1983-04-21

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 20, 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); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 24691).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As the House may be aware, there are two minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Blenkarn:: He is not here.


Mr. Deans:: To whom would you like us to direct our questions, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have here two documents, one in French and one in English, entitled, "Revised Budget Tables", which were circulated with the budget speech on budget night. Apparently due to a mix-up, the Table did not consider these documents tabled on budget evening. I would like the consent of the House to clear up that matter and have these documents tabled officially now.
[DOT]	(mo)


Mr. Lewis:: I do not want to delay matters, Mr. Speaker, but will we receive copies of these immediately? I appreciate that this is another effort by the Government to correct the budget which seems to be unravelling. Will we be able to get a copy immediately?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable request. I want to assure the House Leader for the Official Opposition that he already has these documents. They were circulated with the budget on budget night. When they were given to the Table, there was confusion. The Table did not realize that these were to be tabled with the budget documents, so they were not officially accepted. I am trying to clean that up now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to table the addenda?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed by unanimous consent and so ordered.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise to speak in this budget debate because I am of the very strong opinion that this is the appropriate budget for the times that we face. The Minister has brought down the kinds of measures that are necessary to restore and build new confidence in the Canadian economy, to build upon our success in fighting inflation, to renew investment growth in this country which will stimulate the growth of wealth, which will stimulate our ability to maintain the valued social security system that we have in this country. In other words, this is a budget that will build upon the already existing recovery of the economy and will spur that recovery on at a much accelerated rate.
I have some background in economics. I have had disagreements with forecasters in the past. I have to admit at this time that I have disagreements with the forecasters who are making projections with regard to the effects of this budget as well. I was somewhat successful in the past in my forecasting with regard to inflation and interest rates. I suggest that the success of this budget will be much greater than is indicated in the forecasts that we see in the budget documents.
I think our rate of economic growth will be higher than that shown. Our success in fighting unemployment will be better than that shown because we have put forward in this budget the kinds of incentives and measures that are required to get small business and large business alike back on track with investment. Job creation in the private sector is going to be much greater than that anticipated out of the standard econometric model. I think we are going to see a much better, longer lasting and stronger recovery than is forecast in these measures by econometricians at this point in time.
I will stand on that six months or a year from now, as I did with my projections on inflation and thereby interest rates of a year ago. I made projections of a similar nature-that inflation would come down faster, and so would interest rates, than what was being projected at that time. I won a dinner at Winston's as a result of the projections I made in public. In other words, I was right. I think I am right this time. This budget will reinforce and make the recovery come that much more quickly than we had anticipated.


The Budget-Mr. Evans
This budget is a very realistic assessment of our economic situation and what is needed. The Minister has brought down a budget which puts forward short-term job creation measures and builds upon the employment creation measures that we have in place, work sharing, the NEED Program, the skills training program. Basically it builds for the short term on these job-creation measures that are in place. It builds for the medium term by accelerating public works at both the federal and the provincial levels. It accelerates those public works which will create jobs, and it puts in place a very comprehensive and, to my mind, a very effective array of incentives for the private sector for the medium to the longer term so that private sector growth and development will come onstream as we begin to phase out some of the direct job-creation programs at the federal level.
Knowing that Governments cannot create long-term jobs, it is a very realistic assessment that only the private sector can create long-term, lasting jobs. How do we move from the transition period that we are in now? We are in a deep recession. We are starting to come out of it, but how do we accelerate that? How do we create the confidence, how do we create the conditions within which short-term jobs can be created by the Government and permanent longer-term jobs can be created by the private sector, and how do we bridge that gap between now and when the private sector will be back onstream in full force? In this budget, the Government has created a number of measures and programs which will, I believe, do just that.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the budget is a multi-phased attack on unemployment and economic stagnation. It does not go overboard by greatly increasing the budgetary deficit. The deficit is something that is of concern, I am sure, to all of us. Some of us are less concerned than others, but certainly the deficit problem is of concern.
The public sector cannot continue to expand at the expense of the private sector because the private sector is where the wealth and the growth is and where long-term jobs will be created. We realize that and the Minister realizes that. The Minister has tried to put a plan in place which will use the Government spending that is required during this transition period and then phase down the level of Government expenditure as the private sector moves on. This plan will certainly reduce and perhaps eliminate pressures on interest rates that might result if the Government and the private sector were competing for those same investment dollars. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be successful in doing that. The Minister has put forward the kind of measures that are necessary for this to happen.
The budget brings forward policy measures that stimulate investment for growth. It brings forward measures that stimulate areas that many of us have been saying for years now need to be dealt with, such as the stimulation of equity investment by Canadians and the ownership of Canadian industry by Canadians. To my mind there are very effective
measures in the budget to encourage Canadians to buy shares in Canadian companies. There are very effective measures to encourage Canadians to invest in research and development, to take a share in their own country.
Those measures will create additional spin-offs not mentioned in the budget that I think will prove to be very useful in the area of compensation strategies for the future. If Canadians are more prepared to take an ownership share in Canadian industry, then we might be able to expand that notion and talk about profit-sharing plans and share ownership by workers so that there could be a much more effective, useful and productivity-oriented compensation system in this country.
This would follow the example of the compensation system that now exists in Japan. We have heard the New Democratic Party say it would be very interested in considering and examining this system very closely. I have also heard this from Members of the Conservative Party. They have indicated that the Japanese system of productivity based compensation is one that we should be looking at.
The New Democrats tell us that the Japanese have only 3 per cent unemployment, much higher growth rates and lower inflation. One of the main reasons for that is that compensation to Japanese workers is tied to productivity. That includes not just the workers in the classic definition, as the New Democrats would put it, but includes everyone who contributes to the output of the economy. Workers includes managers in a system where all their compensation should be tied to their contribution to the output. In that kind of situation, economic downturns produce less unemployment than in a system of fixed and rigid wage structures such as there is in this country at the present time.
Members opposite talk about the budget deficit and say that the Government cannot throw money at the problem without creating very serious long-term difficulties. But the Government cannot simply slash its way out of the deficit, Mr. Speaker. We are in a very tender circumstance at this time. If the Government were to become obsessed with the deficit- and a great many economists agree with this-and try to reduce the deficit at this time, it could plunge the economy back into recession.
A very fine balance has to be struck. I believe the Minister has done precisely the correct thing and has found the fine line and the balance that needed to be struck. He has increased the deficit above what would have been the case without the budget, that is true, and I believe it is also appropriate. He has not increased it dramatically; he has increased it in a way that will effectively deal with some of the more pressing problems that all of us have identified for him over the months we have been talking about economic issues. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that while the deficit is of concern, the Minister has taken the approach that is appropriate for these times and has put forward a plan which indicates a reduction in the deficit in a phased, gradual manner. I suggest that it will not disrupt the


economic growth and development that will come out of this period of great difficulty that we are now experiencing.
I also suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my assessment of the budget and the effects of the budget is not significantly different from that of the vast majority of the Members of this House. I base that assessment on my reading of the speeches given by Members of both Parties opposite. That reading indicates that they are grasping at straws to find areas of great criticism, except for certain Members of one Party who believe that if the Government did not increase the deficit by an additional $10 billion it was doing nothing and was showing no care. 1 disagree violently with that position because I do not think it is a rational criticism of the position of the Government.
Others have been very reluctant to come forward with hard criticisms of the policies. Yesterday afternoon I listened to speeches criticizing Government policies that have been in place for six months or a year. There was very little discussion on the new innovative, creative and effective policies put forward in the budget.
This is a budget debate, Mr. Speaker. If the motion put forward by the Minister is to the effect that the House confirm its confidence in the economic policy put forward by the Government in its budget, then why is it that the Opposition, which is trying to criticize Government policy, refuses to deal in any serious way with the measures put forward in that budget? The answer to that question is obviously because they have a difficult time finding anything with which to take issue and very few things to criticize.
That reaction in the House is simply an honest reflection of the reaction the Government is getting from other parts of the Canadian community. I refer to such organizations as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Organization of Small Business, and the United Way with regard to the charitable donation changes.
S)
The wide range of opinion in this country outside of this Chamber is that the budget is appropriate. It is a good budget. It is going to help us make progress in our fight towards economic recovery. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. Outside of this Chamber of criticism the public is saying that this budget is a good budget, the policy is a sound policy and economic recovery will be promoted by this budget, that job creation will be far ahead of what it would have been without this budget, that we are going to see progress in overcoming unemployment, that we are going to maintain our fight against inflation, that interest rates will be such that will stimulate economic growth, that we will be moving into renewed prosperity as a result of this budget.
The Opposition cannot find specific criticisms of this budget. They have to argue in generalities about policies which have been in place for a year or more. This indicates to me that not only do the Opposition honestly, in their heart of
The Budget-Mr. Evans
hearts, believe what I am saying today to be the case, but they are also smart enough to understand that the public is going to give them very little credence if they stand in the House and say something that is diametrically opposed to what is being said outside of this Chamber. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe we will see over the next week that this is one of the meekest budget debates by the Opposition we have seen for many years.
The Minister has brought forward a budget which brings forward necessary public works. It stimulates investment, which means growth will be stimulated. It has provided measures to expand the equity base of this economy, measures which are dramatically needed to remove businesses from their dependence on debt, which in turn will make them less susceptible to interest rate changes. The budget adds to the stimulus in the housing sector. It addresses direct job creation as well as improves on the training programs to provide jobs in the future for our young people. It provides many new incentives for research and development which, in my particular area of the country, is terribly important. I am enthused and excited, and the people in my area in the high technology industry and in research and development are enthused and excited also, about what the Government did the other night in the budget. All of these things are going to mean economic growth, increased job creation and a reduction in unemployment, which is precisely what the people as well as the Opposition have been calling for for some time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for bringing down a very good budget, one appropriate for the times, one which is going to do the job. In the last few minutes I have heard Hon. Members opposite commenting across the floor. There is a ten-minute question period and I welcome their questions at this time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I do not often engage in the question period but I could not help but feel, as I listened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), that he displayed a remarkable ignorance about what is happening across the country.
I readily admit that there are features in the budget which will benefit Ottawa. But Ottawa is not necessarily a reflection of what is happening across the country. I say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre that there is a desperate need for some of the people behind the scenes who are promoting this kind of budget to get their backsides out of Ottawa for awhile and find out what is happening in western Canada, in eastern Canada and in the rest of central Canada.
However, let me be specific. The Hon. Member recognizes that one of the problems this country does not face is a lack of productive capacity. Therefore, what possible purpose is there in providing incentives to create additional productive capacity?


The Budget-Mr. Evans
The second question is, given that there was a clear lack of consumer confidence and therefore lack of consumer purchasing, what measure in the budget addressed that question other than for the select few individuals who happen to have RHOSPs and who are now to be enticed to purchase furniture rather than houses?
The final question concerns a very narrow area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member recognizes that several other Hon. Members stood to be recognized. I ask him if he would wait for a second turn for other questions.


Ian Deans: One final question. Recognizing that the major problem now confronting the majority of people in Canada is the threat of unemployment or unemployment itself, and that this budget speaks about increasing-certainly holding the line if not increasing-the numbers of unemployed while recognizing there will be fewer jobs between now and 1986, how in heaven's name does this budget begin to meet employment, overcapacity and lack of stimulus for the consuming part of the economy?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there is so much misunderstanding in those three questions and in the previous statements that it almost boggles one's mind to respond. There is excess capacity, Mr. Speaker. Much of it is redundant, much of it is not productive capacity in the sense it is world productivity. As a result, some of that capacity will never come back onstream but will be replaced with new, innovative, creative types of productive capacity.


Ian Deans: Permanent unemployment, right?


John Leslie Evans: That is why we put investment incentives in place, to encourage industry to bring on that new creative capacity which makes us competitive in world markets and enables us to create jobs.
With regard to the other point about there being less jobs by 1986 than there are now, if the Hon. Member would read the statement the forecast indicates that there are going to be 600,000 more jobs in 1984 than there were in 1982. The numbers the Hon. Member is using are typical of what we have had in the past from him and the NDP; they come right out of thin air. There will be job creation, Mr. Speaker, as a result of investment in new, effective plant and equipment, research and development, and new technology.
If we are not world competitive, then we are going back to the cave, which I think is precisely where Members of the NDP would like to see us go. We could all be out there with our stone hoes, digging our row to plant corn and grinding it by hand. In that way we would be employed full-time, doing things which are the next best thing to useless. This country has too much potential to fall for that kind of claptrap from the NDP.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A year ago the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) was running around the country telling us how tremendous the budget of November 12, 1981 was. He is now telling us how tremendous this budget is. He will recall
that the growth rates shown in the 1981 budget were in the 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent range for the 1980s. The current forecast, now that we are well into a depression, is at 4.4 per cent, 5 per cent and so on. The Hon. Member says that is not even optimistic enough. Where in the budget is the thrust that will push this country in the 1980s to growth of 4 per cent or 5 per cent in real terms? Where are his grounds for optimism?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Hon. Member has again done what the Conservative Party tends to do in this debate, going back two years and looking at a budget back there and saying: "See what happened back there? Look at those figures back there." I know the Hon. Member agrees with me because I know him well; we are on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs together. I have heard him speak and we have talked about these matters. The investment incentives are there, Mr. Speaker. Investment means growth, new jobs, competitive industry in world markets, higher profits for industry and higher wages for workers. That is where the growth is going to come from and if the Hon. Member was on this side of the House and he was able to talk honestly about this budget, he would be saying much the same as I am today. It is a darn good budget and the Minister should be commended for bringing it down.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and I cannot believe some of the things he is saying. I want to ask him a question because he seems to have what he thinks is a grasp of the economy of Canada. I would encourage him and some of his colleagues to go out and have a look at other parts of Canada in the weeks ahead and see how people are reacting to the budget. I had a phone call last night from a miner who has been laid off work for 14 months. That means he has been on welfare for the past two months. The company he worked for feels it is not in their interest to participate in the NEED Program or the bringing program under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, for a variety of reasons. This individual had noticed that the newspaper headlines were that this is a good budget for business. He said he is not a business person, he is a steel worker, and was there anything in the budget which should make him optimistic that he will be able to save his home in the next few weeks? Is there anything that he can be hopeful about in terms of a job? I want to remind the Hon. Member: fourteen months out of work.


John Leslie Evans: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because I think the problem the Hon. Member has raised is precisely the one this budget was designed to deal with. If it is not profitable for that business to continue to employ people, it will not do so. To be profitable there has to be new investment, and it has to be world competitive. It seems to me that it is time we stopped pointing fingers at one another and saying "if it is good for business, it is bad for labour; if it is good for labour, it is bad for business". Let us start asking the question: What is good for Canada? What is good for Canada is something which will generate growth, because growth is shared between owners and workers. Let us stop condemning one side or the other; it is


time we sat down together and said that if we can make it better for industry, it is going to be better for workers. That is how jobs are created. That is how wages go up.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In other words, there is no hope for this man.


John Leslie Evans: When businesses are in place which are competitive throughout the world, they can sell their product and generate profits-which is not a dirty word, by the way- which leads to new investment and new jobs. That is how we respond and that is how I would respond to that individual.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He will be happy with that response. He will lose his house as a result of that response.


John Leslie Evans: I will guarantee that the specific measures in this budget are going to put that man back to work in a stable, long-term, and productive job which will allow him not only to keep his house but obtain the things he wants for himself and his family.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat alarmed at the statement by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that people in Canada have a different view about the budget than Members of the Opposition. In other words, we are diametrically opposed, to use his exact words, to people across Canada. I would suggest the Hon. Member read some of today's papers and what some leading economists have to say about our short-term pain for perhaps long-term pain. Not gain, but pain.
How does the Hon. Member explain the fact that the consumer will receive tax benefits this year of $75 million but over the next four years there will be annual increases in consumer tax payments; that in one year alone there will be an increase in income tax payments of $1.91 billion?
The same thing applies to the corporate sector, where both consumers and business will be paying over $5.7 billion for this $4.8 billion which the Government is handing out in year one. How does the Hon. Member explain the parallel that he drew in his speech concerning Japan, which gives incentives to consumers to buy and more purchasing power and gives businesses more tax advantage over a long period of time?
This Government, with all due respect, has given consumers a bouquet in year one of $75 million in income tax savings, but is adding in up to just short of $2 billion in income tax taken from the backs of consumers. In other words, the cost of the programs is being paid by less disposable income on the part of the consumers.
Concerning the fiscal report presented in the House, I refer the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to page 27, personal income tax taken by Government at source from the consumers.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I really have a difficult time seeing where the Hon. Member is going with his questions and what his problem is. Does he really believe that if the Government is to put into place those kinds of incentives for people to save, to
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
put their money productively into industry, to make the country more competitive, to create those jobs, that the Government will be able to do that out of thin air? That money must come from somewhere. Would the Hon. Member like us to increase the deficit? If there are to be additional taxes, where would they be placed? Would the Hon. Member place them on tax investment? When the Government is trying to put incentives into place to encourage investment, it does not tax it at the same time.
Hon. Members opposite and on this side have been saying that we must have more equity investment. We must have more incentives for that kind of thing. If the Government is to give incentives-in other words, reduce taxation on investment-then there is only one place it can increase the taxation, and that is on consumption.
A great many Hon. Members have been saying that we should be taxing consumption more heavily and investment less heavily. Perhaps that was one of the problems we ran into during the 1970s, that by taxing investment more and more heavily we had progressively less job creation during the latter part of the 1970s and a progressively increasing unemployment rate.
I am suggesting to the Hon. Member that the Minister has taken the right tack. He said that we will take some of that burden off the investment side. We will encourage Canadians to save and invest and we will pay for it by placing slightly higher taxation on consumption, for instance, of cigarettes and alcohol, the 1 per cent; but that does not come into effect until next year. However, there are also other measures, such as freezing indexation of certain kinds of measures within the Income Tax Act. Certainly I agree with every one of those and I will stand up and defend them on any forum with the Hon. Member, any day of the week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in the speech of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) we heard evidence of the great shell game concerning the budget. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the budget, which originally claimed to direct $4.6 billion into "job creation", which we then found out became $4.8 billion in job creation-$200 million for the job of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)-is a great shell game. The fact is that the budget takes $5.72 billion out of the economy and puts $4.8 billion back into the economy, and the difference is the cost of administration by the Government of Canada.
The philosophy of Government Members is that they really know better than the ordinary consumer, the ordinary Canadian, how to spend his money, how to create employment and the rest. What they believe is that money should be taken from the country and come into this great bowl of Ottawa, that it should be spent by Ottawa, and that they should somehow direct where employment is to go, and how the money is spent.


John Leslie Evans: That's not true.


The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is a socialist philosophy, a bureaucratic philosophy, the philosophy supported by Hon. Members like the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


John Leslie Evans: That is not true and you know it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Government does not believe in the enterprise system. The Government believes in the direction of tax money, where it can put it. In the total term, there is no advantage in this budget to employment, to job creation or anything else. The Government has decided that it can best direct the economy and that it can do it better than the ordinary citizen who works, saves and creates. It has decided that it will take $5.72 billion out of the economy, maybe put $4.8 into the economy, keep the rest in its pocket and then wonder about the pocket.
When one considers what it forecast in deficits, it becomes unbelievable. When the Government took office, the statement for March 31, 1980 indicated a net Government debt of $68.5 billion. By March 31, at the end of this current fiscal year, the net debt of the Government is forecast to be $146.8 billion. In other words, during the life of this Parliament so far, the Government has come very close to doubling the net national debt. I say "net national debt" because it has nothing to do with the monstrous expenditures, the massive losses, which have taken place in Crown corporations. It has nothing to do with the guarantees which the Government has so freely given to the Export Development Corporation, to Canadair, to de Havilland, to people in other countries around the world, guarantees which the Auditor General himself has said should be treated as liabilities of the Government of Canada and part of our net debt.
The fact is that when the Government of Canada spends $3, it borrows or creates $1 in deficit. Indeed, this year it is forecast that for every $3 spent by the Government, more than $1 will be either borrowed or put on the cuff against future pension obligations or something of that nature. The Government cannot go on in this way. We all know that there is really no free lunch. However, the concept presented by our $200 million Minister of Finance is that there must somehow be a free lunch, that the Government can somehow spend $3 for every $2 it takes in taxes. That philosophy cannot continue to exist.
At the present time the Government is spending nearly one-third of the tax dollars it takes in just to cover interest on the debt. That situation does not improve despite massively overoptimistic projections for growth for the country. Let me refer to those massive overestimates of growth for a moment. The Government has suggested that this year there will be a growth of 2.3 per cent in real GNP improvement. I hope it is right, but where is the evidence to show such growth in GNP in real terms? Then it somehow goes on to say that in the year 1984 there will be a 5.2 per cent increase in real GNP. This country has not had 5 per cent growth since the 1950s, yet the Liberals say that somehow we are going to have this kind of growth in 1984.
The Government goes on to 1985, 1986 and 1987 forecasting growth of 4.4 per cent. I hope the Government is right. But these growth projections are so unrealistically high as to cause one to doubt every single figure in the budget presentation made the other night. They are growth projection figures beyond what we accomplished in any group of years during the 1960s or 1970s. To suggest that we are going to have, coming out of this depression almost like a rocket being shot from a missile launcher, the growth projections which the Liberals have suggested is, in my view, overly optimistic. I hope very much that the Liberals are right. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the country that these projections are not realistic. They are likely to create, and have created to people looking at the budget at first glance, some optimistic feelings, unfortunately overoptimistic.
If you compare that growth projection to what the Government says are its projections in terms of deficit, you find not only are we going to have, in accordance with the Government's projections, massive growth in economic activity, but also that that growth is not going to be reflected in a reduction of the deficit. The Liberals say that even with this massive, and I say unrealistic, growth projection, our deficit will not come below $25 billion in the foreseeable future. In other words, as far as the eye can see this Government will continue to go to the country to borrow and borrow and borrow, notwithstanding the fact that if the Government's projections of growth are correct we should be in boom times.
There is something radically wrong with a Government that on the one hand says we are going to have boom times, tremendous growth, 5 per cent, 4.4 per cent year after year after year, yet our borrowing will remain in the range of twenty billions of dollars. Our deficit will always be over $25 billion. There is something wrong, something structurally wrong, with what we are doing in the management of this country.
If there is any criticism, the greatest criticism of this budget is that it does nothing to attack the basic structural problems facing the country. We cannot go on forever thinking that somehow there is a free lunch out there, that no matter how good things are or how bad things are, all we need to do is borrow some more against the future. We know in running our households that that does not work. We know from our own personal experience that that does not work. There is nothing magic about it. Somewhere along the line you go broke because you cannot for ever continue to have financial requirements, even on this Government's projections of 6.9 per cent, 5.9 per cent, 4.9 per cent and so on of the GNP, borrowed against the future.
If we have the growth which the Government forecasts, we are going to have to expect that a great deal of the savings of Canadians will be poured into the business sector. Yet where are the savings to finance business growth and Government deficit growth? There are not those savings available, Mr. Speaker. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have tax credits and so on for investment in equity-and we need it- and at the same time expect there to be money around to


finance massive Government deficits, without creating a horrible crowding out in the marketplace.
I do not think that crowding out will take place this year. The business sector is so down and so depressed that the Government probably can borrow the money to carry it this year. But if there is the kind of growth which the Government anticipates, the kind of revival in employment which the Government thinks it would like to see, I say to you, sir, that you cannot have these kinds of deficits and expect that to take place without forcing interest rates to the moon again and squeezing out any possibility of new employment.
The budget projections, the budget statements, the budget provisions, are provisions that make very little sense on close examination. They are provisions made by a Minister of Finance for a Government desperate to hang on to power. They are provisions made by a Minister of Finance who is a buffoon, a Minister of Finance who cares little about what he says. His projections are invariably wrong, in many cases incompetently wrong. But more than that the Minister is an actor. He likes to be before the television cameras flipping pages. He is a show off. He likes to talk about his mistakes, somehow doing something for Canadians by increasing the debt of the country by $200 million.
1 see that my time is moving along so I will get to some of the things that we would have done. First, we commend the Government for taking a look at the investment plan that will somehow, as suggested by the Lortie Commission, eliminate or index capital gains on listed stocks. The problem with the plan, however, is that it does not really get at what we need to get at. All Members will know that the vast majority of job creation takes place in the private sector by small business, closely held family businesses and that type of thing. The Lortie Commission provisions are great for the stock brokers, great for the guys with the big companies, but that is not where job creation and employment exists. Those provisions for eliminating or indexing capital gains with respect to investment in business ought to extend to small business, to those who will create the real jobs in the 1980s.
I say to the Government that this is a first step, but it has to be a bigger step than what the Government is prepared to take. We have to go all the way. We have to eliminate, or at least index, capital gains on business investment so that we can get small business, medium business and businesses that are not listed on the stock exchanges-most business are not-back building, getting capital and getting people working again.
Second, had we had the opportunity to present a budget, we would have presented a budget which would have directed tax credits not to losses that took place some time ago or may take place in the future, but to employment tax credits. We would have paid people a tax credit on the basis of hiring more people this year than they hired last year. The real problem is getting people back to work again. We would have directed what little money is available there-and we do not think there is enough-toward getting people back to work again.
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
Third, we would have expected the Minister of Finance, knowing the horrendous complications under the Income Tax Act, the Customs Tariff Act and the rest, to say that he would immediately start work on a method of simplifying them. If the insurance industry can simplify its insurance policies, surely to goodness the Government of Canada can simplify its taxation statutes. It is not a difficult problem but it would save all sorts of overhead in Canada. People ought to be able to figure out easily what are their taxes themselves. The present tax Acts are so complicated that another industry in the country has been created, that is, the tax avoidance and tax consulting industry, which is not very productive. I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre agrees with me on that.
Fourth, with respect to charities, we would not have been the type of Government that this Government is. It takes away the $ 100 charitable deduction without receipts, but it does not do anything for the voluntary sector which creates employment. Later in this debate my colleagues will be speaking about that. We would have accepted the recommendation of charitable organizations across Canada of a 50/50 tax plan which would have given tax credits for charitable donations. While it would have eliminated the automatic deduction, it would have given charities the proper kind of financing they deserve. The voluntary sector creates enormous numbers of jobs. To penalize that sector as this budget really does is totally improper.
Fifth, we would have done something with respect to the absolutely stupid measures contained in Bill C-139. Those measures did great damage to Canada. I am speaking of the way insurance and annuity investments and savings were attacked, the concept of taxing income on an accrual basis rather than on a received basis. The present capital cost allowance measure allows only half capital costs in the first year. We think that is anti-productive. We are pleased that the Government accepted our suggestion of a productivity council. If it really wanted to do something, it would ensure that those who invest take advantage of tax credits and have capital cost allowances which make it possible to pay for the investments.
Sixth, we would have done something with respect to the national energy policy. We are not at all impressed with falling oil prices at the continuance of payments of PIP grants. We think the Government could have eliminated those types of grants and at the same time eliminated the taxes used to support them so that the industry would have its own money to do its own development without the interference of the bureaucracy at Dow's Lake. Let us free that industry. Let us take off the ties and the restrictions. Let us remove the bureaucrats and take away the forms. Let us get at it and make the oil and gas industry produce again. My colleagues will also speak on that later in the debate.
Seventh, there are a number of things I could say, but most important is that the Government's expenditure plan shows no element of restraint at all. It is spend more, spend more and spend more. I point out that this is the first time in Canadian history that we have finally broken the $100 billion mark.


The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
Perhaps that puts us among the big nations of the world, but on a national accounts basis spending this year by the Government will be in excess of $100 billion. Somewhere along the line there is room for paring down, priorizing and reducing Government expenditures, overlapping and waste.
If there is anything the Government must do, it must come to grips with its spending, with its bureaucracy, with its size and with its total control of the country. It must be reduced. It must take a slimming lesson.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) concerning what his Party would do if it were in office. From a rough calculation of what he said, I totalled up somewhere in the range of $4 billion to $5 billion of either revenue loss or expenditures. Given his parting comments, which were a plea for a reduction in the size of Government and its expenditures, could the Hon. Member tell us how he would reduce Government expenditures and at the same time increase the revenue loss or expenditure outlay by $5 billion? If he would not increase the deficit, how precisely would he pay for these suggestions?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, all of us are around the City of Ottawa, we see the size of Government offices and Government activity. All of us know by taking a look at various Government departments that indeed the only federal Government department this year which keeps within the six and five guidelines is Parliament Hill. The expenditures of the rest of the Government departments are increasing at 9 per cent, 10 per cent and 12 per cent. Indeed, on average expenditures of Government have increased by 12 per cent this year.
If the Government kept within its own six and five guidelines, it would have on a national accounts basis $6 billion. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre really believe that the Government should be paying for insulation programs? Does he really believe that the Government should be paying for the conversion of oil furnaces to gas furnaces when energy prices and energy supply situations have dramatically changed in Canada? He could go through one program after another. Does he really think that we need CBC-2? Does he really think that we need all the foreign aid expenditures we have had? Does he really think all these are absolutely necessary? Does he put those ahead of making jobs available for Canadians? I ask him those questions.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. Is the Hon. Member saying that, by staying within the six and five program, the Government would suddenly generate $6 billion? Can he tell me how he would cut back on transfers to people, which comprise 50 per cent of total federal expenditures? He talked about cutting the Public Service and that by doing so somehow we would generate $6 billion. That is absolute nonsense. That would mean that the wages and salaries of the entire federal Government make up its entire budget. If we cut the entire Public Service to zero, we would save about $10 billion out of the entire budget. In that event there would be no Public Service.


Mr. Gauthier:: There would be nothing.


John Leslie Evans: That is right, there would be nothing. From where will this mythical $6 billion as a result of staying within the six and five come? Would he cut back on Old Age Security? Would he cut back on pensions? Would he cut back on transfers to the Provinces for medicare, education and other items?
Let us get down to brass tacks. Given that we have a deficit and debt, that there is interest on that debt and that we have to pay that interest, how would he suggest we hold the interest payments on the debt to 6 per cent?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is not very difficult when we are required to keep expenditures down to the six and five level-and the Government is great at boasting about this-to eliminate or reduce expenses by taking away from programs sufficient amounts to keep within the six and five. There is no reason the Government cannot do that.
If we take a look at employment increases and salary increases by the Government where it moves people from one grade to another, the Hon. Member knows that the expenditures of the Department of Finance for people are up 20 per cent. There is no evidence of any control over the massive growth of Government. It continues to take and grow and grow. By its own figures in the budget, according to the Government, it grew last year at the rate of only 16.8 per cent. It says that this year six and five means 12.5 per cent and that somehow it can be kept down to 5.8 per cent next year. If the Government can do it next year at 5.8 per cent, why cannot the Government do it this year?


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn). Not long ago, following a speech by the Hon. Member, I spoke in the House about the state of the Government's deficit, and I said there was no reason to be overanxious about what is referred to as the national debt, since most of the money borrowed by the Canadian Government is borrowed from Canadians. This is not a national debt contracted abroad but within the country, a reallocation or redistribution, as it were, of funds among the people of this country, to prevent serious social problems, and so forth. The Hon. Member sent me a letter in which he stated very clearly: there is a point here I would like to clarify, namely that the provincial debt is mostly contracted abroad. I agree, but I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in my speech, I was not referring to loans contracted by the provinces but to the federal deficit and to loans contracted by the Canadian Government.
The second point which seemed rather interesting-I have been unable to get the exact figures and I wonder whether the Hon. Member has them-could he tell me what percentage of loans for the year 1982-83 were contracted by the Government


abroad as compared to the loans contracted by the Canadian Government here in Canada with Canadian banks or through Canada Savings Bonds.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that figure at hand for the Hon. Member. I believe 1 have it in the office. I will send it to him. It is my perception that the Government of Canada this year was generally able to borrow about 95 per cent of its money in Canadian funds. It did not have to rely on foreign fund borrowing.
I want to point to the Hon. Member that a good part of the Government's borrowing is in Treasury bills and bonds. Two things happen. These bonds are borrowed in Canadian-paid denominations. That does not mean they are held by Canadians living in Canada, or for that matter held by Canadians at all. A great many of those investments are held offshore. While the investments are denominated in Canadian dollars so that when the Government pays the debt off it pays it in Canadian dollars, it does not necessarily pay those Canadian dollars to Canadians in Canada. It pays them to holders of the bonds.
If the Hon. Member will recall the debate with respect to the Income Tax Act, we brought forward to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) evidence of companies incorporated in the Bahamas and in the Cayman Islands. The whole purpose is to buy Canadian securities offshore. The reason is that under our Income Tax Act those who hold our securities pay no income tax on the interest. They get the interest in their pocket tax-free because there is no withholding tax on Canadian Government securities held offshore.
The consequence is that it is very difficult to say how much of our debt is held offshore and how much is held domestically. It is quite true that Canada Savings Bonds are largely held domestically, but when you get into the traded bonds and Treasury bills, you find that a great deal of those are held offshore. Second, you find that a great deal of those Treasury bills are held by banks and others who in our Canadian banking system have been bringing offshore money into Canada as opposed to taking Canadian savings out of Canada. The consequence is that they are borrowing foreign savings to buy Canadian securities in Canada.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has more or less confirmed what has always been my impression, and that is that most of the money borrowed by the Canadian Government is borrowed from Canadians. Although the banks may have assets offshore or bring offshore money into the country, the Bank Act regulates this area very well. In fact, this is what I was saying the other day, Mr. Speaker, that first of all, the debt being incurred and funded by the country is for long-term investment, in other words, when a house is built, it is not just for one generation but for two or three generations. Even if the Government gives $3,000 to build a house, it is an investment. Even if it has to borrow to be able to give those $3,000, the
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
investment is subsequently paid back. The same applies to all infrastructures. This is a young country and a vast one, and I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that by borrowing $31 billion this year from the Canadian people, we are, as it were, taking the money out of the pockets of Canadians and investing it in long-term projects including construction of harbour or railway facilities and industrial development, all of which are assets that will last for generations and will also generate considerable social benefits, by keeping people employed who would normally have trouble working in our economic system and by preventing very serious social problems from developing. Through the principle of sharing and equalization, we, as a society, are able to acquire the facilities we need and that would cost even more if they were built later on. I am glad that the Hon. Member pointed this out, because it shows how well the monetary structure of this country was put together in years gone by, and how impregnable it is to any control from offshore by a handful of individuals, whether they are Canadians or not. Which proves that our banking and financial structure is such that the Canadian Government is able to meet the needs of Canadians from its own Canadian resources, and I would say that this is similar to what the Americans had in mind with the New Deal and what they themselves want to do today, and we are now busy reaching the same goal. We have some difficult years behind us, but we made sure that Canadians had a roof over their heads, medical care and enough to eat, and that they can get help from the Government if they are in need. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that we should stop being defeatist and stop scaring Canadians. I hope that in future speeches, the Hon. Member will stop making Canadians think Canada is getting into debt when it borrows from Canadians. That is not the case at all. When Canada borrows from Canadians it is using its borrowing authority to allocate the money to Canadian projects and Canadian construction and to the development of Canadian capital projects.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have never believed that you can borrow yourself rich. I do not believe you can print yourself rich. If the Hon. Member would look at the total collections for personal income tax, he would find that the total is very close to the anticipated total borrowing. If he thinks that is just a redistribution, perhaps we should be redistributing by doubling income tax in this country. Perhaps that is how the redistribution should take place. If he somehow thinks you can borrow and borrow, have free lunch after free lunch, and that it does not matter because you owe it to yourself, he should think again about his own family savings and see whether he honestly believes that that is possible.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, this budget debate is taking place against a background of increasingly promising elements in our economy, indeed against a background of gratifying economic recovery. One need only


The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
consider some of the leading economic indicators to realize the truth of that welcome trend.
Inflation, for example, has been significantly reduced during the past year. The general economic upturn in the United States and in other countries has contributed substantially, but a major factor here at home has been the significant reduction in our own rate of inflation. The Government's successful "six and five" program has contributed in a major way to bring our inflation under control. I have been particularly encouraged by the magnitude and speed of the decline in our inflation rate. It is expected by some expert observers to drop to 5 per cent by the middle of this year. In short, Canadian consumers can now put aside some of their concerns over the constantly rising prices of the past years and spend with more confidence in support of the economic recovery now under way.
Additionally, Canada's inflation rate is coming into line with those of other industrialized countries, particularly our major trading partner, the United States. That will allow our industry to be more competitive internationally. Reducing the rate of inflation will also help to ensure that the Canadian dollar will not be under pressure on foreign exchange markets and will afford the Bank of Canada a greater opportunity for matching whatever declines take place in short-term interest rates in the United States.
Interest rates in Canada are down significantly. The commercial bank prime rate is currently 11 per cent, the lowest level in more than four years. The current stabilization of international oil prices will also contribute to the reduction in inflationary pressures. One might also note, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) did in his statement on Tuesday evening that, both industrial production and housing starts in Canada are up markedly over the past year.
All this indicates that business and consumer confidence is on the upswing. As we have already seen from business and stock market reaction, the budget will strengthen that confidence.
It would be naive, however, to assume that our economic recovery is now guaranteed. Employment has started to grow again, but unemployment remains high, especially among young people, and will decline but slowly over the years immediately ahead.
As the Minister pointed out in his statement, the creation of jobs is the first priority for this Government. In recognition of the fact that although inflation and interest rates have sharply declined, unemployment remains high, the Government has designed both private and public sector programs that will create thousands of additional jobs for Canadians, a topic to which I shall return in a moment.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance stated that his budget had two central objectives:
The first is to make sure that recent stirrings of growth pervade the whole economy as quickly as possible. The second is to make the recovery a durable one by beginning immediately to create the conditions required for sustained growth
and development during the rest of the eighties. Underlying these goals is the Government's determination to ensure that Canadians are provided with the jobs they need-good jobs, permanent jobs, satisfying and well-paid jobs.
To achieve our broad goal or making economic recovery permanent, the balance sheets of Canadian companies must be improved so as to enable them to make the significant investment in the new capital equipment necessary to improve our lagging productive performance. There is no other way to ensure our international competitiveness.
With one-third of our prosperity-one-third of our Gross National Product-dependent on our export trade, we must put ourselves now in the position of being able to compete effectively around the world. There is no other long-term answer to the high level of unemployment. Without measures to ensure our medium and long-term competitiveness, there will not be enough jobs for all Canadians. Unquestionably, increased productivity is the only real answer both to inflation and to unemployment.
Accordingly, a wide range of initiatives-capital projects, tax incentives, research and development measures, support for industrial training programs-have been included in the budget. They will not only create jobs but will also help to ensure our permanent recovery and economic growth through a greater ability to compete internationally.
Needless to say, our major trading competitors will at the same time seek to increase their ability to compete internationally. Most of our trade competitors have already recognized that it is a mistake to believe that productivity gains mean unemployment, that in fact, as they know, it is only steady productivity gains which can sustain the growth of employment.
The budget provides a basis for sound future growth based on urgently needed improved productivity. The projects initiated by the Government to help directly in the promotion of greater productivity and international competitiveness will for example, be enhanced by the tax incentives that encourage more investment in new plant and new equipment. Equally, productivity will improve as a result of the additional measures to assist in the training of better management and a more skilled work force. Generally, these and other factors making for greater productivity are best identified on an industry-byindustry basis. They will, however, be possible to realize only if all three major players in our economy, governments, labour and business, agree on what has to be done.
Accordingly, I join many Canadians in their gratification at the degree to which the Minister of Finance in the pre-budget period consulted with business, provincial Governments and labour on the measures that could be included in the budget to increase our productivity and international competitiveness.
In this connection, the Minister of Finance, in his statement, said:
Our collective search for the means to improve Canada's productivity performance will be complex and difficult. Success will not come overnight. Neither business nor labour will get very far without the co-operation of the other.


The Minister added:
-we should acknowledge that businesses do not invest in more efficient and costcutting equipment just to throw people out of work ... Labour, business and Government must co-operate to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the Canadian economy. This is the key to higher wages and better profits. More importantly, it is the best way, in the long run, to provide Canadians with the jobs they need.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, the Government's proposal in the budget to create a national centre for productivity is an important step in providing one major place where business, governments and labour can sit down together, distant from the immediate concerns of collective bargaining, and review and agree upon the fundamental or structural issues that confront us when we evaluate our future ability to compete internationally. Much more needs to be done to improve our productivity, but a promising start can be made not only by the budget's fiscal initiatives to improve productivity, but by the creation of the new business-labour centre for productivity.
The Government's plans for economic recovery place a high priority on technology, including yet more support for research and development. As we move farther into the era of high technology, it is imperative that we in Canada increase our research and development. That is why the Government in its budget announced a number of important additional measures to supplement those that already exist for the support of science and technology, measures that represent a public expense all the more necessary in a country with such massive foreign investment.
The Capital Projects Program contains major new technology-related investments. For example, research and training facilities critical for the mastering of new technologies will receive more funding and there will be accelerated procurement by Government of high technology products.
Over the next two years, the Government will undertake other new technology policy initiatives. The Minister responsible for economic development will soon provide additional information about those proposals intended to enhance the effectiveness of current research and development tax incentives, especially the ability of Canadian companies to benefit from them by making them simpler, more accessible and more effective. The paper on research and development policy which accompanies the budget suggests that while current tax incentives compare favourably with those of other countries, new measures remain necessary to increase the ability of firms to use them and to provide avenues for technology companies to attract more outside financing.
To take full advantage of technological advances and to help improve our international competitiveness, Canada increasingly needs well trained workers. Workers in the high technology era will from time to time have to acquire new skills. The Government recognizes that important and fundamental fact in the future health of Canadian industry. With the comprehensive National Training Act of last year, the Government had already acted to make available training initiatives more responsive to our future requirements. The budget adds to
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
those initiatives by making them yet more effective. More funds are being provided this year and next for programs to ensure that Canadians have the skills needed to take advantage of employment opportunities that will contribute to economic growth during the current decade. This will bring to a total of some $1.2 billion the funds allocated for skills development. Over 250,000 Canadians, half of them young people, will benefit this year alone from federal support for training and retraining programs.
Since incentives for more private investment and job creation in the private sector hold the key to our economic future, another major aspect of this realistic budget which will contribute to our greater productivity and international competitiveness is support for an improved industrial infrastructure. Financing of new capital projects is intended to improve necessary public facilities which directly support improved private sector performance. Firms will soon receive orders for a wide range of goods and services necessary to ensure that improved infrastructure.
Other incentives in the budget which will be available to the private sector include the refundable investment tax credit. This will accelerate private investment by enabling corporations to obtain more immediate benefits from the investment tax credits now available and earned on new investment, thus making the investment tax credit program yet more effective. The measure will be of particular importance to those small Canadian firms which will not generate sufficient profit in the early years of operation to be able to claim their investment tax credit fully. Now the tax credit will provide them with extra support during the critical early years of development, those fragile years before they cross the threshold to selfsustaining growth. By refunding a portion of the credit in a cash grant in the same year in which the investment is made the measure will improve the cash flow to small Canadian corporations and lower the cost of their investment.
The share purchase tax credit, the plan originally set forth in the Lortie Commission report, will assist corporations to raise badly needed equity to help finance new investment. The measure will facilitate the financing of investment during the immediate recovery period and will assist corporations to undertake new investments and attracting capital needed to strengthen balance sheets and ultimately to contribute to the circumstances necessary to bring more Canadians back to work. This measure will permit corporations to use tax credits earned on new investment to attract purchasers of new common equity, a fundamental difficulty in the business community in recent years.
Reference has been made to measures in the immediate period of recovery. I want to emphasize the importance of strengthening private investment during the times immediately ahead. To that end, the Government is committing some $300 million in the next two years to the Special Recovery Fund. That fund alone will help the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) to use additional financial resources with a speed and flexibility that has been unavailable before.


The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
Provisions in the budget provide for improvements in the ways that business can benefit from tax carry forwards and tax loss carry backs. At the present time, we have a system where business losses can be carried back for one year and forward for five years to reduce the impact of income tax. Under the new provisions, those periods will be extended backwards for three years and forward for seven years. This measure alone will enable firms to benefit more from existing tax revisions contributing an estimated improvement of some $270 million this year to their cash flow.
These factors which I have noted are illustrative of the degree to which the Govenrment is committed to ensuring that the private sector can play its full part in the economic recovery now under way. The private sector, especially the small business sector is the principal generator of jobs. The measures that I have touched upon and a large number of other budget measures are intended to ensure that the private sector can play its full and essential role.
The budget has demonstrated the Government's commitment to ensure that the recovery takes hold permanently, that jobs are created quickly and that Canada increases its productivity and international competitiveness as the sure means of providing full employment and prosperity in the future. Accordingly, the budget contains a variety of measures to improve our growth prospects by strengthening the current difficult financial position of companies and by supporting the technological advances necessary for Canadians to compete successfully in the world. The budget embodies the national drive for higher productivity, the only sure way as I have said to provide a lasting answer to the problems of both inflation and unemployment. The co-operation which business, labour and government achieved during the preparation of the budget must continue. That is essential if we are to meet the tough, competitive challenge of the 1980s and for the economy to provide the jobs that Canadians need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers or comments.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about the purpose of the budget being for recovery to take hold and unemployment to be reduced quickly. As I look at the unemployment forecast contained in the budget, I see nothing there to reconcile that statement. For example, according to the Minister's forecast contained in the budget we will have more people unemployed at the end of 1985, which is supposedly well into recovery, than were unemployed at the end of 1982, which was the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. The figures at the end of 1982 are 1.317 million unemployed, and according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at the end of 1985 we will have 1.347 million unemployed.
Therefore, where can the Hon. Member draw from the budget the fact that it is designed to reduce unemployment
quickly and to make sure that recovery takes hold permanently?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, as you noted, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is not the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). And equally, I did not say that the purpose of the budget is merely to reduce unemployment in the short run. There can of course be palliative measures. There are in fact measures intended to reduce unemployment in the short run. I can tell the Hon. Member where he will find in the budget these measures set out in greater detail. Equally in the budget, however, there are measures of the longer-term character, some of which I touched on this morning, intended to render Canada more internationally competitive and to ensure that permanent employment is thereby created and to a degree which will meet the increasing number of workers who are coming on to the job market. In the short run-during the period over the next two years-the estimated number of additional new jobs is some
600,000.	They will in part result from the measures which the Government has designated special recovery measures; but increasingly, as the budget incentives for the private sector take hold, we shall find that the jobs are created by the private sector. This, I am sure the Hon. Member opposite will agree, is the only permanent answer to the unemployment problems facing Canada today.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I was quite concerned when I saw the extension in the budget of the Canadian Ownership Special Charge which is put on gasoline in order to acquire these great assets such as British Petroleum and Petro-Canada. I was even more alarmed to discover that the charge extended over the next three years in the budget will total over $3.3 billion, which will be taken from the pockets of consumers at the gas pumps.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), who has been a former Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister of Energy, if it is possible that the Government is considering using some of this $3.3 billion to get into Canagrex should such a Bill be passed?


Roy MacLaren: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not, as I understand it, in any way the intention. It is a suggestion which perhaps does not do justice to the intelligence of the Hon. Member opposite. However, be that as it may, the ownership charge which is to be continued will be recalled by the Hon. Member opposite as financing a greater degree of Canadiani-zation of our petroleum industry. That charge assisted in the acquisition by Petro-Canada of the total assets of Petrofina and more recently the downstream assets of BP in Canada.
I cannot speak for the Government, not being a Minister as the Hon. Member opposite described me, but I speak rather as a Private Member who assumes that the intention to continue that charge should be seen within the broad purpose of increasing Canadian investment in our petroleum industry, whether through the vehicle of Petro-Canada or through additional measures to promote private Canadian investment.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that 40 per cent of the 1.5 million people who are unemployed are the unemployed youth, given the fact that 300,000 or 400,000 young people in the next few weeks will have completed their university or high school year and will be looking for work, and given the fact that last summer a very high percentage of the students did not get work, which had a very adverse effect on their continuing education, would the Hon. Member indicate to me if he has any figures on the percentage of university and high school students who will be looking for work and will not find work this summer; and will he indicate why the Government has not taken steps to put them to work rather than forcing them to be unemployed for the rest of the summer?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Summer Canada Program has in fact been greatly expanded. The announcements made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) the other day would, I believe, answer in part the question put by the Hon. Member opposite, who evidently is unaware of those initiatives. In addition, with regard to the inability of students to earn the necessary funds by summer employment to assist them in their further education, there is provision in the budget for improvements in the Students Loans Program of the federal Government as well as the continuing grants to universities. There is also provision for increased support for unemployed youth.
Finally, as I mentioned during my statement, there is additional support for training and retraining to supplement that which is already available. As I mentioned, over 250,000 people, half of them young people, will benefit from that program alone during the course of this year.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with a point in the statement of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North that we really have to rely on investment in the private sector if we are going to turn our economy around. Does the Hon. Member not feel it might be more advantageous to consider doing away with that $3.5 billion tax at the gas pumps which is there so that the Government can intervene more in the marketplace by the acquisition of private companies? Would it not be better if that $3.5 billion tax which is now in the budget was not there so that the money could be left in the hands of consumers rather than turning it over to the Government? Does the Hon. Member not agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is the way to turn the economy around? We should not give more money to the Government to spend, but rather we should rely on the private sector to turn the economy around.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that theoretically, if one had the assurance that equivalent funds would in fact be invested by the private sector in such a way as to enhance Canadian participation in the petroleum industry, one could forgo that tax. The problem in the past, however, has been that in an industry dominated by foreign multinational corporations, there has been a limited opportunity to do this. The opportunity for investment by Canadians has gradually grown but not at a sufficient rate for junior Canadian companies to expand substantially and more generally for the Canadian
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
people, whether through private or public sector vehicles, to take a greater part in their own petroleum industry. I am satisfied that the charge is indeed necessary to do just that, to assist the private Canadian investor, and indeed the Canadian people generally, through the national oil corporation, Petro-Canada, financed in part by the charge, to have a greater opportunity to participate.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question which relates to the issue of youth unemployment. The Hon. Member just a few moments ago referred to the Youth Internship Program, or the training program, and the Wage Subsidy Program which totals some $95 millon over the next two years. The fact of the matter is that we have some 500,000 young Canadians who will be leaving school this year, within the next couple of months, looking for their first fulltime job. If you spread that $95 million over just those
500,000,	it works out to something like $190 apiece. How can the Hon. Member say we can really expect much improvement in youth unemployment with that kind of figure?


Roy MacLaren: I do not recall saying that, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member opposite wants to come to my constituency office on a Saturday morning, he, too, would realize the degree to which youth unemployment is a major problem. I do not belittle that problem. What I do say is that the Government is acting to address that profoundly disturbing social and economic problem partly through short-term and partly through long-term measures.
The Hon. Member refers to one of several short-term initiatives which the Government has taken to reduce youth unemployment. There will be youth unemployment this summer. It will continue at a high level. The Government does not have the capability-how could we-of guaranteeing every youth a job this summer. What we are attempting to do is alleviate some of the worst difficulties involved, to help channel young people into the more promising areas of the economy, to assist with training in both the short and longer term.
There are specific measures into which I could go in some detail, but I believe that the Hon. Member opposite recognizes at least some. He has mentioned one. They can bring real relief to youth unemployment; but over the longer run the only real answer is the restoration of a dynamic private sector economy, both in Canada and abroad, so as to provide jobs for all those who seek them.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up and speak on this budget. When I hear the speech of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) I was reminded of Little Red Ridinghood. If the wolf were at the door I think the Liberals would give Little Red Ridinghood a grant if she cried out, or a tax credit over four years. Worse still, after much consultation with the wolf community, the Government would give the wolf a grant so it could be more efficient.


The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
We are in a terrible work crisis in Canada. We have a budget which literally does nothing. It certainly does not keep the wolf from the door. It is a Conservative budget.


Albert Glen Cooper: Shame.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I should tell the Hon. Member before he leaves that it is a Conservative budget because it is a stand-pat budget. It does not really do anything. It basically favours big business and that is it. Forget small business, the consumer, youth, women, the poor and students. Forget them. It helps only a certain group in society.
My friends to my right say that it is not a Conservative budget. A few minutes ago the Premier of Ontario, Bill Davis, said how much he thought this was a good budget. He liked it. He is a Liberal, I am told by one of my colleagues. We do not know that, but we do know that 1983 opened with a plea from the Catholic Bishops that the Government give priority to the real victims of the recession, the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor and so on. The Bishops called for primary emphasis to be given to fighting unemployment, which then stood at 1.5 million. Instead, this budget we have today predicts-this is not socialist rhetoric or made-up figures, the figures are from the budget papers themselves-an unemployment rate of 1,495,000 Canadians unemployed this year with no real hope of finding a job and no alternative income except welfare. That is what this budget is about, Mr. Speaker.
I want to deal with some myths of this budget. One of them is that this is a recovery budget. We have heard the Government side say this is a recovery budget. Some recovery budget! The budget says-not my rhetoric or what we say, but the budget itself-that fewer people will be working than in 1982. In other words, fewer people will be working in 1983 than were working in 1982. There will be .6 per cent decline. The budget also says that 12.4 per cent will be unemployed. Then there will be a slight decline after that to 11.4 per cent.
Now, what disturbs me about this is not only the high level of unemployment-some recovery when you are going to have 12 per cent unemployment-but we are beginning to accept, if you notice, a high level of unemployment as a permanent level, something we are going to live with. Well, we cannot live with that. Not only will it kill our young people, it will literally create a generation of zombies out there. Not only that, it will bankrupt the Treasury, the UIC and our welfare system. The UI program cannot live with that, it was not created for that. The Provinces will go bankrupt because of welfare. We cannot live with this high level of unemployment and we should not accept it.
What does the budget say? We are on the way to recovery. I just did a tour of southwestern Ontario; Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Welland, Thorold, Hamilton, Windsor and so on. I have looked for this recovery. I went back to my riding at Easter, my colleagues went to their ridings. Have you seen this recovery, Mr. Speaker? Can you find it? I have looked for it everywhere, and I am looking under chairs now for this recovery. Where is it? It is supposed to be around the corner,
say the Liberals. There is a recovery for a few bankers and a few people who play the stock market. Old so-called economists like the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) find a recovery, but let me tell the Member who is yelling at me that for the average person in this country there is no recovery now.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The major premise of this budget is that we will just wait and see and we will go on with the American recovery. That is what the budget papers say; we are going to wait for Ronald Reagan. We have not seen any recovery yet.
The budget's second myth is that we are going to have job creation. If you look at it, the budget gives $4.8 billion for job creation, but that is over four years. The Minister neglected to emphasize that in his speech. It will be over four years. New job creation money for next year will amount only to $440 million. We are paying out something over $12 billion a year in Unemployment Insurance and we have no real job creation measures in this budget.
There is a third myth in this budget. In fact, the Minister has very little room to manoeuvre because he has this large deficit to deal with. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we could put people back to work through federal and provincial programs, we could generate more revenue and get people off Unemployment Insurance and welfare. That would cause the deficit to go down. There is no danger of interest rates going up because there is lots of money out there. Businesses are not borrowing money to expand. That is the fact of the matter. It has been said by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and by Dominion Securities in Toronto that businesses are not going out to borrow. So I am saying there is nothing to stop the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) from bringing in a massive stimulative budget, and he could have done that had he accepted that unemployment was the major problem in the country.
There is a fourth myth, which I want to deal with after one o'clock, about how ordinary people are not going to pay as much in taxes. In fact they are going to pay a lot more in taxes, but I will deal with that after lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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.

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a


vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mark Rose, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Mission-Port Moody, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral district.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the week of May 15 to 23, 1983, is National Physical Activity Week.
Over 15,000 schools and more than 1,000 communities have decided to take part. In total, close to ten million Canadians are expected to run, swim, walk, cycle, or generally participate in this celebration of physical fitness.
It gives me particular pleasure to state that National Physical Activity Week stands as a shining example of a monumental co-operative effort. As the lead organization, Fitness Canada has worked diligently over the past two years with both provincial and municipal Governments, with leaders of Canada's prominent health and Fitness organizations and our national voluntary organizations to create what is to be an annual event.
National Physical Activity Week will allow Canadians time to express our pride as Canadians in the nation's growing awareness of the benefits of physical activity.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the budget announced on Tuesday night was a cruel hoax on the unemployed. With two million Canadians out of work, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) promised jobs to 600,000 over two years, with nothing for the other 1.5 million. A few of the thousands of young people looking for jobs are promised consultation and training, not jobs, with the Minister destroying their hopes by saying "youth unemployment rates are expected to remain high".
The budget stated nothing about extending UIC payments to the thousands of unemployed whose UIC benefits have run out. The Government is content to let the unemployed suffer on welfare because welfare is cheaper, but there is one exception. The Minister of Finance looks after his own job. Yes, $200 million is provided to ensure that the Minister of Finance keeps his job in spite of the leak of information which benefited the wealthy, and for which any responsible Minister would resign. It is treated as a joke by the Minister and the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Minister blunders, and then the people of Canada are punished and must pay interest on $200 million for years to come.
Yes, the Minister looks after himself. He has no credibility, no accountability, no integrity, no honour. He charges his blunder to the people, and the Minister laughingly, and the Prime Minister arrogantly, continue to live high on the hog while the rank and file of the people just pay and pay.
How much longer can Canadians stand this Government which thrives on trickery and lies?



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, today I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the St. Louis Blues will be moving to Saskatoon. The bad news is that there is a threat that the National Film Library in Saskatoon will be moving out to Regina. At this particular time I would like to protest to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), in the loudest form possible, that this should not take place. The National Film Board has an office in Saskatoon, as in many other cities, Hamilton being an example where the same threat is being made.
In Saskatoon the two school districts, the University of Saskatchewan, the public libraries, and, in particular, the senior citizens, have been using this facility over the years. A senior citizens' home which I know has just bought a new 16-millimetre projector to use the films.
People in Saskatoon are mad about this. People in northern Saskatchewan are mad about this. Regina cannot handle this kind of a job. The Province is too big to have films distributed from that place alone.
Therefore, I would suggest that the savings which would seem to result because of this facility being moved would not compensate for the loss, and I ask that the facility stay in Saskatoon. The harm done would be too great to make up for the small amount of money which would be saved. I again ask the Minister of Communications to reconsider the whole problem and allow the National Film Board to keep its office in Saskatoon.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, is currently negotiating


joint ventures with international groups in order to promote economic development and social welfare in underdeveloped countries. One such venture focuses on the need for upgrading training for nurses in Pakistan. This project by CIDA is being carried out in conjunction with the Aga Khan Foundation. The project is an extremely useful one and is a departure from what has been the general practice in Canada's development assistance.
Instead of having the teaching staff from Canada sent to developing nations, the University of Karachi is planning to send some 50 nurse-tutors to Canada to upgrade their qualifications and teaching skills, utilizing the excellent facilities at McMaster University in Hamilton. The details of this trendsetting program are in the process of being worked out, and a contract will soon be signed.
My concern is based on past experience involving medical personnel who have come to this country for training. Quite often these skilled people decide to remain in industrialized, developed countries instead of returning to their homelands where their skills are desperately needed. I hope that an understanding will be reached and enforced for such programs for foreign graduates, to ensure that these skilled professionals return to their countries of origin so that they will be able to help their fellow countrymen, rather than remain in the more developed nations.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a serious problem concerning the hiring practices for lifeguards in Prince Edward Island's National Park by Parks Canada Officials.
The 1983 competition for surfguards at the National Park resulted in a situation where many previously employed, trained and qualified surfguards from P.E.I. scored poorly in a ratings interview by two Parks Canada employees. Eight qualified, experienced applicants from P.E.I. were not offered positions. These applicants were previously employed with the P.E.I. Parks System and had from two to seven years' experience.
In the past, at the end of the season, each lifeguard would be appraised and, on the appraisal, the supervisor would add comments whether or not this person would be recommended for employment again. In the past, these appraisals have been used as a factor in rehiring.
A number of questions require answers. Why were these appraisal sheets, used in previous years, not used this year? Why would these qualified people, with their past experience, suddenly receive such a poor rating, in an interview? Why would people from outside the Province be hired when qualified people are available on the Island?
The P.E.I. National Park Surfguard Service has the best reputation in Canada and a perfect record of never having had a drowning within a supervised area since its inception in 1949. This record is thanks to our qualified, experienced lifeguards.
Why has the method of hiring changed at the P.E.I. National Park when the system has proven to work so well?
I would suggest that the Minister take a serious interest in this matter and take immediate steps to rectify this situation.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, today the local CBC morning radio show, "CBO Morning", contained an interview with a Mr. Mac McDonald of the Canadian Heart Foundation. Mr. McDonald ended the interview with the casual comment, "And by the way, I was told about these changes in the budget (that affect the voluntary sector, and charitable donations) before the budget was brought down." To this, the interviewer replied, "Oh, another budget leak, eh?" Mr. McDonald answered, "Yes."
Granted that the concept of honour means something different to the upper echelons of the Liberal Party than to the rest of the western world, and granted, even, the Minister's feelings about budget secrecy being unnecessary, which would have carried much more weight if he had revealed them before being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, it seems to me that this revelation seriously changes the nature of the budget leak issue. No longer is it possible to consider the leak as being an accident. Now it can only be seen as one of two things, either a deliberate attempt to flout parliamentary traditions, or the exhausted stumblings of a Party and a Government weary unto death. Neither explanation brings much credit to the Government.




Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, far be it from me to complain on partisan grounds, but I cannot help but observe that in his recent budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has sunk to a new low, even for the Liberal Party.
In order to gloss over the past mistakes of his Government he now proposes to undertake major new expenditures, but in order to pay for this largesse he proposes a $2 billion special recovery tax that will not come into effect until October 1, 1984.
The new principle is presumably, "Spend now and let the next Government pay for our mistakes." Or, in other words,


"Let the Liberal Party go out in a blaze of spending and let the Conservatives, who will form the next Government, pick up the pieces." I am sure that the Canadian public will recognize this subterfuge for the dastardly trick it is and, at the first available opportunity, make known its displeasure at the polls.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, by his indifference to the needs of the Conne River Indian people, has forced them to take the drastic action of occupying the office of the Newfoundland Minister of Rural Development. Last spring the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said he would ensure that funds voted for the Indian people of Newfoundland would reach the Conne River people without unacceptable conditions being imposed by the Newfoundland Government. This spring the Minister has completely caved in to the Newfoundland Government and reneged on his earlier commitments. The conditions set by the Newfoundland Government for the receipt of funds would prejudice the Conne River court case against the federal Government. I now hear that a representative of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development helped the Newfoundland Government to draft those unacceptable preconditions.
This backroom dealing, which ignores the urgent needs of the Conne River people, must stop. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must meet immediately with the Conne River people and the Government of Newfoundland to ensure that the funds voted by Parliament reach the people they were intended to help.
The Cabinet must act immediately to register the Conne River people so that they can get the rights that are due to them as to other Indian people of Canada, as is only fair.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Some time ago, Madam Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) a question about the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan. I had received many representations from builders in my riding, from people directly or indirectly involved in that field
who wanted the Canadian Government to know that this plan, under which $3,000 grants are made available to people who want to buy a new house or have a new one built, had gained wide acceptance and made it possible to boost appreciably the number of housing starts and to provide additional work for construction workers. Here is a typical example: on my own street, Madam Speaker, four new houses were under construction not so long ago. I am pleased to be able to say to my constituents today that the Minister of Finance did listen to my representations. An additional amount of $30 million has been earmarked for that plan, which will spur construction until the month of May. I also believe that this plan offers great opportunities in all ridings, yours included, Madam Speaker, I am sure of that. 1 even see that my friend from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) fully agrees with me and is certainly proud of the plan. The Minister of Finance listened and paid attention to our representations about this plan, and I am quite pleased about that.



NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, let me bring to the attention of the House of Commons the plight of a resident of Halifax West who was robbed of his job because of an employment fraud being perpetrated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne).
This person was employed at a National Defence installation and was laid off March 25, 1983, after being given one week's notice. The purpose of the lay-off was to allow the Department of National Defence to hire additional employees pursuant to the NEED Program. This employment fraud is being perpetrated so that the Government can pretend to be hiring 3,000 employees while, in fact, it is dismissing over 1,000 employees from their jobs that have existed over a three-year period.
If we allow this sort of fraud to be perpetrated in the name of job creation, we will be destroying the faith of thousands of Canadians not only in the Government of Canada but in the Parliament of Canada. I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of National Defence to stop this Program right now and preserve the jobs of the people who have been faithful employees for the Government over a three-year period.


Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. He has said that more than 100 projects have been selected for the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program and that "earth will be moved, steel will be rigged and concrete will be poured" this spring or early summer. Would the Minister tell Canadians what projects have been selected and where they will be built? Can he please tell unemployed Canadians when and where they might look for work?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Madam Speaker. We will be very happy to proceed with the announcement of these various projects in the next very short while. The Minister responsible for economic development is in charge of that particular program. He is in the process of proceeding to the ultimate consultations and discussions with the Departments concerned. As soon as the announcements are ready to be made, I am sure the Minister will be very happy to announce those projects as they are being processed.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why wait for spring? Do it now.


TIMING OF APPROVAL FOR PROJECTS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. I asked him the question because we cannot find much evidence that such a list is actually in existence. There has certainly been no consultation with the Provinces about projects of this magnitude. We would like the Minister to produce this list of projects that he says have been selected and are in the advanced planning stage. We want him to announce now where they are, so that we can put Canadians back to work.
The Minister also said in his budget that there would be no red tape and no delays in initiating the capital projects because they are being put on a "fast track". Yet the Minister's own budget papers state that projects will be physically under way within six months of approval, that is, as late as October, and will be only 60 per cent completed in two years.
How many of those projects have actually been approved and we can expect to be in place in six months, and what does the Minister plan on doing with the 110,000 unemployed Canadians who could be working on those projects between now and October?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have said that 70 per cent, not 60 per cent, of the money provided for those projects would be expended in the next two years. Again, the Minister responsible for economic development is going to be in a position to speak on this subject, I hope in the course of next week, to give more details as to how
the program will be implemented and proceed to the announcement of projects that can be started in very shortly. As I said, as soon as he can do it, having finished his consultations he will be able to announce those programs and will be able to ensure they are begun on time, on schedule, and are proceeded with very expeditiously. I can assure the Hon. Member that I have personally seen the list that is being considered. I hope that the Minister will be able to proceed with the official announcements very, very shortly.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Table it.


NEED PROGRAM-DELAY IN CREATION OF JOBS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. We are having an awful lot of trouble, as we have explained in this House, trying to cope with the changing numbers the Minister keeps giving us. I would refer him to page 7 of his own budget papers for the 60 per cent figure that I used.
This Government's track record in fast tracking is not impressive if you look at programs like the NEED Program. Last October the NEED Program was announced as an urgent plan to spend $500 million to create 60,000 jobs. Yet the budget papers show that, by the end of the fiscal year, NEED has spent only $30 million, that is only 6 per cent of the total, to create about 6,000 jobs. With that kind of record, what faith can unemployed Canadians have that the Government can deliver all these promised jobs? Again, I submit that the Minister has not told us when he is going to put those 110,000 people to work in the next few months.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member complained in her question that we had not consulted the provinces. One of the reasons why the implementation of the NEED Program was delayed for some time was the need to consult the provinces, and I am thinking especially of my own province, Quebec. We had to wait many weeks before getting some answers from the provincial Government, and even afterwards the Quebec Government changed its mind concerning the eligibility of municipalities to this most worthwhile program. This caused certain delays in the implementation of the NEED Program.
As for the programs announced in my budget, in general, they come exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government. In certain cases, the programs call for the involvement of some provinces, but on the whole, the amounts to be spent come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and will not be affected by delays such as those feared by the Hon. Member.
In addition, my budget speech underlined the fact that the Government has created a task force of public servants and a special committee responsible for ensuring that there is no


undue delay in carrying out these projects. We intend to see to it that these projects are implemented as quickly as possible to reduce unemployment in every Canadian province.


USE OF CANADIAN OWNERSHIP CHARGE-INQUIRY RESPECTING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The budget papers indicated as well that some $170 million will be allocated under the Capital Projects Fund for resource development. Can the Minister of Finance identify in more detail what kinds of projects will be eligible under the particular section of the Capital Projects Recovery Program?
Also the Minister will be aware, having regard to the fact that he saw Fit to exend the Canadian Ownership Charge, that some $3.4 billion will be generated in that fund over the course of the next three years or so. Will the Minister indicate how he plans to use that money? Will it be used to assist in Canadian-izing the energy sector from a private sector point of view, or will it be used as a slush fund to nationalize further the energy industry of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if I may begin by answering the last part of the question, I can tell the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada is not considering any further acquisitions in the oil and gas sector. Indeed, the funds will be used to improve and expand the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in the private sector, we hope.
The first part of his question concerned projects having to do with the resource industries. The Minister of State for Economic Development is in charge of that program and intends to make announcements in the next few weeks in that regard. I urge my hon. friend to show a little patience. The Minister is finalizing consideration of these projects and should be in a position to make announcements over the course of the next month as they are processed through the system which has been established to speed up consideration of the projects.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am surprised the Minister has not yet decided what sort of guidelines will apply. In reply to a question to his colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development was not able to enlighten us with respect to that matter yesterday either.


REQUEST FOR REVITALIZATION OF ENERGY MEGAPROJECTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, having regard to the fact that the Minister found some $200 million Monday evening to add to his budget and that this $200 million is being allocated to the Capital Projects Recovery Program, have those funds been allocated as yet? If not, when will they be? I suggest to the Minister that he might consider using those funds to revitalize some of the energy projects which were shelved as a result of the National Energy
Oral Questions
Program and his Government's disastrous economic policies. These megaprojects could be undertaken immediately to provide long-term meaningful jobs in the immediate term.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I have already had discussions with representatives of the oil and gas industry since my budget. I can report to him that those representatives have spoken in extremely positive terms about the measures contained in the budget, in particular the measure which will allow companies not to pay the PGRT, the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax payout, until they have recovered the cost of their investment. It will be a very significant element in the launching of a number of projects during the course of next year.
I have had discussions as recently as this morning with a representative of a major company who said that he was once again taking into active consideration a number of projects which he had in mind. They may not be necessarily of the style of huge megaprojects about which they were talking a few years ago, but I remind my hon. friend that all over the world the oil and gas industry has been reconsidering huge megaprojects and is now addressing the issue by trying to stage its expenditures in a more gradual and less concentrated way. This reaction is quite encouraging and quite positive. I am confident that we will see renewed activity and announcements-as a matter of fact very shortly-in this particular regard concerning at least one or two projects.
My friend has the habit of asking two questions at the same time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The $200 million.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the $200 million is concerned, I suggest that that sum will be allocated to capital expenditures coming under the authority of the federal Government, projects which Departments had been planning for later this decade that can be advanced. As a matter of fact there are several hundreds of millions of dollars of proposed expenditures by Departments which I had to postpone because we came to the conclusion that we should be spending about $4.6 billion under the recovery program. Our plan was to spend between $4.5 billion and $5 billion under the recovery program. Having added $200 million to the program, this will allow us to speed up a number of expenditures which are quite worth-while and useful in terms of national interest. Again it will mean more Canadians are being put to work in the course of the next two years.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and


Oral Questions
Immigration. The Minister acknowledged in the House yesterday that the money included in the budget with reference to direct job-creation programs will create employment for fewer than one-sixteenth of the approximate two million men and women who are out of work in Canada right now. Outside the House he admitted that he included among these jobs the raking of leaves for one week. When the Government is so willing to do so little for the one out of sixteen people who will get a job, what is the Minister saying to the more than one million Canadians who will not benefit at all from any of these programs?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party for the opportunity to correct what was a very blatant misrepresentation in a story which has appeared. At no time did I ever say that. In fact that was a question posed by the particular reporter, which 1 rejected out of hand. I pointed out that in fact the job-creation programs which we put into place were designed to work in particular with communities and municipalities which wanted to start major projects of sewage or community services. A large proportion of the uptake in the NEED Program is by private sector firms which are modernizing their plant, extending their facilities, and therefore creating the foundation for long-term permanent jobs.
We are saying that the direct employment program over the next two years will provide over 300,000 jobs with the money provided by the Minister of Finance. The funds are to be used for bridging and transition programs to help those people most severely in need, while the private economy, being stimulated through the budget, will provide the longer-term work.
We have always said that the job problem is not subject to one simple solution, although the New Democratic Party seems to believe that. It must be attacked in a comprehensive manner with a wide variety of strategies, each trying to pinpoint and target a different set of needs. That is the kind of strategy we are adopting. It is a realistic one, not a rhetorical one.


John Edward Broadbent: The realistic one does include, in the Minister's own words, creating jobs. On the average these jobs, as a result of these programs, last only two months. Including what he said today, the average percentage affected, the number affected, still comes to about one-sixteenth of the total in terms of aid.


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a related question on the matter of the need for more short term jobs. We learned recently that the Government is prepared to consider using
taxpayers' money to bail out the Canadair Corporation to the extent of $2.3 billion. In the budget, in the two programs that involve direct job creation, the Government is prepared to allocate less than one half of that, namely $1 billion. Does the Minister really think that allocating $1 billion, less than one half of the Canadair total, to all of the other companies in all of the other parts of Canada for job creation, really meets the human and economic need of the country at this time?


Hon.   Marc@: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a figure for Canadair that I have not seen. That is not being considered by me at the present time.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FUNDS TO CREATE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, who is just five or six seats to the left of the Minister, referred to the serious situation faced by Canadair recently and acknowledged that the Government had before it a comprehensive set of figures that we would love to see publicly released. I know the Minister is always a little late with his figures. The rest of us have seen the figure of over $2 billion. That aside, I will ask the Minister this question.
Last fall, speaking at his Party's convention, the Prime Minister said that all across this land of ours there are roads to be built, sewers to be constructed, and municipal facilities of kinds which are needed, and rather than people collecting welfare or Unemployment Insurance, they should be put to work doing these things. I ask the Minister of Finance why, in heaven's name, given the human need for people to get satisfaction from working, the Government is not allocating more money to put more Canadians back to work on the kinds of projects his own Prime Minister suggested a few months ago.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party alleged that the Government was ready to pour $2.3 billion into Canadair. I told him I had never seen that figure or seen such a recommendation. This is what I told him. I remind him that thousands of Canadian workers are involved. This is not some place on another planet. It is in Canada. They are members of unions which, I am sure, my hon. friend would like to see kept at work. We are talking about actual jobs and actual Canadians in an industry that is important for Canada. I am surprised that my hon. friend seems to be so indifferent to that.
Leaving that aside, as far as the Government is concerned, we are indeed supportive of all of this. The fact is, under the NEED program, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated, we are putting in additional funds. We are spending in the course of this current fiscal year $900 million more in direct job creation over last year. Canada will have the largest direct employment program in its history in 1983-84. Third, a number of Provinces are going ahead with their own programs of stimulation in terms of capital investment similar to what the federal Government announced on Tuesday. Some have already announced programs. I said I was hopeful that


more Provinces would do the same. We indeed will have Canadians working in this country, building all the types of projects to which the Hon. Member has referred.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I have a question, surprisingly enough, for the Minister of Finance. In Tuesday night's budget the Minister quite correctly put great emphasis on job creation by both Government and private enterprise. At the same time, it is a known fact that many chartered banks in Canada have been refusing to provide project financing for small and mediumsized manufacturers. This has meant that these manufacturers could not pay for labour and material to fill a contract or order. Will the Minister of Finance take up this issue with the chartered banks? Second, what solution does the Minister have to overcome this serious difficulty which, if resolved, would go a long way to help provide more jobs and, indeed, more job security in the private sector?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would indeed by very pleased to raise the question of my hon. friend with the Canadian Bankers' Association. I will ask the Superintendent of Banks to pursue this matter as well.
I can tell my hon. friend that I had a conversation this morning with a representative of the Canadian Bankers' Association in which we discussed the general implications of the budget.
As far as the Canadian economy is concerned, I indicated that I expect the banking system in Canada to be very supportive of the thrust of the budget. I am quite encouraged by developments which have taken place recently, particularly the fact that the banks reduced their prime rate by half a point in the last few days. I hope that in the weeks to come, thanks to the greater confidence as a result of the recovery that is taking place, we will see further progress in terms of interest rates. The developments that have taken place recently have been very encouraging. It is up to all Canadians to ensure that this happens even more in the future.


THE BUDGET
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the budget the Minister predicts that record high unemployment will continue through 1983 and 1984. Many of the 2 million unemployed will exhaust their Unemployment Insurance benefits in the near future. However, at the same time the
Oral Questions
Minister is predicting an increase in consumer spending. Will the Finance Minister agree that consumer confidence will only return to Canada when Canadians see fewer and fewer of their friends and relatives unemployed?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker, and that is exactly what is going to happen in the next two years. More and more Canadians will have jobs. I said that by the end of next year, 600,000 more Canadians will be working, compared to what the situation was at the end of 1982.1 also pointed out that between now and 1984, there will be a gradual drop in the number of unemployed Canadians. There will be a net increase of 600,000 workers in Canada over the next two years, which is nearly the total number of workers in a city such as Toronto. This is a very substantial increase in employment, and I think that the general reaction of the market since yesterday is a clear indication that Canadians have more confidence in the future then the Hon. Member seems to have.
[English)


EFFECT OF INCREASED CONSUMER TAXES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, it is difficult for Canadians to square those figures of high unemployment with the figures that the Minister is now predicting. The Minister is increasing taxes on consumers to the tune of $5.7 billion over the next four years. With so many Canadians concerned about surviving and about high unemployment, with these increased consumer taxes how does the Minister expect Canadians to run out and buy a new fridge or stove and thus fulfil his pipedream of increased consumer spending?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member quite simply that Canadians will indeed do well to incur those expenses now or at least between now and October 1984, since the manufacturer's tax does not become effective until October 1984. I have also pointed out that as far as, for instance, household appliances or furnishings are concerned, Canadians who have a Registered Homeownership Savings Plan may use the funds in such plans for the purchase of many appliances and furnishings they need.
I hope this will encourage them to make use of this program and that they will purchase products made in Canada. I hope that Canadian workers will take advantage of this extremely attractive measure provided in the budget, which is, in fact, a very substantial tax benefit for Canadians.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON VOLUNTARY SECTOR
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Would he


Oral Questions
explain to the House why his budget ignored the contribution of Canada's voluntary sector to his projected recovery of the Canadian economy? More specifically, would the Minister indicate why he has rejected the representations of his colleague, the Secretary of State, and the face to face recommendations of the national voluntary organizations, by specifically ignoring the "give and take" tax proposals, the charitable activity definition, and the cost effectiveness which has been shown in job creation in the voluntary sector?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Government has a great deal of confidence in the voluntary sector and recognizes and acknowledges its major role in our society.
Like hundreds of organizations, the voluntary sector made a number of representations and recommendations. There were two major recommendations made by the voluntary sector. One was to do away with the $100 automatic exemption without receipts; the other was the one to which the Hon. Member refers. I have accepted the first recommendation made by the voluntary organizations. That is a .500 batting average which I would submit, is pretty good and compares very favourably with the recommendations made by any other sector.
When I met with representatives from the voluntary sector, I indicated to them that there would be difficulty in implementing all their recommendations. They said, "We will accept a first step if we cannot get everything." They are very happy about the steps that I have taken, very happy indeed.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance is not speaking to the same representatives from the voluntary agencies of Canada with whom I speak-they feel very let down. Their proposals to the Minister included only one side. Their proposals specifically indicated that only if there was an incentive would they agree to the deduction.


INQUIRY RESPECTING TASK FORCE
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State in this National Volunteer Week tell the voluntary sector of Canada, over three million Canadians, why his long-planned and awaited task force on the fiscal and legal situation of Canada's voluntary sector has not been included in the budget? We had all expected that it would be. Will he tell the House if he did recommend to the Minister of Finance that the removal of the $100 deduction should be done without the "give-and-take" tax credit proposal?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I heard the Finance Minister's reply to the question and I should point out to the Hon. Member's attention that his proposal has not met as much objection as is suggested. Indeed one of the campaign officials of one of the most important organizations
in the sector, that is the United Way, stated yesterday and I quote:

Next year, without the automatic deduction, maybe they will be giving the hundred bucks to charity to get the deduction that way.

There is no doubt that national organizations will have every opportunity to conduct their regular canvassing to increase their share of income from that source. Our surveys show that 43 per cent of charitable or voluntary organizations' funds come from Canadian taxpayers' moneys and that approximately 22 per cent are provided for by the Government. Consequently, in the assessment of additional sources of financing, we wish to take into consideration the impact of the positive statement made this week by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech and I think that it is a step in the right direction with a view to revaluating how we may contribute additional funds to the financing of the voluntary sector in Canada.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Many Members attended a luncheon today sponsored by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The delegates are upset with the Minister of Transport's draft Bill to end the Crow rate but they are almost as greatly upset with his stated intention to use closure to ram the Bill through the House. Will the Minister take seriously the overwhelming representations against changing the Crow freight rate, and will he particularly consider eliminating the clause which permits railways to discriminate against certain farmers because of where they live? In other words, will he consider making sure that variable rates are not possible?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I also met with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other representatives from Saskatchewan this morning. I can assure you that any worry they may have about the second statement, about using closure, is totally unjustified and totally unfounded.
With respect to the other issues, we had a discussion and I asked them a number of questions, but there is nothing in particular on which to report. By the way, it was a private meeting and I do not think I should be asked to report on what took place in a private meeting.


VOLUME LIMITATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, this Government and this Minister have the power to end many things. We just saw the end of the Western Development Fund


in Tuesday's budget. Let us hope that the S4.8 million Special Recovery Program does not end the same way.
My supplementary question is for the Minister. That particular draft legislation includes a proposed cap of 31.1 million tonnes on the amount of grain that can be shipped at lower rates. This proposal is unfair, illogical and not in the best interests of Canada as a whole. Has the Minister considered throwing this clause away.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the volume limitation of 31.1 million tonnes is not one of my inventions. It was a recommendation made to Gilson during their meetings and was incorporated in the Gilson report. The reason for it is very simple. There is an amount of money that the federal Government is willing to put into this plan, and the shippers, the representatives of all the producers at the Gilson exercise, said to themselves, "Let us distribute that amount of money over a certain quantity of grain." That was recommended in the Gilson report, the implication being that production over and beyond that amount would be more profitable to farmers who already were receiving a contribution from the federal Government for the basic 31.1 million tonnes. This reasoning, I thought, was quite acceptable and quite plausible.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I have, this very moment, been handed information that confirms that Canadian Press has just transmitted through its national wire service a specific list of Special Recovery Projects to receive funding under the Minister's budget. That list apparently includes major funding for the Atlantic Regional Veterinary College to be located in my riding, a project that I have been pushing for many months, as well as references to certain other detailed projects concerning wharfs, Search and Rescue initiatives, et cetera.
My question to the Minister is this. Why a few moments ago in the House did he tell my colleague from Vancouver Centre that she and the House in general could not have such a list when evidently the media of Canada already have that list and presumably have been given it by the Minister himself? Or is this another $200 million budget leak?


Some Hon. Members:: Another leak.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the CP story but I have indicated to the House that indeed I have examined a list of projects. I have indicated that the Minister of State responsible for economic development was in the process of finalizing the consultations in this regard, and obviously many, many people in the Government of Canada are reviewing that particular list at the present time, but until announcements and decisions are made
Oral Questions
by the Minister of State for Economic Development, we are not in a position to make a formal announcement.
The Minister himself will make the announcement concerning related projects once he has finalized discussions with his officials. That is when the projects will be made public. I am not surprised that there may be a Canadian Press report, but as I have said, the Minister responsible for economic development will be the one to make the announcement in due time.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER POSSESSES LIST
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, this is the second time in a week that the Minister has made a major announcement about budgetary provisions through leaks. Would the Minister tell the House if he has such a detailed list of special projects which are to receive funding under the budget? If so, would he make that list available to the House rather than leaking it through the media, or being sloppy enough to have the media leak it for him?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot help it if any particular journalist gets any particular information at any particular time from any particular source. I have demonstrated that quite clearly in the last few days. I can add nothing to the answer I have given to the Hon. Member than what I have said before. The Minister who is responsible will made an announcement in due time.
Take your time, my friend, you will get all the good news, including that which might affect your riding.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the Minister confirmed that the Government intends to enroll 5,000 young Canadians into the Armed Forces for ten to 12 months as a measure to alleviate unemployment. The Opposition has been recommending for the past year an intake of 25,000 to 50,000. Can the Minister tell the House if this trivialization of our initiative satisfies the 108 Liberal backbenchers who petitioned him a couple of months ago to accept a plan similar to ours?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the caucus on this side of the House is very satisfied with the fact that DND has managed to get 5,000 extra men for the next year, and $75 million. I have to add what I said to the press yesterday, that is, that in addition to this $75 million, we have $25 million for civilian temporary employment; we have $16 million for cadets which will allow us to enroll this summer 8,215 more cadets. We also have the Extended Youth Training


Oral Questions
and Employment Program which is the one mentioned by the Hon. Member. There are in addition to the employment which will be provided through several projects which will be announced later by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State (Economic Development), as moneys are made available.


LAYING OFF OF TERM EMPLOYEES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: During the Minister's boasting yesterday he said that the forces would be hiring 15,000 to 16,000 people in a variety of jobs. At the same time the Department is laying off hundreds of term employees. Can the Minister deny that these recently laid-off term employees will be drawing unemployment insurance while their jobs will be taken by the new short-term employees, the whole exercise representing a gigantic scam on the unemployment insurance fund?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I have to deny very strongly the connection that the Hon. Member suggests between the employees that we have hired through the NEED program and the term employees referred to. The Hon. Member should know that every year on March 31 we have to end the contracts of some of our employees who are in fact term employees. That is normal practice and this does not affect any other employees who might be hired through the NEED program. I have the figures here, Madam Speaker. In March we had 4,232 term employees. The employees hired by the NEED program will be over and above the normal term employees that we have.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to you for permitting me to put a question or two this afternoon to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I suppose one could say that the discussion on the budget this week has not included very many references to veterans and their problems.
I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for some of the things he has done since he took on that job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am happy to say that in the past ten or 12 years we have made considerable improvements in legislation with respect to veterans and others, but this is a problem on which we must continue to work.
A few days ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare sent to all pensioners a printed document signed both by herself and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, telling the pensioners that there are many people who, in the last two or three years, have not received their benefits, and if they would
send their notices they might be able to get some of the benefits that are now available to them.
We regard it as very important to extend this effort, although we are glad about what has been done. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be able to indicate that he and others are prepared to do further things by newspapers, radio broadcasts and all the rest, to advise the thousands of widows, widowers, and dependent children of the things that are coming to them under veterans legislation.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, may I thank the Hon. Member for his question and preface my comments by saying, on behalf of all Members, how pleased we are to see the tremendous recovery in health of the Hon. Member and his active participation in the proceedings of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W. Bennett Campbell: The particular item to which the Hon. Member refers is the cheque stuffer which the Minister of National Health and Welfare agreed to include with the March cheques for Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement. This is a further attempt to contact widows who are entitled to receive proportionate pensions as a result of amendments to the Pension Act.
When the legislation was passed we anticipated that some 23,000 widows would become eligible for pension benefits. To date we have received and processed in excess of 17,000 applications. We have used every avenue available to us, through the Legion Magazine, veterans' publications, periodicals and the assistance of Members of Parliament. I can only suggest that if Hon. Members know of anyone who is a widow who may be entitled to benefits under the Proportionate Pension Program they urge that person to get in touch with the Department.


AGING VETERANS PROGRAM
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he is aware of the fact that in many sections these days there are efforts to do something to improve the position of aging veterans by establishing a program. This is very important to those concerned-the older people, the younger people, veterans' organizations, and Members of Parliament.
May I ask the Minister if he is making other efforts to improve on what has been done and to improve the position for all aging veterans?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, about 2 years ago we introduced the Aging Veterans Program which was deliberately geared to provide the necessary support services to enable veterans to continue living in their own homes and own communities as long as possible. This Program has gone through the pilot stages and it was provided to approximately 200 veterans who are disability


pension recipients. The Program is to be further expanded this year. 1 am pleased to report that over 1,000 veterans are now participating in the Aging Veterans Program. I intend to continue to expand that Program to other disability pensioners. We are in the process of examining ways and means whereby the Program could be extended to War Veterans Allowance recipients as well.


REMOVAL OF WOOD CARVINGS FROM OFFICE OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can shed any light on an unauthorized intrusion into the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in this building-my office lately-apparently by members of his Department. This has resulted in the removal of the wood carvings over the west and east entrances to the boardroom in my office, the one over the west door containing the words "Fear God", and the one over the east door "Honour the King". These wood carvings were apparently done during the time of the Liberal Prime Minister, the late Mackenzie King.
In view of the harmless and even commendable nature of those two sentiments, I wonder if the Minister can ascribe any reason, legitimate or otherwise, that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition should be subjected to such intrusion, surreptitiously, after dark, without any authority from me, without any knowledge by me or my staff, and without any request from me or my staff. Can he give us an explanation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the Hon. Member. Although I cannot join him in the melodrama of his question, I will ascertain the facts, which is what he must expect me to do. If the facts are accurate, I will try to find an explanation and I will report back to the House.


Erik Nielsen: I am not rising to make any attempt to be melodramatic. I must say that I am concerned about-


Miss Begin:: He should be concerning himself with unemployment and the economy.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Monique Bégin: We are concerned about unemployment and the economy.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, it is about time they got themselves concerned about the economy of this country. They have been sitting on their backsides for three years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen REQUEST FOR PRESERVATION OF MUNIMENTS


Erik Nielsen: I am concerned, Madam Speaker, about the retention of the heritage features of these buildings. The Minister knows that millions of dollars were spent in doing just that, on the East Block. Will he have his workmen restore those carvings to their original state so that the heritage features of this building are not mutilated and debased any further? And will he give me assurance at the same time that the other murals and carvings in those offices will not be tampered with in any way whatsoever?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in my efforts to preserve the heritage of these buildings. I only hope that the removal of objects was not done in search of some pseudo bugging equipment from some years ago.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Wednesday, April 20, met the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: I have a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, arising out of the Question Period. It has to do with the answers given to me by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) in connection with-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Hon. Members across the way make light of the fact that offices of Members of Parliament can be broken into without authority, without request, without knowledge, at any time by servants of the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. If that is not a continuation of Question Period, I do not know what is. We are on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question of privilege involves the unauthorized intrusion into my offices in this building by the employees of the Minister of Public Works. The offices of a Member of Parliament, Madam


Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Speaker-even if those Members over there do not know it- must be regarded as private and personal in light of the customs and traditions of this place. As far as I am concerned they are sacred as long as they are occupied by the Hon. Member occupying them at the moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The offices of the Leader of the Opposition fall within that category just as the offices of any Hon. Members of this House. The offices which are currently occupied by me as Leader of the Opposition were formerly occupied by a number of very distinguished Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member might have a grievance, but he must demonstrate to me very quickly how this affects his privilege. "Privilege" has a definition which the Hon. Member knows just as well as I do, and he cannot use a question of privilege in order to pursue a debate. Therefore, I warn him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: When will you find one?


Madam Speaker:: I do not know what this House has come to. I am only trying to be a Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, like you, I do not know what this House has come to when Hon. Members cannot rest secure in the thought that their offices are not going to be broken into.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the breaking and entering of an Hon. Member's office without his knowledge or the knowledge of any of his staff, and without any request to enter those offices from that Hon. Member or the members of his staff, surely must constitute a question of privilege, just as it did a while back in the case of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) when the Chair listened to that question of privilege when it was raised. If the Chair finds that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I will be moving an appropriate motion to refer the circumstances to the appropriate committee of the House.
The memorabilia in this place are part and parcel of the history of this country.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know what the Hon. Member is coming to, but I can see from the first sentence of his intervention that he wants to complain about the fact that his office has been broken into. This does not fall under the purview of a question of privilege. I can assure-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: -the Hon. Member that the whole matter will be investigated and I am sure that the Hon. Member will find satisfaction in the investigation which we run. We will
investigate the matter fully. However, that is not a question of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Absolutely not.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, since when-


Mr. Pinard:: Order. No questions of the Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: The Government House Leader is now the Speaker of this place. Since when, Madam Speaker-


Mr. Cosgrove:: Let's have some respect for the House.


Erik Nielsen: Since when, Madam Speaker, is the offence of break and enter, which is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, not a question of privilege? My offices have been broken into. There has been a trespass by the employees of the Minister of Public Works. That office has been defaced without my request, my permission, my authority and without my knowledge. Surely, in keeping with the precedent established by the Chair in the case of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) when her office was broken into, this must constitute a question of privilege. If the Speaker is telling me no, it does not, then no one in this place can rest secure that the premises which constitute their offices are not subject to the same kind of violation at any time by anyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: What I was advancing to the Chair is proof of the fact that they were broken into. They were broken into because those carvings above the doors in my boardroom were mutilated, defaced, removed. That, Madam Speaker, must surely constitute a question of privilege. If you find it does not, if you were to tell me, Madam Speaker, that it was done by your authority, that might constitute a different matter. I would have, of course, expected to have been consulted before any such authorization was made by the Chair, if in fact it was, but that would at least provide me with an explanation, which has not been advanced by the Minister of Public Works.
The sanctity of an Hon. Member's office must be regarded as just that, and I submit, as in the case of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, that an intrusion must constitute a question of privilege. If you so find, Madam Speaker, I would intend to move that the circumstances surrounding the trespassing, the break and entry, the invasion of my offices as a Member of Parliament, now the Leader of the Opposition, be referred to the appropriate standing committee of this House so that all of the circumstances can be investigated and a report made to you and to other Hon. Members of this House, who then might feel secure that their offices will not be invaded in a similar fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Obviously this has taken place without my knowledge as, it seems, without the knowledge of the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc).


Erik Nielsen: All the more privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the Hon. Member has been able to function in this House, as far as I can see, and therefore I do not see at this point where there is a privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Be reasonable!


Madam Speaker:: Oh, I am terribly reasonable.


An Hon. Member:: What about the security in my office?


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. However, I will investigate all the facts, even the ones concerning the possible mutilation of some precious sculpture.
I have notice of a question of privilege in the name of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


MR. STEVENS-REVISED BUDGET TABLES ALLEGED MISLEADING
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to refer you to two rulings or at least comments, one by yourself and one by your predecessor. I refer first to December 12, 1979, when at page 2287 of Hansard the then Speaker said:
There is a very clear rule which was enunciated by one of my most distinguished predecessors, former Speaker Michener, that to accuse a Member of this House of misconduct in any way, and to expect that that accusation can be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and examination, the allegation of misconduct by a Member will have to be clear.
In the course of my remarks, Madam Speaker, I hope I will meet that requirement. Secondly, I would direct your attention to page 12898 of Hansard for November 18, 1981. When dealing with a question of privilege you stated:
-it is in that respect that a formal charge must be made.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member tell me, before he quotes all of these precedents, what his question of privilege is all about?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Madam Speaker. I will be showing you that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on budget night misled Members of this House. He was, I suggest, in contempt of Parliament as a result of what he tabled. I will be suggesting that he breached his oath of secrecy, that he limited my ability and that of other MPs to join in the budget debate itself, and as such I will suggest that there has indeed been a breach of the privileges of this House.
If you find that I have at least a prima facie case, Madam Speaker, I propose to move that the tabling in the House of Commons on Tuesday, April 19, of a fiscal plan by the Minister of Finance in a significantly altered version of the printed version of that fiscal plan be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for scrutiny and report back to this House.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens


Madam Speaker:: I just want to warn the Hon. Member that this question of privilege resembles very much one that was dealt with previously in the House. The Hon. Member quoted part of my ruling where I made it quite clear that if the Hon. Member wanted to charge the Minister with the things he is now mentioning, it is not the right procedure to use a question of privilege to do it. There are other procedures which can be used in order to give the Hon. Member satisfaction on his grievance or desire to lay charges against the Minister, and he must use that route. I think I must remind Hon. Members that no Member of this House can be charged in a like way in his duties as a Member unless the Hon. Member who is making the charge is prepared to do it on a substantive motion. This is quite understandable because we cannot be throwing accusations at each other without using the proper procedure which will allow the House to investigate completely.
So I urge the Hon. Member in his presentation to stay very much within the line of what might be his question of privilege. If it is something else, I will have to interrupt him and not allow him to pursue it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, you will recall that yesterday I gave notice at the conclusion of Question Period that I would likely be raising a question of privilege. In the meantime we have researched, both from a procedural standpoint and from an actual standpoint, what the documentation in fact represented. I think if you will be patient with me I will be able to outline clearly to you that I have indeed a question of privilege, that I am only trying, if you like, to anticipate the arguments you might otherwise raise against me in my anxiety to have you hear me out on something that I think is one of the most fundamental questions of privilege which has ever been raised in this House.
As a precedent, I refer you to a question of privilege raised in this House on February 28, 1979, which was subsequently debated that day and through to March 1, 1979. There you will find that the changing of a tabled document was very much the focal point of the question. My question of privilege is, however, significantly different in the sense that not only do we have a changing of the fiscal plan I have referred to, but we also have a document circulated-presumably at the request of the Minister and described as "Revised Budget Tables April 19, 1983 -in the lobbies of this House and I understand distributed across the country.
The significant point is that both I and other Members of this House were misled by the revised budget tables into thinking that what was filed at the Table was also revised to conform to the mimeographed pages being circulated in our lobby. The truth is that that did not happen. What happened was that there were various inked copies delivered by the Minister of Finance at the point of tabling to the Table, and on our examination of those copies which had been inked and in various ways altered, we found that they differed in the way


Privilege-Mr. Stevens
that they were tabled; first, of course, from the basic fiscal plan circulated across the nation, but most importantly, they differed from the revised budget tables circulated to individual Members and represented at that time as being the final version of the fiscal plan that the Table was receiving.
Now, Madam Speaker, the reason I suggest this is clearly a question of privilege is that it means that those who entered into the debate on budget night, those who joined in debate yesterday, including myself, and those who have taken part in this debate today, have been misled as to what in fact was the fiscal plan the Goverment tabled on budget night. As I indicated, I believe the Minister misled the House into feeling that he was filing something that was in conformity to his fiscal plan as amended by these revised budget tables.
Secondly, I suggest that he was in contempt of Parliament to represent that what he was filing was what in fact he intended the nation to accept as his final version of the fiscal plan.
I would suggest that he was also in breach of his oath of secrecy because tabled documents are an integral part of any budget, and how can we even today know what the Minister was attempting to deliver on Tuesday night? The fact is that we have three versions of it. Two of them must involve a breach of his oath of secrecy, because two of them are either leaks or certainly incorrect. Yet the Minister, first by his unfortunate leaking to the press, second by what he distributed in the lobbies of the House, and third by what he in fact tabled, represented three versions of what his budget entailed.
With all due respect, how can Members of this House properly cope when they are left in such a dilemma? Most importantly, this does not only concern what has been brought to our attention. When we checked with research houses, with those who are attempting to come up with an analysis of the budget, we found that they themselves do not know what the final version is. On two occasions I have consulted with those with whom we generally consult as to what they feel about the budget, only to be told that they are not certain what figures to feed into their computer econometric models and this type of thing in order to determine what is in fact the import of the budget.
To give Your Honour only one example of how these discrepancies are so relevant, we were told, certainly on budget night during the oral presentation of his budget speech, that the Minister intended to raise the amount in the printed version with respect to the Special Recovery Capital Projects by $100 million this year, $50 million next year and $50 million the year following. If Your Honour checks with the inked version which the Minister actually tabled with respect to those figures, you will find that this year he did raise it, by the inked change, $100 million. Next year it will be raised only $40 million, in the ink change. In the final year it will in truth be raised $50 million. What, in fact, is the truth? Did he intend to go up $50 million or $40 million?
I would suggest that in our handling of the various budgetary matters it is essential that we as Members of the House know what, in fact, is the final version of the tabling of the Minister of Finance. In short, I could take Your Honour through something like 12 different discrepancies which appear between the tabled version of what the Minister felt was final, what was distributed in the lobbies in the form of the revised budget tables, and what the Minister told us in his oral presentation. To weigh the import of 12 variations surely involves a question of privilege which affects every Hon. Member of this House when attempting to respond to the Budget.
If, as I said earlier, Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie case with respect to my question of privilege, I am prepared to move the motion which I indicated at the beginning. I believe that until the matter is referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections we cannot, in a meaningful way, find out why there was such confusion on budget night. Was it a misrepresentation on the part of the Minister of Finance, deliberately done to throw off the track those who received those revised tables out in the lobbies when, in fact, he knew he was tabling something different? Do we have a Minister of Finance who has in fact broken his oath of secrecy? As I say, there are three stages involved.
Finally, I would suggest that the Committee on Privileges and Elections could perhaps determine the proper solution, to somehow or another put, in a more orderly way, what the Minister so ineptly did on Tuesday night; that is, in the presentation of his budget he did not file the proper papers, if Your Honour believes what he represented to us orally or at least through his handout in the lobbies in the form of revised budget tables.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, I think this is a regrettable incident, and I hope that my comments now will indicate to you that the issue can be settled very quickly. Although I am sure that the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is deeply concerned, I hope my comments now will show you that he is also wrong.
I believe that if Your Honour checks with the Clerk of the House and with his staff, you will find that a document entitled "Revised Budget Tables" and a similar version in French were submitted to him at the time the budget papers were tabled by the Minister. There was a considerable degree of confusion in the House at that time, and apparently the confusion extended, on someone's part, to these documents. Therefore, if Your Honour now goes to the Journals Branch, you will find that it has the very documents; but they were not accepted by the Clerk as tabled.
In order to clarify this confusion, this morning I rose and asked for unanimous consent to table these same documents. At that time I clarified that these documents had been submitted to the House on April 19 for tabling with the budget. These are the same documents which were intended to be tabled at that time. There was unanimous consent that I do


this, and I am happy to say that I appreciate it. The House Leader for the Opposition was one of the people who extended his consent, after receiving this same explanation.
I also believe that Your Honour will find that the documents in the possession of the Journal Branch, the documents which I tabled this morning and the documents to which reference was made by the Hon. Member for York-Peel, are all the same. Those are the documents entitled "Revised Budget Tables, April 19, 1983".
I regret the confusion which appears to have occurred. Near the end of the Hon. Minister's speech, just before the beginning of the reply from the Opposition, someone decided that these documents were not part of the Minister's submission. I am sure that in the confusion it is understandable, but I am also sure that research with Your Honour's own staff will indicate that these documents were given to the Table at precisely that time, and they were circulated to Members of Parliament prior to that time, as the Hon. Member for York-Peel has indicated.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I attempt to help clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary has just indicated? He has referred to the revised budget tables. Yesterday I inquired from the Table as to whether such a revised budget table, a mimeographed publication, had been received on budget night. I was assured, on checking with the staff, that no such document had been received. This morning, I once again checked the Votes and Proceedings of April 19 to see whether there was in fact evidence that the revised budget tables had been filed. If Your Honour checks page 5,807, you will find that all of the other budget documents were tabled and recorded, but that the revised budget tables to which I referred were, in fact, not tabled.
If what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is true, that by unanimous consent he filed such a revised table today, I would suggest to Your Honour that he has made my case for me, because that essentially means that the Minister of Finance did mislead the House on budget night. He did table the wrong documents to conform to what he was representing to the House to be his final version as far as the budget and supporting documents were concerned.
If that is true, I can only presume that Your Honour will find that I have a prima facie case of privilege and that this matter should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections because, in truth, his own Parliamentary Secretary admitted what I suggest happened on budget night.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had a chance to speak on the question of privilege. Unless he rises on another point of procedure I cannot listen to him. I do not accept two interventions in the course of a question of privilege.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, I believe-


Madam Speaker:: I am not giving the Hon. Member the floor, unless he is rising on some other procedure.
Business of the House


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciated the opportunity to speak the first time.


Madam Speaker:: At this point in the debate I just want to tell the House that I am aware of some of the facts which have been brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, namely, that some documents were refused by the Table at one point, I will not venture to say exactly when, because it was not felt that they had been formally tabled. What happened subsequently I will have to check because I think the sequence of events is very important in this particular case. I will investigate all of the facts and the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and will come back to the House on this matter later.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, could I inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council as to the projected order of business for next week? While I am doing that, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that on April 18 of this week, on Monday, the Prime Minister made the following statement, as reported on page 24576 of Hansard:
-I will make an offer now which I hope that the Acting Leader of the Opposition will accept on behalf of his Party. If we can have all-Party agreement-I would not even say "all-Party agreement"-I would say that if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours, I will undertake to do that-
Yesterday during statements made under the provisions of Standing Order 21, the Leader of the Opposition indicated the agreement of our Party after consultation with caucus. I see the Government House Leader has now returned to the House. I am sure he has caught the gist of my request. May I ask him, will the Government now give consideration to introducing the agreed upon amendment to the Constitution with respect to property rights immediately since the Government House Leader does have the agreement of our Party and the agreement of the New Democratic Party is not needed under the terms of the Prime Minister's remarks? Could he tell us when we might proceed with that resolution?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, I can inform the House that Monday will be the third day of debate on the budget of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I would like to confirm that next Tuesday will be an Opposition day. In accordance with the Standing Orders, next Wednesday we shall be considering Private Members' Business, and Thursday will be the fourth day of the budget debate. If there is an amendment, there will be a vote at 5:45 p.m. next Thursday.
This was the business of the House for next week.
24738


Business of the House

In so far as the request made by the Hon. Member is concerned relating to the resolution and the amendment to the Constitution, I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on Monday and sent a copy of my letter to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. We have offered to introduce that resolution in the House with proper notice when we have a House order to limit debate to one day. I met with my colleagues, the House Leaders and sought consent for a House order. That must come first. I am waiting for an answer from the Acting House Leader of the New Democratic Party who must consult his caucus. The question of the Hon. Member is whether, if the New Demcoratic Party refuses to give the House order, I will nevertheless give notice. I will take the Hon. Member's suggestion under advisement.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Once again, Madam Speaker, with respect to the Prime Ministers' comments, I would point out to the Government House Leader-perhaps he was just entering the Chamber when I made this comment-that the Prime Minister on Monday did not insist upon all-Party agreement. In fact, he said:
-I would not even say "all-Party agreement"-
It is very clear the Prime Minister wants to go ahead with this resolution, as does our Party. I submit to the Government House Leader that we do not need all-Party agreement. Perhaps for the House order we do.


Ian Deans: I think you might.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: But I want to reiterate once again our Party's agreement to proceed with this item expeditiously. I would ask the Government House Leader to take it up with the Prime Minister so that we can proceed as soon as possible.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we want to deal with this matter expeditiously. But the Prime Minister was very clear. He said he needed a House order. I would like my Hon. colleague to explain to me how he can get that House order without the support of the New Democratic Party. I see my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, is seeking the floor. Maybe he wants to give that consent or express other views on the subject. But certainly a House order requires unanimous consent. What I said subsequently, in answer to the question whether, if the request fails and we do not get the House order, I will place a notice of the resolution on the Order Paper? That I would consider doing that. I am not sure this will guarantee getting the required House order before we deal with the matter.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, once again I would point out that the words of the Prime Minister are:
-I would say that if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours, I will undertake to do that-
I submit, Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend that it is not a House order that is required, it is the agreement of the Conservative Party, which was given yesterday in good faith after discussing the matter in caucus. We wish to proceed as a
Party with that amendment to the Constitution as soon as possible. I do not think we need to wait around for a House order. The Prime Minister has made it very clear, he even rejected the words "all-Party agreement." That was rejected by the Prime Minister. He said:
-I would say that if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party-
I would reiterate to the Government House Leader that he has the agreement of the Conservative Party. We wish the matter to proceed. It is something in our opinion that should have been in the Constitution from the start. We want to see property rights included in the Constitution as soon as possible. I would hope that the Government Party, having reconsidered its position, wants that, too. When can we proceed?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member read the important part of the Prime Minister's statement rather fast. The Hon. Member read "-if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party-". Then he read very fast, but I listened very carefully the following: "-if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce this resolution and pass it in 24 hours-" right or wrong?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes.


Yvon Pinard: Then I would do it. Fine. There are two things to be done. The first one is to introduce the amendment and, second, to pass it within 24 hours. My question is: how do we pass the amendment within 24 hours with the consent of only the Conservative Party?


Some Hon. Members:: That is your problem.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain might help us.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the one way that might be achieved is, of course, through the process of negotiation, which we always enter into. It is interesting how the Conservatives want to cut everyone else out of everything. I just want to say that this matter raised by the Conservative House Leader was not on the House Leaders' agenda up until Wednesday last. The first time it was brought to my attention by the Government House Leader was on Wednesday last between the hours of 1.30 p.m. and 1.50 p.m. On Wednesday last our caucus had already completed its meeting by 1.30 p.m. of that day. It was therefore not possible for us to deliberate on, consult about or have any discussion of the question which the Government House Leader and the Official Opposition House Leader are now debating. I have assured both of them privately, and I now assure both of them publicly, that this matter will be given careful consideration by this caucus at an early date, and we will report, as I said we would, on the decision this caucus will take with regard to a matter that we consider to be of crucial importance.
We have made it clear for years that we think people in Canada should have the right to own their own homes. I wish we had received support from the Tories for lower interest


Petitions


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
rates in order that the people of Canada could have exercised that right. However, the commitments I made privately, over which we do not normally have to engage in discussion, I make publicly now. Sometime between now and the next time we meet as House Leaders, assuming that it does not occur before the caucus meeting of the New Democratic Party which will take place on next Wednesday, I will be able to enter into further discussions. Then at that time the resolution of this matter will undoubtedly be clear.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in direct reply to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, I would say that we did not have that difficulty in our caucus because our Members follow the proceedings of the House and are ready for it on Wednesday. In direct reply to the Government House Leader concerning his request as to how we might pass it, I would be pleased to meet with him and give him some suggestions at any time.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could give me suggestions as well on other legislation. We would be willing to consider passing other legislation very quickly too. I would welcome his advice, and especially his consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Fifth Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages, to which a comprehensive response is requested, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13).
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I am very pleased to table in the House in both official languages an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Jamaica with respect to social security.
mr. Mcknight-crowsnest pass freight rates


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 110,000 men and women in the Province of Saskatchewan where 40 per cent of the arable land of Canada is located. These petitioners reject the federal Government's transportation proposal because it fails to guarantee the following key elements: statutory non-variable freight rate protection on all prairie grains and their processed products with adequate recognition of producers' ability to pay, payment of Government transportation subsidies directly to the railways on all grain volumes shipped, assurance of adequate railway performance guarantees, and assurance that the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to perform its function as a central marketing agency is protected.
This is in recognition of the regional needs of western Canada and the vital importance that the grain sector plays in the Canadian economy. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation that would address the key elements identified by the petitioners.


MR. TAYLOR-CONSIDERATION OF BILL C-671
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am herewith presenting a petition signed by another 563 Canadian citizens, asking for the consideration of Bill C-671 and the passing of same in order that Clifford Robert Olson may secure his just due and be executed.
When we had capital punishment in the country there was provision made for exceptions by the Cabinet not to execute a person. Now that we do not have capital punishment in Canada, there should also be a provision made for the execution of persons who have deliberately planned and murdered a number of people, as in the case of Clifford Robert Olson.
This petition will bring the number of persons who have asked that Bill C-671 be brought forward for debate and that Clifford Robert Olson be executed to over 2,400 persons.


MR. MURPHY-CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I wish you good luck in finding God and convincing him or her to return to the Conservative Party. My petition also relates to a religious matter, that is, the destruction of the holy Crow. Farmers in the Cartwright, Manitoba area, in the riding of Lisgar, have studied the proposal of the New Democratic Party to preserve the Crow rate and to upgrade and approve rail services in all parts of Canada. I wish to present a petition which is signed and supported by the people of the Cartwright area.
Senate Reform PUBLIC SERVICE


MEASURE RESPECTING STANDARDIZATION OF THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR OFFICERS
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-681, an Act respecting the appointment of deputy, associate deputy and assistant deputy ministers.
Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to standardize the method of appointment and tenure of senior officers of the Public Service and to tie their appointments to the duration of a Parliament. The Public Service would thereby be more accountable to the Government of the day and to the electorate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-682, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, this is a Bill based upon the premise that victims are far too often the forgotten people in our criminal justice system. It has two parts. The first part would authorize criminal courts to award damages to victims who suffer physical or mental injuries as a result of crimes. The second part would require the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to undertake a study with their provincial counterparts within a stated period of time to bring in a whole set of rules which would improve the rights of victims in our criminal justice system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among Parties, and I have a motion which I believe will receive the unanimous consent of the House to be put without debate. Therefore I move:
That the Members to act on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform be Mr. Andre, Miss Campbell (South West Nova), Messrs. Comtois, Dubois, Epp, Harquail, Hopkins, Jarvis, MacLaren and
Murphy; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,279 and 4,467.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Are there Cabinet Ministers who have agreed to or will be agreeing to meet with persons willing to pay a certain amount of money and, if so (a) what are the names of the Cabinet Ministers (b) are such Ministers or others acting on their behalf actively promoting the meetings (c) is the amount of money $150 and, if not, what is it?
2.	Is it government policy to permit only those who can afford a certain amount of money to meet with Cabinet Ministers, and, if so, how do those who cannot afford that sum make appointments with Cabinet Ministers?
3.	(a) What is the purpose of these activities (b) are the Ministers involved turning over the funds to the Liberal Party of Canada and, if so, are the persons who paid the sum able to deduct that amount from their income tax?
4.	Are cocktails, food or other favours extended by the Ministers, at such meetings, to those involved and, if so, does any of the money used to buy such favours come out of taxpayers' funds?


David P. Smith: 1. No. 2 to 4. Not applicable.


Mr. Neil: 1.	Since the inception of the Export Development Corporation, what is the total value of the financing agreements entered into on behalf of Bombardier Inc. of Montreal?
2.	What rates of interest does the EDC charge for such financing?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Export Development Corporation states that:
1.	The total value of the financing agreements entered into by EDC or its predecessor, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and foreign borrowers where Bombardier Inc. was the exporter of record, is Cdn. $153,925 million and U.S. $995,843 million as of January 31, 1983.
2.	As a matter of general policy the Corporation does not disclose details of transactions such as that which is of the subject of the present request. As to the rate of interest, in view of the intense competition that prevails among countries in foreign trade, it is not in the public interest for the Export Development Corporation to discuss its participation in export transactions or proposed export transactions. Such information would assist an exporter's competitors both foreign and


domestic. Since information on bids, participation or negotiations, is given by companies to EDC in confidence, the Corporation, to respect that confidence, refrains until the sale arrangements are final, from discussing a deal or even from indicating that it has been approached in a transaction. EDC makes public its participation in direct lending transactions when the financing agreement therefor is signed and, on request, in credits and foreign investment insurance cases where the exporter or investor consents to publication. If the exporter or investor has not given its consent the reply will so state. When EDC makes public its participation in direct lending transactions it does not because of the intense competition above-mentioned, publish the rate of interest, for the reasons mentioned above.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



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 (p. 24689) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 24691).
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the speech I was making before the luncheon break. At that time I said that in fact this was not a recovery budget; it is really a stockbroker's budget. It is a Conservative budget, a standpat budget, a budget which is awaiting the recovery of the American economy and puts all its eggs in that basket. It is a budget which lets down the Canadian people at a time of massive unemployment and massive insecurity. One wonders where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been. One wonders where Members of the Liberal Party have been in the last six months. Probably just here in Ottawa. If they had travelled around the country they would have seen that people are suffering, especially young people who are having trouble obtaining jobs. It is not only our young people. Many people are being laid off, taken back for a short period and laid off again. Premier Davis of Ontario said this morning that he thought it was a good budget. This is why I call it a Conservative budget. Stockbrokers and bankers like it but everyone else dislikes it, such as seniors, working people, consumers, people who are struggling to get by, the working poor, the unemployed and so on.
The Budget-Mr. Waddell
[DOT] <1550)
I said this morning that this budget reminded me of the story of Little Red Riding Hood. If she were crying for help from the Big Bad Wolf, the Liberal Government would give her a tax credit based over four years or, worse still, give a grant to the wolf to make him more efficient. It does nothing immediately to stop the wolf at the door and help Little Red Riding Hood, or indeed the Canadian people.
I said this morning that the Government had completely ignored the exhortation of the Catholic Bishops of Canada who said that unemployment was the number one problem and that it should be tackled. The Government in the budget papers says that unemployment will continue at 12.4 per cent and in 1984 at 11.4 per cent. We will have continued, permanent unemployment. I said this morning that we are in real danger of accepting permanent unemployment as a fact.
I said this morning that there are some myths. One is that this is a recovery budget. It is not, and I will show that later in my speech. I said there was a myth that there was very little that the Minister of Finance could do, that he had very little room to manoeuvre.
I say he had a lot of room to manoeuvre. He did not have any trouble finding an extra $200 million at the last moment. If he could find that at the last moment, he could have found a heck of a lot more money for immediate job creation programs. The municipalities in this country are screaming for job creation grants in order to construct bridges, sewers, traffic lights, community arenas and so on. There are things to be done in this country and we have to put our people to work. This budget does not do that.
I want to deal with job creation in a little more detail. What the Government does in its budget is to expand short term programs like the NEED program. The NEED program is not working. I have talked to municipal councils and their staffs in the Niagara Peninsula, Welland, Thorold and areas like that. They told me that it was bureaucratic, short term and only applies to UIC exhaustees, the jobs are low-paying and some are absurd. In Windsor there was a program whereby people are hired to count dogs. In St. Catharines there was a program to clear brush. I am not saying these programs are all bad, but they are no substitute for long term solid job programs that people want. There is nothing in the NEED program. The $4.8 billion for job creation is over four years. In fact, in the next year the Government will give in total job creation what it spends in one month for Unemployment Insurance.
There is another myth in this budget, the myth that private business is the engine of economic growth. I have nothing against private business and I wish it were so, but if you really look at the matter, you see it is not so. We have much more fundamental problems. We are in the midst of a work crisis. That is much more severe. This budget gives money to business. It gives a $1.7 billion tax break to business over the next four years. It takes $3.5 billion out of the consumers' pockets over the next four years. I found in my tours of the country that many businesses are foreign owned. Give them money,


The Budget-Mr. Waddell
and it goes outside of the country. We have to tackle that problem.
There is something I cannot understand about the Liberal Party and the Minister of Finance, The Minister and the Deputy Minister, Mickey Cohen, are the same people who gave us the National Energy Program. In one instance they moved toward tackling the problem of foreign control. A year later they bring in a budget that does nothing about tackling the problem of foreign control. Indeed, it gives money to foreign controlled businesses.
This is a zig-zagging Liberal Party. If you look down beneath their message, the Bishops are telling us that Liberalism is finished in this country, that you cannot zigzag like that, you have to choose one way or the other. Are you going to choose the Conservative way of giving money to business, hoping that it will be the engine of economic recovery, or will you choose the New Democratic way which says there has to be a combination of business and Government with a longterm plan to figure out what are the best industries to help and how we as a family can plan to get control of our economy again? That would enable us to have made-in-Canada interest rates and control over our industry in Canada.
This budget gives money to business. It should be giving money to consumers. It does nothing for the people in my riding. It takes money out of their pockets.
I said there would be an increase in tax over the next four years. This budget is so cheap it even takes away the $100 deduction for charity and medical expense. It is only a little matter, but people notice it. The budget increases rather than decreases the sales tax, which is what it should have done.
We should not be looking at giving money to businesses, because they are running at about 70 per cent of their capacity. There is no demand out there. You have to create consumer demand. You have to reduce the tax on consumers. Instead of increasing the federal sales tax, you should be reducing it. You have to work with the Provinces to get them to reduce their sales tax. That would create a huge job stimulus which would give the economy a jolt. This is a Conservative, wait and see, stock broker budget.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very conservative budget. It is going to help the private sector, not the average Canadian. The budget is taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers and is doing nothing for the unemployed. The budget even refers to an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent. This is incredible. And at the same time the Minister says it is an economic recovery budget. What recovery? I did not see any recovery. Has anyone seen any signs of recovery? Not I. The New Democratic Party says we need many more short-term jobs, but not what the Liberals' programs are producing, as in Windsor, where people are hired to count dogs or clean up the bushes. There are bridges in need of repair, municipal projects to be carried out, and so on.
The Liberal Government has promised $4.8 billion, spread over a period of four years. That is all. In one month, the Government is going to spend more on unemployment insurance benefits than it will spend on job creation in a year.
The bishops said that unemployment was immoral and that it was the greatest problem in Canada. This budget is doing nothing to solve it.

This budget will not help ordinary people. The final question remains: what can be done? I would follow the Bishops. I would say that unemployment is the number one problem in Canada and that we have to stimulate now. I have outlined some of the ways of doing this. We have to work with the Provinces in reducing taxes. I would say, as was said by the President of the Canadian Labour Congress in expressing his dislike for this budget: put money in people's pockets, consult with labour and working people, not just with big business. That is what we have to do.
It is about time we gave the ordinary person in Canada a break. As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said yesterday, we have to plan as a family for the future. Like all other successful industrialized countries, we have to look at what they did in Sweden, Japan and Austria. Finally, we must free the Canadian economy from the American economy. We must have our own interest rates. We must have our own industrial strategies. We must have a vision for this country. Where is the vision in this budget? There is no vision there. Where is the plan in this budget? There is no plan there. All they offer us is hope.
As our former finance critic once said, the budget is like Tinker Bell. Just put your hands over your eyes and hope and wish that you will fly. This budget is a wish for recovery. In spite of all the words that the Minister of Finance uses, the budget is just more short-term job-creation programs that are not of much use. The people of the country understand that there is no vision in the long term.
In spite of what the Members from the Liberal side may say, more unemployment is right in the budget papers, not significant growth. Mr. Speaker, that is why we in the New Democratic Party have introduced an amendment.
I will conclude by saying that we should stimulate consumer demand. Do not look to big businesses but look to the consumer. Look to the little guy, he will pull this country out. Second, we should undertake job-creation programs immediately to reduce unemployment significantly. Let us not talk about 11.5 per cent unemployment. Let us get it down to 10 per cent, then to 8 per cent, and then to 6 per cent. That is what we should be shooting for.
Finally, we should have an industrial strategy, a family plan for Canada, where we can integrate private and public sector investment and finally take over control of our own country. This has been suggested to the Liberal Party by many of its


own Members who have not been listened to in the past. That is the prescription for a recovery budget.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I am provided with an excellent example of the kind of criticism which I find particularly pernicious and sterile; in other words, a view of the mind instead of a view of reality.
For good reasons, most newspapers in the country have labelled this budget a "business" budget. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway concludes that that is a kind of sin, that there is something deeply wrong with that. He tries to conclude that there is a deep, intrinsic opposition between a business budget and a budget for the people. I do not quite know where the Member's conclusion comes from. I do not know what kind of extraordinary thesis he is propounding. He opposes the private sector and concludes that only a mix of Government and private sector-for some reason it must be the small private sector because they are better-would save the country. He does not elaborate at all on what that mix would be. That is his thesis.
If I may say, I am a social Minister. I have been the Minister of social affairs in this country for more than five years. I have been in politics for more than ten years for that very reason. Like many others, I have often tried to fight against Ministers of Finance because that is the name of the game. At times I have tried to obtain from the Minister more money for benefits in the field of which I am the special voice in Cabinet. Although this budget is labelled a "business" budget, I am very pleased with it.
Let me explain. It is a business budget, but it is for the people. That is what interests me. I do not see any sancrosanct rule that says anything that comes from the private sector is automatically covered with sin. In a country like Canada, that concept totally escapes me. I respect the private sector each time they create a good job in my riding.
When this Member concludes emphatically that there is nothing in the budget for the people of his riding, I disagree. I happen to know Vancouver-Kingsway. I have been in that riding to visit and to campaign. I know people who live in Vancouver. What he said is not fact.
Some young people in his riding will find jobs because of this budget. Some mothers will get better deductions for child care expenses because of this budget. All the low-income workers in his corner of the country will get a much better tax break under expenses against their jobs, and many others will find jobs because of the budget. I do not understand why he says municipalities do not benefit from this budget.
In my own municipality in a corner of Montreal, we have just announced an excellent project through the NEED program that includes physical fitness equipment. This is in the northern part of Ville d'Anjou. This equipment will be there forever because of the NEED program.
I could name project after project that will provide municipalities in the country with things they did not have before the
The Budget-Miss Begin
NEED program, and this budget expands the NEED program.
I do not understand why the NDP has no respect for a good business budget that does not harm the small people, that does not bring inflation up, that does not bring interest rates up. To me, that business budget has a social dimension. It is the best of both worlds. I am very pleased with it.
I do not like to be the Minister of welfare. I do not like to have to pay more welfare to the people through the Provinces day after day, month after month. I would like to see every person in Canada working. If the private sector is a good provider of jobs, I am in favour of the private sector. What is wrong with that? Where is the sin in that? Can you tell me? What is wrong in labelling that budget a "business" budget when it is for the people? A people's budget is my budget. I want it and I like it.
I do not see what is conservative about the budget. Why oppose conservatism in a budget that uses the private sector, the key part of society, to create jobs and to make the motor of the economy turn and run?
As the biggest spender in the Government, let me put to my colleagues in this House why I not only accept but fully support a budget like this. I am the one who spends the most because of my statutory program and other programs of transfers of income to people and provincial Governments. It is immoral that these programs have to increase because of tough times in the economy. Mind you, it is good that these programs exist to help people in these difficult times. But I know very well that a highly productive economy is not necessarily the enemy of the population. On the contrary, it is with high productivity that I am assured of more funding for better social programs.

In other words, I feel we must have a highly productive economy if Governments are to improve the social programs they use to deal with problems that must, in fact, be dealt with by Governments, because the private sector does not operate according to the same rules. It is also my earnest wish that this highly desirable goal of increased productivity should be achieved in a manner that is both civilized and humane. We must keep our social perspective and always maintain, as the bishops requested in their letter, a scale of human values, with emphasis on the individual and not on corporate and technological considerations.
I think this is very important.

Another dimension of the budget has not been discussed very much because it is not spelled out in words in the budget. That is because at a time when social programs are under attack in other western countries, as is well known to the media, this Government has been able to maintain and even strengthen the social contract with Canadians. That is also part of the budget. There is an explicit budget which we can all read, and there is an implicit budget which we must decode. That is part of the budget just the same.


The Budget-Miss Begin
Canada, like all western democracies, is in a period of financial restraint. This budget will help us move toward recovery. However, we have kept our social commitment to Canadians. The American Government is seeking drastic reduction in social security spending. The Dutch Government has proposed a 12-month freeze on social service benefits, the closure of some hospitals and an increase in social security premiums. In France, which has a socialist Government, hospital patients will be required to pay daily for food and other non-medical services. The West German Government will require pensioners to pay health insurance contributions. Surely all these restraint measures will hurt those who can afford them least.
In Canada we have taken decades to build our social programs. Now we find ourselves in the most serious period of restraint since the thirties. We feel the pressure to ease the burden of these expensive Government services but we are determined to make this leaner time as equitable as possible. It is not just good enough to maintain the social policies that we have developed. It is not because times are tough that we cannot, here and there, keep budgetary restraint in mind and make sure our tax dollars are well spent. It is like a test. The social programs are being challenged to prove that they are useful, well run and necessary to the well-being of the country. In other words, we must use this time to make sure that we are serving Canadians well. That is the way I envisage the crisis that hit all of us and in particular, the most fragile sector of social security.
Recently there has been increasing discussion in this country on the issue of universality of our social programs. We have heard from many individuals and organizations on these important issues. Canadians have told us that they have a strong preference for the maintenance of universality as a basic element of social programs. Canadians do recognize, however, that a greater proportion of available funds must be aimed at helping families that need help most.
One of the areas that has brought forth a great deal of discussion is the child care expense deduction. The growing consensus-I have to use the word "growing" because it is not yet done throughout the country-is that the current child care expense deduction is totally inadequate. Daycare costs have risen tremendously since 1976 when the limit of $1,000 per child or $4,000 per family was set. Consequently, the past budget practice was unfair and especially onerous for singleparent families, mostly headed by mothers who must combine work and child rearing, a difficult task at best. It is much harder when you realize that women usually make only 58 per cent of men's salaries. The inadequacy of the child care expense deduction places a burden not only on the singleparent families but on families where both parents work. The Government has responded through the budget, and I am pleased about that.
[ Translation]
The budget proposes changes in the child benefit system that will maintain the principle of universality in programs aimed at low- and middle-income families. In recognition of the real costs being incurred by families, we have increased the Child Care Expense Deduction from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and $4,000 to $8,000 per family, thus doubling the present deduction. This will certainly help those 750,000 children in families where the mother works outside the home, and I am referring to children under six years of age. This measure is an excellent one. I realize it does not cover the entire cost of child care, but it has never been the policy of this Government to subsidize the total cost of child care. Our objective is to support the family in its role of bringing up children in a society where all family partners are working. Of course, we take this opportunity to do away with the indirect sexual discrimination which did exist, since that assistance was provided only for mothers, and in response to the tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the other family partner will henceforth be able to claim the deduction, according to the circumstances, and the spouse with the higher income of the two partners will be able to claim the deduction.
We have also taken a very significant step which will affect a great many people-precisely two thirds of all Canadian mothers. It has to do with the child tax credit, which has been increased by $50 this year to help families live through difficult times. Of course, that extra allowance was to be removed in the coming years. However, it will be maintained and, in addition, when mothers claim their child tax credit next spring they will still be entitled to a non-taxable amount of $343 for each child. Those extra $50 will cost us $85 million this year and $90 million next year. Obviously, although all that money is lost to the Government because it goes directly into the pockets of mothers, in this instance, they will not hang on to it very long and they will inject it right back into the economy through household expenses or purchases for the children. So that amounts to an investment in low income families and young couples who are still not earning very much in life. 1 fully endorse that measure and, as Minister of Social Affairs, I am delighted.
We have also advocated two other changes which in the future will enable us to channel our social expenditures where they are needed. If I may, I should like to comment briefly on them. The $26,330 ceiling with respect to the child tax credit will remain unchanged. That is a sizeable increase, and my colleagues will recall that when Parliament voted for that program in 1978 the limit was only $18,000. It has now been raised to $26,330 and our intention is that it should stay there. We will save some money, of course, for instance by maintaining the full indexation of the amount itself without raising the ceiling. It should be noted that this will not be done at the expense of people who need the money because, for a family with two children, the child tax credit in 1983 will still be paid


in part to people whose income does not exceed $40,000. I, for one, am therefore fully satisfied that most low and middle income Canadians will be protected. And what is to be done with all that money? This can be found in what is called the Fiscal Plan.
Money will be saved there, and I am glad because this measure is regressive in nature, it is not fair to those low income people who are paying no income tax. The exemption for dependent children, which I think amounts to $710 now, will remain the same, something I can live with for the following reason. All families, mothers and children whose parents are earning less than $11,000-you cannot go far with that nowadays-have never seen any of that money because they are not even earning enough to pay income tax, unlike all those who have more than an adequate income, such as all Hon. Members in the House of Commons.

All Members and Ministers fall into that category. Most people on the Hill, most people in Ottawa who earn good salaries, have never realized that they get quite good value out of that special exemption for each child-not the Child Tax Credit but the exemption of $710 which they deduct from their income on which they have to pay tax. That is worth a cash contribution of $400. I am very pleased that the ceiling of that has been frozen and that it will not increase.
I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has stated that these two future savings go into the social policy fund, a special fund that is mentioned on page 16 of the Fiscal Plan which in four years will become $585 million. It starts at the end of this year with $20 million and is piling up in a special bank account to become $585 million in four years. That will go to our most urgent needs for future funding in the social policy envelope.
I am extremely pleased about these measures, Mr. Speaker, and I could go on and on but I do not think I have time. But "social" also means all the low income housing which has been announced. It means-and this I want to stress as the Minister of Health directly responsible for the health status of the Indians in our country-that the good money put aside for Indian housing may not look as if it were directly connected, but if people knew how much decent housing is a factor in good health they would understand. We have had it so good for so long in the southern part of the country that we forget what it is like on Indian Reserves and in isolated parts of the country. Good housing, decent housing, means good health. Therefore, I am very pleased that an additional $14 million is put aside in the budget for on-Reserve housing, which will really be of tremendous help to improve the health standards and the socio-economic conditions of Indian communities. I believe all my colleagues agree with that.
I believe I should add one more element which is a social concern as well as a business one. That is the fact that le petit monde, the small people-and that may not be the exact expression in English-the workers, people with small incomes, will see great savings because of the fact they can
The Budget-Miss Begin
now claim much higher expenses for their tools or other expenses related to their employment. That provision is excellent. There are a great many things I would like to say about the fact that our country has not embarked on Reaganomics. The budget, after a long suspense of several months, is the very proof, if I dare say, by what is not in it as well as by the measures I have just outlined, that Canada is not in the Reaganomics business or on a Reaganomics trip. I say that meaning no insult to our friends south of the border but simply to say that we have managed, and I am so very pleased about it, to save all the social programs and have maintained them.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister. For a number of years now voluntary organizations have been banded together in one Canada-wide organization representing over 150 voluntary organizations many of which are involved in health and welfare fields, including the Cancer Society, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the YMCA and the YWCA, to mention a few. All of these organizations do important work. They also employ about 175,000 people. Since 1977 they have been urging the Government to eliminate the $100 automatic deduction which people are permitted to claim on their income tax returns for charitable and medical expenses, whether they made the contribution or not. These organizations wanted the Government to get rid of that $100 automatic deduction and give a tax credit of 50 per cent to people who actually make contributions to charitable organizations involved in various Fields. They felt very strongly that that kind of system would enable them to raise a great deal more money to fund their projects which, if they were not funded by these organizations, would have to be funded by the Government. What the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) did the other night was to remove the $100 automatic deduction which gives the Government about $80 million more in taxes, but he did not do what the voluntary organizations had been urging him to do and which in 1978 he said was a good idea. Could the Minister tell the House why the Government did not do what the voluntary organizations urged it to do which to a good many people seems to be a very sensible step to take?


Monique Bégin: I could give an explanation even though I am not the Minister of Finance. I am very aware, of course, of the problem raised by the Hon. Member. I was very pleased to announce three weeks ago an additional $3.2 million in sustaining grants to voluntary organizations in the health and welfare fields. The answer is that in this budget we have taken the first step toward what they have asked. We believe it will help the associations to raise more real revenue. That was the thesis which was put to us. I was the Minister who attended several of the symposiums of the Coalition of Voluntary Associations. It is true that they wanted the deduction replaced by a tax credit. I do not have the figures from the Department of Finance. We could obtain them easily. I just do not have them with me this afternoon. The tax credit of 50 per cent is, of course, far more expensive to the Treasury than the


The Budget-Miss Begin
actual measure which existed in the budget. We will do it, I suppose, at a future time, but that could not be entertained right now for obvious reasons. However, the most urgent matter is to help the voluntary associations to get more funds from the public. They do not receive real funds when people hide behind the automatic $100 deduction without receipt. Now people will have a receipt.
There is one more thing which we need to correct in the future, and that is, to switch from the concept of an exemption to the concept of a tax credit. I acknowledge that. But to raise such a credit to 50 per cent of the donation is extremely expensive. We have not reached that level yet in the country from public funds. It is impossible this year, for obvious reasons, to consider that. We have taken the first step, however, and we have put the only resources available on job creation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that the voluntary organizations do provide services and do things for the Canadian people which, if they did not, would have to be done by Governments and would cost a great deal more money than they do at the present time. In the Winnipeg Free Press on Tuesday there was a front page story quoting Captain John Moore, the Director of the Salvation Army's Suicide and Crisis Intervention Bureau as saying that because of the fact that we have 1,658,000 unemployed and because Government programs are not making provision for more jobs, there are going to be more suicides. The Salvation Army's Suicide and Crisis Intervention Bureau is just one of many organization which operates to a large extent from the voluntary contributions of Canadian citizens. If they were not there, the federal and provincial Governments would have to provide the services. Surely the Minister knows, and anyone who has been involved in trying to raise money for voluntary organizations knows, that one of the best ways of getting people to contribute is to be able to assure them that they are going to get a refund, they are going to get a credit toward the payment of their income tax. Surely the request of the voluntary organizations made repeatedly since 1977 makes so much sense that even this Government should have paid attention. When they accepted the least important suggestion of the two made by the voluntary organizations, surely they could have gone the whole hog and adopted both suggestions.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would say no, we could not go the complete way. The Hon. Member has also made a mistake in the way he put his case across, and I would like to refer him to the Fiscal Plan, page 27, for the detailed figures. The truth is that in the past, dozens of millions of dollars were lost to the voluntary organizations by Canadian taxpayers who never donated a penny and got away with $100 deductions. Well, that is wrong. That is dozens of millions of dollars that did not go to voluntary organizations. We have not abolished the tax deduction; you are making a mistake on that. There is a tax deduction but with receipts. So that is an excellent step in the right direction. The next step, which is to give a bigger refund
via a tax credit, will be for the future when the country is able to afford it.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister with regard to the reassessment of the social welfare program in New Brunswick where the new provincial Minister is hiring some 35 new inspectors to make sure that there is no cheating in the system. I do not think anyone can argue that there should not be cheating, but I point out that that devious Government was very careful not to talk about that during the recent election campaign. Has the Minister satisfied herself that that inquiry, or inquisition, is being carried out fairly and properly with regard to welfare recipients in New Brunswick?


Monique Bégin: To my knowledge no complaints have been received in my office. Of course, each time we see provincial initiatives like that which may threaten the rights of social service clients, or welfare payments, we make sure the basic rules of the game are respected. Knowing that tough times would make Governments take tough measures, I sent, particularly through the Family Allowance cheques, last August or September a little pamphlet explaining to people who need welfare and are refused welfare the appeal mechanism in each of the Provinces and the way they can make sure their rights are respected.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the Minister but I point out to her that the election campaign in New Brunswick did not start before August or September. While the Leader of the Liberal Party publicly stated that he would take a careful look at the welfare system to make sure there were no cheaters, the present Government heaped scorn on him for suggesting such a thing, but after the election it immediately implemented the program he had suggested. Therefore, I would ask if the Minister would make sure she monitors the situation on a continuing basis because it is not possible to trust the motives of that Government.


Monique Bégin: We always do. We always do monitor that, and we are very sensitive to tough times in order that no accident takes place anywhere.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I was glad to hear her finally say that she was conscious of the plight of the unemployed in this country. As she enunciated her social responsibility in defining them, she made one serious omission; she forgot to mention her responsibility with respect to the unprecedented unemployment situation we have in this country today. It was alluded to during the course of the question and answer period by virtue of the point being made that the scope and length of the unemployment problem was putting undue stress on the voluntary sector, the voluntary organizations in this country. I could go on to tell her that not only is it doing that-all you have to do is read about the soup kitchens and


the problems resulting from the unemployment situation-but it is also placing a very great burden on the Provinces which administer welfare directly and on the municipalities which administer welfare in other parts of the country. I know that in my own Province of Newfoundland, where we have an official unemployment rate of 21 per cent and a real unemployment rate more like 25 per cent, one in four is unemployed, the Government has had to tighten up on the administration of welfare and, as a consequence, people have had to go without.
I have seen evidence of that; they have been in to see me. Now, I would have liked the Minister, who has left the House-that is the problem with this Government; it does not listen.


John Leslie Evans: That is a cheap shot.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is not a cheap shot. I listened to the Minister. I was in the process of replying to some of the things she said, and she got up and left the House. Now there is the cheap shot, not my drawing attention to it. I would have expected that she would have made some reference during the course of her speech to the necessity of dealing with this unemployment situation from a social point of view. It was supposed to have been addressed in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I would have expected the Minister responsible for social welfare in this country to have convened a meeting with her provincial counterparts to see how they can cope with the burden placed on the Canada Assistance Plan, the burden placed on the Provinces and municipalities administering welfare, and the burden placed on the voluntary sector, to see how the federal Government can assist these groups. But no, the Minister sits there complacently, saying that she is very pleased to say we have not cut back on social payments because of the recession. But she failed to admit that because of the depth of the recession, because of the size and length of the unemployment problem, undue and unexpected problems have been created. These are problems, Mr. Speaker, referred to by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in their unprecedented statement made immediately after the commencement of the new year. I quote from their statement:
We have seen the social realities of abandoned one-industry towns, depleting unemployment insurance benefits, cutbacks in health and social services and lineups at soup kitchens. And we have also witnessed first-hand the results of a troubled economy: personal tragedies, emotional strain, loss of human dignity, family breakdown and even suicide.
That is the social dimension of the problem, dramatically highlighted by the Bishops in their statement which we had hoped would be addressed this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the course of her speech. The Bishops went on to say, and the Minister obviously does not appreciate this fact, that there is nothing normal or natural about present unemployment rates. Indeed, massive unemployment, which deprives people of the dignity of human work, and inadequate family income, constitute a social evil. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of sentiment we would have liked to have seen addressed by the Minister today during the course of her speech in the House. She does have a responsibility to the people of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. McGrath
But let us see what the Minister of Finance has to say. He certainly identified the problem during the course of his budget address, or he pretended to address the problem. He attempted to deceive the people of Canada. I have described the budget as a terrible hoax on the unemployed, which is precisely what it is. Listen to what the Minister of Finance had to say. He said, "My dominant concern in preparing this budget has been to help the more than 1.5 million Canadians who want work but cannot find jobs." I intend to examine what the Minister proposes to do in the context of that statement.
Then, in the course of his budget speech he went on to say, as reported at page 24668 of Hansard:
But the job losses we have suffered in this recession have been severe and, as employment begins to grow again, many workers who withdrew temporarily from the labour force will once again seek work. This will maintain upward pressure on the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate is forecast to average 12.4 per cent this year, according to the Minister, and will only fall to 11.4 per cent in 1984. This means that we must reconcile ourselves to the prospect of over 1.5 million of our fellow citizens in this country unemployed and unable to find work. Of course, if we consider it in realistic terms, one is speaking more in terms of two million people this year. Given the growth in the labour force, according to these forecasts there will be something approaching two million people out of work in 1984.
Where does the Minister address the concern which he expressed in his budget? In March of this year, the official rate of unemployment stood at 12.6 per cent, representing 1.658 million Canadians out of work.
Let us consider youth unemployment, with 21.3 per cent represented, or 621,000 young people. We are speaking of young people between the ages of 15 and 24. If one takes that into account in terms of the total labour force, one finds that they account for 25 per cent of the labour force. Therefore, young people represent 40 per cent of the unemployed.
Of course, I could go on and speak of the long-term unemployed. Almost 1 million Canadians, well over 900,000 people in this country, have been unemployed for three and one half months or more. Since August of 1981, we have seen the loss of 523,000 jobs in this country. Let us go back and see how that compares to other years. Between 1973 and 1980, there was an average of 271,000 new jobs per year created in the economy in Canada. Here we are speaking of a loss of 523,000 jobs since August of 1981. In 1982 alone, 359,000 jobs were lost. We look at the unemployment rate, and what do we see? In terms of unemployment, there is no hope, in spite of the fact that the budget is supposed to hold out hope for the unemployed. This was supposed to be the answer.
Prior to the bringing down of the budget, we were told, "Wait until the Budget is brought down". We were told that the Minister of Finance would address the problem of unemployment in the budget. What did he do? Consider his own forecast. We will consider the expectations before we even


The Budget-Mr. McGrath
consider the money which has been targeted for job creation and stimulation of the private sector. At the end of 1982, 1.317 million Canadians were unemployed. That was the highest rate since 1933, during the height of the Great Depression. What do we expect between 1982 and 1985? In 1985, 1.347 million people will be unemployed. In other words, more people will be unemployed at the end of 1985, when we are supposed to be well into recovery, than at the end of 1982, when there was the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression.
Where is the budget going in terms of addressing the unemployment problem? We should consider the level of employment since 1981, in other words, the jobs in the labour force. In 1981, there were 10.933 million jobs in Canada, and that dropped in 1983 to 10.511 million jobs, for a decline of
422.000	jobs. Yet the growth in the labour force will more than offset any job creation which we can expect from the initiatives taken by the Minister during the course of his budget debate.
Concerning 1983-84, let us consider what the Minister of Finance, through the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), expects to do with the over $440 million designated for direct employment. In 1983-84, we can expect
36.000	new jobs as a result of the new expenditures under the NEED Program, as well as 27,000 jobs from special youth initiatives, 5,000 jobs from the special employment initiatives, and so on it goes. However, this new money will only create jobs for 6 per cent of the total unemployed this year, or a total of 101,000 jobs.
Where is the promise that was held out by the Minister of Finance? Where is the initiative which was to have been taken? I would have liked to have seen the Minister move in terms of providing incentives to the private sector by way of refundable employment tax credits. What do we receive instead? A slight expenditures of $90 million over two years is supposed to provide wage subsidies for young people. Over
600.000	young people are unemployed, and they are soon to be joined by another 300,000 graduates from our post-secondary institutions and high schools. Therefore, we can see how insignificant the direct wage subsidies will be in terms of addressing youth unemployment. Yet we were told by the Minister of Employment and Immigration during the course of his speech that the Government has discounted out of hand refundable employment tax credits, notwithstanding the fact that this would have an immediate impact on job creation and would create permanent jobs as opposed to the short-term jobs which would be created by the NEED Program and various make-work projects which the Minister announced during the course of the budget.
I suppose one could say that if one went the route of refundable employment tax credits, then there would be no direct way for the Government to intervene in terms of porkbarreling or being able to use the patronage apparatus which supports the Government. However, the fact remains that even within the Minister's own Department, even with the short experience we have had with employment tax credits, this is a much more inexpensive, efficient, direct and immediate way to create jobs.
Yet the Government fails to act and tries to justify it by dismissing out of hand this means of creating employment.
I could go on, and I note that the Minister has brought in a special program analysis of a job strategy for the eighties which he tabled in the House yesterday and which, by unanimous consent, has been referred to the Special Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. It is very interesting that that is the one Standing Committee involved with line Departments of the House. It was only struck this week, two months after the other committees were established, and then only after pressure was brought to bear on the floor of the House. We had our first meeting last Tuesday and we elected a Chairman, yet there is no meeting of that Committee today. Why? It is because the Ministers were not prepared to go to that Committee and meet with it. The Unemployment Insurance Commission, which is laying out billions and billions of dollars, was not prepared to meet with that Committee. The Committee could not meet today to deal with the incentives or the initiatives, whatever initiatives could be identified, in the Minister's budget. They will not be meeting until next Tuesday. Hopefully, we will be meeting with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) who is accountable to Parliament through that Committee. More important, I hope we will have an opportunity next Tuesday to meet and hear from the Minister of Employment and Immigration so we can examine the paper that was tabled in the House yesterday and so we can examine just exactly what the Government proposes to do in terms of job creation in real terms. I hope he will not try to play a shell game with Parliament by playing with statistics and figures. We want answers in terms of what the Government is getting for the money it is spending on direct employment. As I indicated, it can be demonstrated that the new money the Government is spending on direct employment, if I can use the metaphor, is a drop in the bucket. It is less than 6 per cent in terms of the total impact on the unemployment situation.
I have already indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that what disturbs me and disturbs Canadians everywhere is the recognition implicit in the budget, indeed explicit in the budget, that unemployment will be here for a long while. We will have double-digit unemployment for at least three, four or five years. We can take that as gospel because the Minister has indicated that in his own budgetary forecasts. Yet all we get from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has the responsibility of advising the Minister of Finance on his budget, is ongoing-more of the same

in terms of the NEED Program which now has over $600 million in funds for a total to date of 27,000 jobs. That program has been in operation since last October and it was supposed to meet the needs of those in dire straits.
Of course, we have the student employment programs. How many jobs will we get? Will it be 50,000 or 100,000 for the
600,000	to 900,000 young people who will be on the unemployment rolls of this country next month? It is not only shameful


but it is tantamount to being criminal the way this Government approaches and addresses itself to the unemployment problem.
I am hoping that we will hear from other Ministers during the course of this debate because we have heard nothing so far from which we can draw any encouragement. We have not heard anything from the Minister responsible for social policy as to her responsibility in terms of addressing the ongoing nature of the unemployment problem and the social consequences that derive from long-term unemployment. Certainly I am not alone in this House in having direct experience with it. I suppose everyone of us when we go back to our constituencies is directly confronted with the problems of the unemployment situation. If there is a problem in the economy, if the economy has a cold in terms of a recession, then in certain parts of the country it amounts to a case of pneumonia. In my own Province, if the national economy has a cold it gets chronic pneumonia. We have twice the official rate of the national unemployment in my Province of Newfoundland and no prospects, because of continuing Government deficits, to cope with that situation. We have no chance whatsoever to deal with our unemployment in terms of the social need attendant on it in terms of additional welfare benefits. I believe this is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe the Government is addressing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Questions?


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member when he referred to the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) because I felt I did not want to impinge upon his time. But I think it is only fair for the House to know that the Minister is a witness before the Special Committee on Pension Reform this afternoon. She was 20 minutes late going before the Committee and therefore she could not stay to listen to the Hon. Member's address. I listened to it with care, and I will talk to the Minister about some of the matters that were brought up.
I think we would all agree that pension reform is one of the basic factors in the social welfare and the social well-being of Canadians. I hope the House will not think the Minister is not interested in social reform, social programs or social activities because she was not here. As I said, she went to the Special Committee on Pension Reform as a witness.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I accept the Hon. Member's intervention. It was not my intention to take a "cheap shot" at the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I did think and I do feel that this debate is important enough that the ordinary rules of parliamentary etiquette be followed. Certainly when a Member in his place finishes his speech, he or she should have the courtesy, if I can put it that way, of staying in his or her place to hear whatever rebuttal there is to what was contained in the speech. That is common parliamentary etiquette. I am sorry it was not followed in this case because I believe it is essential that the Minister responsible for social policy in this Government hear
The Budget-Mr. Bujold
the concerns expressed in this House with respect to the social consequences of unemployment. I believe, and I say this more in sorrow than in anger, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is living in a sheltered world having isolated herself from that aspect of her responsibilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Any further questions or comments?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in a debate that is so important in view of the current economic situation. I was very glad to see that on Tuesday, the 19th, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought down what is probably the most expansionist budget ever, a budget that in both the short and long term will prove to be the best answer to dealing with the unemployment situation.
Looking at this budget which comes after several months in which we have seen signs of economic recovery and a drop in inflation, we will find incentives for the private sector that will enable many Canadian businesses to continue this recovery and to provide even more productive and long-term jobs across the country. The 2.2 billion, to be injected into the economy over the next four years through special recovery programs, will certainly help to spur and accelerate economic recovery. I agree that this will not remedy all our problems in this country, but we shall certainly see a renewed confidence among all Canadians, and especially among those in the private sector.
When the Minister of Finance brought down this budget, he had to bear in mind the extremely difficult situation of many Canadians who are having to cope with unemployment. That is why the Minister decided to inject $710 million more into direct job creation programs. I know the Opposition said this is not enough and that we should have injected more funds, but I believe the Minister of Finance preferred to bring down a balanced budget that would respond to present and future needs and would therefore respond to the pressing problem of unemployment.
I was listening earlier to my colleague, the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who referred to the letter published by the Catholic bishops. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is indeed anxious to consider proposals and recommendations from all levels of society. He has been able to meet with some of the bishops from the Conference and discuss with them ways of improving the employment situation and finding solutions to very pressing problems.
1 notice that my colleague referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. We shall certainly have an opportunity, in committee, to consider in detail the


The Budget-Mr. Bujold
entire employment situation in Canada and how we could, realistically, find jobs for the unemployed. Papers were tabled in the House yesterday, with the unanimous consent of the House, and I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank our two Opposition critics for agreeing to let the Minister table the document in question and refer it to committee, where we shall be able to have some frank and straightforward discussions about finding realistic solutions to the unemployment problem in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in line with the new budget, and within our own Department of Employment and Immigration, the Minister has decided to restructure all our job creation programs and to follow up what the Minister of Finance said the other evening, namely, that the Government would try to eliminate as much as possible all the administrative red tape from these programs.
Across the country, the NEED Program has shown that it is possible to streamline administrative procedures in order to create jobs as quickly as possible, and I believe that by amalgamating various programs in our Department, we can substantially reduce the administrative workload for many programs and enable a large number of Canadian workers to get the jobs as soon as possible.
Of course, employment opportunities for the eighties had to be a major concern when amalgamating programs and restructuring the Department of Employment and Immigration. As I pointed out before, many Canadians in industries and regions across the country have been severely affected by the profound changes that have taken place in our society in the past five or six years, and especially this past year.
The manpower requirements of our industry have changed dramatically, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason why over the past year the Minister has had, and intends to continue to have, consultations with Canadians everywhere in this country, and I am sure that the committee meetings we will hold over the next few weeks will be beneficial in terms of our planned improvements under these programs.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has decided to gather into four different groups the previous 12 programs administered by the Department of Employment and Immigration with a view, as I said before, to reducing the red tape involved in the implementation of these programs, meeting job requirements, and supporting the job creation effort and the economic growth in all parts of Canada as a whole, but especially in slow growth areas.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a little time explaining just how these four programs will be established and to what target group they will be directed.
The first program, and important one to be known as the ACCESS program will deal of necessity with human resources. I think it will greatly help channel the measures aimed at developing human resources by unifying them under
a single program. Mr. Speaker, this program will therefore combine those formerly known as DPEP, namely the Portable Wage Subsidy Program, the New Technology Employment Program, the Summer Canada Program stages which began this year, as well as the Canada community development projects. The new ACCESS Program is therefore aimed directly at those who are disadvantaged on the labour market. Through this program, we can go to the regions with a very low rate of economic growth and few job opportunities and return to the labour market those individuals who have failed repeatedly to find a job.
Mr. Speaker, a second program is also very important, in my opinion, the Youth Job Corps Program. As I said earlier, the drastic changes we have seen on the labour market these last few years have brought home to us the fact that many Canadian workers had neither the skills nor the work habits needed to find a paying job. This new program will therefore combine part of the Local Employment Assistance Program, or LEAP, and the Youth Job Corps element of our community development projects aimed at students or young workers to provide young people that are disadvantaged on the labour market with opportunities they did not have before.
Mr. Speaker, a third program is aimed directly at employment development. As I indicated earlier, this is the NEED Program which was implemented last fall, and in this regard, I would like to correct something that my colleague for St. John's East said. This program came into effect last October 27. We have to remember that it was announced last October 27 and that the Minister of Finance then announced that projects would first be approved early in February 1983. The data then available and later collected by the Department prompted the Minister of Employment and Immigration to ask the Minister of Finance to implement this program without delay and put it into effect in early January to meet the needs of jobless workers at that time. The program therefore started early in 1983 and has resulted to date in the creation of 35,000 jobs throughout the country.
Obviously, neither this program nor our other job-creation initiatives will enable the Government to hire all the unemployed in Canada. The question that we must ask ourselves is this: Are the Federal and Provincial Governments solely responsible for hiring all the workers in the country? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the private sector must share some responsibility for hiring workers, and that is why part of the budget is aimed at this sector of the Canadian economy to restore the climate of confidence of which Canada has always been so proud, so that the private sector can do its share in hiring the unemployed.
Even to this date, Mr. Speaker, under the NEED Program, many excellent projects were developed in certain communities because people believed in them and were willing to give their


time to set them up, and in many cases, by providing temporary employment, these projects have made it possible to protect long term jobs and create others.
That is why $280 million will be injected into this program over the next two years, which will necessarily have beneficial effects on the Canadian economy as a whole, and most important, a direct effect on unemployment. The NEED Program is the result of merging the program in existence since October with all the job-creation programs established under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which were also very successful throughout the country, especially in my own region, the Gaspe Peninsula, where we were able last year to hire people then on unemployment insurance and put them to work in the forest fighting the spruce budworm epidemic. All these workers were then able to work for 20 to 30 weeks during the fall, so that they were once more eligible for unemployment insurance.
Of course, an additional amount of $100 million dollars allocated to this program will benefit the people of my region and of many others across the country. Mr. Speaker, the new NEED Program will also include the community employment and Summer-Canada programs, that is the community project stream of the Summer-Canada program. Finally, the community development program which we have known for three years now, namely the new NEED Program, will enable us to help especially the highly underprivileged regions. When I look at my colleague from St. John's East, it is obvious that Newfoundland, which is in an underprivileged region of Canada, will have its share of the projects and be in a position to benefit from those programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth stream of those job-creation programs will be the community employment expansion program. It will contribute to the long term development of employment, particularly in those regions where the unemployment rate remains high and where the economic recovery will probably be slower than in other regions. That is why such a program will obviously be very important in areas like Eastern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the four streams within which the Department of Employment and Immigration has attempted to regroup a wide variety of programs to make it easier for all Canadians, and particularly workers who want to benefit from those programs, to understand what they are all about.
There is also another subject which I would like to comment on and which is of great interest to me and to many of my colleagues on this side of the House. I am convinced that our friends opposite are concerned as well about that problem, namely youth unemployment. Last Tuesday's budget has shown that the Federal Government wants to tackle head on the thorny issue of jobs for young Canadians. Hon. Members may recall that, in early January, the Minister of Employment and Immigration attended a federal-provincial conference in
The Budget-Mr. Bujold
Edmonton and urged his provincial colleagues to work closely with him in an attempt to find quick solutions to the problem of unemployment among young people.
The Summer Canada Program announced recently will enable us next summer to create 70,000 jobs. As a result of the budget of last Tuesday, we will certainly be in a position to create more jobs, in view of the fact that $95 million have been allocated to the Youth Wage Subsidy and Internship Program throughout the country. As a result of that measure, businesses will be able to hire young people and give them the opportunity to acquire the necessary experience to enter into the job market. I believe this is a major step and in the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity discuss further the measures the federal government intends to take with a view to helping the youth of our country.
In closing, I should like to point out that the Gaspe area and the Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine constituency that I have the honour to represent in this House will derive some advantages from the budget. When looking at the unemployment figures for the month of March, we realized that Eastern Quebec held the record as far as the unemployment rate is concerned. I am convinced that because of this budget and the various job creation programs and other programs as well, we will be in a position to solve the difficult unemployment problem and to provide jobs to the largest possible number of people.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Hon. Member. We now have almost two million people unemployed. According to the Government's figures, we will have 12.5 per cent unemployment this year and 11.5 per cent next year. It costs the Canadian taxpayers $1 billion a month to subsidize the unemployment insurance system. This means we are paying people $1 billion a month to stay home and not work.
The Hon. Member indicated that his area, the Gaspe, has the highest rate of unemployment in this country. If we can afford to pay $1 billion for people not to work, why is the Government so satisfied when the Government says all we can afford to pay out on job creation programs is less than $2 billion a year? Why can we not find at least half the amount of money we pay out in Unemployment Insurance so that Canadians can do the useful work which this country needs so badly?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we should drop the unemployment insurance system in Canada. It must be recognized that many Canadian workers are seasonal workers and that unemployment insurance enables them to live for the rest of the year. The Hon. Member referred to my own region. Obviously, in an area like eastern Quebec and Gaspesie, where the economy is based on tourism, farming and fishing, seasonal workers are


The Budget-Mr. Bujold
employed, and the unemployment insurance program enables them to draw a decent income on which they can live all year long. Also, within the framework of this unemployment insurance scheme, the Canadian government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have been able this year to put forward programs like the one under Clause 38, where we have carried out everywhere in this country countless projects which were extremely valuable for the collectivities concerned. We have also established this year the work sharing program, thus helping to maintain thousands of jobs. For these reasons, the unemployment insurance program is of utmost importance and must be maintained. The moneys that have been announced in the Budget for job creation programs will contribute to lower the unemployment rate throughout the country and will provide jobs for people who are experiencing difficulties, and also, in many cases, long term jobs.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, surely the Member knows that nobody in our Party would suggest reducing the extent of the unemployment insurance system. We have repeatedly called for the Government to change the system to provide for extended benefits for the tens of thousands who are coming to the end of their Unemployment Insurance benefits. I ask the Member why we can find the money to pay people to do nothing. Surely there is reforestation in the Gaspe Bay, there is improvement of sewer and water systems, there is the rebuilding of schools, there are dozens of projects that could provide employment. The local people could tell the Government this. They could tell the Member this if he cannot take the time to look and see for himself what needs to be done so that people can be put to work doing something productive rather than being paid to sit at home while they draw Unemployment Insurance benefits or welfare benefits. These benefits are so harmful to the well-being of the people. I ask the Member to consider this.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I have just pointed out that the Department of Employment and Immigration has introduced in the course of last year two programs designed for that specific purpose, that is to hire people instead of keeping them idle on unemployment insurance. Those measures have allowed us to put them to work pursuant to Section 38 of the Act and to the Shared Work Program. They have allowed us to reach people who otherwise would have remained at home and return them to a productive activity within the community and make them work. That was the reason why we wanted to revitalize our employment programs and as the Minister of Employment and Immigration has pointed out on several occasions, he is open to any such suggestion. I am sure that the Hon. Member who will be sitting on the committee will make suggestions along that line, but I want to tell him that we already have
within the Department and under our legislation the services and facilities needed to hire that kind of people.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question from the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold). He referred to the Shared Work Program and his Minister described it as being quite a success. He knows that the program had a low record in Quebec, the Province most affected by unemployment. How can he maintain that the program is a success when it has a rather uneven impact on the entire country and a very small one in Quebec?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague for his tremendous progress in learning the language of Moliere. Surely, within a few months he will be speaking French as fluently as most French Canadians.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, work sharing has been immensely popular throughout the land. Again, I say that the program will be as successful as expected if we can rely on the cooperation of each and every sector in this country, and I would especially urge my friend from the New Democratic Party to pressure all unions so they will also co-operate in implementing work sharing arrangements. I could give him examples in the Province of Quebec of unions that have refused to do so for a variety of reasons. But although the program had slower beginnings in Quebec, it has caught up with other Provinces. The results so far are extremely favourable, and so are the comments heard from those in Quebec who have benefited from the program.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the Hon. Member say that unions in Quebec are responsible for the poor performance of the program in that Province? Can he realize that in order to be a good program it must have a goal? Why then should labour unions be blamed?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I referred earlier to my colleague's progress in learning the language of Moliere, but let us not be carried away. I pointed out that one of the reasons why the program had slow beginnings in Quebec was that certain labour unions refused to accept it. Of course there were a variety of other reasons, but I concluded with the remark that the program was also tremendously successful in Quebec and has preserved thousands of jobs. The comments we have heard throughout the Province currently show the program has been very well accepted and is wanted mainly by the people at large.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the question of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in any way at all. I would like to put the question to him again in perhaps a different form. Could he tell the House why it is that the Liberal Government will not spend the money which it is now spending on Unemployment


Insurance to put those same people who are receiving unemployment and welfare back to work? What would be wrong with that? What is it in the makeup of the Liberal Party that makes it unable to imagine that it would be better to have people working, that it would be better to spend that incredible amount of money on creating meaningful work than to spend it paying people to do nothing? Why is not that an option to consider? I can only imagine that it must have something to do with the commitment the Liberal Party has to the economic status quo in this country, that their corporate bagmen would not want that amount of interference in the economy because it would change it fundamentally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am afraid that question will have to be taken as a comment because the time provided for questions and comments has now expired.


An Hon. Member:: That is not fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am afraid it is fair under the rules. Ten minutes are provided for questions and comments, and that ten minutes has expired. The only way we could proceed further is by unanimous consent to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to answer my friend from the New Democratic Party. This is exactly what we are doing. We are using unemployment insurance funds to create productive jobs, under Section 38 and the Work Sharing program. This is what we are now doing. But I would point out to my honourable colleague that we can create jobs in so far as it is possible. Clearly, in a small Magdalen Islands community with 2,000 fishermen, we cannot have them all roaming the seas all winter long merely because we say we are creating jobs. We took steps in that direction within our own Department, and we intend to go on using unemployment insurance funds to go and get people out of their homes and bring them back on the labour market. This is what we have been and will be doing, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate we are discussing a budget which offers Canadians absolutely nothing in the short term. Those nearly two million Canadians out of work will remain out of work. The budget addresses in no way at all the dilemma, the harm, the tragedy of that unemployment situation. Indeed, the Minister's projections for this year indicate employment will decrease. Not only will unemployment go up, but employment will decrease. There will be fewer jobs at the end of this fiscal year than there were at the beginning of this fiscal year. The only reason the unemployment rate will be as low as he is predicting is that, as he is predicting, more and more Canadians are going to give up and quit and leave the labour force and therefore not be counted among the unemployed. A budget at this time,
The Budget-Mr. Andre
with this crisis, that the Minister predicts will result in less employment in Canada, has to be considered an utter failure in terms of that number one social problem.
In the long term this budget has to fill every sensible Canadian with terror. We are following the road that has been followed by such great economic examples as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. We have the absolute refusal of this Liberal Government to recognize the fundamental reality that you cannot spend more than you earn-not over any reasonable period of time.
Looking at the deficit figures and the debt that is projected, any sensible person must be terribly worried about the future of the country. A deficit of $31.2 billion is forecast for this year. That is a colossal deficit, Mr. Speaker. One might say that in a time of terrible recession we should not expect a reduction of the deficit, but the Minister predicts that in a year or so, with a relative growth rate of 5 per cent-a growth rate that we have not seen since the fifties, a growth rate which for Canada would be extraordinary-the deficit in 1984-85 will be $28.7 billion, in 1985-86, $26.6 billion and in 1986-87, $25.6 billion. That falls in exactly the same category as Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Poland and Romania, these other wonderful examples of astute economic management.
Perhaps you saw on the CBC television program "The Journal" last hight, the Dean of Management Studies at the University of Toronto. He said that as a result of those predictions he forecasts that for a couple of years things will be bad and that next year we may think things are good, but after that we should prepare for the economic holocaust. He said that interest rates will be well in excess of those of a year and a half ago, well over 20 per cent, and he spoke of runaway inflation as the only possible development from these projected deficits.
If we are to have the 5 per cent growth rate that the Minister talked about, that means business is going to invest. It means growth in the economy, and that requires money. They are going to be out in the capital markets lending money, trying to get access to Canadian savings. But the Government is going to be there too, to fund these monstrous deficits plus refund the accumulated deficits. That competition for funds can only have the consequence of higher interest rates. If the Bank of Canada does not print any more money, the supply and demand equation will give high interest rates; if the Bank of Canada does print money, it will be inflation that is caused by that excess money that will ultimately give high interest rates. No matter what the standards, that is the inevitable result.
Only one thing would prevent that from happening-a return to a recession, for business to get out of the marketplace from borrowing money, for a return to what we have had for the last year. That will prevent high interest rates-a depression. Because of the cycle we are in, brought about by the mismanagement of this Government, that is the prediction of


The Budget-Mr. Andre
the Dean of Management Studies of the largest university in the country.
How Hon. Members opposite and members of the business community who pronounce themselves satisfied with the budget can remain satisfied in view of that kind of future is beyond my comprehension. They either do not agree or cannot see that far in advance. Perhaps they have not stopped to think beyond this year and next year about the consequences that kind of spending or that kind of deficit will have on the future of the country.
By the end of this year or next year this budget may help; that has to be acknowledged. The changes that affect business may help, and perhaps we can anticipate that next year things may not be bad. I guess it is pretty safe to say that is likely to be the time of an election. We have an election budget that says, "To hell with the unemployed this year, we are not going to do anything about them. The heck with the future two years or more ahead which fills any sensible Canadian with terror. What we have to worry about is next year because that is when we are going to the polls. The country's future is not nearly as important as the election of the Liberal Party. That has to be the first priority of any Liberal Minister of Finance-to turn things around to get the Party re-elected. If that means putting the economic future of the country in jeopardy, so be it; if that means keeping two million people unemployed this year, so be it. It is cheap at the price to sacrifice those Canadians and to sacrifice the future of the country if you can put together a budget that will make things look nice about the time we have to go to the public to ask for their vote." That is what we have here, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have been getting and that is why the country is in such a mess today.
One of the major reasons we got into this mess is attributable to the skills the Liberal Party has shown in public relations and flim-flam. Let me give an example. Once upon a time in this country and today in most decently run countries, companies or families, a budget consisted of a revenue and expenditure plan. A family or business assessed their revenues, and on that basis put together an anticipated expenditure plan. A family would look after groceries, housing, education, and if anything was left over, it would be saved or perhaps spent on a vacation. Things are a little more complicated for companies. They think about investing for the future and perhaps having to borrow for that. They think about cash flows, whether they will have to borrow for that and what would be needed to pay that debt off in future. Most countries run things that way. Certainly that is how things are done in the United States. In January each year the Government presents a plan to Congress containing a revenues side and an expenditures side. The elected representatives of the people in Congress study it, amend it, change it for six months and then, at the end of October it becomes law.
In this country we separated these two functions as if expenditures and revenue saving had nothing to do with each other-as if they were totally separate considerations and you did not have to worry about expenditures when talking about
revenue, and vice versa. We have come to the current absurdity today where there is no relationship between the Government's spending plans and its ability to raise the revenue to finance those plans. So we look at each part of the equation as an exercise in public relations, as a political exercise, as a flimflam exercise.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 1983, as required by the Standing Orders, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) tabled before this House the Estimates of Government expenditures for this year. He stood up and formally declared to this House that the Government remained committed to restraint. It had done a careful job of assessing how much money will be spent this year and it was holding it down to a mere 9.6 per cent increase, $85.62 billion, but only a 9.6 per cent increase, showing its concern for restraint. We asked the Minister, what about Supplementary Estimates which might come on during the rest of the year, and we were told, "Don't worry. We have a reserve to take care of that. We are confident that the 9.6 per cent increase is accurate. We are confident in our numbers. We are restraining expenditures. Don't worry." We accused the Minister of flim-flamming the House. He said, "That is not true. Those are our spending plans, not one penny more. We are being very careful." Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened on Tuesday evening not quite two months later? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stands and in essence says the President of the Treasury Board misled us two months earlier. In essence he said that the President of the Treasury Board did not know what he was talking about when he told us that he was presenting the Government's spending plans, because the Government's spending plans were not $85.6 billion, as the President of the Treasury Board solemnly assured us they would be. They had gone up to $90 billion. Actually, on Monday night it was only $89.8 billion, but because the Minister of Finance was caught misbehaving, violating his oath of secrecy, we suddenly had another $200 million. Suddenly, just out of the blue, there is another $200 million. The President of the Treasury Board said, "We are careful with your money. We look at every penny. We don't spend what we don't have. We are committed to restraint." The Minister of Finance then stands and says, "Oh, well, we are throwing in another $200 million because I don't want to be made out as having leaked the budget, which I did, I know, because of the oath of secrecy which I technically have not violated because I changed things which I have a right to do right up to the last minute."


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Which he does. He has the right.


Harvie Andre: The Parliamentary Secretary will soon have a nose as long as his Minister if he has as much respect for truth and integrity as his Minister.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You don't think he has the right to change his own budget?


Harvie Andre: I do not think any Minister of the Crown has the right to flim-flam the Canadian public, to leak budgets, to


The Budget-Mr. Andre
violate conflict of interest guidelines and to deceive this House The House divided on the amendment to the amendment at any time, and any self-respecting Minister would resign. (Mr. Riis), which was negatived on the following division:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: That is the tragedy of this country, Mr. Speaker, that flim-flam passes for policy.	(Division No 318)


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Nonsense. Come on!


Harvie Andre: It is a tragedy that solemn commitments of this Government as to their policy can be violated like that, without any consideration, because they know they can count on a silent, obedient, non-thinking backbench, who will say, "Aye, sir, Aye" to the most outrageous behaviour because they are not going to jeopardize their opportunity to get appointed as Chairman of Air Canada or Chairman of the CNR or to be appointed to the Senate. They are not going to jeopardize that possibility by thinking, by being concerned about Canada, by suggesting that Ministers should be honest and should obey guidelines and should not leak budgets, and if they do, however accidentally, they must take the consequences of their action. Never would one of those Hon. Members be expected to require that standard of behaviour. Not on your nellie. Oh, no, no, no! Let us get our priorities straight. Looking after Liberals is what this place is all about. Canada comes second, and a damned poor second.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board just two months ago were flim-flam. They were inaccurate. They were wrong.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 64(6), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Riis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt it?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.
Andre	YEAS Messrs. Halliday	MunroAnguish	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Baker	(Swift Current-Maple	Murphy(Nepean-Carleton)	Creek)	MurtaBeatty	Hargrave	NeilBlackburn	Hawkes	NickersonBlaikie	Heap	NielsenBienkarn	Hnatyshyn	NowlanBosley	Hovdebo	OgleBradley	Huntington	OrlikowBroadbent	Jarvis	ParkerCardiff	Keeper	ReidCarney (Miss)	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Clark	Kilgour	Riis(Yellowhead)	King	RobinsonClarke	Knowles	(Burnaby)(Vancouver Quadra)	Kushner	RocheCook	Lambert	SargeantCooper	La Salle	SchellenbergerCorbett	Lewis	ScottCossitt (Mrs.)	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	(Kingston and the Islands)	Scott(Halifax West)	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dantzer	MacKay	SiddonDarling	Manly	SkellyDeans	Mayer	Speyerde Jong	Mazankowski	StevensDick	McCain	TaylorDomm	McDermid	ThackerEllis	McDonald (Ms.)	ThomsonElzinga	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TowersEpp	McGrath	VankoughnetForrestall	McKenzie	WaddellFriesen	McKinnon	WenmanFulton	McKnight	WiseGilchrist	McLean	WrightGreenaway	McMillan	Young-100.Gurbin	Miller	Allmand	NAYS Messrs. Comtois	EvansAppolloni (Mrs.)	Corbin	FergusonAxworthy	Corriveau	FisherBachand	Cosgrove	FlemingBaker	Cote (Mrs.)	Flis(Gander-T willingate)	Cousineau	FosterBeauchamp-N iquet	Cullen	Fox(Mrs.)	Cyr	FrancisBegin (Miss)	Daudlin	FrithBerger	Dawson	GarantBlais	De Bane	GauthierBlaker	de Corneille	GendronBloomfield	Deniger	GimaielBockstae!	Dingwall	GingrasBossy	Dion	GourdBujold	Dionne	(Argenteuil-Papineau)Burghardt	(Chicoutimi)	GourdeBussieres	Dionne	(Levis)Caccia	(Northumberland-	GrayCampbell (Miss)	Miramichi)	Guilbault(South West Nova)	Dubois	HarquailCampbell	Duclos	Henderson(LaSalle)	Dupont	HerbertCampbell	Dupras	Hervieux-Payette(Cardigan)	Duquet	(Mrs.)Collenette	Eroia (Mrs.)	Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce)
The Budget-Mr. Andre
Messrs.
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard
Messrs.
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Tardif
Tessier
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead-131.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Riis) negatived.


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


END OF VOLUME XXI