1984-02-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Crosbie (p. 1445).
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks on the Budget which I began yesterday. Yesterday I said the Budget really does not offer any solution to the economic distress we Find ourselves in today. After many years of Liberal government we find ourselves in a quagmire of economic uncertainty. If Members opposite do not know what a quagmire is, Concise Oxford defines it as a "quaking bog". We are in a quaking bog of economic despair at the moment. The unemployed in Canada are quaking with fear. The businessmen in Canada are quaking with uncertainty and this Budget has done nothing to solve any of the problems which we find ourselves facing.
I also said yesterday that the Budget has one bright light in it. I am prepared to give the devil his due. This Budget does indicate the first faint steps toward the Government providing a rational pension policy. Hon. Members will recall that the task force on pensions reported to the House last December. Perhaps I am prejudiced because I was on that task force, but I believe it provided a very comprehensive report, an outline of steps which could be taken in the country to provide one of the best pension systems in the world. I am pleased to see that the Government has taken some steps in that direction. First, under the employer-sponsored plans under federal jurisdiction, it proposes to open up the federal pension Benefits Standards Act in order to provide some of the measures we suggested in the task force report.
[DOT]	(H10)
With respect to inflation protection, it was quite evident in our travels throughout Canada that this was one of the main concerns about most private pensions. The system is inconsistent since some have inflation protection and some do not. We believed there was a great need for this measure because the
high inflation which existed in the early 1980s caused some people to end up with pensions that meant absolutely nothing, although they had contributed to them all their lives. Since they had made no other plans they were in very difficult circumstances.
The Government's proposal is to provide the plans under federal jurisdiction with some 60 per cent of any increase in the Consumer Price Index. That is not quite as good as the task force proposed since we proposed full indexing less 2.5 per cent. I suggest it will be shown when inflation reaches approximately 8 per cent that the task force scheme was the better one. However, little is better than nothing and I commend the Government for that.
It also proposes to bring in vesting after two years. Vesting means that a person who owns his pension can carry it with him. This is of particular benefit to women who change jobs frequently and often in their early years. It is important that vesting begin as soon as possible. I commend the Government for taking this step because it took a certain amount of courage. I know from our experience that industry is not yet prepared to accept the two-year vesting period. They would propose five years or a combination of the two.
The Government has also acted on a proposal which was in the green paper; that is, to establish registered pension accounts which will make portability a possibility and not just a dream for many people. It is very important to have portability in this country because people move a great deal. Under this scheme as well the employer can contribute to the employee's pension. With two-year portability, I think that will be very beneficial indeed.
The Government also proposes certain measures that will be of benefit to women. Let me mention them briefly. One is the continuation of survivor benefits on remarriage. This is a most logical step. There is no reason why a woman who is the recipient of a survivor pension should have it taken away from her when she remarries. This should apply to men as well. I am glad that this rational concept has finally been adopted by the Government and I hope it will be implemented. I can assure the Government that at least I will not oppose any legislation in that regard.
The splitting of pension credits upon the breakdown of marriage is a concept which I believe has been generally accepted throughout the country. That will also be put into the Act when it is opened up.
I think it is most interesting to note that the insurance industry is having a hard time accepting the notion of equal annuities without regard to sex; in other words, the acceptance of unisex mortality tables. I suspect that our Bill of Rights

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Dantzer
makes this a necessity but it will be interesting to see how that is worked out.
There is more talk of greater disclosure for pensioners and more representation on pension boards. All of these are very good concepts.
However, as is usual with the Government, it does not fully implement its programs. It brings in these programs gradually and does not expect them to be fully implemented until 1987. There is no need for that delay. Those concepts are well established and understood. Certainly I would like to see them come in more quickly.
I see that my time is getting short. I would merely conclude by saying that I believe, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that I was discouraged by the Budget and I believe the people of Canada are discouraged.
This is 1984, the year George Orwell predicted a catastrophe. I would like to remind this House that for the first time in our history we are spending over $100 billion this year; at least, we will be when the Estimates are in. That is $100 billion worth of spending as though we are a bunch of mad, drunken sailors. Government borrowing this year will be $29.2 billion. The total personal savings of Canadians is only $32 billion, which means that the Government will have to demand from Canadians $92 billion. Where is the money that will provide the investment, the engine, to carry this country on to economic activity and success? It surely cannot be from personal savings because the Government will have to take all of that to service its debt and to cover its overspending of past years.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, any country where governments, including provincial and municipal governments, take $10,306 in taxes from an income of $22,000 is a country that is really in deep trouble. The people of Canada are very, very discouraged with this Government, and this Budget does not do a thing to relieve them of that discouragement.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, it is seldom that we have an opportunity during the Budget debate to get information from the Government on pensions. As the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) has done a great deal of study on this subject, I would like to put a question to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I think it is clearly understood that questions and comments should be on the speech of the Hon. Member who has just concluded his remarks. I think there is a manner in which the Hon. Member can work his question into that context.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That is precisely what I was doing, with respect, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member was speaking about pensions. Has the Hon. Member been able to determine whether these reforms would permit the continuation of benefits on remarriage? I notice that in the Budget Speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said, under the heading of "Improving Pensions for Canadians", that "these benefits will
not end if an individual remarries". But he was speaking of the things he hoped to get into private pension plans. Later on in his speech, under the same heading concerning the Canada Pension Plan, he spoke of the continuation of survivor benefits on remarriage.
Has the Hon. Member been able to find out what the Government intends to do about the existing pensions, such as the civil service and armed forces pensions? Will that be coming about in 1987 or when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) gives her long-awaited speech under the Canada Pension Plan heading?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Government's Budget proposes to deal first with those things under its legislative jurisdiction, the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The Government also proposes to talk to the provinces on the Canada Pension Plan to bring in some of the reforms as proposed under the Canada Pension Benefits Standards Act. So far I have not been able to ascertain whether that will apply to civil service pensions, to the military or to the RCMP. I would be very shocked, as I am sure everybody will be on this side of the House, if when the Government brings in that proposed legislation the Government does not also include those particular Bills which cover the civil service, policemen and members of the armed forces. I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) nodding her head as if she is saying yes. I hope that is correct. If it is not, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we might have some delay on this side of the House.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). It concerns one of the more serious problems in Canada regarding pensions. It has to do with delays in processing veterans' pensions.
Recently in Ontario a veteran obtained 5,000 names on a petition to be presented to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) complaining about pension delays. Would the Hon. Member support a Bill to limit the time that the Pension Commission and the Department can take to process the pensions of veterans? I have suggested before that a maximum period of six months should be allowed in which to deal with the three stages. If the Department cannot process a veteran's pension within six months, he should automatically obtain the pension he requested. Has the Hon. Member studied that proposal or given any thought to it?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that the terms of reference of the task force on pensions did not cover that particular aspect. However, my desk, as well as the Hon. Member's desk, is full of examples of veterans dying before their assessment has been made. The number of veterans is decreasing every year. Obviously the Department is well staffed. One one seems to understand why there is such difficulty in assessing what should be fairly clear according to the norms laid down in terms of whether people are entitled to
February 23, 1984

pensions. I support that kind of suggestion. It could prove to be a solution.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the Budget debate, confident that the provisions before us will ensure that more Canadians enjoy a brighter and more secure future. 1 would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) for the work he did as a member of the pension committee and the fact that he endorsed many of the measures the Government brought forward in the Budget. That committee sat for the better part of a year and worked diligently to come forward with recommendations, many of which the Government has adopted.
This morning I will address more specifically Canadian women by focusing on those aspects of the Budget of greatest benefit to women. I speak, of course, of the proposed reforms to the retirement income system. It has been said time and time again, and will be said for a long time, that whether a Canadian woman works in the labour force full-time or parttime, whether she stays out of the labour force to raise a family full-time or temporarily, or whether she has never held a job in the labour force, chances are that she can expect to be poor in her later years. She can expect to be poor in what should be the golden years of her life.
As Minister responsible for the status of women, I have consistently refused to accept that this situation must be the standard lot in life for women in the country, women who have made every bit as much a contribution as their male counterparts. A few months ago I appeared before the parliamentary task force on pension reform, at which time I outlined the plight of retired Canadian women. It was clear to me then, as it is clear to me now, that pension reform must take into account the needs of women, just as past legislation has taken into account the needs of men.
Most Canadian women who today are over 65 years of age and single were homemakers for all or part of their adult lives. Others who had never married or were widowed early have been members of the labour force. These women share a lamentable fate in their twilight years. As elderly single women they fare worse under the current pension system than any other group in Canadian society. We on the Government side recognize the problem facing single elderly women. We recognize that 68 out of 100 will end their lives alone. I am confident that the pension reform measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will go a long way toward improving the lives of these women.
Any discussion of reform of the retirement system can only begin with the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS. Good as all the other measures are-and I will go into them-the GIS clearly represents the most single important reform affecting women in both the short term and the long term. Let me explain why. The GIS measures are immediate whereas other pension reforms, even if they are legislated tomorrow, and I agree they cannot come too soon, would take many years to have a full impact on retirement income.
The Budget-Mrs. Erola
Second, no matter what type of pension reform is implemented, women's pensions will continue to be lower than those of men for the foreseeable future. This unfortunate situation results from the simple fact that, outside of federal jurisdiction, women do not have equal pay for work of equal value legislation. Because the wages women earn tend to be lower than wages earned by men, and because pensions are based on earnings, those pensions will continue to be lower.
Allow me to repeat that the legislation soon to be introduced to reform the GIS will respond immediately to the needs of Canada's least privileged senior citizens. In fact, the increases will benefit about 750,000 pensioners, a full three-quarters of whom, something like 553,000, are women.
Parliament will soon to be asked to raise the GIS rate for single pensioners and one-pensioner couples by $50 a month. This represents an increase of more than 20 per cent, an increase which will be made in two stages: $25 beginning July 1 of this year and a further $25 beginning December 1. When coupled with the universal old age pension, these measures will ensure that no single senior citizen receives less than $600 a month, or $7,200 a year. Indeed, the increases will raise the guaranteed income for elderly single Canadians, mostly women, to more than 60 per cent of the amount paid to couples.
I should point out that this reform of the GIS is based on recommendations made by virtually all women's groups and has also been supported by business and labour organizations. In addition, some 3,000 pensioners receiving partial old age pensions, most of whom are immigrant Canadians, will be assisted in the coming year by increased GIS benefits designed to raise their minimum income to the level of other pensioners.
I think it would be useful at this time to provide Hon. Members with some concrete examples of how increases to the GIS will improve the lives of typical women pensioners. Let us take a couple of test cases.
In the first case, consider a woman who is the survivor of a one-earner couple, who has been a homemaker all her life and whose husband earned the average wage. On December 1 this year when the full increase in the GIS is in effect, she will have an estimated total income of $716 per month, compared to $646 now. The increased income would be made up of $274 in OAS, $232 in CPP survivor's benefit and $212 in GIS. A single woman who had earned a typical female wage all her life would also now receive $716. How? This increase would be made up of her Old Age Security of $274, a CPP employment benefit of $232 because she had been in the work force, and what is really important is that despite the fact that this woman had been in the work force all her life earning an average wage, she would still require the GIS of $210. That is why this pension reform is so important. It means a guarantee to all women in the country, whether they have been in the work force part-time or full-time or whether they have been homemakers all their lives.

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mrs. Erola
Other women now in their late seventies or older who had neither a CPP employment benefit nor a CPP survivor's benefit would receive an income of approximately $600 per month, up from $534 per month,
I would like to turn now to the second most important area of pension reform for women, second only, that is, to the proposed increases to the GIS. The GIS is absolutely the cornerstone. I cannot stress enough how pleased I am that the Government is now going ahead with proposals which were put forward by myself, as well as many women's groups, regarding pension credit splitting. Of course, I am speaking about the splitting of pension entitlements between spouses for pension plans both-and I want to stress the word "both"-in the private and public sector.
The sharing of pension entitlements is essential to be equitable, to reflect the different contributions of each spouse to a marriage, and to reflect the reduced consumption of both partners in a marriage to save for retirement. These benefits must be available equally on retirement, on separation or on divorce.
In so far as proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan are concerned, automatic fifty-fifty splitting of pension credits when the younger spouse reaches age 65 has my full support. Similarly, I am sure that the provision for fifty-fifty splitting of CPP credits upon marriage breakdown, unless waived by both parties in writing, will be widely supported by women throughout the country. In fact, virtually all women's groups recommended such pension splitting as did, I am happy to report, a majority of business and labour interests. These improvements await only the concurrence of the provinces, which I am sure, with the widespread support which exists for these measures, will be forthcoming shortly. I believe one Hon. Member just a few moments ago asked when this would happen. It can happen as early as 1985 with the concurrence of the provinces, and I expect that concurrence to take place.
Under private plans, credit splitting on marriage breakdown will provide for a more equitable distribution of accumulated retirement savings. I do believe that credit splitting is without question the best method we have today to recognize the contribution women make to the economic partnership of marriage. In conjunction with survivor benefits, credit splitting will ensure that both wife and husband will benefit from their savings for retirement. What is more, the work which married women do will be recognized, whether they work in the paid labour force or not.
I have just alluded to the important matter of survivor benefits. Permit me to take a moment to look more closely at these benefits as they also will ensure greater security for elderly women. The fact that women tend to outlive men means that survivor benefit reforms are of paramount importance to women. While the Canada Pension Plan currently provides survivor benefits, proposed CPP amendments take it greatly forward by calling for continuation of these benefits upon remarriage. I could not agree more with the Hon.
Member for Okanagan North. It was absolutely ridiculous that these benefits would disappear upon remarriage.
Proposed amendments to private pension plans under federal jurisdiction will also assist women by requiring, for the first time, that such plans provide survivor benefits, and ensuring that these benefits will not end if that spouse remarries. Women who survive their husbands-and let us face it, most of us will-will have far greater security in their old age knowing that their pensions will not disappear when their husbands die. I cannot tell you how heartbreaking it is to find a woman in my constituency office who has discovered that when her husband died, contrary to the popular myth, he did take it with him; this situation, under federal jurisdiction, can no longer continue.
As for private pensions under federal jurisdiction, the proposed changes will ensure that employees acquire rights to their pension benefits after two years' service instead of ten; that these benefits will be protected from inflation; that these benefits will be equal for men and women retiring under identical circumstances; and that employees will be allowed to take their pensions with them as they move from job to job. These measures are of particular importance to women who, for a variety of reasons, change jobs more frequently than men.
Proposed legislation will also increase pension coverage for part-time workers. Regular part-time employees who have worked for three years will be required to join their employer's pension plan at age 25, provided they work at least 50 per cent of the normal work period. Part-time employees who now meet these requirements will also be given the opportunity to join the plan.
Why is this so important for women, Mr. Speaker? Of course, it is obvious. Currently, 72 per cent of part-time workers are women, most of whom are combining work with family responsibilities. They rarely have the opportunity to contribute to their employer's pension plan. The provision to increase pension coverage for part-time workers will greatly increase the number of women covered, as well as increase their future pension benefits.
I would like to turn for a moment to the matter of homemakers' pensions. Let me begin by clearing up once and for all the confusion surrounding this issue. Homemakers currently do have pensions under the Canada Pension Plan in the form of survivors' benefits. However, the situation is not the same under private plans where few homemakers receive survivor pensions from their husband's employer, as I mentioned earlier. Under the proposals announced in the Budget, homemakers' pensions will be improved by the combination of credit splitting and survivor benefits in both the Canada Pension Plan and private plans under federal jurisdiction. In essence, homemakers will be guaranteed a pension in their own right under the CPP, as well as a survivor pension from the plan of the husband's employer.
The Government will begin discussions with the provinces to consider a number of other significant changes to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, including an increased homemak-
February 23, 1984

ers' pension. A number of proposals put forward to the parliamentary task force on pension reform called for greater CPP benefits to all one-earner couples, that is, couples where one spouse works in the labour force and one does not. These, of course, will be discussed with the provinces. However, let us be very clear; the significant issue surrounding the debate on homemakers' pensions is that retirement income must be adequate in relation to pre-retirement income and it must be provided fairly among individuals and between partners in both one and two-earner families.
Last but by no means least, Mr. Speaker, let me touch on the proposed tax-assisted registered pension account, another vehicle for improved retirement savings, the RPA. By providing a more flexible way of saving for retirement years, the RPA will allow women to retain their pension benefits when moving from job to job. It is absolutely essential that women have this flexibility. The fact that employers will be able to contribute to an employer's RPA will be of significant benefit to the many women who work for small businesses. And that is another majority: more women work for small businesses.
I regard the RPA as a key link to improving the overall retirement income system for women. It can be used to accumulate retirement income by couples during periods when one spouse is not in the labour force. The revised limits on contributions will provide much greater scope for contributions th "spousal" plans as well. The provisions to base contributions on career earnings will also enable women to contribute more to tax-assisted pension arrangements in later years after their children have grown up. Often women or their husbands are unable to contribute to RRSPs in their children's early years because the money is needed for other vital expenses. With the proposed new system, they will be able to retain previously unused deductions and use them at any time right up to age 65. So there is time for them to catch up when they have the income to do so.
Women particularly will benefit from this change because of its greater flexibility over their lifetimes, both to make their own contributions and for their spouses to make contributions on their behalf. The locking-in provision under which contributions cannot be withdrawn until retirement will ensure that women benefit in retirement from contributions to employer-sponsored plans during their early years in the labour force. All too often, those few women who have been in private pension plans have withdrawn that money, again for all of those important reasons; they needed it to bolster the family income. It is important that they have a pension system into which those funds are locked, to guarantee that they have funds coming forward in retirement years.
I should like to remind the House that women own 30 per cent of unincorporated businesses in this country. That may come as a bit of a shock to many people. It is these women, these self-employed, the sole proprietors, who were at a disadvantage under the former limits on the contribution to RRSPs. A great many women, I might add, are employed by small and
The Budget-Mrs. Erola
medium-sized businesses. With the introduction of gain-sharing plans they will now have the opportunity to participate through their own efforts. I know, too, that these women who own small corporations, both the small unincorporated businesses and incorporated businesses, do the buying, the selling and the bookkeeping. I can assure these women that the changes in the Budget in the area of small business will be of great assistance to them. I am very pleased that we were able to meet their needs and reduce the complexity of corporate taxation for small business.
Let me conclude by stating that we all know that women work hard all their lives. We raise children, we manage households, whether we are in the labour force or not. We contribute to the ability of our husbands to earn higher wages. Many of us are single parents struggling to be mother, father, homemaker and wage earner. When we take home these responsibilities our opportunity to earn a living is reduced.
The difficult issue of women in pension reform is how to recognize this work load within a retirement income system which is largely earnings-related. I believe that the pension reforms announced in the Budget and which I have addressed today go a long way toward overcoming the problems and past inequities in this country's retirement system. Equally important, the proposed reforms can, with the approval of Parliament, be implemented quickly assuming co-operation from all Members of the House. Many of these measures, and I am referring specifically to those affecting the guaranteed income supplement and the splitting of pensions credits, could be in place in a matter of months. I urge Hon. Members to see that it is done.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the Minister that I did not know she was going to speak next when I directed some questions to the Hon. Member for Okanagan North a few minutes ago.
The peculiar thing about the Budget is that with all the changes it is making, most of which I heartily approve in the way of treatment of pensioners, the Government did not seize the opportunity to put in these reforms immediately to pensions that it directly controls. I refer to civil service pensions, armed forces pensions, the pensions of judges and MPs, et cetera.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that these will automatically fall under the same jurisdiction and the benefits will flow to these people as well. It would indeed be a curious position if those people were not included in these reforms.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to question the date of their implementation. I have another question. The war veterans' allowance is tied to the sum of the Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement. In the case of a married couple it has been $22.02 per month in addition, which is referred to as the WVA top-up. Incidentally, the Minister might wish to put it out on her network to the number of women who are living in poverty, aged 65 and over,
1654

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mrs. Erola
that any who are veterans could apply for the war veterans' allowance if they served overseas. In the case of a married couple at the present time, $922.30 is sent to them instead of $900.28, which gives them an increase of $22.02 if they are on war veterans' allowance. The increase in the GIS will leap over that $22 on July 1.
Can the Minister assure us that the war veterans' allowance is going to be increased by at least that amount and preferably by enough to keep them ahead of the sum of the OAS and the GIS?
Could she tell us also when the reforms about the continuing payments on remarriage are going to apply to those people directly controlled by the Government, the civil service, armed forces and MPs.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am in no position to give detailed answers on all of these matters, particularly on war veterans' allowance, but I will look into that and try to provide the Hon. Member with the details of the timing.
In the areas of pensions and credit splitting, as I said earlier, we hope that with the concurrence of the provinces, which could come as early as 1985, we can move forward on pension splitting and survivors' benefits. I will look into the matter and provide the Hon. Member with details of the dates they will be brought into effect.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, the few things that are being done for older women are very few and seem to be geared mostly toward middle-class women. Does the Minister feel that the Budget is adequate for women who are not yet senior citizens? There was nothing in it about job creation for women at the very time they are being phased out and displaced by high technology. There is no affirmative action at all. For instance, the youth projects that are proposed, minimum though they are, and the previous job-creation program, NEED, the Special Recovery Projects and probably the Liberal slush fund projects as well, were predominantly for areas that provide jobs for men, not for women. Women have not had equal access to the inadequate job-creation programs.
The Budget is also very unfair to women in the Public Service who are notoriously underpaid. The Minister talked about equal pay for equal value and the need for legislation in this area. I should like to know what she is doing about that.
Compensation comparisons with the private sector will mean that women in the Public Service, when the six and five program is removed, will still be capped. Their wage differential is something like $7,000 less than men. There are no training programs targeted especially for women's needs. If the Minister is going to talk about the existing training programs, she had better talk to some women because they do not have equal access to those. They do not have daycare and other supports that are needed to get into them.
I should like to ask the Minister why she did not talk about jobs for women. In my opinion there is nothing in the Budget about job creation for women.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just made a hodge-podge of statements that bear no relevance to the subject matter I was discussing. I suggest to her that she is totally ignorant of government programs if she is saying that affirmative action does not exist in government. I do not know where the Hon. Member has been because affirmative action programs are in place in the federal civil service. I suggest to her that equal pay for work of equal value legislation is in place at the federal level. If she were to take her duties seriously, she would be working with women of this country to see that that kind of legislation were in effect throughout the country.
With regard to job creation, if the Hon. Member looked at our NEED projects-and I would be happy to provide her with some statistics that I do not have on hand at the moment-she would see that in Section 38 we tried very hard to see that women get their share.
If she looks at the youth training programs she will see that the record is very high. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) is with us this morning and I think he will confirm that youth job-creation projects have a very high rate of paticipation of females. This is especially good and 1 am particularly pleased about it.
Of course, it is not good enough. I agree with the Hon. Member that work must be done and we must continue to push to see that women get their fair share. But to suggest that the problem has not been addressed by the Government is utter nonsense.
In this Budget we are addressing the needs of the poorest women in the country. The GIS is the cornerstone. It is absolutely necessary that they get $50 increase. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would criticize a measure that does so much to improve the position of the poorest women in our society.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is also in connection with the GIS. I appreciate the fact that people are going to receive $50 more because it is a lot of money to some. They will be able to do a lot of things they could not do before-perhaps even buy enough to eat when otherwise they could not.
One aspect of this bothers me somewhat. Some women and men who have worked in industry have received injuries- sometimes they lose a finger, a foot, or an eye-and receive what is known in compensation terms as PPD or permanent partial disability. This can amount to $2 or $3, or quite a sum of money up to $200 or more, say, if the back is broken or both eyes were lost. This bothers me. For many years the PPD was considered as compensation for the loss of part of their body in an industrial accident. They left part of their body there so they get a PPD. Now it will be considered in the total sum of money, which means some of these people will get less GIS than they are getting now. The $50 will bring them over the total and this may bring some very sad results.
February 23, 1984

I wonder if the Minister would look at this problem with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to see if the total can be raised, at least for the men and women who have lost part of their bodies in industrial accidents.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem and I have already initiated discussions with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and indeed with the Minister of Finance.


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


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to question the Minister on an extremely important point such as this does not often come up in the House. I wonder whether or not the House might give unanimous consent to extend the question period slightly?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Extension of the question period would require unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I know the concern of the Member in wanting to ask his questions and express his views. Unfortunately 1 cannot agree because of the number of people on our side who need to speak as well.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, this Budget has been described as a non-Budget. Lyman Maclnnis in The Winnipeg Free Press is quoted as saying:
Most of what we are talking about is in the "if' category. It is a budget that hurts absolutely no one because most of it becomes effective in 1985 when this Government may no longer be in power.
Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder why we had a Budget on February 15 if all we were going to get was what the Minister supplied. 1 suppose the only real reason he spoke is that he wanted to have an hour on television all to himself. He wanted to make sure the news media were able to say some things about him. Sir, the news media and commentators have been saying a number of things about the Minister and we want to discuss those here today.
First of all, there were some "if' things that were worthwhile, I suppose. It is good to have a discussion on profit-sharing and an insurance scheme on mortgage interest. It was good to have a discussion on pensions and changing RRSPs, and so on. But there was really no legislation or concrete proposals. On the question of income tax there were some interesting suggestions with respect to small business taxation and simplification, but even that does not go far enough. These proposals are not something you can grab hold of and say, yes, we have to do that immediately; they all have to be studied. For example, the small business proposal leaves the 12.5 per cent dividend tax in place, which discourages equity investment. Why would you invest in equities if your dividend is going to be taxed? The fact is that this particular provision has to be changed.
The Minister has asked for information by April 15, and surely he will receive those kinds of directions and the matter
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
will have to come before a special committee of this House so we can go over the proposals on tax simplification. There is a great deal that has to be done here. At least we have some effort by the Government to consider tax simplification, but this particular proposal does not go far enough.
Getting into the real guts of the problem with this Budget, Mr. Speaker, the fact is we have a deficit which is literally mind boggling. Experts in The Globe and Mail are quoted today as saying the Budget is likely to bring on a new recession because we cannot go on forever spending $ 1, taxing 70 cents and borrowing the other 30 cents. What happens is that the Government goes to each Department and asks what they would like to spend. There is no real effort to cut down or economize and cut back. In many cases the Departments just add 3 per cent, 5 per cent, 8 per cent or whatever they think they can get away with and seems reasonable. What does the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) do? He grabs it, puts it all together and wraps it in blue and calls it the Estimates.
These Estimates are well prepared, Mr. Speaker, but spending is 10.4 per cent higher going in than we had at this time last year. When has the Government ever stayed in line with its spending estimates?
When you analyse this Budget you find it deliberately underestimates expenses in certain fields. For example, the central reserve is deliberately cut back by $300 million to show a lesser deficit than it should be. The lapse account is deliberately overestimated. That again minimizes the proposed deficit. On top of all that, we look at the fiscal arrangements transfer envelope and we find it is almost static. Why? Because that envelope depends on economic conditions. So we are able in those three items, together with a misstatement of revenue, to underestimate the proposed Budget deficit for 1984-85 by at least $4 billion and probably much more.
This Minister has presented these figures on the basis that growth will be 5 per cent, and no economic group in Canada, indeed in the world, will say the Canadian economy is going to grow at 5 per cent. The best I saw was Wood Gundy saying
4.5	per cent, but the highly respected Conference Board says
3.3	per cent. The Minister has put on his rose-coloured glasses and said that as far as his reserves are concerned it is a best case scenario. As far as the lapse is concerned, he can lapse more money than is normal. As far as transfers to the provinces are concerned, they will be less than normal. As far as revenue is concerned, it will be significantly higher than forecast by anyone else. It is a best case scenario but it is not realistic and we are looking at disaster down the road if this Government carries on this way.
A great deal has been said about cyclical and structural deficits. The problem here is really structural. Even if we had the best times possible there is no way that revenues would pay the expenses of the Government. Indeed, even if everyone was working and every factory and plant was going at 100 per cent capacity, this Government would come in with a deficit, under present spending arrangements, of at least $18 million.

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
This Budget is not acceptable because it is not a Budget which the country can live with. Until perhaps November we may be able to borrow the funds required to finance the deficit. When will the tap be turned off? Already brokerage houses are talking about being unable to place the Government debt. At two o'clock today bids for Treasury bills will be opened. I am told that the Government is already interfering in the market-place to keep interest down on the 90-day bill. Last week, on the 180-day bill, the rate was 10.1 per cent. Comparing American and Eurodollar rates today I suspect that on the average on 180 and 365-day bills the Government will have to pay a rate in excess of 10.25 per cent. That situation is only the beginning.
I would like to indicate some of the things I believe should be done. I would like to refer the House to an article by Jeffrey Simpson in this morning's The Globe and Mail. Jeffrey Simpson challenges the Parties in the House not to talk just about porkbarreling by the Government but to get down to the issues 1 suppose $300 million is only nickels and dimes to a Globe and Mail reporter. I did not know that The Globe and Mail paid people like Simpson that much. That is the kind of waste that we must point out. This is the use of public money to ensure the re-election of the Liberal Party rather than to ensure jobs for Canadians and progress for Canada. Reference was made to affirmative action programs. That is a $300 million affirmative action program for the re-election of a Liberal Government. That is all it is.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Right. For once a Tory has some sense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I would now like to discuss where we are going and some of the things that may be seriously looked at. Before I do that, I would like to refer the House to some of the things we have said in the past. The Auditor General and Comptroller General have also said this. As a country we have to priorize our national expenses. We have to determine what is absolutely necessary and what is only desirable, in order to determine what we can eliminate or reduce significantly.
The same type of presentation was made by Rowland Frazee in his address to the annual meeting of the Royal Bank. Mr. Frazee said:
Finally, we know that at present the Canadian deficit is worse than the U.S. version, in relative terms. 1 repeat: government in both countries should take new initiatives to reduce their structural deficits.
How? Well, in the United States, a presidentially-appointed task force has spent the last three years identifying possible efficiencies and program improvements. Some are politically controversial-but they add up to something like 60 billion dollars a year. The task force was staffed, directed and run by private sector businessmen, working as volunteers.
He challenges the political parties in the country to do that type of thing. That is the kind of thing a new government formed by the Progressive Conservative Party will be doing. We will be depending on the private sector and the business community to tell us where we can cut back on the waste, sloth and overexpenditure of government and government programs. We have heard a great deal from them.
Looking at the economic development envelope we see there are a number of grant programs. No study has been made on these grant programs with regard to their effectiveness, to see whether they are really creating the jobs we want in the country and the industrial development we should have. A number of those programs could be eliminated or seriously cut back, combined, and in many cases dropped. There is no evidence that programs designed to ameliorate regional disparity in the country by making grants to companies in a depressed part of the country has improved the regional disparity situation, or in the long run created jobs and improved the productivity of the country.
In the field of transport we see it all the time. I did not intend to mention VIA Rail at this point, but we must seriously consider where we are going in transportation. Can we really afford all of the things we might want? For example, can we afford to have Mirabel airport? Maybe Mr. Simpson thinks that is nickels and dimes, but it is $50 million a year, nearly $1 million a week.
Let us study the energy envelope. Our friends from the New Democratic Party have properly criticized the PIP grant system. In many ways that system of directing drilling is best categorized as the dry hole fund. We are spending $1.6 billion on that kind of work. Perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) could explain why we are spending money on a dry hole fund and why the funds are not used for finding reserves instead of subsidizing work in the frontier.
Let us go on to the other programs in the Minister's Department. He is here now and perhaps we can get the Minister of Energy up on his feet in a moment or two. Maybe he can explain why the Government of Canada should be buying people insulation and new furnaces for their homes. Is this an expense which the Government of Canada should pledge the credit of Canada for? Is this the kind of thing we should spend money on?
I would like to speak about Crown corporations at this point. Looking at the Budget we see that transfers to Crown corporations this year is up by 22 per cent, from $3.7 billion to $4.6 billion. That is an enormous transfer to what are supposed to be business corporations, which are supposed to be self-supporting and in most cases are supposed to pay income tax. The Minister of Energy is responsible for the company which advertises on TV saying it is ours. It is so much ours that it is going to cost us $460 million more this year, plus another $60 million on top of that, in order for "ours" to find oil for "ours" off the coast of Jamaica or China. It is time to call a halt, Sir. We are the only country in the world which has a state oil company which we have to continue to feed. Everyone else gets dividends from their oil company; we get a bill.
In September of last year we had a debate with respect to the Export Development Corporation. In that debate Members on this side pointed out things which could be done in export development which would not cost taxpayers a nickel. The taxpayers are putting an additional $287 million into the Export Development Corporation. That Corporation needs
February 23, 1984

amending-new supervision, new management and new direction.
Our postage rate is 32 cents compared to a 20-cent postage rate in the United States. We are paying the post office over S520 billion this year. That would be all right if we got our mail on time and people in new developments could have mail delivered to their homes. In many, many cases they cannot. The corporation is badly managed, badly run and badly organized. It misrepresents the delivery time of mail. To add insult to injury, it is now costing us $520 million more. That is just too much.
I hesitate to talk about entertainment, but this year the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will receive $895.7 million. When one sees those figures, one begins to wonder why they have to do those things. I left the House of Commons at about ten o'clock the other night. The back of the East Block was lit up with television lights. Who supplied those television lights? It was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I came here the other day and saw that the CBC had its television lights all across the front of the building. When the Budget was presented the CBC had truck after truck, pieces and pieces of machinery in places to interview people. It was all organized. What a display of men, women and machinery all over the place! They had at least five times as much equipment as all of the other TV networks in this country put together. It has an $895.7 million subsidy. In addition, it receives $187 million in advertising revenue. However, I suppose that is nickels and dimes.
I could go on and talk about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. We are unable to sell CANDU reactors. While there are some things we should be doing in atomic energy, surely we can cut down on the amount of money that is being put into that corporation.
I see that you are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on through this blue book to point out many places where we could make changes and cut-backs. This could be done without affecting social services, without affecting universal pensions or without affecting universal transfers. Right now the cost of government could be cut back by a minimum of $5 billion. The Government could work on it seriously and go through each Department to find where there was overlapping, duplication and waste. For example, every day I get a press clipping from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). There is also one available from Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Library of Parliament. There is too much duplication and waste on trivial nickel and dime items. It can be cut and the Government does not need to spend or borrow the kind od money that is involved in this Budget. The Budget should be defeated.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question because I have only answered questions for many years. Did I hear the Hon. Member correctly say that the Tory policy will be that they will only give grants to those who find oil and they will
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
not help the companies that drill dry holes? Is that the policy of his Party, because I heard him say that a few minutes ago?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Minister gave me an opportunity to carry on with the whole energy matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Answer the question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The present program is a grant program that gives grants not on the basis of oil that is found but on the basis of ownership. Whoever heard of telling someone drilling for oil that they first must show their citizenship before determining what kind of grant they will be given, rather than on whether they are finding oil, whether it is the right place to drill for oil or whether oil is being produced. We could end up with corporations that are incorporated just so they could get grants. I challenge the Minister to have an audit of those grants and produce evidence to the House that those grants have really done something for this country in terms of future tax revenue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has not replied to the question. There are grants for both the Canadian companies and the foreign companies. While they do not receive the same level of grants, they both receive grants.
Did I understand the Hon. Member to say that he will give grants to and only help those companies that find oil? How will he decide if companies that do not find oil should not receive a grant? I presume that if I were to find oil I would not need any grants. When you find oil you do not need any grants. You help the companies when they do not find oil. I would like the Hon. Member to reply to my question. Is he telling us that his Party's policy will be to give grants only to those companies that find oil and not to give grants to those companies that do not find oil? Yes or no.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am not our energy critic. However, I will say to the Minister that he has already indicated that his policy is to give grants if companies do not find oil because they do not need a grant if they do find oil. The fact is that this is clearly his policy. It is a dry hole policy. It comes from a dry hole Minister.
The answer is that you do not give grants at all if you know the truth of the matter. The oil is put at the world price and the companies use their own money to explore and find oil. That is what they did all along. The write-off of exploration expenses is allowed in the normal course. You do not end up with a Government and his Department down at Dow's Lake determining whether there is oil here or no oil there, or what the regulations will or will not be.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is not the energy critic but he is the finance critic. Would he make the same grants available to foreign companies as he would to Canadian companies? I believe this was referred to in an off-hand way in his speech. Would he clarify that for me?

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I believe the grants program should be abolished and we should return to a tax allowance system that would require people to put up their own money, risk their own money and have the advantages of their own returns if they find their product.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member brought up a very interesting point with regard to the CBC. It concerns the amount of money it spends. It is very obvious to Members of Parliament that when we watch the newscasts of the public broadcasting corporation and the private companies that come to the House, there is very little difference in the quality. Yet the CBC comes here with semi-trailer trucks, vans and four or five cameras.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Explain about oil. You are from Alberta so explain it to him.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Could the Hon. Member tell us if he has looked into the costs of the newscasts by this public corporation and whether he feels there is any savings there, given that there are many private corporations doing an excellent job in this area? I notice there is a lot of comment on the other side. I do not know if they are concerned about this.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on television. However, I did have a constituent in my riding, the late Lord Thomson of Fleet. Lord Thomson said that the right to own a licence to broadcast television was a licence to print money. This licence is costing we taxpayers, who own the licence, nearly $900 million a year. I say that there is something wrong if it is true that it is a licence to print money, because the way the CBC operates, it is a licence to go into our pocketbooks year after year. I wonder if we get our value.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, the comments by the Conservative member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) intrigued me. I am sure I heard him say just a few moments ago that he is now advocating the Government do away with PIP grants and incentives to oil companies for drilling, no matter whether they drill a dry hole or find oil. My recollection is that about two years ago when the bell-ringing episode went on for two weeks it was largely so that the Hon. Member's Party could divide the legislation and vote in favour of those grants that he is now suggesting ought to be scrapped and those incentives he is now pretending to suggest ought to be scrapped. By splitting the Bill they could also vote against those sections that called for the creation of a Canadian energy company that in time, given decent management, would return some benefits to the people of Canada. At that time the Conservatives wanted to give money to the oil companies and disband Petro-Canada. That is why the Tories rang the bells for two weeks to split the Bill. What is their position now?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: We would do it again to preserve democracy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) I am afraid has a very poor recollection-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: His time has run out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Chair is finding it extremely difficult to hear the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). It must be extremely difficult for the Hansard reporter. I would ask the Members please to be quiet so that we might hear the Hon. Member.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West I am afraid did not quite understand what happened during the bell-ringing episode two years ago. He certainly did not understand the Bills that were before us. He does not, I am sure, recall which Bills were which. In any event, the essence of the bell-ringing matter was whether we should have omnibus legislation. This legislation, if the Hon. Member will recall, dealt with eight separate issues where you could not vote in favour or against the Bill as it was presented.
I am pleased to say, Sir, that as a result of that period the Government has changed, and I hope will continue to change, its attitude toward legislation it produces.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is getting more conservative all the time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Legislation has to be produced in a fashion that Members of Parliament are able to consider it issue by issue, then vote for an issue or vote against it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Next time we will give it to you in big print and pictures.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-18, an Act to provide for the settlement of claims by Indian bands in British Columbia relating to certain lands cut off from their reserves, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has placed before the Canadian people a Budget which gives the appearance of action in dealing with the country's grave economic situation, but which in reality does little to spur recovery.\nCanadians, have come to expect inaction, or worse yet, disruptive policies from this Government whose policies have destroyed business confidence and crippled individual initiative. Indeed, the most notable legacy of this Government is the\n1.5\tmillion Canadians who remain unemployed; Canadians who want to work, support their families and contribute to the building of a strong, healthy nation.", 'February 23, 1984\nThe Budget-Mr. Howie\nSuccessive federal budgets and programs have only aggravated the plight of many Canadians who are ill-equipped to shoulder the burden, namely the elderly pensioner, the unemployed and the citizens of Canada\'s underdeveloped regions. It is to these areas of concern that I will direct my attention today.\nWith respect to the unemployment situation, it is obvious that the Government views this subject as one unworthy of attention. How else can Canadians interpret the almost complete lack of initiative in the Budget to address this issue? With the exception of $150 million for the Youth Opportunities Fund, the Budget simply evades the foremost problem in our society. If it is not a serious issue for the Government, then I suggest that the Government listen more closely to the people of Canada because it certainly is an important issue in their view.\nIn sharp contrast to the public\'s sense of priority we see that the federal Government is more concerned with tax collection, a prospect which is chilling, especially in light of the recent behaviour of the Department of National Revenue. Instead of increasing job-creation programs for Canada\'s jobless adults, the Government has shifted focus from that group and according to the Estimates plans to add 1,044 person-years for tax collection. At the same time the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission will have its work force chopped by 649, including a cut in the number of people working on job creation and work sharing. All in all, this is a fine example of misplaced priority.\nPeople are looking for financial security. They want a job. They need a job to look after their financial security. It is something which goes to the very core of their existence, not only young people just starting out, but also older people whose prospects for re-employment get dimmer as they grow older. Behind all the Government\'s numbers, words, programs and promises, they feel the underlying reality of chronic unemployment. They know that economic development is the key to the future. They know that needed skills and training are necessary to get good jobs and they want the chance to contribute.\nThe Government should remember that every time a new job is created, a new taxpayer is also created. If the 1.5 million Canadians who are now unemployed were put to work and, over a period of years, paid $10,000 each in income tax, our revenues would swell by $15 billion. As a result, unemployment insurance and social justice payments would diminish radically so that those funds too could be used for the benefit of all Canadians.\nHowever, the Budget before us offers little by way of solutions to the unemployment problem. In my home province of New Brunswick unemployment is currently 14.4 per cent, a totally unacceptable level. That figure represents the seasonally adjusted rate for January. If one looks at the annual average rate for 1983, it is even worse, 14.8 per cent.\nWith respect to pensions, the Budget again falls short of the mark, although in some areas the Government has at least acknowledged existing problems and offers partial solutions.\nThe Budget proposes to increase the maximum guaranteed income supplement to the old age pension for the single elderly by $25 per month on July 1, 1984 and by a further $25 per month on December 1, 1984. This $50 increase is welcomed and it is a good measure, but I must point out that only the single elderly will receive the increase and they will still be about $1,900 a year below the poverty line.\nThe parliamentary task force on pension reform recommended an increase of $102 a month for those single elderly Canadians with no other income except the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. By targeting the increase in this way, the poorest of the poor would get double the increase proposed by the Government. I do not know why the Government chose to ignore this proposal, but I suggest it would have been more effective than the proposal contained in the present Budget.\nFor many Canadian pensioners who have already been punished by the Government\'s ill-conceived six and five program, the suffering will obviously continue. The increase outlined in the Budget will help some pensioners, but not much. Others, such as elderly married couples, can expect no pension increases at all and numerous other excellent pension reforms such as homemaker pensions, improved disability pensions and improvements to increase flexibility in the age for receiving CPP benefits, among others, continue to be delayed by the sluggish pension reform process. This is sad, because it is these areas which offer the hope of improved pension benefits for the disabled and those who work in the home.\nA third area of policy where much work remains is that which concerns the economic stimulation of regions in need of development. Government programs to date have had little consistent success in nurturing economic development in the "have-not" provinces, and this latest Budget does not recognize that economic recovery across Canada has been uneven. I would like to suggest that some measures should have been included in the Budget to encourage additional growth and productivity in my Province of New Brunswick, and indeed in all of Atlantic Canada where economies have been lagging behind.\nIt is a fact that federal transfers of all types to the Atlantic provinces account for over 40 per cent of year-to-year economic growth. The slender tax base underlines the significant need for development of a secondary manufacturing segment in the region. Atlantic Canada is the most identifiable region which suffers from regional disparities. Since the Second World War, the most successful companies have been those which have built on basic strengths having to do with location, human skills and natural resources.\nGenerally, the economy of the Atlantic provinces concentrates on six sectors, forestry, fisheries, tourism, agriculture, mining and manufacturing. These sectors can grow and develop largely independently of population growth within the provinces; in other words, as a consequence of exports to other provinces or countries. For that reason they are particularly\nFebruary 23, 1984', 'significant. The construction sector on one hand, and most service sectors on the other hand, serve the domestic economy and are largely constrained in their growth by the level of activity in the economy as a whole. In other words, they are dependent on the primary sectors and manufacturing. Consequently, they are not the sectors where one would seek to stimulate growth in the expectation of gaining the largest impact, even though they are very significant sectors.\nThere seems to be a disturbance at the door, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you would like to deal with it and I will continue at a later time.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
February 23, 1984

Rideau Hal]
Ottawa
Government House
February 23, 1984 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 23rd day of February, 1984, at 12.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a certain Bill.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere



[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 Mr. Crosbie (p. 1445).
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to add my support to the motion proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), namely that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and coincidentally to encourage the Members of this House to reject out of hand the negative and unconstructive amendment proposed by the Official Opposition.
Our Minister of Finance brought forth this Budget after extensive consultations with Canadians in all walks of life and in all regions of the country. Consultations were held with more than 30 major groups across Canada representing labour, women, social agencies, co-operatives, financial institutions, small and large business and many others. The information and advice received in these consultations made an important contribution to the Budget.
I suggest that these consultations were one of the factors that caused this Budget to gain such widespread approval right from the start, immediately after it was delivered. In my view, it was a well thought out Budget, appropriately designed to meet the challenges of 1984 while maintaining an equilibrium and balanced approach between restraining the deficit, holding down inflation, and still finding ways and means to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
This Budget is a follow through of the objectives set out in the April, 1983, Budget which built on the momentum generated by our very successful six and five program to move our country forward on the road to economic recovery. That is why the 1983 Budget has often been referred to as the recovery Budget.
This Liberal Government's six and five program of wage and price restraint caused the inflation rate to drop from 12
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
per cent in June, 1982 to 4.5 per cent in December, 1983, the lowest level in over ten years.
We on this side, and for that matter I am sure all Canadians, want our economic recovery to continue and to grow stronger. This 1984 Budget demonstrates the continuity we must strive for in maintaining the stability that is gained when we manage to keep our inflation rate down. This Budget demonstrates that our Government has a steady hand at the controls and that form of steadiness will generate strong confidence in our economy.
In its broad scope, the Budget addresses the needs of our youth as well as the quality of life of our elderly. I do not want to repeat what the Minister responsible for the status of women had to say about pensions, but retired seniors eligible to receive the guaranteed income supplement will receive a $50 increase in this calendar year in two instalments of $25 each. This increase is being paid to single people, the vast majority of whom are women. The Minister mentioned that some 560,000 women are eligible for the GIS.
I have been asked in my constituency why this increase does not apply to couples. After research had been completed, it was found that a person living alone needs more assistance than a couple sharing accommodation. These 1984 increases will mean a single pensioner eligible for the GIS will receive approximately 60 per cent of the amount allocated to a couple. For future retirees, this Budget provides accessibility to better pensions. Individuals, self-employed and small-business operators will be allowed to increase their tax deductible contributions to pension plans or registered retirement savings plans.
Seniors and some small-business operators will not have to pay income tax in quarterly instalments.
Another very important point, a measure long sought in the west, is the maintenance of the family farm when the original owner retires. Family farm rollovers will be facilitated and farmers will be allowed to invest up to $120,000 of capital gains in an RRSP. In that manner the farm will continue and the founder of the farm will be able to retire in dignity.
There are welcome provisions in this Budget that will boost the private sector. Some 300,000 small businesses in Canada will have their record-keeping simplified. Any Canadian-controlled business will qualify for the lower rate of income tax. There is security provided for home owners and home buyers. They will be able to avail themselves of a type of security against unexpected mortgage increases. Senior citizens will not have to make quarterly payments of income tax. Some 350,000 senior citizens and over 50,000 small businesses and family farm corporations will be exempted from the burden of making instalment payments. This is something which has been requested many times.
The important thing is jobs. We recognize that there is a growth in the work force. That is a reality we have to face. More and more men and women, boys and girls, are entering the work force. On the other hand, some workers will have to undergo retraining as technical developments make their

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Bockstael
present occupations redundant. We recognize that some of the youth in Canada did not avail themselves of sufficient training skills in their formative years. The Ministry of State for Youth is working on training young people for job opportunities and preparing them to gain entry into or re-enter the work force. These programs take time. We are working on them. We are endeavouring through the youth program to provide the funds necessary to assist the work force by adding to the already well-funded amount.
Canadian businessmen realize that we cannot pull jobs out of thin air. There is no point in producing items which are not marketable. In my previous role as a builder, I frequently experienced the difficulty of keeping my crews working because construction work is often very seasonal. Upon completion of a construction project, if my firm did not come up with a successful tender bid on the next contract, I had to lay off some people because it was impossible to create work for my employees. The Canadian public recognizes that Government alone cannot create jobs. Government programs, Government Departments and Crown corporations can provide jobs. Government Departments can bring "estimate" approved projects onstream to create job opportunities. The commitments in the Budget to special recovery programs will provide a stimulus for job creation, but the federal Government cannot go it alone. The private sector is the main creator of jobs whenever and wherever a market exists. The Government is creating opportunities and competitiveness for productivity and accessibility to export markets.
This Budget takes into account the needs of Canadians at all levels. It addresses the concerns of the private sector and looks ahead to create more export opportunities for Canadian industries. It also stimulates and supports job-creation opportunities. It does not produce any shock waves or disturbing fluctuations. It gives Canadians the confidence and the economic stability they seek.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is proposing a realistic Budget that includes taking care of pensioners, protecting and improving pension funds, simplifying income tax requirements, facilitating the survival of the family farm and helping farmers provide for their retirement, simplifying taxes for small businesses, addressing job creation and stimulating the private sector to do its share, and providing financial assistance to help young people acquire new skills and find jobs. For these reasons and many others which would take too long to mention, 1 urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment proposed by the Opposition and to support the measures in this Budget. The measures proposed by this Government will enhance Canada's economic expansion and our position in the world. Thank you.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated in his Budget that personal savings will be about $32.3 billion this year, does the Hon. Member have some idea as to how we would be able to
borrow $29.5 billion to finance the deficit? Also he should bear in mind that that is 92 per cent of personal savings.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the record of the Government in borrowing indicates that it has never had any difficulty borrowing money and can continue to do so, as it does every week with Treasury bonds and so forth. I do not perceive the Minister having any difficulty in borrowing the necessary money in the projected manner which he devised.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If we use 92 per cent of personal savings to finance the debt, and having noted in the Budget papers that personal savings are expected to decline from 11.2 per cent of disposable income to 9.6 per cent of disposable income in 1985, how does the Hon. Member expect to finance the next year's borrowing when at that point the borrowing will be in excess of personal savings?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Revenues will be up.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Hon. Member opposite is obviously the finance critic for his Party. Just as he said that he was not an oil expert, I am not one of the financial experts on this side. However, I understand that government will borrow money not necessarily related to the savings of its population. There is the percentage of the Gross National Product which can be applied to borrowing. For example, we tell people in Canada that if they want to purchase a house, they are expected to be able to provide 25 per cent of their salary to pay for that accommodation. At least, it could go up to that percentage and they would be eligible for a mortgage. For that year the borrowing of the Government represents 20 per cent of the GNP. The Government can continue to borrow without putting the country into financial straits or difficulties.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about the Government not having any problems borrowing money with savings at $32 billion and borrowings at $29 billion. If all that money is to be used up by the Government in borrowing, what will happen to the private sector when it goes to the market for funds? From where will it get its money?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That hand-wringing has been going on for years.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I have not found any banks refusing to lend money to people today.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Good for you.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The line of credit in Canada for provincial governments-and we can look at all ten provinces-is very high. The rating for borrowing for the federal Government is just as high or higher. This Government can guarantee its borrowings through debentures. The Canadian public is ready to come forward with whatever the Government needs to meet its obligations and to purchase Canadian Government bands.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) said that he was not a financial expert and the
February 23, 1984

Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said that he is a financial expert. I want the Hon. Member for St. Boniface to know that he is using more common sense today than we would hear from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South in a hundred years. In fact, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member what was said by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South and ask him to tell me whether he agrees with those cutbacks.
Does he believe, for example, that federal Government transfers to poorer regions in the country should be cut back? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that. Does he believe that VIA Rail should be throttled back? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that. Does he believe that we should end the exploration incentive grants for oil companies? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that. Does he believe that we should end the grants for home insulation and new furnaces? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that. Does he believe that we should cut back on Atomic Energy of Canada?
I see you are signalling me, Mr. Speaker. I have one more question. The Atomic Energy of Canada cut-back would hit right in Mississauga South where hundreds of engineers live. Finally, does he believe that since the $520 million deficit for the post office is supposedly too high we should, therefore, increase the price of stamps the way that the member for Mississauga South says.
In short, we have had practical advice from the Hon. Member for St. Boniface so far. We have had screwy advice from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South so far. I wonder if we can have more non-expert advice from the Hon. Member for St. Boniface since it seems to help us all considerably.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: An equally short response from the Hon. Member for St. Boniface.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I did not note all of the questions the Hon. Member for Mississauga North put forward. I know very well that I am not in favour of cutting transfer payments. That is one of the great things about this country. The Constitution of Canada says that the federal Government shall be instrumental in making sure that transfer payments are made to the provinces that have less and to give a living standard to all Canadians of the same level.
I find it odd that when VIA Rail cuts were made, the Opposition screamed, hollered and said that VIA Rail had to be maintained. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have served on the Transport Committee. There was much insistence on maintaining VIA Rail. Now that there is a re-establishment, after realizing that VIA Rail had to continue and be restored in certain areas, I find it odd that the Hon. Member would want to cut back on VIA Rail. I do not believe we should take his advice vis-a-vis the post office, Atomic Energy and everything else he wants to cut back. He is using a shotgun to kill a sparrow.
The Budget-Mr. Howie


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to correct the record while I am asking a question. There was no indication of exactly what should be cut. I am saying that these things must be examined, and examined damned closely. I think the Hon. Member will agree that they have to be examined.
As far as transfers to the provinces are concerned, that is part of our system. What I did say, and I think the Hon. Member might agree, was that when the Government provides a reduction in transfers to the provinces in its envelope system, that reduction can take place only if provincial revenues are more buoyant.
1 ask the Hon. Member to understand this and to perhaps comment. It is unfair to present a Budget which indicates that transfers to provinces are likely to go down or remain constant when, unless revenues are substantially better, they will have to go up.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that certain expenditures have to be examined very closely and reviewed from time to time to ensure that waste does not take place and that we are not spending money improperly.
With regard to the reduction in the transfer payments envelope, it is well known that our system provides for municipal governments to ask for more when they go to the provinces and the provinces to come to the federal Government to ask for more, wanting to enlarge their programs and so on. If is quite fair for the federal Government to say: "This is what the country can afford at this time. We will manage our affairs. We will help you to the extent that there is a universal or balanced distribution across the country so that you can provide the minimum services to which Canadians are entitled. You do your share to provide what they need in your area."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: We have to continue the debate. The Hon. Member for York-Sunbury.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a propensity to go to the Senate for Royal Assent in one minute. Would you like to call it 12.45?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Unfortunately, we have to continue until we get a knock at the door. We have no idea how long that will be. Sometimes it takes quite a while.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has placed before the Canadian people a Budget which gives the appearance of action in dealing with the country's grave economic situation, but which in reality does little to spur recovery.
Canadians, have come to expect inaction, or worse yet, disruptive policies from this Government whose policies have destroyed business confidence and crippled individual initiative. Indeed, the most notable legacy of this Government is the
1.5	million Canadians who remain unemployed; Canadians who want to work, support their families and contribute to the building of a strong, healthy nation.

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Howie
Successive federal budgets and programs have only aggravated the plight of many Canadians who are ill-equipped to shoulder the burden, namely the elderly pensioner, the unemployed and the citizens of Canada's underdeveloped regions. It is to these areas of concern that I will direct my attention today.
With respect to the unemployment situation, it is obvious that the Government views this subject as one unworthy of attention. How else can Canadians interpret the almost complete lack of initiative in the Budget to address this issue? With the exception of $150 million for the Youth Opportunities Fund, the Budget simply evades the foremost problem in our society. If it is not a serious issue for the Government, then I suggest that the Government listen more closely to the people of Canada because it certainly is an important issue in their view.
In sharp contrast to the public's sense of priority we see that the federal Government is more concerned with tax collection, a prospect which is chilling, especially in light of the recent behaviour of the Department of National Revenue. Instead of increasing job-creation programs for Canada's jobless adults, the Government has shifted focus from that group and according to the Estimates plans to add 1,044 person-years for tax collection. At the same time the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission will have its work force chopped by 649, including a cut in the number of people working on job creation and work sharing. All in all, this is a fine example of misplaced priority.
People are looking for financial security. They want a job. They need a job to look after their financial security. It is something which goes to the very core of their existence, not only young people just starting out, but also older people whose prospects for re-employment get dimmer as they grow older. Behind all the Government's numbers, words, programs and promises, they feel the underlying reality of chronic unemployment. They know that economic development is the key to the future. They know that needed skills and training are necessary to get good jobs and they want the chance to contribute.
The Government should remember that every time a new job is created, a new taxpayer is also created. If the 1.5 million Canadians who are now unemployed were put to work and, over a period of years, paid $10,000 each in income tax, our revenues would swell by $15 billion. As a result, unemployment insurance and social justice payments would diminish radically so that those funds too could be used for the benefit of all Canadians.
However, the Budget before us offers little by way of solutions to the unemployment problem. In my home province of New Brunswick unemployment is currently 14.4 per cent, a totally unacceptable level. That figure represents the seasonally adjusted rate for January. If one looks at the annual average rate for 1983, it is even worse, 14.8 per cent.
With respect to pensions, the Budget again falls short of the mark, although in some areas the Government has at least acknowledged existing problems and offers partial solutions.
The Budget proposes to increase the maximum guaranteed income supplement to the old age pension for the single elderly by $25 per month on July 1, 1984 and by a further $25 per month on December 1, 1984. This $50 increase is welcomed and it is a good measure, but I must point out that only the single elderly will receive the increase and they will still be about $1,900 a year below the poverty line.
The parliamentary task force on pension reform recommended an increase of $102 a month for those single elderly Canadians with no other income except the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. By targeting the increase in this way, the poorest of the poor would get double the increase proposed by the Government. I do not know why the Government chose to ignore this proposal, but I suggest it would have been more effective than the proposal contained in the present Budget.
For many Canadian pensioners who have already been punished by the Government's ill-conceived six and five program, the suffering will obviously continue. The increase outlined in the Budget will help some pensioners, but not much. Others, such as elderly married couples, can expect no pension increases at all and numerous other excellent pension reforms such as homemaker pensions, improved disability pensions and improvements to increase flexibility in the age for receiving CPP benefits, among others, continue to be delayed by the sluggish pension reform process. This is sad, because it is these areas which offer the hope of improved pension benefits for the disabled and those who work in the home.
A third area of policy where much work remains is that which concerns the economic stimulation of regions in need of development. Government programs to date have had little consistent success in nurturing economic development in the "have-not" provinces, and this latest Budget does not recognize that economic recovery across Canada has been uneven. I would like to suggest that some measures should have been included in the Budget to encourage additional growth and productivity in my Province of New Brunswick, and indeed in all of Atlantic Canada where economies have been lagging behind.
It is a fact that federal transfers of all types to the Atlantic provinces account for over 40 per cent of year-to-year economic growth. The slender tax base underlines the significant need for development of a secondary manufacturing segment in the region. Atlantic Canada is the most identifiable region which suffers from regional disparities. Since the Second World War, the most successful companies have been those which have built on basic strengths having to do with location, human skills and natural resources.
Generally, the economy of the Atlantic provinces concentrates on six sectors, forestry, fisheries, tourism, agriculture, mining and manufacturing. These sectors can grow and develop largely independently of population growth within the provinces; in other words, as a consequence of exports to other provinces or countries. For that reason they are particularly
February 23, 1984

significant. The construction sector on one hand, and most service sectors on the other hand, serve the domestic economy and are largely constrained in their growth by the level of activity in the economy as a whole. In other words, they are dependent on the primary sectors and manufacturing. Consequently, they are not the sectors where one would seek to stimulate growth in the expectation of gaining the largest impact, even though they are very significant sectors.
There seems to be a disturbance at the door, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you would like to deal with it and I will continue at a later time.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-18, An Act to provide for the settlement of claims by Indian bands in British Columbia relating to certain lands cut off from their reserves-Chapter No. 2.
It being 1.03 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Food Bank is a non-profit, charitable organization. For many of the unemployed in Vancouver it is the last bastion between them and possible starvation. It spends all of its energy and resources in distributing food or groceries free of charge to those who have been hit hardest by the high level of unemployment in British Columbia and who have no resources left.
Since the Food Bank is a non-profit organization it cannot give what it does not receive from others. Much of its energy has to be spent in soliciting help from the wider community in order that it can distribute that help to those who need it. It could well receive more donations of food from food companies if the tax structure of our country were designed in such a way to encourage giving.
Under the present system, for a good company to make a substantial donation to any organization like the Vancouver Food Bank, it must do so without benefit of a charitable donation receipt for income tax purposes. Should it want a receipt-obviously it deserves one since it is giving support of considerable monetary value-it must go through the routine of selling the product to the Food Bank, getting a cheque from the Food Bank, and writing out another cheque as a donation to the Food Bank. The entire process is awkward and a disincentive to giving. Why should it not be possible for the tax department to permit the issuing of a receipt by credible organizations for gifts in kind, such as in the case of donations to the Vancouver Food Bank?
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) thinks this is too complicated or risky, I remind him that the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of Canadians to the Government's plan to assist the elderly. A large part of the expenditures in the second Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is earmarked for senior citizens.
In order to provide supplementary assistance to pensioners, the Canadian Government will pay, in addition to the quarterly cost of living adjustment a total of $50 to single pensioners

February 23, 1984
between now and Christmas. About 750,000 pensioners will benefit, the affected number increasing by 20,000 in 1984. This year, more than $250 million will be added to the Canada Pension Plan fund; for 1985, funding is expected to total $500 million.
In addition to increasing benefits for single pensioners, the Canadian Government intends to reform the pension system so that all Canadian workers under federal jurisdiction will benefit from some degree of income security.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware that pensions are a deferred salary and that is why the Canadian Government wants to focus attention on a social issue that will be the most important one in the years to come, affecting many Canadians, and I am sure that single pensioners, most of whom are women who were is a difficult situation, will be very happy to receive these increased benefits. Thank you.



CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Royal Victoria Hospital and Recreation in Barrie, I urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) to rectify a problem created as a result of certain decisions by officials of his Department in the form of a letter denying a charitable organization an opportunity to raise funds.
Well known Canadian artist Ken Danby has offered to assist the hospital with its current fund raising drive. He will autograph 250 limited editions of one of his paintings commissioned for the new Recreation Building, which the hospital will give as tokens of appreciation to those who make donations in excess of $500 to the hospital fund. The hospital will make a minimum of $125,000 through this innovative venture. But now Mr. Robert Young of Revenue Canada has ruled that donors who receive these gifts cannot be issued a tax deductible receipt for their donations.
Revenue Canada will receive tax on the $20,000 that Mr. Danby will be paid for the original painting. Does the Minister think it just that his officials should now try to tax donations to this worth-while cause? The hospital is to be congratulated on coming up with an innovative way to raise money from the private sector at a time when medicare funding is a controversial issue.
Surely the tax department has had enough bad publicity in recent months. Surely it does not need to let a technicality stand in the way of a worthy and charitable cause. On behalf of all the residents of Simcoe South I plead with the Minister for justice, compassion, and a sense of fair play. He should straighten out his bureaucrats once and for all.



AVIATION INDUSTRY


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern that an outstanding event in our national history might pass without due recognition in the House. I refer to the 75th anniversary of powered flight in Canada.
On February 23, 1909, Canada proudly entered a new era in transportation when Mr. J. A. D. McCurdy flew his aircraft, the Silver Dart, from the ice of the Bras d'Or Lake at Baddeck, Nova Scotia. The airplane was designed and built by the Aerial Experiment Association which, in addition to Mr. McCurdy, included as members Mr. Casey Baldwin, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, Mr. Glenn Curtiss, and Mr. Thomas Selfridge. The Silver Dart's flight was the first by a heavier-than air machine in Canada, and the first controlled flight of an airplane by a British subject at any point in the British Commonwealth.
From those early days of bamboo struts and piano wire we have progressed to the conquest of space. I am certain I speak for all Canadians when 1 say we owe a debt of gratitude to our early aviation pioneers, and in particular to Mr. A. D. McCurdy and the men of the Aerial Experiment Association.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government and CMHC are effectively union busting by ignoring the Fair Wages Act. CMHC is forcing non-profit housing societies to take low bid contracts for non-profit and co-op housing, thus excluding many union firms from the competition. Building trades unions and non-profit and co-op housing societies are completely justified in protesting this outrageous practice. Construction trade unions in B.C. have provided generous funding for development of affordable co-op and non-profit housing. Yet, with 66 per cent of union construction carpenters unemployed, building trade members are excluded from working on the very projects they are helping to finance.
The unfair labour practices of the federal Government and CMHC must cease immediately. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) must enforce the Fair Wages Act for all CMHC subsidized developments so that workers earn decent wages and union firms can compete. The Minister responsible for CMHC must ensure that CMHC follows the provisions of the Act and changes the low bid policy immediately.
February 23, 1984



CALL FOR RENEWAL OF TALKS TO RESOLVE NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE DISPUTE

Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity once again to call for a renewal of talks on resolving the offshore dispute between Ottawa and the Province of Newfoundland-Labrador.
You, and Members of this House should know, Mr. Speaker, that Premier Peckford just yesterday here in Ottawa failed to have the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) put in writing the Conservative Party's position on the offshore. As in all other matters of policy, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives either have no policy or refuse to state what it is. The Conservative Party has a responsibility to clarify the dramatic difference in the policy of their Party on the offshore as stated by their Leader, which is that they have no position, and the policy as stated by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), which is that they intend to kow-tow to Mr. Peckford. It is obvious these people cannot make up their minds.
I say once again that Premier Peckford has a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular the unemployed in that Province, to quit his confrontation politics and get back to the bargaining table as soon as possible.



FINANCE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Ownership Tax was created to pay for the purchase of Petrofina. Petrofina is now paid for, yet Canadians continue to pay that tax every time they buy gas. It is ironic that the Liberals, the Party elected on the promise of cheaper gas prices, keeps the prices unnecessarily high with a tax which has fulfilled its designated purpose.
What will the Government do with the money it collects from this tax? It will give it to Dome Petroleum, in addition to the $875 million Dome has already received through the PIP grants. What does this do for small business and home owners like those in the Mission-Port Moody area? It watches them fall by the wayside, Mr. Speaker. Those who survive see their tax dollars go out as grants to huge corporations and filter their way through to the chartered banks. It is hard enough to compete today without being taxed to death and then see your tax dollars go to your competitors as grants.
The evidence is overwhelming, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals are the Party of big business and, along with the chartered banks, are the persecutors of small business and the average working man.



EMPLOYMENT


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in the light of current controversy I must remind the House that Liberal Members of Parliament are the people taking a genuine interest in the problems facing unemployed people. We are the ones who put our energy into solving these problems.
I would like to give you two direct examples, from my own experience, of the lack of interest shown by the Tories. There is a special recovery project in Mississauga South for over $2.5 million. The federal Government is creating badly needed construction and tourism jobs by building a new marina on the Lakeshore. On at least two widely publicized occasions I have personally been involved in supporting and working on this project. The Tory MP has never been seen or heard from, and probably does not know or care about the benefits being provided for Mississauga.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I had a chance, over a year ago, to work with the Victorian Order of Nurses on a home nursing project. In this case the project was too big to be funded by one riding, and the nurses asked for co-sponsorship with the Tory MP from York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). The answer was a resounding no. He did not care about either the jobs or the sick people.
Do not let the current debate mislead you, Mr. Speaker. Tory MPs know what is happening because they can see the need and the activity by the Government. They just do not care.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



NATIONAL PARKS


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Minister of the Environment has issued his election command to the Parks Canada people. He wants them to crank out three national parks in northern Canada before the next federal election. This means they have less than a year to fulfil satisfactorily the criteria set out by Parks Canada policy regarding the creation of national parks.
There are three essential stages to be completed. The first is identification and selection of potential national parks. The second is consultation, feasibility studies, and negotiations. The last step is the legislative process for the establishment of a national park.
Yet there have not been any public hearings "to determine the degree of interest, opposition and support for the new park proposal" or "to ensure all necessary information on competing resource use interests is collected, to aid in decision making ..." among other concerns.

February 23, 1984
This phase of the new park assessment and negotiation stage "can mean a commitment of time to a process that can stretch over five to ten years, or more, as was the case in the recent agreement to establish Grasslands National Park". "While public involvement may complicate and lengthen the new park establishment process, it is vital".
Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker; they are the recommendations of the Chief of National Parks Systems Division, and I agree with them. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) may want to put pressure on Parks Canada to crank out three national parks before the election, but I have some observations to make. Parks Canada has just begun the new parks public feasibility assessment and negotiation stage. Nowhere in the criteria set out by Parks Canada is it stated that the objectives of the new parks feasibility-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry to hear the Opposition Party complaining about this allocating of sums of money to the ridings who need it most. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) of the Government of Canada, in public, to give more funds to Manicoua-gan, because all over the riding people are calling me about very specific projects such as building a presbytery in Aguan-ish, the community centre in Schefferville which got more than $100,000 last year, a platform for the village of Kegaska which needs one in order to receive the CBC station. 1 have more projects, Mr. Speaker, including harbour repairs which involves the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are going to carry out all kinds of projects, Mr. Speaker. Parks Canada in the Mingan Islands, Havre-St-Piere and Mingan, is waiting for substantial funding to help promote tourism in the area. Anticosti needs projects for people in isolated areas; I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the people in northern towns and the Inuit in the Fort-Chimo area are calling me about projects as well. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely shameful that the Opposition parties should want to deprive ridings where the unemployment rate is very high, of special funds for direct job creation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, if I could have his attention. This morning in a series of interviews to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and to the CP the Member for Kitchener, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, made a number of serious allegations. He said he had deep concerns about the attitudinal problems which exist within Revenue Canada and has had these concerns for some period of time. He said the problems exist as a result of the attitude of top bureaucrats in the Department. He said: "Politics is democracy and democracy is accountability to the people, but the Deputy Minister is not accountable". Finally he said that the Prime Minister had assured him something was going to be done about his concerns.
My question to the Prime Minister is two-fold. What assurances did the Prime Minister give to the Member for Kitchener? Does he agree with the attack by the Member for Kitchener on the senior bureaucrats as being responsible for the problems within Revenue Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Member is purporting to allude to something which went on in our caucus. It is not my practice to comment on what went on in caucus.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The allegations which I have made, and the charges made by the Member for Kitchener, are reported in today's press as a result of statements that he made to the press this morning. Those are direct comments.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF DEPARTMENT'S SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion made by the Member for Kitchener that accountability is with the top bureaucrats for the problems within Revenue Canada, which is a very serious charge? What assurances has the Prime Minister given to Members on the Liberal side of the House that the attitudinal problems which have been spoken about by the Member for Kitchener, quite rightly, are going to be dealt with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the approval of the Hon. Member when he says, quite rightly, I gave assurances that the attitudinal problems would be dealt with. They are problems which have been raised particularly by Members on the other side. It is true that the Member for Kitchener and other Members on this side have been discussing matters with the Minister of Revenue, and in caucus, about the need to improve certain practices in the Department of Revenue.
February 23, 1984

Although I do not like to comment on things 1 said in caucus, I did give the Member the assurance that the Government was aware of the situation and that it had begun dealing with it by establishing the Farlinger Commission. Therefore, I gave him the kind of assurances that the Hon. Member suggests I quite rightly should have.
With regard to the comments of the Hon. Member himself, I do not know exactly what he said to the media. I take it his comments speak for themselves.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kitchener was saying that he was fastening responsibility, not on the Minister, but on the senior bureaucrats. The Prime Minister knows better than anyone else in the House that the buck stops with the Minister, or at least he ought to know that.
Over the last three months the Minister has demonstrated a sense of incompetence which is very difficult to exaggerate. I do not blame the Minister. I blame the Prime Minister, for appointing a 15 watt bulb to such a responsible Department. Is the Prime Minister convinced, as a result of representations that have been made on this side of the House, that the Minister of National Revenue is not doing his job, and will he replace him?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I usually take such representations as advice to be considered, but when they come from a one candlepower brain, I do not consider them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FARLINGER STUDY-PROTECTION OF WITNESSES' PRIVACY
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, in this age of enlightenment 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister knows that there are many people, including departmental personnel, who would like to contribute to a clean-up of his Department's operation but may be reluctant to speak in public because of fear of promotions, their jobs, or compelling personal reasons. The terms of reference for the Farlinger study do not speak on this matter, and Mr. Farlinger, on Tuesday last, was not then able to give the assurance that anyone wishing to testify privately could be heard and guaranteed anonymity.
Will the Minister amend the terms of reference of the Farlinger study to state clearly that Mr. Farlinger and his associates can, for good reason, agree with anyone to hear testimony in private, or receive confidential communications, and keep secret that person's name and identity from everyone, including the Minister and departmental staff?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of Mr. Farlinger's study are very broad. Furthermore, Mr. Farlinger and his associates are professionals who have been sworn and will therefore preserve the anonymity of information they receive privately. I am sure that anyone in the Department or among the general public who wishes to testify privately may rest assured that his testimony will be protected by the rules of professional ethics and by the oath sworn by the people working with Mr. Farlinger on this study.


IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESSES
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answer, and I indicate that Mr. Farlinger is an employee of the Department. This is not a commission; it is an investigation and study. There is no mention whatsoever in the terms of reference of his ability to hear anyone in private. When he briefed the Opposition on Tuesday last and was specifically asked, he could not give us the assurance that he could hear people in private.
The Minister must realize the difficulty of appointing people to investigate their own departmental operations. If he insists on such a course, surely he should see the importance and the desirability of isolating himself and his officials from the study in order to promote a full and impartial search for the truth, without fear on the part of those who can lend great information to the study. Will the Minister formally express his intent that witnesses can testify before the study officials, and that such officials can keep secret the names and identities of any such persons? Would he do that simple thing?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to the Hon. Member's First question adequately covers what he just said. I explained that Mr. Farlinger and the people working with him have been sworn to preserve the anonymity of the information they receive and the people giving that information. I believe this guarantee covers any concerns the Hon. Member may have in this respect.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Friday I asked a question based on information 1 received from a source in the Minister's department that 91 per cent of the Ontario Special Employment Initiatives Pro-

February 23, 1984
Oral Questions
gram funds was spent in Liberal ridings. Of course that was confirmed when the list was tabled.
Yet another source in the Minister's Department tells me that on Monday, February 20, of this week, a directive went out to all regional offices saying that all inquiries from Members of Parliament about the program should be routed to the Minister's office to a Mary Jamieson. Why the gag order? What is the Minister afraid of? Does he no longer have any confidence in his own officials?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of anything, particularly the questions of the Hon. Member. He asks about a directive that went out to civil servants suggesting that calls be directed to my office, he said, I think, on Monday of this week. I believe that probably such a directive was sent out before that, and its purpose was to ensure that queries about this program, which was obviously a matter of great interest and also political controversy, came to my office rather than be responded to directly by civil servants. The reason for that is that if civil servants began to respond directly on these matters it would be very easy for their comments to be taken out of context and used as part of the political battle, which is not their responsibility.
Indeed, I have seen on some occasions, in questions posed by Members on the other side of the House, that they have raised questions based on discussions that they have had with officials and which, when I investigated, did not seem to correspond entirely to the facts as the officials described them to me.
It is a natural part of the political process that the programs of the Government are advocated and defended by the Members of the Government, and the function of civil servants is not to take part in that controversy, nor should their words be used as part of that controversy. That is why that directive was given.


DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO SASKATCHEWAN RIDINGS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said several times that he spends money from his Department on the basis of the unemployment rate in order to try to create jobs for Canadians. Could he explain why, in my Province of Saskatchewan, the riding of Assiniboia with a 2.4 per cent unemployment rate received $736,000, while the riding of Prince Albert with a 7.5 per cent unemployment rate received only $50,000? Why did Prince Albert, with three times more unemployed, receive only one fifteenth of the money that went into the Assiniboia riding?


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about Ralph Goodale.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, to be precise, I never said that the allocations were based strictly on the unemployment levels. I said that if you look at the proportion of expenditure, they correspond pretty well.
As a matter of fact, in the Hon. Member's home Province, where we have no Members of Parliament at all to the best of my recollection, 2.6 per cent of the funds have been spent in Saskatchewan, and the percentage of Canadian unemployed that is to be found in Saskatchewan is 2.6 per cent, exactly the same.
The reason why one cannot look simply at the figures of expenditure and look at those proportions in relation to unemployment insurance is that there are many other programs of the Government over-all which deal with unemployment problems, apart from these. For instance, there are the incentives given in the last Budget which stimulate economic activity through private sector activity in our economy. Naturally those have a greater impact on some Provinces than on others. There are some Provinces that are wealthier than others, indeed including the Province of Saskatchewan, where one would expect that the provincial Governments would be able to do more in combating unemployment than in some of the Provinces that are not so well off. One should not look for an exact parallel in the percentages. 1 said that if you look at the unemployment percentages and the proportions of expenditure you will find that there is a rough comparison which makes sense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a pretty rough comparison.


FUNDS ALLOCATED TO ASSINIBOIA RIDING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Assiniboia has one-third the unemployment rate of Prince Albert, yet it is given fifteen times as much money as Prince Albert. Mr. Speaker, we are lucky enough not to have any Liberal MPs, but could the Minister tell us if the reason Assiniboia got so much money is due to the fact that Senator Argue, better known as "Senator Slushfund" in our Province, comes from the Assiniboia constituency, and that the former Member of Parliament from that riding, Ralph Goodale, who is now the Leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan, is running for election to the provincial Legislature in the riding of Assiniboia?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman does not listen to me, or does not care to hear. Two point six per cent of the funds have gone to Saskatchewan, and 2.6 per cent of the unemployment in Canada is to be found in Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman is concerned about Assiniboia. I will pass on to Senator Argue his comments that the New Democratic Party does not want funds spent in Assiniboia to create jobs.
February 23, 1984


PROVISION OF PROGRAM CRITERIA TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday outside the House the Minister was quoted as saying, in reply to a question from the press as to why the $300 million Special Initiatives Employment fund had not been advertised:
If we had we would have raised expectations and been flooded with applications we couldn't deal with.
Yet that is precisely what the Minister did in the case of the Canada Works Program which had half of what the Special Employment Initiatives Program had, currently $164,144,000. Yet each Member of Parliament received an information kit. Advertisements went out across the country to all the daily newspapers, encouraging applications. The private sector was encouraged to get involved, to the extent that millions and millions of dollars worth of applications that could not possibly be dealt with came in from all constituencies. Why the different standard? Why could this program not be advertised? Why could Members of Parliament not be given details on criteria and how to deal with them?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to the Canada Works Program. The funding for the Canada Works Program is far more extensive than the funding which is available under the Special Employment Initiatives Program. Part of that Canada Works funding goes on the basis of constituency allocations to Hon. Members, as the Hon. Member knows. I think I would stand by the statement which he has cited which, more or less, I think corresponds to what I said, that if an extensive advertising publicity campaign had been undertaken the only result would have been to generate expectations which could not possibly have been fulfilled.
There is lots of evidence that members of the public, municipalities, and mayors of towns and cities across the country were fully aware of the program, because they stimulated a whole variety of applications for it. There is not a need for the kind of publicity and information program which the Hon. Member now seems to be urging us to carry through.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there is a basic contradiction here. On the one hand the Minister is encouraging applications for the Canada Works Program, thereby generating expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled. On the other hand he is suppressing and hiding a program that is worth twice the value. How do you explain that?


AMOUNT OF UNUSED FUNDS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister. There is a discrepancy in the total number of applications that were tabled in the House a few days ago and what the Minister claims was the total. The total, according to the Minister, was $207 billion,
Oral Questions
but according to what was tabled in the House it only added up to $184 million. Can the Minister tell us where is the other $27 million in applications?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have not done the adding procedure which I gather the Hon. Member and his staff have done. To the best of my knowledge we have provided the list of projects to the funding of $207 million. There may be some discrepancy as a result of unallocated funds, or on the basis of administrative costs. I suppose it is also possible that in trying to prepare the material as quickly as possible for Members of the House something may have gone wrong. I will try to check the figures and see what the explanation is, if there is one.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO NOVA SCOTIA RIDINGS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is interesting to note that in Nova Scotia there are no unemployed in the six Conservative ridings, apparently. They are all in the Liberal ridings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: On what grounds can the Minister stand in this House and charge Members of the Opposition with disinterest in the welfare of their constituents when, in fact, 95 per cent of the $28.4 million that went into Nova Scotia went into Liberal ridings? On the basis of that, can the Minister rise in his place to tell us that we were not interested, or will he not now admit that we were not told?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lalonde:: You were asleep, Mike.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have to say that the hon. gentleman at least cared because there was funding that went into his constituency, something over $3 million under the Special Capital Recovery Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: I think the situation is fairly clear. One after another, and again and again, Members on the opposition side of the House have said: "Why didn't we get our share?" "Why didn't we get our share?" Then they answer the question themselves by saying: "We didn't put forward applications." "We didn't put forward applications." They then say: "Well why didn't we put forward applications?" "Because we did not know about it. "Because we didn't know about it". But then they say they are not negligent, that they are diligent Members of Parliament.


Mr. Nowlan:: Allan MacEachen took all the money.


John (Moody) Roberts: They studied the budget statements when they came forward. They looked at the program. They knew it was

February 23, 1984
Oral Questions
there. They were aquiver with expectation. They were energetic. They were anxious to bring forward projects, but they waited for the criteria to come down. They would come down for breakfast and say: "Are the criteria out?" "No, not today. We will wait until tomorrow." The next day they would come down and say: "Are the criteria out yet? We have projects. No, not today." The next day they said: "Are the criteria there? No, not today." It went on for days. It stretched into weeks, then months, then years, before they got the criteria. What did they do? They sat there for two years until last week to say: "We really want to have those criteria". Is that what they call a diligent exercise of their responsibilities on behalf of their constituents?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: As Donald Maclnnis would have said, we will wait for the snake pit to quiet down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: I have lots of time. I would like to point out a couple of things to the Minister. I am talking about the Special Employment Initiatives Program, not the Special Recovery, the rapid recovery and all. You want to know about the $3 million I got. I got that in exchange for an $18 million nautical institute stolen from me, stolen from the people of Dartmouth, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM FUNDING
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell me why the Government in all of the secretiveness, quietness, and hidden procedures-I do not mind not getting any money particularly, but I tell you what I do object to, I object, in the middle of all that is going on, secretly, behind people's backs, to the Government taking away funding from an affirmative action program that was designed to help young black women enter the labour force or re-enter it if they had had to leave it-why the government cut out that funding to give to Cape Breton Members funds that could be used to help these people?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in every single one of these Special Projects direct job-creation functions, whether it is winter works, NEED, Summer Canada, the Community Development Program, Special Employment Initiatives, or Section 38,
the proportion of funding flowing to Nova Scotia is well above that which it would be theoretically entitled to on the basis of its level of unemployment in Canada-well above it. I am surprised that the Hon. Member, as a Member of Parliament, with the interests of Nova Scotia at heart, should really object to that situation. He has mentioned a specific project-and I have to say to him that I am not aware of that project.


John Horton McDermid: You are too busy with Cape Breton.


John (Moody) Roberts: I would be very happy to look into that project. There is still a considerable amount of funding available under the Special Employment Initiatives Program. If he wishes to recommend that project to me, I would be very happy to look at it thoroughly, carefully, and conscientiously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPLICATION MADE FOR DISABLED CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister, concerning the same Employment Initiatives Program. Last November 29 I wrote to the Minister responsible for disabled persons asking him if there were any moneys available to upgrade a school playground for disabled kids. That was last November 29. Last week the Minister wrote back and said if there are any moneys available under the federal Departments, I am afraid there is no program within my Department with a mandate to provide funding for capital expenditures" for this purpose. At the same time the Hon. Member for Kitchener received a grant from that Minister's Department under that program. What is the difference between a disabled child who happens to live in Kitchener and any other disabled child in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it may be that I did not hear the Hon. Member correctly. If so, I apologize. I thought I heard him say that he wrote to the Minister responsible for disabled people. 1 assume he meant he wrote to me.


Neil Young: No.


John (Moody) Roberts: If he did not write to me, then I am afraid, at least off hand, I am not aware of that specific item of correspondence which I gather was directed to another Minister. If he is asking about the reply of another Minister to him,
I am afraid I cannot help him without undertaking some investigation to find out what was the content of the reply and what, if any, was the distinction between the two cases.


GRANT MADE TO KITCHENER RIDING PROJECT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has told the House repeatedly in the last couple of weeks that he discussed this question in his
February 23, 1984

caucus on several occasions. The Minister is a member of that caucus. He knew about the program. He tells me that he knew nothing about this letter, yet under his Department he gave a grant of money to the Hon. Member for Kitchener. I want to know why. It is in the Minister's documents which he tabled in the House the other day. What is the difference between a disabled child in Kitchener, a Liberal riding, and one in my riding, or in any other riding across the country?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to reply in relation to correspondence to which I have not been a party. If I heard the Hon. Member correctly, he said that he received a reply from my colleague saying that there was not a program within his Department for this purpose. In so far as I know from hearing the comment, it is probably true that there is not a program within the Department of my hon. colleague for that purpose.


Neil Young: What is this?


John (Moody) Roberts: It seems to me that if he is referring to the correspondence which was exchanged, if I heard him correctly, the correspondence was accurate. What seems not to have happened is that the hon. gentleman did not write to me with his suggestion, which perhaps he should have done.

[ Translation]


EFFECTS OF BILL C-3
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to statements published in the newspaper La Presse on February 22, the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson, said that Bill C-3, relating to health services in Canada, might deprive Quebecers of dental care for their children and of medication for the elderly. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that, contrary to what was stated by the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, the Bill under consideration is not aimed at penalizing children and the elderly in Quebec?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel Ahuntsic what I said yesterday to the Member for Jonquiere who asked the same question, that I am very sorry the Quebec Minister, Mr. Johnson, saw fit to make statements to alarm the elderly and mothers and their children. The health Bill does not cut services in any province. On the contrary, it entrenches once and for all the basic insured services that are to be offered free of charge to all Canadians and all Quebecers.
Oral Questions
So, as far as this particular situation is concerned, I fail to see why the elderly are again being used by the Minister, who seems to feel guilty, because if the Act is complied with, there is no penalty and thus Quebecers cannot be deprived of any services. I think it is clear this legislation reinforces the health insurance system to protect Quebecers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MADAME VERONIQUE NEIERTZ, MEMBER FOR SEINE-ST-DENIS, AND OF SENATOR ADOLPHE CHAUVIN OF THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF VAL D'OISE, IN FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of two very distinguished visitors, Mrs. Veronique Neiertz, Member of the French National Assembly and Senator Adolphe Chauvin of the French Senate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The construction industry is the bellweather of the economic climate of the maritime Provinces, and right now the economic forecast is for continuing storms. Unemployment is rampant and, like a drought, is ravaging the land. What does the Minister have to say to the 83 per cent of pipefitters, the 82 per cent of carpenters, and the 84 per cent of labourers in New Brunswick who only want a job more than they want his neck? Never mind the frigate program, most of which will not come onstream until 1985.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with my provincial counterpart in New Brunswick about the problems of training and equipping people for future employment, and about the immediate need for creating jobs there. Early next month I will be in Saint John, New Brunswick, again to meet with him and my other provincial colleagues to discuss these problems.
The third thing I would say to him in reply to his question is that he may not feel the frigate program is one which is worthy of support. But we in this Party feel that it is very important and will have the benefit of creating jobs within his Province.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I can assure the Minister that what we require in southern New Brunswick, in all Atlantic Canada, and in Canada, is much more than talk. We need action, which we are not obtaining from the Government.

February 23, 1984
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM-DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO NEW BRUNSWICK RIDINGS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister that we asked for the details under the SEI Program back in 1982. We were told to await the details, to put our questions on the Order Paper. We did that, and we got nothing.
How can the Minister explain away to the suffering families of the unemployed the ineffective dumping of more than $7 million under the SEI Program into New Brunswick Liberal ridings for the sole purpose of electing the unelectable? How does he expect Canadians to believe that over 90 per cent of the unemployed reside only in Grit ridings in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an extraordinary inconsistency in the hon. gentleman's question. On the one hand he preaches at us for having done nothing in New Brunswick. In fact what we have done is put $89 million worth of job-creation investment into New Brunswick in exactly the kinds of programs which he then turns around and condemns us for having brought into effect.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday federal Government lawyers were in the Supreme Court with Quebec school groups to contest the restrictive education provisions in Quebec's Bill 101. Furthermore, his colleague, the Secretary of State, provided funding to cover the legal costs of the litigants.
This week four Montreal businesses and Alliance Quebec joined together to contest legally the restrictive sign provisions in Bill 101. Will the Minister say whether his Department and the Secretary of State will provide the same assistance to these litigants in order to strike down these oppressive provisions?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member's question recognizes, the Government has been very active in supporting the claims of minority groups of both official languages in many parts of the country in cases involving the rights of minority linguistic groups. The program is administered by the Secretary of State, on the advice of the Minister of Justice. We have a considerable number of applications. We try our best to consider them favourably. The kind of application to which my hon. friend referred is the kind that would likely receive support from our program. I would actually have to receive the application and discuss it with my colleague before I could give an absolute
assurance, but certainly prima facie it would seem to be the kind of case where assistance would be given.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He is aware of the recent protest sent to the Government of the United States. Could he give us an idea why it took so long, inasmuch as the U.S. President made his statement approximately six weeks ago? Would the Minister tell us what the Government intends to do on its own to reduce emissions by 50 per cent? That is what we will have to do to set a good example.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, this being a decision that resulted in a serious setback in our plans to reduce acid rain precipitation in this country, we wanted to make a very thorough analysis and put our case forward to the United States in the most concise and effective manner. Therefore, we have proceeded in a rational and orderly way. We presented this statement yesterday to make our case. I do not think the Hon. Member would have approved if we had rushed into the State Department with an ill-conceived position. We have done it in a way that I believe is rational and will hopefully convince the American authorities that they are making a very serious mistake in disregarding the economic consequences to their economy as well as the Canadian economy in postponing action on acid precipitation.
As to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, I am approaching the provincial Ministers of the Environment in order to convene a federal-provincial meeting very soon to assess our position, and to determine where we go from here.


AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware automobile emission regulations in Canada are much more lenient, in fact three times more lenient as in the United States. I believe that something will be done in Canada to make ours stricter, but not until the 1990 models. I am wondering if the Minister would have a word with his seatmate, the Minister of Transport, and maybe between the two of them they will do something to change the 1990 date to at least 1987. Surely we do not have to wait that long, since cars manufactured in Canada are shipped to the United States equipped with strict emission controls. It could probably be done here by 1986.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention on this subject. I have frequent conversations on this with my seat-
February 23, 1984

mate. 1 will take his submissions as a good input into resolving this matter, possibly much sooner than 1990.


RAIL SHIPMENTS FROM THUNDER BAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, who also reports to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. As he knows, last winter over one million tonnes of grain were shipped east by rail from Thunder Bay to central and eastern Canadian ports. So far this year only 160,000 tonnes have moved. Over 900 grain workers are laid off at Thunder Bay because the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian National cannot reach an agreement on a freight rate east of Thunder Bay. Will the Minister report to the House on that and what action he is taking with Canadian National?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker 1 appreciate the question from the Hon. Member. I would like to clarify one point. There is no price differential between the two railroads in this case. I agree that for some reason or other the Wheat Board is not assigning allocations to CN. We understand, of course, that CN is heavily involved in the Prairie region, particularly in the northern parts of the Provinces because of a very large movement of grain out of those areas. We are holding discussions to alleviate the shortage of equipment that CNR presently encounters, and at the same time I will be meeting, as the Hon. Member knows, on Tuesday with the Senior Grain Transportation Committee at which time the railways, the Wheat Board, the shippers and producers will be present. It is a matter that I will take up with them at that time.


FREIGHT CHARGE INQUIRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay has practically ground to a halt. This is affecting grain movement from Manitoba, eastern Saskatchewan, as well as east of Thunder Bay. 1 am informed that Canadian Pacific has moved about 160,000 tonnes. That is all that has moved so far. Canadian National is not moving it. 1 am informed that the argument is about what the freight charge will be east of Thunder Bay. Can the Minister find a solution to that problem and get the grain moving, otherwise the port remains shut down for the rest of the winter?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add a great deal to what I said earlier, that the comparability of rates between the two shows no difference. However, as the Hon. Member well knows, the Wheat Board does have the authority to allocate the movement by railway. There is the extenuating circumstance that CN is very heavily committed, particularly in the Peace River area and other areas, and most of its equipment is tied up. We have recently held meetings to see if we can gain additional equipment
Oral Questions
through leasing by CN for a short period of time. I understand the Hon. Member's concerns. I share them. I will be raising those matters on Tuesday when I meet with all the concerned parties, which shows the value of having a Senior Grain Transportation Committee, which in turn shows the value of having the Grain Transportation Act.


NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A week or so ago the Hon. Member for St. John's West indicated in a television interview that if the Tory Party came to power it would turn over ownership of offshore resources to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Mr. Crosbie:: All offshore provinces.


Roger Simmons: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition failed to confirm that promise in a meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland. Indeed, he completely contradicted the hon. gentleman from St. John's West, the bionic mouth not attached to any known intelligent life form. In view of this continuing contradiction from the unguided missile from St. John's West, versus the take-no-position of the Leader of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he has had any recent representation from the Premier of Newfoundland to get on with the job of offshore negotiation, despite the lack of position, the many positions, from the Tory Party?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication from the Premier of Newfoundland since that Province quit negotiating more than a year ago. I am always available for discussion. I am not surprised that the Hon. Member for St. John's West would say such a thing. He offered a deal whereby he would have for the Province of Newfoundland the same revenue as the Province of Alberta. The offer I made to Newfoundland was for much more revenue than the Government of Alberta is receiving. The Hon. Member misled his people and, in fact, will be depriving the people of Newfoundland of financial resources if his policy were accepted. I understand why the Leader of the Opposition is not accepting the proposition of his colleague, who is still fighting against him.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that there is a conspiracy to fix prices between the major oil companies. One of the partners in this conspiracy is Canada's own Petro-Canada. I would ask the

February 23, 1984
Oral Questions
Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs to please answer to this House why she is allowing Petro-Canada, Shell, Imperial Oil, Gulf and Texaco to have secret meetings and set a location from which fuel will be picked up at one specific refinery. The price is fixed at that refinery. It could be Petro-Canada or Shell. As a result, all of the people in that marketing area, including some in Ottawa, have been paying as much as 50 cents a gallon more than people in Peterborough because the price is fixed.
The ripoff is occurring. For eight years the Liberal Government has done nothing to interfere with the price fixing that is going on within the oil industry.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is holding hearings. Those hearings just received a very comprehensive report from the Bureau of Competition. I wish the Hon. Member would take a careful look at it. Other than that, I think it is best for us to remain silent until the full story is told. He can rest assured that the Government will take appropriate measures once they are suggested by the Commission.


INDEPENDENT SERVICE STATIONS-REQUEST FOR FREEDOM OF COMPETITION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, this has been going on since 1958. I have been in the fuel oil business for 25 years. You know as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that that ripoff is occurring. For eight years you have had a commission studying it, you and-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -the former Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The position of your own solicitor, Gordon Kaiser, is that the Government should intervene to stop the fixing of prices by the major oil companies in Canada and allow the independent retail service stations of this nation to buy their product wherever they want to buy it, not from those who fix the prices.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Again, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the Hon. Member that he pay close attention to the inquiry which is taking place now, and if he can wait six more months we will have the answers to the questions he is raising. I can assure the Hon. Member that I am as anxious as he is. I would also like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member may have had a lot of practice in the oil business, but I notice he has not been particularly successful lately.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, February 22, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
One of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: I rise on a point of order, Sir. Could the Government House Leader inform us as to the business for tomorrow? Since the House will be rising at the close of business tomorrow for the mid-term break and will not be returning until March 5, can he give us some indication of the business which he intends to call, at least for the first day or two, March 5 and March 6, and as far into the week as he can take us?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will start debating Bill C-10. Following the winter break, on Monday we will have the fifth day of debate on the Budget and Tuesday will be the sixth and last day of debate on the Budget. I am prepared to go even further, if the Hon. Member is interested. On the Wednesday and Thursday following we will be debating Bill C-21.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the Government House Leader for that information. While the Hon. Member for Algoma, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, is in his seat, would the Hon. Member, as Chairman of that Standing Committee, indicate when he is going to call the Committee together to deal with the assurances given by the Prime Minister last January 19?
The statutory report of the Chief Electoral Officer for 1983, which was automatically referred to the Committee and is waiting there to be dealt with, deals, among other things, with Section 72 of the Canada Elections Act, formerly Bill C-169. When is he going to call the Committee together so that that report, and Section 72 in particular, can receive the complete review which the Prime Minister assured us last January 19 would be happening?


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the Steering Committee met yesterday and we are planning to call the first meeting of the Committee on March 20. However, the exact agenda for that meeting will depend on the decision of the Committee as to what work to take up at that time.


Erik Nielsen: This question then might be appropriate, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps the Steering Committee might want to give some thought to meeting to consider this important
February 23, 1984

matter before March 20. In any event, the Steering Committee might wish to consider Hansard for January 19 at page 557, where there are certain assurances recorded which were given by the Prime Minister of the country with respect to the review of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.


POINT OF ORDER
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I was replying to a question in the House of Commons, there was an intervention by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I did not hear it at the time, Mr. Speaker, but I did see it this morning recorded in Hansard. The Hon. Member for St. John's West is reported on page 1621 of Hansard as saying in relation to myself "You are a bloody liar", which is both sacrilegious and clearly unparliamentary. I would ask that that expression be withdrawn.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I said "bloody liar", it was obviously a mistake. A "well turned out liar" would be more accurate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ouellet:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would ask the Hon. Member for St. John's West, an experienced parliamentarian in this House and one, if I may observe, with certain ingenious talents with respect to language, to withdraw the world "liar". It is unparliamentary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I will do whatever you wish. I withdraw the word "liar" and say that the hon. gentleman is unable to articulate or comprehend the truth.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Manly:: Further to House business, Mr. Speaker-I was standing earlier-on December 12 the Prime Minister said that ending discrimination against Indian women was a legislative priority. I would like to ask the House Leader of the Government when a Bill dealing with this subject will be tabled in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Yvon Pinard: The question is a very intelligent one, but it would be more intelligible if the Hon. Member would care to repeat it.
Introduction of Bills


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on December 12 the Prime Minister said that ending discrimination against Indian women would be a legislative priority for this session. I wonder if the House Leader could indicate when a Bill dealing with this subject will be tabled in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall give the Hon. Member's representations very serious consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first and second reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) a report entitled: An Evaluation of the Cattle/Beef Industry in Canada, in both official languages.


ENERGY ADMINISTRATION ACT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1984
Introduction of Bills

James Aloysius McGrath: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, to amend the Narcotic Control Act (therapeutic use of heroin).
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same Bill that was presented on April 29, 1983 by the late Member for Nepean-Carleton. At that time, as reported at page 24994 of Hansard, when introducing the Bill he said:
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to permit designated physicians in defined hospitals, particularly in cancer clinics, to prescribe heroin to alleviate pain and to provide against diversion of heroin for improper purposes and to permit a public debate and decision on this important question.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member introduced the Bill he was in reasonably good health. Shortly afterwards he was diagnosed as having cancer and subsequently he died. I hope the House will agree eventually to allow the subject matter of the Bill to go to committee where the evidence and the expert witnesses can be heard.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
February 8, 1984-Mr. Lambert-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act (annual adjustments)".
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proposing the motion for leave to introduce the Bill entitled an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act (annual adjustments) of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the Chair ought to enter a caveat as to the procedural acceptability of the Bill which purports to reduce duties. However, I am prepared to hear argument from the Hon. Member and take the matter under advisement before rendering a final decision on the question at a later date convenient to the Hon. Member and the Chair.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the point was raised by a Table officer, it was replied to, and the simple answer is: Since when is an excise tax a duty?


Mr. Speaker:: Nevertheless, the Chair stands by the comments that have been entered on the record. The Chair will come back to this matter before proceeding with the Bill. The Chair still has reservations concerning it.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent that a motion be put to the following effect:
That the subject matter of sexually abusive television programming be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
I think if you seek unanimous consent you will find that there is a disposition that the motion be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was the intention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) to raise that as a point of order today, but now that the step has been taken that will not be necessary. Of course, we consent.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the wording that was understood was "sexually abusive broadcasting", which is more all-encompassing. If that could be understood?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it would be acceptable to change the words "television programming" to "broadcasting", if that is agreeable to Members of the Opposition.


Erik Nielsen: It is the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to present the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Maltais:
That the subject matter of sexually abusive broadcasting be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Motion (Mr. Evans) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 93, 150, 441, 442, 461, 517, 563 and 576.
February 23, 1984

[ Text]


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, media relations or publicity are employed by the Department of Supply and Services?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Number of people engaged in public relations: 3; number of people engaged in media relations: 2; number of people engaged in publicity: 7.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What amount was paid to the National Harbours Board by (a) Task Terminals (b) Manchester Liners (Furness Withy) (c) CP Ships for container terminals or facilities utilized at the Port of Montreal for each year 1970 to 1980?
2.	Were the operations of the container terminals or facilities subsidized during any of the years and, if so, for what amount in each case?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
1.	This information is of a confidential nature as it could have an impact on the commercial competitiveness of the companies involved.
2.	No.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 what was the total revenue collected from personal income tax?


Pierre Bussières: $26,330 million.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 what was the total revenue collected from corporate income tax?


Pierre Bussières: $7,139 million.


Mr. Howie: In the period April 1, 1983 to date, did the government make any payments for removal of urea formaldehyde foam insulation from homes and buildings in Canada and, if so, what was the total (a) amount (b) number of individuals or groups in receipt of them?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Yes, the Government did make payments to owners of homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, not only for the purpose of removing the insulation but also for other measures, such as sealing and ventilation, to correct problems associated with the insulation.
Order Paper Questions
(a) The amount granted to home owners from April 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984 is $95,700,000. (b) 14,103 home owners received advances in this period, and 19,710 received final payments. (Please note that the same home owner may have received an advance payment as well as a final payment.)


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1983, did the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development announce any grants, contributions or assistance for the Chatham-Newcastle area in New Brunswick and, if so, what grants, contributions or assistance was announced?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: No.


Mr. Gamble: Does Canadian Aid for Southern African Refugees of Vancouver enjoy charitable status for tax purposes and does the Canadian International Development Agency give matching grants to the fund and, if so, in (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 what amount did it give?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: (a) yes, (b) no.


Mr. Howie: 1. In (a) the current fiscal year (b) each of the two preceding fiscal years, with respect to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (i) what total amount was expended by the Council (ii) how many persons were employed by the Council (iii) what amount was expended for staff remuneration?


Rolland Dion: In so far as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is concerned, the answers are as follows:
(i)	Total amount expended by the Council:
(a)	1983-84: 261,120,000
(b)	1982-83: 244,438,439
1981-82: 201,141,009
(ii)	Number of persons (person-years) employed by the Council:
(a)	1983-84: 111 person-years allocated
(b)	1982-83:	98 person-years allocated; 95.5 personyears used
1981-82:	81 person-years allocated; 76.5 personyears used
(iii)	Amount expended for staff remuneration:
(a) 1983-84: 3,194,000

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Howie (b) 1982-83: 2,659,110 1981-82: 2,030,906


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 467 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending (a) March 31, 1983 (b) March 31, 1983, to date, were any outside lawyers employed in New Brunswick by the Department of Justice and, if so, in each case, what (i) was his/her name (ii) amount was paid?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions 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 Mr. Crosbie (p. 1445).
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I had covered a large measure of my address before the adjournment. I was concluding my remarks by referring to a number of sectors of the economy in New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces and indicating the measures which I thought would most stimulative to their extension and development.
There are other sectors, some of growing importance, which have a real or potential export component. These include transportation-port activities in particular and distribution- warehousing for the region, and some services, especially consulting services, engineering, architecture, data processing
and so on. The national defence sector has a major impact on the economy as well.
Together the six sectors account for about one-fifth of all economic activity in the Atlantic provinces, providing 20 per cent of both employment and gross domestic product. The balance of economic activity occurs in the construction and service sectors. As indicated, these are largely dependent on other activities in the region.
Generally, although we have perceived the need to move beyond the traditional industries, we have not always moved into better production and marketing techniques, more sophisticated or higher quality versions of existing products, or new products related to our existing basic skills, managerial expertise, marketing channels and the like.
The fisheries offer a good example of these difficulties. Atlantic Canada has one of the world's largest fisheries, yet participation is modest in the manufacture of deck hardware, propulsion machinery, fishing gear, processing plant equipment, and electronic devices used in navigation. The shipbuilding industry finds it difficult to supply fishing vessels to our fishermen on equal terms with subsidized foreign shipyards. In other words, we have fallen behind in a vital high technology market which should have been a natural for Atlantic Canada.
Nor is fisheries-related manufacturing the only unrealized opportunity. Based upon an assessment of competitive strengths and weaknesses, we appear to have significant manufacturing opportunities in plastics, fabrication, and chemicals extracted from marine plants; in drug, personal and homecare industries; in defence related manufacturing; and on a smaller scale, in certain industrial chemicals and home and commercial furnishings. There are undoubtedly many others.
More specifically, we must devote more attention to the following human resource issues: Government-business-labour relationships; management; innovation; restructuring and marketing. Certainly close co-operation between federal and provincial governments and innovative tax incentive programs are needed to spur economic growth in the Atlantic provinces. Sadly, sound federal-provincial relations are not a hallmark of this Government, nor are innovative fiscal policies.
In the Atlantic provinces we require new programs to encourage innovation in business. We need a better transfer of information between the patent and licensing office and the business community to promote new technology. In addition, incentives to increase the supply of risk capital in underdeveloped areas are vital. An expanded and enhanced mandate for research is also required. Further incentives to encourage process redesign and innovation as well as product innovation are needed. Atlantic Canada also needs a stronger marketing orientation in the program structure specifically aimed at more effective penetration of local, regional, national and international markets.
Let me propose a couple of further, specific ideas which could prove beneficial in this respect. One idea would be to provide a 150 per cent tax credit to small firms starting up in
February 23, 1984

underdeveloped regions to cover capital costs and labour costs for the First three years of operation. By allowing a newly established firm to apply these expenses against future income tax payable, the investor would be given the opportunity to recover his investment plus 50 per cent, and his labour costs for the first three years plus 50 per cent. In this way we would create a new corporate taxpayer and ensure the creation of much needed employment-all without taking anything from the federal Treasury.
A second suggestion would be the abolition of the capital gains tax. The enormous administrative costs associated with collection of these revenues already offsets any perceived Fiscal advantage. If we accept at face value the $400 million which the Government presently collects in capital gains tax, I would argue that the advantages of eliminating this tax in terms of potential domestic and foreign investment and the resulting creation of jobs and new corporate taxpayers would be overwhelming.
I would prefer to end my comments on a happy note. However, I am afraid the Budget before us offers little incentive for optimism. As I have pointed out, there is little in the Budget to improve the lot of our pensioners, our unemployed citizens, or our underdeveloped regions. The Government simply continues to illustrate its mismanagement and callous disregard for the well-being of its citizens. The Government bases its fiscal projections on anticipated improvements in the U.S. economy which it claims will pull Canada upwards in its wake. For the sake of Canada's long suffering population, we will have to hope that this is so, because Canadians know all too well that solutions and leadership will never come from the present Government. To the despair of the unemployed, it is clear that the Government's expertise lies in the distribution of largess. Its talents do not include compassion, leadership, or positive results.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the importance of military bases to the economy of the Atlantic region. Would he have some comment on the Government's proposal to withdraw the air squadron from CFB Chatham? How does he feel that might affect the economy of that part of Atlantic Canada?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is a good one. I am not happy about the withdrawal of the air squadron from CFB Chatham because I feel it is a militarily wrong decision. I discussed this matter at length with our former and present defence critic. We feel it is the wrong way to go. The new CF-18 Fighter aircraft would be better employed at Chatham because, when fully loaded, it has a very limited range. At Chatham it would be able to fly out over the Atlantic and observe Russian aircraft flying down the Atlantic corridor to Cuba. This would be an enhanced role for us in NATO. So my inclination would be to leave the aircraft there on military grounds.
As the Hon. Member knows, the area of Newcastle, Chatham and Miramichi is in a desperate situation economically. We have high unemployment and the removal of about 1,500
The Budget-Mr. Howie
or 2,000 people from that area will be a disaster which will exacerbate a very serious problem. The Government has proceeded with development of a maximum security prison in that area which will help alleviate the situation. They have a pay division facility which is supposed to go into that area to help it, and there have been other small developments. However, the total impact of these developments fails to equal the economic effect and purchasing power of the spin-offs from the military base.
One thing the Government should look at is the possibility of developing a duty-free port in Newcastle harbour. Harbour development is always followed by economic development. I had hoped that something like the Bell Helicopter plant, which creates over 4,000 jobs in nearby Quebec at Mirabel, would go to the Chatham area. This would have a fantastic effect on the whole economy of New Brunswick and lift that area economically from one of depression to one of the most advanced in the country.
The move of surveys and mapping branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which we tried to get for the University of New Brunswick and which has the best survey engineering faculty in the world, where it would operate most efFiciently, has been refused for the last seven years. The Minister is determined to move it to Sherbrooke, Quebec, and recent court decisions may enable him to go forward with that decision. It will cost us $76 million, and if he is determined not to put it on the University of New Brunswick campus where it can operate best, then I do not know why they do not put it in Chatham where it will stimulate the economy. That $76 million would just be a godsend in New Brunswick and a real advantage to that area. The Member from Miramichi has raised the question and worked very hard in his caucus and with the Government. Our provincial counterparts have co-operated. I think all Members from New Brunswick are concerned with this problem and would like very much to encourage the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick to do everything they can to address the situation.
I hope my few comments have been constructive. I thank the Hon. Member for his question and the Speaker for his patience. I did not really intend to make another speech.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member usually puts a lot of thought and planning into his debate. First of all, I would like to disagree with his closing remarks. If he looks at the April Budget and at this Budget, he will see the Government shows great concern and compassion for the economically depressed areas of Canada. I recommend that he look at both Budgets and I think he would probably strike out the last comment he made.
I agree with him, though, that we should be seeking better marketing techniques. I was wondering if he could share with us some suggestions for improving our marketing techniques, especially in the part of Canada he comes from.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. In addition to the market research and structure I

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Penner
outlined in my speech, another avenue which occurs to me and which might be beneficial is the development of something similar to the DISC program which has operated very effectively in the U.S. That is the concept of the duty-free port in which we import, generally from emerging nations of the world, products which, with their lower cost labour force, they make relatively inexpensively. By trading with them we create a potential customer. My point is that we would import these products to Newcastle, Chatham, St. John, Belldune or some of our other ports which are excellent all-weather ports in New Brunswick. We would assemble them using Canadian employers, technique, engineering, technology and workers. We would assemble them, making the total product, and then export this product to world markets. Because we can import it less expensively, our product would then be less expensive. Because of our higher technology capabilities, particularly in communications, electronics and electronic assembly, our product would be competitive world-wide. Like the Americans, who increased their trade 16 per cent in the first year of operation, I feel that we could reach world markets and create good jobs in New Brunswick. This is one of the techniques I would like us to consider. 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concluding remarks of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) before he answered the questions, in which he took quite a negative approach to the Budget. I would like to strike a different note from that, Mr. Speaker. In my view the Budget, which was presented by the Minister of Finance last week, deserves the appreciation and whole-hearted support of the House.
One very noted columnist in this country, who specializes in matters relating to business and economics, said, concerning the Budget of last week, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has produced a winner. I see this Budget as maintaining that steady course which was set out for us last April. This course was designed to lead the country from recession to recovery and on to expansion. The charges which have been made by Opposition spokesmen that this Budget is merely flashy, bright and shiny are, in my view, quite false and misleading. This Budget is one of substance. It is going to wear very well. It is going to stand the test of time. It is going to produce the results which we all want. Therefore, I commend the Minister of Finance for the Budget that he introduced in the House last week.
This Budget was the product of very extensive consultation. The Minister spoke with many groups, interests and individuals across the country, as well as Members of Parliament. This consultative process means that we were given a Budget which is responsive to those representations which were made and is responsible to the needs of the country at this particular time.
When the Minister of Finance rose in his place last week to begin his Budget Speech we had a sense of confidence in what he was going to say because we knew he had not worked by himself in splendid isolation. He had been out talking to people who are deeply concerned about the Budget measures and the effect they have on the Canadian economy. The Minister had consulted widely. Therefore, when we heard the opening words of this Budget, we did not need to feel as did the composer of that old spiritual when he said, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble". There have been Budgets when that was the feeling on the part of many Hon. Members.
I would like to begin by thanking the Minister of Finance for the additional $150 million to the Youth Opportunity Fund. That is added to the $1 billion which has already been allocated to the Youth Opportunity Fund. I commend the Minister for opening the door to the possibility of greater productivity and better rewards for employees by encouraging profit participation plans. We are grateful to the Minister for his good housekeeping moves in simplifying the tax system for small businesses and for improving tax administration in general.
In his Budget the Minister recognized that above all Canadians today want a greater sense of security. He responded to that desire with his Mortgage Rate Protection Program. This is an incentive to home ownership. It means that a young couple wanting to buy a home will have some assurance that they will be protected against substantial increases in mortgage payments which have in the past, and could possibly in the future, be caused by extraordinary hikes in mortgage rates. That fear was a deterrent to home ownership which the Minister has now removed.
The Minister heard well those who spoke to him and demanded pension reform. Portability of pensions will help immeasurably to improve the mobility of the labour force in Canada. Permitting spousal survivors to retain their benefits upon remarriage is not only eminently reasonable, it is also humane, civilized and long overdue. It is also fair and just to have a provision allowing for the splitting of pensions between spouses in the case of marriage breakdown.
The improved tax assistance for retirement savings will appeal to owners of small businesses, farmers and professionals who are self-employed. Perhaps our medical doctors will see this as more than adequate compensation for having to give up the odious practice of extra billing. Being able to put away additional moneys in retirement savings plans will be of benefit to them. That extra billing will not then concern them so much. That is a practice which is prejudicial to those who have only modest incomes and become i'll.
The Finance critic for the Official Opposition has focused the attention of the House on the size of the deficit. It is quite true that the deficit is cause for some concern. A deficit of the size which we have in Canada limits a government's capacity to respond effectively to new challenges. It restricts a government in designing programs to help solve new problems which may emerge. Deficits have a tendency to lock us into the past and foreclose on the future. Deficits call for the exercise of
February 23, 1984

restraint wherever possible without hurting our citizens who are in need. Deficits such as we have in Canada today call for the maximum of efficiency in all our government operations.
We have a servant of the House who is quite capable of advising us on how to be more efficient. In his reports the Auditor General has indicated a number of ways in which the Government can enjoy significant savings and therefore help somewhat with the size of the deficit. Mr. Speaker, when there is a call for an all-out massive attack on the deficit, I think such a statement of public policy must be backed up with some hard facts. For example, if we wanted to spend much more money on national defence, give a great deal more money to post-secondary education, provide the provinces with more money for medicare, or significantly increase the expenditure directed to research and development, all of this while still trying to reduce the deficit, then we would have to ask ourselves where the cuts will take place.
During the recent recession, which was the worst setback for the entire western industrial world in 50 years, there were only two countries - Sweden and Canada - that maintained the so-called safety net. These two countries did not alter, cutback or reduce their social security systems.
Today, governments in Europe are paring down their social programs. The provincial Government of British Columbia is following that example, as we well know from its recent Budget. As these cut-backs in social security measures are taking place around the world, there are workers, students, mothers, unemployed and disabled veterans who are taking to the streets in protest. I am proud to say that the federal Government of Canada rejected such an approach during the period of economic recession. We knew that recession impacted in a negative way most seriously upon those with the greatest needs. It is never easy and it is never inexpensive to hold back the tides of poverty.
Between 1969 and 1981, thanks to federal Government programs, the number of Canadians living in poverty was cut in half. Now, when there are wild charges made in the House that this is a Government that is profligate in its spending, that it spends with abandon and irresponsibility we should remember that the number of people living in poverty was reduced by 50 per cent. A lot of money had been spent but a significant step forward was taken toward having a much better society.
Regrettably, during the recent recession some of the gains that were made from 1969 to 1981 were lost, especially with two groups of people. One group was elderly single women. They lost ground and as a group in Canada today they are the poorest of the poor. That is why one of the very first actions of this Government, when it took office in 1980, was to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $35 a month. That is why the Minister of Finance announced last week another increase of $50 a month in the guaranteed income supplement for single pensioners.
Also hard hit were single parent families headed by women. I believe the time is at hand to consider very carefully whether
The Budget-Mr. Penner
we should do more targeting with our social assistance dollars. But that will have to be the subject for another debate at another time.
It is no easy task to launch a massive attack on the deficit. It is no easy task when so much of our spending is already locked in and there is so little-only about 15 per cent of expenditures by some calculations

that is actually discretionary.
Although many governments today, those in Europe and some of our provincial Governments, are being spooked by deficits, perhaps we should be more analytical and objective in understanding what deficits are. Professor Bellan of the University of Manitoba very recently wrote an insightful article in The Financial Post in which he examined how deficits are financed and what the effects of these deficits are upon the economy. With respect to deficits he reminded us that in order to finance its deficits the Government of Canada sells bonds. Thirteen per cent of those bonds are sold to the Bank of Canada. Eighty per cent of those bonds are sold to Canadian business firms and individuals. Only 7 per cent are sold to non-residents.
Since the Government of Canada owns the Bank of Canada, that bank returns to the Government all of its revenues minus its operating costs every year. That is the first point.
The second point is that Canadian business firms and individuals who buy these government bonds pay federal tax on the interest they receive. What they retain, they retain as Canadians and much of it is spent in Canada. Therefore, except for the small fraction of some 7 per cent that is received by non-residents, what Ottawa does not get back is not lost to Canada but is received by Canadians. So when we talk about deficits and the national debt, I think we have to keep in mind the geography in which these dollars are being circulated. We are not accumulating a huge international debt. We are not going into the hole with respect to our trading partners. We are providing the services that Canadians need within Canada itself and circulating the dollars among ourselves.
Nevertheless, it is still claimed that deficits have certain negative impacts upon the economy, such as causing inflation, sharp rises in interest rates and crowding out private borrowers from the money market. Professor Bellan tells us to look at the facts. From 1981 to 1983, the federal deficit increased significantly from $10 billion to $30 billion. Let us see what happened to inflation at the same time. It went from 12.5 per cent to 5.3 per cent, which seems to fly in the face of the proposition that inflation is caused by deficits. The average prime interest rates in Canada during that period went down from
19.3	per cent to 11.2 per cent.
There is no shortage of money for borrowers. It is true that there is not a great deal of borrowing taking place for expansion, but that is simply because the present plant capacity is sufficient to provide the demands that exist in the marketplace. There is no need to go into the market to expand when additional capacity is unnecessary.
Nothing that I have said should be misunderstood. Deficits cannot be argued or wished away, but the way to reduce them

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
is to have an expanding economy, to control new spending carefully, and perhaps to redirect some old spending into some new areas of greater need.
One corporate citizen said recently, "Governments at all levels need to reassess their priorities and programs to determine those that are both necessary and affordable". That is a good and useful exercise at any time for any government.
The Budget of last April and the one presented to the House last week have enabled us to move from recession to recovery and now on to expansion. Recovery is surely under way. Woods Gordon of Toronto reported very recently that production levels have now reached beyond 90 per cent of pre-recession output. The surplus in our goods trade came in last year, in 1983, at $18 billion. What a great exporting and a great trading nation this Canada of ours is! That $18 billion is just a little short of the record we set for ourselves in 1982 of $18.3 billion in our goods trade surplus. So while output is coming back and we have a very healthy trade surplus, there is a negative aspect as well. Woods Gordon also reports that employment levels have not returned to the extent of production levels. They have only come back to the extent of 65 per cent. We have a more than a 11 per cent rate of unemployment and this means 1.5 million persons without jobs. That is why the Minister last week gave priority to job-creation programs. He added another $525 million for job-creation programs, which brings the total to $3.5 billion for the current fiscal year.
It is the job of a Member of Parliament to take a look at these programs and to make use of them. In my constituency I have met with representatives of companies, unions, municipalities, non-profit organizations, small businesses and social agencies. We have designed projects and submitted them under one or another of these many programs for consideration by the Government. Many of the communities have been helped by them. Thousands of unemployed persons have been given jobs as a result of these programs. These people are quite incensed, Sir, by charges from the Opposition that these job-creation programs are ineffective and meaningless. They are going to remember that when the polling booths are next opened.
To conclude, when the final vote is taken on this Budget, I will add my voice to the yeas because we have been given a good Budget. In my view, it is one that is just right for the times.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a divisive Budget, a Budget that is irrelevant to the real needs of Canada and I am, of course, speaking against it. This Budget not only fails to deal with the massive inequities that we already have in our system, but it increases them through the large number of loopholes which benefit the richer members of our society. We will now have a few more loopholes. The Budget fails to deal with the most critical
problem we have, and that is, the very high level of unemployment. There are 1.5 million to 2 million people unemployed. We even debate what the real number of unemployed is. Indeed, the budget documents project that unemployment will remain very high at more than a million people, for as many years as this Government has the courage to make projections.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and other Liberal Ministers of Finance have based their policies on the belief that inflation is public enemy number one, that when inflation is beaten investment will rise, and with rising investment more jobs will be created. This has let Ministers of Finance off the hook in their minds about direct job-creation. Has the theory worked? Inflation has indeed fallen, but investment has not risen appreciably. Canada still has an enormous unused economic capacity. Why should corporations expand, invest and employ more people when they already have unused capacity right now? So we have a Minister who talks about recovery, but it has been a recovery in profits, not a recovery in employment when we have 1.5 million or up to 2 million unemployed. In polite terms this is a fragile recovery. In less polite terms, people ask: With a recovery like this, who needs recession?
The Budget pays lip service to the problem of youth unemployment. This is really tragic because the youth unemployment rate is very high, around 20 per cent. This rate is even worse than the rate for adults. There is the Youth Opportunity Fund, but this will give only one job per year to 1.5 per cent of the young unemployed. It is not as much as the Liberal slush fund is providing in jobs. It is less than the Minister of Finance found last year when he made his slip and let out facts about the Budget and then found an extra $200 million. Here only $150 million is added to this very critical area of unemployment. Further, it is largely a cosmetic kind of investment. It is to help the young acquire job skills. But where will the permanent jobs be once they have acquired these job skills?
The reforms in the area of small business are also rather cosmetic. A simplification of the system has been promised. Certainly we welcome any simplification which will make life easier for small business people. But most of the benefits which have been promised are not really for small business people but to expand the definition of small business to allow professionals, including very high income earning people, to qualify at a lower tax rate. We have doctors and lawyers, who would otherwise be at the 50 per cent tax level, coming in and paying at the small business tax level on only half that amount.
There is nothing for small business to create new jobs directly or indirectly. There is nothing similar to our proposal for lower interest rates for small business to facilitate expansion in an area that creates a very large number of jobs. Since the consumer taxes which were introduced last year are being continued, this will mean less demand for the goods and services which are produced by small business people. Therefore, small business people will be hit with declining demand. What incentive will they have to expand their businesses in these circumstances?
February 23, 1984

Instead of concrete measures to create jobs, we have a false analysis of the problem, and it is no surprise that we have false solutions to it. Consider the Minister's discussion of productivity, competitiveness and exports. These are high sounding words. Implicit in the discussion is a suggestion that Canada is not doing well in international trade. But in the last two years we have had record surpluses in trade which have amounted to very, very large sums indeed. We do very well with what we export, but we are not exporting the right things. The problem is not correctly understood. We are relying on natural resources, including items such as lumber, but a lot of these are non-renewable resources which are capital intensive and create very few jobs for the investment dollars in them. We are exporting very little in manufactured goods, and manufacturing is declining in our economy. This is the area where the most jobs are. There is nothing in the Budget to attack this problem.
We know that the main reason companies in Canada do not export is not low productivity but the fact that these companies are branch plants and not intended to export. Branch plants are intended to import from the parent company and other companies in the network. It is not a psychological problem that Canadians need to be encouraged by certain measures to be more productive, innovative and efficient, as the Minister suggests. The remedies of the Minister of Finance are therefore inappropriate. He suggests that workers must identify with their company and that a profit sharing scheme will help them to identify with the company more. The profit sharing scheme is one which means that employees who are covered would get 60 per cent, with 40 per cent going to the company. It would also end the practice of treating profit sharing as ordinary income. However, it is not the answer to the problem. It is not a lack of incentive that keeps these companies from exporting. It is the nature of the multinational system. The Budget does not even begin to address this problem.
At the same time, goodies are given away under stock option plans which are available not to ordinary employees but to management personnel, the best paid employees. The incentive for this is that only 50 per cent of the profits made under this system would be taxed. In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing to the tune of 50 per cent income which is going only to the very high income earners.
The unfairness of our tax system is increased in other ways as well. The amount of money that can be put into RRSPs is being tripled. Yet it is the high income earners who take advantage of this scheme. It is a regressive system. Higher income people take greater advantage than lower income people because it is based upon percentage. Of course, low-income people cannot take advantage of a deduction for an RRSP. Of individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, 54 per cent have deductions for RRSPs, whereas only 12.6 per cent of other income earners have such deductions. There were $53 billion of assets in tax-sheltered RRSPs as at the end of
1982.	That is expected to rise to $60 billion by the end of
1983.	Enormous amounts of money are available in tax-shel-
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
tered RRSPs. They show who is able to take advantage of these benefits.
There are some good things in the Budget. There are some provisions which help low-income people. The increase in the guaranteed income supplement is one. The increase is not as large as we would have liked to have seen. It is $50 per month and it comes in two instalments; $100 per month had been recommended and $100 per month would certainly be better. However, no one will complain as $50 is better than nothing. It recognizes that single people cannot live at half the rate of a married couple. That point has been made for a very long time, especially by women's organizations that deal with the problems of elderly women. Still, with the Old Age Security and the guaranteed income supplement combined, people will be living below the poverty line. Single people who will be receiving this increase will, if they live in large cities, still be $2,000 per year under the poverty line. We should note, by comparison, the enormous benefits which will go to higher income earners who take advantage of the increased opportunities with RRSPs.
There are other reforms in the pension area about which I am very pleased. I am glad to see them. I have lobbied for these changes as an activist before becoming a parliamentarian. I have talked about them as a member of the Opposition. It goes to show that people in Opposition can get reforms through by arguing for them. These are improvements in the Canada Pension Plan that affect very large numbers of people. There are improvements for pensions under federal jurisdiction which affect 10 per cent of Canadian workers. Portability will be required in private pension plans under federal jurisdiction after two years of employment. Vesting will be required, and it will be possible to transfer the pension fund to another employer or to a registered pension account. There will be some protection against inflation. It only affects future pensions, but it is a step in the right direction. There will be mandatory survivors' benefits in occupational pension plans, certainly a very welcome step. There will be, under the Canada Pension Plan, a fifty-fifty split on marriage breakdown, unless both partners agree otherwise or a court orders otherwise. We should note that this is only for the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women implied this morning that she was in favour of this splitting occurring for all pensions under federal jurisdiction, but if we look at the Budget Speech, it does not say that. It should say that because the federal Government has the opportunity to act in this respect and it should.
Equal annuities for men and women is something which has been recommended for years. Women have obained lower annuities because they live longer. Of course, this is a very serious injustice about which women's organizations have fought for years, indeed for decades. More part-timers will be included in pension coverage. That is also a welcome step. There is a proposal to consider the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan. We certainly need very much a way

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
of including homemakers in the CPP which is equitable and gives women the coverage they need.
I would also like to point out what the Budget fails to do in the area of pensions. The most important failure is not increasing the Canada Pension Plan or leaving it at the same level as it is now. The problem is that it does not pay a high enough benefit. It is a good plan, it has excellent features, but the amounts paid are still inadequate for people to live decently on their retirement incomes. It is the most important reform which could be made for all workers. Private plans do not provide adequate coverage. Too many people are excluded from coverage. Also they do not adequately provide coverage against inflation. The Canada Pension Plan-Quebec Pension Plan is the most important pension plan in Canada.
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women also discussed this matter this morning. She noted that the average woman worker on retirement-and I am not referring to the lowest paid woman worker-would still need the GIS and would still qualify for it. After the OAS and the Canada Pension Plan, she would still need the guaranteed income supplement. The Minister pointed this out as a way of congratulating the Government for increasing the GIS. However, this is looking at the problem the wrong way. Surely a woman who has worked her entire life ought not to need the guaranteed income supplement. Surely the Canada Pension Plan ought to be adequate to ensure that she has a decent retirement income. Surely the better response is to increase the Canada Pension Plan-Quebec Pension Plan.
In the area of maintenance, we can see that there have been some improvements, certainly ones about which women have been concerned for many years. They are modest improvements but they will facilitate the payment of maintenance orders. It will now be possible for payments made prior to a court order or to a written separation agreement to be deductible from the taxable income of the person who pays. The eligibility has been broadened to include deductions for mortgage payments, tuition fees and medical expenses. Since roughly 70 per cent of maintenance orders are in arrears, anything that would improve the actual payment of maintenance orders is to be very much welcomed. I am pleased to see this. I am sorry that we do not have much more comprehensive measures. I am also sorry that the Divorce Act which we will be debating tomorrow does not have comprehensive measures for maintenance payments which we need as well.
The Budget deals with the issue of collective bargaining in the Public Service. For the first time we have in the Budget Speech an admission by the federal Government that collective bargaining was suspended with the six and five program. We welcome the announcement that Public Service employees will again have at least partially restored to them their rights to collective bargaining. However, there is much hypocrisy here too. "We will bargain hard", says the Government. "There will not be catch-ups. The object of bargaining will be to reduce inflation", says the Government. In other words, there is a guarantee that wages and salaries will not keep up with the cost of living. Comparisons will be made with the private
sector and will be kept behind the private sector. On awards made by arbitration considered excessive according to the criteria to keep inflation down, the Government will ask Parliament to legislate a wage settlement. In short, we have gone from having open wage controls to having a disguised form of wage controls. Certainly that is undesirable. We should be getting rid completely of these impediments to free collective bargaining.
Another measure which was suggested as a type of reform and is really not one is in the area of mortgages. There is a possibility of having mortgage insurance, but people have to pay for it, the fees are quite high and the coverage is very modest. There are also provisions which get rid of the ability to prepay with a modest penalty. People will have to pay, if they want to prepay their mortgages, the full amount of interest owing. These provisions are described as reforms, but they give further advantages to lenders. They do not give adequate protection to people who hold mortgages. It is far more important to have good protection by having long-term, low-rate interest guaranteed and settled.
An area against which I protest very vigorously in the Budget is the external aid program. It has been announced that there would be an increase in development assistance, as promised in the Speech from the Throne. However, this increase will not go where it needs to go. Development assistance will rise to 0.5 per cent of GNP in 1985 and to 0.7 per cent in 1990, although the United Nations recommends 0.7 per cent now, as does my Party. It is hypocritical to confuse aid and trade. What will happen with this new increase in aid is that it will basically go to Canadian corporations. There are no guarantees that it will go to the country of greatest need or that the people will be able to use it to buy local supplies or to use the money wisely. In other words, these are more giveaways to Canadian corporations. Because we are not addressing at all in this Budget the real problems that prevent Canadian corporations from exporting and competing fairly because of the multinational system, the Budget is totally inadequate. Aid should be aid. It should go where it is needed, it should be used as it is needed. Incentives to export should be frank incentives to export. They should not be couched in the form of aid. f Translation]
If we are to make a very critical analysis of the Budget, we have to propose different initiatives. We in the New Democratic Party criticize the proposed Budget for what it fails to do rather than for what it actually does. What we need is a budget which comes to grips with the structural problems of the economy, with basic problems, therefore with the economic recovery. An economic recovery in Canada calls for investments in those economic sectors which will provide most jobs, such as manufacturing and especially micro-technology. It is imperative that we invest in natural resources-forestry and fisheries-where we have been blessed by nature and where we can increase the number of jobs. Housing is the economic sector where we can most quickly boost employment and, at
February 23, 1984

the same time, try to solve a critical social issue, the shortage of low-cost housing. The NDP strongly advocates the withdrawal of the federal sales tax contained in the previous Budget. We are talking about a $1.4 billion increase, which amounts to that much less purchasing power for Canadian consumers. We want a reform in the system-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but unfortunately the time allocated to her has expired.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may have just a minute, I think I could finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Lynn McDonald: We are calling for a tax reform that will make the rich pay a fairer share. There are now 8,000 individuals with revenues of $50,000 or more who do not pay one single cent in income tax, because of too generous loopholes in our tax system. In the United States, individuals whose income is over $30,000 must pay a minimum of 20 percent of their income. The corporate tax system must also be amended in order to help the Canadian economy.
Ten billion dollars is given away each year to corporations, in the form of grants or tax deductions. It would be preferable to require performance, in technical training for employees for instance or the purchasing of Canadian products, and new product research and development. In other words, jobs must be created here!

I oppose the Budget. It is irrelevant, it is divisive, and it should be defeated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of this Budget because it is a good Budget. It is a Budget that is right for the times. It is a Budget that will help the economic recovery across this nation, which will mean jobs for Canadians. This is a Budget for the poor people of this country. This is a Budget for small business.
I recall another Budget. Indeed, it was a Budget that was brought down in this House just a few days after I first arrived here as a Member of Parliament. I sat then on the other side. I remember well that Budget because it was brought down by one of my bosom pals, my good friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I had watched him over the years in the provincial House of Assembly bring down many other budgets.
The Budget-Mr. Simmons
I knew his style. I knew his record for delivery. I knew his record for practising what he preaches. Therefore, in late 1979 I watched with great interest that Tory budget.
It is interesting to compare those two Budgets, the Budget of 1979 and the Budget brought into this House in the last few days. How different are those two Budgets? To show just how different they are, I refer to a couple of publications which, in their respective terms, reported in headline form their summation of what those Budgets represented. If you look at the latest edition of Maclean's magazine you will see a headline which says of this latest Budget, "Lalonde keeps his Promises". That comes as no surprise to those of us who know the man. He has listened, he has listened hard, he has listened well, and he has delivered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. There is a rule about quotations in the House. Members should be extremely careful in quoting newspaper or magazine articles. The words a Member quotes should be taken as being his own words. The basic reasoning for that word of caution is that only Hon. Members elected to the House of Commons express their opinions. If they choose to quote from newspaper or magazines, they make those quotes their own words. I say this, and I invite Hon. Members to exercise the privilege of quoting with extreme care.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and 1 thank you particularly for the opportunity which your intervention affords me because I stand full square behind that particular headline, Lalonde does keep his promises.
There is another publication from which I want to quote, a quote which I will also stand by. I refer to a headline in The Toronto Star the day in December, 1979 when the Hon. Member for St. John's West brought down the Tory Budget. The headline that day, which quote I also take as my own and which I support because I know it to be the truth, read: "The promises go down the drain". That is not a Liberal MP writing the headlines; that is a Liberal MP reporting the headlines, one from Maclean's in which it judges the net substance of the latest Budget brought down by this Government and the other from The Toronto Star in which it judges the substance of the Tory Budget. One says the Budget keeps the promises that have been made and the one in 1979 says that the promises made by the Tories have gone down the drain.
What particular promises? If we are going to compare the two Budgets, we ought in fairness to recall some of what went into that 1979 Budget. We ought to recall also some of the promises preceding the bringing down of that Tory Budget by the Hon. Member for St. John's West. Before bringing down the Budget, the Tories had promised that there would be income tax deductions for middle and low-income families. They were very specific on that promise. They said there would be deductions of up to $300. However, the reality, Mr. Speaker, was that there were no such deductions. In the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West there were no fewer than five separate tax increases. How is that for keeping one's promises?
1686

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Simmons
In the fall of 1979, particularly during the campaign in May of that year, the Tories promised cut-backs in unemployment insurance rates. The reality was that the Minister of Finance of the day, the Flon. Member for St. John's West, actually increased those same rates which that Party had promised to decrease.
I could go on and on, but to save my time and the embarrassment of my good Tory friends, I will only refer them to The Toronto Star of December 6, 1979 where it was reported, "Tory promises have gone down the drain", then in table form it had shown the several promises which the Tories had made and how they had systematically broken every one of them in the Budget of December, 1979.
Those two publications, Maclean's and The Toronto Star, reporting on those respective Budgets, show the difference between a Tory approach and a Liberal approach to budget making. The present Budget, Mr. Speaker, is a good Budget, because it is a "jobs" Budget. It will create jobs for my riding. There is a lot of ballyhoo about where the jobs are going, and I want to tell Hon. Members of this House that a lot of those jobs are going to my riding of Burin-St. George's. They are going to people not on the basis of their partisan affiliation, but on the basis of a need for jobs. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that since this whole fuss started in the House, I have more Liberals in my riding now than I have ever had before. Some of them who had been offended during the last week to have been called Liberals by those Tory Members have said to me, "Because I have been a sponsor for a job-creation project in a particular community in the riding, am I now considered to be a Liberal? Is that my sin?" What they have done, Mr. Speaker, is to avail themselves of government programs in order to create some jobs.
Let me add to the scandal, Mr. Speaker. This Government is spending-and the Tories have not found this one yet-$50 million in one riding on a research facility. We are spending $15 million on a fisheries facility. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, when my buddies on this side of the House hear about that $15 million in one fisheries facility what they will say? How is that for porkbar-relling, Mr. Speaker, $50 million on a research facility and $15 million on a fisheries facility? How is that for porkbarrell-ing in two great Newfoundland ridings, St. John's East and St. John's West? The Tories conveniently forgot to mention that because that did not support their thesis, their muck-raking. There was $15 million for a fisheries college and $50 million for an ice tank research facility. But those Hon. Members opposite do not want to talk about that because that does not support their argument. That knocks the legs out from under their scurrilous allegation that somehow Liberals are looking after Liberals only. We were elected to be the Government of this country and we have created 50,000 projects across the country.
I will be the first to admit, to my Tory friends, Mr. Speaker, that that money would have been distributed even more equitably, even more fairly, if the Tories had been less busy
muck-raking and more busy looking after the needs of their constituents. The example in Rosedale is a case in point. There is a facility operated by a particular religious denomination which was in need of some government funding. This facility has made a marvellous contribution not only in the riding of Rosedale, but in metropolitan Toronto, and has touched for the better the lives of many hundreds of young people outside of metropolitan Toronto. That organization approached a lady whose record of service to the poor and to the underprivileged is well known in Toronto. She happens at the moment to be a Liberal Member in one of the Toronto ridings, but the esteem in which she is held goes far beyond that riding. She was approached by that particular organization to see if she could tap some government funding. To her credit, the lady from York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) did tap some government funding. Do we hear the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) congratulating her because she had the initiative to do something in his riding which he had neglected to do? Oh, no. We hear him making some cheap politics. I am not sure how that incident, by the way, squares with the argument that all the money is in Liberal ridings. That particular incident happened in the "temporary" Tory riding of Rosedale.
This is a good Budget, Mr. Speaker. Even the critics say that this is a good Budget. I will quote from an article in the February issue of Maclean's magazine by Dian Cohen, an economics writer. She says in part, and I quote:
-in fact, on almost every front Marc Lalonde's efforts were reasonable.
-poor, single pensioners will get a $600-a-year income boost. Self-employed wage earners and others without company pensions will have their RRSP limits raised. Child support and alimony payers will be able to deduct lump-sum payments. The unemployed will be welcomed back into the labour force by a provision that allows them to deduct moving expenses if their new job is far away. We will have pensions reform and mortgage interest insurance. Farmers working their farms and farmers wanting to sell out will get a better break. Small business will be better treated at tax time.
She goes on to say:
Every one of the dozens-
-the "dozens"-
-of suggestions in the budget is in response to a real concern of some Canadian special interest group. And many-if not most-of the suggestions make small-1 liberal economic sense and are good for free enterprise.
These are the words of a very informed lady who has often said some fairly critical things about this Government. I regard those words as an important, dispassionate assessment of what this Budget is all about, because this Budget does make some small-1 liberal good economic sense.
After the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought down his Budget, we were all treated to some vintage remarks from the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West. One of the things he talked about was the size of the deficit. Not only did he talk about the size of the deficit, but he talked about what he would do if he were the Minister of Finance, if the Tories were in power. The Hon. Member for St. John's West told us what the Tories would do. Let me tell you, as one who knows that gentleman inside out, Mr. Speaker, that he would do something. He is a man of his word. Take the Hon. Member for St. John's West at his word when he
February 23, 1984

said he would do something. I watched him in another arena. I watched him at the provincial level when he was in Opposition. He made the same kind of criticisms then about the public debt that he is making now about the deficit. I remember how he pointed out to the Newfoundland people across the island, in Labrador and in the House of Assembly that the Liberal Government of the then Premier Joey Smallwood had taken Newfoundland from a surplus position in 1949 and had put it $900 million in debt in 22 years. He told us all that he would do something about that. He did, Mr. Speaker. He got his chance. When the Tories came to power he became the Minister of Finance. Two and a half years later, when he left that portfolio, I want the House to understand in fairness to him that the public debt was no longer $900 million-those big, bad Liberals had taken it from nothing to $900 million in 22 years-after two and a half years under his financial stewardship, the public debt was nothing near $900 million. It was $2.1 billion. The Hon. Member did something, all right. He more than doubled the public debt of the Province, single handedly, in about one-tenth of the time it had taken the Liberals. Take the man at his word, Mr. Speaker. He will do something about the deficit. He will drive it right through the roof.
1 remember when the Hon. Member for St. John's West became the Minister of Finance in Newfoundland. One of the things he was very upset about was that the former Premier, Mr. Smallwood, had made what looked like a very sweet deal with Canadian Javelin. He had sold them two large dormitory buildings for about $350,000, two empty shells for $350,000. The Hon. Member for St. John's West though that was a small sum of money and that he could do better. He regarded that as a pittance, so he bought the buildings back. He paid $350,000 of government money and got the buildings back so that he could make more money for the taxpayers. He then put them on tender. He had trouble selling them but eventually he sold one for $ 1.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. In order to understand where the finance critic for the Tories is coming from and how valid his commitments are, you have to understand how he delivered in the past. I have been watching him for a number of years-and he is a man you have to watch very closely. I have watched his rhetoric and his actions and every time, without fail, he does something-but I am not sure the taxpayers are any better off for what he does.
Who is this wise man from the East, Mr. Speaker? Is he as smart as he sounds? Yes, he is. Does he know all he says he does? Yes, he does. The problem is not how smart he is or how much he knows, it is the machiavellian things he does with that smartness which makes the country so ill served by his being in public life.
I hope, Mr. Speaker-and I shall work to this end-that the people of Canada never again have inflicted upon them the kind of performance that the Hon. Member for St. John's West is capable of. In Newfoundland we know through bitter
The Budget-Mr. Elzinga
experience how terrible that can be. We owe it to the people of Newfoundland and the people of all Canada to see that we do not have that kind of thing inflicted on us.
This is a good Budget, Mr. Speaker. It is a Budget I can support with a heart and a half. It will keep the economic recovery going. It is a Budget for the poor, a Budget for the jobless, a Budget to keep us back on the track to good economic recovery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga).


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous Member, I wish to compare this Budget with the Budget we introduced in 1979. My analysis will be somewhat different from that which the Hon. Member opposite just shared with the Chamber.
I think that the amendment we are debating and on which we will vote at 5.45 this evening bears repeating, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:
This House regrets the failure of the government to present measures designed to reduce Canada's budgetary deficit, lower existing high interest rates, reduce crippling high levels of unemployment or to create meaningful pension reform all of which are needed as a result of years of government economic mismanagement and condemns the government for its continued misuse of public funds and arrogant maladministration which have led to a crisis in public trust and confidence in government.
I wish to review some of the things that the National Progressive Conservative Party has put in place so that when our friends opposite have the courage to call a general election and we have the opportunity to govern the nation, we will be ready.
Our Leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), has put together five very important task forces. One relates to job opportunities for Canada's youth, because traditionally unemployment levels for that sector of our society are twice the national average. We have positive recommendations on how to correct those high unemployment levels. We also have a task force relating to Crown corporation accountability. We plan to reform the legislation under which Crown corporations now function so that they will be accountable not only to Parliament but to the Canadian people. A third task force deals with productivity enhancement in the public and private sectors. We need to find ways to increase productivity in the country if we are to improve our economy. The fourth is something that the Budget touched upon, and that is, tax simplification. The complexity of the tax legislation and tax forms is something that needs to be changed. We will develop ways of simplifying both the tax forms and the legislation. The fifth task force will examine manpower retraining. At the present time the retraining programs in the country are inadequate. We want to develop the means of putting manpower retraining programs in place, ones that are functional and ones that will be suitable to all sectors of our society.
Just a short while ago we announced a comprehensive 10 point agricultural policy. A recent press release of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) touched on that policy. As a national party we would eliminate the 9 per cent

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Elzinga
federal sales tax on farm fuels. We have a number of other significant proposals to regenerate economic activity in that very important sector of our Canadian society.
We have just gone through one of the worst recessions since 1930. In 1983, investment in the corporate sector was 12 per cent less than the year before. Canadian business is operating at only two-thirds of its capacity. Housing construction throughout the country has slowed considerably. Inflation has declined, however, and we give some credit to the Canadian people and to the Government for that, but it is twice as great as that of our two greatest trading partners, Japan and the United States.
I ask Hon. Members where those bright hopes we held for this country in the early 1980s have gone? I can recall a time when to live dangerously was of one's own choosing rather than a national Government policy. Unfortunately, this Liberal administration has adopted just such a policy. There is scarcely a difficulty that we in this nation face that does not have this Liberal administration's fingerprints on it.
Let us for just a moment look at the future as it relates to our Party. I just touched on the agricultural policy we announced. We put together five very important task forces which are to come forward with recommendations. We have indicated on a consistent basis that we as a national Government would reduce the budgetary deficit. We would simplify the Income Tax Act and reduce the unnecessary government burden on both the small business and the agricultural sectors. We will increase spending on research and development and on our Armed Forces. These are just basic principles, Mr. Speaker, and we are in the process of putting meat on the bone so we can restore economic activitiy in this great nation of ours.
Compare that with what we had on February 15. The Government promised us a plan to study mortgage insurance. One only has to look back to 1974 when the same Government promised us proposals where individuals could repay their mortgage without any type of penalty. To this date we have not seen legislation along those lines. There is a small business reform proposal; we have been pushing for that for years. I commend the Government for increasing the GIS, but here again the increase is only half that advocated by an all parliamentary group studying the pension situation in Canada.
We in this Party are deeply worried about our budgetary deficit because every dollar this Government proposes to borrow will simply go to pay interest on our national debt, interest only. That is like an individual borrowing on his Master Card or VISA to pay off the interest on a car loan he has at the bank. The deficit in this Budget is projected to be close to $30 billion. Our national debt is in the vicinity of some $200 billion; truly a sad legacy for the young people of this nation. I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we would simplify the Income Tax Act. Our Liberal friends opposite also have a way to simplify the Income Tax Act. The new Liberal proposal for the upcoming tax forms read like this:
Number 1: How much money did you make last year?
Number 2: What were your expenses?
Number 3: How much do you have left?
Number 4: Send your Liberal Government in Ottawa the item listed in Number 3.
Mr. Speaker, I have travelled this country a great deal in my role as the national President of our Association. Canadians are looking to us as a national Party to take corrective action when we do form the Government. We can justifiably point back with pride to the Budget we introduced in 1979. That Budget squarely confronted the economic difficulties we as a nation were facing. We proposed solutions based on sound economic management, and we offered policies which truly offered encouragement to those regions and disadvantaged groups throughout the country. We also offered encouragement and incentives to the private sector of our society. Our Budget of 1979 placed women in a position of equality with men in so far as working in family enterprises is concerned. We introduced an energy tax credit for those in the middle and lower income levels to meet higher energy costs. We had specific measures to help those in the agricultural and small business sector with high interest rates. We had significant capital gains relief for the farming population. To top it all off, we were reducing the Government budgetary deficit and Government spending. Yet the Social Policy Planning Board of Canada labelled that Budget the most socially progressive Budget introduced in Canada in the past ten years. More important than that, I wish to stress that we showed a deep sensitivity to the far flung regions of our country. That too is what the present Leader of our Party is doing. He has shown a deep sensitivity to the far regions and to minorities, be they ethnic, cultural or linguistic. That is why Canadians are looking to us to form the next government.
I am reminded of the time when President Reagan addressed this Chamber quite some time ago. He indicated that he likened government to a baby. He said it was an alimentary canal with a huge appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Supposedly that is what we as Members of Parliament are to do, to return responsibility to our federal institutions. But, sadly, this Liberal administration opposite has not done that. Canadians are looking at us to restore that sense of responsibility. We give them that assurance, that we are going to restore economic responsibility to this great nation of ours.
On a few occasions I have referred to my parents coming to this country from Holland. They did so because this was a land of hope and opportunity. This was a land where one could work hard and reap the rewards. Again I stress to you, judging from the input I have been receiving from all across this country, that Canadians are looking to us to restore that hope in this nation. As all Canadians do, I love this country. I love the potential it can offer to us and to future generations. But this potential is being denied by an administration which appears to be uncaring.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative Party are the only alternative to a Government whose actions are dangerous, have proved divisive and, quite frankly,
February 23, 1984

corrupt. I have sensed a real wave of hope right from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia. That hope is directed at our Party because of the oustanding job the Leader of the Opposition has done and the outstanding way he has conducted himself in the House of Commons, even though there have been loads of sleaze thrown at him from Members opposite. He has shown sensitivity to the people of this country.
We on this side await an unprecedented opportunity not only to form the next Government but to move this country to its full potential. We hope we have this opportunity soon because we do have a great country, but we have a rotten Government. Our country is great because of the uncommon sense of sacrifice and commitment of ordinary people; their pride in their family, sense of community, respect for tradition and attachment to their regions. These are qualities of which great nations are built. These are qualities of which Canada is built.
I ask Canadians to remember one very important thing: A vote for the New Democratic Party is a vote for Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. If you vote for the NDP, 10 times out of 10 you are going to get Pierre Elliott Trudeau. All one has to do is to look at the major issues we have debated in this Chamber, issues relating to energy and the constitutional debate, and then examine the defeat of our Government in 1979.


Mr. Keeper:: You defeated yourselves. The people defeated you, and they will do it again.


Peter Elzinga: That was on a motion by the New Democratic Party. The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party held hands. They are sleeping together, and when the covers are pulled back they have a pillow Fight, but when nobody is watching they pull the sheets over their heads.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What you are saying is obscene.


Peter Elzinga: My friend will have the opportunity to speak in a moment, if he wishes. I see the Hon. Member and cannot recall his constituency, but on a consistent basis he makes more speeches from his seat in the House of Commons than on his feet. We look forward to his participation later. If he does have any questions I will be more than happy to address myself to them.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I have more interjections than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has speeches.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, the Budget of February 15 contained no major tax increases. It did not have to because the Budget which was introduced by this administration in April of 1983 covered all those tax increases, the majority of which are delayed. Many of these changes and extra charges are hidden. I would like to review a summary of those hidden changes.
I would like to look at the special recovery tax which was introduced in April of 1983. The federal sales tax will be
The Budget-Mr. Elzinga
increased by one percentage point for the period from October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1988. The new rates will be 6 per cent on construction materials compared to 5 per cent. The rate on alcoholic beverages and tobacco will be 13 per cent instead of 12 per cent, and 10 per cent instead of 9 per cent on all other taxable goods.
With regard to the federal tax reduction, the federal Government does not collect the First $200 of federal taxes payable. This tax break is being signiFicantly cut. In 1985 the maximum tax reduction will be reduced to $100, and in 1986 and subsequent years to $50. In the case of those who pay federal taxes of more than $6,000, the tax reduction will be phased out completely starting in 1984. This will affect those with incomes in excess of $39,000. The phase-out formula will be 10 per cent of any basic federal tax in excess of $6,000. Thus, if your federal taxes payable are $6,100, your federal tax reduction will be reduced by 10 per cent of $100 or $10. The $100 standard deduction is eliminated starting in the 1984 tax year, with receipts now required for all charitable and medical deductions.
The income threshold by which the Child Tax Credit is reduced by 5 per cent for every $100 of household income will be deindexed at the 1982 level of $26,330. As incomes rise with inflation this will mean that fewer and fewer people will qualify.
The tax exemption for children and other dependants under 18 years of age has been deindexed at the 1983 level of $710 for 1984 and subsequent years. This is a hidden increase in taxes. The effect will grow over time as the gap between what the exemption would have been and where it is frozen widens. It will increase taxes for a typical taxpayer by only $11 in 1984 but by $59 in 1988.
The Canadian Ownership Special Charge is a tax of 4 cents a gallon. It was originally imposed as a temporary tax to pay for the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. It has been extended as a permanent revenue tax.
I would like to speak about unemployment insurance premiums. Details about this are buried in the Budget documents. Employment premium rates will rise from 2.3 per cent of insurable earnings in 1983-84, to 2.35 per cent in 1985, and then to 2.65 per cent in 1986 before falling to 2.15 per cent in 1987. In 1982, the rate was 1.8 per cent. The employer rate is 1.4 times the employee rate.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I thank Hon. Members for this opportunity to participate in this very meaningful debate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Member who has just finished speaking. He said a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Liberals. Is the Member aware that in the House the Conservative Party votes with the Liberal Party many more times than does the New Democratic Party? How does he explain those facts in the face of his assertions?


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I will return the question to the Hon. Member and ask him where his Party stood on the constitutional debate and the energy debate, and how his Party

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Elzinga
voted in 1979 to defeat a sound economic Budget which was presented to the Canadian people. On issue after issue the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party have walked hand in hand. Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between those two Parties.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I was the guy interrupting the Hon. Member earlier. I should not have done that. He was quite right to remind me of proper decorum, and I apologize to him. I will ask him the question now rather than doing it in the middle of his speech.
As the former President of the National Progressive Conservative Party can he tell us why his Leader does not come to the House of Commons? Why does his Leader not ask questions in Question Period? Why does his Leader not participate in the debates here? All new guys take a while to learn things, but we do not run away and hide. Actually, we usually throw ourselves into the fray rather than running away from it. This guy seems to have stabbed the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) in the back and left. Why is that?


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Parliamentary Secretary. On a personal basis I have always appreciated visiting with him, but the sleaze and slime to which he descends in the House of Commons is not becoming to him.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Nor is it becoming to the House of Commons.


Peter Elzinga: As our Leader said, there is no belt below which individuals such as yourself will not kick. It is because of such an attitude that the Canadian people are going to throw you out so fast when you have the courage to call an election that it will be unreal.
Our Leader has an enviable record in this Chamber. On a consistent basis he has spoken on a number of major issues and has put questions to all Cabinet Ministers. The sad part is that he never gets a decent answer from anybody on the Treasury benches.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Member who just spoke. Would the Member be sufficiently candid to acknowledge that the economic proposals which his Party often puts forward call for tax reductions, particularly with regard to the business sector? That is in fact what the Liberal Party has been doing, particularly in the last Budget. It handed out more tax loopholes to the business sector. In fact, the Liberals and Tories are the same when it comes to give-aways to large businesses and to economic policy. Could he explain that?


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to respond to that. There is no trust in the business community as it relates to this Liberal administration because, on a consistent basis, it changes the rules. There is no predictability for the business sector.
I would like to deal now with the Hon. Member's question as it relates to our economic proposals. As I indicated in my speech, the Budget we brought down was labelled the most socially progressive Budget introduced in Canada in the last 10 years. It was labelled thus by the Social Policy Planning Board of Canada. It indicated that was the most socially progressive Budget introduced in Canada in the past decade.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the gentleman from Pembina. My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, got his answer. The gentleman from Pembina yelled about sleaze and dodged the question. I can understand his dodging the question, but he should not mislead the House. We all know the gentleman from Central Nova (Mr. Mul-roney) makes an appearance here roughly once a week, other than for votes. Everybody knows that.


Peter Elzinga: You already gave your speech. Ask a question.


Roger Simmons: This period is for questions and comments, as I am sure the Member will realize. That is my comment. Now here is my question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Neither will make sense.


Roger Simmons: I understand. I am quoting him so it will not make sense. The gentleman talked about sensitivity to the far reaches of the country. Then he proceeded to talk about the whole country from P.E.I. to B.C. Does he know that geographically, Newfoundland is east of P.E.I.?
Talking about sensitivity to the far reaches of this country, will he explain what sensitivity it was that constrained the Member for St. John's West in the December, 1979 Budget, to cancel, without exception, all small craft harbours fisheries expenditure in Atlantic Canada and the short-term job creation program? Would he explain that in terms of sensitivity to the people of this country?


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to engage myself in a debate with the Hon. Member who referred to himself in Question Period as the Member with the bionic mouth with no brain behind it. If I heard him correctly, that is what he called himself in Question Period earlier today. I do not have to speak on behalf of the man who was the Finance Minister for us in our short lived Government because he is very capable of speaking for himself. I just say to the Hon. Member that we on this side of the House of Commons will take a thoughtful and reasoned approach-


Roger Simmons: Answer the question.


Peter Elzinga: -to any policies that we advocate, unlike our friends opposite who will indicate one thing during an election campaign and immediately reverse themselves after the election.
We can point back to the 1974 election when they swallowed themselves on wage and price controls. We can point back to the 1972 election campaign when they swallowed
February 23, 1984

themselves on the issue of indexation of income tax and pensions. They swallowed themselves as it related to the 18c. excise tax when they promised the people cheap gasoline and it is now five times the amount that we campaigned on.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Member illustrates exactly the point 1 was making. He does not understand what is happening in the House, including when his Leader is present or absent. Of course, my description can apply to only one person in the House, and it is not me nor the Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga); it applies to the Member for St. John's West. I very distinctly said, as Hansard will show, that my good friend from St. John's West is the bionic mouth not attached to any known intelligent life form. I said that about him, but of course the Member for Pembina would misunderstand that as he misunderstands most things.
I spent the time in my speech showing how the Tories reversed themselves on a number of issues. I documented them. If he wants a full report, he should look in The Toronto Star. The Toronto Star documented it in 1979. He does not want to hear that because that is reality. He wants to engage in rhetoric.
The people of Canada, whether from P.E.I. or B.C. or the important part east of that are not listening to him, thank God.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed when I hear an individual talk about reversal. The Canadian public is aware that, as I just indicated to the Hon. Member opposite, the Liberals have consistently swallowed themselves immediately after their election. They are deceitful in their approach and in what they indicate to the Canadian people during that election period. I indicated their deceit in 1972, 1974 and 1980.
I cannot see how an honourable person could be part of a Party that can swallow itself so readily just to be on the Government benches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The Chair has grave doubts that this 10 minute question period was conducted properly. The Standing Orders are very precise about the reason for this 10 minute question period. I would like to quote from Standing Order 35(2)(b). It reads:
-following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto;
This question period was not intended for mud slinging or the type of speeches that are more at home on hustings during an election campaign. I would like to remind Hon. Members that comments should relate to the substance of what was contained in a Member's speech.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is the master of its own fate. Could we have unanimous consent to continue our questioning so that we could come to the budgetary matters in our comments to the Hon. Member? Since he specifically is President of his Party nationally and a very important spokesman, I am sure he would not mind a few more questions about the Budget.
The Budget-Mr. Mac Lore n


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is very unusual for me to rise on a point of order. But in view of what has been happening here in the last few minutes, when the two hon. gentlemen from the other side saw fit to stand and do anything except discuss the Budget speech or the speech of the previous speaker and preferred to cast insults and aspersions on the Leader of our Party, I see no reason at all why we should give unanimous consent for them to continue on that course.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) has the floor.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion which criticizes the Budget in four principal areas. It says that the budgetary deficit is too high, that the Budget fails to lower existing high interest rates, reduce unemployment or introduce meaningful pension reform. In the next few minutes, let me deal with one or two of these questions which have been raised.
In fact, we have a Budget which sets out the deficit for 1983-84 and 1984-85 in quite clear terms. It indicates the estimated level of that deficit for the years ahead.
However, the critics of the Budget tell us that that deficit is too high. The Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), among others, says that the deficit is too large. I question the criticism on the part of the Member for St. John's West, who is the finance critic for the Opposition, because he has told us that he would do the very same thing. He said that if he were the Minister of Finance he would have a deficit that is at least as high as the one that is in this Budget.
Let us not make any mistake about what he has said. The Member for St. John's West said that, "the present Minister of Finance had little choice this year except to plan for a deficit in the $30 billion range". That is what we have, a deficit in the $30 billion range. That is what he says he would have done as well.
He went on to say, "A big deficit this year is necessary to encourage economic recovery". That is a quotation from the Hon. Member. That is what we have.
I do not understand how there can be an Opposition motion before us complaining about the size of the federal deficit when the principal spokesman for the Opposition on financial questions says that he would do exactly the same thing.
The reason he would do exactly the same thing is quite obvious. We in Canada have passed through a period of real economic recession. We are on the way to recovery from that economic recession. Indeed, we are on the threshold of substantial growth in the time ahead. The Hon. Members opposite must recognize that during a period of recession there are social programs that must be sustained. The revenue of the Government diminishes during a period of economic recession. Tax revenue is not at the level it would be during a period of great prosperity, so we maintain the essential programs by deficit spending. We do so fully conscious of what we are doing. We do so because we recognize that Canadians must be sustained through a period of recession, expecially those who

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
cannot provide for themselves. But our friends opposite tell us, 1 suppose they tell us-this must be what they are saying- "All right, fine. During a period of economic recession we see that there is a need for a higher deficit." The Hon. Member for St. John's West says, "Yes, a high deficit is fine for this year. If I were Finance Minister, I would have done the very same thing". At the same time, however, his colleagues, including his Leader, go about the country saying that they would spend more, that they would spend more on defence, more on transfer payments to the Provinces for medicare, for post-secondary education and for farm credit. One could continue.
Each of these proposed areas of increased spending is no doubt needy and could be beneficial to Canada in times of greater economic recovery. But let us be clear that such spending would result in a yet greater federal Government deficit. Other policies of our friends in the Opposition would increase the deficit even further. While they are calling for greater spending, they call equally for tax cuts. When they are spending more, they would have even less revenue and the deficit would grow even more. But our friends opposite say, "Wait a minute. That is not what we mean. We are going to cut out other things. We are going to increase defence spending, transfer payments to the Provinces, and we are going to increase this or that, but we are going to cut other things". What things are they going to cut? Presumably they are not talking about a little belt tightening or a little rejigging of this or that. They must be talking about very substantial numbers. Yet the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) tells us he would abolish, if he were in office, the press clipping service provided for Ministers and for the House of Commons. That is what I understood him to say. What does he think that is worth? A few thousand dollars? And he complains about the fact that the deficit is $31.5 billion this year. But his solution is to cut a little bit of press clippings. Or he tells us about the CBC. Apparently he does not like the CBC, so he will cut the CBC. What is he talking about? The CBC budget, if my memory serves me correctly, is somewhere between $600 million and $700 million.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is closer to $900 million.


Roy MacLaren: What does the Hon. Member want to do? Does he want to halve the CBC budget and save, as it were, some $350 million or $400 million? Is that what the Hon. Member is proposing? Does he want to undermine one of the principal agencies in our country that gives Canadians a sense of their own identity, practices, traditions and history? Is that what the Hon. Member is advocating? What else does he want to cut? Does he want to cut support for our exports? Does he want to cut help for the neediest of the developing countries? Does he want to eliminate subsidies for rail and certain air services? What are these cuts that he wants? Does he want to cut incentives for petroleum exploration? One could go on, but the fact is that any such measures as the Opposition advocates from one side of its mouth, that of major reductions in our
deficit, would bring very real hardship to the Canadian people. Let us make no mistake about that. No wonder the Hon. Member for St. John's West speaks about being "mean and nasty". He would have to be mean and nasty. Any Finance Minister would have to be mean and nasty to eliminate pensions, the UIC and transfer payments to the provinces if he really wanted to bring down the federal Government's deficit rapidly-and in a wholly socially irresponsible way.
That is unnecessary, Mr. Speaker. We have shown that in the April Budget and again in this Budget. There is no need for the vaunted meanness and nastiness which the Hon. Member for St. John's West advocates. What we need is a balanced policy of economic stimulation on the one hand and social responsibility on the other. Such broad approach, an equitable and balanced approach, was elaborated in last April's Budget. It is again here in this past week's Budget. The deficit for 1983-84 reflects that dual approach. The deficit is at the level we forecast last April. For 1984-85, as our economic recovery progresses and real growth is restored, we are forecasting a reduction of some $2 billion, a reduction in dollar terms of some 7 per cent in one year. As a percentage of the Gross National Product, it is a yet higher reduction. We are doing that. We set out our commitment. We are doing that in terms of the commitment we set out last April in the paper on the deficit which accompanied that Budget. We are going to strive to ensure that we keep on track, as we are now, that there is no future crowding out for private sector borrowing in our capital markets by government borrowing. At the same time, and I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker, this Government will maintain support for those Canadians who cannot adequately provide for themselves.
Let me turn to the second point to which the Opposition motion refers which concerns high interest rates. We have had high interest rates in Canada, and so has every industrialized country, some higher than others. But every industrialized country, indeed every country in the world, has passed through a period of very high interest rates. What has happened in Canada? High interest rates have dropped. They have dropped substantially. Mortgage rates are down. Bank lending rates are down. The Bank of Canada rate, the fundamental rate in the country, is down sharply.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh? Over a year ago the Bank of Canada rate was 9.43 per cent. It is 10.4 per cent today. You do not know enough to understand.


Roy MacLaren: Not 14 months ago, Mr. Speaker,-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A year ago.


Roy MacLaren: -interest rates in Canada were at high levels. Today we see them sharply reduced, to the benefit of consumers, to the benefit of investors, to the benefit of house owners. Through government policies and through the international decline in interest rates, we foresee further limits in the consumer price index. We have set out our forecasts with regard to interest rates in Canada. They are set forth in the fiscal plan. We see those rates gradually dropping over the
February 23, 1984

next five years. Of course, the Budget document acknowledges that there is a risk with interest rate assumptions. They are based in part on further assumptions about government deficits in the United States and elsewhere. The assumption is that the size of the government deficit and interest rates in the United States will decline as a portion of national income. We are making that assumption. But it is an assumption that will be underpinned by actions here in Canada to ensure, to take an example, that we do not cause inflation by excessive wage settlements, or by the Public Service leading the private sector in the level of wage settlements. We have committed ourselves in this Budget, as we move out of the period of six and five restraint, to control the levels of wage settlements in the public sector. We have also moved to ensure that the administrated prices for which the Government has a responsibility will not exceed 4 per cent in the time ahead. These are direct action plans by the Government to help ensure that we do not, as a country, face high interest rates again.
As well, we have moved toward the real answer to high interest rates in so far as they are within our national control, that is, to increase productivity within our country to ensure that we in Canada become more internationally competitive. Productivity is the essential answer to inflation and to high interest rates. That is why we have put in place in recent months a national productivity centre which carries the full support of labour and business and why in this Budget we have offered, for example, a profit-sharing plan that can encourage workers and employees to take a greater share in the success of their own company, through their own hard work and their own efforts, and to benefit from greater productivity. These measures will help to answer the questions about the likelihood of higher interest rates in Canada.
The third problem with regard to the motion of the Hon. Members opposite today concerns unemployment in Canada. We have recognized quite clearly in the Budget that unemployment is at a very high level in Canada. There is no question of that. We are saying also that it will continue to be at a high level in the time ahead. None of us take any satisfaction in that. None of us rejoice in that fact. What we are saying is that we shall make every effort-we have been making every effort-to reduce unemployment in Canada.
Part of the difficulty with which we are faced in Canada is a growing work force. It is increasing at a rate which is unparalleled in most industrialized countries. As new jobs are created-some 400,000 additional jobs in the past 12 months or so-they are more than filled by those joining the work force. That is a challenge for us. It is certainly no cause for despair.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West during his amusing little speech the other evening castigated our unemployment forecasts in the Budget by comparing them to a fish on the beaches of Newfoundland, that it is "shiny on the surface but . . . rotten inside". In amending John Randolph's noted observation about a political opponent, the Member opposite might have asked himself to whom the full quotation could
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
best apply, and I quote, "He was a man of splendid abilities but utterly corrupt. Like rotten mackerel by the moonlight, he shines and stinks". I digress for a moment merely to draw attention to the real applicability of the Hon. Member's use of John Randolph's observation.
In fact, the unemployment figures in the Budget recognize the economic reality facing Canada. To that end, the Government has put in place a comprehensive program to help economic recovery. I speak of course of the April 1983 Budget. In that Budget we designed a four-year effort, an effort which offered early capital spending by the federal Government and early increases in the training of workers to help ensure that the foundation is there for our further economic recovery. Half of the $4.8 billion under the four-year Special Recovery Program is being directed into Special Recovery Capital Projects. Those projects will have their main impact during 1984-85. In the coming fiscal year, $1.1 billion will be invested in public facilities essential to our future economic growth.
In addition to the Special Recovery Program, other government programs are providing direct employment and job training for Canadians. We have committed something over $2.3 billion for that purpose in the coming Fiscal year. It is important that we keep these facts in perspective when we are talking about the support being given by the Government to the economic recovery. For example, the Budget announced that an additional $150 million is being allocated for the Youth Opportunity Fund. Some people have tended to lose sight of the fact that this is in addition to more than $1 billion for that fund announced in the Speech from the Throne in December. Altogether the Government is committing more than $3.5 billion in the coming fiscal year to Special Recovery Capital Projects and to direct employment support. That is about $500 million more than in the previous fiscal year.
The motion before us also castigates the Budget for absence of "meaningful" pension reform. I do not know what in this context the adjective "meaningful" means. It must imply that in some way it is thought that the pension reforms are inadequate or perhaps long in implementation. Let us be clear on what we are talking about. We are talking about fundamental issues which affect every Canadian and indeed every business in Canada. We are talking about protection against inflation for future pensions. We are talking about the provision of pension portability. We are talking about people being able to move their pensions with them, in a way that they have never had that opportunity before in Canada, as they move from one job to another. We are increasing the mobility of workers indirectly in that way, which can also bring indirect economic benefit as well as direct benefit to the individual. We are proposing broadened pension coverage for full and parttime workers, again in a way unique in Canada. We are proposing changes to the Canada Pension Plan which will require provincial concurrence, but will certainly bring about better pension coverage for Canadians. We are proposing changes in tax incentives for private pension savings which will help to put all pension plans on an equal basis for tax purposes.

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
In this way we believe that we are answering the need for Canadians to achieve greater security for their retirement years. We think that these policies will no doubt carry the broad support of Canadians. We are determined to bring them into place at an early date. We shall work with the provinces to ensure that all Canadians have meaningful pension plans in the time ahead.
The Budget before us has brought to Canadians a range of benefits, a range of initiatives and innovations which can only be of the greatest value to them as our economic recovery progresses and real growth is restored in our economy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm that transfers to Crown corporations this year have increased from $3,767 billion to $4,618 billion, an increase of 22 per cent? Did the Minister not realize that the increases to the CBC were as much as $895.7 million; that EDC was getting $287 million; that Petro-Canada was getting $460 million, plus $60 million more for drilling off the coast of Jamaica; that the post office was getting $520 million, which was never provided before in budgetary figures; that Atomic Energy of Canada was getting $331.4 million; that CMHC was getting $1,345.1 million; that the National Capital Commission was getting $105 million for its parks and parkway belts in the City of Ottawa; and that the Cape Breton Development Corporation was getting $134.4 million? Will he advise the House that in his opinion none of these expenditures could be challenged or reviewed, that all these expenditures were perfectly proper and the kind of thing a Liberal Government would do and increase from time to time? It borrows money at a 10.4 per cent rate, which is significantly higher, indeed six-tenths of one per cent higher, than it was a year ago.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite has offered a whole shopping list of Crown corporations, some of which have had substantial increases in their operating budgets or their capital budgets. Others which he did not mention of course have not. Be that as it may, I hardly think it is for me to ask the Hon. Member what he is talking about. I must infer from what he says that he thinks that the Cape Breton Development Corporation is not a good idea. He must be telling us that he thinks the CMHC assistance for subsidized housing or lower cost housing in this country is not a good thing. Is he telling us that we should not make the investment in the Post Office to ensure that in the future we shall have better postal service in Canada? Does he wish to scrap Candu reactors and write off the investment Canadians have made in a high technology industry which is respected around the world? What is he telling us? Certainly we have had increases in the budgets of some of our Crown corporations. Those budgets are subject to review and analysis. We on this side of the House are satisfied that those budgets can play a major part in the expansion not only of the public sector activities which are assigned to them, but they can also be a vital catalyst in the further growth and expansion of the private sector.
The Hon. Member opposite questions the budget of the Export Development Corporation. Is he telling us that we should not be offering insurance guarantees and lower cost loans to purchasers abroad of Canadian goods and services? Does he wish us to withdraw from the international financial area? What is he talking about?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister constantly gives the impression that there is nothing to be saved in these various Crown corporation budgets, that when they demand certain numbers of millions of dollars, that money can just be granted. In his speech he also gave the impression that there was no way to cut the expenditures of government that are leading to the $31.5 billion deficit this year, well over $25 billion last year and projected deficits in upcoming years of over $20 billion for each of the next four years. Is the Minister concerned about that? Is he saying there is no restraint available for these huge deficits? Is he not concerned about the lack of borrowing ability in the private sector because the Government is such a huge borrower and because of the effect that that may have on interest rates?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite perhaps did not follow the comments I made earlier to the effect that we set forth in the April 1983 Budget a plan for the gradual reduction in the federal Government deficit, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of Gross National Product. The Hon. Member is right that over the time ahead we shall see deficits in Canada remaining at over $20 billion. That amount as a percentage of our GNP, and indeed in absolute dollar terms, will diminish as our growth goes forward and the recovery is completed. Our deficit will be going down. One reason why we are committed to such a policy is that we do not wish to see the sort of crowding out that the Member has described. If you ask any of our financial institutions in Canada, brokerage houses or banks, there has been no crowding out. There has not been the demand in the private sector for massive borrowings which would be affected by the presence of the federal Government in the money marketplace. We believe that as recovery goes forward, and I refer the Member to the document with the April Budget, crowding out is a potential problem. That is one reason why we on this side are determined to bring down gradually the level of the federal deficit.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister began his speech, and I think I quote him correctly, by saying that we passed through a recession and we are now in a period of real growth. The fact is that we have 1.5 million unemployed. If one looks at the Budget papers and the projections of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), he is projecting double-digit unemployment for the next number of years. How can the Minister argue that we have passed the recession when we have 1.5 million unemployed, when the projections of the Minister of Finance are that we will continue to have very large and unacceptable unemployment? Balance that against the fact that all the Government is proposing in the way of funds for
February 23, 1984

job creation to try to help the 1.5 million unemployed is $150 million. At the same time the Government was able to propose tax incentives, particularly for upper-income people through the RRSP formula, which will cost the people of Canada in lost revenue four or five times the $150 million new money which the Government is prepared to put into job-creation programs.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure from the last two interventions that we do not have a classic example of the difference between the Conservatives and the Socialists or NDP. Our Conservative colleague tells us we are spending far too much. He presumably would want us to cut out some of the social spending. I do not know how else you could sharply reduce the deficit without doing that. On the other hand, our friend from the New Democratic Party says that we are not spending enough, that we should be spending far more, that we should somehow spend our way out of recession.
As usual, the Liberal Party is in the centre, in the right place, in the equilibrium position. What we are doing, of course, is providing on the one hand, as I noted in my speech, substantial support for the unemployed for retraining and direct employment. As I pointed out earlier, we are adding a $150 million allocation for the Youth Opportunity Fund. That is in addition to the $1 billion for that fund that we announced in the December Speech from the Throne.
The Member opposite overlooks an essential fact, as our colleagues from the NDP often do, and that is, what we must do to stimulate greater productivity in our country. We are not talking merely about redistribution of income. We are talking about the creation of income. The creation of income will be assisted by the sort of incentives that we put in place for the business sector in the April Budget and in this Budget. The Member opposite must surely be aware that the research and development incentives, the tax carry-forwards-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The question period has now elapsed. We will now resume debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members opposite are always asking for more opportunities to raise issues and to question the Minister. He is doing very well now. I might ask the House for unanimous consent to continue asking questions.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we really did not learn all that much from the Minister's speech. The exchange in the question period was perhaps a little more productive. It seemed that the Minister was quite apologetic about this Budget. I guess we can sympathize with him. He admitted that the Government does not have the answers to the economic ills that face this country. He admitted, albeit in a roundabout way, that this Government lacks economic lead-
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski ership. The point has been missed time and again that over the last 15 years this Government really has not changed. Whenever there is a problem, it merely wants to throw money at it in the form of another alphabet soup program. That is really what it expects to do. Rather than providing the incentives and the kind of environment which would be conducive to growth and productivity, it simply creates another government program, put a fancy title to it, and say, "Here, go get it boys". If the Liberal ridings are a little more aggressive, they will get more than their fair share.
What we really need in this country is an admission that we have some very natural strengths. We have built this country on some very basic, natural strengths; agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, mining, and a whole host of things. But what has happened is that every one of these industries is in trouble because of the economic policies of this Government. What we need in this country is stimulation of these industries, greater productivity, and the production of more high quality products at lower prices. That way we can generate new health in this country.
We certainly do not argue with the theme which is contained in this Budget. The theme is great, except that there is nothing in the Budget which will help to achieve that kind of feeling of optimism and confidence, nothing which will encourage greater productivity and opportunities for individual Canadians.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) delivered what I would consider to be a scathing personal attack on the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie). He unleashed a litany of insults and innuendo which quite clearly demonstrate, I believe, the lengths to which some Hon. Members will go and the desperate methods they will use in dealing with the integrity of Hon. Members of this House. The Hon. Member also posed as an expert on deficits. He really admitted that he was not an expert on deficits in the federal domain. He talked about the experience he had in the Newfoundland legislative chamber, again attacking the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He refused, Mr. Speaker, in the course of his comments, to deal with the deficit problem we have right here in this country, which emanated essentially from the work of this Government. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at the record you will see that when this Government came into office under its current Leader, we had a gross debt in this country of some $31 billion. Today, at the end of this fiscal year, the gross debt will be $190 billion. In terms of net debt, when this Government came into office under its current Leader, there was a net debt in this country of $17.7 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1984, the net debt in this country will have reached $150.7 billion. We all know that the percentage of government expenditure is rising very dramatically. As a percentage of GNP, the Government expenditure was something like 21 per cent four years ago. It is now approaching 26 per cent.

February 23, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski The current Leader of this Government promised in 1980 that Government would keep the level of expenditures on a consistent basis with that of the then current percentage vis-a-vis the gross national product. Since 1968, Mr. Speaker, there has been only one balanced budget. What about the future? We have a $31.5 billion deficit at the end of this fiscal year; $29.6 billion for next year; $27.9 billion for 1985-86; $27.1 billion for 1986-87 and $26.1 billion for 1987-88.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is if you believe its projections.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, that is if you believe its projections. And this $31.5 billion deficit was to have been $11 billion-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That's right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -as estimated by the former Minister of Finance. Therefore, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government has no credibility. No one trusts it. No one believes it. The only way we will restore confidence in this nation is to bring in a brand new Government, and it will be a Progressive Conservative Government. Only then will the country be really working.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 65(7), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith any question needed to dispose of the amendment now before the House. [English]
The question, therefore, is on the amendment. Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hees moves:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
this House regrets the failure of the government to present measures designed to reduce Canada's budgetary deficit, lower existing high interest rates, reduce crippling high levels of unemployment or to create meaningful pension reform all of which are needed as a result of years of government economic mismanagement and condemns the government for its continued misuse of public funds and arrogant maladministration which have led to a crisis in public trust and confidence in government.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Call in the Members.
(Division No. 19)
z *
Messrs.
Andre	Hamilton	McMillan	- */Beatty	(Swift Current-Maple	Miller	Benjamin	Creek)	Mitchell (Ms.)	Blackburn	Heap	Mitges	Blaikic	Hees	Munro	* * .Blenkarn	Hnatyshyn	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	*V.Bosley	Howie	Murphy	: *f.Cardiff	Huntington	Neil	Carney (Miss)	Jarvis	Nickerson	*Clark	Jclinek	Nielsen	*.(Brandon-Souris)	Jewett (Ms.)	Nowlan	Clarke	Keeper	Nystrom	"I(Vancouver Quadra)	Kempling	Orlikow	Cook	Kilgour	Paproski	. :-vCooper	King	Parker	* %Corbett	Knowles	Patterson	::Cossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	Reid	Crosbie	Lambert	(St. Catharines)	(St. John's West)	La Salle	Robinson	Crouse	Lawrence	(Burnaby)	Dantzer	Lewis	Roche	*'Darling	Lewycky	St. Germain	Dick	MacDonald (Miss)	Schcllenberger	Domm	(Kingston and the Islands)	Scott	Ellis	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Elzinga	Manly	Scott	*Fennell	Mazankowski	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Forrestall	McCain	Shields	Fretz	McCuish	Siddon	Friesen	McDcrmid	Skelly	|Fulton	McDonald (Ms.)	Speyer	Gass	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Stewart	Gilchrist	McGrath	Taylor	Gurbin	McKenzie	Towers	Gustafson	McKinnon	Vankoughnet	Halliday	McLean
NAYS Messrs.	Wise Young-97.	; | ;ftAllmand	Dawson	Hervieux-Payette	Appolloni (Mrs.)	De Bane	(Mrs.)	Axworthy	de Corneille	Hopkins	Bachand	Demers	Hudecki	Baker	Deniger	Irwin	Bcauchamp-Niquet	Desmarais	Isabelle	(Mrs.)	Dion	Ittinuar	Begin (Miss)	Dionne	Johnston	Berger	(Northumberland-	Joyal	Blais	Miramichi)	Kelly	Blaker	Dubois	Killens (Mrs.)	Bloomfield	Duclos	Lachance	Bockstael	Dupont	Lajoie	Bossy	Dupras	Lalonde	. -[DOT]Breau	Erola (Mrs.)	Lamontagne	Bujold	Ethier	Landers	Burghardt	Evans	Lang	Bussicres	Ferguson	Laniel	Caccia	Fisher	Lapierre	Campbell (Miss)	Fleming	Lapointe	(South West Nova)	Flis	(Charlevoix)	Campbell	Foster	Lapointe	(LaSalle)	Frith	(Beauce)	Campbell	Garant	LcBlanc	(Cardigan)	Gauthier	Leduc	Chenier	Gendron	Lefebvre	Chretien	Gimaiel	Loiselle	Collenette	Gingras	Lumley	Comtois	Gourd	MacBain	Corbin	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacGuigan	Corrivcau	Gourde	Mackasey	Cosgrove	(Levis)	MacLaren	Coti (Mrs.)	Gray	MacLellan	Cousineau	Guilbault	Malepart	Cullen	Harquail	Maltais	Cyr	Henderson	Marceau	Daudlin	Herbert	Masse	*
February 23, 1984

Messrs.
Masters	Penner	RooneyMcCauley	Pepin	RossiMcRae	Peterson	RoyMunro	Pinard	Savard(Hamilton East)	Portelance	SchroderNicholson (Miss)	Reid	SimmonsOlivier	(Kenora-Rainy River)	SmithOstiguy	Roberts	TardifOuellet	Robinson	TessierParent	(Etobicoke- La keshore)	TobinPelletier	Rompkey	Tousignant
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
Messrs.
Trudeau	Veillette	WeatherheadTurner	Watson	Whelan
Yanakis-137.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 24, 1984