changed our mind.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a question relating to Government business. As the Government House Leader will know, the legislation respecting access to information has passed both Houses and is awaiting proclamation. The Government House Leader has indicated that a resolution appointing the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner is to be an important item of business, but that for some reason this is apparently to be the last item of business of this session.
Why is he refusing to bring this important resolution before Parliament immediately in view of the fact that at least this Party is prepared to give immediate consent to that resolution? There have been consultations with both Parties. We are prepared to give immediate consent without debate to the resolution appointing the two commissioners in question. As I understand it, proclamation of the Bill is to follow passage of that resolution. Why is the Government House Leader apparently holding the House up to ransom and blackmail, suggesting that not until the last day of this session will this resolution be brought forward?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member is asking that question. He is rather late in expressing his concern on this very interesting subject. I must tell him that this matter was raised on the floor of the House many weeks ago by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and by our own caucus. Also, it was raised at the House Leaders' level a few weeks ago. I indicated to the Hon. Member's House Leader and to the House Leader of the Conservative Party that this resolution will be introduced in the House as early as possible after the debate on the budget is completed. The Hon. Member should talk to his colleagues and not waste the time of the House asking questions that were asked here a month ago.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, questions may have been asked and discussions may have been had, but certainly the position that my House Leader took was that we
Privilege-Mr. Domm
were prepared to have this resolution introduced immediately and not await the budget debate. Once again, if this Government is serious about openness in Government, I hope it would introduce the resolution immediately.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member has talked to his House Leader, maybe he can indicate whether his Party is that keen to proceed with including property rights in the Constitution.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of the House to a comment made on page 24889 of Hansard by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lapierre). Immediately following my discussion dealing with the important question of bilingualism, the Parliamentary Secretary had the audacity to refer to me as "frog basher" and accuses me personally of "francophobia" as well as "rancoeur" as applied to bilingualism.
This scurrilous remark by a Member of Parliament is not only disgraceful, it is a malicious act quite unbecoming a Member of Parliament, and if far from the truth of the reported record in Hansard. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement is in itself an unwarranted and contemptuous act. It smacks of prejudice, discrimination, and very much of bias. It is quite demeaning and disgraceful not only with respect to me personally but to all French Canadians as well.
In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary's slanderous comments seriously damage the reputation of this entire institution and, as such, I would like to draw your attention to a recent case involving the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) who stated on page 23834 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, these false and slanderous accusations ... tarnished my reputation and, if left unchallenged, could even blemish the reputation of this institution and those who serve in it; for as I noted just two weeks ago in debate, the reputation of the House reflects the individual and collective integrity of its Members.
As the Hon. Member for Lincoln also stated:
The privileges of this House, of its Members, are privileges which have been accumulated through the centuries, privileges which we guard jealously in this House.
As such, we share a common obligation to avoid committing an offence which would question the reputation of this institution. As Madam Speaker accurately stated on page 24028 of Hansard:
The Member enjoys his privileges on behalf of those he represents, not for his personal advantage. Defamation of a Member of Parliament certainly falls within the ambit of privilege.

April 28, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Domm
I therefore believe, as the Member of Parliament for Peterborough, that the remarks attributed to me by the Parliamentary Secretary firmly constitute a breach of privilege as defined on page 11 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
It goes on to state:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Chair is quite aware of what the privileges of a Member are. It is not necessary to remind the Chair of those privileges; I know them backwards. So it would be helpful if the Hon. Member would please simply argue his point.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the rules established in Beauchesne, I would indulge this House to consider the precedent-setting case of John Macdonnell versus L.S. Huntingdon. I will not read the case to you as you may refer to page 18 of Beauchesne.
Madam Speaker, I submit that within the context of the discussion during the late night adjournment debate of Tuesday, April 26, 1983, the references to myself as a frog basher and accusations of francophobia and the French word "ran-cceur" are equally as damaging as those in the above-mentioned cases.
I must therefore agree with what Erskine May states on page 11 of Beauchesne. If you would prefer me not to read it, as you may refer to it, I will dispense with it.
I therefore respectfully ask, in light of the facts that I have presented and the historical precedents that I have cited, that I be afforded the right attributed to all members of the House.
In order to fulfil effectively my obligations as a representative of the constituency of Peterborough and an elected Member of the House of Commons, I ask that Madam Speaker consider this a breach of privilege. In fact, connotations derived from these derogatory comments such as "frog basher" have already received public scrutiny by not only being recorded in Hansard but also by appearing in a major Canadian newspaper. The unsavoury remarks portray me in a most uncomplimentary and negative manner with respect to bilingualism. I said none of those things in that debate. Publication in a daily newspaper recorded as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary's statements present an image of "hating bilingualism", to use the media's words. This image is not evident from any of my remarks on the night in question or any other references made by me with respect to this policy.
I might point out that while I was Warden of Peterborough County in 1979,1 was instrumental in the establishment of full French immersion not only in Peterborough County but in the City of Peterborough separate and public school systems.
So that I may dispel this blemish on my reputation as well as its detrimental effect on the House of Commons, I ask that the Parliamentary Secretary be called to the Bar whereby he is obligated to submit a formal apology. One of the citations I referred you to, Madam Speaker, deals specifically with such a situation.
In conclusion, I would like to point out in answer to a Member of the Government side that the tactic of using this kind of an attack against a Member of Parliament, regardless of what political Party that Member of Parliament represents, does a disservice to this House and is a discredit to the person that speaks it. It would be far better to somehow bring importance to this kind of slander.
Using as an example the statement of Madam Speaker on page 24906 of Hansard:
-a question of privilege may be raised without notice if it deals with the proceedings of that day.
I regret that I was unable to do so that day because of the French translation. I determined from a dictionary of French to English that the translation of the French word "rancoeur" is "rancour". I then went to the Oxford Dictionary and looked up the meaning of the English word "rancour". There is an entirely different word used in Hansard than in the English translation of Hansard as recorded. Hansard translation reports that I said "an aversion to bilingualism". This was never substantiated but I was accused of an aversion to bilingualism. I have proven that I do not have that aversion.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Where?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Where? By involvement in our school system.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Surely the Hon. Member is conscious that he is now debating this issue. I would like him to conclude in just one minute because I think the Chair now has a good idea of what his question of privilege is all about.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, 1 must continue with the definition of rancour because that is the case. The case rests on frog bashing, rancoeur, and my attitude toward bilingualism. These are untruths. They are slanderous to my reputation. The press is covering these remarks as being the truth.
I would ask for a correction in either the English translation of Hansard or the French translation of Hansard, both of which are wrong and do not report what I said on the same page in the debate. I am trying to make the point that this kind of action needs the attention of this whole House in order that the people of Canada may retain respect for this institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that he is dealing with a point of order, though he did raise it on a question of privilege through proper notice given my office. I have heard him because I know that he has not been in a position to raise that question in any other manner. So I
April 28, 1983

will deal with it referring to it sometimes as a point of order and some other times as a question of privilege.
I do not know whether I will be able to square that exactly, but I hope we can solve this particular matter in the House today. What 1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member first is that the expression in French, "mangeur des Canadiens", translated as "frog basher", that translation results in a much stronger word in the English language than "mange-Canadiens" is in the French language. 1 am not in any way suggesting that that translation was bad because I do not believe there is any equivalent expression to it in English, and "frog basher" is possibly the closest translation that one could possibly get. It remains, however, that it comes out as a much stronger expression than it is in French, and since the Hon. Member had to refer to many dictionaries in order to tell us what all of these expressions meant, I can assure him that, being French speaking, what I am saying is exact, that is to say, that "frog basher" is much stronger in English than it is in French. That is to begin with, if I can help the Hon. Member to feel better.
As for the other expressions, I believe account has to be taken of the kind of debate which takes place in the House. The only way in which a Speaker can restrain an Hon. Member in his language is if he is using unparliamentary expressions, and the unparliamentary expressions are listed in Beauchesne's. Some expressions are pretty strong and they are not listed in Beauchesne's, and I have often been tempted to take the initiative to determine that certain expressions are unparliamentary, and I might do that some day because I do feel that it is in the interest of the House to conduct a debate in a manner which is certainly acceptable to us.
I do want to tell the House, however, and the people who watch the proceedings, that some of our debates are very vigorous, and although people might not understand why we address each other in such vigorous terms on certain occasions, I do want to tell them that this is not at all outside of parliamentary tradition.
The freedom of speech, which I must protect, and which is only limited by the kind of expressions which are listed as unparliamentary, expresses itself in a well couched speech, but it also expresses itself in the passion with which certain Members choose to express themselves. That is part of parliamentary tradition. However, what I believe should not be part of parliamentary tradition is name calling. I personally do not approve of that.
I am unable to declare that those particular expressions which were used by the Parliamentary Secretary are unparliamentary. They are not as far as our list is concerned. Therefore, I have to say that the Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege, although, in saying that, I want to add, for the benefit of all Hon. Members, that Hon. Members should restrain themselves and refrain from name calling and
Petitions
they should demonstrate good manners when debating in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, about a year ago a man by the name of Mr. Shoesmith, from Sarnia, presented to me a petition which he wanted to have presented in the House in order to sensitize this House about the injustice he feels is being perpetrated on Canadians when a criminal benefits from his crime. The specific case is that of Mr. Clifford Olson whose family was given $100,000. Mr. Shoesmith presented to me a petition at that time. He has since then presented me with another petition which I would like to present at this time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of another 503 persons, bringing the total to date to 2,919 Canadians from many parts of Canada who pray that the Members of this House will vote in favour of having Clifford Robert Olson executed for the terrible crimes which he has committed. Without cause or reason he murdered at least 11 young people who had their whole lives ahead of them and he now talks of "his rights". This man lost his rights when he destroyed the rights of the young Canadians he killed and he should now receive the penalty of death.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of over 2,000 residents of Burnaby, British Columbia, who point out that the human race is confronted with a choice between halting the arms race and agreeing to disarmament or facing nuclear annihilation. They call upon the Government to implement the four key elements of the minority report on Security and Disarmament, including a refusal of the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. I strongly support this petition and I would hope the Governmnent would implement the recommendations contained therein.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I am duty bound to present today a petition on behalf of a number of farm persons in the communities of Munson, Morrin and Delia, Alberta, with respect to what is referred to as the "Pepin" initiatives or changes to the Crow rate. What these persons have stated in their petition in essence is contained in six points or reasons why they find the initiatives unacceptable.

April 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
I submit that in effect what the petitioners are doing is suggesting that if those six points can be rectified, the proposal will then be more acceptable.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,755 and 4,808.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the Economic Council of Canada's econometric model capable of estimating the impact on short-term and long-term interest rates in Canada for varying levels of the Government deficit and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what change in short-term and long-term interest rates from current levels does it predict if the deficit were (i) 0 (ii) $10 billion (iii) $20 billion?
2.	What impact would the changes in interest rates have on the cost of servicing the national debt?


David P. Smith: 1. Yes. (a) Not applicable, (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) Precise changes in short-term and long-term interest rates from current levels cannot be predicted unless the way in which the deficit is to be reduced to the specified levels is also indicated by the questioner. In general, however, lower deficits would influence interest rates downward.
2. The direct effect is clearly positive; that is, changes in interest rates lead to changes in debt servicing costs, in the same direction, given no change in the Government debt portfolio.
Indirect effects of interest rate changes on national debt servicing costs can also occur. For example, rising interest rates may lead to decreased economic growth which, in the absence of policy change, would reduce Government revenues and increase Government expenditures, thereby raising the level of the stock of Government debt or changing the composition of the Government debt portfolio toward higher yield debt instruments. This would also increase the cost of servicing the debt.
A full response to the question would require consideration of the causes of changes in interest rates, over-all economic responses to these changes, and Government policy and program reaction to both the direct and indirect effects of interest rate changes.


Mr. Herbert: Can a subsidiary of a foreign-owned corporation operate in Canada as a branch business and, if so, is such a business excluded from the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
Yes, a foreign-owned corporation can operate in Canada either through an incorporated Canadian subsidiary or through an unincorporated Canadian branch business. The Foreign Investment Review Act applies to both incorporated and unincorporated foreign-controlled businesses. However, the acquisition of a foreign-controlled unincorporated branch business is subject to review only when there is an acquisition of the assets of the business.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary two questions of mine which go back to 1981. The first question is No. 3,506, which I put on the Order Paper-I wonder if I could draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary away from the other Minister? Question No. 3,506, which I placed on the Order Paper on December 2, had to do with the Government's policy with regard to public opinion surveys. The Minister to whom the Parliamentary Secretary was talking will remember an exchange we had before the Justice Committee in which I raised the matter of public opinion surveys which were commissioned by the Canadian Unity Information Office. Yet, Madam Speaker, information as to the contents of the surveys, and even the number which were commissioned, is still being withheld from Parliament.
I would like also to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Question No. 2,672 which was placed on the Order Paper on June 23, 1981, which again asked for information with regard to the numbers and types of public opinion surveys conducted at public expense. Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate for what reason Parliament is denied this information? Is the reason that he has not followed up on these questions, or is it that a deliberate attempt is being made not to answer parliamentary questions about public opinion surveys which are paid for out of tax dollars?


David P. Smith: No, Madam Speaker, it is not because I have not followed up on these questions. I follow up on all requests. The office which co-ordinates the responses to these questions automatically follows up on all questions Filed. The reason is we have not yet received the answers from the Ministers concerned, and I will be happy to bring the Hon. Member's representations to their attention.
April 28, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Miss Carney (page 24689).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House is in the situation where questions, answers and comments might be addressed with respect to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I might point out that his absence does not prohibit Hon. Members from making comments if they see fit. If there are none, I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia).


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to express my pleasure in participating in this budget debate. More important than that, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for producing a budget document which focuses primarily on the creation of jobs and the reduction in unemployment.
It is becoming increasingly clear, Mr. Speaker, that in order to meet the competition in the 1980s and beyond, Canadians are questioning actively whether we need to reorganize ourselves. We feel, unless we improve our competitive position, that Canada could slide into third rate power status and our standard of living drop.
To respond to this challenge the Government has a responsibility to set the tone and to foster a climate of co-operation with business and labour in a way acceptable to both Parties and consistent with the national interest.
This is one of the reasons why, prior to bringing down the budget, the Minister of Finance and other Cabinet Ministers embarked upon an intensive round of discussions with so many people. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus most of my remarks on the labour discussions. We listened carefully to labour's concerns and responded to their suggestions with initiatives designed to improve labour's role. Let me give you some examples.
Labour called for stimulative spending, encouragement of economic growth, extended Unemployment Insurance and increases in public investment. The budget did not and, under the current circumstances of restraint, could not deliver all that labour, or indeed any other group wanted. But the $4.8 billion recovery program announced in the budget goes a long way to meeting their concerns. Let us look at what the Government has done in reply.
Labour proposed long-term low interest loans for home ownership. They argued that individuals should be permitted to withdraw up to $2,000 tax free from their RHOSPs, and recommended a broad reduction of taxes for low and middle income earners.
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
Recognizing the recent fall in interest rates that has rendered less pressing labour's demand for lower interest rates, the Government focused its efforts on specific stimulation. Five existing housing programs were expanded and extended by the addition of $120 million to the Canadian Home Renovation Plan, $40 million to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, $40 million for Indian-on-Reserve Housing, and $30 million to the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan. The 1983 allocation for social housing units was established at the original level of 25,000 units. The Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan has been strengthened so as to allow withdrawals to purchase furnishings, appliances, and new homes. Until the end of 1984, individuals can deduct from taxable income, in one lump sum, up to $10,000 for the purchase of a new home.
Labour recommended a broad reduction of taxes. Low and middle income earners will benefit from several tax concessions. In addition to the RHOSP amendments, the restructured child benefit package doubles the child care expense deduction from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and from $4,000 to $8,000 per family. Low income earners also benefit from more generous employment expense deductions which have been increased from 3 per cent to 20 per cent of employment income up to $500 per employee.
Labour made a number of recommendations for the encouragement of economic growth including, for example, the expansion of research and development and measures to improve productivity.
The Special Recovery Program expands budgets for research and development, and encourages the application and use of high technology. Specifically, $290 million will be spent on research facilities, $180 million is allocated for high technology procurement, $100 million has been earmarked for new technology initiatives, and as well, proposed tax incentives worth $185 million are contained in the budget paper, "Tax Policies for R and D". These are responses to labour's suggestions.
Labour groups in the pre-budget consultations argued for measures to ease some of the impacts of the recession. Some of these recommendations included the continuation of benefits to those who have exhausted their Unemployed Insurance, a moratorium on foreclosures and a stabilization of mortgage rates, the improvement of retirement income, and a continuation of the work-sharing program. In reply, the Government will expand the NEED Program and Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In addition, $2.4 billion will be spent on the new Capital Projects Program. These programs, coupled with the construction incentives, should create jobs and ease the level of unemployment. New tax treatment of business losses and increased access to investment tax credits and the refundable investment tax credit should go a long way in assisting farmers and small business out of their financial difficulties. All of these measures will help to create more jobs.

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
Many specific initiatives that labour proposed are addressed by the $2.4 billion Special Recovery Capital Projects. The new projects will include transportation as one of six key areas and could include assets needed for resource development, including expanded reforestation efforts. The Special Recovery Capital Project Board announced in the budget will seek the co-operation of management, labour and the Provinces in implementing such projects.
Why this examination, you may ask, of what labour has proposed and what has been included in the budget? Why this comparison between what has been suggested and what has been accepted? Because it is important for labour to know that it has been listened to, that it has had an influence on the shaping of the budget. Many of the major items proposed by labour have won the recognition of the Government. Why is it important to establish this fact? At a time when mistrust and cynicism seem to prevail in society, trust is needed more than ever. Trust it like cement. It bonds lasting relationships. Without trust, a society is doomed to fall apart. With trust, it can face difficulties with confidence and build the institutions it needs for a better future.
In the April, 1983 budget the Government has responded positively to the proposals received from labour. The essence of the labour proposals is threaded through the budget with its focus on economic recovery. There is abundant evidence for labour to conclude that the Government, because of its budget performance, can be trusted. We hope that this trust will lay the grounds for a new coalition of interests which will search energetically for solutions to our industrial problems.
For workers and their organizations, the stakes are high. As new technologies take hold, unions risk becoming participants in a struggle between present workers seeking to retain a shrinking number of jobs in existing companies and the employment expectations of younger applicants seeking a first job.
Recently unions in Canada and the United States have begun, consciously, to adapt themselves to the kind of future I have tried to describe. The report from the communication workers of America's Committee on the Future is a calm, tough-minded and remarkably lucid proposal for a union which faces both changes and opportunities in a newly deregulated industry. In appealing to the union's members, the committee asked:
Are we going to let ourselves be overtaken by explosive social and technological change? Are we going to let ourselves be stuck with obsolete skills, competing against younger workers who are better trained for new-era jobs? Are we going to let ourselves just be swept along with the information age tide?
It would be easy for any organization to give pro forma and ritual answers to these questions. It will be hard to address real changes in collective and individual attitudes.
For all the difficulties, I am unrepentantly confident that we can make those changes in business, in labour and in Government. We cannot congratulate ourselves on the state of labour management relations in Canada, nor can we bury past
experience, without which we would be children indeed. Fortunately, we are not compelled forever to wage old battles. It is in the future we are fated to live. We alone will be responsible for its shape. We designed a budget with these considerations in mind. It is intended to set a course for improved and extended co-operation between labour and management and all Canadians.
The budget contains a proposal to establish a national centre to focus on the areas of employment growth, technology and productivity. This follows up on one of the main recommend-tions contained in the Labour Canada task report on microelectronics and employment, entitled "In The Chips: Opportunities, People and Partnerships". It was released last November.
When we speak of a centre for employment growth, technology and productivity, we speak of an institution which requires trust in order to get off the ground, an institution which could provide a vehicle for consultation and co-operation, one which could provide practical advice and direction on managing technological change, one which could help to educate business, labour and other interested parties about these problems, and one which could find ways to increase jobs and improve the human aspects of employment.
Furthermore, we speak of an institution which may, for instance, assist workers and management to develop and implement new methods of co-operative management in their place of work, one which may acquire and disseminate information on technological change, productivity improvements, co-operative management methods, training methods and related methods, and one which may sponsor training courses for workers and managers related to the centre's objectives. We speak of an institution from which labour could derive immense benefits.
Labour has a major role to play in shaping Canada's technological future, a role it already plays by participating in Hamilton at the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and in Ottawa, at the Labour Adjustment Benefits Board, at the Textile Advisory Board and at the Export Development Board.
We know that for the national centre for technology, productivity and employment growth to get off the ground, it will require consultations with all the partners together, to establish terms of reference, structure and mandate. Therefore, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) and I will begin consultations to seek common ground on the makeup and mission of such a centre.
The success of these consultations is crucial. Workers often fear, from experience, that they could be excluded from key decisions and they might be expected to bear the bitter costs of job displacement and outmoding of hard-earned skills learned over the years and employment-related stress. As consumers, working Canadians will be the beneficiaries of change, but as workers, they see themselves, more often than not, as victims. Microelectronic innovations are seen to liberate workers, not
April 28, 1983

just from drudgery but also from their jobs. Electronic monitoring can offer the employer a fool-proof check on individual performance and productivity. In an adversarial system, innovation can become the ally of one side and the enemy of the other. The inevitable outcome is a struggle which workers cannot win and Canada cannot afford.
Every example from our experience shows that Canadians are a future-minded, adaptive people, yet we are also a humane people with a profound sense of justice. Among our saving virtues is a commitment to social solidarity and an equal rejection of the devil-take-the-hindmost philosophy or the equally repelling notion of class warfare. The Government believes that the fruits of improved productivity must be distributed fairly and must not be won at the expense of workers but, rather, in co-operation with them.
Because of the history of their development, neither business nor labour in Canada have developed structures or traditions which make consultation easy. At the plant and shop level, it is true that the bargaining unit gives Canadian workers a basis for industrial democracy which is largely missing from the European structure. In some industries, there is a matching of labour and employer organizations, which has helped make our sectoral task forces a preliminary model for the kind of effective co-operation we are seeking.
What we are proposing now is a further evolution in our means of securing an effective degree of co-operation among all sectors. This is why we have proposed a centre for the practical consideration of employment growth and of technological and productivity issues. If all the potential partners in this venture have the determination to tackle, with open minds, the difficult problems facing us, we will be equal to the task of ensuring Canadians a future they can manage.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister relates to his remark that in the budget his Government had responded positively to labour. The Minister must know, along with other Canadians, that the budget is in fact a supply side document, which means that the financial elbow room which the Government has had has been turned over to the private sector in the hope that jobs will eventually result. However, when we are in the middle of the recession, there is no way that that will result in increased jobs. In fact, labour has called for immediate stimulus of consumer spending and for direct job creation by way of public works. What I am wondering is how the Minister can say that the Government has responded positively in the budget to labour when, in fact, he has adopted a supply side economic budget rather than one which stimulates the economy and consumer spending.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot blame the Hon. Member, perhaps, for not having listened carefully to what I had said. I had to move quickly because of the limitation of time. However, it is very regrettable that he has not taken the trouble to read the budget. Otherwise, he would not be asking such a question.
He should know that in the budget there is a provision of $2.4 billion in the Special Recovery Capital Projects. Perhaps he does not realize that. Perhaps he does not realize that in the budget there is a provision for $120 million for the Canadian
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
Home Renovation Program. There is a provision of $40 million for residential rehabilitation assistance programs, provision of $40 million for housing for Indians on reserves, and $30 million for the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan.
The measures which are embodied in the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, those which come into effect between now and the end of the year, and the other measure coming into effect between now and the end of 1984, are stimulative measures. Therefore, I find it unbelievable that the Hon. Member would ask such a question, revealing such ignorance about the content of the budget, which he evidently has not taken the trouble to read, to study and to analyse. If he had done so, he would not have asked such a question.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister that the budget increases personal income tax and therefore takes money out of the pockets of Canadians.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: When does it do that?


Cyril Keeper: It is therefore a brake on the economy rather than a stimulative budget. At the same time it turns over these same dollars to the private corporations in the country. This budget is a brake on the economy rather than a stimulus. I wish that the Minister himself would take a look at the budget.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, evidently the Hon. Member does not want to hear what is really in the budget. He would like to have people believe what he thinks is in the budget which is quite different from the reality.
As I explained to him, there are a number of stimulative measures in the budget, such as those that relate to personal income tax as it relates to daycare and personal exemptions that relate to work expenditures. It is clear that the Government has put together a budget with $4.8 billion of stimulus in a variety of ways. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not agree with how that stimulus is divided among a variety of sectors. The Hon. Member does not seem prepared to admit that there is $4.8 billion worth of measures in the budget aimed at the creation of jobs. That is the bottom line.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister claims that Members of our Party have not read the budget, and he will not admit that it is a stimulative budget. The fact is that almost every commentator, whether one looks at the comments made by economic research organizations, business columnists or anyone else who has analysed the budget, has said that it is not really a stimulative budget but a stand pat one.
In the last few years we have seen a constant and serious decline in the number of people working in our manufacturing industries. Some of those industries have been almost completely eliminated while many are facing a continuing erosion.
This matter has been raised repeatedly by representatives of the unions concerned and others. Supposedly there have been attempts to deal with the problems which are continuing and accelerating through the so-called sectoral committees which

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
brought together representatives of labour, management and Government. To a large extent, certainly in the view of labour representatives, the proposals made by the sectoral committees have been virtually ignored.
Since the Minister's Department is supposedly concerned with the needs and interests of working people in the country, what will it do to help the country face up to the necessity of changing and modernizing our traditional manufacturing industries in order to bring them itno the era of the 1980s and provide work for millions of people who have always worked in the manufacturing industry and are now being faced with layoffs in the next few years?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. If he had been here this morning he would have heard the answer to his question from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He outlined in broad terms not just what Labour Canada would do but what the entire Government has to do in order to address itself to the necessity of switching to the upcoming industries and modernizing the existing industries in this country at the same time.
With respect to the claim made by the Hon. Member that the sectoral task force's report has been ignored, I would at least draw his attention to the fact that as far as the shoe, textile, clothing and tannery industries are concerned, some of those recommendations found their way to being expressed and implemented in the policy represented by the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program which came into effect in 1981. Its aim is to do exactly what the Hon. Member is proposing, that is, providing for a transition and early retirement for workers aged 54 and over in those four industries. We may also perhaps draw from the particular experience the conclusions that are necessary for a long-term plan that may apply to other industries as well.
Returning to the original question asked by the Hon. Member, with respect to fear, I find it amusing that Members of the NDP would become upset at hearing an interpretation of the budget which does, in essence, take into account and implement a number of the submissions made by labour. Evidently, this is something that the Members of the NDP do not like or want to hear. Evidently they are afraid of something and do not like the possibility of our reaching out and developing not only a dialogue with labour but a constructive form of co-operation as well. I can detect this and perhaps understand well the fact that the Members of the NDP are feeling so edgy about it and are finding it necessary to ask questions about this very aspect, namely, the interpretation of the budget.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point to supplement what we have heard in an excellent form from the Minister. I want to remind the Members of the NDP, who chose to distort an important point, that the tax measures that are coming on-stream will do so late in 1984 when every forecast indicates that we will be well into a recovery and when our economy can afford it.
I would refer the Members to the Minister's own comment when he presented the budget, as found on page 24670 of Hansard. They would be well advised to read the budget statement for the first time in order to understand that we are stimulating the economy now and collecting the taxes later.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the budget as introduced to the House on April 19 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). It is not my intention at this time to debate the rights or wrongs as they apply to the method that was used by the Minister of Finance when introducing his budget. However, from discussions which I have held personally with my constituents following the budget's two presentations-one on television on Monday and the other in the House on Tuesday-I could not help but notice that the average citizen believes that the Minister broke his oath of secrecy by allowing television cameras to photograph his budget before its presentation. This was, unfortunately, another example of the contempt shown by this administration for the House of Commons.
Those who support the Government will have their work cut out for them in order to prove otherwise. They are the ones who have to answer for the additional $200 million added to our debts as a result of the leak.
This budget is filled with cliches, promises and high-sounding rhetoric. However, we have a saying on the South Shore of Nova Scotia that action speaks louder than words. It will be interesting to see in the months ahead whether this budget is all sham and shadow or whether it is one of substance. The jury is still out and a decision has not yet been made.
Since all Canadians will be helping to pay their share of what the Minister calls his Special Recovery Program in the amount of $4.6 billion, it will be interesting to note whether those Canadians most in need in some areas of Canada will be recognized, or whether this entire program will be an extension of pork barrelling in ridings that are held by Government supporters. Unfortunately this is what has happened in the past.
The Government would be amazed if it left its Ottawa ivory tower and met with rank and file Canadians who resent and abhor present Government spending priorities. One thing of which all Canadians are certain is the amount by which our national debt will increase as a result of this budget. The fiscal plan is a four-year projection of Ottawa revenues and expenditures that show the federal Government heading deeper and deeper into debt. It predicts a deficit of $31.3 billion in 198384, of $28.7 billion in 1984-85, of $26.6 billion deficit in 198586, and of $25.6 billion in 1986-87. These predicted deficits total $ 112 billion over four years, which will bring Ottawa's net accumulated debt to $232 billion, which is a 1000 per cent increase over the $22.6 billion in federal debt in 1969 shortly after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Government took office. These are the predictions, but unfortunately the performance never keeps in step with the promise, and final deficits are always higher than the estimated deficits.
April 28, 1983

The Federal Deficit In Perspective is a 78-page report that is intended to be an explanation, a defence of our massive debts and mounting deficits. In fact, however, it provides evidence of the gross mismanagement that has typified federal fiscal policy since 1974. You might well ask what happened, Mr. Speaker. The key discretionary tax measure, it turns out, was indexation of personal income taxes. This was an immensely popular votegetting measure in 1974 but as a result, the annual federal budgetary deficits began to mount. By 1979 our total debt had doubled to $44 billion. At no time from 1974 to the present time did the Government ever attempt to bring its spending Estimates in line with Government revenues. The result is the budget of the present Minister of Finance which predicts a massive increase in taxation over the next four years. All told, the proposed new tax measures will net more than $6 billion in personal and corporate taxes through to the end of 1987. In other taxes, the federal sales tax to be increased next year will take another $2.2 billion out of our economy while the extension of the Canadian ownership special charge on gasoline to pay for Petrofina, the BP oil takeover and any other socialistic measures which the Government plans, will add another $3.3 billion.
This is really the bottom line. What the Government has done in this budget is what the present Liberal Government has been doing irresponsibly for almost a decade, namely, spending now and passing the burden on to our children and our children's children; a burden that we do not have the courage to face today. This type of action is creating fear and uncertainty among young and old alike.
This is why the grass roots voters have already made up their minds to change the Government at the next federal election, as indicated by recent Gallup polls. It is easy to understand the voters' concerns. Let us face it. This Government is composed of 37 Ministers, 27 Parliamentary Secretaries, and the largest number of advisers to a Prime Minister in Canada's history. To support that Government, Canadians are helping to pay for the largest number of Deputy Ministers and supporting bureaucracy since Canada became a nation. Yet, with all these advisers the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal established a third level of Government, the Donald Macdonald Commission composed of 12 members, almost one-third of this massive cabinet, along with an unknown number of supporting staff with a three-year mandate to which, in simple terms, the Prime Minister said, "Please, Mr. Macdonald, tell the Liberals what to do. Tell us where to go".
I say to the Government through you, Sir, that Canadians right now would like to tell the present Liberal Government where to go, but in order to do so they would have to use the language of the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal, and this is sometimes offensive.
This third tier of Government has already spent $1 million for Mr. Macdonald and his eleven commissioners. They are not exactly your ordinary deckhands or farmhands. At $925 a day they are building up quite a bill for the taxpayer to pay, and the supporting staff for this Commission do not come cheap either.
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
This is where some of the present horrendous deficit is being spent as "Big Mac" meanders throughout the nation. It is this type of policy that is literally creating a crisis in Canada, a crisis of confidence in this Government and in the present system.
Confidence is an intangible thing. Without confidence no one would ever enter an automobile, a railway car or an airplane. You must have confidence that you have a chance of arriving safely at your destination or you would not even depart on your journey. This Government has lost the confidence of the Canadian public. I seriously doubt whether the present group is capable or is able to restore that confidence.
There are a number of statements in this budget that are conflicting and confusing, especially if you have been studying the Ottawa scene. For example, on page 3 of the budget, under the heading "Special Recovery Program", I read:
The program will provide equal support for private and public investment, but all initiatives are designed ultimately to improve the financial position, growth prospects and job creation capacity of the private sector.
This is like Alice in Wonderland talking to the Mad Hatter. If the private investor is nimble on his feet, he may get some of this $4.6 billion before the public sector gets it, but he will have to act fast. Up to this point private industry has been practically ignored while assets have been milked dry by excessive tax rates, ruinous inflation and high interest rates. While this has been happening and Canadians have faced the largest number of business failures on a monthly basis in the history of this nation, this Government, through a series of Orders in Council, rather than by Acts of Parliament in the House where I and all other elected Members have a say, what has the Government been doing? The Government has been passing Orders in Council that have enabled Senator Jack Austin to build up a massive business empire under the umbrella of the Canadian Investment Development Corporation. To date, this Government has been following an ad hoc strategy of reinforcing business failures rather than supporting business successes. This leads me to ask what is the true guiding philosophy of this Government as it applies to business development in Canada? I have read the budget from cover to cover. Certainly the budget, in my estimation, is very ambiguous on this particular point.
In Atlantic Canada the fishing industry is facing troubled times, and in spite of the $1 million spent on the Kirby Royal Commission report in its investigations of the industry, the Minister of Finance seems oblivious of our problems since he scarcely mentioned the fishing industry in his budget statement.
The major issues for change, in fact the raw material, if I may use that term, had been pointed out by Mr. Kirby, issues such as fleet restructuring, quality improvements, marketing structures and advanced technologies. The problems that might prevent the rebuilding of this dynamic growth industry based on a traditional, renewable resource, can and must be overcome. However, this Ministry needs more than fine words, it needs immediate action. For all too long this industry has

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
been denied even the rudimentary assistance it requires to make it viable. Here I refer to the rebuilding of breakwaters and wharves, and to the dredging of harbours and skidways used by the fishermen. In my riding alone, the ports of Lunenburg, Bridgewater, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne, Sandy Point, Ingomar and Clark's Harbour, just to name a few, are all in need of one or the other of the facilities I have just mentioned. Ever since 1980 Liverpool has been seeking new and extensive harbour dredging to accommodate the larger ships being used by Mersey Seafoods Limited, Steel and Engine Products Ltd. and Bowater Mersey Paper Company Limited. To date their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
The budget stated that the Government is committing $2.2 billion for Special Recovery Capital Projects. Due to the leak, that has been amended to $2.4 billion, so we cannot ever be quite certain of the figures given to us even here in the House. The Government is committing $2.4 billion for Special Recovery Capital Projects selected and designed to build, expand or improve public facilities which directly support private sector expansion and the steady improvement of our economic performance essential for recovery. In the words of the Minister, "There will be no red tape and no delays. All projects are being put on fast track to ensure that they start on time, progress as planned and are completed as quickly as possible". That is a commendable objective, but I say that it is high-sounding rhetoric. But we as Members of Parliament must accept the Minister's statement. We must accept his word and hope that he backs it up with performance.
Therefore, I wish to place on the record this afternoon only some of the many requests I have received from my constituency which definitely meet the criteria laid down by the Minister. For example, the citizens of Liverpool have requested the right to meet with the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) at their earliest convenience to present documentation outlining the great need for dredging in Liverpool Bay and harbour, together with repairs to and extension of the breakwater located at Brooklyn, Herring Cove, in Liverpool Bay.
The representatives of Bowater Mersey Paper Company, Steel and Engine Products Ltd. and Mersey Seafoods Ltd. have stated in their brief on April 21-and I might say that the brief has been presented to both Ministers-that dredging is required for the continued development of the town of Liverpool and to maintain the three major industries in the Port. These industries are important stabilizing influences in the economy of Queens County.
I will explain to the House how the lack of dredging, breakwaters and wharves is affecting the town, its industries and its people. Steel and Engine Products Ltd. have upgraded and enlarged its ship repair facilities to a degree where it is now capable of handling very large ships. However, such opportunities are denied them simply because when they successfully bid, masters of larger vessels, whether they be commercial vessels or the Government of Canada refuse to bring their
ships into the Port of Liverpool due to restrictive silting in the harbour.
Mersey Seafoods Ltd. have ships today which can come to its wharves only at high tide, that is about three or four hours out of every 24, and then only if the weather is favourable and if the tide is high enough to enable them to get over the bar. Without ships landing in that Port, there is no shore employment or jobs for those of the area.
Bowater Mersey Paper must accept larger ships in order to expand in the export market. Because of the expansion in the American newsprint industry, Bowater is being forced to seek offshore markets, and to export they need even larger vessels which require a greater depth of water and an improved breakwater to protect them.
In all these three industries employment opportunities are now threatened due to Government inaction. The Government cannot say that it was not informed. There are lists upon lists in my office of submissions and presentations to the Government going back to 1980.
My home town of Lunenburg desperately needs repairs to the existing Government wharf, plus an extension, plus harbour dredging, if this Port is to continue to serve the large offshore fleet. At present half the existing wharf is unstable and requires lateral bracing. The restrictions on the use of this wharf cause an emergency situation as far as the repair and maintenance of the National Sea Products Nova Scotian fleet is concerned. It should be possible to design reinforcement bracing into the existing wharf, and if it were extended an additional 15 metres, then the entire structure would be more rigid and helpful to the fishing industry. In addition, the harbour master of that Port has drawn up a plan for a marginal wharf leading from Battery Point toward Rouse Brook, the place where the settlers first landed in 1753. This, if constructed, would enable some 15 or 20 large ships to tie up in the harbour. It would service the offshore development which is occurring in gas and oil off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Moving farther down the coast, we find that the Port of Shelburne could also use additional docking space and dredging, for it too is one of Canada's finest harbours which at present is underutilized because of the depth of water and Government inaction.
The mayor of Lockeport has also made a special plea to me on behalf of the town, pointing out that additional dredging is required immediately opposite the new National Sea Products plant in the town. Some of this is to be done, but when they made the assessment they forgot completely about the fish plant adjoining the one of National Sea Products which is owned by Pierce Fisheries Ltd. and where dredging is also required.
In conclusion, there are many other smaller harbours which need upgrading. I would be only too happy to supply the Government with details of make-work programs which will provide jobs immediately, will stabilize existing industries and improve the infrastructure of Nova Scotia. I mentioned these
April 28, 1983

projects to show that it is unnecessary to lend money in the amount of $2.4 billion, as mentioned in the budget for the Export Financing Fund. We have many areas requiring attention and development right here in Canada. I have mentioned some. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the proposals 1 have made and amend its spending priorities so that the projects carried out will in the end be of benefit to Canadians who must eventually pay their cost through increased taxes. Since billions of dollars are to be spent within the next year, I beg the Government to review and re-examine its spending priorities in the interest of building a better Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions. Answers. Comments. Debate.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the budget debate. Since the budget was delivered by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on April 19 in the House, it has been received and perceived as a boost for Canadian people. It has given them a lift and a buoyant feeling of hope because it is a "people budget". It is a budget for the people of Canada. It is positive, objective and appropriate for the times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The budget presents a balanced approach in that an equitable amount of money is being used to stimulate the economy and to create jobs within the range of a manageable deficit that we have to face.
Over the past few days in the House we have heard Members of the Opposition state, on the one hand, that we should not increase the deficit. On the other hand they state that we are not putting enough money in the budget to stimulate the economy. Those statements are contradictory. They cannot have it both ways. I suggest that the Minister of Finance has found a good balance between those two situations.
I realize that the population at large must be very happy to note that at this time the inflation rate is at its lowest point in three years. Similarly, interest rates, the cost of borrowing money for housing projects and everything we need, are at their lowest level in the last three years.
Some may say that there are many reasons for this situation. Among other factors the federal six and five program is working, is on target and is meeting the objective it was set up to meet. There is an observation made by Canadians that the public sector and people who draw from Government programs have been guaranteed an increase of 6 per cent this year and an increase of 5 per cent next year. That is more than we can say for the private sector. In the private sector professional people who are on their own or who work as representatives of manufacturing companies have often faced a freeze of their salaries. Some have had to take pay cuts. Other workers have had to submit to work-sharing programs. People who work four days a week and draw benefits under work-sharing programs can thank the Government for making it possible and for helping them get over the rough spots.
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
As soon as a budget is delivered, it is typical of an Opposition to criticize and try to shoot holes in it. I dare say that because the Opposition could not find much fault with the content of this budget, they have criticized the process. On Monday last, as reported at page 24835 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said:
While I am in favour of some of the budgetary measures, those that encourage people to work and get us out of this mess, some of its other measures are bad.
Again I say that the role of the Opposition is to criticize the budget. As a Member of the Government, I see a great deal of good in this budget. A federal budget is a natural phenomenon. Some people are indifferent to it. There are those who think it is good and those who say it is bad. That is because they operate from the perspective of looking at the budget and saying "What is in it for me? What will it do for me?"
This budget addresses the needs of seniors, working people, their families, youth, labour, small business, and is a stimulus for investment in this country. I would rather look at it in terms of what it will do for Canada.
A senior citizen in my constituency told me he was not happy with the budget. Although he is getting a 6 per cent increase, he objects to the two things he likes, liquor and smokes, being taxed. Those are petty arguments against a budget that will put this country on the road to recovery.
In delivering his budget, the Minister of Finance said that his primary objective is to develop a sustained economic recovery for Canada and his dominant concern is to get jobs for people who need work. Therefore, $710 million over two years is going to be put into the economy for direct job-creation.
We are all aware that technological advances are rendering certain jobs obsolete. An article in the Monday, April 25 edition of The Winnipeg Free Press states:
Robots will radically change the role of labour in a factory-
It states that structural employment will make certain jobs disappear for good. We have to face this fact. When I was a young lad in St. Boniface, there were three blacksmith shops. They disappeared over a period of 20 years. In this day and age, we see jobs disappear within months because of new technology. You cannot create artificial jobs. Those who are or have been involved in seasonal work realize that when the season is past, there are just no jobs in that line. I have had 33 years' experience in construction. As a building contractor I know that it was difficult, but when a contract was completed and I was not successful in tendering for another job, I had to lay off my workers. I could not create work where there was none. It is demand that creates jobs. That is why this Government has taken a two-pronged approach. One is to stimulate projects that will make work immediately, and the other is to develop our human resources. I commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for the forward look he has taken at the needs of the country. We have added $155 million to develop our human resources, bringing our input to $1.2 billion. We will provide training facilities and

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
retraining programs for those whose type of work is no longer required. An important fact of life is shelter. It is one of man's basic needs. It is also a basic right. I am happy to report that housing will receive an additional $355 million. Starts on new homes are up and continuing to go up because under the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program whereby new housing starts receive a $3,000 grant, we are injecting $30 million more that will, hopefully, extend the program to the latter part of May. If the funds run out before the end of May, that is the end of the subsidy. If the funds last, it will continue until May 31.
We have added $120 million to the Canadian Home Renovation Program which makes available $3,000 forgivable loans. The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program calls for another $40 million. There are many other programs for native housing and other types of habitation that are being provided for. To stimulate the economy, the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan has been boosted so that this can be applied to new homes and also to buy new furnishings and appliances. This will encourage consumers to create demand which the manufacturers will be expected to meet.
I would like to emphasize construction. I have long been an advocate of capital projects that have enduring value and lasting benefit. In the United States in 1935 there was a works project administration, the WPA. On a visit to Los Angeles, I saw dry concrete spillways coming down from the mountains. I wondered what they were for. Those spillways were built in 1935 to take the rush of water down from the mountains when the snow at the cap was melting in order to prevent flooding in downtown Los Angeles. Almost 50 years later these spillways are still functioning and protecting the City of Los Angeles. It is that type of capital works project we endorse.
In post-war Europe there was naturally a great deal of reconstruction required. The huge six-lane auto routes, the EU-4 and EU-b, have a lasting benefit. They were built in the post-war years of 1946-1950 and later and have been serving the public for more than 30 years.
In my home Province of Manitoba, the City of Winnipeg was subjected to annual floods. The federal Government put millions of dollars into an $81 million project, building a floodway around the city so that the city would not be flooded. That is foresight. That flood prevention project will give long and lasting benefits. Therefore, I am in favour of the Special Recovery Capital Projects proposed in this budget.
There are transport facilities that are needed. We know through projections that they are going to be required. They are inevitable. If we can bring them onstream a little earlier to the benefit of the Canadian public, I am all for it.
I said earlier that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has called for research and training facilities. Last Friday it was announced in Winnipeg that by joint agreement with the Province of Manitoba a technical vocational school will be built in South Winnipeg at a cost of $5.7 million as part of an $8 million school being provided by the federal Government. I am in favour of many more small projects. The reason I mentioned smaller projects is that, rather than seeing something like Expo that goes on for three years and hires many
people but concentrates in one locale, I would prefer to see several smaller projects that employ more engineers, more architects, more designers, more contractors and allow wider distribution of the investment of the Canadian Government in such smaller projects rather than in one single massive one.
There are other spin-offs and benefits that flow from this budget that are too numerous to mention. Under tax legislation, family child care expenses have been doubled and a family can deduct as much as $8,000 under that program. The Child Tax Credit Program has also been increased. There are other tax changes that apply to employment expense being increased to the benefit of people who earn less than $26,000 a year.
The Government's proposal in its April 19 budget will go a long way to instil confidence in our economy. This morning on television and on radio we saw and heard that officials of the Royal Bank of Canada and top investment consultants are saying that Canada is on its way to recovery, that we are on the right track and are doing what is necessary to bring that about as quickly as possible. This budget will instil confidence in investors, in business people, both large and small. It will restore consumer confidence and encourage Canadians to put some of their savings back into circulation in order to start the wheels of industry humming again. We are on the road to recovery and we are on the right track. It is thanks to the Minister of Finance and the Liberal Government that we are now able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make certain comments about the Conservative budget that the Liberals have put forward. I will not deal with every item in the budget. The Liberals and Members of the Government have already covered sufficiently some of the smaller items that they hope will distract our attention. They have pointed out some of the very small concessions made to the public and to the ordinary working people. I will not discuss the fact that the Liberals have apparently undertaken to buy, with our money, another term of office by proposing a budget that can only take effect after the latest possible date of the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that this budget is not a recovery budget, as it has been called, let alone a job creation budget, as has been suggested. It is a budget that will undertake to spend in the next four years $4.8 billion for recovery but will take in at least $6 billion of extra taxation to cover that. At the same time, it makes no serious effort to restore Canada to full employment.
The budget does not seriously consider what is the problem that causes our present record unemployment levels. Unemployment levels are at a record high for anybody who is less than 43 years old. The problem, I suggest, is that unemployment afflicts Canada regularly, first, because of the tendency for our present type of economy to boom and bust. It has a
April 28, 1983

regular pattern of boom and bust. Second, unemployment afflicts Canada now especially because of a new development which Members of the Government from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down have declared publicly as a new fact, namely, a permanent base of unemployment.
I can remember coming out of the army at the end of the war and our being told that we would have full employment, and because, of course, there is always a turnover of jobs and a turnover of workers, we would have a new system called Unemployment Insurance which would provide a transitional income for workers moving between jobs. It was a great idea, and it worked for several years. We are told now that that system is out of date, that system which set the unemployment rate at a maximum of 3 per cent of the work force, and that moving from job to job has now been scrapped by this Government. We are told that at least 7 or 8 per cent, and probably 10 per cent, is to be the basic level of unemployment. These are not workers moving from job to job; these are unemployed workers going nowhere. That is the the minimum that the Government has offered us.
Part of the reason for this problem is that, by the Government's taxation policies, the buying power of the great majority of Canadians has been permanently reduced below the level that is necessary to produce a healthy economy. One way the Government has reduced the buying power of Canadians is to switch priorities between the revenues from corporate income tax and personal income tax. In 1950, personal income tax provided 50.7 per cent of the Government's revenue and corporate tax provided 49.2 per cent. These figures simply treat corporate and personal tax in proportion because, though they are not the only sources of income tax, they are the main sources. Of this total, personal income tax was 50.7 per cent, corporate income tax was 49.2 per cent.
In 1960, ten years later, personal income tax had gone up to 58.6 per cent and corporate income tax had gone down to 41.3 per cent. Ten years later, in 1970, personal income tax was 71.3 per cent, and corporate income tax was down to 28.6 per cent. In 1980, personal income tax accounted for over three-quarters of the total, or 76.6 per cent; corporate income tax accounted for only 23.3 per cent of the Government's revenue. In other words, the working people of Canada, not to mention farmers and pensioners and the rest, are not being allowed a disposable income large enough to maintain the buying power that is necessary for a healthy economy. Instead, through the tax system a larger and larger share is being diverted by default to the banks and the other groups who clearly have shown a pattern of not spending that money in Canada. The banks now boast that 40 per cent of their investments are made overseas, some of them in countries where they clearly will not be seen again. This is the first way the Government has injured the economy. The present budget, as I will point out later, continues that pattern.
Second, the manufacturing industries of Canada, with one exception, have been harassed. They have been burdened and injured by comparison with the mining industry, the finance industry and the oil industry, even though the manufacturing industries still have one and three-quarter million employees,
The Budget-Mr. Heap
whereas the mining and oil industries together have only 151,000 employees and the finance industry has only 562,000 employees. In spite of the fact that manufacturing supports a far larger section of the economy, it must pay an extortionate rate of taxation.
Over the ten years from 1969 to 1978, the mining industry paid a 19.8 per cent taxation rate, finance paid a 23.7 per cent taxation rate, oil and gas paid a 23.4 per cent taxation rate, but textiles, knitting and clothing paid a 41 per cent taxation rate. In fact, the whole manufacturing industry except for petroleum and coal products paid a 34.8 per cent taxation rate. The average rate for all industries was 38.3 per cent. So mining, finance and oil, the richest industries in this country, are being compulsorily subsidized through the Government's taxation system by the workers in manufacturing and, most particularly, by the workers in the chief manufacturing industry in the riding I represent, namely the clothing and textile industries. No wonder Canadian workers are accused by housing sales people and others of buyer resistance. Buyer resistance means empty pockets. It is the Government that has emptied the pockets of the buyers and continues to do so in the budget.
There is another policy, a matter of background, which the Government continues in the budget. The Government has been knowingly encouraging an increased importation of clothing and textiles and other manufactured goods from low wage countries. In this budget the Minister explicitly referred to a further extension of that policy of reducing the restrictions against importation from low wage countries. This is in spite of the fact that the industry most affected by that policy at the present time has already lost 50,000 jobs out of 200,000 in the last two years. A quarter of the jobs have disappeared largely because of the action of encouraging imports from countries which pay 50 cents or $1 wages. This is done in spite of the fact that the industry, contrary to the Government's statement and the statement of the former President of the Treasury Board, spent $2 billion during the 1970s in modernizing, and is still modernizing at a higher rate than most other secondary manufacturing industries. Whereas the cost of living rose by 167.5 points from 1971 to 1982, clothing only went up by 104.9 points, about two-thirds of the rate of increase. Imported clothing went up by 214 points, which is a far greater rate of interest. Therefore, the clothing industry has in fact been antiinflationary by helping to keep down the price Canadians pay for clothing. Yet the Government insists on destroying the clothing industry by its import policy.
The textile industry has shown a higher rate of value added per worker than the average of the Canadian manufacturing industry, and a rate as high as the American clothing and textile industry. The textile and clothing industry in Canada receives little help from the Government in modernizing. Although it has employed about 11 per cent of the workers in manufacturing, it receives only 3 per cent of the aid. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government has, in these several ways, undermined and weakened the clothing and garment

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Heap
industry, not to mention some other Canadian manufacturing industries, and has then had the bad grace to taunt it with being weak.
Government first of all wounds it, injures it, then taunts it with being weak, putting out false propaganda about inefficient workers and management which does not modernize, and using that as an excuse for killing off the industry entirely in favour of imports from countries which pay very low wages, including police state countries. This is no way, Mr. Speaker, to build a high morale for recovery. Whether or not this Government feels this policy is good for Canadian investors, I can tell you, Sir, that this Government is producing great anger among hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers because it is damaging their chances of earning a living and then insulting them with accusations of inefficiency.
The Government is continuing a pattern of damaging this economy by its support of the mushrooming of interest payments. Interest payments, Mr. Speaker, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, have almost trebled in 15 years. In 1966, 6.3 per cent of the growth of the domestic product went to interest payments. By 1981 it was 15.2 per cent. That is a growth of 140 per cent in 15 years. By comparison, wages only grew 14 per cent, one-tenth of the rate of the banker's take, from 48.21 per cent in 1966 to 54.99 per cent in 1981. Yet we have had the Ministers of Finance and other Ministers of the Government stand in their places and accuse the Canadian workers of being inefficient, lazy and greedy, of taking too much money for their work, and wages and salaries being the cause of inflation. That, Mr. Speaker, is patently false and anyone who can read the Government's own figures on taxation-as I suppose the Minister can-knows that that accusation is false. It is the cancerous growth of revenues to the banks and the lending companies which has damaged our economy. Yet the Government continues in this budget to direct more money to that same place. The result of this kind of activity by the Government is that the working people of Canada chronically lack the power to buy what the employers and investors of Canada need to sell in order to stay in business.
One old pensioner said to me recently, very simply, "Mr. Heap, I'm not complaining that my pension cheque is too small. I understand that Mr. Lalonde hasn't got very much cash to give out. But I only want to say there is too much month at the end of the cash." That tells the story in one line, Mr. Speaker. There simply is not the amount of money necessary in the hands of ordinary people of Canada to keep this economy in a healthy state. Therefore, we shut down factories. Therefore, we have heavy unemployment, reminding us of the 1930s. Yes, there may be a recovery. The newspapers tell us there has been a little recovery in the last two or three months, a recovery at a higher rate of profit and at a lower rate of real wages. That is what it is all about, and that is what this Government has procured. It is also a higher rate of recovery with the now 8 per cent to 10 per cent permanent unemployment, as the Government announced this week and last week. This is, Mr. Speaker, really a conservative budget. In the increase of personal income tax, in its share over four years, we now have a budget which says there will be $3.5
billion more in personal income tax taken over the next four years, $2.5 billion taken from the same people in sales tax and $2.5 billion given back to the corporations by way of a cut in their corporate income tax. This will mean, because of this budget, less disposable income, more buyer resistance.
With respect to its treatment of the manufacturing industries, what we have is a gift of nearly $1 billion to the richest industry in the country, the oil industry, probably half of it to Dome Petroleum. In fact, the whole $2.5 billion increase in the deficit goes to profits, so that the rich corporations will become richer and the domestic market will fail to grow. As to the share of interest payments, the Government is increasing its deficit by over $2 billion, which might be all right and I might be willing to support it if it were being used productively, but it is not. The whole of that increase goes to the tax give-away programs. It goes to private capital. And there is absolutely no assurance that it will be invested in Canada. There is no assurance that it will be invested so as to create jobs in Canada. And there is no assurance that it will do anything to create buying power among the people of Canada.
As an example of this wasteful piling in of investment, which is supposed to create jobs and does not, MacMillan-Bloedel bought the factory where I used to work and, as a result, 100 people have lost their jobs. They did that with borrowed money that upped the interest rates for everyone else and created no new jobs whatsoever. More recently, John Inglis, with $4 million from the federal and the Ontario Governments took over Admiral and is now killing 250 jobs. Thanks very much for the $4 million, but 250 jobs will be wiped out as a result. We now hear that Massey-Ferguson may finally close down its Toronto operation after receiving tremendous handouts from this Government and the Ontario Government. To say that these gifts to capital produce jobs flies in the face of all our experience over the last ten years. Yet the Government will continue to borrow. We have just been told today there will be another borrowing Bill and yet we have just passed one. We have no time to discuss the Cruise missile or property rights; we have to get another borrowing Bill passed. By that means the Government will increase its inflationary share of interest payments without increasing jobs or the incomes of ordinary people.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a very conservative budget in the sense that the Liberals and Conservatives have teamed up, as usual, to increase the revenue of investors without any assurance that those investors will use that money to create any more jobs for Canada. We have a lot of what one Conservative Member called smoke and mirrors. We have it in Spadina, for example, where there are almost no assurances that any of the NEED projects, some of them entered four months ago, will be approved and funded. The Minister says there are 1,200 jobs approved for Spadina, but he is talking about the whole of Ontario because the Government of Ontario happens to be in Spadina. I am proud of that, but that
April 28, 1983

does not mean it makes jobs in Spadina. So we have these misleading statements by which the Government pretends to create 300,000 jobs when in fact there will probably be no more than 50,000 jobs created under this Government's programs. Furthermore, the Government will continue to pay out $1 billion every month in Unemployment Insurance to people to do nothing.
The effect of this budget, Mr. Speaker, will be to increase profits, reduce real wages after this recession as part of the recovery, and ensure that the recession will return soon and much stronger.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on what appears to be the Hon. Member's favourite topic, which is quotas and protectionism for the textile industry. It is interesting that he is promoting this in what he calls low wage countries. He is attacking people who come from what he calls low wage countries. He should repeat that charge in the presence of his current seatmate who is always arguing the other way.
However, I would like to ask him specifically what he considers an appropriate level of quotas in the textile industry. How would he reach that conclusion?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, first I want to disabuse anyone listening of the mistaken understanding that might be gained if they took the Hon. Member seriously. I have in no way attacked the people from low wage countries. I do publicly oppose police state governments in certain countries which the Hon. Member's Government is not willing to oppose. It is those governments which help to keep wages down. The Hon. Member's Government has not yet shown the courage and honesty to come out publicly and oppose such injustice. I am on the side of those low wage earners, but the Hon. Member has not yet shown that he is.
My point, and I am very glad to have a chance to explain it to the Hon. Member, is that Canadian workers and Canadian industry should be able to produce primarily for the Canadian workers, which is also the desire of the Philippino workers in the Philippines. This has been expressed to me by a leader of the Philippine labour movement with whom I talked a few days ago. He agrees with the policy I am advocating.
The Hon. Member wants a figure; I would suggest that imports should be reduced in a broad, global sense to 20 per cent of the Canadian market. Of course, we will buy and sell, but we do not need to live exclusively for export, have the Philippines living exclusively for export and everyone else living exclusively for export and nobody able buying because there are no jobs.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the discussion about police states and textiles and general export theory. I appreciated hearing, finally, that what the Hon. Member wants to do is to reduce imports to 20 per cent of the Canadian market. I doubt that people in my riding would agree with him on that. He also said that tax incentives will not create jobs in Canada. I wonder if he could tell us, for example, what he
The Budget-Mr. Heap
thinks the RHOSP incentives will do for the housing and construction industry if they do not create jobs in Canada? Whose jobs will they create?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are a few small items in the budget. I said at the beginning that I am not going to go over all the small items the Government is undertaking to use to garnish and disguise this conservative budget. The RHOSP provision is one of them. Yes, the houses will be built, but it is a poor way to use the Government's money. There would be a far better result if the Government would reverse its policy toward social and non-profit housing because that gives a far better result in the long run for the subsidies put into it. Housing for profit often results in very high prices to the consumer, and the Government subsidy often does the consumer no good at all. Therefore, the subsidy is not producing any general effect in the economy. It is simply making a few individuals rich. I have seen this many, may times over the last ten years in the City of Toronto, and if the Hon. Member had used his eyes around the City of Toronto he would have seen it too.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to pose a few questions to the Hon. Member to see if he is able to correct some of the lapses in memory or information contained in his speech. He seems to make some great effort to develop the argument that the federal Government is in no way helping the textile or clothing industries. I wonder if he is aware of a program called the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board which has a budget of something like $250 million and has now provided well over $100 million in grants to a variety of textile firms to help them obtain new machinery, equipment and technology? Does he know that accompanying that Program, my own Department has been delivering retraining and upgrading programs for tens of thousands of textile workers which will allow them to develop the skills necessary to respond to the new technological age? It seems he has conveniently forgotten those facts.
In the course of his speech the Hon. Member also said that Inglis had taken over Admiral Corporation with a loss of 200 jobs. I wonder if he would like to correct that statement and recognize that the Admiral Corporation closed down, but as a result of provisions of the ILAP Program, Inglis was able to reinstitute that company and open up those factories. Is he saying they would have preferred the federal Government not provide help to a company in order to rescue close to 600 or 700 jobs for people who had previously worked for Admiral? Is he saying that that is the position of the NDP, that they would rather stand on their ideological rigidities as opposed to having people go back to work?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for those two questions. On the matter of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, it is true that I have been told in statements by the Minister that $100 million has been spent. We have no accounting of that. There are no textile and clothing industrialists on the Board, not one; only money lenders and one trade unionist who got on there with the assistance of pressure from

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Heap
the Canadian Labour Congress. So it is not a Board likely to act in the interests of the industry. Members of the industry, employers I have talked to in Toronto, say they have never heard of any of this grant money, although they could use it.
As to the training, the Government was about to abolish four technical training courses at George Brown College last fall until members of the industry and the labour movement and the local Member of Parliament, myself, intervened, and a curious letter was sent saying, "You misunderstood. The word, 'terminate', does not mean it is ended. It just means that it is under review". Therefore, the Government is not speaking straight when it speaks of its training program. It is trying to phase out the clothing industry in the places where it exists, that is, in Ontario and in Quebec.
As to the John Inglis Program, as the Minister well knows, what I am referring to is the fact that whereas John Inglis claimed it would create 130 jobs if the Government provided funding in the takeover, it will now discontinue 250 jobs as part of the phasing of its takeover. That was recently announced. As well, questions were asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) in the House about a month ago as to whether the Government would require John Inglis to keep its promise in return for the money, $3 million from here and $1 million from Queen's Park, and we have not yet had a serious answer from the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is time for one brief question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one question of the Hon. Member, again partly to demonstrate that I do not think the House can necessarily take his statement at full face value, because I realize that he made some statements to the Toronto press about the NEED Program a few days ago, saying that nothing had been funded in his riding when, in fact, 74 projects, at a total cost of over $7 million and providing 1,200 jobs, had already been approved for his area.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That's false.


Lloyd Axworthy: As a result, I think that the Hon. Member's ability to understand what is going on in his constituency is reasonably suspect. However, I would ask him a question in this area-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. If the Hon. Member is to be given time to respond, it should be now, because the Hon. Member-


Lloyd Axworthy: I am just raising a further question about the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am sorry, but I think that we should allow the Hon. Member to contribute a brief reply.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister knows but is not telling is that a great many of the programs which he attributes to Spadina are programs under the city of Toronto, Metro Toronto, the provincial Government and the City School Board. In other words, he calls jobs in Kenora or Timmins jobs in Spadina.


Some Hon. Members:: Wrong.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: So much for the misleading statements of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Do you know where your own riding is?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. For debate, I recognize the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stan Darling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I rise on a point of order. Would it not be in order for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) to be recognized at this stage? It seems to me that she was on her feet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. As Hon. Members know, the Chair is given considerable discretion in recognizing Hon. Members. Hon. Members, of course, must stand. I was seated in the Chair about half an hour ago and I was informed at that time that the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka should be the Hon. Member to speak following the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). In any case, there will be time for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier to be recognized.


Mr.   De Bane@: I rise on a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I readily recognize that I cannot say it is a question of privilege that the Hon. Member for Spadina does not know what is going on in his own riding. But surely it is a point of privilege to say that when he alleges that an Hon. Member from this side misled the House, and that is the word he used, Your Honour should ask him to withdraw that word, even if the other one, that he does not know what is going on in his own riding, is asked seriously, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I appreciate the Minister's comments, but the word "mislead" is currently used. As long as the qualification "deliberately" is not attached, to the word "mislead" it is quite acceptable in parliamentary practice.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that you are working from a list. I wonder if it would be possible to supplement the list with the observation that we have heard an Hon. Member from the Opposition speaking, and now I believe it would be normal for an Hon. Member from the Government to speak, given the normal rotation of speakers, despite whatever some list may say.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wish to rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I wish to respond briefly to the comment just made by the Parliamentary Secretary and, of course, time is flying by.
April 28, 1983


Gordon Edward Taylor: It's a waste of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair does not work from lists. I should make that very clear. Speakers do jot names down as a general guide, but we do not operate on the basis of lists. Parties supply to the Chair a list of Hon. Members who wish to speak so that a Speaker may be aware of the names of Hon. Members put forward by each Party when their turn comes for debate. However, strictly speaking, there is no list. In any case, I am guided by the wisdom of the previous occupant of the Chair. I was advised to recognize next the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
I am prepared, if there is agreement in the House, to recognize another Hon. Member, short of making a formal motion, which I think would be quite legitimate but disruptive.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable that this matter is being raised when there is a very limited period of time before a vote takes place.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That's exactly the point.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, you gave the floor to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He legitimately has the floor. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) has no right to attempt to take it from him.


John (Moody) Roberts: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to draw this matter out very long either. However, is it not the normal practice at this stage of debate to alternate between the Opposition and the Government side? It does seem to me to be the procedure which is generally followed. The Hon. Member on this side was on her feet and ready to speak, and it seems to me that Your Honour is in the unfortunate position of having come into the Chair in the last few minutes and are therefore perhaps not really quite sure of what had happened before. Should we not really follow our normal practice of alternating Hon. Members from one side to the other?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think we want to be fair. We heard a Liberal speak, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), then we heard a P.C., then a Liberal, then a New Democrat.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Now we are back over here. That's normal.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Quite often the movement has been this way, and we have let that go on several times. I do not think the Liberals should be wasting our time now simply because the Speaker did come our way this time. The other time it was the Government's way.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on the same point raised by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River, I would point out that if, at any time, the Speaker has moved from the NDP to the Conservative Party and back, it is because the Government has not seen fit to have one of its Members speak in between. However, we are entitled to our opportunity to speak.
The Budget-Mr. Darling
I know that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier has put a good deal of work into preparation of her speech for this time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: So has our man. He has been sitting here all afternoon. Your Member hasn't.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. If there was any unfortunate and, I assure Hon. Members, unintentional mix-up in the order of speakers, the Chair will assume full responsibility. However, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Page 111, wherein Citation 121 states:
There should not be a list of Speakers with an order of precedence in the House of Commons. Any Member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye.
The eye of the Speaker was caught by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier, but we would have had time for the Hon. Member to contribute to the debate. In any case, having recognized the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I must invite him to pursue his remarks.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, after wasting some ten minutes or more which I believe could have been used by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on the budget. As has been pointed out, there are another two days in which to debate, and I am sure the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to stand and speak in the House.
First, let me cite some of the positive measures in this budget before I get to some that might not be quite as flattering and perhaps a little more negative. From the vantage point of hindsight, some measure of congratulations are due to the Minister for producing what is unquestionably the best budget since the restoration of "Pierre the Last". I was going to name it, after Allan Fotheringham, "The Liberal Reincarnation", but in the interest of accuracy it might be more perceptive to speak of it as their joining the ranks of the undead.
However, to say that this budget was an improvement over the efforts of the Minister's predecessor is in the same order as saying that public health statistics were showing a remarkably positive trend the summer after the Black Death. I have no doubt that that is exactly how a Liberal Government would have described it.
The budget has already been described as a "buy now, pay later" budget. Its ultimate epitaph will probably be "it could have been worse".
For the moment let us put aside the fact that the entire thrust of the document is to further postpone payment to the piper until another Government is in place to take the heat. It is a matter of a "Government on credit", and we will look at its attendant effects later. I am certain that is true because we are all aware of the polls that came out today that showed the
24978

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Darling
Progressive Conservatives in the lead with 52 per cent and the Liberal Government with 27 per cent. It is evident that they will be coming over to this side of the House at the next election.
Those of us who have been around here for any length of time recognize that there are two levels of perception at which a budget may be appraised. The first is the superficial impression created by the budget speech and the first cursory reading of the accompanying document. Generally this budget was favourably received except, of course, by the overt socialists to my left, as opposed to the crypto-socialists across the aisle who will not be happy until everyone is dependent on Government handouts, paid for exclusively by corporate taxation.
The second level of perception is the product of a slower, deeper and more careful appraisal. It is here that the subsurface flaws of the program show up.
The first thing that should be observed is that the whole operation was based, while perhaps not exactly on fraud, certainly on the old smoke and mirrors trick which has already been mentioned in the House. The budget was billed as a triumph of consultation. We were assured, prior to its presentation, that the Minister had communed with all sectors of the economy, had listened to their concerns and recommendations and had made use of their particular expertise in its preparation.
While I obviously have not had the time to examine every submission made to the Minister, I selected that of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as probably being one of the ones of greatest value to the Minister, given the declared aims of his budget.
The first recommendation made by the Chamber was that the Minister institute a $2 billion retail sales tax cut. The result was that he increased it by one per cent. The Chamber recommended that initiatives directed at the direct stimulation of the economy be limited in scope and have an explicit termination date. The Minister gave us his Special Recovery Capital Projects totalling $2.2 billion, with a termination date some four years down the road. That is not an explicit termination date. In the present economic climate, that is open-ended never-never land.
The Chamber recommended that individuals be allowed to withdraw funds from RHOSPs to buy home furnishings, and this bit of counsel the Minister did accept. We can give him full marks for that. In this regard I might say that when they heard the budget speech, those merchants and people considering buying white goods, such as stoves, fridges and deep freezers, were elated over being allowed to purchase them tax free. But of course when this measure was studied further, it was seen that only those people with money in RHOSPs would be eligible. Certainly the glamour of the benefits of that proposal was dispelled very quickly. It was similar to having the Minister say that he will allow a certain sector of the economy to buy fridges and stoves tax free for a certain period of time-I believe October 1, 1984-but qualifying it by saying that he will only make it available to people who are 25
or 26 years of age with blue eyes. One can see what little impact that will have on that particular industry.
The Chamber urged that job creation initiatives be funded by reallocating funds from other less urgent programs, just as businesses must forgo attractive investment opportunities when funds are insufficient to finance them, or as individuals must give up consumer purchases. When wants exceed the family budget, so too the Government must give up some otherwise good programs when the country cannot afford them.
Surely this is the most sage and germane advice that could have been given. Furthermore, it is advice the truth of which must be evident to every housewife in the nation.
The Minister is the man who spent money like water when he was Minister of Health, and who singlehandedly destroyed the resource industry in western Canada when he was Minister of Energy but who is now widely known as the pro business Minister and the Minister who listens. What did our Minister do? He went on a $4.8 billion spending spree, which is eventually to be paid for largely by the taxpayers of 1984 to 1987 on a sort of "fly now, pay later" plan.
How responsible of him! How encouraging for the confidence of those upon whose confidence our ultimate recovery must be built! I sincerely hope that it is not he who manages the finances of his family, or we are about to see one more indigent dependent upon those anonymous sources who take care of down-and-out Liberals. Anyway, the score so far is one up, three down for the "Minister of Consultation".
The Chamber went on to say:
Only serious efforts to reduce the rate of growth in Government spending will convince business and consumers that the Government is serious in its commitment to non inflationary growth, and only an improvement in confidence will lead to the spending and investment necessary to generate a recovery.
That is quite a comprehensive description of what the budget is not.
Far from a serious effort to reduce the rate of growth of Government spending, we see a Main Estimates to Main Estimates jump of 18 per cent, a projected deficit that would have financed all the Government operations only nine years ago. What must surely rank as the most classic case of fiscal insouciance since Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake", is the plucking of a non-existent $200 million out of thin air purely to salve the Minister's own ego after his celebrated photo opportunity. I am sure all Members would agree that this $200 million was the most expensive allotment of funds for saving one job. Perhaps, for the duration of this Government, we should amend our Commonwealth anthem from "God Save the Queen" to "God save us all".
The Chamber next pointed out that corporations, when they are confronted by a liquidity crisis, are forced to dispose of assets in order to bring things into balance. It pointed to the number of Crown corporations that languish as dependants on the public purse that might move into a profit position if they were to be sold to the private sector. Needless to say, the Minister did nothing to disturb the status quo with that particular set of Liberal NDP sacred cows.
April 28, 1983

The Chamber then refers to the preamble of their submission which states:
It is absolutely essential that our longer term problems not be overlooked in any effort to improve the near-term outlook.
It goes on to ask for measures to help business produce and provide jobs in the long term.
We all know what the Minister's reaction was to that. For the first time in history, we see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) throwing around short-term freebees and commiting the country's tottering economy to pay for them over the ensuing four years.
And finally, the Chamber listed a handful of activities that it said the Government should not undertake, such as the raising of personal taxes and the further deindexing of personal income taxes. The Minister's response was, as we all know, to do just the opposite in both cases.
That is quite a record for a Minister who made such a show of consulting with and listening to those in the private sector who, from first-hand experience, have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about. Or is it really, as so many of us have long suspected, that it has actually become part of the Liberal dogma that nobody knows more about anything than a Minister in a Liberal Government?
I would point out to the Minister that the word "consult" means more than merely allowing people to talk in his presence. It also implies a certain taking into consideration and a seeking of advice that has clearly not been among his activities since assuming the portfolio of finance, any more than it was before then.
What then would it have been reasonable to expect to find in this budget if it had been aimed at achieving an improvement in the lot of Canadians? First, while recognizing that our future prospects depend directly on our ability to contain inflation, the situation at the moment demands that he take some meaingful measures to attack the level of unemployment. And by "meaningful measures" I do not mean declaring it to be his "dominant concern" in the opening line of his speech and then dismissing it from further consideration for the rest of the exercise, which I believe took one hour and forty minutes.
The fact is that by the budget's own projections, some
262,000	fewer Canadians will be working at the end of what he presents as the first year of the recovery than were working in the fourth quarter of 1981. The fact is he calculates that it will be 1986 before unemployment drops to the level that seemed so terrible in 1982. The fact is that the sum total of jobs provided under his direct employment creation programs come to no more than 81,600; 17,000 of which are only summer jobs, and 36,000 of which under the NEED Program are so brief as to boil down to a total of only 2,000 person years all told. We are back to the smoke and mirrors deal again.
The flagship program, the "Special Recovery Capital Projects", is proudly announced as consisting of $2.2 billion in
The Budget-Mr. Darling
funded projects. Unfortunately, it appears on deeper inspection that only $1.5 billion of that represents new spending, and no more than $460 million of that is to be spent this fiscal year. On top of that, when we take a look at the administrative procedures involved, projects will be under way within six months of approval by some Cabinet committee that has not even been set up yet. It is pretty obvious that it will be next Spring at the earliest before there is any serious impact from this source. From over here it sounds more as though the program were directed to benefit the Liberal Party rather than the unemployed. Six hundred and twenty one thousand young people were unemployed in March. The rate of unemployment in this critical segment of the population stands at 21.3 per cent.
So let us look at the Minister's special youth initiatives. Once again it is smoke and mirrors. There will be, he tells us, an extra $70 million for summer student employment programs over last year. What he does not say is that last year funding for this program dropped from $120 million to $100 million. So his celebrated $170 million program represents an increase of only $50 million over two years. Not quite six and five, but in no way the magnificent gesture it is pretended to be. I must say that at first glance the youth internship program appears to have merit, and I extend my congratulations to the Minister on it. But at the same time, I must say that his job corps leaves me somewhat confused.
Page 17 of his budget papers tells me that this program will provide "temporary employment opportunities, personal and career assessment, counselling, training and other support services." With all due respect, it seems to me that, given a choice between "personal and career assessment, counselling" and getting a job, I think quite a few of our young Canadians would opt for the job. Or perhaps I have it all wrong and those "temporary employment opportunities" are as "personal and career assessors", or as counsellors. Now there is an idea, the sociological equivalent of perpetual motion. Little by little, all the youngsters will be hired as counsellors and assessors to counsel and assess those whose turn it is to be unemployed from their jobs as counsellors and assessors. The perfect solution!
This brings us to the Department of National Defence which is to be given $75 million over the next two years to enroll
5,000	young Canadians in the reserves. I give the Government full marks for this, and in particular the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne). But what happens to them then? Suppose they want to stay in the military and pursue a military career, as I am quite sure many would if they find it to their liking. Are they simply told "No, your time is up, you have to go now."? If so, it will make a mockery of our once-proud military and all that it once was. But if not, does that mean that entry to the forces will be limited to those who have come through the Government's make-work program? Somebody over there had better be thinking about this sort of thing right now.

April 28, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Chenier
Now I want to move on to the most important issue bar none in the entire budgetary question. What should have been done to stimulate recovery? It is certainly the most important issue for the country at large, and I assume that next to the prosperity of the Government and the Liberal Party it is important to those opposite as well.
Most experts, I think, are of the opinion that any recovery is likely to be consumer led. I have argued for months now that the best way of triggering a widespread recovery is by encouraging the small-business sector, thus spreading both the likelihood of strengthening employment and of increasing consumer demand over the widest possible base. Here, surely, there was room for Government initiative because there is not likely to be much increase in private investment until consumption starts to increse. So what did the Government do?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Questions. Comments. Debate.
The Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier).


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Cabinet for the very human budget they submitted to Parliament this time around. This is the type of budget which is a job-creation budget. It is job-creation at two levels, in direct job-creation and in permanent job creation for Canada.
If you look at my riding, I have one major centre, that of Timmins. Timmins is very prosperous, it is probably one of the most prosperous cities in Canada. But also I have many small communities, towns and hamlets, hamlets without an economic base at all. If I look at this budget and at the $280 million we have added to the NEED Program, I can see places like Biscotasing that will be able to get its dock built. If I look at Chapleau, it will have the benefit of some public works. If I look at Iroquois Falls, in the same way it will have some work done. If I look at small-business people in my community who have suffered in the last while, I see them reviving various projects. I am sure they will do more of the same when the NEED Program takes over in a month or so.
As I said, Timmins is a prosperous city. Its airport very badly needs a general aviation area. I hope through the fast tracking of the Special Recovery Program we will see fit to put in approximately $1.5 million to develop that general aviation area, to provide maintenance hangars and warehousing in that area of our city.
Timmins is primarily a mining community. A number of companies have been taking part in gold explorations in the area. These small companies are ready not only to continue exploration but to go into production. The Liberal Cabinet has seen fit to help them and bring them onstream. Through tax incentives the cost of exploration for these junior companies can be spread over all their revenues, instead of exploration costs being recoverable only from their mining revenues. Under the investment credits given to Canadian investors in
Canadian companies, we will see the money so badly needed by these junior companies being invested in them. Then there will be additional gold mines or other basic mineral mines developed in the Timmins area. Those are the investments which will create permanent jobs in my City and in my riding.


Mr. Nickerson:: Put it in your householder.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: That is what I did. The people of Canada must be made aware that the Government at this time decided to put the Canadian economy back on track. This is what the Conservatives have never been able to do. Every time they assume power they put Canada into a depression. They came to power in 1979, and things have gone wrong ever since then.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Finally we have been able to bring Canada back on track. Many small businesses have encountered serious losses during the past recession. The budget indicated that these losses are recoverable. By going backwards for three years and forward for seven, we see light at the end of the tunnel. These small businesses will now show a profit. They will be paying taxes again. Because of this very humane measure these companies will not have to close. They will continue their operations and keep their employees. In some cases they may even be able to expand.
In the City of Timmins we need housing. We are so short of housing that people are living in various kinds of accommodations. When I look at the additional $30 million in $3,000 grants, I see 20 to 50 houses being built in the next month which people will be able to purchase so that they can live in decent accommodations. Over the last year the Home Renovation Program and RRAP have been so popular in Chapleau that there is a list of hundreds of people awaiting moneys to do renovations to their homes in rural and depressed areas. We had not been able to give it to them, but now RRAP will be getting $40 million, and the Home Renovation Program will be getting $100 million and the people of Chapleau will receive additional moneys to repair their homes. This will put people back to work. This is what the budget is all about. When I look at the home ownership program-
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 64(7), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment.

The question, therefore, is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
April 28, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed will please say nay.
The Budget-Mr. Chenier
++NAYS
Messrs.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Miss Carney) negatived.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that one third of the NDP caucus is away, including the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who usually brings such things to the attention of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 29, 1983