1985-05-28

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-52, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that there have been negotiations among the House Leaders on this particular Bill and I think, Sir, if you seek agreement, you will find that the House is in agreement to move this Bill to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Merrithew, moves that Bill C-52, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the Bill will be referred to Committee of the Whole. The motion is now debatable.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate on Bill C-52, I would like to express my real thanks to Hon. Members of the Opposition Parties for their agreement to expedite this Bill through all stages at one sitting of the House and to limit the time that we spend in debating this very important measure.
I am pleased to introduce debate on Bill C-52 which, as Hon. Members will know, contains two very important amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These amendments if passed into law would do two things. The first amendment would freeze the UI premium rate for 1986 and the second would extend the variable entry requirement for a period of 19 months. I see that my friends opposite are nodding in agreement with that. I know that it has been of concern to them and I am pleased to be able to introduce these measures today.
I think we all agree that the unemployment insurance system plays a very, very vital role in our social security network. Its benefits replace lost income. Those benefits help maintain the stability of local economies of communities and indeed help develop jobs for people in those communities.
During each of the last three years, the years of the recession, the unemployment insurance program provided basic income protection for something like three million Canadians each year. The ability of individual Canadians to meet the basic requirements of food and shelter while looking for another job is maintained through the unemployment insurance network.
For some time, as I am sure Hon. Members will have noticed, there has been a great deal of discussion about the unemployment insurance fund. Many different aspects of this program have been criticized and others have been praised, but there has been discussion from one coast to the other about the unemployment insurance fund. Whether it is business or labour organizations, interest groups or whatever, they are asking if the program is fair, if it is efficient, if it impedes the development of new jobs or if it does enough to provide unemployed Canadians with new opportunities. These are some of the questions that have been raised.
As a Government, we clearly recognize that unemployment insurance is a cornerstone at the base of our social security system. It is supported primarily by premiums from individual businesses and their employees. This program as such belongs in the most direct sense of any program we have, to the Canadian people. The role of the Government is largely one of a trustee whose role is to manage this public fund on behalf of Canadians. Therefore, any basic re-examination of the fund demands consultation and discussion with the people who really own the fund. The Government recognizes that and it recognizes as well that many Canadians feel that the time has come for the Unemployment Insurance Fund to be re-examined. Canadians have spoken out about this and we agree with them.
I will shortly be announcing the names of members of the special committee who will study the fund and will hold public hearings. That committee will be made up of representatives from business and labour, leading Canadians who will meet and consult with other Canadians across the country. Our commitment is to provide an open forum for debate so that the many varieties of views on this subject can be expressed. This review, I would say, provides a unique opportunity for Canadians to develop a national consensus as to what they want their unemployment insurance fund to do.
5122

May 28, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act
[DOT] (mo)
I have said that it is the workers and the employers who pay for the unemployment insurance fund. In 1984, the UI Program cost $11.2 billion. To finance those expenditures, employers and employees contributed more than $7.5 billion directly into the fund. Bill C-52 proposes to amend the Act to freeze the premium rate at its present level until December 31, 1986. The present level is $2.35 for workers and $3.29 for employers. Those amounts are based on a particular formula. If the formula were allowed to remain in place, without amendment, it would require the Government to raise the premium rate later this year. Employees would probably have to pay as much as $2.60 for every $100 of every worker's insurable earnings. Employers would be required to pay more than that for each employee.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said last Thursday, we will avoid imposing a heavy tax on lower income employees and labour-intensive businesses. Not only will the freezing of the UI premium rate help to give stability to employer-employee costs, it will also remove the burden from both employers and workers; the major shareholders in the unemployment insurance fund. That is one of the amendments which we are bringing forward, to freeze the present premium rate.
We are proposing another amendment, which is more urgent, to extend the variable entry requirement until December 31, 1986. If that amendment were not to pass, as of this Saturday, June 1, the variable entry requirement would expire. That would mean a great many people would be immediately and directly affected.
The VER first came into effect in December 1977. It allows UI claimants to qualify for benefits, based on the difficulty of finding and keeping work. It is based on the unemployment rate in each of the 48 economic regions across the country. The VER recognizes that it is more difficult to find and keep a job in certain parts of Canada than in others. The VER takes into account regional differences and responds to those differences with a formula.
In an economic region with a high level of unemployment, a claimant needs only 10 weeks of insurable work to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. If the VER were allowed to expire this Saturday, all claimants, across the entire country, would require a minimum of 14 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. That would have an immediate impact on approximately 175,000 Canadians. They would face a new kind of hardship. In areas of high unemployment, those individuals would find themselves without work, without pay and unable to qualify for unemployment insurance. Bill C-52 contains an extension to the variable entry requirement to allow the UI Program to continue to respond to regional differences for the next 19 months, until December 31,1986.
Bill C-52 is bringing forward two amendments. First, the extension of the variable entry requirement, which will symbolize Parliament's recognition of the difficulties which many Canadians face in finding work, and second, the decision to freeze the premium rate, which will help Canadians to find
new jobs by removing what could be a potential obstacle to growth. We do not want to create hardship, so we are asking the House to approve the amendments as quickly as possible. The amendments are set out in Bill C-52. I am asking the House to give prompt agreement to the extension of the variable entry requirement and to the freezing of the premium rate until December 31, 1986.
I want to say once again that I appreciate the support and co-operation which has been given to me in bringing this Bill before the House at short notice in order to meet the requirements which are placed on us by a schedule where the variable entry requirement would expire at the end of this week were we not to take these measures.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, I assume that we are in questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. Under Section 35(2), there are no questions or comments.


Bill Rompkey: If there is no time for questions, I would like to make a speech. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is possible if there is agreement with your colleague.


Bill Rompkey: I would just like to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, if I may.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There has been agreement here to have one speaker per party. The official spokesman for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). I believe the agreement is one speaker from each Party.


Mr. Gauthier:: I want to be quite clear about the procedure. Is the Chair going to ask Hon. Members for questions or comments after the Hon. Member's speech? Is there going to be a ten-minute question period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. I must say that under Section 35(2) in the Standing Orders, the first three speakers have 40 minutes. There are no questions or comments. If there is further agreement that we can go on into the 20 minutes, then there are questions or comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I take it, then, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed as agreed to Committee of the Whole and at that time Hon. Members can ask questions of the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is right.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the desire of the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) to leap
May 28, 1985

to his feet to both ask questions and make comments on the Minister's statement. While my Party and I applaud Bill C-52 being brought before the House today in order to ensure that the variable entrance requirement of the Unemployment Insurance Act is extended to December 31, 1986, there is much which has arisen out of the Budget which was brought down last Thursday, for instance, the projections for Atlantic Canada, which Hon. Members from Atlantic Canada, including the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, would like to ask questions about. It is enough to bring any Hon. Member to his feet with a great deal of passion in his desire to ask questions and to solicit some information.
I congratulate the Minister for bringing in Bill C-52, an Act to extend the variable entrance requirement for unemployment insurance benefits and to freeze the premiums which are paid for unemployment insurance, because in doing so, she is following a practice which was initiated in 1977 by a Liberal Government. In 1977, we established the variable entrance requirement because we recognized that the problem and curse of unemployment affects people in different ways and to different degrees. We recognized that while 14 weeks may be an acceptable level of insurable earnings in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits in an area of high economic activity and low unemployment, that same entrance requirement may not be a just requirement in Cape Breton Island, northern Quebec, British Columbia or, indeed, in my own Province of Newfoundland. Therefore, we brought in the variable entrance requirement and every year since 1977, up until this year, a Liberal Minister has stood in his or her place in this House and asked for a one-year extension of that variable entrance requirement.
I congratulate the Minister for standing in her place today on Bill C-52. However, when one recognizes the circumstances this time as opposed to the other occasions when Ministers have asked for an extension, one has to be a little bit more concerned, and for two reasons.
First, there are those of us who are convinced, particularly those from areas of high unemployment like Atlantic Canada, that this Budget is going to exacerbate an already difficult situation. The second reason is that this Minister has announced that a private sector task force, made up of two representatives each from business and labour and one independent chairman, will begin the task in the days and weeks ahead of reviewing the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are those of us who believe that the only reason for such a review, and there are some legitimate questions which can be asked, and the motivation of this Government in having a review is to save money.
The only way to save money is to ensure that less people qualify for unemployment insurance. The Minister pointed out that during the recession we experienced in the early part of the 1980s, up to three million Canadians availed themselves of this program annually. This Government wants to see a lesser number of people availing themselves of a program which
Unemployment Insurance Act
belongs to them and which is there to be taken advantage of in times of difficult and prolonged economic downturn.
The Economic Council of the Atlantic Provinces is a good free enterprise, laissez-faire organization, including businessmen as well as labour, and it has responded to this Budget by applauding the Government for its stated objective of trying to unshackle business and encouraging more investment, but it condemns the Government for not recognizing in this Budget the regional reality of Atlantic Canada. There is no recognition of the very difficult economic straits that these people find themselves in. When a respected organization like APEC says something like that, we in Atlantic Canada can only presume that the unemployment picture is going to get worse.
This Government wants a task force report which will allow it to qualify fewer people for unemployment insurance. The net effect of that on my people in Newfoundland as well as the rest of Atlantic Canada, by the time this process if finished, including the Budget and possible Draconian changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, is to conjure up only one kind of image to describe the sense of desolation and despair which will exist in Atlantic Canada; that is, the sense of despair experienced in Nagasaki the morning after the bomb was dropped. That is about how hopeful our people are going to feel.
This Government wants to change the Unemployment Insurance Act and have fewer people qualify. It wants to save money on the backs of the unemployed. This is the same Government which promised during the election campaign tens and tens of thousands of new jobs.


Mr. Dick:: You got them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We got then, did we? Well, in Newfoundland last June, July and August, unemployment stood at 20 per cent, which is unacceptably high. It stands today at 23.6 per cent. In British Columbia, unemployment stood at 14.9 per cent last September and stands today at 14.8 per cent. They were promised tens and tens of thousands of new jobs. When this Government took office, unemployment in Manitoba stood at 8.8 per cent and stands today at 8.7 per cent. Is that the election promise to which the people of Manitoba responded?
[DOT] (M25)


Paul Wyatt Dick: What is the national average?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The national average is 10.9 per cent. If you want to stand up and applaud that, my friend, I am afraid you are seriously out of touch. We in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Newfoundland, understood the mentality of the Government when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stood in the House and applauded the fact that in the month of April unemployment dropped by three-tenths of one percentage point. That is at the time of year when even nature tries to respond with a burst of new energy. The Prime Minister said that three-tenths of one percentage point was a great reduction in unemployment. I presume the business community would

May 28, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act
try to emulate mother nature and generate a bit more activity as well.
How would you describe a 2.3 per cent increase in unemployment in the Province of Newfoundland if a three-tenths of one percentage point drop nationally was considered a dramatic decrease in the number of unemployed? Webster's dictionary does not contain the words to describe the kind of dramatic increase described by the Prime Minister.
A Budget was tabled last Thursday. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is smiling, but I know that she probably fought the good battle in Cabinet and lost. She is now forced to sit with a smile pinned to her face, to suffer in silence the fact that right wing Thatcher faction of the Conservative Party has won the day. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council said that the Budget of last Thursday fails to provide any recognition of the reality of those regions of the country where the policy of combating economic disparity and promoting regional development is appropriate.
This Budget applies a user-pay concept to those people who choose to live in rural and far-flung geographic areas of the country and expect to have the same services as Canadians in any other part of the country. If you live in Newfoundland and can only receive goods by the CN Marine ferry, you will have to pay for the ferry service. There is no Trans-Canada Highway for Newfoundland. There is no longer equality in providing goods and services for Newfoundland. Most of the goods and services are brought to the island Province of Prince Edward Island by sea. Those who choose to live in P.E.I. will pay the full cost of transportation for goods and services.
That kind of mentality is very frightening to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada. The economic plight of the people of British Columbia is closer to that of Atlantic Canada than to any other part of Canada because their economy has been going downhill for months. The people of those regions do not ask for the status quo. They do not ask for a welfare mentality or a built-in permanent subsidy.
They do ask, however, that until the current infrastructure of the economy is corrected by the provincial and the federal Governments, the federal Government not remove the umbilical cord of UIC, even though people do not want to keep or even acknowledge the UIC umbilical cord which recognizes the seasonal nature of employment and the resource industries in the Atlantic region.
I am pleased to support Bill C-52, as Liberals have supported this notion of recognition of the variable entrance requirements since 1977. We introduced this notion and we applaud the Minister for standing for the seventh or eighth time since 1977 and following the well established and proud traditions of Liberal Governments in recognizing that not all parts of this country are the same when it comes to the requirements for unemployment insurance. Perhaps that is why she is called a red Tory on occasion.
Last Thursday, the Government's saving grace for the people of Cape Breton Island was to close down two heavy water plants, with 600 jobs lost. If one adds the multiplier effect of two jobs for every industrial job lost, at least 1,800 jobs are lost in Cape Breton Island as a result of a stroke of the pen by the Minister. What was the Government's reaction? It sent the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to Cape Breton Island, Glace Bay and Port Hawkes-bury to announce a tax credit.


An Hon. Member:: You don't want it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is the arrogant attitude of the central mentality, "You don't want it?" What is the next word, "You can go to ... ?" That is what you are saying to the people of Cape Breton and you may as well say it out loud since you have told them subtly that they can all go there in a basket.
The Government has neglected to tell the people of Canada that for the last five years there has been a 50 per cent tax credit on manufacturing and processing machinery on the Island of Cape Breton. The Government has simply extended that tax credit to include such things as tourism and services in some selected businesses. The Government has simply extended a program that has already been in place for five years-


Mr. Deans:: It didn't work.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right. As well intentioned as it was, it did not work. However, the Government is using smoke and mirrors to remove 1,800 jobs on the one hand while dressing up a five year old program on the other and telling the people of Cape Breton Island not to worry. It is that type of cruel and unthinking mentality of the administration that frightens me. 1 am disturbed that it would implement such a program so viciously and, second, that it would insult the intelligence of the people of Cape Breton Island by assuming that they would applaud an absolutely sarcastic approach to the very real human conditions in which they find themselves in that area.
We can do without that kind of politics. The Minister would do much better to come clean and tell the people of Cape Breton Island that there will not be a panacea, a tax haven and a stampede of investment that will create a proliferation of jobs for every man, woman and child. The truth would have been better than this insulting replacement for the loss of 1,800 jobs in that hard pressed area of Cape Breton.
The Minister wants to examine unemployment insurance in order to save money. She tells us that the program can be reconsidered because we now have an environment in which more jobs will be created by the private sector. I have been talking to the private sector people in my riding all weekend. They are good Conservative Party supporters. They understand that if up to $200 million is taken from Newfoundland's economy, there is less money to go into the till of those good Conservative Party supporters. Those good Conservative Party supporters, whom I respect, will be out of business. They know that good intentions do not put bread and butter on the table.
May 28, 1985

There is a shock wave in Atlantic Canada that is being felt by Liberals and New Democrats, and there is outrage being expressed by Conservatives who look at this Budget. What benefits does the Budget provide to Atlantic Canada? There is another $60 million cut from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That Department is already operating on a skeleton budget.
The fishery is the primary industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. It is a major industry with forestry in New Brunswick and a major industry with tourism and agriculture in the Province of Prince Edward Island. Yet, $60 million is being slashed from that Department.
The Nielsen document has announced a further streamlining of CN Marine. How can one further streamline a service that is becoming more and more like a cattle-car every day? It cannot be done. Many people visit Atlantic Canada to enjoy the culture, heritage, scenery, the fresh air and saltwater.


Mr. Oostrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member talking about the Budget or Bill C-52?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) has a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about something that the Conservative Party knows nothing about. I am talking about working men and women of this country, the unemployed men and women of this country and a generation of youth who have seen what was hope turned into despair and despair turned into a prospect of spending their lives left out of the economy. That is what this Hon. Member is talking about.
There were further cut-backs to CN Marine. As well, $150 million is being cut from the IRDP. That program was designed to attract business to set up and create jobs in areas of high unemployment. Its purpose was to target dollars in areas of unacceptable high unemployment, where opportunities are few, in an attempt to spread wealth and opportunity throughout this country. However, $150 million is being cut from that program.
The Government will cut $75 million from Transport Canada. Mr. Nielsen has announced, presumably on behalf of Mr. Mazankowski-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has announced on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that from now on airports in Canada will have a policy of being self-sufficient. Those that are not self-sufficient will be turned into municipal airports. That will look good in the North.


Mr. Murphy:: Where is Otto Lang?
Unemployment Insurance Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: In the Hon. Member's area, the Government will turn airports into municipal airports. It will tell the people in the North that they are second class citizens. It will tell people in Atlantic Canada that their airports will no longer have jet carrier status because of the small population base. These communities will be given the gift of a municipal airport. Some gift!
Some $78 million will be cut from job creation and training in the Minister's own Department for this fiscal year. She is presiding over that cut during what she knows is an extremely difficult time for people who are trying to return to the workforce in this country either through retraining or other job opportunities. The Minister tells us about the SEED program during Question Period every second day. That is being denied to the poorest municipalities in this country because they cannot make the cash contribution to take advantage of that program. The Minister will not recognize that reality and deal with it. I advise her now that she should.
Whether or not we like it, and we do not like it, the Atlantic region, the region from where I come, is still a slow growth region. We in Atlantic Canada were looking for a specific recognition of our region's problems. We did not find it. We were looking for stimulus, something that recognized that the level of unemployment in our region was unacceptably high. No one can say that 23.6 per cent of the people of Newfoundland being unemployed or 15 per cent or 16 per cent in the other Atlantic provinces is acceptable, any more than we can accept that in the great Province of British Columbia, a province with natural resources, unemployment today sits at nearly 15 per cent. That is not acceptable either, Mr. Speaker. You do not deal with that kind of problem by reducing the deficit, by taking money out of the regions, or by bringing in a policy that says the Government will save $2 billion in transfer payments to the provinces over the next five years. Saving that $2 billion will hit medical facilities and educational facilities in all provinces, every one.
That is going to be particularly devastating in provinces like British Columbia. Even the northern regions of Ontario will suffer, as well as Atlantic Canada. Provinces have to decide either to tax back that money from their citizens which the federal Government just took away with one hand, or increase user fees, increase premiums on health plans or increase tuition for universities. Those are the options. This Government has by sleight of hand managed to recover $2 billion from the taxpayers, not by taking it directly or by owning up to it, but by passing the burden on to the provinces which have to collect that $2 billion.
The Government will cut $2 billion in health care and education transfer payments to the provinces over the next five years. The provincial governments will have to try to make up the loss. The Government does not have the courage to identify itself as the author of a reduction in the quality of education and health care services in Canada. I tell the Minister that we will support this Bill and will see it through today, but the

May 28, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act
notion of extending the variable entrance requirement to December 31, 1986 is a foolhardy one.
The Minister knows that the report of the task force on unemployment and the accompanying Government legislation that will flow from it will not be back in this House by December 31, 1986. The task is important. It is complex. It is difficult. I wish her task force the very best with its work. I can assure the Minister and the members of the task force that the variable entrance requirement, this concept of recognizing that Canada is made up of different regions, had better be front and centre. Whatever legislation flows out of the task force report, it had better be front and centre in whatever report is provided to the Minister by her advisers. If it is not, speaking for this Party, I can tell the Minister that new legislation will not receive easy passage in this place.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) for having provided the New Democratic Party's critic on the unemployment insurance program with advance notice and discussion with respect to the introduction of Bill C-52.
My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) took a great deal of credit for the variable entrance requirement. He said the Minister was right that in 1977 the variable entrance requirement was introduced in the great tradition of the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party could not deal with unemployment in regions across this country. I would not think any Member in this House would stand up and take credit for that. After all the years of Liberal rule, the Liberals were never able to deal with eliminating the regional disparities which have aggravated unemployment in areas such as Atlantic Canada, Nickel Belt, and the northern prairie provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I do not think it is to the Hon. Member's credit to take credit for a variable entrance requirement. I would rather not see that in existence because it would mean that we are coming to grips with our unemployment problem.
Bill C-52 provides for two things. First, the variable entrance requirement is continued for 19 months. This variable entrance requirement reflects the unemployment rate in the 48 economic regions of our country. The higher the unemployment rate, the lower the number of qualified weeks for collecting unemployment insurance.
Why are we faced with this rush today to put this Bill through all stages? After all, if the Bill is not approved today and if it is protracted as of Saturday, the Minister is quite right that the variable entrance requirement comes to an end and 14 weeks becomes the norm for everyone starting June 4. We know June 1 is the deadline. I raised this matter in committee with the Minister four weeks ago, and I raised it in this House. I was buffaloed by answers and told to wait. This created a great deal of tension and stress. Many groups, trade unions and unemployed help centres, which deal with the
unemployed on a day to day basis, have been contacting me, and I am sure they have been contacting the Minister's office.
Why was this matter not dealt with earlier? I suspect it was because the Minister was in a struggle in Cabinet. There were those Neanderthals in the Cabinet wanting to chop and slice the Unemployment Insurance Program. I have the suspicion that the Minister did a survey to convince the more recalcitrant members of the Cabinet that the damage contemplated by certain elements in the Cabinet with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Program would create great havoc. From the financial documents, the Budget of last week it is obvious the Government does not intend to deal with unemployment in a targetted way. Unemployment next year is projected to be 10.3 per cent and, since you cannot deal with bringing down unemployment, you ought not to tamper with those instruments in place to deal with the fall-out victims from the lack of any kind of economic strategy to create employment.
The Bill also provides for freezing premium rate levels. People may not be aware and new Members to this House may not be aware, of the history since the present Act came into effect in 1971 and incorporated many provisions such as maternity benefits and sick benefits. People may not be aware that at that time the Government would pick up the cost of unemployment over 3 per cent. The Unemployment Insurance Program of 1971 was designed so that the premiums from employers and employees would pick up the cost of the program with up to 3 per cent unemployment. We all know what happened. Unemployment started to rise beyond 3 per cent. The Government was picking up larger and larger amounts of the cost of carrying unemployment insurance.
That was during the Liberal administration. Then, there were amendments to the Act with respect to the 6 per cent figure. We know what happened thereafter-unemployment rose above the 6 per cent level. The Government then had to pick up larger and larger amounts, which resulted in a move to the sliding scale. That did not solve the problem either.
We then saw the final change which set the employer/ employee premiums at a rate which would pick up the cost of the program. This did not include fisherpersons' unemployment insurance costs, nor did it include the extended benefits. The accumulated cost is now some $5 billion, with the employer and employee carrying the brunt of unemployment insurance costs in the country.
The Minister has spoken about consultation. She has spoken of this blue ribbon task force which has been established to study the Unemployment Insurance Program. The Minister says there will be consultation. Of course, Mr. Speaker, one has to judge people by their actions.
On November 8, two very important changes came about with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Program. These changes hit the unemployed the hardest. The first change dealt with the use of severance pay and holiday pay in the calculation of unemployment insurance. The other change dealt with
May 28, 1985

pension income being considered as earned income, which would be used in the calculation of unemployment insurance benefits.
That was literally a shot out of the blue on November 8. There was no advance warning whatsoever. There was no consultation. Consultation started after the fact. These provisions were to take effect December 31, 1984. We, in this Party, along with our friends and allies in the trade union movement, and together with various groups in the country who represent the unemployed, must take some credit for having forced this Government, and the Minister, to back up and change the effective date for the pension arrangement provision until January 1, 1986, and the effective date for the severance pay provision until April 1, 1985.


Mr. Nystrom:: You had to push here.


John R. Rodriguez: You always have to push Tories and pull Liberals.
This is the consultation the Government has practised with respect to two important aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Program. One took some $60 million away from the unemployed. The other took some $90 million away from the unemployment insurance scheme. There was not one iota of consultation with respect to these provisions. Indeed, when consultation was undertaken at the economic conference, we circulated a petition against the severance pay and pension provisions being used in the calculation of unemployment insurance. The vast majority of participants at the economic conference said the idea was wrong-headed and that it should not have been carried out. Yet, this Government, with its blinders on, has put its head down in its bull-headed way and has proceeded to carry out the legislation.
Members opposite can shake their heads and chuckle. The fact of the matter is that the application of severance pay to unemployment insurance is cruel and unfair. People through no fault of their own, have had their jobs eliminated; some companies have even had to close down. In this regard, we have the Iron Ore Company of Canada. We have the experiences with respect to Cyprus Anvil in Faro. There are umpteen examples. I have been forwarding information with respect to this matter to the Minister. Each one asks for relief from the provisions of April 1, 1985.
As I promised the Minister, we will allow this Bill to go ahead today. However, it seems to me that the Minister should keep clearly in mind that this task force which is being set up to study unemployment insurance matters should take its time to travel to different parts of the country and listen to people who cannot afford to come to Ottawa. These are people who do not have the financial backing which would allow them to present fancy briefs. It is important that this task force get out to the nether regions of the country in order to listen to what the people have to say. I do not mean to say that we approve of variable entrance requirements.
Yesterday, in Winnipeg, was inaugurated the Association of Single Industry Towns. It seems to me we deal with disadvantaged areas of the country and single industry towns only when
Unemployment Insurance Act
they are in a state of crisis. This was the case with respect to Cape Breton. We do not seem to have developed any type of strategy to deal with the situations as they arise or, alternatively, prevent these towns from becoming single industry towns.
In that regard, I have suggested to the Minister that she look at the situation in the same way which our Party has undertaken to look at it. We have put forward suggestions with respect to the role her Department can play in alleviating many of the problems experienced before disaster strikes.
The Minister will be receiving shortly the report on northwestern Ontario, which deals with the Hemlo, Manitouwadge and Marathon mines. These are communities which are looking to the future. In order to prevent what took place in western Labrador and Faro, hopefully the Minister will work on her colleagues in the same assiduous fashion in which she worked on them to prevent the destruction of the Unemployment Insurance Program.
I give the Minister credit for that. When she phoned me with respect to this matter, the first question I asked her was, "How did you do it?" I hope the same resistance will be applied until we have put in place the type of full employment policies which we should have. I hope that the Unemployment Insurance Program will not be tampered with. We should not be creating hardships for anyone. There is enough stress for everyone to deal with in terms of unemployment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-52, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Chairman, I have no cause to delay the Bill, but I do want to ask some questions of the Minister. Of course I am pleased to see that the premium rate is being frozen and I am pleased to see that the variable entrance requirement is being extended to December 1986. However, I would like to ask the Minister why she is not extending it indefinitely.
Reviews worry me and words like "rationalization', and "cost-effectiveness" worry me becaue they have come to mean bad news for the Atlantic area. I would like to point out to the Minister something she already knows, and that is that we can review as much as we like, but there is no way that fishermen along the Northeast coast of Newfoundland or the coast of Labrador can fish for more than 10 weeks of the year. That is a fact of life. On the other hand, there are really no alternatives. That is frustrating and something with which various Governments have tried to deal, but it is a reality and a fact of life. We can review the situation as much as we like, but unless we reduce it to eight weeks like it was before, we really cannot do much about it now.

May 28, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act
1 am worried about a review that will look into variable entrance requirements if they are only extended to December 1986. There are people in some parts of the country who, through no fault of their own, cannot make any other kind of arrangement. Why does the Minister not simply indicate that we will extend the variable entrance requirement indefinitely?
I would like to remind the Minister that the other day, she announced that between $5 million and $6 million would go to people who are affected by the ice along the Labrador coast. I must compliment her for taking that measure. However, this measure has been taken for the last several years. It seems to have become a fixed experience. In light of that, I am wondering why we cannot make an immediate amendment to the Act so that it will do what has been suggested by a number of people, including myself, and that is to extend unemployment insurance for fishermen until such time as the season starts.
In terms of consultation on this matter, the Minister has already heard from the fishermen's union in Newfoundland. I do not know if she has heard from the Government of Newfoundland, but she has certainly heard from us, and I suspect that she has heard from other members of the fishing community as well. We have all indicated that we would like to see that particular measure taken because of the reasons I gave earlier. In some parts of the country, it is just not possible to fish for any longer than 10 weeks, and in some parts of the country it is impossible to begin fishing until a certain time of the year, yet there are some fishermen who had to go without benefits because of circumstances that occurred through no fault of their own.
Is the Minister prepared to bring this measure in now without consultation? The consultation has already been done. I have been looking at this matter since 1972 when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. At that time, we looked at ways and means of having alternate programs for fishermen. The matter has bedevilled every Government since that time, and perhaps even before that time.
There does not appear to be an alternative to the unemployment insurance scheme. We looked at a price-support scheme and we looked at an income-support scheme. This has bedevilled every Fisheries Minister that has looked at the matter. Unemployment insurance seems to be the only scheme that works. In view of that and in view of the fact that we are now embarking on another round of consultation, I would ask the Minister, in light of the suggestions that have already been made, if she is prepared to bring in an amendment now that would see unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen extended until such time as the fishing season begins.
Will the Minister see that Labrador is included in the present provision that she has made for extending the unemployment insurance benefits until the ice goes out? As she will know and as her officials will tell her, Labrador fishermen are excluded from the announcement she made last week.
If the Minister is determined to make this review and have this round of consultation, will she ensure that on the panel that she is putting together there is a representative from the Province of Newfoundland? Would she give an undertaking
that that representative would be a spokesperson for the fishing community? Indeed, would she go so far as to appoint an active fisherman on that committee or indeed, possibly even a fisherwoman? There are a number of women who are engaged in the fishing industry in Newfoundland right at the catching level. They are in the boats with their husbands and the other men. There are such people who are involved in the business aspect and even in the labour aspect of the fishing industry in Newfoundland.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to a province that I suspect will be more affected by this measure than any other that on this committee there will be a representative from that province and that that representative will be someone who is actively engaged in the fishing industry at the primary level? If at all possible, and I can make some recommendations to the Minister, will she appoint to that committee a woman who is actively engaged in that process? Perhaps the Minister could respond to those four questions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to the questions put by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and as well to thank other Members who have contributed to this debate. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador raised several questions. I will try to deal with them seriatim.
The first question the Hon. Member asked was why we did not extend the variable entry requirements indefinitely rather than for the 19 months that we are proposing. It has been the normal practice to extend this legislation for a one-year period. We have gone beyond that by extending it for a year and a half. This coincides with the period of time we think will be required for the committee conducting the review of the unemployment insurance fund to provide their recommendations to the Government and for the Government to bring those recommendations before Parliament. I anticipate that we will be able to deal with this issue among others by that time. We should be able to see what the requirements should be and whether they should be extended indefinitely or whether there should be more of a variation, as was suggested by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, who suggested that it be extended not on a continuing basis, but for the period of time that unemployment exists at a high level in certain regions of the country.
The end goal that we all have in mind is the possibility of doing away with this measure, not because it is not necessary in times of stress, but because employment in those areas will have developed to a point at which that measure is no longer necessary as a safeguard. These things will be taken into consideration during the review. If at the end of 19 months progress has not been sufficient, then obviously this measure can be considered once again and can be brought before the House for another extension, whether for a definite period of time or an indefinite period of time.
The second question raised by the Hon. Member was whether or not there can be an immediate amendment to extend to fishermen and fisherwomen payments until the fishing season can commence each year. He went back over the history of
May 28, 1985

this particular measure and indicated that it looks like it is becoming a normal practice. He said that ice conditions are generally such each year that an additional payment has to be made and, therefore, we should take that into consideration when looking at a regular extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Again, I think this is something the committee looking at the Unemployment Insurance Act can review, and it can offer its recommendations on this measure.
I would point out that although the practice of paying a supplementary benefit directly from government revenues and not from the unemployment insurance fund has been utilized from time to time, in the last 11 years it has only been used on three occasions. It was used in 1974, in 1984 and again this year. Of course, it depends on weather and ice conditions, which may not be the same every year. I can assure the Hon. Member that I am very cognizant of ice conditions on the East Coast of Canada, having lived with them for much of my life. I know how ice conditions can impact, not just on the fishing industry, but on many other industries. For the present time, we have brought in a supplementary payment for this year. Where we go from there could depend on the recommendations which are made by the unemployment insurance review committee.
The Hon. Member also asked if the fishing industry in Labrador could be included in the present provision, that is the payments for the supplementary benefits. As the Hon. Member knows, it is included as of June 1, which is the normal date for operations to commence in that part of the country. That is taken into account in the payments which will be made in 1985.
The final question concerned the make-up of the committee which will review the unemployment insurance fund and whether it could have a representative from the fishing community in Newfoundland. I listened to the Hon. Member's representation. The persons who will be taking on the responsibility for that review have not yet been decided upon. I recognize not just the fishing interests of Newfoundland, but, in particular, the position of Newfoundland and its people vis-a-vis the unemployment insurance fund and the impact which it has on the over-all economy. I hope that any committee will be very aware that Newfoundland has more of an interest in what is being done in this regard than any other province. I would hope that the members of the committee would not only be aware of the special requirements of the fishermen and women in Newfoundland, but also of the total impact which any changes would have on the Province of Newfoundland. I cannot give the Hon. Member the assurance that a particular individual will be named to the committee, but I am sure that members of the committee will seriously take into consideration the special needs of Newfoundland.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, as the Bill proposes to freeze the premium rate levels for employers and employees, can the Minister tell the House if there is a cost overrun on that part of the Unemployment Insurance Program? From where will
Unemployment Insurance Act
the extra money come? Will it be charged to the cumulative deficit in the unemployment insurance fund? I would suggest that it should come from the general revenues of the country. As it is freezing the contributions of employers and employees,
I think the general pot should take the responsibility for the overrun. While the gentleman who is assisting the Minister is looking up that answer, maybe I could give a further explanation of my suggestion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. When the Hon. Member posed his question, I was handed a note about another matter and I did not get the gist of the first part of the question. However, I gather he wants to know whether or not the cumulative deficit will be absorbed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If I am not correct, perhaps he could repeat the question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the contributions of the employer and the employee are supposed to carry the Unemployment Insurance Program, except for the extended benefit and the fisherpersons' unemployment insurance. At the moment, if the cost of the program goes up-with the exception of the extended benefit and the fisherpersons' unemployment insurance-the premiums are adjusted accordingly to take care of the cost. However, if we freeze the premiums which are paid by employers and employees and the cost goes up, what will pick up the extra costs? I am suggesting to the Minister that it might come of general revenues rather than adding it to the total deficit of the unemployment insurance fund.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I will take the Hon. Member's suggestion as a representation. However, the way that the deficit is now borne-that is, the deficit over and above what employers and employees pay-is that it is distributed equally. My projection, considering the revenues which now come from the payments, is that the deficit will begin to decrease and will continue to do so. That is based on the revenues which are presently coming in from both employers and employees.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, why did we need to freeze the premiums of employers and employees? If the Minister's projections show that the money which is presently coming in takes care of the cost of running the program, why was it necessary to have a freeze clause in Bill C-52?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the reason it was frozen was that under the formula now in the Act, it would automatically have increased to $2.60 for every $100 of insurable earnings. That increase would have to be paid by the employees and, of course, a larger increase would have to be paid by the employer. Yes, that certainly would have begun to reduce the deficit, but it would have placed a much heavier burden on the individuals concerned, whether they be workers or employers. We view the projection from the present rate as being able to begin to reduce the deficit to which the Hon. Member has referred. However, automatically jacking up the

May 28, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act
payments and trying to arrive at an elimination of the deficit sooner was not the way in which we felt we should proceed at this time.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could clarify one of the answers which she gave to me. Could she double-check to make certain that it relates to the extension of unemployment insurance benefits in Labrador? Last week she announced that a special amount of money had been previously made available for the same reason. However, I thought she said a minute ago that Labrador fishermen who were receiving unemployment insurance would receive those payments as of June 1. That was not my understanding in talking with her officials.
1 wonder if the Minister would like to clarify that for the record so that we know exactly when fisherpersons in Labrador would be eligible for these unemployment insurance benefits? As the Minister can appreciate, the seasons open at different times in different places. There is not one date when the season opens. The Department of Fisheries has set various opening dates. The reality is that although people on the Island of Newfoundland qualify for these benefits, the people in Labrador do not, possibly because their season might open at a different time. Both Newfoundland and Labrador suffer from the same phenomenon of ice problems around the coast. Would the Minister make doubly sure of exactly when the fishermen in Labrador qualify for those benefits this year?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Hon. Member that my understanding with regard to opening dates is that exactly the same practice will be followed as was used last year. Officials at Treasury Board informed the Department that this would go into effect as it did last year, and last year the beginning date for payments for people in Labrador was June 1.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment and then some questions for the Minister. My comment basically concerns the fact that the procedure we are going through at this time really does not represent a good parliamentary practice. I remember when the Liberal Government used to rush in with legislation at the last minute. The Conservatives, when they were in opposition, and the New Democratic Party, would agree to quick passage of the legislation because a deadline was coming up, and we were quite rightfully criticized by various groups who were concerned with the legislation.
It is of concern to me that just a week before the existing legislation comes to an end, we are extending that legislation without going through the proper parliamentary procedures. I happen to be a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I see the chairperson of that committee is in the House. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is also on that committee. Normally, legislation of this nature would be introduced in time so that it could go before the full committee for clause by clause study. Groups who are concerned with the legislation would have a chance to make
presentations and unemployed people from the various economic regions of this country would have a chance to explain how the legislation affects them. They would have a chance to explain some of the problems they have encountered because the rates have changed over a period of time, although their unemployed status has not.


Mr. Manly:: And it would have given Tory back-benchers something to do.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It may also have been a very educational procedure for some of the new Tory back-benchers to understand how this legislation actually works. I understand we are rushing this Bill through in order to benefit the people who are affected by the variable entrance requirement, but my point is that there are a lot of people who have concern with this legislation who are not going to have the opportunity to appear before a Commons committee and, by the same token, we in the Commons are not going to have an opportunity to really examine the legislation in the depth which is necessary.
I would like to give two other examples of how rushing through things have hurt people, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The indication in the November 8 statement with respect to how severance pay and pension benefits were going to be considered under the UIC program was, with almost no consultation.
The community of Lynn Lake in my riding is facing a mine closure this year, about which I previously spoke to the Minister. The people in that community woke up November 9 and found that the rules of the game had changed. They had studied the rules which were in existence before the Minister of Finance introduced his economic statement of November 8. They knew that their mine was closing and they thought they understood what the rules of the game were. All of a sudden on November 8 this Government changed the rules, and that is going to affect these people. People working in the mine who are going to be laid off and people who are going to lose their teaching jobs, and so on, will have a difficult enough time facing their own economic future without the rules being changed, and it was done without them having any chance to have any input into those changes. Again we are not allowing at this time for that type of input.
I can also say the same thing with regard to the Challenge '85 program for students. We in my riding were very drastically and negatively affected by the program. The Minister of National Health and Welfare made the announcement on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and he explained that there were only 222 jobs which were approved for my riding under that program because of the new rules. In the past we had received approximately 40 per cent more in terms of money and summer employment through the old programs, but the programs were changed. I recognize that this is a new Government, but it was done quickly without the type of consultation and study by a House of Commons committee which was necessary.
We are again doing the same thing. I wonder why the Minister was not able to introduce this legislation a month ago so that we could have taken it to the Labour, Employment and
May 28, 1985

Immigration Committee where it could have been studied and where groups and communities which were affected could have made the presentations which are necessary.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amazement to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Churchill. I really thought there was no one in this House who was opposed to these particular amendments. Now I find that there is someone who wants to drag his feet and delay the legislation, which would impact adversely on 175,000 Canadians who are most in need of this particular legislation.
The Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, understands what these particular amendments are all about. He is well aware that this legislation has not met with any criticism or complaint from the people who are affected by these particular amendments. If the Hon. Member for Churchill thinks that what we really need to do is drop the variable entry requirement, do away with the minimum 10 week period for people in the fishing community, for instance, and if the Hon. Member thinks that that is the way in which the groups he seems to be speaking for want to go, then he should rise in his place and have the courtesy to say so.
I can tell the Hon. Member that in all of the representations I have heard on the variable entry requirement, I have heard no suggestion to drop that 10 week period. To the contrary. That is why we are putting this legislation through. I have talked to Hon. Members on the government side and Hon. Members from the Opposition Parties, who have urged that this legislation go through as quickly as possible. I would hope that the Hon. Member would see the reason for this and would want to give it his support as well.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister, for whatever reason, has misunderstood my question. I am not against the variable entrance requirement. I have spoken in favour of it in this House before. What I asked is why we are dealing with this legislation so quickly? Why are we refusing to deal with it in a proper legislative manner? Why was this not introduced a month ago? We are not doing anything new. If the deputy whip of the Conservative Party would listen for a while, instead of yapping, maybe she would learn something. The point is that there was time. This Bill could have been introduced one month earlier. It could have gone before committee and the people who are concerned, as well as those who happen to be in favour of the legislation, could have had input. Our Party, through our critic, has agreed that we will pass this legislation because we recognize it will benefit so many Canadians. We have no problem with that.


Mrs. Mailly:: Sit down, then.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am a little tired of the deputy whip of the Conservative Party yapping away. If she wants to speak, she does have the ability to rise in her place and speak.
The point is that we have a parliamentary reform committee which exists at this present time and which is discussing how we can strengthen and legitimize the role of the parliamentary committees. One of the main purposes of committees is to
Borrowing Authority Act
study legislation, to look at it to see how it affects Canadians. I have a concern with the legislation and with how we deal with the economic regions. My riding is grouped with other parts of Canada which have a lower unemployment rate. As a result of that, the variable rate does not benefit parts of my riding according to the actual unemployment there. I am concerned about that. Because of the process we are going through, we do not have a chance to examine that in detail. I wish the Minister, just as I wished with Liberal Ministers, had introduced this legislation early enough that we could study it in committee and give it the attention any piece of legislation deserves.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of State
(Finance)) moved that Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that there is no Minister in the House prepared to speak on the introduction of the Bill. If indeed that is the case-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Things happen so quickly around here, I had not realized that we had completed the previous piece of legislation. However, I do want to speak on the introduction of Bill C-51, requesting parliamentary authority for the borrowing of $18.2 billion.
While I am very pleased to stand before the House today, I cannot say that I am doing so with great enthusiasm in asking this House for approval of these expenditures because it is very clear we are dealing with a legacy of the previous Government. It is a legacy which continues to impose a very severe burden on the people of Canada. In the eight months or so since we have been in office, we have indicated a resolute desire to deal with that legacy by putting in place, both in the November economic statement as well as the Budget last week, a series of

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
measures designed to get control of this serious problem and ultimately bring it down to a much more manageable level in relation to the size of the economy and our ability to finance the various programs represented by these borrowings.
As all Members know from the discussions we went through last autumn on Bill C-l 1, we must come before the House to request supplementary borrowing authority to provide the funds necessary to complete this fiscal year. As I stand before you today, I am very proud to reflect on the progress we have made over the past eight months, as well as being proud of the very important role that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took in a strong and compassionate demonstration of his leadership to take the tough but fair, and I believe very appropriate, measures necessary to end the irresponsible borrowing patterns which have been building up over the past 10 years. It has not been easy; there have been some difficult decisions taken, but I believe we have made some progress.
In the Budget last week, I think we reinforced the measures which were set out originally last November. This first Budget of the Conservative Government faced head on the two major challenges of high unemployment and high budget deficits which are facing this country. We still face unacceptably high levels of unemployment and we still have a spiralling debt problem. As I said last week, these problems are a bit of a vicious circle because high deficits constrain our ability to deal with the job problem and high unemployment in turn reinforces the very high deficit. The Budget itself does propose some realistic, fair and effective actions to break this vicious circle.

This Budget puts special emphasis on the need for promoting a spirit of entrepreneurship, by proposing measures designed to encourage risk-taking by small- and medium-sized businesses and farmers, and thus promoting new investment so as to give Canadians more opportunities to participate in the economy, to innovate and to succeed.

As Hon. Members are aware, interim borrowing authority for this fiscal year was provided in Bill C-ll last year. In her speech on that Bill, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) stated that further legislation would be introduced after the Budget to seek the balance of the borrowing authority needed for this fiscal year. This is the legislation now before us. There can be no doubt about the timing of this legislation; it is right, and follows directly on the financial requirements set out in the Budget. Under the Financial Administration Act, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament in order for the Government to increase its outstanding debt. Part IV, Section 36 of that Act requires that:
No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament.
This refers to new money only, because under Section 38 of the Act, there is continuing authority to borrow funds to repay
maturing debt while Section 39 provides for short-term, temporary borrowings.
I would now like to discuss the Bill itself and explain how the amount requested has been arrived at. Clause 2(1) seeks $18.2 billion of borrowing authority for the 1985-86 fiscal year. The major portion of that money is composed of the difference between the total of $28 billion in financial requirements for 1985-86, as I set out in the Budget, and the borrowing authority granted under Bill C-ll for $12 billion even. To this $16 billion must be added another $2.2 billion, resulting from the use of Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act last February. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the use of that Section was directly related to the delay in the passage of Bill C-ll in the other place. The request for an additional $2.2 billion is really quite technical in nature and results from the way the relevant Sections of the Financial Administration Act are structured.
Section 39 provides for the Governor in Council to authorize the borrowing of money if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, it appears that funds will not be sufficient to meet disbursements from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This action is designed for short-term temporary use only as loans are limited to terms to maturity not exceeding six months, and each borrowing must be approved by the Governor in Council.
Section 38 provides for the normal raising of money to refund maturing debt and, since there is no increase in the oustanding debt, does not require borrowing authority. The Financial Administration Act, however, specifically excludes securities issued under the authority of Section 39 being refunded pursuant to Section 38. Thus, specific borrowing authority is required to refund maturing debt issued last February under Section 39. I hope you followed that all very carefully, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Could you repeat it please?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I don't think you want it again. If the passage of Bill C-ll had not been delayed last February, the $2.2 billion would have been charged to regular borrowing authority and it would not have been necessary to seek this additional amount this fiscal year. As it was, $2.3 billion of regular borrowing authority was cancelled at the end of fiscal 1984-85 because the Government was unable to use it.
I assure Hon. Members that it was essential to use Section 39 last February. Members will recall that at that time there was some downward pressure on the Canadian dollar as a result of the unprecedented strength of the U.S. dollar and foreign exchange intervention was required, causing a run-off of our U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves. These U.S. dollar reserves had to be replaced by employing Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act to draw on Canada's standby credit facilities with the Canadian chartered banks and the international banks. Section 39 was also used to raise $200 million in the domestic capital market through the issue of
May 28, 1985

Treasury Bills. Thus, in total, the equivalent of $2.2 billion was raised at that time.
The cost of delay by the Liberal Senators in the other place was quite significant. We may never know the total indirect costs arising from the confusion and uncertainty which resulted from those delays. However, we have been able to identify very clearly and precisely the amount of money that that did cost us. It amounted to $15 million. That was the cost of the delay by the Liberal Senators when they took action to obstruct that legislation at a time when it was totally irresponsible for the Senators to take that action knowing, as they did, that we were running out of borrowing authority and that the U.S. dollar was putting considerable pressure on our currency, causing interest rates to go up. They deliberately caused an increase in our over-all financial costs which must ultimately be borne by the taxpayers of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What was that figure again?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A cost of $15 million was caused by the unconscionable delays of the Liberal Senate.
With the passage of this Bill, the Government will have a total of $32.2 billion of borrowing authority for the current fiscal year. This amount will consist of $12 billion provided by Bill C-l 1, the Borrowing Authority Act, 1985-86; $18.2 billion provided by the Bill before us now; and $2 billion non-lapsing reserve carried forward from the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85 (No. 2). I must note, however, that all borrowing authority conferred by the two Acts for this fiscal year which is unused in 1985-86 will be cancelled on March 31, 1986.
As a matter of interest to Hon. Members, I would like to outline how the Government has made use of the borrowing authority provided by Parliament for the 1984-85 fiscal year. The total amount of borrowing authority for 1984-85 was $31.9 billion. This authority consisted of $24.6 billion provided by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85; $7.3 billion provided by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85; and $7.3 billion provided by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85 (No. 2).
During the 1984-85 fiscal year, domestic borrowing operations used about $26.7 billion of borrowing authority. Of this amount, $10.4 billion was raised through the issuance of Treasury Bills, $12.5 billion through the sale of marketable bonds, and $3.8 billion through the net sale of Canada Savings Bonds. Foreign borrowing added a further $.9 billion to the use of borrowing authority. The foreign borrowing represented a 1 billion Swiss francs borrowing in the Swiss franc market in May 1984, a 120 billion yen syndicated loan in the Japanese capital market in July of 1984, and a U.S. $500 million bond issue in the Eurodollar market in March of this year.
Net standby drawings during the 1984-85 fiscal year provided $510 million of borrowing authority. There were also redemptions of foreign issues during the last fiscal year which reduced the total use of borrowing authority. These consisted of a 500 million Deutschmark private placement which matured in May 1984 and a 500 million Swiss franc private placement which matured in March 1985.
Borrowing Authority Act
As a result of these domestic and foreign financial operations, the total use of borrowing authority in the 1984-85 fiscal year was $27.6 billion, leaving $4.3 billion unused as of March 31, 1985. Of this latter amount, $2 billion was carried forward into the 1985-86 fiscal year and $2.3 billion of the authority was cancelled.
The Bill which is before us today fully meets the conditions of the understanding we reached with the Opposition Parties last December when we agreed to bring forward a request for borrowing authority for 1985-86 within two weeks of the Budget. We made that commitment at that time and are fulfilling it today. Indeed, this Bill was given its first reading less than 24 hours after the Budget was brought down.
I would like to close by asking for swift passage of this Bill for it will permit us to get on with the job. It clearly demonstrates why we need swift passage, but we do need approval for this borrowing authority. It is a very straight-forward Bill. We are only asking for borrowing authority for the balance of this year. As Hon. Members will be aware, if they have read the Budget discussion paper that was released at the time of the Budget, we are looking for a more defined parliamentary timetable surrounding the Budget process. We are hopeful that the next request for borrowing authority, which will be in respect of the 1986-87 fiscal year, will be brought down before the end of this fiscal year.
I ask Hon. Members to assist us in passing this Bill as quickly as possible to allow us to do the job that Canadians have elected us to do, the job of representing and serving the country in an efficient and responsible manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister concluded his speech by asking for quick passage of this Bill. We in the Official Opposition have no plan to delay this Bill. Obviously, the Government must have borrowing authority in order to proceed with its business in an orderly fashion. However, we will have some speakers because there are a number of issues which should be addressed in the House today and possibly tomorrow.
I note that with the Budget, the Government tabled a discussion paper on the budgetary process which contains recommendations on how and when borrowing authority Bills should be presented to the House. These are interesting recommendations which will, no doubt, receive a thorough analysis and evaluation. It is clear that the Government has taken to heart the lessons learned from the consequences of its inept approach in introducing Bill C-l 1 last fall.
Members will recall that the Government sought borrowing authority for fiscal year 1985-86 as well as for 1984-85. The Government did not present a Budget or spending estimates. A newly elected Government, with no track record, demanded approval to borrow $16 billion, which was later reduced to $12 billion, without any statement of its economic policies or goals. It cried foul when responsible Members of both Opposition Parties asked to see financial and economic information about the Government's intentions for this money.

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
The Government's discussion paper refers to delays on borrowing authority such as occurred in early 1985. No doubt, this means the reluctance of the Senate to approve the Bill without knowledge of the Government's plans for spending. I am pleased to see that the recommendations acknowledged the fact that the Government was the author of its own misfortune because there is a phrase on page 11 which reads, "The Government should not seek borrowing authority for a fiscal year without first providing Parliament with all the relevant details relating to the financial requirement". The Government has quite properly restricted itself to borrowing authority for the current fiscal year in the Bill before us today and the Bill follows a budget, as it should.
The financial requirements set out in this Budget do not inspire confidence. The Government now wants over $18 billion to pay for a Budget that is making tough financial demands on those who are least able to bear them. Perhaps it is useful to review which areas will receive money and which will not; who will benefit and who will not.
The Budget is proposing an increase in sales tax and making sales tax payable on a host of every day items and necessities, including health care products, soaps, shampoo, pet food, candy and confectionery as well as insulation products and alternative energy devices. The increase in sales tax will bring the Government over $350 million this year directly from the pockets of the taxpayers. This sales tax bears equally on those who can afford it and those who cannot.
The Budget also provides for an increase in the Government's levy on alcohol, a stiff increase in excise taxes on tobacco and a hefty gas tax increase, all of which will bring in $630 million this year. We have barely scratched the surface of the Budget. Already we see that the Government is reaping nearly a billion dollars from a few tax proposals.
Let us not forget that sales and excise taxes have a dramatic multiplier effect. The Government will get more and more money from them every year. Next year, the gas tax will bring in over $930 million. That is enough to cover what the Government will lose next year as a result of abolishing the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax. Therefore, the multinational oil companies-and I say multinationals advisedly because they have the old oil and will benefit from the removal of the PGRT-have a gift of a large sum of money, but the Canadian consumer makes it up.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the Budget which make it difficult to assess the Government's intentions and, therefore, its borrowing needs. The Budget stresses deficit reduction, but the Budget's deficit reduction measures are back-end loaded with little real reductions in this fiscal year. Many measures are hidden to individuals, such as a de-indexation of income tax and certain benefits, as well as the sales and excise tax rate increases and the broadening of the tax base.
We are told that over 80 per cent of deficit reduction is to be through decreases in expenditure, but many of the stated decreases are "under review" and have yet to be specified. So
far, the Government's approach to deficit reduction appears to be primarily a tax grab from Canadian consumers, particularly at the low and middle income scales. Over 20 per cent of the total projected deficit reduction in 1990-91-some $4.5 billion-is shown as savings due to lower debt service payments. However, lower debt service payments depend on many factors domestically and internationally which are difficult to foresee today. Therefore, there is an element of hope which may or may not prove to be well founded.
Although the Minister claims that $4.4 billion is being trimmed from the deficit in 1985-86 and over $8 billion in 1986-87, the actual cuts are far less. In fact, the deficit may be only $2 billion lower than forecast this year and only $1 billion next year. The deficit forecast figures seem to change often. There is a deficit forecast that is $6 billion higher for 1984-85 and 1985-86 than that forecast by Marc Lalonde 18 months ago.
The constant shifting of figures makes it difficult to feel confidence in them. For instance, apparently personal income tax rebates have been accelerated. For 1984-85, this shows as exaggerating the size of the deficit. In turn, that allows for some deficit reduction in 1985-86, but surely this is not a substantive reduction. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a disposition to call it one o'clock. I remind the Hon. Member that according to Standing Order 35(2), she still has 30 minutes remaining for her speech. The finance critic for the New Democratic Party will have 40 minutes when we resume debate this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I do leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12:58 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Last week, we heard that the Conservative caucus had received an instruction booklet on how to sell the Budget across the country. Whatever the Budget contained, this salesperson's vade mecum instructed them to defend every word the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would alter as if it were Gospel truth, and to do so with force and determination. They were to let nothing prevent
May 28, 1985

them from preaching the good word, and tolerate no criticism. Mr. Speaker, I therefore recommend that this House award a medal for bravery to the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), who exposed himself to bodily harm in defending what his riding association president found indefensible, to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lotbiniere will probably be promoted to the rank of Budget hero by his own caucus, considering his fervour in defending the Budget against all comers. His riding association president, however, who is on the list of notaries favoured by the new Government, has experienced the limits of democracy within the Progressive Conservative Party in Quebec. He has a double nose fracture to show for it.
I suggest that Progressive Conservative Members immediately take out a collective policy for liability insurance, if they intend to continue these high-pressure sales tactics, and I recommend that the public, for its own protection, restrict all contacts with their Members to letters or telephone calls and refrain from any direct contact with the Conservatives in these times on the Government side.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is violating a United Nations decree that prohibits foreign exploitation of Namibia's natural resources. Since the bloody and brutal apartheid Government of South Africa invaded Namibia and began the enslavement of its people and theft of its resources, western countries have been joining in the looting of that defenceless former colony.
The United Nations Council for Namibia in 1974 passed decree No. 1 calling for a halt to further foreign exploitation of Namibia's natural resources. Yet Rio Algom, a Canadian company with tax benefits from the Canadian Government, has, with Rio Tinto Zinc, for nine years been mining uranium at Rossing in Namibia. After the ore is imported into Canada a Crown corporation, El Dorado, in Port Hope, processes it to uranium hexafluoride for delivery to Japan. This is a multimillion dollar theft from a conquered people, in direct violation of a U.N. decree.
Recently the U.N. Council for Namibia began prosecuting a Netherlands company, Urenco, in a Netherlands court for a similar offence. According to His Excellency Ononaiye, Nigerian Ambassador to the U.N. and spokesperson for the U.N. Council for Namibia, the Council intends also to prosecute Canadian firms engaged in this offence.
I call on the Government of Canada to honour the U.N. boycott of South Africa and the decree of the Council for Namibia, and halt this greedy and illegal practice by Canadian companies.


LIONS CLUBS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride I speak in the House today on behalf of the largest service club in the world. Lions Clubs International was formed in 1917 and now boasts a membership of 1,341,000 dedicated men representing some 37,000 clubs in 157 nations and geographical areas.
The City of Ottawa is honoured today to host the President of Lions Clubs International, Bert Mason, of Northern Ireland. Earlier today Mr. Mason presented our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with a token of appreciation from Lions Clubs everywhere.
For many years the membership of Lions International has been committed to improving the quality of life for the disadvantaged. Lions International has made particular progress helping many deaf and blind persons world-wide.
I am delighted to note that near my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka the Lions Club built a summer camp for dialysis patients whose kidneys require expensive machinery to function normally. In the heart of my riding the Canadian International Institute for the Blind runs another summer camp with funding from the Lions.
Many Members of Parliament will recall seeing the mobile clinic parked outside the Members' entrance four weeks ago. The bus, equipped with a dentist's chair and other medical paraphernalia, is a gift to the people of Peru from, you guessed it, Lions International.
On behalf of Members of the House may I welcome Lion President Bert Mason to the capital of Canada. We truly hope our country will be his home-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada the term profit has again become part of the vocabulary of our small- and medium-sized businesses, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created, something the Liberal Government was unable to do during the twenty years it was in power.
Workers in my riding can now look to the future with optimism because they have the assurance their employers will receive the fiscal and financial support they need to maintain and expand their businesses. In fact, for many of my constituents, uncertainty and their employers' problems were having a direct impact on their vision of their own and their own family's future.

May 28, 1985
Mr. Speaker, the support voiced by farmers, businessmen and women for the Wilson budget has convinced me that the direction chosen by our Government will turn out to be the best thing for Canada and Canadians.
The Budget will make it possible for hundreds of young Canadians to put what they have learned to good use by participating in Canada's economy through jobs in all economic sectors.
Incidentally, I would like to say a few words of greeting to a group of young Progressive Conservatives from the great riding of Argenteuil-Papineau who are visiting Ottawa today, who have renewed their support for the Government and who are always as enthusiastic in their show of confidence in the Progressive Conservative Party. Our young people are our hope for the future. I trust their critical faculties, but not those of the Hon. Members' opposite, when we are talking about the best possible measures to provide for their future.


USE OF STANDING ORDER 21
Mr. Speaker:: May I just remind all Hon. Members that the use of the Standing Order 21 to make congratulatory statements is out of order.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives	in	Saskatchewan	have	taken	a	firm	standagainst	voluntary	termination	of	pregrancy.	They	have
increased their grants to Pro-Life and put a freeze on grants to Planned Parenthood.
Today, the House will be considering second reading of a Private Member's Bill that is being used as a trial balloon, with the support of the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Grant Devine. The Bill would make it compulsory for a woman to obtain the consent of her husband to have an abortion. Similarly, girls under 18 who are the victims of incest or rape will have to get their parents' consent or that of the courts to obtain a voluntary termination of pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, this is a striking example of the Conservative attitude to women's rights. Since the 70's, women in Canada have been signing their own release for treatment and surgery. Does the House really believe that a teenage victim of incest is going to ask her father for permission to get an abortion? Is it not more likely that she will try to have her pregnancy terminated under conditions where hygiene and safety precautions leave much to be desired?
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to denigrate the role of the husband, but if we insist that a woman must have his permission for a voluntary termination of pregnancy, I will start a national campaign to make it compulsory for a man to ask his wife's permission before getting a vasectomy treatment for venereal disease.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advide the Hon. Member that her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


POLITICAL PARTIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall that in the election campaign the Conservative Party campaigned across Canada saying jobs, jobs, jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the Budget we see taxes, taxes, taxes, Mr. Speaker. In the campaign the Conservatives never told us about tax increases. They never told us about a gas tax. They never told us about the deindexing of pensions and family allowances. They never told us about deindexing the income tax exemption. In fact some critics go as far as to say that no member of the Government can be trusted, that no member of the Government can be believed. I would not go that far, Mr. Speaker.
There is at least one honest Tory, and that is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). You will recall before the campaign he said: "If we tell the people of Canada the truth, they would never vote for us".
Truer words were never spoken.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, we hear the voice of doom from the opposition Parties on a daily basis condemning the Government for the harsh cuts to federal programs and the resulting job loss. We have been hearing that same story since November, Mr. Speaker. The real story is much different.
Since the time we formed the new Government over 200,000 new jobs have been created. In the month of April alone there were 89,000 new jobs.
Change is obviously a threatening concept to our Liberal and NDP friends. Job-creation programs from the past have not worked. The Government inherited an unacceptably high
May 28, 1985

unemployment rate, and is now encouraged by our opposition colleagues simply to throw more money at the problem.
We in this Party recognize that meaningful job creation cannot be accomplished without the full co-operation of business, both large and small. The Budget introduced last week by my colleague, the minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will work to create jobs because it frees Canadians to reach their full economic potential.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 23, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), brought down this Government's first Budget, a Budget that acknowledges the intelligence of Canadian men and women by giving them the tools they need to create the jobs Canada needs. As did many of my colleagues, I reported to my constituents in Chambly to get their reactions to the Budget. Many people, including owners of businesses, employees and others reacted very encouragingly to the measures proposed by the Government to reduce the deficit and to create a climate of confidence that will promote investment in Canada and put 1,400,000 people back to work, people who can now look to the future with optimism. Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Chambly, I want to offer the Minister of Finance our sincere congratulations for having chosen the right path, the one leading to Canada's economic renewal.
* * #


ANNOUNCED CLOSING OF HEAVY WATER PLANTS IN CAPE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced in his Budget that the heavy water plants in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury would be closed down. This has indicated a certain callousness and indifference to the people of Cape Breton. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) had promised on more than one occasion that any decision with respect to the closure of the two plants would be withheld until replacement jobs had been found for all workers. The Government has now broken that commitment.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on November 23, 1985, said to the workers, and it was announced in The Chronicle-Herald:
I can assure you there will be no move made at all in that area unless there is a development plan in place to replace any employment effects associated with moving on the heavy water plants-
In February of 1985, she said:
- any plans to close the two plants will not proceed before alternate employment can be found for displaced workers.
The Government has broken other promises as well. It promised consultation with the provinces, with management, with labour-with all sectors of Canadian society. Despite these lofty intensions the Government did not at any time seek to consult with the workers at Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury. This is an astounding fact, when one considers that it is the workers themselves who are most directly affected by the plant closures.
1 call upon the Government for some positive actions on behalf of the people of Canada, as opposed to the lofty promises and intentions which have yet to be realized or implemented.


PENSIONS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday night we saw action on many fronts vital to the health of the nation. But few were as significant as that of pension reform.
After 10 years of obstruction and procrastination it took a Tory Government, a dynamic and responsive Government, to bring needed pension reform to this great country in only nine months.
These changes will provide more workers with the opportunity to join pension plans and to participate in the management of pension funds. These changes will protect workers who change jobs against the loss of pension benefits. It will provide workers after two years of plan membership with the right to their pension benefits, which they well deserve.
Most important, these changes will provide equal pensions for women and men retiring under identical circumstances, and will provide survivor benefits for spouses. These major reforms will provide for the splitting of pensions between spouses upon marriage breakdown. These measures will provide needed equity between men and women and, by doing so, the Tory Government is proving it believes that women should get their fair share.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I received the following letter today. It reads:
As a small businessman, I was quite enthusiastic when I learned of the Budget's emphasis on rejuvenating the Canadian economy via a series of steps designed to enhance small business. I must admit, however, that the new Budget confuses me as to how it will help small business.

May 28, 1985
Oral Questions
The vast majority of my business revolves around the sale of various day-today necessities, such as toothpaste and bathroom tissue, as well as tobacco products, non-alcoholic beverages, candy and snack foods. The new Budget, which raises taxes on every one of these items, has had the net effect of lowering consumer demand for these products.
I understood the role of the new Budget to be one of encouraging the expansion of small businesses in the hopes that we could create jobs. However, at least in my case the opposite is true, as this Budget is placing my business in a precarious position in two related ways.
First, the Budget is reducing my gross sales by lowering consumer demand. Second, the Budget adversely affects the most important component of any successful business-customer "goodwill". It accomplishes this by raising consumer taxes in such a manner that small business takes the rap for the present Government's policies.
In conclusion, it seems to me, as a small businessman, that the Minister of Finance's approach to helping small business is in need of re-examination.
Sincerely,
Abba's Grocery,
344 Bell Street S.,
Ottawa.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATED SOCIALIST REPUBLIC
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to indicate to the House the presence in our gallery today of His Excellency Vitaly Vorotnikov, member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will recall that on Friday last, here in the House, 1 asked him why he had been sneaky and had not been straight with the people of Canada and the Canadian taxpayer in his Budget.
I told him that the deindexation of the tax brackets, the general deductions, the old age pensions and the family allowances would mean, in effect, a hidden and massive tax increase at the rate of 3 per cent a year, per year, per year, all cumulative. My colleague from Laval-des-Rapides has produced a document from the Department of Finance which bears out the point I made in this House on Friday.
Will the Minister now admit what he refused to admit on Friday, namely, that an 80-year old widow living on an old age pension, with a guaranteed income supplement, will lose, in absolute terms by the year 1990, $30 per month, and by 1991 over $45 a month? Why will the Minister not come clean and say to the members of this House, and to the people of Canada, that he has been clandestine and sneaky with respect to the tax increases that he is imposing on the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong in the way he has expressed his point. I think what he should do is read the budget speech where the fiscal problem that we have, and the range of means by which we are dealing with it, are clearly set out. We have set a track here, a track which will carry on over a number of years. However, I caution the Hon. Member that the directions we are going in now are essentially toward controlling the fiscal problem of the country at an early date.
I ask him if he does not support the policy that we are following with respect to getting the deficit under control. If he does not support it, then he is going totally contrary to everything he has said over the past four or five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPACT OF BUDGET ON PENSIONERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with that subject fully in the House tomorrow. The public finances of the country have to be brought under control-but not at the expense of the weak, the unemployed, the elderly or the disabled. I have said that publicly for the past five years.
In 1990 we will have 1,740,000 senior citizens living at or below the poverty line. We have calculated that the reduction in the old age pension, plus the increase in the various sales taxes, will mean that these senior citizens will lose $1.25 billion in income in 1990. That is the exact amount represented by the exemption for capital gains tax for our more wealthy citizens.
Does the Minister really want the wealthy citizens of this country to receive a tax benefit, what I have called a cash bonanza, of $125,000 in a lifetime, at the expense of the elderly citizens of the country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made reference to the disabled. It is very clear that in the Budget we are taking steps to help the disabled. We have maintained indexation for the guaranteed income supplement and for the child tax credit. In fact we are increasing the child tax credit in excess of the rate of inflation over the next few years. We have maintained full indexation

May 28, 1985

for the programs for veterans, so what he said in the preamble to his question is dead wrong.
1 might just observe that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides is on record as saying that he oppose tax indexation. He has said that tax indexation is a short-sighted measure which may prevent government from efficiently fighting inflation, and that is what we are trying to do.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
De-indexation is a tax, a clandestine, secret and hidden tax on the Canadian people. The Minister's secret forecasts, made public yesterday by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, indicate that by 1990, Canadians will suffer a net loss of $630 million per year on deductions and tax credits for children. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to admit to the House today that he is making huge cutbacks in family programs? Is he prepared to admit that he has broken the Prime Minister's promise not to reduce budgets for social programs in order to reduce the deficit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we have set out to do in this Budget is set the Government on a track toward getting control of the massive debt problem which is a burden on all Canadians. It is very important that Canadians recognize that there is a broad attack taking place, and that everyone has been asked to share some of the load. There is to be a tax on the capital of banks, and a surtax on corporations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If Hon. Members opposite would just relax a little, I would continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Obviously they do not want to listen.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
reprimanded the Solicitor General for taking sides in the Coates case, and less than five minutes after that the Solicitor General told the media outside the House that he did not regret having spoken out as he did. Last winter, after the clandestine Hatfield meeting was revealed, the Prime Minister was also critical of the Solicitor General, saying that such a meeting would not have been held in a perfect world. However, the Solicitor General said that he would hold such a meeting again. Both acts were highly offensive to the administration of justice or, to use the Prime Minister's own words, they were fundamentally inappropriate.
Given that we have a Solicitor General who has a perverse lack of appreciation not only of the responsibilities of his office but of his duty to the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Here is the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Given all of that, is it not time for the Prime Minister to appoint a new Solicitor General?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appointed a new Solicitor General because we did not want one who would go out and authorize the payment of $100,000 to a killer in British Columbia. People have had it up to the ears with that kind of stuff.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Solicitor General is an extremely honourable man, and I think that the former Solicitor General would be well advised not to indulge in selective quotations from the Solicitor General, because what he said was very clear-cut.


MINISTERIAL BEHAVIOUR
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the record shows very clearly that I did not authorize that payment of $100,000. The Attorney General of British Columbia authorized that payment.
I would like to deal with the subject at hand. What are the Prime Minister's criteria for disciplining Ministers? The Minister of National Defence has a drink in a bar and is asked to resign, or advised to resign. The Solicitor General engages in conduct which the Prime Minister himself criticizes, and he is allowed to remain in the Cabinet and gets a rose pinned on his lapel by the Prime Minister. What kind of criteria is the Prime Minister using?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I referred to the injunction in regard to the process that was quite properly mentioned by my hon. friend

May 28, 1985
Oral Questions
from Hamilton Mountain, and it applied to all Members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Nunziata:: We're not all Ministers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston was in agreement with the general thrust of the comment.


Ms. Copps:: He was not.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Let him speak for himself.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that my hon. friend should take the cautionary reference made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, as all Members of the House will, in regard to comments made by those involved in a quasi-judicial process. I agreed yesterday with my friend from Hamilton Mountain. His comment was appropriate, and I expect that all Members of the House will follow it in their future conduct.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister and it concerns a report in today's Montreal Gazette with which I am sure the Prime Minister is familiar. The report concerns a civil action that is being brought against a company established to export water from the Prime Minister's constituency to the Middle East.
My question concerns the support the Prime Minister allegedly gave to this company. Quite specifically, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he could tell the House what he meant when he told the company president, in a letter under the Prime Ministerial imprimatur, that he would offer "every co-operation to assist" the company after he had looked into what he described as the "corporate initiatives" being taken by the company.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the letter to which the Hon. Member refers offers every co-operation to establish productive jobs in the constituency of Manicouagan.

And that is perfectly normal. I was approached by the Mayor of Seven Islands in my capacity as Member for Manicouagan. The mayor had a letter of approval from the Government of Quebec and plans for a project that would create about 50 jobs on the North Shore. I thought it was perfectly normal that I, as the Member for the riding, should support a job creation project, which I did, and 1 believe any other Member of this House would have done the same in similar circumstances.


ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, no one is questioning the obligation of Members of Parliament, on whichever side of the House, to take action to support the location of jobs in their constituencies. The question pertains to something other than that. First, all Members of Parliament are not the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who can request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take related action in terms of his responsibilities. Members of Parliament, as opposed to Ministers of the Crown, cannot do those things.
My question in this regard would pertain to members of the Ministry as well as other Members. Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate that he, as Prime Minister, lent his support to a highly speculative economic venture, in a letter that was subsequently used to get other investors to take part in the project, a project that is now involved in a civil suit?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my information is that, prior to coming to see me, the other investors had been approached and were involved. I can only tell my hon. friend the facts. I was approached by the Mayor of Seven Islands-
[ Translation]
-who came to see me with a person who had already received the support of the Quebec Government in the form of a letter signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Quebec, the Hon. Bernard Landry. I looked into the project and talked about it with the mayor who had discussed it with the municipal council of Seven Islands. Water was available from the municipality of Seven Islands. I therefore wrote the following in English, at the mayor's request, and I quote:

-I wish to extend to you and your colleagues every co-operation to assist, if possible, in bringing productive employment to the area.
I was adivsed that some 50 or 55 jobs could result. I thought it was an appropriate way to be helpful to the Mayor of Seven Islands in trying to bring the jobs to my area.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat that the letter which was sent by the Prime Minister states categorically that he looked into the project. In the letter he said that he had a look at their corporate initiatives, which suggests that in some sense he did some background work on the project. Then he wrote to the president of the company with a fulsome endorsation of the project. The letter was subsequently used by the president to get other people to invest.

May 28, 1985
Does the Prime Minister really think it is appropriate for himself, other members of the Cabinet, or any Member of Parliament, to endorse speculative projects which may involve risks, not for themselves but for other Canadians, particularly in this instance pensioners who could be persuaded because of such endorsation to use their pension funds for investment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is not only unfair but extremely inaccurate for my hon. friend to refer to a proforma letter which I wrote as a fulsome endorsation of the project. There was absolutely nothing in the letter which was a recommendation of the project, least of all a fulsome endorsation of the project. There was an approach made to me, in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Manicouagan, by the Mayor of Seven Islands, which is backed up with a letter from-

-Bernard Landry, Minister of Intergovernmental Relations of the Government of Quebec.

There was no fulsome endorsation of it by me whatsoever. There is nothing in the letter which could be construed as an invitation to investors to get involved. Clearly, as a Member of Parliament-

I realize the Liberals think it is funny that a Member from Quebec should actually try to bring jobs to Quebecers. I know you think that is funny, and the people of Quebec are watching the Quebec Liberals laugh, but we are going to keep on trying, and that has been a project-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and it concerns his Solicitor General and the contempt which he has shown toward the Human Rights Commission and anyone's sense of fair play and justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: How much more incompetence do Canadians have to take from the Solicitor General? The Solicitor General has a fundamentally perverse misunderstanding of his role as a Solicitor General. He has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and he has challenged the very integrity of the Human Rights Commission.
Is the Prime Minister prepared today to dissociate himself and his Government, completely and unequivocally, from the statements which were made by his Solicitor General in this
Oral Questions
particular case? Will the Prime Minister extend his apology, and the apology of his Government, to the Human Rights Commission for the conduct of his Solicitor General?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Normally, Mr. Speaker, I would not think that would be deserving of a lengthy reply, except were it not for the fact of the well-known solicitude which the hon. gentleman has for other people's reputations.
I responded yesterday in regard to what I thought was a very thoughtful question which was put by the House Leader for the NDP. I gave a response that I believe was appropriate, which dealt not only with the Minister but with all Members of the House. I have nothing further to add, except that the Hon. Member should perhaps think a little before he speaks in regard to damage being done to other people's reputations, inasmuch as he is the principal sinner in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


CONDUCT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canadians quite justifiably are having some difficulty understanding why the former Minister of National Defence resigned when he simply attended a strip bar in West Germany, and why the Solicitor General is clinging to power when his conduct is so inappropriate. Will the Prime Minister explain why he advised the former Minister of National Defence to resign, and why he has not discussed resignation with the Solicitor General? Can he explain to Canadians why the double standard? Would he not agree that the Solicitor General's conduct to date is far worse than the conduct of the former Minister of National Defence?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Leader isn't applauding.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, the
Leader of the Opposition is not applauding, because he is an honourable man and would not applaud that kind of intervention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is just as ashamed of it as the rest of the Members of the House of Commons.
The former Minister of National Defence, in a difficult moment, acted with great honour, as did the Solicitor General, who has given the House an appropriate and thoughtful response.

May 28, 1985
Oral Questions PENSIONS


EFFECT OF CHANGE IN INDEXATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance knows that the impact of his budget proposal to deindex pensions will have a serious effect on most pensioners. The Minister also knows that the impact on a 50-year-old Canadian who is planning for his retirement is that, through inflation and reduction of the pension, he can expect to receive a pension which is equal to an amount approximately 50 per cent of what he receives today in real dollars. Would the Minister of Finance not agree that the proposal to deindex pensions is simply putting the boots to old age pensioners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to the Hon. Member so that he does not mislead the people who are watching Question Period. Indexation will be modified. There will still be a very potent form of insurance in the event that we do see high levels of inflation at some time in the future. We are having regard for the concern that older people have with respect to the effects of inflation. But I would like to remind the Hon. Member that older people are very concerned about the effects which deficits and debts have had on past levels of inflation. Therefore I believe they are willing to make a small sacrifice to do their part in fighting inflation, and to do that through reducing the high levels of debt.


LIBERAL BUDGET-STATEMENTS MADE BY PRESENT MINISTERS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 1982, in response to the MacEachen proposal to deindex pensions, the Minister of Finance said:
-the Minister is to put the boots to those who are hardest hit in the economy today, the low-income people and the pensioners.
Would the Minister agree with the statement from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on the same day, on the same budgetary proposal, when she said:
The meanest move in his budget last night was to reduce sharply the indexing of old age security for those who do not receive the supplement.
Would the Minister of Finance not agree that the Government is indeed putting the boots to old age pensioners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has forgotten to establish the perspective within which that comment was made.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: At that time inflation was running-


Mr. Blaikie:: Come on, hypocrite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is reasonable for questions and answers to be heard. All Members in the House-and I am pointing in a particular direction-should refrain from using unparliamentary language.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me start again, Mr. Speaker. I think we should look at the situation we were facing at that time. There was a level of inflation. My recollection is that it was around 11 per cent. The Government at the time was proposing to reduce the level of indexation to 6 per cent. That was five percentage points it was knocking off the old age security benefits. What we are saying here today is that we have inflation down and we want to keep it down. One of the ways we can keep it down is by lowering the size of the deficit, getting control of the debt, and removing those ongoing pressures-


John Edward Broadbent: On the backs of the pensioners.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would listen, he will hear that what we are trying to do is remove the pressures from that inflation which is causing the problem we are trying to protect Canadians against.


John Edward Broadbent: And the pensioners are paying for it.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. In Sherbrooke, last July 26, he made a promise to elderly Canadians and his first priority was to reinstate full old age security pension indexation to the cost of living as of January 1, 1985. Can the Prime Minister now explain to older Canadians why he let his Minister of Finance disregard that commitment to senior citizens, and also let his Minister of Finance eliminate part of the indexation, with the result that elderly Canadians will lose $54 a month?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I want to say to the Hon. Member that, when one takes a look at the entire indexing of old age pensions, one sees that the full indexing is still there for those pensioners who rely on the GIS.


John Napier Turner: The basic isn't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I understand that, John.


John Napier Turner: Then say it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Additionally, I want to say to the Hon. Member that he should go back, for instance, to 1982 and the discussion at that time when the former Government brought in six and five. At that time the debt was calculated at $10.9 billion. We then heard it was going to $19.6 billion. At that time the Government took those kinds of steps. Today we
May 28, 1985

are looking at a deficit of around $35 billion. Surely the greatest protection which any person receiving old age security benefits can have is to make sure that that deficit is brought under control, so that the large amount of money which is being-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Ministers and the questioners, please, to be shorter. This is taking much longer than normal.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Prime Minister would be ashamed to answer the question. No wonder he is red-faced!


INDEXATION-CHEQUES FOR THE AGED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, and I dare hope that for once the elderly will get a clear and honest answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is impossible!


Jean-Claude Malépart: I checked the Minister's Budget and nowhere is there any reference to old age pensions being fully indexed. Can the Minister of Finance now promise elderly Canadians that, if inflation goes up 6 per cent, the guaranteed income supplement will also go up 6 per cent as will the basic old age security pension so that the poor in Canada, older people, will get the full-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that anyone who receives an old age security cheque will receive the same cheque, or an increase, as the effects of modified indexation occur.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member knows that there will be a very potent form of insurance by keeping the modified indexation in place for those who receive the old age security. In addition, those who receive the guaranteed income supplement will receive full indexation of the CPI, as will people who receive the child tax credit, and the people who receive the veterans payments.


PENSIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our action group on jobs met with groups across
Oral Questions
Canada who expressed disappointment about parts of the Budget which affect them. They expressed real anger over the $1.6 billion which will be taken out of the pockets of our senior citizens by 1990. We heard things like: "What a hollow mockery this present Budget makes of the concepts of equity, fairness and compassion." Nowhere, Sir, is this more blatant than in "the harsh measures the Government is taking to-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: -partially deindex old age pensions".


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question now, please?


Steven W. Langdon: Does the Minister agree with those words about the harshness of deindexing pensions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that perhaps the Hon. Member has talked to some people about the effects of the Budget, but my colleagues on this side represent 75 per cent of the households in Canada, and what I have heard from them-


John Edward Broadbent: In September.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They still represent 75 per cent of the households in Canada, I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
During the course of the past few days my colleagues have talked to the widest range of Canadians which anyone has talked to, and I have heard directly from them the comments, and they are positive. The comments tell us this is a fair Budget, it's a realistic Budget, and it is being honest with Canadians. It is going to be effective in creating jobs, and realistic in getting the size of the deficit under control.


BUDGET PROVISIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my quote with respect to deindexing, of course, was from the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration when she attacked the Liberal Government in 1982 about its last attempt to deindex pensions. Will the Minister of Finance agree that what was wrong in 1982 is wrong in 1985? Will he agree, as the Essex County Senior Citizens Federation told me yesterday morning, that a sense of decency and fairness requires that these pension measures be cut out of the present Budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that we are trying to do two fundamental things in this Budget. First, we are trying to get Canadians back to work and, second, we are trying to get control of the massive debt which this country has built up over the past 15 years. We cannot do one without the other.

May 28, 1985
Oral Questions
We have to blend the policies in order to get effective results. I believe that we have blended those policies in an effective way to create jobs, and to reinforce the 201,000 jobs which have been created since September. As the same time, as that momentum of economic activity continues we are going to take another big bite out of the deficit because of the higher tax revenues we will receive from that increased revenue.


HOUSING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the critical housing situation in major metropolitan areas-there is a .3 vacancy rate in Scarborough apartments-and in view of the great spin-off potential for job-creation in the housing industry, will the Minister of Finance indicate ways in which his Budget policies will stimulate new housing construction in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say very directly and very clearly the way in which this Budget will generate increased housing activity, which we believe is very important for the country. Lower interest rates and lower mortgage rates are the fundamental cause of increased activity in the housing industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since September 4 we have seen mortgage rates come down by close to 3 per cent. We believe that the direction of those interest rates as a result of this Budget will be towards a further reduction. That, Mr. Speaker, will have a far reaching impact, not only on housing but on manufacturing activity and a wide range of economic activity.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, no matter how good a face the Minister of Finance wishes to put on his Budget, there are many parts of it which are obviously deficient and perhaps even contain oversights. One cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear, and he knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: He has four weeks before Parliament rises. Will he consider, during those weeks, taking corrective action in those areas where problems have been raised by people right across the country? The elderly are suffering, along with the
unemployed. The regions are being savaged. Even the Minister of Justice knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Donald James Johnston: He has four weeks to take corrective action and bring it into the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Will he do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has not been in opposition for a long time, and I would like to help him ask the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not quite sure I got the thrust of the question because of the pauses but, as I indicated in response to a previous question, there has been a good degree of support, not just among my colleagues in the House, or editorial writers, but from many Canadians who are saying we are moving in the right direction.
We are finally sitting down and addressing the problems of unemployment and a high deficit. We are doing it in a fair way, and at the same time dealing with the problems of the disabled, and pension reform. There is a lot of meat in this Budget, and I suggest the Hon. Member read it.


ESTIMATES OF JOB CREATION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I have not been in opposition a long time. But he has not been Minister of Finance for a long time, and I would like to help him write his Budget.
There are Members in his own back benches who do not agree with him but who agree with me. The Member from Cape Breton is one. However, the Minister has told us again and again today that this is a job-creation Budget, yet the private experts, if you like, such as Data Resources and Informetrica, show thousands and thousands of lost jobs. The very least he can do is remove the anxiety of those who see themsleves threatened by the Budget, and table in this House his Department's estimates of what the job creation is actually going to be. Will he do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Hon. Member that you learn a lot of things in opposition, and I wish him many, many long years there.
The Hon. Member made reference to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, who said, in referring to the Cape Breton tax credit in a latter to me: "These initiatives reflect our commitment to creating jobs. Congratulations."
I know the Hon. Member has some understanding of econometric models and knows very well their very severe limitations in projecting what might happen in the economy. 1 only
May 28, 1985

have to remind him of what his colleagues were saying last November. The models back then indicated we were going to lose 50,000 to 100,000 jobs, and what has happened? Some
149,000	jobs have been created.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF FAIRNESS IN BUDGET
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget has the support of the Quebec Minister of Finance but, that PQ-Tory agreement notwithstanding, the Budget will cost Quebecers 40,000 jobs next year and, by the end of this decade, Quebec will have to raise 630 million more in taxes or cut back social, health and education services, while under the same agreement and thanks to the Budget of the Minister of Finance and reduced equalization-


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a question?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Can the Minister explain how the Budget is fair to ordinary people in Quebec, considering its impact on employment, services and taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that someone who is in very close touch with what is going on in the Province of Quebec is the Minister of Finance of that province's Government. While not giving the Budget a blanket endorsement, he did say that it was moving in the right direction and addressing the problems of that province. It was doing many of the things that the people in that province felt should be done in addressing the twin problems of high unemployment and job creation on the one hand, and deficit control on the other. These numbers that the Hon. Member is throwing around about 40,000 jobs lost have just been pulled right out of the air and have no basis in fact.


FINANCIAL AID TO QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that the unemployment rate in Quebec is still over 12 per cent and that, during the election campaign, the Government promised grants to the shipbuilding industry in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Why did the Government withdraw its support for shipyards in spite of its election promises, and why did the Government withdraw financial assistance in spite of its promise to help industries in Quebec's hard-pressed regions? Is that fair to the unemployed in Quebec?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Not the Quebec Minister.


An Hon. Member:: The new Quebec Minister.
Oral Questions


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be given an opportunity to speak as a Minister of the Government of Canada-


Ian Deans: On behalf of the Government of the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I would like to assure the Hon. Member that he is not correct in saying that assistance has been cut off from the shipbuilding industry and the grant program to which he referred. In fact there will be continuing assistance for another seven years.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that interest rates have dropped about 3 per cent since the election. He will also know we are borrowing roughly $4 billion more this year than last. I was wondering if he could explain to the House why his appropriation for interest payments this year is $3.6 billion higher than last year, in view of lower interest rates and a lower borrowing requirement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as we borrow each year to cover the defict, that is piled on top of an ever increasing amount of debt. It is that ever increasing amount of debt on which we have to pay interest. The increase in the amount of debt charges I beliee is $3 billion, and a 10 per cent interest rate on a borrowing requirement of $30 billion is about $3 billion. It is for that reason we are on a bit of a treadmill here, and if we do not take action to reduce the size of the deficit we will never get that debt problem under control.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last August he sent a telex to my Progressive Conservative opponent stating that the Chalk River nuclear laboratories would not only be fully maintained but that a Progressive Conservative Government would consider additional funding. The Minister of Finance has now slashed AECL research and development funding by $100 million and has lifted an additional $70 million out of the company's retained earnings. Therefore 1 ask the Prime Minister, in all sincerity, why has he broken his promise in a way which will cause a large loss of jobs and result in another brain drain from Canada, just like the Avro brain drain which was perpetrated on the Canadian people by a previous Conservative Government.

May 28, 1985
Petitions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member looked closely at the Budget he would see that it represents a very major commitment on the part of the Government of Canada to reinvigorate research and development activities from coast to coast.
If I may address specifically the question the Hon. Member has posed, yes, we have made some adjustments to the R & D program at AECL, but there will be discussions with other provinces to see whether there can be a co-operative approach taken to nuclear research and development. I do want to underline that the safety and health elements of the research and development programs will be maintained.


EFFECT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance, since the Prime Minister refuses to say why he did not keep his promise. The Minister of Finance stated in his Budget that he was going to reward success. How can he justify this statement after cutting $100 million out of R and D and lifting another $70 million out of the earned savings of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? That is money that that Crown corporation earned largely through the world renowned laboratories at Chalk River. Does he not realize that he is creating another brain drain situation, or is he prepared to be the author of another Avro-Arrow story?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Member obviously wrote that question before he heard the answer to the first question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have said that we will be working with other utilities in Canada to see whether we can approach the research and development program for the Candu reactor on a co-operative basis.
In response to the broad thrust of the Hon. Member's question, I can say that broadening the definition of R and D, and having a refundable tax credit which will be of great benefit to a wide range of research and development companies across Canada, represent by far the largest commitment to research and development that any Government has made in recent years in Canada.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on Monday, May 27, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
*****


Mr. Speaker:: I am now in a position to give two rulings that were requested. The first was requested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) with regard to television coverage of the Budget. The second is with regard to the complaint by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Boudria) concerning words used yesterday by the Hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have, as requested, examined the record. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) believed that the Minister had accused him of lying. The record does not show that any such accusation was made, and I am bound to say that I can find nothing unparliamentary in the words complained of.
However, I should like to use this occasion to repeat a plea which I have made several times in the House, namely, that Hon. Members should at all times observe the normal courtesies of debate in the exchanges which take place in the House, particularly during Question Period. Today we had examples of deviation from what I think we all believe to be the appropriate practice for Members of the House. Expressions and comments can be offensive without necessarily being unparliamentary. Proceedings would certainly be improved if all Members would avoid the use of offensive language whether parliamentary or unparliamentary.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) about television coverage, I have now viewed several hours of budget speeches on camera. That is a part of the job that I was not aware of when I accepted this role. However, I am bound to say that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is in fact correct in his complaint.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The television coverage of the latest budget speech is significantly and substantially different from the coverage of previous budget speeches over the years. As Hon. Members would expect, I therefore have two things to say. The first is that I have in fact brought the discrepancies to the attention of the broadcasting bureau. The second is that, in my view, it would be appropriate, at least for the moment, to return to the guidelines that have been established.
May 28, 1985

1 watched all the television coverage of all the budget speeches. From the point of view of television coverage and reporting, it is my view that the coverage of the latest budget speech was better television. I say that for only one reason. Hon. Members know that the rules which the bureau must follow were established by the House. I think it may be time for the parliamentary Committee on Reform of the House of Commons to give some thought to whether it is time for us to consider exactly what we want television to do fairly for all Parties and all Members at all times in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986; and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State);: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46 I have the honour of tabling in both official languages the report of Canada on Articles 13 to 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House. Given the windfalls that were given to the oil companies as a result of the Budget and the Western Accord, and given that there are no guarantees that these companies will create jobs with those monies, we ask that the oil companies be told to end self service gas stations to provide jobs for young people.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by a few residents of Vancouver, some of whom reside in my riding. It brings to the attention of the
Motions
Government of Canada that the resettlement of Tigreans being conducted by the Government of Ethiopia will have disastrous consequences for the Tigrean people. These people are being resettled in an area where they have significant linguistic and cultural differences with the indigenous people, making for a potential recurrence of violence and persecution.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 63 1 move:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) 1985-86, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Since the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the Estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Finance Vote L2a
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
National Health and Welfare, Votes 75a and 80a.
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Vote 5a.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration: Employment and Immigration, Votes la, 5a, 10a and 15a.
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources Vote 20a.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Industrial Expansion Vote 55a.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there are three items which have been the subject of consultations between the Parties that I want to bring to the attention of the House. If you were to seek unanimous consent and put these motions forward, I think you would find a disposition to accept the same.
The first is the longest. It deals with the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. I move:

May 28, 1985
Motions
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture be appointed to examine annual reports of the Minister responsible for the Status of Disabled Persons and report and make recommendations to the House on any such reports and on questions referred to it by the House;
That five Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the subcommittee;
That the subcommittee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the subcommittee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada provided that the locations to be visited and the estimated expenses for such travel are determined in advance and submitted to the Commissioners of Internal Economy for approval;
That the subcommittee report directly to the House on the reports of the Minister responsible for the Status of Disabled Persons and on questions referred to it by the House;
That the subcommittee have all of the powers of a standing committee of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 69(8); and
That changes in membership on the part of the House of commons be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(b).


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rising to speak on the same matter?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement. I want to make sure for the record, however, that the total number of five members of the committee will be representative of all Parties in the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not think there is any question about that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That the members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration who are presently involved in the committee's study on the detention of immigrants in the Toronto area, be empowered to travel to Toronto and Montreal during the week of June 10 to 14, 1985, for the purpose of holding public hearings and that the necessary staff do accompany them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 22, 1985, be concurred in.
This report deals with the consideration of the circumstances arising with respect to legislation concerning the Canadian Commercial Bank and, in effect, allows an extension of the period of time for the consideration of that matter. Motion agreed to.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. There is an important question that 1 think remains as a result of your ruling with respect to the matter of televising the budget speech.
I believe that the House should be informed as to exactly who gave the instructions to the broadcasting bureau to depart from the rules previously agreed to by the House as to the manner of broadcasting the budget speech. I am not sure who should give this answer, whether it is the Government House Leader or an appropriate officer of the House, but I think it is necessary as a result of your ruling a few moments ago for this additional information to be provided to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking a very good question to which I do not yet have the final answer. As the Hon. Member would expect, I have sought the answer to that question and will be happy to advise the House when I know it.
It is clear from watching the coverage of the last few Budgets that there have been more periods of applause during the budget presentations, which creates difficulty for the producers in the television facility. I suspect that producers, on their own initiative and with the best of intentions, have been bringing the cameras back for wider shots during those periods in order to deal with what would be relatively dead time in production terms.
Furthermore, between the two budget presentations, the placement of the Finance Minister in the Chamber changed sufficiently so that when the same three cameras were used for Mr. Lalonde, there was an entirely different perspective because Mr. Lalonde sat at that end and the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) sits at this end. This time, a fourth camera-the camera at the end-was added to the shot and, 1 suspect, for the same reason. It was added and used during periods of applause. Therefore, the head and shoulder coverage, which is covered in our rules as the electronic Hansard of someone speaking, was not available because we were dealing with a period when no one was speaking.
While I will certainly relay any further information, 1 suspect that there is nothing more to it than an attempt by our staff to try to make the presentation of the House easier to follow on television. I will, of course, be happy to report to the House of Commons whatever information I find.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 289.
May 28, 1985


Mir. de Jong: 1.	How many barrels of imported oil are saved annually as a result of the CHIP and COSP programs in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces (c) the Province of Quebec?
2.	What does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources estimate the financial savings to have been from the reduction in the level of imported oil for (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces (c) the Province of Quebec?
3.	What is the Department's estimated costs, both direct and indirect, of the National Energy Program to the Government?
4.	What is the Department's estimate in terms of barrels of oil produced as a direct result of the programs, incentives and tax breaks of the NEP?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1 and 2. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources does not possess the information to discern whether the oil previously used was imported or not. For the CHIP program, EM&R's data base does not contain information on oil displacement or even on fuel type used when the CHIP work was carried out. Therefore, the only numbers that EM&R can supply are as follows:
(a)	Nationally: Energy savings attributable to work carried out under CHIP are equivalent to 10 million barrels of oil a year. Oil displaced by conversions carried out under COSP: 12 million barrels a year.
(b)	Atlantic: CHIP-750,000 barrels a year, COSP-
1.300.000	barrels a year.
(c)	Quebec: CHIP-2,623,000 barrels a year, COSP-
5.162.000	barrels a year.
3. The Department in 1982 estimated the cost of all the new initiatives announced in the NEP to be $9.1 billion for the four year period 1981-82 to 1984-85. A revision to this estimate has not been carried out. For the key NEP initiatives, the Department's most recent estimates are provided below.
1981/82	1982/83	1983/84	1984/85
(S millions)
Petroleum Incentives Program	-	1824	1748	1770Oil Substitution Program	134	188	204	228Home Insulation Program	130	224	53	114Natural Gas Laterals	-	5	77	169264	2241	2082	2281
4. The Department does not have such an estimate available and it would be very difficult to estimate the direct impact of the NEP on oil production. There have been a number of other factors that have influenced the level of oil production in Canada since the NEP. These factors include remaining geological potential, technological advancements, producer expectations on future oil and natural gas prices, cost of exploration, development and production, provincial incentives, producer cash flow and expected rates of return on investments in other
Borrowing Authority Act
sectors of the Canadian economy and in other countries. It is very difficult to separate the effects of these other factors on oil production from those resulting directly from the NEP.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance)) that Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted this morning I was talking about the difficulty in arriving at a true picture of the deficit because the numbers shift depending on how one views them.
I have mentioned that in a year when the personal income tax rebates are returned early, one can get an apparent exaggeration of the size of the deficit. It is corrected the following year although nothing has really changed.
Another example of this is in the February, 1984 Budget. The Department of Finance predicted an annual growth rate of 3.8 per cent over the next four years. Some ten months later, with another Minister of Finance, the Department of Finance produced totally different figures, and the result on paper was an addition of $9 billion to the deficit. This certainly points out the need for Members of Parliament to have better figures if we are to examine the financial requirements of the Government responsibly.
The need for better figures is one experienced equally by all Members of the House. For that reason, I hope that the Government will co-operate with the Auditor General in the study he is conducting in association with his opposite numbers in the United States. The object is to present Members of Parliament with figures which make for clear comparison and better understanding of the nation's business.
Deficit reduction over the next five years, to the extent that it can materially be seen, is to be pursued in a very unfair manner. The wealthy pay little, if anything. Apart from a one-year bump, corporations will enjoy substantial tax cuts.

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
However, lower and middle income groups will pay heavily. By 1990-91, individuals will be paying an extra $4.1 billion in income tax and $2.6 billion in sales and excise tax. However, corporations will enjoy a $2.2 billion decrease in taxes.
In addition, Canadians will find the real value of their pensions, family allowances and child tax support badly eroded. De-indexation of those programs by three percentage points will erode their real value by 16 per cent in 1990 to 1991. Canadians will have less disposable income to spend at a time when consumption is the key to sustaining the economic recovery.
The Old Age Security benefit payments will be cut by $1.6 billion by 1990-91 with a sizeable cut of $245 million as early as next year. Family allowances will be cut by $400 million in 1990-91 and by $90 million next year. Other cuts hit some sectors of our economy hard, in particular, agriculture. With the cuts in agricultural subsidies, food prices must go up.
The capital gains tax holiday is going to make it more profitable to get out of farming than to stay in it. As more farmers get out of farming and the value of the surrounding holdings is depressed, it does not take a lot of imagination to foresee much difficulty in the agricultural sector which will impact on the urban consumer.
The Budget has a lot of smoke and mirrors in the introduction of surtaxes on upper income groups, corporations and banks for a limited time period only. For the low to middle income family, especially those with dependent children, the cuts are ongoing.
The capital gains tax holiday which I just mentioned, apart from farmers, will benefit in the main affluent Canadians who are able to benefit from this exemption. Based on 1982 statistics, some 63 per cent of the capital gains exemption will accrue to people earning $50,000 a year or more, although they represent only 4 per cent of total taxpayers. The wealthier in society will enjoy significant tax reductions, but the poor and the lower middle class will have significant tax hikes.
The essential criticism I have of the Government's plan is the lack of any agenda for economic growth. Contrary to the leap of faith expounded in the Budget, many experts expect the proposed measures to slow economic growth. Even the Budget documents appear to undercut the Minister's Budget statements. The forecast for GNP growth shows 3.1 per cent for 1985. This is a decrease from the 1984 growth of 4.7 per cent. The Budget indicates a further deceleration in 1986 to 2.4 per cent.
Most authorities will say that even to stand still at our present unemployment rate of 11 per cent, which is unacceptably high, we need growth of 3 per cent. How can the Minister say that there will be jobs created when he is anticipating growth of less than 3 per cent? The Minister is anticipating growth of less than 3 per cent without the impact of his Budget cuts. I note that one respected forecaster for Woods Gordon has been quoted as saying the Budget's tax increases will cut GNP growth to about 1.9 per cent in 1986. If the forecaster is right, unemployment will increase sharply.
The Budget takes some $13 billion out of the economy over this year and next. The Budget takes at least $3 billion out of direct disposable income through personal income tax increases, sales tax increases, and cuts in transfers to persons, namely Old Age Security and family allowances. This cut in disposable income hits particularly the low and middle income group. The low and middle income groups are the people who spend their money on the necessities of life. They have very little margin for saving. Therefore, taking money away from them is taking money out of the economy and reduces consumer spending.
Investment is essentially driven by consumer demand, both domestic and foreign. Exports to the United States are weakening with the economic slowdown there. The Budget depresses domestic demand. In those circumstances, how can we share the economic and optimistic hopes of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)?
The Government tell us it is banking on a rise in confidence to spur economic recovery. Canadians are more sensible than to invest or spend solely because the Government says so. There must be visible reasons to do so, including improved employment prospects. The Budget does little to reduce the deficit, hence business confidence is not fortified. The Budget strikes at consumers, hence shaking their confidence. The Budget document entitled Canada's Economic Prospects has some material concerning consumer expenditures on page 16. It shows consumer expenditures to be very weak in 1986 when the tax measures really begin to bite. That same budget document shows net exports decreasing. Given that Canadian industry is still operating well below full plant capacity, probably at about 75 per cent, why would investment leap in 1986?
The Budget is based on supply side economics, the trickle down effect, which even the Reagan administration abandoned long ago.
Our real problem in Canada is the millions of dollars worth of goods and services we are not producing. The Budget does not address this. There is no agenda for economic growth which creates jobs. Instead, the Government has chosen to rely on a tax grab from low and middle income earners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as usual I appreciate listening to the comments of my colleague, the spokesman for the Liberal Party. As usual, she had a number of interesting and thoughtful reflections on where the country is not going and so on. I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he introduced Bill C-51, an Act to provide Borrowing Authority. He is asking us to approve today in principle the borrowing of $18.2 billion. Even for yourself, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that is a lot of change. When we are talking about $18 billion, we have a number of points to raise and questions to put to the Minister of Finance in order for us to endorse this request.
While the Minister of Finance has asked us for speedy passage of this Bill-we have no intention of holding up a borrowing authority-we have some comments we wish to make. I think it is fair to say that if we took a day or two to
May 28, 1985

approve the borrowing of $18 billion, I do not think people would consider that to be hasty or unrealistic. I think, Sir, you can anticipate two or three speakers from our Party, and I suspect my colleagues in the Liberal Party will do the same thing.
Having said some complimentary things about my colleague in the Liberal Party, I would be remiss not to mention that we are being asked to borrow extra money, not because of Liberal Members of Parliament-that would be unfair to them and their integrity-but because some of their colleagues in the Senate decided it was in the best interests of the country to hold up approval of the previous borrowing authority, Bill C-l 1, for $12 billion.
As a result, that cost the taxpayers of Canada an extra $ 15 million. When we talk about multibillion dollar budgets, $15 million may not sound like a lot of money. However, $15 million in extra charges, which the Members of the House of Commons were not prepared to levy, would have provided a whole set of child care centres and a wide set of opportunities to build and put into place transition homes for battered women or abused children. I could go on and on with a whole variety of areas in which that $15 million would have enabled us to perform a number of measures as a Parliament.
When we were asked by the Minister of Finance to authorize the borrowing of $18.2 billion, we heard in the same presentation, and more recently in the budget presentation, that the Government has launched itself in a new direction. We heard that there is a new era beginning for Canada and that the Government will be handling matters quite differently from now on. We have been told that we will be seeing new approaches, new directions and new developments.
Those are certainly great terms, and we welcome them. Indeed, we do. The one item I found absent from the Budget and, therefore, I think of concern to all Members of Parliament when we authorize the borrowing of $18.2 billion, was the apparent lack of a clear direction for the country.
To put that into context, and to be fair to the Members of the Conservative Party, what I think the Budget said is that we are now turning our attention totally to the private sector in order to create the 1.5 million jobs required in this country over the next number of years. We do not expect it to happen next month, or even this year. However, by unleashing the private sector, by giving it a variety of tax breaks, by giving individuals who make their living through investments, we are now looking to the private sector-the small, medium and large businesses of Canada-to provide the bulk, if not the entirety, of those 1.5 million jobs, in order to provide opportunities for the unemployed.
If you like, that is an approach to job creation. It is a somewhat different approach than what we have had in the past. I emphasize the word "somewhat". When you look at what Mr. MacEachen did in his Budget and consider what he said he was going to do, and when you consider what Mr. Lalonde did in his Budget and consider what he said he was
Borrowing Authority Act
going to do, I think the two said the same thing. In effect, they said they were going to give a great many tax breaks to upper income earners. They said that a number of tax breaks will be given to the business and corporate sectors in the anticipation of creating jobs. We have tried that, Mr. Speaker. However, this measure has taken us just a bit closer to the extreme.
That is not a direction for the country. It is a process. It leaves me to ask the question, what direction has the Government provided for the textile and footwear industries of Canada? If we were to interview people involved in that business and ask what direction this sector will take over the next decade, what would people say? What would people involved in the telecommunications and aerospace sectors say when asked the same question? I do not think there is a clear vision coming out of the Budget, or even out of subsequent discussions.
What is the situation with respect to the forest sector? This is a sector which touches every province and territory in this country. Where are we going with respect to the forest industry? I am speaking now of pulp and paper, plywood and lumber, the manufacture of shingles and shakes. Are we expanding in these vital areas? Are we rationalizing these industries? Are we cutting back?
It is not clear. What is clear is that some countries, such as Sweden and Finland, are developing resource industries such as forestry. For every tree which is cut down in those countries, three more are planted. Then, over time, the three trees are thinned out to ensure that for every tree cut down a good, strong tree is grown to replace it.
We have a different approach in this country. We cut down three trees and plant one. We are still doing that in spite of recent developments. Again, one asks where are we going with respect to the forest industry?
What is the situation with respect to Fishing, whether it be the East Coast, inland or West Coast Fishery? What will be the situation with respect to the Fishing industry in Canada over the next number of years? At this point, I look to my colleague from Newfoundland, where fishing plays such an important role. I am forced to ask where the Newfoundland fishery will be at the end of this decade. Will it be healthy? Will it be rationalized and, in parts, phased out? Where are we in terms of fish farming and aquaculture? Again, there is no direction, no vision, no blueprint, no strategy for such a critical resource industry in this Budget. There is absolutely nothing.
One could go on and on. I think one of the most important industries any country has, particularly a country such as Canada, is the agricultural sector, the food processing sector. In every province and territory there is a certain amount of that life-critical sector, food production. What is our game plan in Canada with respect to this sector? Is it to become self-sufFicient in the critical areas over the next decade or two? Is it to develop more exports in agriculture? The present Government has canned Canagrex and said that the Crown corporation whose business it is to open up new export markets for our food producers is not needed. In terms of agriculture, are we trying to preserve the family farm as the agricultural

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
producing unit? Are we trying to become self-sufficient in terms of critical foodstuffs? Are we trying to open up new markets for our food producers? There is no direction and no vision. There is no sense at all of where we are going as a country in terms of agriculture.
I suspect one could go through all of the various sectors in this country, whether it be the auto industry, fishing, shipbuilding, transportation policy, resource policy, and a variety of other areas. The situation is as unclear today as it was yesterday in terms of where we are headed as a country.
1 suspect you might be asking yourself, Mr. Speaker, what on earth am I getting at? Do I want some kind of a plan to show us the way? Do I want a road-map for agriculture in Canada? I have to say yes to that question. When the Edmonton Oilers from your community, Mr. Speaker, go out with a strategy to win the Stanley Cup, they do not just go to the game, put everyone on the ice and see what happens. They do not just go and slap the puck around. They have a very clear strategy, not only from game to game but from period to period. They have a very critical strategy.
When one is opening up a small business, one needs a plan with respect to where you are headed for the next two, three or even ten years. If you are running a family farm, you have a plan. If you run your life as a family person, or as an individual, you have a career or family plan. Somehow, we as a country, and we as a Government, have no plan. We do not know where we are going. We do not even know if we are there when we get there. We do not know if we are going in the right direction. It is like getting the family in the car and going on a holiday this summer without taking a road map along. It is like saying that we will try and see where we are going. That is one way of doing things. However, I do not think that if you looked around the world at successful countries which have developed economies and reduced unemployment levels, that you would find that ad hockery in those countries.
As New Democrats, we are concerned when we see a Budget which holds a different approach to a certain extent. However, we still see no blueprint for Canada. We do not see any strategy; nor do we see a development plan. We have profound and deep concerns that the future will be difficult to reach if we do not know where we are going. The situation will be difficult if we do not know what the future will hold.
What I believe we are seeing in this country is the sending out of a number of conflicting and confusing signals on the part of the Government. On the one hand, the Government says that it is providing tax incentives to keep the economy going. However, when one looks closely at other parts of the tax changes contained in the Budget, we notice, for example, that for a Canadian family with two dependent children, whose income is, let us say, in the $34,000 to $35,000 range, we have calculated that the elimination of the federal tax reduction will result in a $100 increase in taxes for that family. Because of the modification to indexing, it will result in about $115 in additional taxes.
The cut in family allowance payments means a decrease of $22.50 in what people would be expecting. Again, because of tax increases, the average cigarette or cigar smoker and the average person who has a glass of wine or something to drink during the year will pay another $75 on average. The sales tax increase touches everyone, rich or poor; it does not make any difference. This will mean $150 in additional costs for the average family through this tax imposition. As well, another nine cents per gallon is levied on our gas charges through a gax tax increase, resulting in an increase of $50. When those figures are totalled, they come to $512.50 per family. I ask Hon. Members to think about that.
At a time when we are asking small businesses around the country to expand their operations by hiring two or three more people because the good times are coming, we are saying that every single family, through this Budget alone, will have to pay another $512.50. This money will be dragged down to Ottawa because someone has to make up for all those tax loopholes that we have created.
Those folks who make their income from investments like the stock market, selling paintings or flipping real estate will pay no income tax at all on the first $500,000. That means that they will pay no income tax at all for an income of a half a million dollars. Some people find that system to be confusing. The Minister of Finance is saying that the Budget is fair, but poor people will pay more taxes while rich people, if they can use the loopholes in the system, will pay no tax and a great many upper-income earners will get tax breaks. How is this fair?
As someone who is very concerned about the way the economy is moving, I am concerned that the economy will tend to move underground. I am concerned that because of the unfair tax system, we will find more and more people not declaring income. It will be like this: I will fix your teeth if you fix my plumbing at my summer cabin; I will build you a fireplace if you provide me with some clothing for my children. The whole thing will go underground. Cash and services will change hands, but we will not collect any taxes.
Some people say that the underground economy is worth $30 billion today. Some people say that it is worth as much as $50 billion. My fear is that at a time when we really need revenue more than ever before, we will be forcing more and more of that economic activity underground. This is something we have seen happen in a number of European countries.
I have other concerns about the direction in which things seem to be moving. I will use my own constituency as an example. It is a constituency which is pretty typical of those outside of urban Canada. The new Government with its new thrust is looking almost exclusively to the private sector for creating the jobs and the economic activity that is needed. There is a sense of support for that system within the country. However, when looking at the economic activity that has taken place in the City of Kamloops in the last number of months, one sees what is really happening. We built a new airport terminal and put hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of
May 28, 1985

improvements into the airport. We built a major bridge across a large river. We built an armoury for our Armed Forces contingent. We built a large new provincial court house. We built a whole variety of small fire halls and community halls and we built rodeo, stampede and fair grounds. We built large highways and we replaced and built a sewage system. We installed sewage treatment facilities and water treatment facilities. Those are all public-sector activities. I have left out many of them including new wharfs, beach and park developments and so on.
Tallying up almost all of the economic activity that has occurred in the City of Kamloops and surrounding area in the last few years, I would guess that at least 90 per cent of it has been public sector development. The public sector has hired hundreds and hundreds of tradesmen and bought from dozens and dozens of small manufacturers. If that public sector expenditure is taken away, I wonder where the activity will occur. The manufacturing firms that locate in the Kamloops area often locate there because they are subsidized by an incentive program which provides $500,000 worth of capital support or help with research and development and the like for locating there. Even private-sector companies that have located in the City of Kamloops often do so because of the support that comes from one level of Government or another.
If we blindly accept that the private sector alone will do everything and that there is no role at all for the federal, provincial, local or regional Governments to play, I will be very worried. With all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, it seems to me to be a little simplistic to say that the world will now change and we will rely totally on the private sector composed of small and medium sized businesses to create jobs that will employ one and a half million people over the next number of years. I think we are putting blinders on over the economic reality.
When being asked to give borrowing authority to $18.2 billion, I am particularly concerned by the Government having assumed that all regions of Canada are exactly the same and that there are no real special difficulties in certain areas. We can tell the private sector that we have confidence in it to expand in Newfoundland and Labrador, Cape Breton and New Brunswick, Alberta and Northern British Columbia, but those areas are particularly hard hit. I see that the Hon. Member who represents Red Deer is present. He will know how sensitive the situation is in parts of Alberta and other parts of western and northern Canada. Now, at a time when we are taking so much money out of those communities through increased taxes, when we are reducing the increases that senior citizens may expect to receive in the years ahead, and when we are taking away $512 from every family as a result of this Budget and at the same time as we are asking small and medium sized businesses to expand in those areas, we may asking for a little too much. We may be making some unreasonable demands on and having some unreasonable expectations for just what that sector is able to do in these times.
Borrowing Authority Act
Some of the things that we found disappointing in the discussions that have followed this Budget and prefaced this requst for $18.2 billion were such things as the Government not really evaluating the 170 programs that are presently in place to assist business. There are 170 programs that in theory assist business. Many of them are valuable, but I suspect that many of them are totally invaluable and totally counter-productive. If we are trying to reduce expenditures, then rather than taxing senior citizens or, as someone said earlier in a very strong statement, putting the boots to the senior citizens, and rather than cutting back on family allowance increases, pension increases and raising taxes on the things kids buy in stores, would it not have been more sensible to evaluate these 170 programs that assist business in order to determine which of these could be eliminated? For example, should we be encouraging businesses through the tax system to modernize their plants so that they can lay off a number of employees? Should we be encouraging businesses through the tax system to merge with other businesses? This usually results in a net job loss. Is this the kind of way we should be spending taxpayers' money?
Again, there was no tax expenditure program with the Budget. There was no study of the 170 programs to assist business to determine which were useful and which were not. Again, this adds to the sense of the Budget being somewhat unfair. Perhaps the Budget was biased in favour of certain regions of Canada. Perhaps it was biased toward certain kinds of industries and particularly the large corporate sector. Perhaps it was biased toward upper income earners at the expense of ordinary Canadians and people with lower incomes. If we look closely at it, it provides a whole set of questions. It sends confusing messages to the regions of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada and to the people of Canada as to what direction, if any, the new Government appears to be taking.
It appears that we have now launched on a bit of an experiment. Last Saturday, major editorials in a number of Canada's newspapers were written about the trickle-down theory of economics. Various questions were raised as to whether the trickle-down theory has ever worked and whether it could work in Canada. For those people who are not familiar with the trickle-down theory, basically it means that if tax breaks or money is given to the large successful corporations and the upper-income earners, they will do things so that eventually some of those dollars will trickle down to ordinary Canadians. The idea is that if the large corporations and upper-income earners do extremely well, eventually it will come out at the other end.
That theory was tried in the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher gave a lot of tax breaks to upper-income earners and helped the big corporations. However, it would appear that things are not going that well in the United Kingdom in terms of getting unemployment levels down. Perhaps the trickle-down theory which was applied in the United Kingdom did not work quite as well as was anticipated. The Government of West Germany also tried that approach. However, unemploy-
5154

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
ment levels in West Germany are increasing and the economy is slowing down. A lot of upper-income people and large corporations which were given breaks did not end up having their dollars trickle down. We are now trying the old trickle-down theory in Canada.
A friend of mine who runs a farm in Saskatchewan explained the trickle-down theory to me. He told me that it was like feeding a horse. The birds sometimes sit down on the ground behind the horse, because if enough oats are jammed into the horse eventually the odd kernel gets down through the system and the birds have something to eat at the other end. I do not suppose that theory works very well for the birds, as there are better ways to feed birds. I do not think the trickle-down theory has worked very well in the United Kingdom, nor has it worked well in West Germany. But it may work here. That is the hope which the Minister of Finance has for the country. He tells us that with a little bit of luck and if we all put our shoulders to the wheel, things will be OK.
It reminds me of the time when I took my two sons to see Peter Pan. Tinker Bell was talking about flying and explained that if one really wished and believed, one could fly. I believe we are now seeing the Peter Pan approach to economics. The Minister of Finance is telling us that if we really wish and really believe things will improve, they will. There might be a certain element of truth in that, but it is hardly the approach on which a strong economy is built.
NDP Members have a variety of concerns in terms of what appears to be the lack of direction in which the Government is moving. We also have concerns regarding the quarterly report approach to economics. The private sector, whether it is the shareholders or the companies themselves, is very concerned about the quarterly report. A lot of the successes and failures of small businesses are evaluated every three months on the results of the quarterly report. We in this Party have some concerns with regard to that kind of planning. We are concerned that the planning will be done only at three-month intervals and that we will not look ahead, as countries in western Europe and Japan have done, for at least a decade. We should start taking steps to ensure that certain kinds of economic activities will take place two or three years in the future.
In conclusion I would like to say that my Party is concerned about a variety of elements in this legislation. My colleagues will be raising a number of observations and concerns in future debates. Then we will look forward to the rapid passage of this borrowing authority Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we are now entering the second phase under Standing Order 35(2), whereby the next speakers will have 20 minutes, plus a ten-minute question and comment period.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to have this
opportunity to rise in the House today, in my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to our excellent Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
I am both honoured and proud, because in the few days following the Budget, Canadians have clearly understood that the present Government fully intends to act according to the very clear mandate it received last September. Only two months after Canadians had again taken control of their destiny, our Government was listening to the concerns and aspirations of Canadians through the most formidable consultation process in Canadian history, which started on November 8, 1984.
As a result of this general consultation, the Government was able to clearly define three very specific priorities. Because of the three-fold need to encompass and control the situation in our country as a whole, we cannot now afford to dissociate these priorities, which are, first of all, to create permanent jobs, second, to control Government expenditures and third, to reduce the deficit gradually and consistently. Those are the three major goals that must direct our policy for the future. On May 23 of this year, the Budget tabled in the House reflected the Government's clear-cut and realistic acknowledgement of these fundamental priorities.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House today which is aimed at providing additional borrowing authority, reflects once again how urgent it is for the present Government to implement the kind of policies proposed in the Budget.
It is unfortunate but true that today we are still suffering the disastrous effects of the appalling mismanagement of this country's economy by the previous Government. It is equally unfortunate and equally true that until the new policies proposed in the Budget have any significant effect, we will still have to honour the commitments made by our country, even if those commitments reflect the poor management of the previous Government. Nevertheless, Hon. Members will understand that it is not my intention to indulge in any kind of political partisanship in presenting the Bill before the House today.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we are facing two very real facts: the tangible presence of the disastrous results of previous mismanagement and tomorrow's priorities dictated by systematic consultations, facts that were indeed acknowledged in this Government's brand new Budget. Thanks to the Budget brought down on May 23, the Government will save more than $6 billion this year through more effective management of its operations, that is, $2 billion as a direct result of this Budget and $4.2 billion as a result of the measures already in effect announced in last November's economic statement.
The deficit for the current financial year will be approximately $4.4 billion less than it would have been if no measures had been taken by this Government, in other words, if previous
May 28, 1985

principles of poor management had continued to be implemented.
The deficit for 1986-87 will be $8.3 billion less than it would have been without the restraint measures we proposed in the recent Budget.
The direct impact of all the efforts undertaken last November will therefore be to reduce the deficit by some $20 billion by 1990. About 80 per cent of this decrease in the deficit will be the direct result of better program management and greater cost recovery, in other words of a good administration.
The Government has undertaken to reduce the projected level of annual expenditures by $10 to $15 billion by 1990. The total spending cuts in 1990-91 will therefore amount to some $16 billion. Our medium term strategy ensures that the national debt will be about $75 billion less by 1990 than it would have been otherwise.
It must be kept in mind that the main thrust of this Budget is to create jobs. The main purpose of this Government is to create thousands of permanent jobs for all Canadians. Indeed, since our coming to power, 200,000 new jobs have been created thanks to the new confidence generated in the commercial, business and industrial sectors of Canada. The Budget has also laid the foundation of a sound economy, which will allow us to create thousands of other stable jobs.
One thing became quite clear during our consultations. Employment is our No. 1 priority, but this does not mean a vague and indifferent process of creating doubtful jobs. What we need are not temporary jobs, which were often directly or indirectly subsidized by transitional Government programs. No, what the Canadian people want and deserve are jobs created by the private sector or through local initiatives, that is by themselves. We all agree that self-sufficiency is much better and more productive than the paternalistic assistance of the welfare state.
The economic renewal and job creation approach outlined in the Budget of May 23 follows three major themes: first, in the Budget, we express the need to promote local initiatives and the private sector by rewarding success instead of subsidizing perhaps worthwhile but, unfortunately, often unproductive efforts; second, we are improving the management and effectiveness of public administration in order to give the taxpayer more for his money, that is to give him the services he deserves; third, we want to cut the deficit through strict control over our dreadful national debt.
Our initiatives to stimulate the growth of the private sector aim first at promoting job creating investments, for instance in our own small businesses in Quebec. Canadian businessmen have a much better sense of business, trade and industry than our public servants. Our initiatives to promote better government management will create a proper framework for the expected growth of the private sector while limiting the
Borrowing Authority Act
bothersome influence and harmful interference of the unwieldy government bureaucracy.
Finally, our action to cut the deficit is carefully and sensibly balanced to meet these medium-term objectives so as not to hinder the needed economic recovery. This does not mean that the Government will no longer deal with job creation or training. For instance, the Government has allocated some $900 million more for job creation and training programs next year, in addition to the $900 million already appropriated for the same purpose this year. On the other hand, the spirit underlying our programs thus funded is very different from what it was with previous programs. Funds will be used for programs based on a larger input by the private sector and the community. This partnership approach besides will result in a consensus being reached among the Provinces and the local groups across the country.
Mr. Speaker, an extensive review of the unemployment insurance program also is under way. Its purpose is to improve and simplify that program, in order to make it more equitable and more responsive to current changes in the labour market. Contrary to what some prophets of evil would have us believe, this Government's objective is anything but wanting to reduce federal help to the unemployed. And this Government's determination to bring about an improvement in the unemployment insurance system is illustrated by the two changes announced in the budget, namely that the variable entrance requirements allowing the unemployed in distressed areas to draw benefits at an earlier date will actually be extended for another year.
Further, unemployment insurance premium rates in 1986 will be the same as in 1985, so as not to unduly increase the costs for employees and employers. Mr. Speaker, this Government's determination to reduce the deficit stems from the relentless reality of the experience we have had with the negative effects of our heavy national indebtedness on economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the previous Government's mismanagement has created a vicious circle from which we are just starting to break away. The fast accumulation of our national debt is still for the moment forcing us to allocate a significant percentage of the public funds to the payment of interests rather than to the programs and the social services that are so badly needed. Now we must extend our borrowing authority, Mr. Speaker. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that deficit reduction and job creation are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. If an increasing deficit and a huge debt could create jobs, there would not have been a single unemployed on Canada's labour market for a long time!
This Government's objective, as evidenced in the Budget of May 23, 1985, is indeed to decrease the deficit in a reasoned and responsible way, in order not to have the economy edge away from its current pattern of steady growth. Were it not for this Government's determined action to bring the deficit under control, the Canadian economy would be unable to

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
produce steady jobs for our workers who urgently need them. Above all, the Budget, with both a modern and truly Canadian dimension, reflects something that has long since been cast away by the previous adminsitration. It reflects a warranted hope and a faith in the Canadian people, its vitality and its capacity to grasp the opportunities and invest in their own future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members in this House to strongly support Bill C-51 the Borrowing Authority Act, 1985-86 (No. 2).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no questions or comments, before I recognize the next speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald)-Cultural Affairs-Request for tax measures to assist artists and writers, (b) Unemployment insurance inquiry; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-Job classification-government position; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Social Security-Benefits paid to widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 years-Exclusion of single, divorced and separated persons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance)) that Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There was no one who
rose on questions and comments and I am recognizing the next speaker. Is the Hon. Member the next speaker for his Party?


James Douglas Manly: I was hoping to be able to ask a question. I believe that there is someone here from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There were no questions or comments. If the Hon. Member is participating in the debate, then I will recognize him as the next speaker.


James Douglas Manly: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, just to ask some questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a little late to ask questions or make comments. I will recognize the next speaker for debate if there is another speaker. If there is not, is the House ready for the question?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take in this very important debate today. I would like to mention that this legislation has been the subject of frequent debate and that the debate on Bill C-51, which concerns the provision of borrowing authority, gives Members an opportunity to review the Government's record.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary refer to his Government's three-fold priority, and he had the nerve to rank job creation first. Mr. Speaker, the figures we received in April from Statistics Canada showed that for the week ending April 20, even if the Minister is bragging about having created jobs, one group was particularly disadvantaged. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to young people 25 years old or under.
Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs for young people of 25 or under hardly increased at all during the last few months. In fact the opposite is true. So we have a situation where unemployment among young people from 15 to 24 affects 489,000 young men and women who cannot become active members of the labour force and cannot participate fully in the progress of our society. And considering this fact, Mr. Speaker, I feel that legitimate though this request for borrowing authority may be, the borrowing is not being done for the right reasons.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain. This is International Youth Year, with its three major themes: participation, development and peace. At a time when participation should be a fundamental priority, when 500,000 young Canadians are anxious to take an active part in society and become active members of the labour force, the Government, through its failure to opt clearly in favour of the most dynamic elements of our society, through its lack of interest for this segment of our population, is compromising the hopes of an entire generation. The Parliamentary Secretary has said nothing to convince me his Government is at all concerned about youth unemployment. The Budget contains no reference to helping young people enter the labour market. No programs to help young people. However, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, that same Government was filling our ears with promises that could not have been more generous.
May 28, 1985

Mr. Speaker, the day after the Cabinet was sworn in, they appointed a Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne). Mr. Speaker, as one Member who made every effort to ensure that the Ministry of State for Youth would be a reality within the Government, I must admit I was very disappointed. I almost regret I was instrumental in providing a position for the present incumbent. Mr. Speaker, the present incumbent at the Minister of State (Youth), who always played starring roles during her professional career, now has a very minor role indeed. What influence did the Minister of State (Youth) have on preparations for this Budget? It is obvious she had no say in it whatsoever. I say that because I am sure she is far more concerned about young people than her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who simply shouldered her aside.
Mr. Speaker, one look at the figures is enough. Worse, in a year specifically dedicated to youth, when we talk about participation and development, development of the individual, Canada's educational system is under-financed. Access to post-secondary education is becoming increasingly restricted.
Perhaps in keeping with the Government's approach, Mr. Speaker, the situation is such that only rich people will be able to afford to attend college or university. Consider the huge number of young Canadians who can no longer afford postsecondary education. Look at the discouragingly high number of post-secondary student drop-outs, and what does the Government do? Mr. Speaker, 300,000 out of 540,000 unemployed youths did not even finish high school, 300,000 young people who do not have the vocational training required to land a full-time job. What measures did the Minister of Finance advocate? Sure enough, they will swell the ranks of permanent welfare cases, and that is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, in a society which keeps bragging about equal opportunity for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, self-development is the current buzz word, but I fail to see the rationale behind the International Youth Year three themes-Participation, Development, Peace-because they are but words and all we can see is those lofty themes reproduced on posters. That is why I was concerned when I heard the Minister of Finance talk about people getting a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. Mr. Speaker, precious few young Canadians stand to gain anything there, except perhaps the sons and daughters of rich parents who will end up with a fortune. Who else? And what about the economic and social impact of unemployment? Here again, Mr. Speaker, we saw the Minister of Finance shirk all responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to give unconditional support to Bill C-51, 1 hesitate because the priorities are wrong.
Peace is one of this year's three themes and yet, Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has been practically untouched. Mr. Speaker, why display those slogans and convene seminars and conferencs on the three themes if we are not going to do anything positive? That brings to mind the hundreds of young Canadians I met recently, most of them
Borrowing Authority Act
quite disillusioned. They had been promised the moon, but the sad reality is that they now find out that, as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, a just society is one where the rich get richer, where people who are well-off do not miss an opportunity to do even better, and where the ordinary man invariably gets stuck with the bill. This Budget which has been brought down and which will justify part of this money, this borrowing authority, is a "fat cats" budget, Mr. Speaker. You know full well that in fact it will please the haves in our society, and that 25 per cent of the Canadian society have been totally ignored by that Budget, the younger generation has been completely overlooked, and in that sense I am very much disappointed.
I certainly can speak of that Government's new management initiatives, Mr. Speaker. Not only they have the gall to tell the unemployed: We let you turn to the private sector, do not count on us, we are not responsible and we do not want to hear from you. Worse than that they tell them: We find that your unemployment insurance benefits are a bit generous, and we will set up a committee with people from the private sector. Not a committee made up of unemployed people, Mr. Speaker. Above all, do not bother about them. This is what the Minister of Finance told them. Not only shall we not try to find jobs for you, but the unemployment insurance scheme is too generous, we are going to cut down on your benefits. Such is the message relayed by the Minister of Finance to the unemployed, a message of despair. He is telling them: You are the scape goats in our society. How can anyone with a minimum of social conscience, Mr. Speaker, accept such a miserable message to one and a half million unemployed across the land? They are told: Trust us, but, better still, trust the large corporations. Trust the rich. We are going to give them more. We are going to give them a $125,000 bonus, and they will look after you. Possibly, Mr. Speaker, with that $125,000 bonus, which is the deduction on half a million dollars in capital gains, they might hire a maid, and perhaps also a gardener. But this is about all it will afford to pay. Most of it will not benefit job creation. Even today, Alain Dubuc stated in La presse, and God knows he is not a politically involved columnist but a perceptivbe economic observer, this was a gift to the rich with very little chances for employment creation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues opposite, who have been commissioned to go and sell that Budget with their eyes closed and their ears shut to criticism-


Mr.   La Salle@: No, no!


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) says: No, no, no. We even have one of his colleagues, his colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), who showed so much zeal that, being unable to convince his constituency association chairman with words, went as far as breaking his nose in two places!


Mr.   La Salle@: On the Budget?

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the Budget, Mr. Speaker. His constituency association chairman, over the week-end, could not agree with the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere, and the Hon. Member carried out the Prime Minister's orders to the letter. He said: I must defend the Budget forcibly, and so he did, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   La Salle@: With conviction!


Jean-C. Lapierre: With much conviction! And one thing I would recommend to the Tory caucus, if they are going to resort to that kind of pressure selling, at least they should buy collective life insurance.


Mr. Rossi:: A big one!


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would first and foremost recommend to the average Canadians not to try and meet directly their Conservative MP's at this time, because they are very nervous. They know very well that they do not see eye to eye with ordinary people. They know it, but they were told that the word of the Minister of Finance is as good as what the Bible says. They are nervous, and if someone annoys them, they become aggressive. They have learned that from their Leader. Whenever he does not have an answer, he shouts. Mr. Speaker, I advise all Canadians who are clearly unsatisfied by most of the budgetary measures, except for the wealthy who are as happy as can be, to phone their Member of Parliament or to write to him. It is less risky and I hope that it will be as effective.
Mr. Speaker, we saw the commitments made by the Prime Minister at the time when, as he says himself, he was generous with his commitments. Where young people are concerned, he was supposed to provide more incentives so that employers would hire and train young workers. He was supposed to extend the Career Access Program, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard anything about it? They have forgotten. The Prime Minister was supposed to provide reimbursable employment tax credits. He was supposed to set up new training and retraining programs for young people in highly specialized technical areas. Mr. Speaker, we have not heard anything about them. He even said that a Conservative Government would substantially improve the information exchange mechanisms to help young people learn about job opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Government for doing nothing in this regard because there are no job opportunities and therefore no need to improve these mechanisms. I can forgive the Prime Minister for this. However, there is more. He was supposed to implement programs to fight the chronic unemployment which dramatically hit some areas in Canada. In those areas, Government Members, who have a short memory, were supposed to implement private sector development community programs. They wanted to help groups and individuals willing to create new businesses to cut through the red tape, find markets, train their employees and maintain harmonious relations with the local workers, teachers, and financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, everyone is for virtue and
motherhood. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised during the election campaign and we realize now that he did not really mean what he was saying. Today we have seen a budget, and the bill now under consideration is related to it, strictly meant for the rich, a budget which does away with all former commitments. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and I know that as an honest man, he is deeply embarrassed by it. I would rather have had a budget introduced under his government, because I recognized his integrity. Moreover, he was remarkably honest in 1979. His colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said that if he had been as honest this time he would never have been elected. The Minister of Justice also said that it was better not to tell Canadians what they planned to do because they would never be elected. This is why they merely fooled the Canadian people who were ready for a change.
They wanted to humble us, but when you vote for the Conservative party you have to pay the price, Mr. Speaker. And this is what the Canadian people are beginning to say. This could surely be a useful slogan, Mr. Speaker, for my friends who have now finally realized, that the Tories tried to fake it during the election campaign but as soon as they were elected, what was bred in the bone came out in the flesh. And their traditional clientele of Bay Street and others have had more influence on the Minister of Finance than the ordinary Canadian. And when the Minister of Finance tells us: "I met some people and they approved my budget; the kind of people he sees, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of people I meet.
Surely, I am not in touch with the business sector the same way he is and I do not apologize for it. But I will refer to the inquiries made among ordinary people, those who have realized that they will have to carry the burden of cuts made by the Minister of Finance and not derive any benefit from it. This is why I find unfortunate that the people have soon realized how costly it will be because this government has not kept its word. I do not trust the government to because I know that its expenditures will be beneficial to very few, to those whom the Minister of Finance is willing to hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Member who just finished speaking indicated that the capital gains exemptions introduced in the Budget would not create jobs. The man does not know what he is talking about. Capital gains tax has killed incentive in the country. It has stopped people from investing money and stopped businesses from expanding. The elimination of capital gains tax will encourage many people to invest money. When money is invested it creates jobs. It is that simple.
May 28, 1985

After the Liberal Government introduced the capital gains tax their Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture promised to change the date of evaluation. They then sat in the House for four years and refused to do anything. Every time we asked them about it, they would say "soon". They both recognized that it was killing incentive but would not do anything about it. They killed the incentive of hundreds of people across the country. The exemption from the capital gains tax will create jobs.
Capital gains tax has ruined the lives of many Canadians who wanted to retire but could not do so because the Government would take a chunk out of their nest-egg, the only pension they had. That caused lost jobs as well because if they had been able to sell their land to their hired man he would have been able to hire other people. That would create many jobs across the country.
The Liberals say that this Government was elected because there was a need for change. The Government was elected because the people were sick and tired of the do-nothing policies and the killing-of-incentive policies of the Liberals. That is why we were elected. Our Budget is creating jobs and reducing the deficit. Maybe that is what makes the Liberals and the NDP so angry.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank Heavens I am not a Consevative, Mr. Speaker! My hon. friend has just said that if farmers can sell their lands, they will create jobs. All farmers who intend to continue working their lands and creating jobs have denounced the fact that this decision will not help farmers generally, but only retired farmers, and will not ease the burden of those to whom the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) had promised a subsidy, like Quebec hog producers! This decision is not likely to help them because their lands having lost so much of their worth, there is no capital gain to speak of.
When he says that this decision will create jobs, Mr. Speaker, does he feel that the purchase of a condominium in Florida is likely to create jobs in Canada? The answer is an unequivocal no. There is no condition attached to the generous gift the Minister of Finance is making to the rich, as far as creating jobs in Canada for Canadians is concerned. That is the fraud of their budget. They will create a great many jobs by purchasing works of art in Europe or by purchasing condominiums in Florida or villas in Portugal. All this will be accepted by this generous Minister of Finance who was far more eager to please the big shots than ordinary Canadians. But who is going to pay for this, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that if my hon. colleague knew the people at the lower end of the economic scale and those who are faced with enormous financial difficulties . . . like our senior citizens. He should be ashamed to stand in the House and brag about defending senior citizens when his own Minister of Finance is reducing the purchasing power of their Old Age Pension cheques, which is totally unacceptable. When he uses the expression "senior citizens", he means those who have lots of money, but what about the millions of
Borrowing Authority Act
old folks whose sole source of income is their pension cheque, the purchasing power of which will be cut by as much as 30 per cent over the next five years, because of the action taken by the Minister of Finance? And he has the gall to support that. That is altogether unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the last remarks of the Hon. Member are complete baloney. He does not understand the system. The only thing that Liberals understand is borrowing money, nationalizing, spending government money and putting the people further into debt. That is what they have been doing for 16 years. The Hon. Member is in a rut.
He cannot tell me that capital gains do not create jobs. 1 told the House yesterday about a man who said he wanted to expand his business and create jobs for seven people but would never do so while capital gains tax was in existence.
The Hon. Member does not even understand farming. The Liberals say that we want the farmers to sell their land. People who have spent 40 or 50 years on the land are entitled to retire in dignity. That is what the Liberals refuse to let them do. The MacEachen Budget would not even let them put their money into an RRSP. I do not know how a Liberal can stand up without having his face turn as red as blazes. They have hurt the little people of this country and have killed incentive.
We have a new Government starting a new era in which we will give people a chance to live and a chance to have a job. That is what irks the Hon. Member so much. We are doing what his Government refused to do.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have much respect for the hon. member because of his age and not because of his judgment. His social awareness should make him realize that the cuts his Minister of Finance is about to make in the case of senior citizens will affect the poor people without a piece of land or $500,000 in capital gains. When he referred to farmers who could not retire, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but. .. Marc Lalonde, the former Minister of Finance, had allowed a $300,000 exemption which covered the reasonable value of the land. The farmers I know were satisfied with that because capital gains in excess of $300,000 ... Perhaps those people should be asked to make some contribution to the nation, Mr. Speaker, and pay taxes. I understand that the Hon. Member would want to give every opportunity to the rich. When he refers to fairness, the Hon. Member means to give more to the well-to-do. This is the difference between a Progressive Conservative and a Liberal. We have a social awareness. Our conduct is not merely dictated by the lure of power and money. The Hon. Member has two obsessions: profit-making and the fear of losses. I think that in politics our reasoning should not be strictly based on financial factors, but also on humanitarian and social considerations. And that is why your victimization

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
of the unemployed and the senior citizens is morally unacceptable.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on some points made in earlier speeches when it was mentioned that the young people were left out in the budget. At least, we will not leave an unfortunate legacy of failures and borrowings for which the young will have to pay. We will try to balance the budget so that our young people will not have that legacy. I repeat once again, they will not have to pay our debts later. I hate to look back to the past, but the previous administration ... I was not a government member then but I was a victim and I can assure you that if at least I can leave our books and our government in order, that will be a good point for our young people.
Secondly, we want young people to get out of that vicious circle where they alternate between temporary jobs created with government grants and unemployment insurance. Our young people now lack dignity. We need permanent jobs and private enterprise alone can create them . . . We are generous. We do not mention that the Liberal government is responsible. We do not lay any charge. We say that the government cannot create permanent jobs and we trust private enterprise. I come from the private enterprise sector, I can assure you that we take those measures for the sake of young people. Those are concrete and direct steps which the government has taken in the last budget.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the kind of speech I like to hear. When he says that we will have something in store for young people in future ... but today, at this very moment there are 432,000 of them who have nothing. In the meanwhile, he only provides them with welfare benefits. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary is offering to young Canadians? They do not have jobs. We will have to wait for his so-called private enterprise to hire all of them. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but it is only smoke. It is a smoke screen which he puts up in front of the young people. And despair is the only thing they will inherit from him. He will be responsible because if these children cannot have ... his own children will receive an adequate education because they will be able to pay for it but those who do not have access to education today will never forgive you. It is a high cost to pay to keep our books in order, and it is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have waited some time for the Government to bring forward this borrowing Bill. The House will recall that prior to Christmas, as part of an arrangement to be made, there was an agreement that the Government would bring in its borrowing authority legislation as close as possible to its Budget and its fiscal plan.
It has done so and I am grateful that the Government has lived up to its end of the agreement.
The reason we asked for that agreement is that it seemed necessary to see all aspects of the economic package at once so that we could compare and reasonably discuss the Budget on one hand, the fiscal plan of the Government as it affects the raising and dispensing of taxes and tax money on the other, and of course the requirement for borrowing.
In my opinion there are certain things that must be said, and if I appear to be thinking out loud it is because I am doing just that. I do not have volumes of prepared text before me because what I want to say does not require volumes of prepared text. Rather, it is a view of Canada that I happen to believe has been missed by successive Governments for many years and is being missed again by the present Government.
I read the Budget with interest. I must admit that I listened to the Budget with somewhat less interest because it was long, somewhat laboured, and a bit boring. However, I read it to see if the Budget, the working papers or the background documents referred to what was really wrong in the country. I must say to you, Sir, that I could not find what I believe to be wrong in Canada at the moment referred to even in the most passing way in any of the documents. The Budget is as traditional as any Budget I have seen in 18 years of political life. It is a tax grab and nothing more. There is no innovation in the Budget. There is nothing that recognizes the reality that is Canada in the Budget. To be quite honest, there is no new direction for Canada. There is no recognition of the problems we now face as a country. There is no recognition of the problems we will face as a country, and there is no carefully analysed document that would indicate what the Government anticipates would be the impact of its new direction, this direction it calls new.
The Government asks us to allow it to borrow more money. In order to determine whether it is appropriate to borrow more money, we have to take a look at how the money the Government now has is going to be spent. I do not want to go into the kind of detail that many others have. I recognize that the Government has done a number of things that are about as traditional as they could possibly be. The Government has raised taxes. Where did the Government go to raise those taxes? The Government went to the working families of Canada. The Government did not even have the necessary intestinal fortitude to follow up on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) own commitment to bring in with this Budget a tax on those who have for many years been able to accumulate substantial sums of money without ever paying a single solitary cent in income tax. The Government then decided it would add a surtax on those who are earning in excess of $40,000 a year. As one of those individuals, I do not object to paying a little more in order to put the "house" in order so to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 28, 1985


Ian Deans: Let me say that what I do object to is this Government, not having dealt with those who earn far more than $40,000 a year and who pay no tax, has not found any way to have them pay the surtax either. Not only do those earning more than $40,000 a year pay tax under normal circumstances, but they are not asked to pay the additional tax that everyone else is asked to. Who is being asked to pay? The senior citizens are being asked to pay. That is normal. That is what one gets to expect from Governments. Governments tend always to go to where it is easiest to get money. From here on senior citizens' incomes will be reduced on an annual basis. That appears to be the Government's will and wont. We will see over the course of the next few years a dramatic reduction in the purchasing capacity of the senior citizens in Canada. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. It is not fair when measured over and against the fact that there are many others who earn considerably more who pay no tax at all. Where else did the Government go? The Government decided that it would hand out to its friends and supporters in the oil companies many billions of dollars. The Government told us at the time, although we asked over and over again, that this would not detrimentally affect the consumers of Canada.
The Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) at one point went as far as to suggest that the measures, the effects that would flow from the Western Accord, would be of benefit to the consumers and she anticipated a reduction in the price at the pump.
I ask Conservative back-benchers who are here, and even the two Ministers in their seats, where oh where is the reduction at the pump? By September next this Government alone will have increased the cost of gasoline since November of last year by over 17 cents a gallon. The reason that it has been raised, of course, and you know it and I know it, Mr. Speaker, protestation notwithstanding, is to give the oil companies even more money.
Is there anyone who would rise and tell me that the oil companies were in such dire straits that it was necessary for the consuming public of Canada to consume an additional 17 cents a gallon by way of tax, that it is necessary for every single commodity that must be transported across Canada to reflect the added cost of 17 cents a gallon in tax? Is there anyone who can tell me that it was desirable to inflict further damage on small business because small business will find its products even less attractive in price as a result of having to absorb this additional 17 cents a gallon tax? This is the new regime, the new direction. You must surely recognize as I do, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing new about that. That is how Governments have done these things since the beginning of time.
I say to my colleague here in the Liberal Party, without being unduly critical of him or his Government, that he would have to admit that the Government of which he was a part did exactly the same thing, albeit perhaps in differing amounts. Maybe it was not 17 cents at one whack, but nevertheless the Liberals did exactly the same as this Government is doing. What do we find? The average Canadian family will be asked
Borrowing Authority Act
to contribute even more, yet the Government tells us that somehow that will create jobs. How, Mr. Speaker? How can it create jobs if we take out of the pockets of those who will buy an even larger part of their income? How then will they be encouraged to buy more or be encouraged to take on additional indebtedness to purchase larger items if they find themselves in a position where their income has been reduced as a result of the Government's action? How then, if they are unable to buy those things they would have purchased, will that somehow encourage the manufacturers to manufacture more? Why would the manufacturers manufacture more if fewer people are buying? Why would manufacturers manufacture more if the market-place has shrunk by yet another billion dollars in sales tax, by yet another 17 cents a gallon in gasoline tax? How will that encourage the manufacturers to manufacture more when the people who would be buying what is manufactured have less money to spend? How then will that create jobs? How many more people will be put to work in this effort to produce less? How many more people do you need working to produce less than you now produce? How many more people can we anticipate being hired by those who, out of necessity, will find that the market for their products is smaller than it was before the Government brought in its Budget and imposed the taxes?
You do not have to be an economist to understand that there is at least some logic to that argument. Let me go on a bit, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with something even more fundamental and more important in my opinion than even that. I think that in itself is sufficient to draw into question the rationale behind the Budget. What the Government says is that if it provides the manufacturers with more money by allowing them even larger tax breaks, somehow or other that will create jobs. If it encourages those who manufacture in our society to enhance their technology, to improve computerization, to improve productivity factors, that will somehow create jobs. I ask you to consider with me, Mr. Speaker, if the manufacturers are able, by virtue of tax breaks, to replace the equipment they now have with more modern equipment capable of producing far more than the equipment it replaced, if that is true, and if, as I have said, the market has shrunk, how will that create jobs? How many more people will you need working every day of the week in order to operate a machine that will produce far more, far more efficiently, for a market that has shrunk?
I suggest to the Government in that area, notwithstanding the merit-and I will discuss the merit of improving our productive capacity-that that certainly cannot be seen to be a job-producing measure.
Thus, on two fronts, we have the Government talking about its measures as being measures to create new employment opportunities when, in fact, if one were to look at them objectively, one could come to no other conclusion than that the measures the Government has brought forward will reduce the necessity for even the numbers of people who are presently working in the factories and in the shops of Canada to be

May 28, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
working. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, on those two fronts, if on no others, this Government's stated intention is being thwarted by the actions it is taking.
Can we produce jobs? That must be the question. Is there some way to produce jobs? I suppose, in all fairness, I have to say that it will be very difficult. In fact, most of the jobs that we will create in our society will be either in the Public Service, or they will be jobs of an entirely different character to the jobs we have created in the past. Many will be shortterm. Most of them will be quite different from what I had anticipated as a young man and from what most of the Members of this House had anticipated as young people, men or women, when they were growing up.
What, then, will we produce by way of this Budget and other similar Budgets? We will produce more wealth. There is no doubt about that. The greater productivity, with fewer dollars required for manpower spent on the job, with faster write-offs for the acquisition of equipment, and with capital gains that people will no longer have to pay tax on will no doubt produce more wealth.
Then comes the crunch. If we produce more wealth, will we produce fewer jobs? What do we do? That is the question the Budget fails to address. In the Budget it is stated that 15,000 positions in the Public Service will be eliminated. Why? Because they are marginally necessary and, therefore, we can get by without them. However, as a part of our very being, we maintain that to be considered acceptable in our society it is necessary to have a job.
If you accept my theory that you do not need as many people in the manufacturing sector because of the changes, if you accept that the tax arrangements worked out by the Government will not in themselves create employment, and if you accept that the actions of the Government will eliminate 15,000 jobs in the Public Service, then where in heaven's name are we going to get the jobs to satisfy the requirement we impose on everyone in our society that they work for a living? Where do we get them?
There will be more wealth. However, it will not be taxed because this Government has said that you do not tax wealth. It has said that what you do is allow people to accumulate wealth in the fond hope that somehow or the other it will get from them to somebody else. You cannot hope like that, Mr. Speaker. That is not how it works.
I am suggesting what this Government has to do, if it honestly believes that there is a need for a new day in Canada-and I agree that there is a need-is that we will have to start looking at the question of income redistribution. If you cannot find a job, you cannot starve. If, through the action of Government, or through the inability of the economy to create a sufficient number of jobs in order to meet demand, there will be 1 million or 1.5 million people unemployed over the next 10-year period, then the question which must be addressed is: How will we be able to provide those people with some way of maintaining themselves? How will we be able to provide for their economic well-being? Where is that question addressed in the Budget? Where is there any reference to the problem of
the 1.5 million people who are destined to be unemployed for the next 10 years? It is nowhere.
Is it not about time that we started to look at the reality that is this country, that is every country? You cannot live in the fond hope that somehow or other we will be able to find jobs for everybody, unless you are prepared to accept that some of the jobs may not be as meaningful as one would have hoped, in whatever way one makes that type of calculation. You cannot turn around and eliminate 15,000 jobs in the Public Service because of a need to generate more wealth and then expect those people, who will be displaced or unable to get into the same type of work, to find alternatives in an ever-shrinking job market.
I am suggesting to the Government that this is not a new direction for Canada. The present Budget is no more than a housekeeping operation. It is an extension of previous Governments' views on how to deal with economic problems. It is not, however, an extension of a reasoned view on how to deal with human problems. There is no recognition in the Budget of the needs of society in terms of how to deal with the human problem of keeping a family together at a time when there can be no work found and no one is willing to hire you. This is why I cannot find myself supportive of the request for additional funding for the Government by way of borrowing.
I expected more of this Government. I do not know why, since I have dealt with Tory Governments all my life. However, I still expected more. I expected some new thought. I expected the question of what is to be done with 1.5 million people who are unemployed and who must stay unemployed to be addressed. I expected someone to say to me that, unfortunately, we will have 10 per cent or more of the population unemployed for the next decades. However, how are we to deal with the needs of that 10 per cent?
I could go on indefinitely, Mr. Speaker, but I will not. I want to say that the document before us is disappointing. It inflicts hardship where it is unnecessary to do so. It conveys benefit where benefit is not required. It hopes rather than plans. It provides no concrete evidence of clear thinking.
It is time this Government went back to the drawing board and tried to come up with an economic document which honestly addresses Canada today and Canada 10 years from now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments?


Mr. Harvey:: Mr. Speaker, some parts of the budget have obviously been read. As regards senior citizens in particular, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are now strongly deploring their plight. And yet, the budget states clearly that the basic pension will be periodically adjusted and that the Guaranteed Income Supplement will be fully indexed. In addition, the Official Opposition also fails to mention, as well as my colleague, that for the first time $550 million in
May 28, 1985

spouse's allowance will be devoted over a two-year period to senior citizens. They conveniently ignore that fact.
They have also mentioned the 15,000 jobs that will be cut in the Public Service. I want to say clearly to my colleague that those 15,000 employees are not going to be laid off. It will be done through attrition only.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question: Does the Honourable member feel that the reduction of interest rates, due to the fact that government deficit has been brought under control, will benefit to citizens who will buy goods, appliances, to those who will have to renegotiate their mortgage loans, or to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has nine minutes left of the period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will be able to reflect on that question and answer it next time. We are now going into Private Members' Business.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 67?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitutional Act, 1982, should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
He said: I count it both a privilege and a responsibility to introduce and defend this motion before the House of Commons today. It is a measure of its importance that this motion has already been introduced on two previous occasions during the brief tenure of this parliamentary session. It was intro-
Constitution Act, 1982
duced first by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on December 6, 1984, and then by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on February 1, 1985.
This motion follows the considerable discussion which took place on the subject matter-the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-throughout the 1981 constitutional debate and during the subsequent debate on the motion for a constitutional amendment introduced by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on April 29, 1983. The recent parliamentary history of this subject indicates at least two things. First, it indicates that this is a complex and somewhat contentious issue which cuts to the very heart of philosophical and political ideology. Therefore, of necessity, I shall outline the premise, intent and substance of this motion. Second, it indicates that, for all its complexity and contentiousness, this is an issue which will not simply go away. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all Members of the House to address and render a final decision on this important matter. It is my hope that this motion may be referred to the appropriate committee, thereby leading to a conclusive debate and the enshrinement of the enjoyment of property as a fundamental right protected by our Constitution.
The basic premise of this motion is that adding the words "the enjoyment of property" to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights will give a natural and undeniable corollary to the words "life, liberty and security of the person", rights already secured in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To omit and deny the right to private property is to diminish and indeed render meaningless the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Life, liberty and security of person cannot be viewed as abstract principles existing in a vacuum. In order to have any meaning, they must have tangible correlates. To a certain extent, the framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognized this fact. They knew very well that such fundamental principles as liberty and security of the person must be given concrete expression. Therefore, the Charter specifies in Section 2 freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. Various other concrete freedoms are enumerated throughout the Charter, including the freedoms to vote in an election, to choose where to live within Canada, to pursue the gaining of a livelihood, and so on.
The Charter is also specific with respect to its principle of security of the person. For example, it stipulates that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, arbitrary detainment or imprisonment and improper procedures upon arrest or detention. All of the above is right and proper. However, the Charter does not pursue its own inherent logic far enough to include the enjoyment of the fruits of that liberty in private property.
Let me elaborate. A life is actively lived out in time and space by men and women who require certain properties such

May 28, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
as food, clothing and shelter. A life so lived out requires both the liberty to attain these properties lawfully and the liberty to enjoy the measure of independence and security which they bring.
Wayne Gretzky has proven that he is the best goal scorer in the NHL. His skill is unique, and that leads naturally and rightly to his demanding his reward in the market-place of professional sports today. We would be denying him his uniqueness, his dignity and his worth as a human being and we would be denying him his freedom if we did not let him compete for whatever he can gain, even if it is close to $20 million. After all, what is private property? Surely it is simply the natural consequence of human uniqueness and freedom. Where there is no right to private property, I believe that society becomes a life in death; physically we would be alive but socially, mentally and intellectually we would be dead.
Last week I had the great privilege and, I believe, responsibility, of viewing and experiencing both sides of the Berlin wall. I say to Members of the House in all humility yet with firm conviction that if they do not understand why the principles of life, liberty and security of person logically lead to the right to private property, they ought to go to Berlin. There they will see that on the west side of the Berlin wall, the words "life, liberty and security of person" are concretely lived out, including the right to property. Tragically, on the east side of the Berlin wall, although the same words, "life, liberty and security of person", exist in the Constitution, they have little tangible and free application in everyday life and there are practically no rights to private property.
Any life that "lives", eats, dresses, takes shelter, ploughs a field, fishes a lake, manufactures a product, digs an oil well, invests in a car, a house, a cottage or a business knows that principles without properties-life, liberty or security of person without their necessary and logical correlates-are devoid of meaning and content. Surely the principle of freedom to pursue the gaining of a livelihood as a labourer, housewife, farmer or businessman is severely diminished if one's freedom to simply keep, sell or buy is not protected. Surely the principle of security of the person against unlawful search or seizure is rendered meaningless if one's right to own clothing, a car, a home, a cottage or a company is not secured.
It is this compelling logic which led to the inclusion of property rights in such documents as the Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1627, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the American Constitution of 1791 and 1868 respectively, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960. It is this compelling logic which was once again confirmed in a 1972 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which declared:
Property does not have rights. People have rights ... (However) a fundamental inter-dependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.
In 1948, Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 17 of that Declaration reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association with others.
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Our Bill of Rights also specifically provides for property rights. Therefore, I call upon my Party, the Government, the Liberals and the NDP to bring our Constitution fully in line with our actions at the United Nations and with our Bill of Rights.
This, then, is the premise of this motion: logical consistency demands that those fundamental rights now guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of life, liberty and security of the person be given their natural, undeniable and essential correlate, the enjoyment of property. It is incumbent upon those who would disagree with the motion to state their position with respect to its premise. It follows that the intent of the motion is simply to correct the omission of property rights in the Charter of Rights. In my opinion, that is one of the most serious flaws within our Charter.
If I may digress briefly from the main subject at hand, 1 think there is also another addition which could be made to the Charter. I would seek to add at the end of the Charter of Rights a new section which states:
The powers not delegated to the federal and provincial levels of Government by the Constitution are reserved to the people.
The American Constitution includes such an amendment. In a democracy, it must be crystal clear that people possess all the rights and Governments possess none other than those which are given to them by the people. If we looked closely at the Charter of Rights and read it, we would notice that it uses words such as "everyone has", "every citizens has", and "every citizen and every person has". Those words seem to imply that Governments give rights to the people. Therefore, to make absolutely certain that no one in Government is ever tempted to say that they, as a Government, give rights, let us make sure that our Constitution clearly reminds Governments that their powers are limited. Let us make sure that Governments clearly understand that the only rights and powers they hold are those which are granted to them in trust by the people.
Returning to the motion, I would like to emphasize that the Bill harbours no hidden agenda, and no machiavellian design to give one segment of the Canadian people more rights or more privileges than any other. Rather, it wishes to ensure that the principle of the independence of the individual from unlawful interference by the state upon his or her right to life, liberty, and security of the person, is given concrete grounding by also ensuring the independence of those properties which naturally accrue in the course of his or her exercising of those rights.
I suggest that this is a principle which applies to all Canadians, and it is a right which each of them wants and deserves, whether they happen to own a single coat or a whole wardrobe, a bicycle or a BMW, a modest apartment or a luxury home. A person's right to be secure in his or her ownership of that coat, bicycle, or apartment is no less important than another's right
May 28, 1985

to be secure in his or her ownership of a wardrobe, a BMW or a luxury home.
It is in the area of the substance of the motion, that is, its actual wording, that the greatest potential for disagreement exists. During previous debates on property rights in the House, much of the contention was engendered in two interrelated questions. First, what exactly is meant by "property"? Second, how would the inclusion and subsequent interpretation of "the enjoyment of property" impact upon such diverse bodies as the provinces, native people, environmentalists, women's groups, civil libertarians, business and labour? Those are important questions. It may be admitted that it is beyond the scope of this brief address to attempt an exhaustive explanation and critique of the various issues implicit in them. However, it is crucial that such matters be held in proper perspective. To that end, I should like to make the following comments.
First, it is indeed true that the last two or three centuries have seen the concept of property evolve from a rather basic interest in land and chattels or personal property to a more complex concern with intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, to passive property such as stocks and shares, and now to the so-called new property such as social security systems and public employment. Therefore, the defining of what is meant by property is now a necessary and sometimes complicated exercise.
Second, one must take the legitimate concerns of the aforementioned groups very seriously. It is only common sense for Prince Edward Island to be worried about excessive foreign ownership of its limited land resources. Every Canadian who loves Canada wants the appropriate environmental laws to ensure that our natural heritage is not abused. I, personally, have absolutely no patience with polluters, be they individuals, small or big businesses, or foreigners. Women's groups are right in wanting to safeguard the recent gains which have been made in family law legislation which have ensured a more equitable understanding of property rights within a marriage relationship.
There will always be a concern to ensure, on those occasions when difficult decisions must be made as to whether the public interest demands governmental expropriation of strategically-located land, that it be done with just recompense. Labour has raised important questions with respect to the just division of assets between the ownership and the workers upon the bankruptcy of a company. All this suggests that the careful legal interpretation of the "the enjoyment of property" is also a necessary and complicated exercise which is of particular concern to such groups and to Canadians in general.
However, having granted that "the enjoyment of property" may require both careful definition and legal interpretation, it is in no way sufficient to negate the premise and intent of the motion. Just because it may be difficult to define and interpret what is meant by "life", "liberty", or "security of the person", does not mean that we should refrain from enshrining them as fundamental rights. Similarly, just because it may be difficult to define and interpret "the enjoyment of property" does not
Constitution Act, 1982
necessarily mean that it must be excluded from the Charter. To so argue is, at best, to allow the necessary qualification to negate completely a valid principle and thereby engage in inverted logic. At worst, it is an attempt to create a smokescreen by consciously confusing primary and secondary considerations. Indeed, the first consideration in this whole matter is whether or not, in principle, it may be agreed that "the enjoyment of property" must be secured as a fundamental right for all Canadians within the Charter. In discussing the premise of the motion, I have argued at some length that it is logically inconsistent to do otherwise.
Apparently, even the Liberals and the NDP agree with this assessment, although their performance during the constitutional debates on the subject might suggest otherwise. The Liberal spokesman, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), recently stated that he was in agreement with the principle of property rights, as reported in Hansard on December 6, 1984. Similarly, the spokesman for the NDP, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), repeatedly stated in the House that his Party, in principle, was in favour of property rights. Some of his comments were reported in Hansard on February 1, 1985.
All that is fine, as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Both the Liberal Party and the NDP have failed to pursue the principle to its logical conclusion. That is, since life does not operate in a vacuum, principles cannot be left in abstraction. Therefore, we must ensure that the principles of liberty lead to their natural conclusion in property rights.
I am content with the simple addition of the phrase, "and the enjoyment of property" being placed in the middle of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights. The parameters of the definition and the interpretation of this addition would be limited by the latter part of Section 7, which states that the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the enjoyment of property are limited "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice".
As there will be a constitutional conference during the life of this parliamentary session which will at least discuss the issue of Senate reform, I strongly urge the federal Government and members of my Party to demonstrate to the people of Canada that we support the inclusion of property rights in the Charter of Rights. If the provinces in their wisdom choose to say no, then let them answer for their error to their electorate.
In conclusion, I call upon the House to refer the motion to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order that the appropriate witnesses may be heard, a consensus achieved, and a conclusive decision made to secure within the Charter "the enjoyment of property" as a fundamental right and privilege of each and every Canadian.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member on presenting this motion to the House. The concept of property rights and the

May 28, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
protection of those rights within our Constitution is a question we have all been debating in recent years, and having been very much involved in the constitutional process, I can inform the Hon. Member that property rights received a great deal of attention from Parliamentarians and committee members at the time. Now it should be understood that it was not indifference to the concept but the need for a compromise formula that led to the omission of property rights at the time the Constitution was patriated.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that his intentions are praiseworthy and that my party colleagues, when we were sitting on the Constitutional Committee as individual Members, were agreed on including property rights in the Constitution, but unfortunately, politics being the art of compromise, and considering the government's need at the time to reach a consensus on the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, property rights unfortunately fell by the wayside, at the insistance of some provincial governments and some of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, who most certainly were influenced in their decision by friends in the provinces. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that at the time we were under tremendous pressure, and compromises were reached on a large number of issues relating to the Charter, including the definition of certain rights, and in this respect, I think the Hon. Member's initiative is very appropriate. I think that at the time, politicians, in their concern for achieving a praiseworthy goal, unfortunately neglected-


An Hon. Member:: -neglected Quebec.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Hon. Member says: "neglected Quebec", and I agree. In a perfect world, we would have liked all Canadians to applaud in unison. Unfortunately, that was not to be, and I hope we will be able to remedy this unfortunate incident or accident, and I should be happy to support the Government if some honourable solution could be found. Nevertheless, I am very happy with the Hon. Member's initiative, because at a time when Parliament will be examining Senate reform, and when we will want to include Quebec in the Constitutional Agreement, I think the Hon. Member's concern is shared by Members in my own caucus, and he can count on our support, because we will be able to take a fresh look at this question, and since his leader is always talking about his new spirit and new openness, I hope that improved relations with the provinces will make it possible to enshrine property rights. In fact, in a society like ours, Mr. Speaker, property rights should be fundamental and be given protection against the tyranny of the majority.
I think all Canadians could go along with this concept. I think Canadians have a fundamental belief in the rights of the individual and the need to work to acquire property that can be left to future generations, and I think all our fellow Canadians would be pleased to see these rights protected.
Mr. Speaker, a number of governments at the time objected because it might create problems for their powers of expropriation, and so forth. I am very pleased. I think that ever since the Charter became effective, which is fairly recent, and especially where it has served as the basis for court decisions, I do not think anyone has found anything wrong with it. I do not think the courts have set themselves up as a distinct power. They have been strictly applying the provisions of the Charter in a fair and equitable manner, and they have occasionally, and rightly so, made Parliamentarians see reason. Bearing that in mind, I am very pleased with the Hon. Member's initiative. I would even say that there are certainly more improvements that could be made in the Charter, and I think that through the kind of initiative proposed by the Hon. Member and others, we may be able to give Canadians a better Charter.
As I said earlier, the Charter was a compromise. Very important concepts were left out. However, Canadian society is changing, which means there will always be a chance to add improvements. I am thinking, for instance, of Quebec's constitutional proposal. In that proposal, it is said that the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms is more generous than the Canadian Charter. Unfortunately, it does not have the ultraparliamentary effect of the Canadian Charter but it contains more generous provisions for many citizens or classes of citizens. In that sense, I hope that the compromise formula arrived at in the constitutional negotiations with Quebec will add new guarantees for the citizens, new elements to the Canadian Charter which will make it more in keeping with the Quebec Charter.
But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we, parliamentarians, are the ones who must agree to limit ourselves. I think it is important for all of us and the compromise made at the time of patriation needs to be reviewed. Everybody agrees. The corrective measure proposed by the Hon. Member is very reasonable and very commendable, and I am pleased with it. 1 can see some of my colleagues from Quebec who might be too. I think it could be a solution to improve the Canadian Charter.
We have all had a look at Mr. Levesque's proposals, and particularly the details concerning the Quebec Charter. I think it could be interesting to increase the scope of the Canadian Charter to include in it provisions which are somewhat similar to those of the Quebec Charter. As a matter of fact, these are all principles on which politicians in general, especially Canadian politicians, because they are strictly the instruments of the population ... Certainly, the Canadian people could appreciate the expansion of the scope of the Charter.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when we talked about the entrenchment of a Canadian Charter in the Constitution, several of my colleagues here were sceptical. We thought about the supremacy of Parliament, and we all remembered our law classes where we learned that the only thing Parliament cannot do is change a man into a woman. We all remembered those honourable concepts but in fact, science has
May 28, 1985

evolved and it is even possible to change a man into a woman today. Consequently, we must forget our old concepts of civil law or common law and realize that society changes, that our judicial system changes, that our parliamentary system changes. And your presence in this chair, Mr. Speaker, is a good example of a changing world. I am going to tell you that I hope the Charter will be submitted regularly to a renewal process to adapt to Canadian reality and in that sense, I want to congratulate again the Hon. Member for his initiative and I hope that in a constitutional negotiation, when there is less pressure... You know, it is much easier to improve things, than to change or to disturb old habits. From the moment the precedent of a constitutional Charter is established, from the moment people or lawyers have learned to live with, from the moment judges have demonstrated to us their view of reasonableness ... From then on, the Charter could be reopened without creating as much commotion as its inclusion as such stirred in this country. In that sense, I feel that now we can be very happy we patriated our Constitution, because now we can discuss it between us, between Canadians, according to our own system of values. We don't even have to go through a little exercise which proved somewhat difficult for all of us, that is to go to another country and beg for the rights we wanted for us, Canadians. In that sense, the fact that we have cut the umbilical cord with Great Britain allows us to discuss between us without having to get others' approval, and I hope that other motions of the kind put forward by the Hon. Member will be introduced in this House so that we can really improve the Charter and make sure it does meet the new values of Canadians. I do hope his colleagues will not speak too long because I want to give the House the opportunity to pass and refer this motion to the committee, for if the government is really serious about it they will let it go to committee. I am sure we will be able to make tremendous progress as a Parliament if we include this notion of property rights which is absolutely not disputed by no right across this country.
Mir. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the motion before us, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) for bringing forward this motion on a very important topic. As I listened to him I was reminded of Tennyson's poem about the northern farmer in the 19th century who, as he rode his horse, at every step heard the horse's foot sounding the word: "proputty-proputty-proputty". That seems to be one of the constant themes of the Conservative Party: "proputty-proputty-proputty".


Mr. Nickerson:: It is. You have it right.


James Douglas Manly: We have seen a number of things debated during Private Members' Hour. Capital punishment was one issue, and metric used to be an issue until the Government decided it was not going to turn the clock back, it would throw
Constitution Act, 1982
a sop to some of the Conservatives but basically would endorse what had been done. At any rate, we have the Conservatives continuing with this theme: "proputty-proputty-proputty", as they trot along with their 19th century ideas.
I think it is very important to emphasize that this debate is not about the right to own property. We already have that right. It is a right that Canadians enjoy, a right that I enjoy and intend to continue enjoying. For that reason I hope I will be able to continue paying my taxes and my mortgage, and I intend to avoid violating any of the zoning regulations which impinge upon my property. However, I recognize, as I enjoy my property, that no right is absolute, and I think we have to look at this question in light of that fact.
New Democrats have a long and proud tradition of defending the right of ordinary Canadians to own their own homes, farms and small businesses. We recognize that this is the central part of the Canadian way of life, and we fought against threats to this kind of ownership. Today the fundamental threats to that right come from a number of sources, such as high unemployment. How many people in this House have seen people lose their houses, farms and businesses because of the economic system? If people do not have jobs, they lose their homes. Where we have usurious interest rates, banks foreclose on people's homes. What a painful experience it is, not only to lose your equity, but also, as in British Columbia where our housing prices have fallen so drastically, to be stuck with costs in addition to that. These people bought homes and put everything they had into them, made their payments, and when they lost their jobs and were unable to make the payments, they were stuck with a great bill to pay to the bank because of usurious interest rates. When land is treated as a speculative commodity, that in turn is a threat against the right to own property. We would like to see that right spread around so more Canadians enjoy that right. We do not want to see it restricted to the few who are able to get the necessary funds together to buy their homes. We want to see all Canadians have access to the enjoyment of property.
Many of us in this House come from countries such as England or Scotland which have a somewhat bitter history. People once thought they had a certain right to property, but then they found out, through the enclosures or the highland clearances, that someone else had the legal right. So what they had enjoyed as a common right was taken away from them by the lord or the clan chiefs who were able to establish in court some kind of right to the property. These people were then deprived of their property.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not have feudalism here.


James Douglas Manly: We have that history. You ask me about Canada. Just two weeks ago we celebrated, or commemorated perhaps, there is not too much to celebrate, the one hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Batoche. The Metis had tried to protect their land, land that they had developed themselves. But who had legal title to that land? They found out that the Government of Canada had granted legal title to the railways, and the Metis were driven off their land. I would like to ask

May 28, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
Hon. Members, if we had approved the motion which is before us today, who would have had the right to that property? It would have been the CPR, not the Metis.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: I challenge Hon. Members opposite to show me otherwise. The fact is that constitutional recognition of property rights would not have enabled the Metis to hold on to their land in opposition to the CPR. Constitutional entrenchment would not have enabled the Japanese people to hold on to their property once the War Measures Act was proclaimed. What is constitutional entrenchment going to do with regard to aboriginal title? There are a lot of concerns here.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are full of excuses.


James Douglas Manly: When we look at the wording of the resolution, Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would read that everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property. But I am concerned about that word "everyone"-


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


James Douglas Manly: Because, as Members opposite will recognize, it not only includes human beings, it also includes other entities such as corporations. What we have to be very concerned about is that we do not simply end up entrenching the rights of the CPR or of MacMillan Bloedel. They have plenty of funds so they can have access to the courts and go through all kinds of appeal procedures which are not available to the ordinary citizen who cannot afford them. If we are going to look at a resolution dealing with property rights, we have to make sure we are protecting the rights of persons, not just those of large corporations.


Dave Nickerson: That is what it says in the motion.


James Douglas Manly: That is not what it says in the motion. The way the motion reads it would protect the rights of CPR and other large corporations.
I think the Hon. Member who moved the motion recognized that property is an evolving concept. It is not just land, or the right to land, but covers an expanding number of meanings. We need to recognize that property rights are covered by our Constitution presently. They are part of provincial jurisdiction under Section 9213 of the Constitution Act of 1867. Many provinces, including those with Conservative Governments, have been extremely leery of entrenching property rights in the Charter. For example, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) will be aware of the fact that the Government of Alberta, through its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Horsman, has indicated that property and civil rights should remain under the control of the provinces and not be entrenched. During the constitutional conference two or three years ago, the Province of British Columbia tried to get a resolution dealing with property rights entrenched in the Charter, and Mr. Horsman canvassed the other provinces and reported that there was very little support for that idea. So they have
some legitimate concerns which must be addressed by the House in dealing with this issue.
Property rights entrenched in the Constitution could very seriously restrict the right of provinces to pass legislation which would protect agricultural land, protect the environment, or ensure that choice recreational land is not bought up and controlled by foreign interests. I am concerned that we not take away the right of provinces to socialize industries for the public good. An example of that is the purchase of potash industries in Saskatchewan. I am concerned that laws to redistribute wealth and create a more just and equalitarian society in Canada not be abridged. Government should be able to act in the interest of all people rather than of a few corporations which have the financial clout.
Some members of the Party opposite have been running something of a fear campaign with a rather simplistic appeal to the natural concerns of all Canadians who would like to be able to own and enjoy their property. This is natural. We respect and endorse it. Although members of the Government opposite talk about property rights, we have seen no action from them that will protect the property of ordinary people from the banks. We have seen no protection from the ravages of unemployment. Instead, they talk about the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution as a panacea without being aware of the side effects which are involved.
For example, would the entrenchment of property rights give data banks the right to collect personal information and to sell it later on? What protection would there be against that kind of use of personal information? That kind of information is part of the evolving concept of property rights. What protection do individuals have against that? The Conservatives have raised some legitimate concerns, but they have aroused more fear in the general public.
New Democrats have suggested that any proposal to entrench property rights must be subjected to full committee hearings before which a wide variety of people can testify about their concerns. I certainly cannot support the motion in its present form, but we would be interested to see what the Government might bring forward. If the Conservatives are really interested in this issue, it is incumbent upon the front benches of the Government to bring forward a well considered motion rather than a simplistic one such as this. Such a motion should be debated fully in the House of Commons and then referred to a committee process to allow all kinds of groups to be heard. In that way we can be assured that we are not simply acting out of a blind instinct to own property.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that there is a finite amount of land in this world. Our population is still expanding. When speaking of property rights in relation to land we must consider how much land one person needs. There are countries in Central America such as El Salvador where a dozen families control almost all of the land and the peasants have been pushed off. Entrenchment of property rights in such a situation would simply entrench that inequity. We do not want to
May 28, 1985

entrench such an inequity, but rather to recognize the rights of ordinary Canadian people to own their own homes, farms, and businesses. We do not want to make it possible for large corporations to use the Constitution to deny Government the power to act in the interest of ordinary Canadians.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still in the process of being shaken down in our courts. We are still unsure as to what many of its provisions mean. While that is happening, it is very important for us to watch closely to see in what direction the Supreme Court is moving with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the Charter was passed I have not heard anyone say that if property rights had been entrenched things would have been much better. In fact, I am sure that if the entrenchment of property rights had been included in the words of this motion, things would have been a lot more complicated rather than better. If the Government brings forward a motion which will recognize, respect, and protect the rights of ordinary Canadians to own their homes, farms, and businesses, we in this Party will give it our full support. We have fought continuously against every force that has tried to take those rights away from Canadians and we will support any positive measures. We are not interested in entrenching the rights of large corporations to prevent positive measures for a more just society in Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. NDP Member left out his most important argument, namely, that it would be more difficult to nationalize if property rights were in the Charter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay).
[ Translation]


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) who presented a well-founded notion today.

The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) deserves a great deal of credit for the concern which he has shown about the entrenchment of property rights in Canada. His comments today are a valuable contribution to public discussion of this matter. This continuing public discussion is appropriate for resolving this important national issue. Many individuals as well as organizations and provincial and municipal Governments are interested in this matter. Regrettably, private Members' hour does not allow us the time to give their views the full and thoughtful consideration that they deserve, nor does it allow us to canvass properly the legal, economic, and social implications of entrenching property rights.
I hope that I will one day see in the House of Commons a private Members' hour which provides private Members with
Constitution Act, 1982
the chance to present a Bill and have it debated until it passes in the House. I believe we are operating under an antiquated set of rules. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Kitchener for bringing forward this matter in order that it may be discussed thoroughly, even though it may not be adopted in the House.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) both missed the complex and overstated and simplified the partisan. I respectfully submit that the Member was bringing forth, on behalf of his constituents and many other Canadians, some concerns which people express. The Hon. Member tried to make the subject of this motion into a Conservative policy or non-policy. Let me say clearly that I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member for Kitchener who brings forth this very important issue. I fully support the principle of entrenching property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I welcome today's debate as an opportunity to comment upon some of those issues. I am committed to the idea of entrenching property rights in the Charter. The Progressive Conservative Party has long supported property rights. We recognize that property rights represent basic protection for all Canadians.
We all own property of some sort; be it simple personal possessions, a Canada Savings Bond, a car or a house. We are concerned about providing constitutional protection for the right to own and use property because the ownership and use of property is so pervasive in our society. In my view, this right is no less important than other rights already entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Property rights have a long history in our society. Their development marked the evolution from feudalism to democracy. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, commented on this when the Progressive Conservative Party introduced a motion in the House in 1983 to entrench propery rights in the Constitution. I refer Hon. Members to page 24997 of Hansard on April 29, 1983, where the Hon. Member for Provencher is reported as having said this:
In the British context, private property has always been historically associated with the development of free institutions. It goes back to 1215, when the Magna Carta referred to it. It is referred to in the Bill of Rights of 1627.
The historical concept for property rights is clearly important. However, there is a fundamental interdependence between the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to property enables us to carry on and benefit from useful and productive activities independent of Government. With this economic freedom comes political freedom. We are less afraid to criticize the Government and give expression to our views when we know that the Government cannot arbitrarily control or affect our right to own and enjoy or use our property. The right to property has been recognized in many jurisdictions outside of Canada.
To this point I have spoken of property rights in the abstract. For ordinary Canadians, property rights are concrete.

May 28, 1985
Constitution Act, 1982
For them, property rights mean the right to own and enjoy their homes, their farms, their businesses without arbitrary interference from the Government. Property rights mean that they can provide for their children and their future. Property rights are their security, their assurance that things they have striven so hard to acquire and accomplish will not be undermined.
As important as property rights are, all of us recognize that they must, like other individual rights, sometimes give way to higher interests in the common good or to other individual rights. The Hon. Member for Kitchener understood that well in his presentation to the House. There are many laws affecting property interests which are essential to the proper functioning of our society. I speak of laws such as public health and safety, environmental laws, resource laws, community planning laws and family laws. In one way or another, such laws regulate the ownership and use of property in the public interest.
All three levels of Government in Canada-federal, provincial and municipal-have found it necessary to enact such laws. In doing so, they have usually struck a reasonable and fair balance between property rights and important societal interests.
There are many who are concerned, however, that the entrenchment of property rights will tip this balance in a way which is detrimental to these important societal interests. The provinces, women's groups, environmentalists, civil libertarians, native people and others have voiced concerns about the potential consequences of entrenching property rights. I see no reason why the concerns expressed should prevent us from acting. Those concerns simply indicate to me that there is a need to be cautious and sure that we have consulted all of those groups before we act in amending our Charter.
Some of the provinces are concerned that in applying property rights guarantees to provincial laws, the courts will substitute their economic and social beliefs for the judgment of legislatures. They believe that these sorts of judgment should be made by our elected representatives. The provinces would not appear to object to these sort of procedural protections which may be provided by the entrenchment of property rights in the Charter. Nor do they appear to object to protection against arbitrary government action. They do object to any step that would usurp their responsibility to make important social and economic policy decisions on the basis of public interst.
Women's groups are also concerned that by entrenching property rights we will be enabling the courts to substitute their policy views for those of Government. They point, and rightly so, to the experience in the United States in the first few decades of this century.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) have a point of order?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am very happy with the speech made by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), but if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, in the case of private members' business, if one were to speak till six o'clock, would all those good words not be vain? Could you remind the Hon. Member for St. Boniface of the rules in order that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.
[ Translation]


Léo Duguay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my colleague that I fully understand the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The women's groups to whom I was referring point to the experience in the United States in the first few decades of this century. During that time, the courts invoked the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution to strike down social and economic legislation. I make that point not to undermine the points made by my hon. colleague. They are indeed valid.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie rising on a point of order?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague and friend from St. Boniface does not know the procedure. Could you explain to him that what he is now doing is talking out a Bill which is of great importance for Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that it is fair to the Hon. Member, particularly in private Members' hour. I regret that Hon. Members are doing this. The Hon. Member still has a minute left in which to speak.


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, not only do I know and respect the rules of this House, but I do not abuse them as do some other Hon. Members.

The present Government has not had sufficient opportunity to consult with the parties concerned in this matter and to consider properly their views. Consultation takes time. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener, has raised a very important issue. He has contributed to an important debate. Canadians understand that the matter that he raises is significant to all of us. It needs to be done with a great deal of care and concern so that when we put forth amendments they are supported by the provinces and Canadians get what they so rightfully deserve, an entrenchment of property rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I raised a very important question regarding taxation of artists in Canada. I particularly noted the recommendations of the report of the subcommittee on the taxation of visual and performing artists and writers. It made a large number of precise recommendations to get our artists out of poverty and to see that they get their due with the tax man and do not have to endure unreasonable treatment by tax authorities. The answer I got was extremely unsatisfactory.
I raised the question about the deduction of losses, about the deduction of expenses, assuming people who are artists have the right to make deductions as do other professional people. I also raised the issue of unemployment insurance because our artists are people who suffer from very long periods of unemployment and now for the most part are excluded from coverage by unemployment insurance.
The only answer I got from the minister was that these things were being considered by the Government and I would get my answer in due course in the Budget. Since that time we have had a Budget. I regret to say the very large number of concerns that were raised in the subcommittee on taxation of artists did not make it into the Budget. All of the lobbying, the march on Ottawa, the lobbying done by the Canadian Conference of the Arts and many other arts groups that made recommendations to see fair taxes for artists have been ignored.

The taxation of artists raises the matter of poverty and justice. Visual and performing artists and writers are the less well-paid group in Canada. According to Statistics Canada figures, pensioners are the only ones to have lower income than our artists. It was therefore to be expected that the Budget would contain concrete proposals to improve their lot.
Adjournment Debate
Last year, the subcommittee on the taxation of visual and performing artists and writers proposed a series of measures to increase the income of artists. The Conservatives, who were then in Opposition, supported those proposals. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party renewed its support for those recommendations. Now that they have the chance to keep their promises, they fail to do so. The plight and poverty of our artists does not concern them any more.
The most important recommendations of the subcommittee were as follows.
20-That the simple fact of incurring major expenses creates a presumption of self-employment for all performing artists.
11-That all losses resulting from expenses directly related to the artist's or writer's work be fully deductible. The same thing is recommended for tutoring costs.
27-That the grants given to professional artists be considered a business income and that their expenditures be deductible from their income.
23-That performing artists be eligible to unemployment insurance, regardless of their fiscal status.
In my opinion, it would be advisable to make other categories of creative artists eligible for unemployment insurance. Unemployment is a much more prevalent problem among our artists than this would indicate.
7-That the Income Tax Act be amended to allow the deduction of losses resulting from professional artistic activities.
22-That the Income Tax Act be amended to authorize symphony orchestra musicians to claim the deduction of all expenses incurred for the maintenance of their instruments.
In this regard, Revenue Canada has recently replied to the demands of Canadian orchestras that such an amendment to the Act was unlikely to be made.
It is extremely regrettable that we have not seen any swift and favourable response to this important measure for musicians. [Translation]
What this Government has done is much more limited. In this Budget, this Government has taken action in only two of the cases covered by the 31 recommendations of the subcommittee and has chosen two measures which deal only with visual artists. This means that there is nothing for performing artists, writers and other creative artists.

I am sure that Mr. Tony Onley is pleased that he can put away his matches and not burn his works on the beaches of Vancouver. He is a visual artist who has been helped by this Budget. However, most of the artists have not been helped.

May 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Measures which deal with only one small group are not enough. We want justice for artists. We want measures which will ensure that they have adequate incomes in order that they can pursue their work.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, many recommendations made by the subcommittee on the taxation of visual and performing artists and writers were accepted on an administrative basis by Revenue Canada and did not entail legislative amendments.
With regard to the specific case of performing artists, their self-employed status has been strengthened by the administrative policy which allows them to deduct the cost of musical tutoring and other lessons to develop their talents. Revenue Canada has also reviewed its interpretation bulletin for musicians and performing artists to take into account the length of their job contracts. This will allow most performing artists to be considered as self-employed.
When the contracts of symphony orchestra musicians are once again submitted to Revenue Canada, the department is willing to consider most, if not all, these musicians as selfemployed, therefore, it is no longer necessary to implement the recommendation of the subcommittee to amend depreciation provisions since these self-employed musicians can already claim depreciation for their instruments. Mr. Speaker, these changes meet the concerns expressed by the subcommittee about the fiscal status of performing artists.

The question has also been raised as to whether the Government is prepared to introduce a measure permitting the deduction of artistic and writing losses from other income. Such a measure implies a definition within the Income Tax Act of a special category of individuals called "professional artists", who could deduct losses without necessarily meeting the test of "reasonable expectation of profit". By allowing the proposed deduction, our tax system would be providing a subsidy to all individuals who meet the criteria of "professional artist" but who may have no intention of earning income from their artistic pursuits.
Further, the definition of "professional artist" would likely be unpalatable to the arts community and would be difficult for Revenue Canada officials to administer with any degree of consistency. Given these problems, Revenue Canada has modified its administration by including in its determination of "reasonable expectation of profit" the criteria of professionalism and the longer time frame required to earn profits from artistic and writing activities. This change in administrative practice ensures that these persons will not be denied the deduction of losses from other income.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) would be well-advised to refer to the Budget Speech and Papers to learn about the most recent
changes in the legislation dealing with artists generally and especially visual artists.


PUBLIC SERVICE-JOB CLASSIFICATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question I want to raise during the adjournment debate has to do with an issue of great interest to public employees. I am referring to job classification and classification standards. The matter is very complex, so perhaps I might explain first what classification means and how the system works.
Here are some of the remarks one can find in the Auditor's General's report. Job classification is an important element and an integral part of the salary of federal employees. This process makes it possible to establish the relative value of jobs in the federal Public Service and to classify each job within a professional group and at a precise level.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is a duty to be performed by the employer, a management responsibility related to about 222,000 jobs in the Public Service of Canada.
Last May 22, I asked the Minister a question to find out whether this Government-which, as we know, made a considerable number of election promises-would keep its word. In a letter he wrote last year to the President of the Public Service Institute, Mr. Donegani, the then Leader of the Conservative Party said, and I quote from the English version I have here: [English]
A PC government will negotiate directly with public service unions and associations toward the establishment of an improved collective bargaining system... Staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designations, and other issues will become negotiable.
Classification will become negotiable.

Last May 22, I wanted to know from the Minister when the Government would keep its word and when we might expect that famous negotiation for classification standards to become reality and on what conditions.
The Minister was absent at the time, so the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) told me that he would note the question and bring it to the attention of his colleague.
It is not just everybody who can talk every day to the Minister responsible. I remind Hon. Members that I am still waiting for an answer, that the unions are worried and would like to know when the matter will be settled.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the issue of classification standards had been raised in last year's Auditor General report. According to the Auditor General of Canada, the existing system was such that 25 per cent of Public Service jobs were incorrectly classified; 80 per cent of classification errors or 19 per cent of all jobs were cases of overclassification. According to the findings of an audit by the Secretary of the
May 28, 1985

Treasury Board, one federal employee out of five is overpaid. Still according to the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the cost of overclassification is estimated to be $125 million a year, 2.4 per cent of the ordinary rate of pay. The net cost of the employer's classification errors is therefore rather high, and I would point out to the House that the Auditor General said that this amount of money, $125 million, would be enough for 5,200 jobs, enough to staff three of this Government's average departments.
So, it is rather embarrassing that the government cannot come forward with a solution after promising a review of classification standards. I do not blame the government for previous mistakes, since classification standards were not negotiable in the past. But the Conservatives did promise during the election campaign that for the sake of efficiency those standards should be made negotiable with public servants as it is the case for salaries.
On February 4-as you can see I am not raising that matter for the first time-I asked the Treasury Board what corrective action was considered to alleviate the situation. The Minister reiterated at that time that he would indeed keep his word. And he did confirm it on May 15 in committee while answering a question on job classification in the Public Service. He said that we could rest assured that the government would live up to the commitment made during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, considering the report of the Auditor General and media reports as well to the effect that we are facing a serious situation, that some $125 million and 5,000 jobs are at stake; considering that this government announced in his last budget that it would cut 5,000 jobs next year, I do not think we are seeking too much from the government by asking that it take corrective action in the very near future so as to remove that sword of Damocles hanging over the reputation of public servants, since it is said that they are overclassified; in other words, overpaid. That allegation is groundless. As stated by the President of the Public Alliance as well as the President of the Professional Institute, such allegation does not take into account the fact that a number of jobs are presently underclassified, that is underpaid.
Drastic changes have also occurred in job classifications with the implementation of the computer system into the federal administration. That means that in some cases jobs have not been reviewed for the past ten years and are yet to be classified, and employees should not be blamed for the lack of corrective action by the employer.
I would like to know tonight if the government is prepared to announce that a system of negotiation for classification standards will be implemented so as to correct not only an unfair situation that needs to be corrected but also to strengthen a system that needs to be tough, to implement standards by which the federal administration could operate normally, efficiently and effectively in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Section 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act confirms the right of the Treasury Board to classify positions in the Public Service. When the Board's secretariat reviews a classification standard with a view to updating it, a copy of the draft revised standard is provided to the affected Public Service union for comment. That process has enabled meaningful input from unions to be incorporated into the revised standards. As a result of consultation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, significant changes were made recently in the revised standard for the General Labour and Trades Group.
The Treasury Board Secretariat last fall commenced a review of the program administration classification standard. As an experiment, it was decided to have representatives of the Alliance sit as members of the standards review committee with exactly the same voice in the deliberations as representatives of user government Departments. The arrangement appears to be working well, and the same process is slated to apply to the upcoming review of the administrative services standard.
I mentioned those practices and developments to show that Treasury Board has been and is involving the Public Service unions in a meaningful way in the matter of the review of classification standards.
At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on May 16, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) advised that all classification standards would be reviewed and updated over the next two years. Any deputy head whose Department's classification performance is unsatisfactory will be called before Treasury Board to explain the situation and submit plans to correct it.
In response to the Hon. Member's question about the election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make classification a negotiable issue, the President of the Treasury Board referred to the good progress he was making in the discussions he was holding on six union-management issues with the Public Service union leaders.
The views of other interested parties will also be solicited. Out of the process will emerge the Government's proposals to change the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Those changes will be placed before Parliament at the earliest possible date.


SOCIAL SECURITY-BENEFITS PAID TO WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS AGED 60 TO 64 YEARS-EXCLUSION OF SINGLE, DIVORCED AND SEPARATED PERSONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, further to a question I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), whom unfortunately I must call-because of his actions, of the decisions he has made concerning the aged with respect to Bill C-26 and because of

May 28, 1985
Adjournment Debate
what happened in the Budget-the Minister of Social Injustice in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister at that time why this Progressive Conservative Government has deliberately decided to debar 80,000 older persons in need, aged 60 to 65 years, from the spouse allowance program for the simple reason that they were single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague also reminds me that all persons in religious orders, unless the Minister considers that having been married to God they have become widows or widowers, those persons as matters now stand will not be entitled to the spouse allowance because they are considered single.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me how it is possible that in 1985, men and women can meet in Cabinet and look at the number of needy citizens who now live, not below the poverty line but below the misery line since they are on welfare, how can human beings in 1985 decide to give assistance to half of those persons while ignoring the other half? Who are the persons being penalized by the Bill? Let us look together at the single people who are 60 years old today. Why? First, those people often have been living mainly in rural areas. Most often, they were the eldest daughters in the family, people who sacrificed their own future. They left school early enough to help their mother raise the children at home. They sacrificed their own interests so their brothers and sisters could get an education, find jobs. And upon reaching a certain age, they had to go on sacrificing their own aspirations to stay with their fathers and mothers, because of their age, rather than sending father and mother to a nursing home. They accepted to give up everything to stay at home, they remained single, saving the governments retiring home money. And all those people inherited from their parents has been the so-called family home. Now they own the house where they have been living but they have no money to pay for their property taxes.
Mr. Speaker, because this Government and this Minister of Social Injustice refuse to help those persons, it is a sad sight, Mr. Speaker, to see those people who sacrificed everything all their lives, who served the community being told by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister: No, you are not to be entitled to the spouse's allowance.
What about the 80,000 persons who are separated or divorced? I remember the celebrations on Remembrance Day. We mentioned veterans, widows and widowers. I think that persons older than I would remember the many broken marriages at that time because of people having to live far apart.
They are mothers who kept going despite the husband being away for whatever reason. Mothers who all by themselves raised five or ten children, who sacrificed everything when times were really tough, not in the easier years we ourselves
have known. And, today, the Government is telling them: Because you are separated, unfortunately you are not entitled to the spouse's allowance. It is only for widows and widowers. When I am told we are looking at this in terms of money, it seems to me we all have been elected here not only for the purpose of writing a budget. We were elected with our hearts and our souls, with the knowledge we have. I am convinced that if there was a free vote on that matter, Mr. Speaker, there is not one. Member who would vote against extending the spouse's allowance to all persons living alone, whether single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable that those 80,000 persons will be turned down come September. They are to be found in each and every constituency. I believe that I have been trying to call the Government's attention on that since before the Christmas holidays. I have been calm, I have been violent, I have been tough to try and make this Government understand. I may have upset a few people and I am sorry about that but I am quite sincere when I say that when someone is in dire straits, when someone is not treated fairly, I think it is our duty as Members to raise the issue and get someone's attention.
I do not want to score political points, but look at all the waste; they say there is no money, they want to reduce the deficit, but they have to live up to our NATO commitments and so they will send a thousand more soldiers to Lahr, at a cost of $100 million a year. I wish the Prime Minister had been more humane, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) had also been more humane. The former Minister of National Health and Welfare, Miss Begin, would never have done anything like that. It seems to me they should have said: Let us respect our commitments towards Canadians first and then, after three or four years, we will respect our NATO commitments. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the first thing to do would have been to meet the needs of senior citizens. I will not even comment on the penalties imposed in the recent Budget.
But I keep hoping and I have confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary. I am seriously considering the possibility of urging the Prime Minister to ask for the resignation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to put the Parliamentary Secretary in his place. I hope she will answer me from the bottom of her heart, as she did before, rather than read from a paper written by departmental officials.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Tonight I am not going to use the notes provided by the Department, Mr. Speaker, because answering the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is too easy.
He wants to champion the cause of the poorest of the poor within our society, something for which I congratulate him. This does not mean, however, that we on this side remain insensitive to the needs of these people. As you said a while
May 28, 1985

ago, we have hearts and souls just like everybody else, and as part of our party's last year election platform, we had promised spouse's allowances to widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age. Surely we would like to do more and say that widows and widowers will be eligible at age 59. It might be discriminatory against people 59 years of age to draw the line at age 60. But we must take into account our ability to pay; suffice it to say that we should like to do more and that we will do more as soon as we can. For the time being, only widows and widowers will start receiving in September these spouse's allowances.
If we were to share the views of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who feels that we are not concerned about the needs of all the needy people... Besides these widows and widowers, there is a whole lot of people within our
Adjournment Debate
society, I mean, all those women who may or may not have worked outside their homes and who, being 40, 45 or 50 years of age, are tired and who would be delighted to get benefits from the government under some program or other. There are other categories of people who are improverished and underprivileged. We think about them and we are trying to put programs together to help them survive. The hon. member has raised this issue many, many times, which is understandable, but all we can say is that we will do what he is asking for when we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 29, 1985