1984-02-22

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to underline the continuing tragedy of unemployment. Inability to find employment to provide for one's own needs and those of one's dependants is a demoralizing experience. It undermines one's self esteem and results in frustration and fear.
Unemployment is of particular concern to the youth in this country in that the rate for this group stands at over 20 per cent. This is a tragedy of unconscionable proportion. Starting out with visions of service, achievement, and financial security, young people are shocked to discover that their services are not wanted. Their expectations are shattered, and their hopes dashed.
Our young people are now suffering a second blow. Unable to find employment, many have decided to return to classrooms rather than remain idle. Recently we debated the lack of funding for post-secondary education. Tuition fees are rising dramatically, and those with limited financial resources are unable to pursue their studies. As well, many educational institutions are raising entrance requirements, and now, suffering a double-whammy, many of our young people are facing a situation which will have a shattering effect on their future.
The Government, Mr. Speaker, has been delinquent in not providing permanent employment opportunities for our youth or the economic stimulation that will enable the private sector to create those opportunities.


STATEMENTS MADE BY QUEBEC MINISTER OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, further to statements made before the Committee yesterday by the Quebec Minister responsible for Health, Mr. Johnson, and also to an
article in the newspaper La Presse which said that there were no user fees in Quebec in the health services field, I would like to go back to what Mr. Johnson said on Pierre Pascau's program last week on CKAC, when he admitted there might be 7,000 cases in the Province of Quebec. Now, I do not know when Mr. Johnson was telling the truth, whether it was here or on the radio in Montreal, but I do know that this afternoon, Mr. Johnson's officials came to see officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and discuss this serious problem. This, in fact, confirms comments made yesterday in Committee to Mr. Johnson, that Bill C-3 has shown that Quebec's supposedly perfect health services system has a number of flaws which have been there since the PQ came to power, because it is a fact that Quebec owes its efficient health services system to the Government of Mr. Robert Bourassa.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today we are joined by representatives of the Canadian Baltic community. This will mark the twelfth year in which parliamentarians have recognized the contributions of this community towards making Canada a better country in which to live. This occasion also presents an opportunity for all Canadians to reflect on the fragility and importance of our freedom.
The families of the Canadian Baltic communities who still live in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have not experienced the advantages of freedom we are so familiar with in Canada. They have been struck by the tragedy of the loss of their freedoms. Members of this House are all aware of the desire for independence and freedom for which the Baltic people continue to fight. We in Canada can assist them by protecting our freedoms and way of life as diligently as they strive for their freedom and independence.
Canada is a bastion of freedom in a troubled world, a shining example of what many captive peoples strive for. Let us not forget whenever we demonstrate any weakness, be it economic, military or political, we are robbing those people living in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia of the hope and inspiration they need to sustain their continuing and sometimes discouraging fight for freedom.

February 22, 1984



Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, tonight will be our twelfth annual Baltic Evening on Parliament Hill. Over the years the celebrations have heightened our awareness of Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian Canadians and their contribution to Canada's multicultural society. One aspect of Canadian multiculturalism is the encouragement we give to cultural and linguistic retention.
In the area of heritage languages the Baltic Canadians have had one of the highest retention rates of all Canadian ethnocultural groups. The community's continuous efforts in preserving and sharing its cultural heritage enriches all Canadians.
Furthermore, they have also pressed hard for basic human rights in conformity with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Charter of the United Nations. Their dedication to the principles of freedom, democracy, and human rights is a constant reminder to us all of the treasures of great value which we possess and which must be shared by all Canadians. These principles must become part of the promised Multiculturalism Act we intend to have in Canada.

[ Translation]


ALARMING STATEMENTS MADE BY QUEBEC MINISTER OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs yesterday, the Minister of Social Affairs for the Province of Quebec stated that Bill C-3, which relates to health and hospital services in Canada, would adversely affect the elderly and young children, especially.
Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry to see the people of Quebec being brainwashed by false information that is strictly the result of an interpretation of Bill C-3 that is as erroneous as that given by the Provincial Minister. Free medication for the elderly and dental services for children from 0 to 15 years are not the kind of health services covered by Bill C-3 and are not among the services paid for by both levels of government.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I fail to understand why the Minister of Social Affairs of the Province of Quebec is trying to scare Quebecers with his alarmist statements that have no basis in fact.


PENSIONS
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, in his presentation of the Budget on February 15 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that beginning this summer he will discuss with his provincial counterparts the possibility of introducing a homemaker's pension. I would urge the Minister of Finance to do more than simply discuss this important proposal recommended by the parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform. I urge him to carry into his talks with the Provinces an absolute commitment to the homemaker's pension to be introduced at the earliest opportunity. I urge this in particular on behalf of the wives who are partners in Canada's many thousand family farms, in recognition that the farm wife is an integral and essential component of the family farm, sharing in the duties and labours, usually without financial reward because the farm income will not support it.
This is in contrast to the statements attributed to the Minister responsible for the status of women who said last year, "It is only the more affluent families in our society who allow a woman to stay at home."
I therefore urge the Minister of Finance to commit himself fully to the introduction of a homemaker's pension for all the homemakers who contribute so much to our society, but in particular for the many thousands of farm wives without whom the family farm, as we know it today, would cease to exist.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine is unhappy with the attitude and course of action taken by Revenue Canada. This gentleman, a retired school teacher, found it necessary to sell his cottage. The cottage was sold by a reputable real estate company. The closing was handled by a respectable law firm, and his tax matters were taken care of by a well known accounting firm.
In May, 1982, he received a refund from Revenue Canada of $365. In July, 1982, he was reassessed for the amount of $950 and was told, "You are required to pay ... immediately, otherwise legal action, either by way of garnishment or action in the Federal Court, which could result in seizure and sale of assets, may be initiated without further notice".
This gentleman is 81 years old and, along with his wife, supports their grandson. What would Revenue Canada have garnisheed? His Old Age Pension? Would they have seized the assets of a retired couple in their eighties, including their rocking chairs? What has happened to old fashioned fairness, justice, and equity?
February 22, 1984

Mr. Speaker, this 81 year old man paid the $950, but the attitude and methods of Revenue Canada will surely have to change.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the spending Estimates tabled yesterday the federal Government announced it would be cutting job creation program money which would go to adults. For example, the Canada Works Program will be cut in half by some $440 million. As a result of that cutback many Canadians who have benefited from that program, and similar programs in the past, will be unable to get assistance from the federal Government at a time when there are well over two million unemployed people in the country. As long as there is such a high unemployment rate it is immoral for the federal Government to take this action.
Earlier today it was announced that Sherritt Gordon Mines in northern Manitoba would be shutting down its operations in Leaf Rapids. The people involved will be looking for assistance and jobs. The attitude of the federal Government in cutting money at a time when unemployment is so high does nothing to help those people or the many Canadians who need help at this very difficult time in their lives.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to find that thousands of Canadians living on limited incomes stand to lose money this year as a result of a federal tax change. The loss affects people over 65 who receive pensions from provincial workers' compensation boards. Previously workers' compensation board pensions were never taken into consideration in calculating whether someone over 65 was eligible for the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement. Under the change which takes effect this year, workers' compensation board pensions are now to be counted as part of a person's income.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that many pensioners who in the past qualified for Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits will no longer qualify, or will qualify for less assistance. This tax change will affect some 25,000 needy senior citizens. What it amounts to is a cutback in needed funds for pensioners. People who, last year and the previous year, were entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, are now being denied it. This is an inequity that must be addressed and made right.
Oral Questions
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), when she proudly referred to the extra $50 a month in supplement payments for single senior citizens, hastened to add that she hoped the provincial Governments would not increase costs to those seniors receiving benefits because of this increase. I think the shoe is now on the other foot and it is the federal Government which is penalizing needy seniors by this tax change.
Therefore 1 call upon the federal Government to rescind this obnoxious legislation which will cause untold hardship for a group of seniors who can ill afford a reduction in income.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will know that we have been trying to get information on the Special Employment Incentives Program since November of 1982. Yesterday he provided us with a bundle of material which included information on the Special Employment Initiatives Program. We now know that of $184 million spent to date under the Special Employment Initiatives Program, 80 per cent went to Liberal constituencies and less than 12 per cent went to Conservative constituencies.
Given the fact that this program was denied public input and was denied the input of Members of Parliament other than Liberals, how can the Minister responsible for Employment and Immigration stand in his place and justify denying these funds to the unemployed people in those constituencies not held by Liberals?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asserts that those are the facts about the distribution. I do not know whether those figures which he has cited-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -are correct or not. But it would not necessarily be very surprising, since Members on the other side of the House have been saying week in and week out that they have not bothered to apply for funds under the program.
Quite clearly, if one looks at the provincial distribution of the funds, since there are Provinces which do not hold Liberal Members, there are funds which have gone to Provinces where there are no Liberal Members and therefore have clearly gone into constituencies held by Opposition Members.

February 22, 1984
Oral Questions
The hon. gentleman says that Opposition members have not known about the program to be able to apply for it. The fact is that some Opposition members have. I have no difficulty in defending this program.


Mr. Malone:: That is because you are a Liberal.


John (Moody) Roberts: It seems to me to be a little bit of sour grapes on the part of Members on the other side, that they have not cared enough to work as their Liberal colleagues have to find funding available to serve their constituents.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Members on this side of the House did not apply because the Minister told us last November 29 not to apply until we received the criteria, and we did not get the criteria until February 2.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister will have to try a little harder.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister to account for funds spent under this Program by his own Department. Surely he will know something about what was spent by his Department. Under this program his Department spent $86.5 million. Of that amount, 73.5 per cent went to Liberal ridings, 9.1 per cent to Conservative ridings, and 3.2 per cent to NDP ridings. I want to ask-


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 hear those Liberals shamefully applauding the fact that they have discriminated against the unemployed in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: How does the Minister justify this shameful, partisan misuse of public funds?


John (Moody) Roberts: First, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's citation of what I said to him in committee is not accurate, and if you refer to committee records you will see that that is so.
Second, I think it is appropriate to look at the funds expended on job creation to all of our project directed efforts. If he does that he will see, as I have said repeatedly, that the funds are distributed over-all in a way which largely reflects the distribution of unemployment. It is possible to take one program or another program and show that the impact of that program differs from that basic principle. In every case there are justifiable explanations for it.
The hon. gentleman, having asked repeatedly in the House for the facts, and all the facts, not wanting to see the material
massaged, so anxious himself, as he said to the House, that he would prepare the constituency breakdown, now finds that all of the facts do not substantiate what he would like to do. He wants to make a selective use of part of the facts to substantiate a case, which he cannot do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has shamefully tried to hide the facts, wrapped in a red ribbon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS-CONSTITUENCY ALLOCATION CODE
James Aloysius McGrath: I have the record here of what the Minister did say in committee on November 29. He said this to me:
When you receive the criteria, if you believe there are some useful projects in your area which would meet the criteria, you send me the suggestions and 1 will consider them.
That is what he said, and I did not get the criteria until February 2.
We have not seen anything like this since the early 1950s when they had horses on the payroll in Petawawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Now it is only one end of the horse.


James Aloysius McGrath: And now we are seeing the other end of the horse.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said this morning on public television that it was not possible to allocate these moneys by constituency. I was advised, and I have since been supplied with material which indicates that every constituency receiving an allocation under every make-work program in this country is allocated a code. These are the codes.
Can the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell us why he was not able to provide a constituency breakdown since that breakdown exists in his office by virtue of the use of this code? Why did he mislead the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Resign, John.


Mr. Dick:: And you want to be leader?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there are three questions contained in the Hon. Member's over-all question. The first was whether or not I said he should not apply, and clearly the words he himself quoted said that when he had the criteria, I would be happy to consider projects suggested by him. I did not say that he could not send any projects until he received those criteria.
February 22, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Resign, John.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell him what to say, Marc.


John (Moody) Roberts: The second accusation which the hon. gentleman put forward was that he has a list, photocopies, or I do not know what, which contains some constituency allocation code. It is true, Mr. Speaker, as has been well known, that there are some programs on which information is collected by us on a constituency basis, for instance, in Canada Works and in some of the Summer Canada programs. That does not apply to the Special Employment Initiatives Program over all, which the hon. gentleman opposite was inquiring about. The Special Employment Initiatives Program is broken down into three parts-


Erik Nielsen: Pork barrel; pork barrel; pork barrel.


John (Moody) Roberts: -first, the funding which applies to ordinary or other government programs; second, to programs which are within the Employment and Immigration Commission, which are there in a regular way. The third element within the Special Employment Initiatives Program is the Employment Creation Grants and Contributions Program.


Mr. Taylor:: Your nose is getting bigger all the time.


John (Moody) Roberts: What I can say to the hon. gentleman, after having made inquiries, is that we do not collect that information in relation to the Special Employment Initiatives Program on a constituency by constituency basis.
The third thing the hon. gentleman has accused me of doing is trying to conceal the facts to the House. That is exactly why I presented-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -presented all of the information on all of the projects, which is what the hon. gentleman asked me to do. Back on February 14 he said, "Don't massage it. Don't launder it. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister make available to the House the unexpurgated lists?" Will we-" that is to say, he is saying he-"We will figure out the constituencies."


Mr. Epp:: And we did.


John (Moody) Roberts: I gave them the unexpurgated lists. I have given them all the details. Now they complain they have information that does not substantiate the twisted use they want to make of a partial selection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister and it is on the same topic. As the
Oral Questions
Minister will know, it is a tradition that all federal job-creation programs are dealt with through a public process. It gives everybody an equal opportunity and an equal chance in all regions of the country. However, in this program to which my colleague referred, there was no public process. There were no application forms publicly available. There was no public information campaign to let Canadians know how the program operated. Indeed, in the Minister's own regional offices there was no public information available. It boils down to this. This Minister and this Government have used millions of dollars of taxpayers' money-


Some Hon. Members:: Question. Question!


David Edward Crombie: -in order to convert them to Liberal Party patronage. That is the charge; that is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: How does the Minister think he can justify that to the House and to the people of this country?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously has a very tendentious association with the facts of the matter. The facts of the matter are that the program was announced and underlined in two Budgets, one presented by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance, and one by the former Minister of Finance, the present Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot understand how there could be a much more public process than the presentation of a program within the context of a budget debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: The explanation for the program has been given to the Hon. Member time and time again. It is not my difficulty if the Hon. Member cannot comprehend it. What we were seeking to do, and what I think the facts now show we did, was establish a fast-track process by which we could create jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: Members on this side of the House knew of that program and Members on the other side of the House knew of that program. Perhaps they were too preoccupied with their own internal affairs of choosing a new Leader to take advantage of that program, or perhaps they were too preoccupied with getting rid of their old Leader to take advantage of that program. The programs were there. They could have applied. Some of them did. Most of them did not. It is not our fault that they have now found out that we are being active in pursuing the interests of our constituents. Would that they had been just as efficacious in doing the same!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 22, 1984
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: It surprises me that the Minister has no shame in this matter. It surprises me. The record is clear. There was no public information until February 1 that people in this country could use. That is the fact of the matter; that is the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to remember this, as I ask him this question: what the Minister has done-and I ask him to think about it before he gives the answer-is that he has converted public programs for unemployed people from no longer being on the basis of need but to whether they know Ministers of the Crown. That is what the Minister has done. That is the shame of it. How does the Minister think that he can stand in the House and say otherwise? The reality is that job-creation programs by this Government are no longer done on need but on Liberal Party need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very agitated, and there was so much noise around him I could not understand the first two-thirds of his question. The last part of his question, the assertion that these grants were given on the basis of some special knowledge or acquaintanceship with Ministers of the Crown, is clearly false.


DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS IN ONTARIO RIDINGS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is no wonder that Members are agitated. We have done a breakdown of the grants that were given in the Province of Ontario. Over 90 per cent of all grants under the Special Employment Initiatives Program were given to Liberal ridings.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ian Deans: Out of $56.4 million granted under this program, only $3.5 million was allocated to other than Liberal ridings in the Province of Ontario.
The Minister knows full well that last September, when he was appointed Minister, he issued, along with a press statement, a piece of paper which reads, "Government of Canada Job-Creation Programs". Nowhere on that paper is there any reference to the Special Employment Initiatives Program. Therefore, members of the Opposition were not given access to the program, were not informed of the program. I ask the Minister, is it not reasonable to conclude on all of the evidence that we have before us that this money was allocated on the basis of Libera! patronage and that, in order to gain access, you had to be a Liberal, or know a Liberal?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that is a proper conclusion to be drawn. The Hon. Member is in error in saying that these funds were given to Liberal ridings. These funds were given to groups, to people-


Some Hon. Members:: To Liberals.


John (Moody) Roberts: -to citizens of this country who wanted to use those funds to create jobs. They may have been in Liberal ridings, but they were not given to Liberal ridings. They were given to people who wanted to create jobs, and not jobs just in constituencies but all across this country and all across the regions of the country.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister suggesting that those people in other than Liberal ridings, those citizens who live in other than Liberal ridings were negligent that they did not apply, and that they did not care? Is there some reason to believe that they were aware of the program and did not get access because they did not care about it? The fact is, and the Minister knows it, that the information was never distributed across this land, was never given to members of the Opposition, that only Liberal members were told what they could get, and the reason why the money is so clearly allocated to Liberal ridings is because it was a Liberal patronage fund. Deny it if you can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that the citizens of Canada are negligent. The Hon. Member himself just said that he did not know about the program. That program was underlined in two budget statements in this House. The only thing I can conclude is that he did not listen to those budget statements and that, I would think, is negligent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: So was the Western Canada Development Fund.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLOCATION OF MONEYS TO EASTERN AND WESTERN REGIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister whether it was just by accident that the amounts of money allocated to ridings or to areas of the country in which there are no Liberal members is considerably less than the amounts of money allocated in constituencies, or for that matter in areas of the country, where there are Liberal members? Is it just by accident that where there are Liberal members in the Maritimes, Quebec, and Ontario, the amounts
February 22, 1984

of money allocated per capita are considerably higher than in areas in western Canada where the amounts of money are less than half the amounts made available in areas where there are, in fact, Liberal members?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that in the eastern part of the country where unemployment levels are considerably higher that there should be a higher proportion of funding going to those areas. If you look at the-


James Aloysius McGrath: What about British Columbia?


John (Moody) Roberts: The Hon. Member says: "What about British Columbia?" The over-all expenditure under the direct programs, the over-all percentage for British Columbia, is 13.7 per cent. The proportion of unemployment in British Columbia is 13.8 per cent. The figures are almost identical. Would the hon. gentleman stand in his place and say: "If you look at the Section 38 program, one of the programs on the list, that 27 per cent of the funds went to British Columbia"? That really shows the Liberals are bending over backwards to hurt the Opposition ridings in the country. That level is almost twice the percentage of the ratio of unemployment in British Columbia to the country as a whole.


COST OF PREPARING EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM LISTS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister that we are talking about the Special Employment Initiatives Program. I wonder if the Minister would explain, in this very obvious attempt to obscure the truth from the Canadian people, how much money, how many hours, how many persons were employed to produce this far more detailed information on programs that was not asked for, to create the snow job we saw in this House yesterday in an attempt to bury the real information on the Special Employment Initiatives Program that was asked for just after the Budget of 1982.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, now we see clearly their purpose. Last week they wanted the facts, all the facts, nothing but the facts. They wanted the facts so that they could make the allocation judgment themselves. They wanted to know the whole story. Now they do not want the whole story. Now they want that little piece of the story that they think they can twist to support their point of view which is not justifiable in terms of the facts as a whole.
Members on the other side were saying: "Give us everything. Don't massage it. Don't transform it. Don't order us." That is what we gave to them. In order to do that, it is true we did have translators, we did have special staff working all through the weekend to provide that information for Members opposite. You know, Mr. Speaker, if we had not done that and I would have had to delay even longer, they would have been up on their feet charging me with not respecting the House of
Oral Questions
Commons because I was not prepared to deliver the information to them when I had promised to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the same Minister. It will not need to be distorted by the wealth of information which he deposited in the House yesterday. How can the Minister justify the issuing of a letter by the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School board, the Catholic School Board, urging all of their trustees to contact only Liberal Members of Parliament on the providing of funds to upgrade educational facilities in Toronto? The list is clear. It is addressed to all the trustees. The list includes only names of Liberal members. Will the Minister please explain how that could come about?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have not seen or I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I gather it is not a letter over my signature, but a letter sent by the trustees of the Separate School Board. I am not responsible for the trustees of the Separate School Board. I do not think I have seen the contents of that letter, but if the hon. gentleman's accusation is that the trustees of the school board are urging the citizens of Canada to be in touch with Members of Parliament, Liberal or any other kind, then it seems to me to simply indicate that the trustees believe that Liberal Members will likely do a better job of being responsive to their interests than Members opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has clearly misled the House when it comes to the Special Employment Initiatives Program. Why won't he admit to this House that B.C., which, as he knows, has an unemployment rate of 13.8 per cent, nearly 14 per cent, which had more mortgage foreclosures, more business bankruptcies in the recovery year of 1983, than in the recession, why won't he admit that it received only 5.5 per cent of the $186 million in this sleazy, slush fund?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 22, 1984
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member simply should refer to the over-all figures which show that, on direct project programs, the Province of British Columbia and the Yukon have received 13.7 per cent of the funds in comparison to an unemployment rate of 13.8 per cent, so it is roughly equivalent. She should also remember that direct job-creation programs are part of a much larger government effort, and that the economic stimulation brought in by the Budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, something like $2.5 billion worth of stimulation, would have a much bigger impact in British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta than in some of the less advantageous and less rich Provinces in this country.
She should also remember that it is not simply the federal Government which has an obligation to worry about creating jobs, but also provincial Governments. Part of the situation which exists in her Province is because there is a Government in that Province so sympathetic and of such a similar stripe to the Leader of the Opposition and his Party opposite. We require a partnership in job creation and it is not surprising that we should expect the Provinces, those best able to do so, to do more of the work as well.

a (1440)


EFFECTS OF BILL C-3
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose Bill is before a Committee of this House.
Could the Hon. Minister give the House the assurance that, unlike what was stated by the Minister of Social Affairs of Quebec, the purpose of the Bill under consideration is not to get rid of the system of agreements and substitute therefor a series of unilateral decisions, or at increasing federal powers to the detriment of the provinces or at preventing Quebec from exercising its jurisdiction and setting its own health priorities, and finally, that its purpose is not to penalize children by taking away dental services, and the elderly, by depriving them of free medication?


An Hon. Member:: That doesn't concern you, it concerns Quebec!


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the formal assurance that the Canada Health Bill is aimed only at prohibiting out-of-pocket charges to patients. In Quebec, patients receive free health services and health care because these have already been paid for through the health insurance plan. Quebec can call it whatever it likes, but extra-billing will not be allowed, and I am sorry to say this is not negotiable. As
far as the rest, the agreements and all that sort of things is concerned, it is now time, in Committee, to negotiate and to decide whether one word rather than another should be used. We have no intention of invading areas of jurisdiction, and in any case, we do not have the resources. It is up to the provinces to shoulder their responsibilities. Everything is negotiable, except the principal of free health services and the list of insured health services for Quebecers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. People in British Columbia have been betrayed by the Government's unfair allocation of Special Employment Initiatives Projects. Across Canada the Government allocated an average of $ 150 per unemployed person for these projects. While the Maritimes received projects amounting to $227 per unemployed person, and Quebec $206, British Columbia is right at the bottom of the heap with only $60 for each unemployed person.
Can the Minister explain why special employment funding dropped so dramatically in western Canada where there are no elected Liberals? Could he say what is fair or equitable about a project and program where British Columbians get only 40 per cent of the help given to other Canadians?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about betrayal and bottom of the heap, but 27 per cent of the funding under Section 38 went to British Columbia. Is that betrayal? If you look at the job-creation programs over all, 13.7 per cent of our funding went to British Columbia. That is almost exactly the equivalent of their percentage of unemployment. That is not being at the bottom of the heap.


Mr. Crosbie:: Out of the slush fund.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman should look at all of the figures and not pick and choose selectively from among them.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that Section 38 was mainly oriented toward the forest industry and that British Columbia has the majority, or a large percentage, of the forests of Canada and it needs that funding.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE MORE JOB-CREATION MONEY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to the Special Employment Initiatives Program, or the Liberal slush fund. We have always shared in equalization payments with the rest of Canada. Now when we are in difficulty we are not getting our share. Will the
February 22, 1984

Minister make more money available for job creation and ensure that this is given on an equitable basis right across Canada-on the basis of the needs of unemployed people rather than on the needs of Liberal members to get elected?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out to the hon. gentleman, the money is given on an equitable basis. He may not care about the situation of the forest industry in this country but people on this side of the House do. We want to see reforestation take place, we want to see marketing take place, and we want the forest industry to remain as it is in Canada, the number one employer of people. We want it to maintain its vitality.


PROGRAM EXPENDITURES MADE BY CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding the money spent by Canada Post under the Special Employment Initiatives Program. The Minister will know that the NDP did not receive any of that money under this program, that the PCs received 4.3 per cent of it, and we are thankful for that, but that the Liberals received 95.7 per cent of the money.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Albert Glen Cooper: Can the Minister stand up in this House and say with a straight face that 95.7 per cent of the most urgent needs of Canada Post could only be found in Liberal ridings?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to the House is that, apparently to the dismay of the Opposition, what we have found is that there are over 50,000 projects for direct job creation in this country as a result of these activities. I am not too surprised that they are a little bit embarrassed about that. If they think back to the recent past they will find that in 1979 they tried to cut these job-creation programs out of existence. It may be that they are a little bit embarrassed because the official spokesman for the Conservatives said yesterday, after he had had the chance to look informally through the material, that it looked as if the job funds had been divided equitably. That was the initial impression and statement of the official spokesman of the Opposition Party.


James Aloysius McGrath: I didn't say that.


John (Moody) Roberts: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that between this initial and accurate impression and what is happening in the House today, some of his colleagues have got to him in the belief that they can make political capital out of what is a sound job-creation program benefiting Canadians in every region of the country.


John Horton McDermid: Start telling the truth.
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: You have been sitting beside Lalonde too long.


EXPENDITURES IN NEWFOUNDLAND RIDINGS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for twisting on behalf of the Government, the Minister of oink, oink, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Newfoundland has the heaviest unemployment in Canada. I have written to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on dozens of occasions, listing projects needed. How is it that under the Special Employment Initiatives Program $4,639 million was spent in Newfoundland under Fisheries and Oceans to date, 100 per cent in Liberal ridings-not one cent, not one red cent, not one jot, not one tittle spent in either St. John's East or St. John's West?
When the Minister is explaining that, can he explain why, in his own Department where over $4.2 million was spent on projects so far in Newfoundland, 99.3 per cent was spent in the Liberal districts and .7 per cent in the PC districts? Can he explain that? Can he explain why he is trampling on the unemployed in these two districts? You are a disgrace to this House.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, if you were describing Members in this House on the basis of twist, the hon. gentleman there would be a double convoluted corkscrew.
I put it to the hon. gentleman that over 12 per cent of the money in Canada Works went to Newfoundland-


John Carnell Crosbie: I gave you that figure.


John (Moody) Roberts: -as opposed to their national average of unemployed of 3 per cent.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us deal with the 300 million.


John (Moody) Roberts: In the NEED program, almost double their average of unemployment went into Newfoundland. The same is true for the summer programs in 1983 and 1982.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are dealing with the program for 300 million.


John (Moody) Roberts: Three times the percentage of the Community Development Projects went into Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a bloody liar.


John (Moody) Roberts: Over all, more than double the percentage of funding went to Newfoundland in comparison to their percentage of unemployment.
My question to the hon. gentleman is very simple. Which of those projects in Newfoundland would he like us not to have done?
1622

February 22, 1984
Presence in Gallery


John Carnell Crosbie: Just wait until the electors get their hands on you. They are never going to forget. Let us go to the people tomorrow and see what they think. They are going to batter you, you gutless wonders.


DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RIDINGS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Under the so-called Special Employment Initiatives Program the two Liberal held ridings in Prince Edward Island received a whopping $2,400,000. By contrast, the two Progressive Conservative held ridings in Prince Edward Island received a paltry $215,000. That is a discrepancy of 11 to one in favour of the Liberal ridings. Does the Minister think that the taxpayers of Canada are gullible enough to believe that such a huge discrepancy can be justified by the comparative jobless figures across the Province in those four ridings? Or will he, instead, admit that the program in question is blatant political corruption on a national scale?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lalonde:: What about the Veterans Affairs headquarters?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the Hon. Member's question because, as the figures clearly show, on every one of the programs of direct job-creation, Prince Edward Island has received far more than the percentage which would be equivalent to the percentage of unemployed. If the hon. gentleman is concerned about us somehow not favouring his riding in Prince Edward Island, I would remind him that the federal Government is spending virtually $20 million-$19.5 million-for the establishment of the veterinary college in his own constituency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Accidents will happen.


John (Moody) Roberts: Clearly we are out to salvage the Hon. Member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HONORARY CONSULS OF ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND LITHUANIA
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Honorary Consuls of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want to return to the issue of rewarding friends and punishing the unemployed. According to the Estimates tabled just yesterday, the Government will give an increased amount, up to $1,600,000,000 in PIP grants, to its oil company friends, while the unemployed across Canada suffer cuts of some $300 million in total federal grants and contributions for job-creation programs. With respect to the Government's policy of rewarding its friends, which is so evident in its political allocations between Provinces through the Special Employment Initiatives Program-not all the others-does this cut mean that that discrimination also applies across the board as between oil companies on the one hand and unemployed Canadians on the other?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question is a bit convoluted. Since when are the oil companies such great friends of this government? He should try visiting Calgary when he gets away from the British Columbia coast some time.
I believe there is some substantial essence in the Hon. Member's question. I believe it was about the Estimates. I would just like to remind the hon. gentleman that what we have seen now are the Main Estimates, which are added to as the year goes on by Supplementary Estimates. Therefore it would be inappropriate for him to draw conclusions on the basis of the comparison I believe he was making, if I understood his figures correctly.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, come on, John.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: As to friends and enemies, I wish I had the sort of political enemies which gave me the thousands of dollars a year that his so-called enemies in the oil companies give him. Let us get it straight.


FORESTRY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS-SIZE OF FUNDING
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: According to those same Estimates, Mr. Speaker, there has been a 40 per cent increase in PIP grants to oil companies for drilling dry holes, while forestry spending is down by 61 per cent to only $45 million.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Forestry employment programs which the Minister talked about earlier today, are down from $21.5 million to only $60,000. That is a cut of 99.998 per cent. There will have to be a lot of supplementary estimates to make up that difference. Have the Minister and his Government given up on the forest industry? Have he and his Government given up on the unemployed of Canada? If not, when will they do an
February 22, 1984

about-face and provide some help for the people and the resources in this country which really need help the most?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the two rhetorical questions, to each of them, is no. This Government is considerably concerned about the state of the forest industry. Indeed, if the Hon. Member will think back, he will recall the over-all forest strategy which we have prepared and presented in conjunction with the Provinces, dealing with reforestation, marketing, and the need for highly qualified manpower personnel. However, in answering the question in this way, Mr. Speaker, as his question really demands, I am trespassing on the responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the forestry service.


SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES PROGRAM- NON-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO OPPOSITION HELD RIDINGS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Everyone has been speculating today about the Prime Minister's resignation. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister did not resign at least 35 minutes ago, in view of some of the statements we have been getting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I would like to ask the
Minister about one of his statements this morning. He said: "There is nothing politically partisan about spreading around the Special Employment Initiatives Program." If that is true, how can the Minister explain 10 projects in the four Liberal held ridings of Niagara Falls, Welland, Lincoln and Hamilton East, and in exactly the same area, three Conservative held ridings, Burlington, St. Catharines, and my own riding of Hamilton-Wentworth, get zip. Along with the riding of Hamilton Mountain, represented by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, these ridings receive not a whisper for job creation. If that is not "operation slush" in action, I do not know what is.
I would like an explanation from the Minister of why the Liberal ridings in an area which is suffering from a high number of unemployed, as well as all of southern Ontario, by staggering coincidence, got all of these millions of dollars for job creation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says he cannot understand, and I can understand that he cannot understand. Comprehension was never his strong point.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: What he should be looking at, as we have reminded him again and again, is the total impact of the program. If he had bothered to do that he would have noticed that in the Erie constituency which, if memory serves me correctly, is represented by a Conservative Member of Parlia-
Oral Questions
ment, something like $19 million worth of federal funds has gone in to create jobs-


John Carnell Crosbie: Not on that program.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Talk about the slush fund, John.


John (Moody) Roberts: -in the Fleet aircraft industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: The simple fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened here is that the Hon. Members of the Opposition somehow sensing a conspiracy everywhere-here a plot, there a plot, everywhere a plot, plot-believe that something nefarious is going on.


John Horton McDermid: Everywhere an oink, oink.


Erik Nielsen: Old McRoberts had a farm.


John (Moody) Roberts: What they in fact found out is that there are 50,000 job-creation projects all across this country-[DOT]


An Hon. Member:: And they did not do that.


John (Moody) Roberts: -allocated, on the whole, fairly.


John Horton McDermid: Project Oink, Oink.


John (Moody) Roberts: There may be I doubt not, that in 50,000 projects there are some which will look, when taken out of context, to be dubious. I cannot argue that in 50,000 cases we always made the right decision. However, what we have in fact done, to that Party's surprise, almost to its dismay, is bring into the open that there is a tremendous amount of effort on the part of this Government to create meaningful jobs all across this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: They seem unhappy about that.


Erik Nielsen: Oink, oink.


John (Moody) Roberts: Those Hon. Members would rather that the figures showed some kind of political manipulation, because what they are really interested in is not the passion for creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. That is not their passion. Their passion is a lust for power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Brian. Brian.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister that truth obviously is not the Minister's strong point.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.

February 22, 1984
Oral Questions


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION IN ONTARIO RIDINGS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My question is directed to the same Minister. The construction industry has an unemployment rate of 33 per cent. In Ontario it is 29 per cent, and many of the unemployed are young people. Why was 90 per cent of the CMHC funding under the slush fund spent in Liberal ridings? Why was it not distributed fairly across the country? Why did the Minister not address the needs of the unemployed, rather than the needs of the Liberal Party?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman, as I said repeatedly, the funds were distributed equitably. I would remind the hon. gentlemen opposite who are so concerned about bias and patronage that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that if he became Prime Minister it will be 15 years before a Liberal got a job, and if he became leader of the Government, it would be 15 years before a Liberal constituency got a project-


Mr. Mulroney:: That is false.


John (Moody) Roberts: -not us on this side of the House; it was the Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker, I think from what we have seen today that it was the Minister's constituents who made the mistake when they gave him a job.


MEMBER'S TELEPHONE CALL TO MINISTER'S OFFICE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said numerous times today, and in the past, that the reason Conservative ridings have not received anything under this program is because we have not worked hard enough and have not applied.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, when 1 did not have the criteria for this program I called the Minister's office in the first week in December. After being referred to six different people in that office we were advised by Mr. Len Westaburg that this program was one being developed by the previous Minister but since this Minister had come into office it had not yet been initiated, but when it was we would receive the information. If the Minister wants us to work hard and get these programs, could he tell me how I can apply for a program which has no criteria, no application forms and, in his own office, does not exist?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best advice I could give to the hon. gentleman is that he should have consulted with his
colleague, the Hon. Member for Joliette, who said he was aware of the program and believed his colleagues were as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees. A point of order, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


POINT OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister would deliberately mislead the House, but in the course of Question Period he quoted me as saying that at first glance the funds seemed to be equitably distributed. I did not say that. I said that, at first glance, the funds would seem to be disproportionately or inequitably distributed. That is my word, and I hope the Minister will accept it.


John (Moody) Roberts: On the same point of order, Mr. speaker, I was quoting from a Canadian press report which said, and I quote exactly:
But after glancing at the resume of the information provided by Roberts' office, McGrath said it appears the job funds have been divided equitably.
The Hon. Member assures me he did not say that, and of course I accept his word.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to present the following petition:
To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, concerned about justice and brotherhood among nations, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
They urge the Canadian Government to share the concern and sincere anxiety of the 1,400 residents of Montreal Centre West who have sent to political prisoners in the Philippines a message of support in their struggle against poverty and repression;
That the Canadian Government end its economic, trade or other relations with the Philippines unless that country does restore human rights and democratic freedoms;
February 22, 1984

That the Canadian Government demand, as concrete and real evidence of
the will of the Philippine Government to restore human rights and democratic
freedoms, that the latter free the aforementioned 27 political prisoners.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two separate petitions dealing with the same subject on which 1 tabled a petition on December 19, 1983, namely, the unsightly and soggy mess known as the peace camp which desecrates the front lawn of Parliament Hill. One petition which I am tabling today contains 105 names collected in a day and a half during the weekend by an Ottawa man, Mr. David Miner, who says his petitioners are tourists and they are upset by the indefinite presence of this eyesore.
The second petition is signed by a further 60 Canadians who maintain that the continuing presence of the peace camp in front of the most beautiful public buildings in Canada constitutes a public nuisance.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Minister's duty).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, at present subsection 220(1) of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:
The Minister shall administer and enforce this Act and control and supervise all persons employed to carry out or enforce this Act, and the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Taxation may exercise all the powers and perform the duties of the Minister under this Act.
This Bill will delete from this Subsection all references to the powers of the Deputy Minister.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 149, 301, 358, 360 and 369.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport state on April 14, 1981 at page 9289 of Hansard that Halterm was subsidized to the extent of $ 1.8 million a year and, if so, on what basis did he make the statement?
2.	Did the subsidization consist of the payment of money and, if not, what form did it take and who paid the money or provided the subsidization?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
1.	No. The Parliamentary Secretary is quoted in Hansard as saying "In fact, Halterm enjoys a 50 per cent rebate from the National Harbours Board on wharfage charges, a rebate which amounted to a subsidy of $1.8 million in 1980". The agreement between the National Harbours Board and Halterm provides that the company pay rental on the facilities as well as wharfage but may retain 50 per cent of wharfage charges on containerized cargo shipped through the facilities above a certain amount.
2.	No. See 1 above.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Was the Minister of National Revenue aware of a decision by a County Court Judge in Brockville, Ontario that found Cornwall News Distributors guilty of distributing obscene literature that had been imported into Canada from other countries?
2.	Did Customs officials follow the (a) guidelines and general information contained in Customs and Excise Memorandum D9-1-1 in interpreting tariff item 99201-1, concerning the entry of material into Canada, which prohibits the entry of "Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character" (b) provisions of Section 159(8) and 159(9) of the Criminal Code and previous court decisions when making decisions on publications being imported into Canada and, if not, for what reasons?
3.	Will the Minister take into consideration the numerous and recent court decisions and formulate a new directive for Customs officials to follow when making their decisions as to whether or not certain publications would be classified as pornographic material and therefore would be prohibited from entry into Canada under Tariff Item 99201-1 and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Yes. The Minister of National Revenue is aware of a decision handed down by County Court Judge James Newton in Brockville, Ontario, on November 18, 1983. It should be noted that this decision was made under the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. The Department of National Revenue is only responsible for administering the prohibitory provisions of the Customs Tariff which, under tariff item 99201-1 in Schedule "C", specifies that "books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character" are to be prohibited entry into Canada.
2. (a) In all instances of importations of this nature, which come to the attention of Customs officials, the guidelines and general information contained in Customs and Excise Memorandum D9-1-1 are followed in interpreting and administering the provisions of tariff item 99201-1. However, it should be

February 22, 1984
Order Paper Questions
noted that not all importations of this nature come to the attention of Customs officials. With over 600 points of entry across Canada, it is not always possible to examine thoroughly all goods which enter Canada.
(b)	The criteria used by my Department in determining those items which should be classified under tariff item 99201-1 are based on court decisions made under the Customs Act and court decisions made under the comparable sections of the Criminal Code which deal with the sale or distribution of obscene material. Our administration strives to take into account as far as possible what Canadians in general believe to be immoral or indecent.
3.	Yes. In the administration of tariff item 99201-1, my Department will continue to take into consideration the numerous and recent court decisions in this area. Also, such decisions will continue to be reflected in relevant departmental directives which are revised on a regular basis as required. In this regard, my Department will also be taking into account the findings of the Fraser Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, recently formed at the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. This Committee's final report is expected in December, 1984.


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	What is a list of all the names of the members of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and, for each member, what (a) is their background and expertise (b) is the term of their appointment (c) remuneration, including salary or travel expenses, do they receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount was received?
2.	Is there an Industry Advisory Committee advising the Board of Directors of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and, if so, what is a list of the names of its members and, for each member, what (a) is their background and expertise (b) is the term of their appointment (c) remuneration, including salary or travel expenses, do they receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount was received?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1(a); (b); (c) and (d): See below.
2. Yes (See below).
(a)	See below.
(b)	Appointed by the Board until revoked by the Board.
(c)	No renumeration by way of salary or travel expenses is paid to members of the Industry Advisory Committee.


[Stage Direction]
CCC Industry Advisory Committee
Mr. St. Germain: 1.	Since 1978, how many projects were supported, in each province, and for what amount, under the ENFOR Program of the Canadian Forestry Service?
2.	Of the original $30 million committed to the ENFOR Program what amount remains for project support?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
The number of ENFOR projects (contracts) since 1978, and the amounts spent in each province, are as follows:
Alta.	II	$ 668,000B.C.	58	7,095,000Man.	4	160,000N.B.	15	854,000Nfld.	15	1,283,000N.S.	5	434,000Ont.	84	8,209,000P.E.I.	2	17,000Que.	52	6,411,000Sask.	9	708,000Total	255	$25,839,000
Organization
Air Industries Association of	1.
Canada (ALAC)
2.
Association of Consulting Engi-	3.
neers of Canada (ACEC)
4.
Canadian Bankers Association	5.
(CBA)
Canadian Chamber of Com-	6.
merce (CChC)
7.
Canadian Construction Associa- 8. tion (CCA)
9.
-President
V. V. R. Symonds (Litton Systems Canada Limited)-Chairman, Marketing Committee, AIAC
C. G. Smallridge-Vice-President (Lavalin Inc.)
H. R. Pinault-Managing Director
E. J. Morris (Can. Imperial Bank of Commerce)-Chairman, Export/Import Committee, CBA
S. F. Hughes-President
-Chairman, Intern. Affairs Committee, CChC
R. E. Nuth-President
R. Balfour (R.B.E.C.S. Ltd.)- Chairman, CCA Export Committee
The remainder of the $30 million ENFOR allocation has Canadian Export Association been spent on program management, administration and tech- (CEA) nology transfer.
2. The original $30 million was for the first six years of the program and none remains for project support. However, part of the work funded by ENFOR is continuing under the same program name; about $2 million will be available for project support in 1984/85.
Canadian Federation of
Independent Business (CFIB)
Canadian Manufacturers Association (CMA)
10.	T. M. Burns-President
11.	P. G. Opler (The Foundation Company of Canada Limited)
-Chairman, Foreign Capital Projects Committee, CEA
12.	J. F. Bulloch-President
13.	R. L. Phillips-President
February 22, 1984

14.	Ronald McCallum (Hawker Sidde-		16.	N. J. Fodor (Electrovert Limited)
	ley Canada Ltd.)-Chairman,			Chairman, Export Council,
	Export Committee, CM A			EEMAC
Electrical and Electronic Manu- 15.	D. E. P. Armour-President	Royal Architectural Institute of	17.	Executive Director
facturers Association of		Canada (RAIC)		
Canada (EEMAC)	18.	Boris Zerafa, FRAIC(b) Term of	(c) Remuneration 1	(c) Total RemunerationName	(a) Background Expertise	Appointment	Dir. Fees S	Tr. Expenses $	Since Appointment $R. A. Anderson	ADM, Int. Trade Development, EA (Government)	During pleasure	0.	0.	0.(3.11.1983)	S. I. Bata	Director, Bata Limited (Business)	During pleasure	6,950.	4,829.30	11,779.30(11.4.1978)	J. H. Dickey	Sr. Partner-Mclnnes, Cooper & Robertson	During pleasure	8,400.	8,230.01	16,630.01(Barrister and Solicitor)	(11.4.1978)	R. Giroux	Director, Power Corp. of Canada Ltd. (Business)	During pleasure	2,900.	988.10	3,888.10(11.4.1978)	W. A. Hadden	President, Champion Spark Plug Company of Canada, Ltd.	During pleasure	2,850.	3,203.70	6.053.70(Business)	(4.9.1981)	R. V. Hession	DM of Supply, SSC (Business and Government)	During pleasure	0.	0.	0.(27.1.1983)	J. E. G. Howarth	President/CEO, CCC (Business and Government)	During pleasure	0.	0.	0.(15.10.1982)	A. A. MacNaughton	President/CEO, Genstar Corporation (Business)	During pleasure	3,400.	246.23	3,646.23(22.6.1978)	G. E. Shannon	ADM, Intern. Trade and Finance, DoF (Govern-	During pleasure	0.	0.	0.ment)	(26.10.1982)	
1 Directors from the private business sector are paid a director's fee of $350/day and travelling expenses for each meeting of the Board (or one of its committees) they attend, or for each day, or part thereof, of any other service to the Corporation.


Mr. Siddon: Did Mr. William Ellis (L. 12973) serve with the South Saskatchewan Regiment during World War 11 and, if so (a) did he take part in the 1942 Dieppe raid with the regiment (b) is he also a veteran of World War I (c) is he the last former member of the Regiment living who participated in the Dieppe raid having previously served during World War I (d) does he receive a veterans pension or allowance from the Government and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: This question requests information of a personal nature concerning Mr. William Ellis, the disclosure of which is governed by the Privacy Act. See reply to question No. 2,351 answered on May 25, 1981.


John Leslie Evans: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice the other day of intent to raise a matter concerning the information which became available on the financial situation of Dome Petroleum. It was my hope that this matter would appeal to you and the House as being of such serious consequence that the House would in fact adjourn to debate that motion.
That company faced bankruptcy within one day at the end of March 1982. Based on a file which it developed called the Armageddon file which listed the horrific consequences to Canada if that company collapsed, it was able to phone key officials of the Government of Canada and Ministers in the

February 22, 1984
middle of the night and have them commit $500 million to the restructuring.
I suggest that today, with the information that the Japanese have determined there is no oil at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea and they will not be financial bankers, Dome Petroleum would be unable to obtain continuation through the American Citibank and would hope-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot put his argument. He has to put a case for priority in this matter. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River gave me notice of his intention to seek an emergency debate on the operations of Dome Petroleum Limited. The Chair finds it difficult to reconcile the request for an emergency debate on this issue with the requirements of Standing Order 30(5). These provisions require the Speaker to "have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means".
It can hardly be claimed that Dome Petroleum's financial problems, while serious, amount to a sudden emergency. They have been in existence for a long time. We are currently debating the Budget. This is a six day debate which is wide-ranging in its scope and would provide an opportunity for raising this matter. The Estimates were tabled yesterday providing further opportunity of raising the matter in committee or on an allotted day.
The Hon. Member indeed asked questions yesterday in Question Period on the subject of Dome Petroleum. He also raised the matter when commenting on the statement of the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray). There was an exchange in the House on the subject.
In addition, I find a procedural problem with regard to the motion which the Hon. Member indicated to the Chair he intended to move. If an emergency debate were granted the motion before the House would be "That this House do now adjourn". The Hon. Member in his notice to me proposes to move a completely separate motion recommending the launching of a public inquiry. The purpose of Standing Order 30, to use the words of Citation 285 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, is that the question to be debated must "be specific and must require urgent consideration". I do not think it was ever the intention of the Standing Order to provide a means of debating a motion for a public inquiry.
For all these reasons the Chair is unable to accede to the Hon. Member's request.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the Government and the amendment of Mr. Crosbie, (p. 1445).
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on February 15. On the first page of his Budget in brief it reads:
"Securing growth and jobs depends on our success in four basic areas: reducing and controlling inflation; increasing investment; reducing the government's deficit and increasing our competitiveness and productivity."
This is the promise, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at the performance. Only one day after this speech was delivered, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicated that the inflation rate in Canada was again on the rise. Our horrendous deficits are now like a brush fire feeding on the heat they have generated till foreigners and Canadians alike are fearful of investing in Canada. It takes money to provide jobs, and without new capital investment Canadians cannot increase their competitiveness or productivity. If we are to secure jobs in the four basic areas which the Minister stated, I say to him, through you Sir, that the Minister has failed miserably.
Only two days after the presentation of the Budget, the Government asked for $4 billion more than the Budget indicated. The Government said in the Budget that it would need to borrow $25.5 billion, which is $4 billion less than the new legislation seeks to have in its projected deficit of $29.6 billion on total expenditures of $97 billion for the year beginning April 1.
It is this type of time-bomb budgeting that is deeply worrying Canadians. When the Finance Minister is borrowing 31 cents out of every dollar he spends, the close connection between expenditures and taxes becomes a little bit foggy, as we say in Nova Scotia. It is more like a magician's hat trick than honest accounting. This scenario reminds me of the words of that famous poet, Sir Walter Scott, in his poem Marmion in which he said, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!"
Today we find ourselves at a rather precarious point. We have been through the worst recession since the years of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Yet while we sense that we are on the threshold of recovery, we cannot be too sure we are going to make it through the door. We are called upon to review another Budget and assess the plans, policies, predictions and programs of the Government. Quite frankly, Sir, we cannot rely on this document to propel us into recovery. At best, we can be thankful that the economic success of the United States and the dedicated persistence of energetic Canadians is keeping us afloat-to use a Maritime expres-
February 22, 1984

sion-despite the perverse policy and the misinformed outlook of the Government.
In his Budget the Minister of Finance stressed the importance of confidence and the stability that confidence can bring to the Canadian economy. On close examination of the facts, we have every reason to doubt even the most basic aspects of the economic dexterity of the Government. How can business, large or small, have confidence in a Government which only a few budgets ago launched an energy policy which virtually expropriated the western petroleum industry at the high cost of jobs lost, exorbitant debts and expenditures and confidence lost in Canada?
How can Government claims be believed when six and five is given credit for effects which simply could not have worked their way through the economy in the time frame permitted? Is it not less than honest to neglect to tell Canadians that the economy of the United States influences ours significantly and that the United States had lower inflation and interest rates long before we did as a result of strict monetary control and responsible fiscal management totally without the gimmickery of a six and five political campaign? If six and five was the answer, what happened to this guideline as it applies to the Government's own spending?
Yesterday the Government tabled its spending Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985. Did the expenditures increase by only 5 per cent? If the Government had believed in its own doctrine, this is what would have happened. Instead, we have Estimates from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) showing that next year's spending will jump by 10.5 per cent to $98.2 billion with more than $20 billion set aside just to pay the interest on the public debt. Mr. Speaker, I call the $98.2 billion a sort of springtime sale figure. Speaking from experience, in every year of my more than 26 years in the House I have noted that, following the budget presentation, supplementaries are presented to the House. These supplemen-taries are to carry the Government through any additional expenditures it may have between now and next March 1.
Let us examine the supplementaries for the past four years. You will find that there was never less than $2.5 billion and sometimes as much as $7 billion. The average for the past four years is something like $5 billion. What we are looking at today is not a budget of $98 billion for the next year but a budget that, I submit, will amount to approximately $103 billion.
This brings another thought to mind. In 1968, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came into office, I recall well that it cost about $12 billion in that year to look after the affairs of all of Canada. We were then a nation of approximately 20 million people. Today we are only 25 million, which means that our population has increased only by 5 milion. I gave that figure just to illustrate the extent to which the Government has mismanaged Canada's economy.
How can we take the predictions of the Minister of Finance seriously when he admits that the predictions in his last
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
Budget were not correct? If growth exceeded his expectations, as he points out, why were his expectations so erroneous? What does that suggest for the forecasts in this Budget? How can anyone have any confidence in the forecasts in this Budget of the present Government? The medium range predictions in the Budget of 1980 are an embarrassment to anyone who has a memory for history. There is absolutely no reason to expect that the Government is any more reliable in this Budget.
In any case, an unemployment rate that is projected to be down to only 8 per cent-and that will not be reached until 1988-is certainly nothing to set the heather afire in any part of Canada, especially in Atlantic Canada.
Co-operation is another theme of the Minister, but again the record speaks for itself. There is hardly a group in the Canadian economy that the Government has not alienated. The Budget is no more than a feeble attempt to undo some of the damage that has been done in the past. No one in the small business sector of our economy needs to be reminded that the tax reform by the Minister in this Budget is simply a reform of previous tax changes by the Government which have left the small Canadian entrepreneur in an incomprehensible and frustrating taxation morass. No one needs to be reminded that our economy has not even returned to the level of prosperity that it enjoyed several years ago. Rosy proclamations announcing big gains in our GNP will simply not wash with the Canadian public.
When our economy has sunk as low as it has under the leadership of the Government, the rebound is certain to be spectacular. There is a theorem which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, when the Minister brags that our economy has grown more quickly in recent months than that of most developed countries, he neglects to state that our recession was worse than that in any of them. While our ship of state may be off the rocks, we are still a long way from home port without a chart, compass or capable captain, while the leaks threathen to sink us before we repair the engine, much less get it started.
With respect to the competitiveness of Canadian industry, the Minister has continued, in the television tradition of the right Hon. Prime Minister, to chastise the nation and tell us that we have to be of world class. It seems to me that the Government has taken a lot of time to convince itself of this position. Yet it can hardly take credit for the growth in our merchandise trade surplus which reached a temporary high because of two factors: one, the relatively better performance of our trading partners, which allowed them to consume more of our goods; two, the demoralizing slump in our economy, which made Canadians unable to afford the goods that they are accustomed to importing from abroad.
As for the competition policy at home, we have waited almost 10 years for action on this issue. There is grave doubt that the Government can act with any effectiveness on this particular promise in the short period of time before its mandate expires. Canadians will wisely place no stock in this promise as well as on other promises, such as pension reforms that will not be completed until 1987.

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
The Government's actions remind me of a suitor courting a girl whom he has not intention of marrying. He will promise her just about anything if she will only be nice to him. I believe the Canadian electorate will view this Budget and its promises for what it really is, a bunch of paper roses. They will reject the suitor and his false promises at the first opportunity for a Party and a Leader that stand for a more stable future.
Home owners and home buyers have little cause to thank the Government. The dramatic concern directed toward this group of Canadians simply comes several years too late. Where was the Government when mortgage rates were at record levels of anywhere from 20 per cent to 22 per cent? Crisis followed by heartbreak hit Canada's households from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Government's economic policy must be assessed against the background of current economic conditions and prospects for the future. Although the Minister, in his Budget, has tried to put these conditions in the best possible light, the actual situation is very, very bleak by every major measure. In fact, the economic recovery has begun to falter even before our economy has recovered the ground that we lost during the recession.
The Minister laid stress on the importance of credibility and feels that it is necessary if his policies are to be effective. I cannot disagree with him in that respect. In my opinion, credibility is earned on the basis of good performance, not flimsy, long-term projected promises. Although the Minister promised much ado about many things, he totally neglected many of the economic difficulties facing our most disadvantaged regions.
For example, the Budget totally ignored the plight of our independent fishermen who are struggling along the coasts of Atlantic Canada to wrest a living from the deep. Nowhere in the Budget are these fishermen and those who run our independent fish processing industries given any consideration. Yet the fragile economy in many communities rests solely on the success of a single processing plant and the success of a group of fishermen around that plant to bring in sufficient catch to make it viable. I know that you are aware of this, Mr. Speaker, because you have such plants in your riding. There is not a word in the Budget about that.
In my Province of Nova Scotia, where our people have been struggling for months to retain control over their industry, many independent processors are facing very severe difficulties today in obtaining bank credit to finance their operations. The bank sector, which so often seems so far detached from Atlantic Canada and the small communities in that area, has reduced the flow of new loans that people need to keep their business afloat by as much as 50 per cent. The risk today is obviously considered too great for the commercial banks.
Some fishermen today face the risk of losing their enterprise as well as their way of life. It is situations such as these that at the very least call for the attention and the compassion of the Government. Yet not a word is addressed to this vital need.
The bright forecasts of better years to come, not in the Alice in Wonderland but in the "Lalonde in Blunderland" era, are of no consolation when time is of the essence.
Fuel costs have increased drastically for our fishermen, not only because of the actions of the Government but because they must roam farther over the ocean than ever before in an effort to get a catch. Some assistance in this area in the form of fuel subsidies or tax rebates not only for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada but for the fishermen of central Canada and British Columbia would have been a welcome and practical gesture. It would have been of greater help to the overall economy than hand-outs in the millions of dollars for the Government's friends, such as Maislin and Canadair. Perhaps I should include the $21 million that is estimated to be spent by the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economy. 1 think that is the most expensive royal commission in Canada's history. The shame of it all is that the Macdonald Royal Commission is entirely unnecessary. It is simply duplicating the work that is being done every month by the Economic Council of Canada. People on that side sometimes say, "Okay, where would you cut?" Well there is $21 million that we could cut out immediately without in any way hurting the economic forecasts of this nation.
What about the wharves and harbours in Atlantic Canada? For the most part they are in such a decrepit state that we will have to go a far distance beyond the Special Recovery Program funding of the April Budget to modernize, renew and make serviceable the harbours on which our communities depend. The job is not finished, Sir. It has hardly begun. Yet this Budget ignores this important segment of Canadian society and heritage as if it did not even exist. We need dredging. Some of our harbours need dredging in the worst way. The present Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) who was the former Minister of Fisheries, I am glad to see is in his seat. He will be well aware, if he looks at his files as far back as three and four years ago, that I made pleas to him to see that the Lunenburg harbour was dredged so that our ships, our drag-gers, would not scrape bottom at half tide. I have made pleas that Liverpool harbour be dredged ever since 1968 when it was last dredged by the then Diefenbaker Government. Nothing has been done. This Government looks around for make work programs. I am talking about viable, necessary ones that would provide work and ongoing jobs by improving the infrastructure. None of this has been done and there is nothing in the Budget to say that this Government will do anything about it.
During debate on Bill C-170, the Government, while claiming to restructure the fishing industry, proclaimed loudly its intentions to privatize the industry. We on this side expected some mention in the Budget of the Government's future role in this major industry, some statement as to how this Government was going to get out of its management role. But there is not a word in the Budget on this topic. There is no word as well about a tax shelter for vessel owners in order to improve their ability to replace and maintain their vessels and gear.
February 22, 1984

One of the weak points in the overall restructuring agreements covering the Fishing industry in Atlantic Canada was a decision made by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to transfer management rights covering 12 Riverport-based scallop draggers from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. This has caused heartache and headaches to the citizens of Riverport who have said to me, either on the phone or in their letters, "Please, you are a Member of Parliament, what steps can be taken to keep this fleet out of the hands and out of the control of the federal Government?" That, Mr. Speaker, is fear. You can sense it. It is direct fear.
I see you are motioning me to come to the end of my speech, Sir. Two of the fleet have already been transferred out of Riverport. Neither the Newfoundland fisheries agreement nor the September 30 Nova Scotia Fisheries agreement give any guarantee that other ships will not be transferred out of Riverport. In addition, not even a hint has been given by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Finance that any investment will be made in this community to rebuild or improve its position. I must ask why that is so. We seem to have funds for frivolous expenditures but none for those that are worthwhile. I claim it is time that this Government examined its priorities.
I agree that this country has the potential to shape the world with its wealth, its genius, its imagination and its youth. But nowhere has such promise met with such disappointment, and at no time should it have been met with more urgency. For all these reasons, I am happy to state that I will be voting against the Government, because of its policies which are working a hardship on our people, by voting for the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and comments. Debate.
The Hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc).


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in this debate to express my support for the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

The Budget, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated, puts into action the process of growth, opportunity, security and partnership which was outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It is a courageous Budget, one which will create a strong and growing economy and generate meaningful jobs. I say it is a courageous Budget because it would have been easy to embark upon a crusade to reduce the deFicit in a rapid and chaos-producing manner. This approach would simply have created more problems and delayed economic recovery. The Minister of Finance has taken a balanced approach to reduce the deficit in the coming fiscal year. In fact, the deFicit will fall by some $2 billion and it will continue to fall in future years.
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc

Mr. Speaker, I said this was a courageous Budget, because the Government is meeting its commitment to help those who are in greatest need, which is borne out by the increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement for single pensioners. The proposed changes to the pension system are essential to the well-being of those Canadians who have worked all their lives to build this country's prosperity.
Pension reform is of vital importance to most Canadians. I am proud to be a Member of a Government that has not shirked its duties in the field of social policy, a Government that has maintained and, where feasible, expanded its social security system, in particularly difficult times.
Mr. Speaker, during difFicult economic times, we must maintain our network of social services because that is when these services become increasingly important. The Minister of Finance has shown this commitment and this attitude by providing more assistance to those who are in need.

I was struck by the remarks of the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and by suggestions from Members opposite. They say the deficit should be reduced, but then they suggest a few small expenditures as a magic solution. At the same time they are not really identifying those large reductions which would have to be effected if we were to reduce substantially the deFicit. It is really not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition to say, "Reduce the deFicit, but increase expenditures in particular areas", but not give us the blueprint of how to do it. In fact, the Minister of Finance of that short-lived Government indicated some time ago that if the Tories were to tell us what they might do, perhaps the people of Canada would not vote for them. It is easy to do all things for all people if one only speaks in generalities and if one is unprepared or unwilling to face the difficult choices and to speak clearly. I suspect that Hon. Members across the aisle, especially those from the Atlantic Provinces, remember only too well when the President of the Treasury Board of that ill-fated Government, better known in popular parlance as "Sine the Slasher", was reducing expenditures when, in fact, he was abolishing job-creation projects. I remember Members opposite, including some Ministers representing certain Provinces, having to run to their Premiers to ask them to intervene and to protect Members and people from the Atlantic region from the reductions being imposed by the then virtuous President of the Treasury Board.
This Government has faced some difficult issues. It has introduced the six and Five program and taken leadership in reducing inflation. It has taken a clear stand on medicare. It has acted to create jobs. In my own portfolio, close to $1.5 billion was spent to create much needed construction employment. For those home owners who could have lost their homes because of extraordinary rises in interest rates, we provided assistance and showed that we cared. However, I did not stop there. In the housing area we have actively consulted with the industry associations and with the lending community. We

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
have listened to individual Canadians who said that they wanted more security and confidence when purchasing their homes. The Budget outlines measures which will foster a return of security and confidence to home owners. I am pleased to say that housing industry associations have responded favourably to our initiatives. The measures announced in the Budget were at the top of the priority list of many associations. They know the Government has listened to them and that their advice has been heard.
I should also say that there is another part of the Budget which is very important to the home-building industry. As Hon. Members know, that industry is largely comprised of small businesses, small builders. Proposals announced in the Budget to simplify taxes for small businesses will be very important to them. In fact, HUDAC is meeting right now in Quebec City and agrees with the Minister of Finance that tax simplification can and should free valuable resources for the critical task of running the businesses and making them grow.
I return briefly to the Mortgage Rate Protection Program, an ideal which CMHC officials have developed with other Departments of Government and in close consultation with the housing associations. Home owners should not have to face extraordinary payment increases at mortgage renewal time. Proposals presented in the Budget allow home owners to protect themselves against large payment increases at renewal time or to have the opportunity to take out longer term mortgages. The cost of this will be borne by home owners themselves. Until now there was no readily available way for home owners to protect themselves. The Mortgage Rate Protection Program in many ways offers home owners the best of all possible outcomes. If mortgage rates decline at renewal time, home owners can take full advantage of the lower mortgage interest rate. If mortgage rates increase, home owners will not face large payment increases. Therefore, the home owner is in a "no lose" situation. He is able to take advantage of interest rate declines and is substantially covered if rates rise. In that way stability and confidence should be restored.
Canadians have traditionally looked to home ownership as the way in which they could control the single largest element of their household budget, but over time with income growth and property value growth, home owners were devoting a reduced proportion of income and wealth to housing. For example, on average home owners spent 21 per cent of their income on housing in 1970. Given income growth and no problems with mortgage renewals, these households would have spent about 10 per cent of their income on housing in 1980, ten years later. The experience of the last few years had changed this perception of home ownership. We saw mortgage payments increase dramatically. In many cases it depended upon the luck of the draw or the timing of the mortgage renewal. This created uncertainty and insecurity and, one might be tempted to say, some inequities. For example, someone who renewed his mortgage in June 1980 would have faced monthly payments 24 per cent higher than someone who
renewed in April, 1980. The measures announced in the Budget will help overcome some of these uncertainties. Perhaps an example could make this clear.
Assuming a home owner takes out a five-year $70,000 mortgage at 13 per cent and purchases the insurance plan. The cost of the insurance would be about $ 11 per month when amortized with the mortgage. If the mortgage rate were to be 18 per cent at renewal time, the home owner would receive close to $6,500 over the next five years to reduce the monthly payments. If the rate were to increase to 20 per cent, the benefits would be close to $ 11,000. Of course, if the rate were to increase to 15 per cent in this example, the home owner would not receive any benefit as the $100 increase in the monthly mortgage payments should be within normal financial capability.
In effect, the program limits monthly payment increases to be borne by home owners to roughly $100 a month and, beyond that, the program would pick up 70 per cent of any increases in monthly mortgage payments. In a very real way this will limit the exposure of home owners at mortgage renewal time. Stated differently, it should contribute toward enhancing dramatically the security and the confidence of those people who are deciding whether or not to purchase homes.
Consultations with industry representatives have already started and will continue in coming weeks. When the time comes and after appropriate discussion and study, I hope the measures can be presented to the House and that Members on all sides will feel that this program will go a long way toward creating a climate of security and confidence among Canadians who want to own homes.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Minister a question which follows on a meeting I had on Saturday with some very responsible officials of the Peel non-profit Housing authority in my city. The Minister will know that these people administer municipally public non-profit allocations from the social housing program in my area. Also he should know that 1,100 units have been built and are being managed by this authority. They house moderate and low-income families and seniors, and the authority does it very well. Of course it is a public non-profit organization which comes under the supervision of the Province of Ontario. The housing authority has asked me to determine when Ontario's allocation will be announced. We understand that there are ongoing discussions between the Minister's office and the Province of Ontario. We would like to see the allocations as soon as possible. I did not want to miss this opportunity to put in a plug and to tell the Minister, as well as Claude Bennett, that Peel needs at least 300 units this year to stay even.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Hon. Member's suggestion could be interpreted as a representation rather than a question. I certainly hope that we arrive very quickly at a proper distribution of the units. I felt it was my responsibility to ask the public bodies which would be utilizing units in the
February 22, 1984

social housing program to indicate their priorities so that we could, where our program was involved, try to make allocations as fairly and as quickly as possible to the groups most in need.
My approach to social housing is to try to target the program gradually. Everyone admits that it has not been perfectly targeted. In fact, I wish I had made the remarks which I had intended to make, as I wanted to address the matter of better targeting. We are trying to move in this direction. We have asked the provinces and associations of all kinds to give us their views on the evaluation that has been done of social housing programs. Some are beginning to trickle in. I hope that very soon we can get those who are interested involved in a process of consultation. What is important to remember is that we want to get as big a bang as possible for the federal buck that is being spent on social housing. That is certainly my philosophy.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Joliette.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, although from a distance, I listened as carefully as I could to what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) was saying. I would like to know, in the interests of all Canadians, whether he could inform the House, in connection with the Mortgage Rate Protection Plan, when approximately we will be advised of the details of this program, and could the Minister also inform the House at what rates the program will protect home buyers?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated in his Budget that the program will be in effect as of March 1, although it may be necessary to make implementation of the program retroactive, and in any case, he expected that consultations would be held very soon and that we would be able to table appropriate legislation in the House very shortly. Personally and I suppose I am sticking my neck out I have the impression that we will be ready to proceed about the end of March, with legislation that will protect those who will have renewed their mortgages or purchased homes since March 1st. What we want to avoid is to have a very long period during which Canadians who would otherwise have benefited under the program would not be eligible.
As for the fee or rate, if 1 understood the Hon. Member's question correctly, I suppose he would like to know how much the monthly payment would be. Is that correct?


Mr.   La Salle@: The rate protected under the plan! What rate?


Roméo LeBlanc: The interest rate! Of course, I gave an example, and, if the Hon. Member would care to look at the next of my speech, he will see that my example was a 13 per cent
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
mortgage. I said there was a deductible of 2 per cent, so up to 15 per cent, the home owner would pay. This could be as much as $100 per month, depending on the mortgage. However, assuming that the homeowner has a 13 per cent mortgage, if the rate rises above 15 per cent, increasing a maximum of 10 per cent, which means up to 25 per cent, the homeowner will be compensated for 75 per cent of the increase.
In other words, this is a plan in which the homeowner does carry part of the costs, as is the case in all kinds of car insurance, and similar arrangements, and we are trying to protect the homeowner against dramatic increases in interest rates similar to those we have experienced in this decade.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister for his continued support of co-op and social housing, despite some of the biased evaluations in his Department. I, of course, regret that there were not more units. We hope he will be able to do something about that.
There is a critical situation in British Columbia. As a result, I gather, of CMHC policy, co-ops are being prevented from contracting with unionized labour to build co-ops. In some instances the labour movement, particularly the carpenters, are actually putting their pension funds into the financing of co-ops. There is quite a lot of union money going into the financing of co-ops. 1 gather this is the result of an exemption that was made to the fair wages section of the Labour Code. Will the Minister look into and reconsider this matter? It is grossly unfair. In many cases the product is not up to standard. It is costing a great deal of unhappiness and concern for co-ops, as well, of course, as for workers who are suffering from the great unemployment in the construction field.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member if I am not able to give an informed and detailed answer to the technical point that she raises. Obviously I will look into it and inform her as soon as possible. The last thing I want to do is to be unfair to anyone.
On her general comment as to co-op and social housing, I remind the House that co-operatives are but one element of the social housing program. It is a very broadly based program covering rural and native people, senior citizens, non-profit groups and so on. These are all potential clients for our social housing programs. I am not usually looking for quarrels with provincial governments, but I may make the suggestion to the Hon. Member that she suggest to her provincial colleagues that they should try to influence the attitude and the programs of the provincial Government of her province.
In the remarks I made to the HUDAC group yesterday, I deplored the fact that in the area of social housing, some rather well to do provinces are increasingly opting out of social housing programs. I expressed a strong hope that they will go back to helping those who are in need. As generous and as willing as we are, the queue of those who need some assistance and need improved social housing is getting longer all the time.

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
Perhaps the Hon. Member should consider running in another place and expressing her views very strongly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I cannot get permission to ask the Minister a question because I have now been recognized for debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let me put it this way. The Minister did not use all of the speaking time allotted to him. By unanimous consent of the House, we could extend the questioning period. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I get it clear in my own mind, are you asking for unanimous consent to extend the question period only to the end of the Minister's otherwise allocated time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a good question. By unanimous agreement we extend the time, or we do not. It is a matter of being reasonable in all circumstances. The Minister had ten more minutes of speaking time which he could have used but did not use. If the House wishes to extend questions and comments for a further ten minutes, I will see if there is unanimous agreement. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to be a nit-picker but I have experienced this before and I would like to be clear in my own mind. Are you asking for an extension of ten minutes only? If so, I would be happy to agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair always does its utmost to be helpful in circumstances like this. I thought I had asked if there was unanimous consent to extend, if need be, the question period for another ten minutes. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Minister in the Chamber and also to learn that he addressed the HUDAC Convention in Quebec City yesterday. I, too, commend the courageous Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on those parts of the Budget that will help housing, such as protecting interest rates and allowing a mortgagor to pay off a mortgage without having to pay an arm and a leg. How were the Minister's remarks to HUDAC received? What did HUDAC think of the items in the Budget? Did they feel they go far enough? In today's Question Period it was mentioned that there is 33 per cent unemployment in the construction industry, which is tragic. That construction industry is very important to the economy of Canada. I think the Minister will recall the time when the Government, and more power to it, had a special incentive grant of $3,000 for new house construction. That was a shot in the arm. I am sure that the Government got its $3,000 back many times in sales of houses, in income tax, sales tax and so on.
I would appreciate the Minister's comments on an incentive grant like that to stir up the economy, and also on what HUDAC would like.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly have given consent for the Hon. Member to continue because I know his interest and knowledge in this subject.
I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I cannot speak for HUDAC; I can only interpret its reception of my speech. While I cannot qualify its reception of it because my modesty obliges me to be restrained, I thought the speech was received with as much good will as it was delivered.
I can say to the Hon. Member that at least two of the ideas, the one for the mortgage rate protection plan and the other of a mortage backed security which should trigger longer term mortgages, were ideas on which HUDAC had been consulted and which it supported very strongly. I think it supported the measure introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola), on the subject of buying out from a high interest rate mortgage.
I should say that the national association indicated quite clearly in the speech that the incoming President made that it did not favour a $3,000 stimulation at this time. It took a rather strong position on not increasing the deficit, feeling that whatever benefit we might get from a $3,000 incentive of the type we had about a year ago, if it did trigger a dump in the interest rates, then in the long run it would have a negative effect on the housing industry.
Its support for the mortgage rate protection plan is very much inspired by the same preoccupation that we have, I believe, which is for the restoration or establishment in the industry of confidence and a climate of security, especially on the part of potential home buyers.
Some months ago I said that I thought I needed a psychologist to reassure people, more than an economist. I still feel that way. I think that we have to promote the idea that if you do invest in a home or in a major purchase of that type, you should have at least a guarantee that the type of roller-coaster interest rates we saw some time ago and on which I reflected in my speech, would not bring hardship to those purchasing homes.
I hope I have answered the Hon. Member's question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The answer was rather lengthy. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate what he feels will be the effect on new housing construction starting later this year when the 1 per cent increase in excise tax on building materials goes into effect.
February 22, 1984

This is one of those hidden tax proposals included in the Budget of last year. There is a considerable effect on government revenues as a result, supposedly, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), of that 1 per cent increase in sales tax on building materials to 6 per cent.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I expect that these are judgment calls which all Ministers of Finance make at one point or another. I feel that if there is a negative effect, certainly it must be reduced by the fact that we are looking at an inflation rate which has been dramatically lowered and we are also looking at stability in wage rates in the building industry. The HUDAC representatives who spoke this week interpreted that as a positive element in their planning process. In fact, the President of HUDAC was rather vigorous in saying that the industry had historically thought that it could learn to live with inflation by simply passing the cost on to consumers. He advocated a program of restraint and measures that would keep inflation under control.
I suspect that those factors are probably quite a bit more important than the 1 per cent the Hon. Member discusses.


Mr. Wenman:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it takes from five to nine days for a piece of first class mail to reach Ottawa from Vancouver, there are still a series of $3,000 grant appeals before the Minister. Speaking of just those appeals, and not opening anything else up, and because the problem was caused by the mail, would the Minister consider giving special attention to those cases that missed the deadline? The stamp on the envelope could be taken as the reference point.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to take as generous an interpretation of the problem as I could. In a case where documents would indicate that a home owner or home buyer had made a commitment, wherever possible I have interpreted in favour of the home buyer.
I might say that I do not quite understand the Hon. Member's question about nine days. Applications were made to the regional office, and therefore they would have been in contact with CMHC offices within the province. I am not sure, therefore, that this is a valid issue. Certainly, where I have been able to interpret in favour of the applicant, I have tried to do so. I know there are some disappointed people, and I can assure the Hon. Member that I never sign those letters with any sense of satisfaction.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question of social housing. In his comments a few minutes ago the Minister reiterated comments of officials in his Department about transferring money from CMHC which had previously been used for co-op housing to the private sector and not to social housing. He spoke about the "biggest bang for the buck! It seems to me that when we talk about the biggest bang for the buck, surely we are talking about providing adequate, good housing at affordable prices to those thousands of people across the country who cannot afford any housing at all.
It seems to me that co-op housing is the route that provides many young married people who cannot afford to get into the
The Budget-Mr. Darling
private housing market, with an adequate good supply of housing.
I am distressed when I hear the Minister repeat what his officials had been flying kites about a couple of months ago in which there was a clear indication that the Government was going to change its policy in that direction. If I am mistaken and the Minister was not implying that, I would like to hear him say so.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to regret that I did not read the four extra pages that I had on social housing.
I tried to speak to items in the Budget Speech and for that reason I did not use those remarks.
The fact is that, first of all, co-op housing and social housing should not be equated. Co-ops are a form of social housing. There are some good co-ops and there are some less than good ones. The Hon. Member did not touch upon one of the most difficult problems in the area of social housing, particularly co-op housing, and that is the issue of targeting. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the obligation which a group in a co-operative plan has is to have at least 15 per cent of clear assistance. This percentage is obviously too low. We are now working with a co-op group to see how we can increase it. In fact, we have talked about avoiding ghettos, and trying to correct what possibly was a distortion when, perhaps, we had much more money than we have now. The problem is that for co-ops or other forms of social housing-which are comfortable, and I do not deplore this at all-the queue of those who are waiting to get in is getting very long. I am sure the Hon. Member, who represents a Party which is to the left, would want to find a way for the program to help more and more of those who are in real need.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The extended time has elapsed. We will now proceed with debate.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on the Budget. To begin with, I presume it is in order to say a word to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) in the form of a question which perhaps he could answer following my remarks, that is, that I hope the Government is continuing two of its very important programs, namely, RRAP and the Rural and Native Housing Program. The Minister and the Cabinet should be given full marks for those very important programs. I believe you will agree, Mr. Speaker, representing as you do a rural riding, that they are job providers and also that you take advantage of those two programs because they certainly help the economy of the country.
With respect to the Budget of the courageous Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)-I believe that is how the Minister of Public Works addressed him-or was it the courageous Budget? However, he was a courageous Minister to have brought that Budget in. I will concede, as will a good many Hon. Members from all sides of the House, that there were some very good points and positive proposals in it. For

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Darling
instance, the guaranteed income supplement for the estimated three-quarters of a million senior citizens will be increased by $50 a month over the coming year. It will not be all at once as, I suppose, some hoped. However, they will receive $25 a month from July 1 and then $25 a month starting December 1.
However, the sad part about it is that it is restricted to single senior widows or widowers. There could be couples who are finding it hard to get along on the present amount of money because of high rents and, in the case of home owners, the cost of fuel over the severe winter we have just experienced. It does benefit some, that is true, but there are still a lot of senior citizens who are left out in the cold.
I also look favourably on the announcement that low income pensioners, many of them immigrants, who receive partial old age pensions, will be able to qualify for additional guaranteed income supplements so that now they will have the same guaranteed minimum retirement income as do other Canadians.
Another positive step is aid provided to small business by the simplification of tax measures. The corporate tax form will be shorter and simpler, fewer special situations will exist in small business tax laws. Growing small businesses will have increased access to tax savings and their savings in administration and consultation costs will be substantial. Of course, a good many of us who are small businessmen ourselves say amen to that, but why has it taken so long for the Government to wake up and improve this situation?
As the Minister of Public Works himself pointed out, the mortgage interest protection plan is a good idea. He has outlined what a mortgage will cost after a five-year or 10-year term. I believe he mentioned that a $70,000 mortgage would cost about $ 11 a month to insure. After the tragedies of a few years ago, I presume that most people will consider an extra $11 a month to protect their homes to be certainly well worth it. Of course, they must pay the first 2 per cent of the higher rate, I believe, but I would hope that most of them will be able to look after that increase.
Again, on a positive note, I must comment on the idea of doing something for the farmers. The farm community is probably one of the hardest working sectors of our economy, and the sector which does not get the breaks. I have said before and I will say again, "Farmers buy everything retail and sell their products wholesale". It is said that all farmers live poor but die rich, if they have a big farm. But if farmers wanted to sell their farms, of course, under the previous legislation, the Department of National Revenue would step in and take a substantial amount of the price of the farm. This has been remedied with an annuity plan for farmers in the amount of up to $120,000, and more power to them for that. Finally the Government is waking up and is giving some relief to the farmer who will be handing the farm down to the next generation, the son or daughter.
I will give the Government full marks for these good things, and that may be unusual coming from this side of the House, but I will say that it is about time the Government woke up. The federal sales tax will remain at the manufacturer's level,
where it should have been left in the first place. Whoever the idiots were who were twisting the arm of the Minister of Finance to change it, I hope that they are put out to pasture now. One glaring error has been rectified. Most of us are aware that Japanese and Europeans cars received a special break of $200 over domestically manufactured cars. I cannot imagine anything more idiotic. I understand that has been looked after so that cars manufactured in Canada will be able to compete, at least taxwise, with European cars.
The Budget has been described as neither stimulative nor job-creative. It is clearly a political Budget. I would say it is an election Budget. The Minister himself, I believe, stated that there is no other Budget on the horizon at the present time. I am one of those who feels that political as the Budget is, there is no election going to be called in the next two or three months. There is very little in this Budget which addresses the most important concern of Canadians, that is, the unemployment situation. This is the tragic and sad part of it, Mr. Speaker. There are things in the Budget, as I say, which are positive, but there is nothing of a meaningful and lasting nature as far as employment is concerned. The Minister made much of the fact that there was $150 million for youth employment, and $ 150 million may sound like a heck of a lot of money. However, as far as jobs are concerned, that would only provide jobs for about 10,000 of our youth-and when I say "youth", I mean young people up to the age of 25-and where does that leave the other 400,000 or more unemployed youth? They are still waiting and looking for a job. Something must be done to help all our unemployed, but especially the unemployed youth. After four years of Liberal economic promises, the Finance Minister tells us in the Budget that he is dedicated to building a strong and growing economy, an economy which will generate lasting, meaningful jobs for all Canadians who want to work, an economy which will provide the economic opportunity and security all Canadians seek. Those are wonderful words, Mr. Speaker, but we can say to the Minister of Finance, "Come on, Mr. Minister, where have you been? Canadians have been saying this for a good number of years". How can we believe him now? Rest assured, most Canadians do not believe him, nor will they forget that when the next election comes along.
The 1981-82 recession was the worst since the 1930s. The real GNP fell by 6.5 per cent between the second quarter of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982. According to the January, 1984 Conference Board report, the Canadian economy is heading for a disastrous year, possibly another recession in 1985. That certainly is a gloomy forecast. Canadian factories are operating at only 71 per cent of capacity. One worker in nine, almost 1.5 million people, is officially unemployed. These are hardly circumstances which enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security, Mr. Speaker. According to this Budget, unemployment will exceed 1.1 million people until at least 1988. That is four years down the road. Even with an economy forecast to be on the upswing, it is alarming to think that four years down the road the Government-and I expect
February 22, 1984

it will be as optimistic as possible-is giving a figure of over one million unemployed.
There is nothing in the Budget to address the disastrous state of the federal Government's balance sheet. Indeed, the Budget clearly indicates that between $15 billion and $20 billion of the deficit is a permanent structural deficit. I believe it is one dollar in four which goes to pay interest on the national debt, and within a year or so it will be one dollar in three. There is also nothing in the Budget to address the problems of low income Canadians under the age of 65. As for the economy, the Budget's financial projections hinge on what are overly optimistic assumptions of economic growth. The Government sees continued strong real growth of 4.9 per cent this year and 3.5 per cent next year. However, StatsCan has recently warned that the recovery is losing its vitality and the Conference Board has predicted a growth of only 3.3 per cent this year and .3 per cent next year. That is not too optimistic. This is significant as the consequences of highballing the growth projections are to paint an overly optimistic picture.
Expenditures rise at a slower pace in periods of strong growth while revenues rise at a faster pace. This rosy economic forecast is due in large part to two unrealistic assumptions. The first is that all the available evidence suggesting poor levels of capital investment is wrong. The second is that the savings rate falls to levels unheard of as consumers spend the economy into further growth. The Budget also predicts a 5.2 per cent inflation rate this year. As inflation at the end of 1983 was only 4.5 per cent, the clear projection is that it is going up.
Whether all of this is right or wrong depends on what happens to the economy this year. The Minister of Finance, probably for political reasons, chose to bring this Budget down before he obviously knew what the figures were, so he is guessing. We will not even have the first estimates for the growth of the economy in the last quarter of 1983 until later on, probably at the end of this month. Ignorance may be bliss for a Minister of Finance who is overly optimistic, but it sure hurts the ordinary citizen. In the Minister's case, he based his economic forecasts on stale data, choosing not to notice that things have taken an adverse turn recently. Therefore, who is right, the forecasters or the Government? No one knows for sure, but there is no reason to assume that a Department of Finance which has failed completely to foresee the 1981-82 recession must be right when it sees no slowdown at the present time.
On the most important issue of all, unemployment, there is too little, too late. In the recent Budget the Minister said that none of us can be satisfied with more than 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, our children, relatives, friends and neighbours who cannot find jobs. However, Mr. Speaker, that does not include another 500,000 who are not counted in the overall figures because they are no longer drawing benefits, they are either living on welfare or eking out an existence on their savings and probably some part-time work. This is certainly a tragedy. However, it is obvious he is not disturbed enough to
The Budget-Mr. Darling
do much about it. His own projections say there will be an average of 1.3 million of our friends and neighbours out of work until 1985, and this is an optimistic assumption about growth. If the Conference Board of Canada staff and other like-minded economists are right, employment will be rising instead of falling.
What was the Government's reaction to this possibility? Make work projects and a great deal of money announced in the Budget by the Minister was money and projects pledged in previous announcements and previous Budgets. As I said before, the only actual new, hard cash is the $150 million earmarked for youth employment.
The Minister of Finance's deficit numbers are worse than he expected last year. Yet he has made no aggressive move to close the gap. In the 1983 Budget he forecast that the deficit would drop by $2.5 billion in the fiscal year starting this April. He then put the 1984-85 deficit at nearly $29 billion. Now he has forecast a deficit to be about $30 billion for the coming year, only $1.8 billion down from the fiscal year ending this March. It becomes obvious that the Minister of Finance had to work very hard with his officials to make a stand-still Budget look as though it were going somewhere. Where it is not going is what really counts.
What about taxes, Mr. Speaker? This Budget contained no major tax increases, but it did not have to; the April, 1983 Budget took care of that. In addition, there are delayed increases in unemployment insurance premiums built into the tax structure through existing legislation. Many of these taxes are hidden taxes, and here are some of them. The federal sales tax would be increased by 1 per cent for the period October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1988. The new rates will be 6 per cent on construction materials, compared with 5 per cent. This was brought up here earlier this afternoon and this is not going to help the building industry. There will be a 13 per cent tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco instead of 12 per cent, and 10 per cent instead of 9 per cent on other taxable goods. The $100 standard medical deduction is eliminated starting in the 1984 taxation year, and receipts will now be required for all charitable and medical deductions.
Another example is the Child Tax Credit. The income threshold above which the Child Tax Credit is reduced by 5 per cent for every $100 of household income will be de-indexed at the 1982 level of $26,330. As income rises with inflation, it will mean fewer and fewer people will qualify. The Canadian ownership special charge is a bruising tax. It takes money out of the pockets of every Canadian every time he or she pulls into a gas station. The tax is equal to four cents a gallon and it was originally imposed as a temporary measure for the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. It has been extended as a permanent revenue tax. I suspect this will probably surface again once the election is under way.
How does the Minister help domestic demands in this Budget? He does not help them at all. As far as I can see, this is because he increases the taxes and takes four times the

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Allmand
revenue that is given back. He might help demand if he did away with this Canadian ownership tax. He would also help consumer demand if he did away with the 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax. This is a regressive tax which hurts everyone. This increase in the sales tax will take $365 million which is needed out of the economy.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Government is running on borrowed time. One indication of this is the $300 million which was earmarked for job creation. A further breakdown of funds shows that the Province of Ontario, with 421,000 unemployed, received $56.4 million. In comparison Quebec, with 416,000 unemployed, received $85.9 million. Ontario has more unemployed than any other province. It received $26,320,850. Of this, $18,400,000 odd went to Liberal ridings with less than $3 million going to Conservative ridings under the Special Employment Initiatives Program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) for debate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the biggest economic issue throughout Canada and thewestern world is unemployment, especially youth unemployment. For the past four years this has been my major preoccupation. Between 1980 and 1982 I served as the chairman of the task force on employment opportunities for the eighties. Since early 1983 I have served as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration which has been studying a reference dealing with unemployment.
Recently a number of members from that Committee attended an OECD conference on the subject of employment growth in the context of structural change. Having listened to many groups, experts, educators, trade unionists, business people and others involved in the field, I have come to the very strong conclusion that double-digit unemployment is not necessary and not inevitable and, with the right policies, cooperation and political will, we can make great strides in bringing down that high unemployment rate. There are lots of jobs to be done everywhere in this country at all levels. They are not in place because they are not being financed. There are people to be helped, resources to be developed and services to be provided. Where are these jobs and how do we get them?
I will give a few examples from areas in which I have worked. There are many examples of shortages of skilled, committed workers. As a former Solicitor General I saw that in the area of corrections we had and still have parole and probation officers carrying caseloads of 60 to 1 and 70 to 1. Most people suggest such case loads should be about 30 to 1. We have shortages of policemen in this country, especially specialized policemen working in preventive policing and on youth squads. In areas of special education we are lacking people to help educate handicapped people, slow learners and the blind. We are short of people to work in areas of alcohol and drug rehabilitation, recreation and leisure. There is a great
shortage of people to work with the aged and with health care, preventive and curative.
In my work with the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs this week I have heard witness after witness indicate that there are shortages of skilled and semi-skilled workers in the health field. There is much work to be done. People are not being taken care of because the trained employees are not there to do that job. With respect to literacy and retraining we hear a lot of talk about the need for retraining during the structural change we are going through. There are lots of jobs there as well.
When the Canadian Council on Social Development appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration a few months ago, they indicated that there are 300,000 jobs with groups associated with their council which could be done but are not filled because they do not have the financing. These are principally jobs in the area of personal services.
There is a lot to be done in the country and a lot of unemployed people not doing those jobs. There is a mismatch. There are things to be done but unemployed people are doing nothing. How do we change that situation? First of all we make our economy as efficient and competitive as possible. We encourage the rapid introduction of new technology. By doing that it is true that we might lose some jobs in manufacturing. That new technology may replace workers who are doing things with older types of technology. However, by doing that we are keeping those industries in Canada rather than losing them in the long run. If we prop up inefficient industries, sooner or later we will not have those industries at all. Therefore we make them as efficient as possible, keeping the wealth producer in Canada and taxing that wealth producer.
We will have very profitable industries that may not be able to employ as many people as they did in the past, but will produce wealth and profits for the Government to fund the personal services which are in great demand in the health field, the educational field, the correctional field, the crime prevention field and in recreation and labour. I could continue naming areas where things have to be done.
At the OECD conference the representative of the Ontario Federation of Labour referred to the Luddites who destroyed the machines because they felt the machines were taking their jobs. Jobs that are oppressive and boring will be replaced by more interesting jobs with the proper retraining and upgrading.
That brings me to the question of retraining. If we are going to encourage and bring about the introduction of technology to make our industries as efficient and competitive as possible, we need the proper adjustment and retraining policies. This requires a very strong commitment to retraining, upgrading, life-long education, paid educational leave policies, broader and more flexible apprenticeship programs and movement at a much faster pace to the co-operative education model which we see at the University of Waterloo and the University of Sherbrooke and which is becoming more widespread in
February 22, 1984

Canada. We need an expanded right to train while on unemployment insurance and support for part-time and shared work so that those jobs have the pension rights and all the benefits of full-time work. We need support for the people who must take this retraining. For a middle-aged person who has a wife and two children, who is put out of work because of structural change in his field, to go into a retraining program which is good for him and for the economy, he has to have support while he is on that retraining program. We must have good mobility policies so that the people can move to the areas of the country where the new industries are being created.


Mr. Blaikie:: You are going to need retraining after the next
election.


Mr. Allmand:: I am trying to be serious, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Flon. Members to be serious as well.
We must also make a commitment to full employment. I accept that the concept of full employment is hard to define. Certainly it does not mean 100 per cent employment because in any dynamic economy there will be obsolete industries going out of business and new creative industries coming on line. Therefore employees will be leaving the work force, going into training and coming back into the work force. There will be a margin of unemployment because they will be retraining and upgrading. Nevertheless, we need that commitment to full employment, no matter how it is defined.
It is interesting to note that when the Government made the commitment to full employment, we almost achieved full employment on two occasions since World War II. Under a Liberal Government in 1945, with the introduction of the white paper on employment and income, full employment policies were introduced. Between the period 1946 and 1953, there were unemployment rates of about 3 per cent. The second time was in 1964. With the publication of the first annual review of the Economic Council a commitment was made to full employment, and we had unemployment rates of 3.8 per cent between 1964 and 1967.
The commitment to a full employment policy is important. On those occasions in this country when we made that commitment, we almost achieved it.
Other measures which can be combined with those policies are adjustments in our working time schedules. By this I mean the shortening of the work week. In doing so, the aim is to achieve full employment and improve the quality of life. Let me quote from a study in Europe. According to the European Economic Commission, half a reduction in working hours translates into extra jobs and the other half translates into increased productivity. In other words, if the Canadian work week were reduced by 10 per cent, say from 40 hours a week to 36 hours a week, that would produce a 5 per cent increase in jobs which would cut our unemployment rate almost by half.
I should point out to the House that there was a time, which many of us will remember, when we had a 60 hour work week. If that 60-hour work week still existed, we would have an
The Budget-Mr. Allmand
unemployment rate of 40 per cent rather than 11 per cent or 12 per cent.
The reduction in work hours is not something new; it has been a steady trend throughout this century. It does not mean lower productivity. It is combined with the introduction of machinery which is far more productive and thereby releases people to do other things, such as retraining, upgrading and taking part in cultural and leisure time activities.
We should combine our commitment to full employment with adjustments in our work time schedules. We also need an industrial strategy, an industrial strategy that is made in consultation with business, unions and the educational sector. It must be a strategy which would make the best use of our resources, our work force and market potential. It has to be clearly articulated, long term and tied to our Government policies at all levels with respect to financing, training and adjustment policies.
I believe that Government policies introduced over the last three or four years and in the last two Budgets have been moving in this direction. For instance, we have a new National Training Act. We have a commitment to the introduction of high technology. There is a commitment in the latest Budget to mobility policies, job creation, subsidization of internship jobs and so on.
One of the most important measures was the establishment of the Centre for Productivity and Employment which I believe is a great step forward. It is one of the few occasions in many years when organized labour and business have come together to solve problems in this country.
Having said that, I suggest that more is needed. We must have more support for personal, social and health services employment. There should be more help to those established voluntary groups that work in the voluntary services Field, such as the John Howard Society, the YMCA and halfway houses which provide needed services to many people. This might also involve the implementation of the give and take policy under the tax system for these voluntary groups which, as I said, would supply jobs and very needed services to Canadians. It might also mean that we would amend our labour codes in order to encourage the shorter work week.
In conclusion, let me sum up the message I want to leave with the House today. First, we must encourage our industries to become very efficient and competitive. This means first-class management and first-class technology.
Second, this must be combined with a commitment to labour that benefits and profits derived from these efficient and profitable industries will be channelled into the creation of new jobs, especially in the area of personal services.
Third, combine this with policies leading to a shorter work week. I emphasize a shorter work week, but with greater production, which is possible.
We must dispel the pessimism which is abroad in this country that we must live with double-digit or high unemployment. We must spread optimism, which I believe is realistic. It is not being Pollyannaish or rose-coloured. Full employment is

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Allmand
possible if governments at all levels, the private sector and public sector, management, labour and education co-operate. One government cannot do it alone. The public sector cannot do it alone. We must all agree to move in that direction. If we have the political will to do this, we can bring unemployment down by a country mile.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate to be at the OECD conference with the Hon. Member. I think he forgot to mention a fact that was pointed out at that meeting by those countries that are recovering as being clearly required. It is that investor confidence and the private sector were the keys to recovery. When he cites the jobs that will be made available, he merely cites jobs in the public sector.
Would the Hon. Member explain to the House why he left that particular facet out? Japan and the United States, which have the strongest economies and show the greatest decrease in unemployment and the most stable economic picture, were the countries that clearly stated that the private sector had to be motivated again. Would he comment on that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to policies which would enable industry to be as efficient and competitive as possible, I was referring to the private sector. Well over 90 per cent of our industry is in private sector hands. Of course, there must be confidence to invest in the private sector. I was suggesting that governments-I do not mean just the federal Government-unions and management must co-operate in developing policies which will allow the private sector to move as quickly as possible into new technologies in order to be competitive. I might have used different terminology but when I talk about an efficient and competitive industrial sector, it is the private sector. While there are other sectors in private hands, I was talking principally about that sector.
It is true that there is 2 per cent to 3 per cent unemployment in Japan. However, Japan's social and economic structure is quite different from ours. There are massive conglomerates that are involved in many fields. You may find that there is one company that is involved in transportation, chemicals, construction materials, electronics and so on. When obsolescence in one of those companies comes about, the Japanese redirect or reassign their employees to another part of the company, with retraining given. I must say there seems to be very good co-operation in Japan between government, labour and management.
The Japanese system is not the same as ours. The United States is closer, but while the United States has had some improvement, as we have had, I doubt whether one could claim that the U.S. today has a satisfactory employment or unemployment situation. Unemployment in the U.S. is a few points lower than Canada; but in both countries it is still much too high and we both have a long way to go to reach what the Japanese have achieved in terms of unemployment.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). He has expressed his support for the idea that we should work to have a full employment economy. He has referred to the period just after World War II when we had full employment. The Liberal Government of that day issued a white paper which promised the people of Canada that we would have full employment. The Hon. Member has referred to the Economic Council's report in the early 1960s that said that we had very low unemployment at that time. Since that time we have had a Liberal Government, of which the Hon. Member has been a part, and our unemployment has gone from about 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent in the early 1960s to over 11 per cent at the present time.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his Budget Speech, which we are now debating, has indicated that we will have double-digit unemployment for the next four or five years. Obviously, this Liberal Government is not as committed to a full employment policy as the Hon. Member for NDG and is not doing very much to accomplish that. I would like the Hon. Member to explain why his Government is doing so little to achieve the purpose to which he says he is committed, namely a job for every Canadian who wants to work?


William Warren Allmand: There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the highest priority of this Liberal Government today and for the last year has been employment and the problem of unemployment. It is true that the Government has not made the commitment to full employment. We can debate that. I personally believe there should be that commitment, the same as the Liberal Government had in 1964 and in 1946. The highest priority has been employment. One need only look at the Budget, the Speech from the Throne and last year's Budget of April, 1983 to see that employment is a very high priority.
On the other hand, I think we are in a situation today which is quite a bit different from 1946 or 1964. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) will confirm-because he was at the same conference-that many countries in western Europe are concerned with the structural change that is taking place. We are into a massive revolution of technology and a lot of displacement is going on. I am still committed to a full employment policy because I think by having it you are more likely to achieve it. There is a lot to be done. It is much more difficult to achieve than to state.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). How does he expect Canada will be able to cope with the structural changes going on in the global economy if we do not have a Government committed to giving the kind of direction to investment that will be necessary if we are to get through this transition period? Many countries which seem to be handling what is going on in the world economy better than we, are countries where governments take a much more active part in the direction and planning of investment. Here we have on the part of the Liberal Government for all intents and purposes a virtual abdication to international market forces and to the private sector. There is no political will on the part
February 22, 1984

of that Government to direct investment at all so as to make sure Canada does survive the transition.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is exaggerating the situation. He says the Government has no policies whatever. I have in my hand a document which is available to him as well as to myself, put out by the Department of Employment and Immigration, entitled: "An Inventory of Federal Employment and Manpower Measures". Among those measures-if I were to read them it would take another 10 minutes-are many direct job-creation programs in that Department, many programs to assist employment. There are other Departments, such as DRIE, Agriculture and Fisheries, which also have policies to create employment.
That having been said, one of the difficulties in this country, and I suppose a benefit as well, is that we are a federal state. I see situations from time to time where we have governments at one level wanting to go in this direction and governments at another level going in another direction. Britain and France are unitary states. The United States is a federal state but most of the economic power is in the hands of the federal Government, the central Government.
1 am not saying that things are perfect here, I admit that. I would like to see us go much further in co-ordinating this employment policy about which I have been speaking. But to say that nothing is being done is not fair, nor is it correct. I know, because I am a member of this caucus, that the highest priority of members of this caucus is the easing of unemployment. We have done quite a bit. We have created a lot of jobs. But for the long term, I am suggesting some measures that could still be taken that would improve the situation.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). 1 do not doubt the honest intent of the Hon. Member having worked and served with him on standing committees. However, on the question of shortening the work week, I think the Hon. Member will agree that shortening the work week is a very controversial issue in economies in the western world today. The Hon. Member cites extra jobs and improved productivity as part of the shorter work week. First, given any information that has been received, this is one side of the coin, not necessarily the picture from the actual job creators, and on that I think the Hon. Member will agree. Given the state of the economy in Canada and the plight of small business-I am not saying big business that has beer, propped up by government-in this time of recession and low profits how can he possibly suggest that we go to the small-businessman and ask him how he can shorten the work week and maintain the status quo on wages?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I admit the proposals for a shorter work week are controversial. In West Germany I believe it is the steel workers who have now put on the table their demands for a 35-hour work week. That proposal is being very strongly opposed by the employers and the German government. However, I attended a conference last year at which Swedish representatives from all sectors were present.
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
They made a point that this is essential but it can only be moved forward in an expanding or a recovering economy. I would suggest that we are in a recovering economy, an expanding economy. If you do move to the shorter work week, of course, it has to be done as a trade-off for other benefits. Obviously, if you want higher wages you cannot have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but he can only continue at this time if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: If you are going to have the shorter work week, no union will accept a cutback in wages; but some, as in West Germany, are willing to accept a curtailment in the increase of their wages in exchange for the 35-hour week. That can be done by increasing employment in a recovering and expanding economy.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question about the small business sector, I am not suggesting that the shorter work week be imposed. Principally that has to be achieved through collective bargaining. I am trying to put the argument before the House that it has benefits not only in terms of lifestyle but in terms of employment. I recommend strongly to unions, governments and managers that where it is a subject of collective bargaining, they look at it seriously.
In terms of the small-business sector, in many cases they are not unionized. When one has only three, four or ten employees, it is very difficult. Very often those employees work much longer hours; they do not work labour standards hours. I am suggesting that we can achieve it in two ways-principally by collective bargaining, which would not apply in many respects to the small business sector; and, second, through labour standards.
We have a Labour Standards Code in the country. By the way, labour standards have been improved by legislation at the federal level. Whether it is the minimum wage, fair employment practices or whatever, something could be done in terms of amending the labour law to provide labour standards to bring about a shorter work week in our transportation and communication industries, which are large industries.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Budget we are debating has been described by at least two columnists who write regularly about economic matters as having been produced by the use of smoke and mirrors. We have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and by other speakers on behalf of the Government that the recession is over; or, if it is not quite over, we are moving away from it. This is despite the fact that there are 1.5 million unemployed people at the present time.
Also we were told that the Budget was designed to help people who needed it most. However, when we analyse the details, we see that 80 per cent of the benefits which will flow from it will go to those in the middle and upper-income

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
brackets and that the needy will receive a few dry crusts of bread.
Particularly ignored in the Budget are Canada's young people. Over 500,000 young people, almost 20 per cent of all young Canadians, are unemployed at the present time. While the Minister of Finance has been able to give large tax breaks and concessions to the wealthy and to corporations, he was only able to find $150 million in new money for job creation for Canada's youth. That will provide jobs for less than 1.5 per cent of the more than 500,000 unemployed young people.
If one wants to see how the federal Government really looks at the problems of young people, one just has to look at some of its major decisions about education and improving the skills of young people. The remedial literacy programs operated through the Department of Employment and Immigration have been reduced over the years so that many young Canadians lack basic educational skills. It has been estimated that almost 30 per cent of Canadians are functionally illiterate. That is a disgrace. Funding for the Social Sciences and Flumanities Research Council has been cut back this year. This will have a devastating effect upon post-graduate students and upon the ability of Canadian universities and colleges to meet their faculty needs in the 1990s. Bill C-12 was passed recently in the House over the objections of the provinces and Opposition Parties. It limited the increase by the federal Government for post-secondary education for the coming year to 5 per cent, which is much less than needed. The $150 million allocated for job creation for unemployed youth will give temporary jobs to only 1.5 per cent of those unemployed.
The Budget papers of the Minister indicate that he foresees double-digit inflation for the next number of years. In other words, he sees very little decrease in the next four years or five years. We are in danger of losing a whole generation of our youth. Not since the hungry 1930s have the prospects for our young been so dismal. I graduated from high school in the 1930s. Many of the young people who started school with me did not graduate. However, the majority of those who graduated in my year were unable to find jobs. When the former Leader of our Party, Mr. Douglas, who was then a Member of Parliament, suggested a fund to put people to work, he was told that the money could not be found. In 1939 war broke out and suddenly there was no problem about money. All the money needed was suddenly found and every Canadian had a job if he was not in the armed forces.
We believe, as do most Canadians, that for the foreseeable future most jobs will be provided by the private sector. We live and will continue to live, as do nearly all people in the western industrialized world, in a mixed economy in which some people provide services, be they employed by a federal, provincial or municipal government or some agency such as a hospital funded by public funds. However, most people work in the private sector. That will continue as far ahead as anyone can foresee.
Given the world-wide recession we are facing at the present time and with which we have been living for the last few years, it is obvious the private sector cannot provide all the required
jobs. As the economy is improving, most companies will be able to manage with less workers than they had before or, at most, will rehire some of their senior employees. That forebodes very serious problems for young people who are now unemployed. If the private sector cannot provide the jobs for those who want jobs, we believe the Government must be able to provide them for every Canadian who wants one. The Government should accept that responsibility, a responsibility which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) accepted in principle.
Particularly hard hit at the present time are young people living in the core area of our cities-young native people and new immigrant children. Their education has been proven to be deficient. The only jobs they may be able to obtain if the economy picks up are low-paying, unskilled, boring, dead-end jobs, most at minimum wage or slightly more.
The federal Government played a major role in permitting immigrants to enter Canada. It permitted or encouraged native Canadians who for generations had lived on reserves to move into our cities. Cities such as Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver now have large native populations. Among that group the unemployment rate is 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 50 per cent, not 10 per cent or 11 per cent. On the reserves the unemployment rate is 80 per cent or 90 per cent. Having been responsible for encouraging people to emigrate to Canada, the federal Government cannot ignore those people and say that they are the responsibility of a province or a city. It has the duty to play a major role in helping these people adjust or integrate into urban life which until now it has refused to do.
We do not need the plethora of individual job-creation programs, many of which are designed for political purposes, as we heard so graphically and clearly during Question Period today. Many of them are changed every year, so people do not know what kinds of job programs are available.
We need also a national youth policy. The year 1985 has been designated as the International Year of Youth. We should use that occasion to focus on the contribution that our young people can make to Canadian society. The federal Government can play an important role in this area.
The most notable changes in Canada in education in recent years have been the increase in the number of young people getting instruction in one of the official languages, French in English-speaking Canada and English in French-speaking Canada, and in vocational education. Both of those programs, which are the most significant changes which have taken place in the educational system in Canada in the last 25 years, came into effect as a result of the initiative of the federal Government, the federal Government putting money into those programs. If the federal Government could do that, it could initiate a national youth policy which would put the young people of Canada back to work.
We have had examples of programs which have worked, some better than others. How can we learn what will work
February 22, 1984

except by doing? We have had federal programs such as Opportunities for Youth, the Local Improvements Program, Canada Works and Summer Canada. Each of these has indicated in a small way what can be done if there is a will.
By a national youth policy, I do not mean a blizzard of individual youth projects, many of which to date have helped mainly middle and upper-income youth. Such a policy is urgent because of the changed position of young people in our society. It is generally agreed that major institutions for youth, our schools, have somehow been unsuccessful in meeting the needs of young people.
I was a member of the parliamentary task force on employment in the eighties. We travelled across the country. At our hearings we heard from employers, service clubs, labour and educators. They told us that young people coming out of our schools have not been trained to do the jobs which are or will be available. To a large extent, their education has been designed in a vacuum, designed in the offices of provincial departments of education or individual school divisions. There has been virtually no consultation with employers, labour and educators. I am talking about the teachers in the classroom. The last to be asked what they need and what they should have are the students.
We need a great deal of decentralization, rethinking and consultation. We need to involve our young people in not only identifying the problems but in helping to work out solutions. We know from experience that our young can take innovative approaches. We need to have them help us design programs that will work so that they can have the work they want and need in the next few years.
How can we apply a national youth policy? I am not talking about a policy designed by Ottawa, the Department of Employment or any other Department. I am talking about a policy worked out in consultation between the federal and provincial governments, labour, management, educators and our young people. If we are going to adopt a national youth policy, and we need one, we should first hold a national conference, bringing together not just representatives from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, but representatives of our young people as well as labour, management and educators to see the situation that exists. We need local participation and decentralization instead of what we have had up until now-single-minded decisions being made from the top down here in Ottawa.
We need to encourage demonstration projects. I talked earlier about programs we have had in the past, such as Opportunities for Youth and the Local Improvement Program. Some did not work but many were a great success. To my knowledge, an analysis was never made of the projects which were funded to see which worked, which did not work and whether those that worked could be used as examples.
In Manitoba, when Governor General Schreyer was Premier, for the first time in any province we had the development of a native teacher training program. It has been a tremendous success. Information as to what occurred in Manitoba was not passed along to the other provinces. Provin-
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
cial representatives were not asked to come to Manitoba to see if they could establish similar programs. We need a series of demonstration projects, funded by governments, so that young people can decide what are the local issues and work on them. It would show what young people can do and would deepen the public perception of the kinds of programs that are needed.
We need resource centres in Canada. Cities would assist in the collection and dissemination of information on projects, the evaluation of projects, development of the recommendations for legislative and policy changes as experience would demonstrate. Our program for youth should be pluralistic and decentralized. You do not have to be an expert to know the tremendous problems that are not being dealt with and in which our young people could be involved. It would not only create employment for them, but begin to solve some of the major problems which are being ignored.
Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. In recent years a number of very important studies have been done. They indicate that because of inaction and shortage of funds from the federal and provincial governments, our forest industry, one of our major industries in terms of employment and providing foreign exchange, is in tremendous danger. Unless steps are taken immediately, 25 years from now there will probably be 50,000 to 60,000 less people working in this industry. We need a major reforestation program. This is not a wild-eyed dream. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did this in the United States in the 1930s in the midst of the Depression. If he could do it then, we can surely do it in Canada in the 1980s.
We need to clean up the environment. Our environment is being degraded every day in every way. Our water, air and soil are being destroyed. It is easy for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) to go to the United States and say that they must do something about acid rain. We have Sudbury, Thompson and Flin Flon. I am sure there are thousands more examples where Canadian industry is creating major problems and is a major factor in the destruction of our lakes, our soil and our air. How better could we tackle this problem than by putting our young people to work.
Those are a couple of ideas that I have, Mr. Speaker, but let me give one more. In the centre or core area of every city in Canada we have homes that are 50, 75 or 100 years old. When they were built people did not know anything about insulation. They use much more irreplaceable energy than they ought to and they need to be upgraded, insulated and retrofitted. Insulating a house is not expensive and it does not take highly trained people to do it. There is not a better project for a major objective than the insulation of our old homes.
There is a great deal to be done in the country and we need the will to do it. Unfortunately, the Budget indicates that the Government has neither the will nor the desire to deal with the major problem of unemployment among our young people with which we are faced at the present time.

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Dubois


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Questions, comments, debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Dubois).


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on the Budget today and to have this opportunity of making a few comments on the Budget that was brought down last week-last Wednesday, to be exact.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many comments to the effect that the Budget did not do enough for job creation, and that it did absolutely nothing for the low-wage earner. My colleague from Beauce (Mr. Lapointe) does not share that view, and in fact, he was one of those who praised the Budget ever since it was brought down here in the House, and he has done so in his riding and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to two specific items in the Budget today. I see that my colleague from Manicouagan was listening, and I am sure that all his constituents will benefit from the information I will be giving, which the Hon. Member can include in his parliamentary bulletin, with quotes from other Members here in the House today. Mr. Speaker, the proposal offering improved security for homeowners is the one described in the Budget Papers on page 20 and also in a small brochure published under the title "Improved Security for Homeowners-Proposals for a fairer and more flexible mortgage market."
Mr. Speaker, as far as the job creation situation is concerned, there is an expression in French: "Quand la construction va, tout va", which translates quite well in English: "When the construction industry is OK, everything is OK". The construction industry does provide an extraordinary number of jobs in Canada and Quebec. If we look at what the situation was in 1981 and 1982, the construction industry was affected by fluctuating interest rates. We must not forget this fact, Mr. Speaker, which is also emphasized in the brochure I referred to earlier. The brochure is very informative and is available on request. Hon. Members will recall that, in 1981 and 1982, 20 and even 21 per cent of young couples anxious to build a house would come to us and say: "Listen, is there anything the Canadian Government can do to improve the current situation? Do you think there might be a way so that the high interest rates . .." That was the only thing we heard about. That is why we launched a program in 1982 to spur new home construction and sales of existing housing units. That amount of $3,000 was seen as a boon by contractors in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and people who had always been renters before were able to buy a house, even an older one, thanks to that $3,000 grant. Indeed, new home buyers were also eligible for that $3,000 grant.
The program covering existing housing units ended in December 1982, but the other one for new houses was extended. There were a good many applications, to the point that the extension of the program had been announced in the Budget Speech of October 27, 1982 when the House resumed.
Perhaps I should explain why I am describing that situation. At the time, new housing starts increased dramatically and the real estate market was very active. Of course, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation did its best to process grant applications as quickly as possible. I would suggest that the home building boom had a significant impact on job creation. Now then, why can I say in the House that keeping interest rates in check is a source of new jobs?
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, mortgage rates can vary from 10, 10.5 and even 11 per cent over a one-year term. Slight adjustments can probably be made for three or five-year terms. However, those interest rates-Is it possible to have an increase in interest rates? Could there be ups and downs as we had in 1981, unfortunately, when the Government had to intervene through assistance programs for prospective homeowners, again with $3,000 grants? In the Budget and the budgetary Bills, which will follow, we are telling present homeowners, this is quite important-as well as future homeowners that they will he provided with some sort of mortgage insurance or guarantee and that their mortgage rates will be protected. This means that any individual or young couple who wants to build a house and get a mortgage will be assured of some stability in his mortgage payments on the condition that he pays 1.5 per cent of the mortgage up to a maximum of $1,050 for this protection. Accordingly, contractors can promote new residential construction by telling these future homeowners: "With the program implemented by the Canadian Government, you get protection as you will be sure of the amount of your mortgage payments." Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, you could borrow for 25 or 30 years at 6 per cent. What a security this gave homeowners! There are still some of them around today, although not too many. Of course, the economic situation was not the same and interest rates were not what they are today. There have been many changes and fluctuations in our economic system. What kind of security did these homeowners have, these people who may have been our parents or our friends and who had their homes built in 1965 or in 1968 and who were able to borrow for such long periods?
People who are now provided with this protection will be able to say: "Then, let us build our house!" The construction industry is a great producer of jobs, as it was recognized by the Canadian Government in its June 1982 Budget, as it was recognized in its April 1983 Budget and as it is recognized once again in the Budget brought down last week. This is a job-creating industry. Thanks to the protection given to homeowners, we will be witnessing a remarkable sequence of events. First, the builder gets a contract and he then hires people to
February 22, 1984

build the house. This might seem to be rather simplistic but this is really what happens. The contractor therefore hires five, ten, 15 or 20 people, something he would not do if he did not have a contract. In addition, when he buys building materials, this causes the building supplies retailer to hire more people. There is also the tradesmen involved in the construction itself, such as the people who lay the foundations, as well as the people in the various trades, who are very important. In this industry, especially in Quebec, workers need certification cards. However, many of them are available and willing to work. They are just waiting for such an opportunity.
The document lists the main advantages of this provision. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enumerate them very briefly. First, there will be protection and security against excessive increases in mortgage rates. Second, borrowers' rights will be strengthened. Third, a wider choice of mortgage instruments. Fourth, a more flexible mortgage market. Fifth, greater stability in mortgage costs, andfinally, fewer risks in taking out a mortgage.
Equally important, these proposals have not been restricted to one type of housing. We have tried to cover the entire industry so that more Canadians can take advantage of this program. Consequently, more construction workers will find jobs in their own field and earn good wages. We know that in the construction area, wages are rather attractive and that workers in that sector can do well.
To what group of individuals would that protection apply? We are told that it would apply to the principal residence including single and semi-detached houses, condominiums, mobile homes, the unit occupied by the owner in a duplex or an appartment building.
Mr. Speaker, we wanted to address the whole housing situation. I think that this series of opportunities is really extraordinary for people who say: "I cannot afford a $45,000 or $50,000 house, but I would like to buy a mobile home. I have just begun to work. I may get satisfactory wages for my one year of experience but I cannot borrow to build such a house." Many Canadians are in that situation or could say: "Well, I would rather buy a duplex or part of a duplex or a mobile home." Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of mobile home construction in the Beauce area. Companies who make those units are large and thriving. They will benefit from this program and so will the constituency of Bellechasse where a lot of household electrical appliances are manufactured. There have been many programs aimed at taking over appliance firms to keep them in business. They will now reap the spin-off benefits in various ridings. I would like to say a few words about the houses in Schefferville, although it may be a somewhat peculiar problem. As my colleague has said, the federal Government is paying to have those houses move so that they can be used by others.
In fact, what I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that we cover the whole range of possibilities in the construction
The Budget-Mr. Dubois
sector. Hence, we cover the low income earners. Mr. Speaker, one could argue that as far as mobile homes are concerned, some models can be quite sophisticated and command stiff prices. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if people need or want houses of this type in a wide range of sizes and prices, that's fine. Mobile homes are factory made and are one kind of very decent housing. This means that low income earners can actually buy them and benefit from this guaranteed protection, which does not apply only to new houses. For these reasons, I believe we really help home owners, we help people who are facing tough times and cannot meet increases. This applies to everybody since first mortgages will be eligible. As for second mortgages ... Of course, lower ranking mortgages and so-called vendor take-back mortgages will not be eligible, except that it will be possible for people renegotiating their mortgage. What it says is how to proceed to secure this mortgage protection; the fee will be 1 'h per cent of the amount of the mortgage to be protected up to a maximum of $1,050. And how will the program work? Well, the booklet fully describes the situation. What is important also is that, as mentioned in this very useful booklet, the program will pay three-quarters of any increases in monthly payments resulting from a rise of more than 2 percentage points in the mortgage rate. In effect, there will be a 2 per cent deductible.
Therefore, what is important-some figures are quoted-is the relevant amounts. What is also important in connection with job creation and the homeowners whose situation has changed and who want to make prepayments ... There existed perhaps some problems resulting from the legislation dealing with interests and some adjustments were needed. And some mortgage contracts had a variety of prepayment penalty provisions which was also a source of problems. It is a well known fact that due to inflationary pressures and the economic crisis, interest rates had increased significantly-
Canadians who, at one time, had taken out a mortgage for a number of years found themselves compelled to renew their mortgage and were faced with increases in interest rates as high as 16, 16'/2, 17 or even 20 per cent. To some of them, this situation caused real hardship. Now, the interest rate situation has considerably improved, although prepayment problems still exist. If we had not made any change, these homeowners would have been unable to prepay their mortgage without paying exorbitant penalties.
I suggest that what we intend to do about the mortgage guarantee plan is important, Mr. Speaker, for the small wage earner, the worker, and also the builder who will create jobs, as he is a very important source of employment in that industry.
In the little time I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a subject matter of particular interest to my constituency, namely the subject of tax assistance to farmers, the roll-over of farm capital gains. We know that over the years,

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Dubois
some farmers have accumulated capital, although they may not have had enough cash each year to contribute to an RRSP, a retirement savings plan. Or if they did, it may have been for smaller amounts than other taxpayers.
Clearly, there have always been farmers which were very well off. As in any other area of economic activity, there are people with smaller assets amounting to the capital accumulated in their farm, which they could, so to speak cash in immediately if they decided to sell. And this is why over the years, they were able to amass capital without contributing to as RRSP because, for the better or for the worse, they were living off their farm. Their financial situation was stable, but in a way they managed to balance their budget thanks to what they could get from their land but did not necessarily have enough cash to contribute to a retirement savings plan.
But when they sold, it became very important for them to be allowed to deduct the $120,000 in capital gains on the sale of their property and to invest it into a retirement savings plan. This deduction is allowed for a ten-year period, from 19721983, provided one has ownership on December 31, 1983.
In other words, for that gain to be transferable to a RRSP the farm property must have been held by the taxpayer or his or her spouse on December 31, 1983.
So much for the agricultural sector and since last Wednesday, I have already received many comments, Mr. Speaker, from farmers who welcome this change regarding a RRSP.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I think this is a Budget which, regardless of what some may say, provides for stability, and continuity and that it contains some job-creation proposals that will reassure many people, including farmers and small businessmen, and will allow our economy to sustain its growth and forge ahead so to speak, as it did a few years ago, but in fits and starts since then.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member concerning capital gains. I was also interested in the comments made by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) the other day when he stated that farmers would now have $240,000 tax free. I tried to question him on that but was unable to get the floor.
Before asking my question, I might just say that a farmer's farm is his pension. He has no other pension. He works 20, 30, 40 or 50 years building up an asset, pays taxes all through the years, and when he gets to retirement he expects to be able to sell the farm to get enough money to buy a home in the city and live comfortably-not extravagantly-in his usual way for the rest of his life while looking after his wife and family if he has one. The regulations say "up to $120,000", which makes me wonder why the Hon. Member for Sudbury said that every farmer would have $240,000.
I do not expect the Hon. Member to answer for the Hon. Member for Sudbury, but I do want to ask whether this $120,000 is based on the price of the land or the size of the
farm. If a quarter section farmer with 160 acres sells it for $200 an acre, that does not come anywhere near $120,000. A half section farmer with 320 acres sells for $200 an acre, which is a pretty good price in most places, which would be $64,000. Leaving aside expenses, $32,000 of that would be subject to capital gains taxes. What proportion of this $ 120,000 is he now going to be able to get tax free?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, regarding the question about my colleague the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), I must indicate at the outset I have not read his speech. Therefore, I am obviously not in a position to comment on what he said. All I can say about the situation of that particular person is that he deducted over $60,000 . .. You have to remember the actual amount depends on the number of years he has owned his farm. If he owned his farm between 1972 and 1983 and he really wants to put in $10,000 at that time in order to get the maximum benefit, he will be able to do it. I am aware that he could not claim $120,000 if he sold his farm for $60,000 but according to the notes I have here, he could claim as much as $10,000 multiplied by the number of years he has owned his business. So, according to the document, half of the taxable capital gain in such case would be $10,000 multiplied by the number of years between 1972 and 1983, if he has been a full time farmer during that period. That is the way I understand it and I stand to be corrected, but as far as the special deduction is concerned in the case mentioned by the hon. member, half of the taxable capital gain would be $10,000 multiplied by the number of years which have elapsed between 1972 and 1983. As far as the rates are concerned, there may be other explanations. Now, if my colleague is not fully satisfied with the answer I gave him, perhaps we could check with the Finance Department and obtain an answer. I would gladly send him a letter to that effect. I agree with him when he says that farmers who live and work for several years on a farm . . . My father was a farmer and I know that during several years he worked from dawn to dusk, and this is his only pension! I see that he is nodding his head meaning he agrees with me on that subject.. . and there was an opportunity there to help them.
Now, to answer more specifically, I can assure him that I will get in touch with the Finance Department in order to find out, based on the example he gave us, what these $60,000 will give him as exemptions under this program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer).


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, usually, as do other Members of this House, I express my pleasure at being able to speak because I still consider it a great honour. But on this particular occasion my feeling is what I may describe as a sense of profound discouragement. I have not
February 22, 1984

been here that long, only about four years, but year after year, Budget after Budget, nothing ever seems to happen. In the last four or five years this country has experienced high interest rates, decreased productivity, high unemployment, and almost every economic ill over the last 30 or 40 years. Every time the Budget has come forth they have said it will clarify and solve our problems. However, Budget after Budget things just get worse.
By way of example, let me point to one item, the deficit. The annual deficit is predicted in this Budget to go to over $30 billion. That figure is so high 1 really do not understand it. Four years ago I fought an election and my campaign was based on a deficit the Liberal Government had left behind of some $10 billion. That figure was so high 1 am sure a lot of people did not understand it and could not appreciate how big it was. It is now three times that much.
We are told again this year the Government is going to reduce the Budget. We have been told that every year, and every year the Budget goes up. When we criticize the size of the Budget, the Government says the United States has a predicted deficit of $180 billion this year. Our population is only one-tenth of theirs. In relative terms that would mean if they had a deficit in their Budget the size of ours, their deficit would be close to $300 billion. Therefore you can see how badly off we are in this country.
Canadians are now realizing more and more that no government, business or family can continue year after year to spend annually more than it takes in. At the moment the Government has to borrow a third more-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the House please?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How long can this Government survive? Another area which this document fails to discuss satisfactorily is unemployment. It has been said before and will be said again that in most areas this Budget does nothing. It is discouraging, Mr. Speaker. I am discouraged and I am sure the Canadian public is discouraged. At the moment over 11 per cent of the Canadian labour force is unemployed. In my province of British Columbia that figure rises to over 13 per cent. In my constituency of Okanagan North the rate is almost 18 per cent, and those are only the ones who register. Employment officers there tell me the figure is probably far higher than that and from my travels around my constituency I believe them to be correct.
Another serious aspect of this problem is that many of those unemployed are young people aged 16 to 24. That is the really serious problem. It is very hard and discouraging for a young person, who may just have gotten married, to get out of university and find that he cannot find a job for the first, second, third and fourth month, and still cannot find a job after a year. How long is that very fragile marriage going to last? That is the type of thing we are seeing across the country. A whole generation is going to be lost unless we find jobs for our young people.
The Budget-Mr. Dantzer
Nowhere in this Budget is anything but gloom and doom indicated. The Budget indicates that over the next four years this horrendous figure is expected to remain pretty stable and unemployment will not decrease very much, even though the Budget takes a very optimistic view of the economic conditions which the country will face over the next few years. That optimistic view is not supported by many experts. We are dancing on a very thin line here, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Minister's predictions in this filed are correct and that the economy does continue to grow and expand.
In January of 1980 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was seeking election. He said in Toronto: "We have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security". After listening to four years of the Government's dismal programs I say those are some programs, some opportunities and some security. We have deficits rising, unemployment rising, and indeed in this last month we have inflation rising. Nothing in the Budget does anything to solve any of these very severe problems.
I could continue to speak about deficits, unemployment, interest rates, lack of consumer demand or the poor productivity in our country which was not addressed in this Budget. These are all essential issues which have been addressed before in this debate and will be addressed again. It is apparent that the Budget has failed to answer any of these difficult problems in the country. However, I wish to spend some of my time tonight talking about some social issues this Budget attempts to address.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) yesterday spoke of pensions. During her address she said she looked upon pensions as the next important issue which we in Canada will have to discuss, address and solve in the area of social affairs. Mr. Speaker, I hope she means by that the next big social issue is the one after the unemployment issue. I believe she made a Freudian slip and really reflected that the Government thinks unemployment is not very important. Certainly the Budget would indicate that. It only allocated an additional $150 million to solve the problem of unemployment. I think that in her statement she reflected the importance which the Government puts on unemployment.
I will be the first to admit, since I have been deeply involved in the study of pensions over the last four years, that pensions are a very important problem. I would like to remind that Minister and the Government that unemployment is the first key social issue we have to solve. There will be no money for pensions or any social services if we cannot solve the unemployment problem. You cannot split up a pie if there is no pie to split up. The Minister and the Government should recognize that and then go on to the pension issue.
In the Budget the Government did make one small, tentative step toward solving the pension issue which they have debated at length for the last four, five, six or seven years. I would like to be positive. I would like to give the devil his due. These are good steps. They are the beginning of what I hope will be a continuation of policies which will increase and strengthen our pension program.

February 22, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Dantzer
In 1981 we had the first Canadian pension conference. About 18 months ago we had the green paper. About a year ago a task force on pensions was set up which reported to Parliament just before Christmas. As a result of that I am glad to see the Government has acted in certain specific, limited areas. Under employer-sponsored plans under federal jurisdiction they propose several things which I think are very good and I commend them for it. The Government has indicated it will look seriously at amending that particular federal Pension Benefits Standards Act to make sure pensions under that
jurisdiction will have some inflation protection. They have proposed 60 per cent of the increase in the CPI to a maximum of 8 per cent. The task force also proposed inflation protection. They proposed that inflation protection should be the CPI minus 2.5 per cent.
I would like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 23, 1984