1986-03-07

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and I would urge all Hon. Members to do the same thing and support my request.
You have all noticed that the Government's Budget contains an error concerning the tax credit prepayment, the kind of error that was made with respect to the deindexation of old age security pensions. Knowingly or not, the Government decided to ignore 538,000 families entitled to the tax credit. As a result of the ceiling arbitrarily set at $15,000, the Government penalizes those families and delivers them in the hands of tax discounters.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, considering that the greatest majority of those families are headed by women, and considering that we are on the eve of International Women's Day, I am sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow March 8 being International Women's Day, I should like to pay homage to an outstanding Quebecer and Canadian, Marie Gerin-Lajoie.
She was French Canada's first graduate bachelor. She was the forerunner of those who took up the fight for the cause of women. She worked for many years in social services and founded the Institut Notre-Dame-du-bon-conseil, a religious group devoted to social action.
Marie Gerin-Lajoie belonged to a great family that associated privileges inherent in academic achievement and wealth with social responsibilities.
It was her mother who fought to open Quebec's first classical school for girls. Her mother was also one of the founders of
the Federation nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Her grandmother founded Sainte-Justine Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, Marie Gerin-Lajoie was certainly far ahead of her time in her thinking about the place of women in society. The story of her life is an example which should be a source of inspiration to all of us.


HOUSING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, adequate affordable housing is a problem that affects many Canadians. It is a very serious problem for persons in the Atlantic Region, and an especially serious problem for women.
In the Halifax region the housing vacancy rate has been below 1 per cent for the past five consecutive years. This makes finding housing difficult for all persons, but for female-led, single parent families, it is almost intolerable.
The average monthly rental cost for an apartment in the Halifax area is $583, while the average monthly shelter allowance for a family of three or more is only $468. As a result, over 65 per cent of female-led single parent families in the Atlantic region have had severe affordability problems in finding housing, even at the 30 per cent level of income for shelter.
Today, March 7, a group of women called Mothers United for Metro Shelter, are demonstrating in front of the Halifax Legislature demanding adequate and affordable housing for themselves and their children. I hope the Tory Government is listening.


EXTENSION OF NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget brings to northerners and those living in remote regions of Canada the long-awaited announcement of equity and increased fairness with respect to the taxation of northern benefits. Reports from across the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and northern Manitoba indicate an appreciation for a Budget which recognizes and addresses the high cost of northern living. The new system extends housing, travel, and person-

March 7, 1986
al tax measures to a wide range of northerners for the first time.
Let it never be said that the Government does not look after the poorer regions of Canada. Let the record show that the majority of Northerners applaud the courage of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in bringing this increased tax equity to northern Canadians.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget brought down last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) we see a development we have not seen since the beginning of the postwar period: a reduction in Government spending. Not only has this Government managed to bring a decade of irresponsible spending on the part of the previous administration to a halt, it has reversed the trend. Thanks to measures taken by our Government, the deficit will drop below $30 billion and the increase in the national debt will be under control.
Our actions will increase the confidence of investors in Canada's prospects and will help bring down interest rates. This will provide for a continuum in the creation of jobs in this country, an area that under this administration has progressed remarkably well. Mr. Speaker, like all other Canadians, the people of the riding of Chambly agree with our Government that reducing the deficit and creating jobs should be our primary goals if Canada is to become prosperous once again.


THE BUDGET
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, what do New Brunswickers think of the Budget? I will quote from an editorial in the Moncton Times and Transcript. It reads:
Fair, firm, and probably effective. The Budget is unpleasant, but necessary medicine to restore economic health. It is a finely crafted intricate plan to cut spending, increase revenues, stimulate employment, encourage confidence in the dollar, lower interest rates, reduce the deficit and debt charges, yet give help to those regions, sectors, groups, and individuals most in need.
It is linked to trade and jobs, using the business sector as the engine of growth, and is intended to send a mesage to the financial communities at home and abroad, where there is no sentimentality, that the Government is serious in tackling the deficit.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House a number of times over the past few months to address problems concerning the Native Economic Development Program and, more specifically, its inability to achieve what it was mandated to accomplish. Since the Conservative Government took office it has continually reminded Canadians about efficiency, co-operation, and, of course, jobs, jobs, jobs. The experience of applicants to the NEDP leads me to believe that the opposite is in fact the rule of thumb.
Groups such as the Nishnawbe-Aski Development Fund, and the Yukon Indian Development Corporation have been frustrated for far too long by a Ministry which does not appear to recognize the major purpose for which it was intended. That purpose, of course, is to foster an increased economic base for the first citizens of Canada.
The Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette) is in one respect, at least, more fortunate than his colleague responsible for youth-he has some money in his budget with which he can actually do something. Why does he not stand in this House and tell the people of Canada that he is sorry for dragging his feet all this time and that, after Question Period today, he is really going to get to work?


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am starting a public debate on the method of financing Canadian political parties, with a view to limiting contributions to political parties to $5,000 per year, and only by individual voters, which would exclude corporations, associations and unions. I shall have another opportunity to inform the public on the subject at the national convention of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, which will be held next week in Montreal.
I would ask all Members on both sides of the House to examine the information I have prepared and to think about this proposal, so that together we can help put the political process in Canada on a more ethical basis and improve the democratic process.
Not only should political parties make sure that financial contributions do not impose a measure of dependence on the party, there should not be the slightest hint of such dependence.
March 7, 1986

[DOT] (mo)


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today I am very proud to join my colleagues in observing International Women's Day, a day which marks the concerted move by women to participate fully in the consideration of the social, political, and economic concerns of our society as full partners. Last July I had the opportunity to participate at the UN End of the Decade Conference on Women in Nairobi. The Conference proved to be a giant step forward for the democratization of the women's movement. It has now become a populist movement for women around the world.
The National Film Board produced, through Studio D, in co-operation with the private sector, a very fine film called Visions of Women/Visions des femmes. It is challenging and celebrating and-

-and it makes a commitment to celebrate the status of women and the success of this conference.

I would like to encourage all Members here today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when International Women's Day was first celebrated, Canadian women were in the throes of fighting for the most basic political right, the right to vote. Today the full range of issues of concern to women occupy centre stage in our political arena. This is due to the remarkable growth in the influence of women's groups and the integration of women into the decision-making process. The Government has made steady progress in its efforts to accelerate the appointment of women to federal Government boards, agencies, and commissions.

Since we have been in power, one quarter of these positions have been filled by women. Last week, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) announced a 22 per cent increase in the appointment of women judges.
Our Government will keep up this trend until women account for 50 per cent of such appointments.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is attempting to do the impossible, sell his Budget in British Columbia, a province where food banks, unemployment guidance centres, UIC and welfare are the major growth industries. With unemployment hovering around 14 per cent and youth unemployment at more than 20 per cent, with a pending crisis in the forest industry regarding U.S. trade, the mining industry in neutral, the fishing and agricultural sectors in serious difficulty, and business still reeling from the recession, what does the Government do? It raises taxes by $1,305 per household, ignores the forest and mining industry, cuts back on help to farmers, reduces support for the fishery, and offers no special consideration to one of the hardest hit areas of Canada. The Budget will actually worsen the economic condition of British Columbia through federal Government lay-offs, program cut-backs, and reduced consumer purchasing power. After years and Socred/ Tory-type Budgets in British Columbia, the Prime Minister will have a tough time convincing British Columbians that Socred/Tory times are not tough times.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget of the Minister of Finance announces economic assistance programs for farmers. For instance, the Government will increase the budget of the Farm Credit Corporation during the next two years. A $700 million program has been set up for commodity based mortgages. These mortgages will be offered at a 6 per cent interest rate to farmers who have serious debt problems and will assure them of having long term and stable financing.
Initiatives will also be taken to make it easier for farmers who must look for another job. A new program will provide them with vocational guidance, retraining and temporary financial assistance services. These measures to support Canadian farmers will cost $65 million this year and $130 million next year.
The 3 cents a litre fuel tax rebate for primary producers will be extended for one year to January 1, 1988.
Mr. Speaker, all this is in addition to the many achievements of our Government to ensure the prosperity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS OPPOSITION TO BILL C-96
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to Bill C-96, legislation which will cut federal contributions to provincial health care programs by over $4 billion over the next five years. According to the Canadian Medical Association, the cuts will create a two-tier health care system in Canada where one quality of health care will exist in richer provinces, and second or third-rate services will exist in the poorer provinces.
The New Brunswick Medical Society agrees with the Canadian Medical Association and has expressed its concern over the effects the cuts will have in our province where health care programs are already approaching a crisis due to a lack of funds. New Brunswick does not have the money or the taxing ability to raise its share of health care costs, and the Conservative Government, obsessed with slashing, should realize that and withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday hundreds of workers came to Parliament Hill to ask the Government to take action and help them save their jobs in Lauzon. This morning, we hear that 44,000 people in Quebec lost their jobs during the month of February, and that 23,000 young people have lost their jobs in this country. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What does the Minister intend to do to help the 44,000 Quebecers who lost their jobs in February, and especially the employees at Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon who were laid off, or will be in a matter of weeks?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see once again that the employment level is keeping to below 10 per cent. This is the second month in a row where the rate of unemployment has been below 10 per cent at this time of year. We know that some 52,000 jobs have been created in the Province of Quebec over the last year. We know as well that that is not good enough. The programs that we have put in place are working. That is why we will continue to move in this direction. We
want to make sure that job creation in Quebec is at the same level and rate as it is elsewhere in the country.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. I will try with another one, and I may be luckier. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Youth. As I said a moment ago,
23,000	young Canadians lost their jobs in February. Does the Minister think that she can be of any assistance to the unemployed youth of the country since she has no budget, no program? What can she do for the youth of this country with a chauffeur and a limousine?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are some $700 million in employment and training programs directed to young people in this country. It is having an impact. Certainly we want to see more done. I have said that time and time again. With the Job Entry programs, Challenge '85, Challenge '86, and the institutional training programs for young people, these are having an impact. That is why there are far more young people working today than when we took office in 1984.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Youth does not even have the responsibility to answer the question in this House.


THE BUDGET
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister responsible for regional development. This morning's figures indicate that unemployment is very high in a number of regions across the country. Could the Minister explain, considering the high unemployment rate in these regions, why the Budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance show that the regional economic development envelope has been cut by $15 to $9 billion for the years 1984-85 to 1987-88?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one more opposition MP who has not understood the facts. Perhaps we can get through to them this way-in the hour that they intend to question the Government negatively, another 70 Canadians on average will be added to the work force of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 7, 1986


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is every hour of every business day another 70 Canadians are getting jobs. Just think if the whole 70 of the Opposition could get back to work-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who wanted to hear some positive questions. Here is one. Yesterday, 1,000 workers came here from Quebec, begging for jobs. On what page and at which item is there any indication that these people will have their jobs? Could the Minister inform the House where it says so in the Budget?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to a similar question yesterday, the Government is responsible for the bulk of the work that is now going on in shipyards. We plan to continue to route work into our shipyards.
If the Hon. Member will be patient, I am sure that even he will be rather pleased with the type of work that the Davie shipyard and other shipyards will be able to gain in the coming weeks and months.


REQUEST FOR SOLUTION TO PROBLEM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I asked a positive question, and the Minister was incapable of giving me an answer about the Budget. Now for my supplementary. Forty-four thousand jobs have been lost in Quebec! Could the Minister inform the House which page says how we can prevent the loss of 5,000 jobs in the East? What about the designated areas? On what page are they?

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, clearly the MP has not been listening. When I said that another 70 will be added to the Canadian workforce nationally in the hour they apparently intend to spend with their negative questioning, it is partly a result of the very excellent Budget brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). Yesterday,
1 met with representatives of a number of women's groups from Quebec. All, without exception, said that the Conservative Budget's substantial tax increases put a heavy burden on women. Is that the meaning of Conservative justice?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, first let me point out that one of the interesting things about the employment figures published this morning is that jobs for women have increased. 1 think most women would be happy to hear that.
As I said yesterday, the people of Canada know that this is a fair Budget and that it targets our spending to the areas which need it most. There is a refundable tax credit for people in the lower tax brackets, and the child tax credit is being paid earlier. That is something of benefit to women across the country.


DURATION OF SURTAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, particularly women who make decisions affecting the family, know full well that the taxes imposed by the Government, taking into account the compensatory measures brought in, are an unjust burden on every Canadian family.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Considering that it is the woman who is usually involved in the decision-making process in the family, and that the 3 per cent surtax is very unfair because it hits everyone the same, why did the Minister of Finance tell a Montreal-based journalist that the Government intends to lift the surtax on the rich next year but has not planned to lift the surtax on ordinary Canadians until 1988? Why is there that injustice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the surtax on the rich is considerably larger than it is on the poor, as the Hon. Member knows.
For an elderly widow with an income of $10,000, the increase as a result of the surtax is $2, which is more than offset by the refundable sales tax credit.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to deal with the question of unfairness. Is it Government policy, as the Minister of Finance told a Montreal journalist, that the Government plans to lift the surtax of 3 per cent on ordinary Canadians? Although this is not in the Budget, he plans to do it in 1988, which is an election year,

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions
while lifting the surtax on the rich next year. Is that fair? If it is good enough for the rich next year, who not lift the tax for ordinary Canadians at the same time?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the tax policies of the Government are directed particularly at those most in need, and the Hon. Member knows that. We have already suggested in the Budget that the refundable sales tax credit is an innovation that is evidence of the kinds of things we think are useful for people in lower-income brackets and that are fair.

[ Translation]


AWARDING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns once again the compensation contracts a number of Conservative Members want to award to the party's financial backers.
According to a report by Canadian press yesterday, a Conservative Member who chose to remain anonymous said that similar lists had been drawn up by other Conservative Members.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how many more Conservative Members engaged in drawing up similar lists, and could he give the House the assurance that he will put an end ot this practice immediately, to ensure that Canadians will not see their taxes being spent in this manner.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is talking about and I do not think he does either. Contract procurement practices are set down by the Treasury Board. I think the Hon. Member might be referring to the matter he raised yesterday. The practices that were designed and laid down by the Government of which he was a supporter are still in place and, if anything, are more rigid now than they were under the previous administration.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE DISSOLUTION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I do not know what I am talking about, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Member published the "Sorry, I'm Tory" letter of yesterday? Will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately cause the dissolution of the Ritz-Carlton committee chaired by Mr. Roberge, a comittee that has as a member the Hon. Member for Quebec East? Will he put an end to this right now in order to ensure that the Government continues to have the faith of the Canadian people and the faith of all
Members of the House, which he could ensure by dissolving this kind of repugnant committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is clear.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I answered yesterday. The explanation was quite simple. The hon. gentleman who originated the letter, recognizing his mistake, has (a), apologized for it, and (b), written to all of the original recipients of the letter to tell them the correct procedure which is set out in the Treasury Board guidelines and Public Works procedure for the allotment of contracts.


Don Boudria: What about the Ritz committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the Robin Hood myths of the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware that figures from the National Council on Welfare show that the combined effects of the 1985-86 Budgets, excluding sales tax, will take $58 of disposable income from a woman with two kids who exists at half the poverty line? Is this the kind of meeting of special needs about which the Minister of Finance has been talking?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how many times I have to explain this to Hon. Members opposite. What we have done was to aim our policies at the people who need them the most, the people with the lowest incomes. Everyone loves to do numbers, but we know what the truth is.


NATIONAL COUNCIL ON WELFARE STUDY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, apparently the people who need it most are those in the highest income brackets. Is the Minister also aware that this study from the National Council on Welfare contradicts the Robin Hood philosophy of the Minister by indicating that a poor family headed by a woman will lose $58, not even including sales taxes, while a rich man who earns over $100,000 per year will gain $422? How is that possibly helping those in greatest need?


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have introduced a minimum tax. I do not understand why those people opposite do not seem to be able to read.


INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Youth. For several weeks now the Minister, with her chauffeured limousine, has been boasting about her advocacy role in promoting her Government's success in creating jobs for the youth of the country. The unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada this morning show an increase in youth unemployment from 15 per cent to 16.4 per cent. What is the Minister's next move to ensure her credibility with our youth and improve the lot of unemployed youth?


Don Boudria: Hire a young chauffeur.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want the Hon. Member to know that youth unemployment has come down 2 percentage points since this Government took office. Some 50,000 more young people are at work today and have meaningful jobs than when we came into office in September of 1984.


Mr. Gauthier:: Because they are getting older, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We are continuing that progress with Job Entry programs for those young people who have not been able to finish high school, for summer students who are coming out of university and college with Challenge '86, and with any other number of programs which are underway in the Department of Unemployment and Immigration.
I would urge the Hon. Member to make sure that those people in her part of the country get their applications in by the end of the week-


Lucie Pépin: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -for Challenge '86 projects for young people.


BUDGETARY ESTIMATES-YOUTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has lost her voice and her staff, I am giving her another opportunity to speak up and answer for herself.
Where in the estimates can one find funds earmarked to
create more employment for the 700,000 youth who are hopeless and jobless?
Oral Questions


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, $700 million have been set aside this year for youth training and job creation. More than 200,000 youth are now or will be involved in employment programs this year.
That is what the Government has done. The unemployment rate has gone down to the lowest level ever and this trend will continue.


MINISTER OF STATE (YOUTH) INQUIRY IF LETTER MADE PUBLIC ORIGINATED FROM DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). Can she confirm that the letter made public yesterday did come from her department and bear her signature?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we have checked this last night and indeed the letter came from my department and bears my signature.
Quite obviously an error was made when the letter was drafted. Neither I nor my department ever intended to use public funds for partisan purposes.
I would suggest the wrong word was mistakenly used, and it should read "Party", not "Government". I do not think that anyone in a political "party" would not want to recruit people, so there was an error in the text.
If this incident has embarrassed the Government, my colleagues or the House, I apologize.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize that in the circumstance in which she has clearly lost control of her office, she really has no choice but to resign?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have not lost control of my office. I have no intentions of resigning.


Mr. Robinson:: It has lost control of you.


Andrée  Champagne: I have made a mistake, and I think there is no one in this House who can boast of the fact that they have never in their lives made a mistake of one word somewhere.


John Barry Turner: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: It was a mistake the letter became public.

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that part of the decrease in world oil prices had been passed along to the consumers in a two-cent per litre reduction at the pumps. I want to know why only part of the saving has been passed along to the consumers? And why do we have to wait so many weeks for further benefits?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has answered this question any number of times in the House, including yesterday. She pointed out that there is oil in the system, that the price decline reflects earlier declines, and we would expect that recent declines will be reflected as well.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has never answered this question, never.


WHOLESALE PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Minister of State for Finance tell me and this House why the Canadian wholesale market price for Canadian products in Canada is kept artificially high when the market price for refined products in the United States is going down? Will the Minister tell the consumers why this is happening? And will she tell the independent retailers why this is happening?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence that there is an artificially high price for petroleum products in the Canadian system, absolutely none, and I do not think the Hon. Member has, either.
If the Hon. Member knew how the market works, he would not need to ask this question any more. It has been answered any number of times by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In spite of the Government's claim of an outstanding record in job creation, Statistics Canada shows that there has
been a drop in the real unemployment rate from 10.9 per cent to only 10.7 per cent since the Conservatives were elected back in September of 1984.


Mr. Crosbie:: Come on. You are really straining.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And there has actually been a loss of 149,000 full-time jobs since the election of her Party. In light of this information, how can the Minister justify cutting SI00 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy when there has been a real loss of 149,000 jobs since September of 1984-full-time jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Your nose is getting a little longer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this House is that we have "Statistics Allmand", "Statistics Nystrom", and I am well content to stay with Statistics Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: How is that nose now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Statistics Canada reported this morning that the unemployment rate has stayed below 10 per cent, and that since September of 1984 almost 580,000 new jobs have been created.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, they don't like that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is widely spread across the country; in all regions, in all age groups, and in all sectors. We know it has to improve, and that is why the Minister of Finance brought in the Budget he did, and we will see improvement again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about real Canadians, not seasonally adjusted Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


ELIMINATION OF YOUTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the Minister explain why her Government eliminated the entire budget of the Department of Youth when youth unemployment has gone up since the election of the Conservative Party in September of 1984, in real terms, from 17.5 per cent to 18.1 per cent?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate for young people is 16.4 per cent-down two full percentage points since we came to office. This means there an additional 50,000 young people who are at work today who were not at work in September of 1984.
I have already said we do not think that is good enough. We want to continue that progress, which is why we are putting S700 million of funding into youth employment programs this year. We expect that at the end of the year, Sir, you will see even better progress than we have had to date.
March 7, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.
On December 13, 1985, a motion was passed in the House calling for the establishment of a committee to examine the domestic wheat price. What is the status of that reference at this time?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is well aware of the Hon. Member's interest in this matter. I can tell him that the terms of reference are presently a matter for discussion among the House Leaders-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was a bit worried about the question because it is really a question of House business. 1 think that perhaps it should be put that way.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Finance). According to the Conference Board, the Government would not be able to reduce the deficit as it had hoped. Can the Minister of State (Finance) confirm whether the new 6 per cent business transfer tax to be levied as early as October 1 this year will offset the Government's revenue shortage not forecast in the February 1986 Budget? How do you propose to balance that Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit bemused by all this focusing on what the Conference Board has said and has not said. Perhaps I could quote precisely what it has stated in its own hand.
Although we have used different assumptions regarding oil prices and interest rates, our analysis shows the federal deficit to be under $30 billion for 1986-87 and decreasing thereafter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON NEW TAX IMPLEMENTATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. Can the Minister assure the House, and all Canadians, that no new tax will be implemented until the next Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a hypothetical question. The Hon.
Oral Questions
Member is once again trying to spread confusion on the basis of a newspaper report concerning a Conference Board study which we did not write and for which we are not responsible.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Could the Minister explain why the Government has done nothing to assess the impact on women of its job cuts in the Public Service? Is it fair that most of these job cuts should be concentrated in the Public Service where wages are the lowest, therefore affecting job categories where the proportion of women is the highest?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for posing what is a very sensitive and difficult issue. As Hon. Members know, the situation which was outlined by the President of the Treasury Board is a temporary one. The former Government Departments become tremendously unwieldy. I have been in touch with the President of the Treasury Board about the sensitivity in relation to these necessary actions. The Government has taken a number of actions which are designed specifically to see that those affected such as women enter the Canadian Jobs Strategy. If we look at the question of employment, broadly speaking, and particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is making what should be a statement. On a supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE CONDUCTED
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the situation is temporary, the lay-offs which are taking place are permanent. Will the Minister responsible for the status of women ensure that the Government undertakes and publishes an impact study with respect to the effect of the Public Service job cuts on women? Since women make up 41 per cent of the Public Service of Canada, will the Government guarantee that no more than that percentage of employees who are women will be fired as a result of the job cuts?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that there is a maximum amount of sensitivity in this whole area along the lines of which the Hon. Member speaks. The question of employment equity, and the question of getting women out of ghettoized jobs where they are the first affected when there are these movements in any part of the economy, are a matter of priority. This is also true for the question of equal pay for

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions
work of equal value, so that people, especially women, are not so adversely affected when these sorts of situations are forced upon us.


EMPLOYMENT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In his Budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a new job strategy targetted at women who want to return to the labour force. Could the Minister assure the House that she will respect the needs of women in her new program, contrary to what she has done in Bill C-62 dealing with employment equity?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question. [English]
Bill C-62 is before the House for debate. I trust that the Opposition will give support to employment equity. When the Hon. Member was the chairperson of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women I know that she did not put forward any proposals for employment equity. At this point I would urge her to move forward, to progress, to come into the real world, and to support programs which give women a chance.


EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY- MINISTER'S COMMITMENT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to emphasize that the Governement has turned down all the amendments that the Liberal Party had proposer to this Bill. Could the Minister, and I hope she will listen to and understand my question because she failed to answer it the first time around, could the Minister assure the House that she will not implement a new job strategy program if women as a group do not feel that this program meets their requirements? That is quite clear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which started in September of last year, there was a particular program which was directed toward women reentering the workforce after having been out for a number of years. I have had a chance to visit a number of these projects across the country. This morning, at a meeting with representatives from womens' organizations, I had a chance to talk about these projects. I was told by all that this is a very excellent approach to take, to help women get back into the labour force. I wish the Hon. Member would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Canadian women have denounced free trade with the United States because of the major disturbance it is likely to create for women employed in the service industry. Does the Minister think it is fair to open up without adequate protection this area where 80 per cent of workers are women?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for raising a question on which I have had a number of representations from womens' groups across the country. I wish to suggest to the Hon. Member that I think the women of Canada have a lot of faith in the future of the country. They also recognize that, as we enter into discussions, we are doing so because those most vulnerable at the moment, in terms of these fluctuations, tend to be women who are ghettoized in many jobs. I have had conversations with Mr. Reisman and the Minister for International Trade. I have been pressing them to see that within the negotiation team there will be a person or group particularly designated to see that the interests of women, who tend to be the first affected, or who are in vulnerable jobs, will be protected.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I hope that person will, in fact, be a woman.


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE MADE PUBLIC
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister guarantee that the study with respect to the impact of free trade on women being undertaken by Labour Canada will be made public and discussed directly with women representatives of the banking, insurance, communications and other service industries affected?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the discussions which are undertaken, and the mandate of those negotiating, will be to be in touch with those who are particularly concerned. Obviously there has to be a dialogue. If at the end of the day there is an agreement that is good for Canada, it will be because there has been a discussion and an agreement in the interests of all Canadians, particularly women.
March 7, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the nine Canadians who were part of the brainwashing experiments in the late 1950s.
Florence Langleben, who was one of the nine, died on January 2, 1986. Her son, Wayne, lives in my riding of Don Valley East. He would like to know when the Government will release all the facts on this sordid experiment, and especially the facts about the CIA funding of this terrible experiment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when we came into office this problem came to our attention. We have taken action on the problem.


John R. Rodriguez: With the speed of a snail.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some months ago I appointed an independent outside counsel, in the person of Mr. George Cooper of Halifax.


John R. Rodriguez: Is this a crab following a dead cod?


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentleman wants to answer this question, he can. Perhaps he knows more about it than I do.


John Edward Broadbent: Probably.


John Carnell Crosbie: That may be. But he has certainly not achieved anything in that connection for a number of years now.


Mr. Heap:: Neither have you.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why does the wise one not wait and listen to see?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: We have waited a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. None of this back and forth. It is not getting the question answered.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great importance to certain people. Why there should be these cheap interjections, I do not know.
Mr. George Cooper was appointed by me to act as an independent counsel to review in detail any connection the Government of Canada or any of its agencies had with respect to these certainly unfortunate events of some years ago. He is expected to conclude his report shortly, and the Government will then consider his report to see whether the Government has any responsibility whatever in connection with this matter.
I have no doubt that, after we receive the report and have had some time to consider it, we will make a statement, if not make the report public.
Oral Questions
In the meantime, two members of the Department of Justice visited Washington at the beginning of this week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister knows 1 cannot let him go on. He may want to complete this answer under Statements.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But it is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: All the questions and answers are important. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


RAILWAYS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Transport.

My question relates to a declaration made by the Minister's press secretary who said that maintaining the CN shops in Moncton from a purely business standpoint would be impractical and a money loser.
Is the Minister using his press aide as a messenger to the people of Moncton? Is he preparing them for bad news?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member knows that this is a matter that we take very seriously. There are several options being considered. An evaluation in being undertaken. I share with the Hon. Member the concern of the workers involved, and I can also assure the Hon. Member that we are trying to work out a satisfactory and positive solution to this whole difficult problem.


AIDE'S STATEMENT
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that such a statement from a ministerial aide is good publicity for the CN shops, especially when CN is looking at different arrangements to keep the shops open and protect the 1,200 jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in a very emotional debate, such as that which is taking place on this very important issue, a lot of statements are made, some of which vary in degrees of accuracy. I think the Hon. Member himself has, from time to time, tended to overstate the case. I hope that he will just be patient and work with us toward working out a satisfactory solution.

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions YOUTH


WORDING OF MINISTER'S LETTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth. I want to give her the opportunity to correct a very serious misleading of the House in which she indulged-and I say that quite seriously- earlier in the Question Period.
The Minister has acknowledged that she wrote a letter to her cabinet colleagues. She said there was only one word in it that was a mistake.
Considering the whole letter is about partisan politics, and begins with references to a political agenda and includes these sentences, Mr. Speaker-
Mfrs. Mailly: She has already dealt with that.


John Edward Broadbent: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that this is becoming a long preamble. Could we have a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Considering the Minister says in the letter:
Caucus requires tools to maintain its political linkages with youth-
Support to the recruitment efforts of the PC Youth Federations-
-are important: Which one word among these many was the error the Minister made?


John R. Rodriguez: The whole letter.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have apologized for anything in the letter which could-


John R. Rodriguez: The whole letter.


Andrée  Champagne: -be construed as a partisan word.
I think that linkages with youth by members of any caucus are very important. I would imagine the Leader of the New Democratic Party would certainly want his people to have linkages.
We are working with the young people of Canada. Now that they know what we have done, what we are doing, and what we will be doing for them, I can understand why the Leader of the New Democratic Party would be worried.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Considering that letter is a blatant attempt to use public funds for the recruitment of young people to the Conservative Party of Canada, would the Deputy Prime Minister not acknowledge that this is an abuse of the powers and responsibilities of a Minister, and request the Prime Minister of Canada to ask for this Minister's resignation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much further the hon. gentleman, or Members applauding opposite, would want any Minister to go. She has been honest and forthright-


John Edward Broadbent: She got caught.


Erik Nielsen: -in admitting the authorship of the letter, in admitting a mistake of the letter and in apologizing for it.
Surely even the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is sufficiently human to admit mistakes from time to time and to apologize for them.


John Edward Broadbent: If you are in the Cabinet you resign, Mister.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Is the Minister aware that groups or professions eligible to act as guarantors of passport applications are almost without exception male-dominated ones, and, for example, the profession of nursing is not included on that list? What is the Minister prepared to do about this apparent, if unintended, discrimination against 50 per cent of the population?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising this matter. It is a matter which, on reflection, has a good deal of validity.
I will undertake to talk with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has responsibility for passports, and review that list in this light.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had a question on potatoes for the Minister of Agriculture. However, as he is absent, I will address a question to the Minister of National Defence.
On January 24, 1985, the Government announced a new Combined Mess for CFB, Summerside. Construction was to begin in October, 1986. Is that project on schedule?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that
information at my disposal. I will take the Hon. Member's
March 7, 1986

question as notice and, as soon as I obtain the information, I will bring it to the Hon. Member's attention.


PROVISION OF FUNDING
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Estimates for that project. Is that an oversight in the budgetary process or is the project being delayed? I would like to have a response to that question, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact number of projects we have on the go but it is in the hundreds.
In any event, the final decision on which will proceed this year, for Estimate purposes, must be in by October 31. As a consequence, the fact that it is not in the Estimates cannot be taken as absolute assurance that it will not be proceeded with this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations. In Nicaragua recently Contra invaders financed by the United States ambushed a truck, killed four peasant mothers, wounded others, and killed a Swiss agronomist. Will the Minister publicly ask President Reagan to withdraw his request to Congress for $100 million more to pay and arm the murderers of women, children, and civilians in Nicaragua?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has already announced its policy concerning Nicaragua and Central America. I personally have had the opportunity to visit that country. We have a program which we apply very consistantly and we continue to support the Contadora effort.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question. I asked for a public statement of opposition to the funding of these murderers.


REQUEST FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF CENTRAL AMERICA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has visited the region and is, therefore, familiar with the support of the churches for the Nicaraguan Government in its opposition to the funding of the Contras, and the support of at least eight Governments in that area, will she join those Governments and churches in asking for the demilitarization
Point of Order-Mr. Kaplan
of Central America, including the withdrawal of American troops?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is both the practice and tradition of the Mulroney Government to co-operate with volunteer organizations. We are also involved in various programs with Church organizations. I want to emphasize that the Canadian policy differs considerably from the American policy and that we have every intention of sticking to it.


POINT OF ORDER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, this being the first opportunity to correct something I said during Question Period. During Question Period I said that in the vicinity of 50,000 new jobs had been created in the Province of Quebec since the election. That was a mistake. I should have said that 112,000 new jobs have been created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) raised a point of order which drew attention to an apparent breach of Standing Order 99(2), formerly 70(16), for those who have figured out the new numbering system.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments requested a comprehensive response to its fourth report presented on October 17, 1985. The Standing Order provides that a comprehensive response should be tabled by the Government within 120 days of the presentation of a special committee report when such a request is made.
I must rule that the Hon. Member has raised a valid point of order, the Standing Order being quite clear. I simply indicate, therefore, that the Member has raised a point of order and this ruling will serve to draw the breach of the Standing Order to the attention of the Minister.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, could you give the House some guidance as to what happens to remedy this breach of the Standing Orders which you have noted?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that I cannot. The Hon. Member
may wish to read the Standing Order. He will find that it is
silent on that matter.

March 7, 1986
Statements by Ministers


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, under the provision of Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the remedy.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION TABLING OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) I have the pleasure of tabling the response of the Government of Canada, dated March 7, 1986, to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration presented to the House on Thursday, November 7.
[ Translation]


PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON DAY CARE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House today, in both official languages, the March 7, 1986 Report of the Task Force on Child Care, pursuant to Standing Order 67.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, to rise in the House on the eve of International Women's Day. We all know that International Women's Day began as a one-day protest of intolerable working conditions for women in the United States.
[ Translation]
Today, this event has undergone considerable expansion and is celebrated throughout the world during a full week of activities.

International Women's Day is one illustration that the women's movement has become global in scope. The movement's character is such that it can embrace women of all cultures, races, and economic conditions. Women are bound together by their commonality of purpose, their movement toward equality, and their desire for an equal chance.
Nowhere was this world-wide sharing of goals more evident than at last year's Wold Conference of Women in Nairobi, Kenya. The Nairobi Conference was a landmark event. I am proud to say that Canada was instrumental in the development of a comprehensive blueprint of action to improve women's status to the end of this century. These strategies for the future are being used to guide our Canadian development of policies related to women and issues of concern to women. They include our employment equity legislation designed to improve the status of women in the workplace, and our efforts to position more women in decision-making positions in government, agencies, boards, and commissions.
The Government made a promise that in its first term of office appointments of women to federal boards and agencies would reach 30 per cent of all appointments made en route to the eventual goal of a full 50 per cent. I am pleased to say that we are not far short of that interim goal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Improvements have been made to public and private pension plans. Further, new laws will facilitate the enforcement of support orders. There will be a legislated end to the decades of discrimination perpetrated against Indian women. The Canadian Jobs Strategy, for example, is now in place. It ensures that women have an equal chance in all federal training programs.
Since we took office in September, 1984, employment for women has increased by 306,000. Unemployment among women has decreased by 79,000. Fifty thousand young women have found jobs under Challenge 85.

These programs, as well as others we have developed, are tangible proof of the Government's commitment to creating conditions that will give Canadian women, on an equal footing with men, an opportunity to achieve their full economic potential.

That same philosophy, Mr. Speaker, underlies the Budget. While recognizing those most in need, its intention is to restore the nation's economic confidence through fiscal responsibility which will create an economic climate in which Canadian women, as well as men, can see their initiatives and efforts fairly and justly rewarded. Presently, women own one-third of Canada's small businesses and their numbers are growing. Women are responsible for starting two-thirds of Canada's new small businesses, and this is having an important effect on the Canadian economy. Women entrepreneurs will find evidence of the Government's support and encouragement in this

March 7, 1986

Budget. It will reduce the tax rate on small business income, double the amount of guaranteed loans available under the Small Businesses Loans Act, and broaden the tax rules providing deductions for allowable business investment losses.
Mr. Speaker, today I tabled in the House the report of the Task Force on Child Care.

The important and comprehensive body of research the task force presented will be a valuable formulation to the public hearings of the parliamentary task force on child care. I expect it to be a useful guide in the ongoing discussions addressing Canada's child care needs. Finally, I believe the report will encourage public discussion and debate on child care and child care needs in this country. It is a much needed debate because child care is fundamentally linked to women's equality. It is fitting that an airing of such issues should be renewed on this, the eve of International Women's Day.
In conclusion, as we salute the women of Canada, indeed the women of the world, it is timely to recall the commitment made at the Halifax First Ministers' Conference chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and attended by the Premiers, to bring front and centre next meeting scheduled for November for the economic equality and social justice issues as they relate to women.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on the occasion of Internatinal Women's Day. I especially want to emphasize the work of women, both outside and inside the home, of all women whatever their income, and to tell them that this is their day and that it is also a good day for Canadian women to tell this Governement that instead of simple statements of principle, they want this Government to keep all the nice promises we have been hearing since the 1984 elections.
I wish to stress the leadership given by the Canadian Government at the Nairobi Conference and point out that this Government should apply the same energy in implementing the principles discussed at this conference for the benefit of Canadian women. The Minister spoke about Bill C-62 on employment equity, and I simply want to remind the House that all the groups who appeared before the Parliamentary Committee said that they were dissatisfied with this Bill because it provides no objectives or quotas. Their recommendations were quite strong and, as an opposition Member, I must admit that I am certainly not satisfied with this Bill myself.
The percentage of women appointed to senior positions was also mentioned. The Prime Minister himself admitted publicly in November 1985 at the Halifax Conference that he was not satisfied with the percentage of women he had appointed.
Statements by Ministers
There have been statements in all the newspapers. As recently as this week, there was a statement by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) about the appointment of ten businessmen to a new board set up to help amateur sport, but no woman was included. Once more, statements of principle are very important, but we are still waiting for them to be implemented.
We have examined the new Divorce Act. It is true that there have been improvements. However, during the election campaign, we were told that a central agency would be established to collect alimony payments. We are still waiting for such an agency.
Then, there is the employment strategy. In this regard, I would like to speak about the needs of women. Employment programs are being set up, but they do not address the needs of women. A tremendous number of jobs are said to have been created for women; but those are part-time jobs. And also, to reduce unemployment where women are concerned, they are referred to a program that creates ghetto jobs in which there is no opportunity for promotion. Those women who are living on unemployment insurance benefits are the ones who have been living alone for months and cannot then rely on any assistance program.
Who looks after their children? How can they learn to make up a budget? I think that job creation is good for reducing unemployment for promoting publicity for children's programs but as far as women are concerned, I can assure you that it will not work unless assistance programs are established. With no reference of course to part-time jobs, because most of them are part-time jobs.
Concerning the philosophy of the Budget, we know that it was supposed to help the poorest people. The poorest people are women responsible for single-parent families. They number over 72 per cent in Canada, and their income is in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 and they have been hurt by the Budget. There are taxes on drugs, a 3 per cent tax and a one per cent tax. I think it is unfortunate that the Budget has not been of any assistance to those women.
Speaking of women entrepreneurs, yesterday there was a press conference with women entrepreneurs in the Gatineau Valley area. They all told us: "We have no idea how we are going to survive with the new Budget."
Also when referring to the discussions, the Minister has tabled a report on child care. I am quite happy to have that report. Certainly all this will help the new parliamentary Task Force on Child Care. But then again, this involves the spending of an extra $1 million, and looking at the recommendations of the report that was tabled, I believe many of them could be implemented without having another task force on child care. The need is urgent. There are recommendations for the Government, recommendations that have to be implemented in 1986-87.

March 7, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Then, at the end of the briefing we had on that report, we were told that the new Task Force on Child Care budget has just been cut to 5 points. Is this a public relations exercise on the part of the Government, or is it definitely its way of tackling the child care problem?
I obviously object to the cuts that were also announced in the new Budget concerning the positive action for women program of the Secretary of State. The Montreal Office of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women will close as of May 31, 1986. If this Conservative Government wants to show it is doing something for women, it will have to prove it. Concerning also the program for battered women and all the grants, it was acknowledged in this House last week that everything was under review, that we would see in due course where the grants would go. There would be an overall approach.
For now I will tell the Conservative Government that I am very satisfied with the declaration of principle, but I would very much like to see the Government fulfill all those wonderful promises we have been hearing about since September of
1984.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day, Canadian women join their sisters around the world to celebrate our achievements in working towards greater equality and our determination to work together in solidarity with our brothers to overcome the many obstacles that remain. At the Nairobi conference we joined women from rich and poor nations who are determined that Governments must make major changes to overcome obstacles and achieve real equality by the year 2,000. We will help each other.
Here in Canada, women in recent years have organized as never before to create a much broader understanding and to demand needed changes. We must remove economic barriers which still keep women in low-paying jobs with inadequate child care. We must continue to work for equal treatment and fair opportunity on all fronts. Women have achieved political power. We must use that power to bring about needed reforms to achieve true equality.
This Government made promises to women when it was elected. It is accountable to women to keep these promises. We are pleased that jobs for women have increased in some regions. However, we want these jobs to be adequately paid and full-time, with equal opportunities for promotion. Women want more access to training and retraining programs with child care, and language assistance for immigrant women. Women were promised employment equity. Unfortunately, the Government refuses to change the employment equity legislation to reflect the very serious concerns of Canadian women, particularly women trade unionists. We were promised pension reform and protection for older women. There has been no expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. The greatest crisis in Canada is perhaps the need for child care. Canadian women want definite action this year, not just a further delay.
In Nairobi, Canada advocated increased assistance for women in developing countries, women who are barely surviving and carrying tremendous burdens. I am ashamed as a Canadian that Canada has broken faith and has cut back on foreign aid to these women.
At the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax before Christmas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) committed his Government to a framework for economic equality with particular priorities to the impact of economic decisions on women. In the most important of government economic decisions, however, the Budget, the Prime Minister has broked his promises to the women of Canada. Unfortunately the Conservative Budget has dealt women a backward blow. Women who still earn 63 cent dollars will suffer most from the very unfair tax measures which will cost families over $1,300, including last year's sales taxes. This will push many women below the poverty line. The refundable tax credit will not begin to cover the actual sales tax poorest families' pay, much less compensate them for deindexed family benefits which will decrease the value of their income each year. Women are the victims as tough restraint programs are imposed by this Government. Women in clerical and service jobs are the first to go as public services are chopped, contracted out or privatized. The $4.8 billion Health and Welfare cut over the next four years and $2 billion in reduced transfer payments will deprive women of services as well as jobs. As I said, we are very concerned that Canada's job strategies also have had budget cuts.
Today we will be receiving the recommendations of the parliamentary Task Force on Child Care chaired by Katie Cooke. I am encouraged that the Minister has assured Canadian women that this important report will be given serious consideration and will provide the launching pad for this Government's special committee so we may find funding mechanisms for accessible, affordable quality child care. However, we do not want more promises. The Government must make an initial infusion of funds this year as an expression of good faith.
On behalf of Canadian women, my Party extends very warm greetings to women across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the Arctic Circle. Women who give so much of their love, their talent, their energies and their work to their families, their neighbours, their fellow workers and, indeed, to humanity, we salute you.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, relating to the point of order that was answered by the Speaker about an hour ago about reports, I wish to ask the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) whether he intends to fulfil the obligation of the Standing Orders by introducing this day a response to the fifth report of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which was tabled in this House 120 days ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chairman must rule that this is not a point of order, it is a question.
March 7, 1986


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman just ruled it is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot address a question to the Minister at this time.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-second report of the Selection Committee. If it is agreeable to the House, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM ACT
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-85, an Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act without amendment.

In both official languages, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has asked, with the permission of the House, if I could introduce on his behalf the Bill that was just referred to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) to present the Bill in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven W. Langdon: for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an Act to Protect and Enhance the Quality of Drinking Water in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?
Introduction of Bills


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the unanimous recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights to prohibit discrimination within federal jurisdiction on the basis of sexual orientation.
At the present time gays and lesbians are not protected from discrimination in employment or access to services or accommodation. This injustice and this denial of equality must end.


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

Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an Act to Amend the Export and Import Permits Act (import of motor vehicles).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this Private Member's Bill today, the purpose of which, as indicated by the title, is to ensure that 50 per cent of the market value of the parts of a motor vehicle imported into Canada from a country other than the United States are made in Canada. This Bill is being proposed in an effort to protect our automotive parts manufacturing industry. I call on Members from all sides of the House to read the Bill and lend their support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be
printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1986
Order Paper Questions

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its unanimous consent, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the twenty-second report of the selection Committee presented to the House this day be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 514 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Rodriguez: Is the Government carrying out construction on Canada Place in Edmonton and, if so was the work tendered and (a) if so (i) on what date did the tendering take place (ii) how many tenders were received (iii) which firm or firms won tenders and for what amount (b) if not, what method was used to select the construction firm or firms?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: 
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 333 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 333 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Garneau: 1.	Did the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion implement an economic development plan for the Magdalen Islands area, in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) on what date was the plan announced (6) what amounts were allocated (c) what is a list of authorized projects and, in each case, what amounts were allocated?
2.	What amounts are available for 1985-86 in this area?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 7, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of Ministerial Statements, Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 6, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were four minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Further questions or comments? Resuming debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to visit Newfoundland last week, as I frequently do, to promote the Budget. I will not say that I was defending the Budget because I found it was not necessary to defend it, only to explain those parts with which people may not be totally familiar. It is one of the finest Budgets ever presented to the House. I will not mention any of the possible exceptions, out of modesty, but it is a Budget based on the concept of enterprise, efficiency and equity. I will explain that as I go along.
My remarks are devoted to showing the kind of preferential treatment that we are offering Atlantic Canada. My theme will be that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is like Prometheus bound, because he is faced with the desperate fiscal situation left to him by our predecessors. He does not have much room to manoeuvre but where he has any room he has exercised his discretion to help Atlantic Canada, lower income people and the small business part of the economy in this country, because that is where the jobs are created.
First, I do not have much to say about the pitiful orations we have heard from the Official Opposition during this debate, including the depressing spectacle presented by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. Rather than give my opinion, I will quote an impartial source. Jeffrey Simpson, a non-partisan person, had this to say in The Globe and Mail on March 5:
The Liberals' response to the Budget offers further depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches.
He said:
The Liberals prefer everyone to forget that they are the architects of the slide from a balanced budget to a $36-billion deficit. Rather than inducing in them a pinch of modesty, to say nothing of shame, their shoddy stewardship of the nation's economic affairs is now conveniently ignored.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Party leader John Turner, upon returning to public life, knew how shoddy that stewardship had been. He pledged repeatedly that if elected he would halve over seven years the federal deficit, then estimated at about $29-bil!ion.
He goes on to point out how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) came under the influence of Senator Keith "Gravy" who changed his mind on what he should do. The article goes on to state:
The Liberals are now criticizing Mr. Wilson for a "massive tax grab," especially on low-and middle-income Canadians. But what is their alternative?
What is their alternative? Not once have we heard an alternative from the ragtag, tatterdemalion remnants on the Liberal benches. We know the alternative of the New Democratic Party; we have heard the same croaking alternatives for 15 years. However, we do not even know what the alternative of the Liberal Party of Canada is.
Mr. Simpson ended his article by stating:
Liberal arguments merely reflect the party's grievous intellectual inconsistencies, to say nothing of flagrant opportunism and blatant hypocrisy.
A measured editorial writer from The Globe and Mail is making that judgment. Is it any wonder that poor Jean Chretien had to flee from the grievous intellectual inconsistencies, the flagrant opportunism, the blatant hypocrisy and the depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the Opposition benches? It is a wonder that he could stomach it for so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I will leave the tatterdemalion ranks and make some positive comments.
I wish to address myself to Newfoundland because this is a part of the country that is certainly one of the more regionally deprived areas. Since September, 1984, 6,000 jobs have been created in Newfoundland. The figures are even better for the end of February. The total number of jobs created by our predecessor, between February, 1980-when the Liberals deceived themselves back into power after defeating the second greatest Budget of the century-and 1984 was 2,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate in Newfoundland has fallen by 4.6 per cent since the election; from 23.8 per cent in September,
1984,	when we took office to 19.2 per cent at the end of February. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has the gall and audacity to get up in the House and talk about jobs. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland while the Liberals were in power between 1980 and 1984 rose by 10 per cent. That is an astounding figure. Yet we hear these paragons-these sump pits of hypocrisy-asking questions about the job figures during every Question Period. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland rose by 10 per cent between 1980 and 1984 but has already gone done 4.6 per cent in the 18 months since we took office. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deserve a pat on the back because their record, compared to the miserable record of our predecessors, is absolutely Hellenic in its brilliance.
Let me give the House some more statistics. In December,
1985,	manufacturers' shipments in Newfoundland were up by

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
41 per cent, compared to December, 1984. Bankruptcies were down 18 per cent and retail sales have increased by 7 per cent in the past year and 11 per cent since the September, 1984 election. The value of building permits is up by 11.5 per cent and 11 per cent more houses were under construction at the end of 1985 than at the end of 1984.
In spite of those facts, we hear those Members opposite trying to say that we are ignoring Atlantic Canada and that Atlantic Canada is somehow discriminated against. I will put the lie to that, if you give me enough time, Mr. Speaker.
I will not dwell on the pitiful shape of the deficit situation left to us by the Liberal-NDP alliance that practically wrecked this country in the last 15 years. I will not even mention that 22.8 per cent of all our spending in Canada for the year ending this March was to pay interest on the debt incurred by the Liberal-NDP wastrels and spendthrifts. It means that there was $25.61 billion that we could not spend on roads, services, economic development or improving the social security system. It had to be spent on interest on the debt left behind by those Members who we hear fussing every day about unemployment, jobs and Government policy. Mr. Simpson was being very polite when he talked about grievous intellectual inconsistencies, flagrant opportunism and blatant hypocrisy. He should have called it blatant opportunism and flagrant hypocrisy.
Let me explain what we have accomplished for Atlantic Canada in this Budget and elaborate on what has been done in Newfoundland in the past 18 months for which I and other Members here are proud to claim the credit. Action was taken for Atlantic Canada because we have influence.
I looked at a rag from Atlantic Canada called the "Atlantic Insight" magazine. One of its articles said that nothing has been done for Atlantic Canada and the poor PC Members there have no clout-they ain't got no clout. Well, if we ain't got no clout, why is the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen now. That is premature anti-clouting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about anti-mouthy?


John Carnell Crosbie: What happened in the Budget? First, there was a new program introduced, the Atlantic Enterprise program. There are $1 billion worth of loans for Atlantic Canada for business start-up or expansion. It has to be a minimum loan of $250,000 or greater, for new capital investment. This will go together with the possibility of lower cost financing through interest rate buy-downs of up to 6 per cent. That is to give the private sector a chance to grow and expand in Atlantic Canada.
In Atlantic Canada someone said: "Oh, this is not going to help us. We don't have a very strong private sector". My answer was: "How are we going to get a stronger private sector if the Government does not help it to become strong?"
Of all the parts of Canada, Atlantic Canada is receiving an entirely new program to help the private sector-that is, the four Atlantic Provinces and Atlantic Quebec. We are not forgetting our confreres in Atlantic Quebec, the Gaspe and Kamouraska, I think is the county. They are included in this program as well and we are happy to have them included. That is the great new program for economic development in Atlantic Canada. My comrade and friend, the Hon. Sine Stevens, is in charge of that.
What happened to the investment tax credit? It is phased out across the country everywhere except where? Except Atlantic Canada. Is that discrimination against Atlantic Canada? Is that prejudice against Atlantic Canada? Does that show we have no clout? What utter crap, Mr. Speaker. The investment tax credit is phased out across the country except in Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Quebec. The 20 per cent tax credit has been extended. The 35 per cent for small business has been extended to the offshore to help the development of the oil and gas and mineral resources which lie offshore. So the rest of Canada was eliminated from this program.
I hope no one from the other areas is listening to me because I am speaking now to Atlantic Canada. The investment tax credit is left in place. Is that discrimination against Atlantic Canada? No, it is discrimination for Atlantic Canada because the Government knows that we are regionally deprived and we need assistance.
The 60 per cent tax credit in Cape Breton has been left in place. It is eliminated everywhere else outside of Atlantic Canada and that is discrimination for Cape Breton. Does that show a loss of clout of those who represent Atlantic Canada? Not on your life. That shows that the present Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has a hell of a lot more clout than the person in the other place who sidled and snook up to that other place. He was shrewd enough to know that the shellacking was coming and he went to the other place and did not run in Cape Breton again.
I do not have time to go into all of the research and development, but there was a $300 million increase in research and development spending for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council, which will help us because we do not have that much R and D spending going on in the private sector. We need these granting councils to play a key role.
I was told there is nothing in the Budget for fishermen. What twaddle! Fishermen, farmers and loggers are going to continue to receive the three cent per litre rebate on gasoline and diesel fuel used in commercial activities. It is extended for a year to January 1, 1988. That is over 13 cents a gallon for every fisherman out there in his boat. In the inshore fishery or otherwise, he pays 13 cents a gallon less for his fuel. That is what is there for fishermen.
There is the extension of the Small Business Bond, the capital gains tax exemption, and the increase in the refundable tax credit for R and D. The 12.5 per cent tax on dividend
March 7, 1986

distributions will be repealed. The federal tax rate on small business is going to be reduced from 15 per cent to 14 per cent.
We do not hear the hyenas opposite mention the tax reductions. We sure don't. It will be effective January 1, 1987. The federal tax rate on manufacturing processes and income of small business corporations is reduced from 10 per cent to 8 per cent. The ceiling on total Government guaranteed loans under the Small Business Loans Act more than doubles from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. Who does that help? Small business, that is who. Where are the most small businesses in the country proportionately? They are in Atlantic Canada. Who is this all helping? It is helping Atlantic Canadians, that is who.
I hope the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) speaks in this debate, because while he was in the Government, it was all temporary. Every year the Government had to extend the northern benefits. Now we have put them on a permanent basis. All those who live in northern Canada, including Labrador, will receive a new permanent system of tax benefits for housing and travel. Under the new system, 20 per cent of their net income can be deducted up to $225 per month. There will be an income tax deduction for employer provided medical and vacation travel, and it will apply to those who are self employed as well as to employees. The Hon. Member should get up and cross the floor if he opens his mouth in this debate today, because we have put in place these permanent benefits to encourage the people who live in the north and who are developing northern Canada.
There was also the assistance for low income Canadians. There are more low income Canadians, unfortunately, proportionately, living in Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Quebec than in anywhere else in the country. What did we do there? Whenever we had any money to spare at all, we gave it to the lower income Canadians. The Child Tax Credit increased from $384 a child last year to $454 a child this year. There is a prepayment of $300 a child to be made in November to claimants who have family incomes of $15,000 or less. That will help at least a million claimants. There is a new refundable federal sales tax credit, $50 for adults and $25 per child, for families and individuals with incomes below $15,000. I am asked what this is going to do for fishermen. The average income of inshore fishermen is less than $15,000 a year. What is the Budget going to do for them? It is going to put a lot of money right into their pockets. And there is the New Democratic Party with its picayune, seal-like minds, waving their little flippers in opposition to the Budget when the Budget is doing all these things to help lower income Canadians. Four million families and individuals will be helped.
What did we do to help the disabled? We increased the disability deduction by $250. Last year we extended assistance to an additional 120,000 disabled Canadians. There are 185,000 disabled Canadians who will benefit as a result of the Budget this year. We extended the spouses' allowance last year. Wherever we have had a chance to do anything with the miserable fiscal climate left to us by our predecessors, we have exercised it to help create economic opportunity in Canada, and to help lower income Canadians and small businesses.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
I do not have time to go into the private pension plan improvements and the training and employment programs. There is a program for older worker adjustment of $125 million over the next four years. There is the Canadian Jobs Strategy. These are all helping Atlantic Canada tremendously.
Persons receiving social assistance are to have a special program. We are spending $100 million a year to try to get more of them to work. That helps Atlantic Canada tremendously also.
I see, Mr. Speaker that you are giving me the signal that 1 am running out of time. I don't have enough time and I have lots to say. In my last two minutes I am going to list some of the things we have done.
We set up the Offshore Development Fund for Newfoundland; 75 per cent from the Government of Canada, that is, $225 million. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) just announced $34 million worth of projects. We are supposed to have no clout?
We just put another $77 million into Fishery Products International in order to put it on its feet, and $5.6 million to upgrade its secondary processing facility at Burin. There is a $180 million roads agreement, $112.5 million of that put in by the Government of Canada.
Hon. Members opposite should see the monuments they are erecting to me down in Newfoundland.
We are pledged to build a penitentiary twice as large as the penitentiary which the Hon. Member for Grand Bay-White Falls-Ladrador pretends his then Government was going to put in. I have no time to go into the details. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite will ask me questions with respect to it.
Then there is money for pulp and paper mill modernization at Corner Brook and Grand Falls, some $46 million in total, $38.5 million of which is federal funds. I announced another $3.1 million for Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls several weeks ago. There will be $38.5 million in the federal Canadian Jobs Strategy program, $35 million from Ottawa.
There are two special programs to help fishermen. There is the extension of the Challenge '85 program in 1986. The allotment this year is over $5 million. There is MILAP assistance for Buchans and Corner Brook to the tune of $7.1 million which is money to assist 118 unemployed miners in Buchans. There is $300,000 for the benefit of five former millworkers in Corner Brook. I do not have time to elaborate. Hon. Members should have come with me to Buchans two or three weeks ago to see what they think there about who has clout and who has not and who is doing what for Atlantic Canada. Oh, it would have brought tears to the eyes of members of the N DP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is $4.8 million in special programs for fishermen prevented by ice from fishing. There was another $9.5 million for fishermen last fall who did not qualify for Ul, some 1,350 fishermen and 1,500 plant workers in all.

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
With respect to flood relief I turned over a cheque for $1.5 million in connection with the Exploits River flood damage. In regard to the Port aux Basques water supply, there was a promise made by the Liberals which was never carried out. We allocated $8.5 million for the Port aux Basques water supply. God, if I had the time to elaborate, Hon. Members would just fall over. They do not realize what we are getting away with.
There is a convention centre in the City of St. John's to which the federal Government contributed $1.7 million. There was some $93 million for the Goose Bay airport, a 10-year program of improvements there. We are going to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the Minister has finally put his speech out of its misery. I am also happy to note that the Government has regained its confidence in the press in that the Minister quoted from an article written by Jeffrey Simpson from The Globe and Mail of March 5, 1986. I note that the Government now shows its satisfaction with the way the press reports its propaganda. I would like to ask the Minister this. Has he had lunch recently with anyone from the press so that he now has them on his side spreading the propaganda of his own Party?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we do not express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the press.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You sure as hell did!


John Carnell Crosbie: The press are there and we live with the press. Of course, some members of the press are even more accurate and truthful than other members of the press. When we see a national columnist who is not known to be partisan come to the conclusion that the response to the Budget by the Liberal Party is "depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches" what can we do but note it and put in on the public record?
I am glad the hon. gentleman asked me the question since I am a bit angry with the press who did not make sufficient of the North Warning System. Of course, we are now placing North Warning Stations in Labrador. Would Hon. Members like to know what will be spent in Labrador with respect to two long-range radar stations at Saglouc and Cartwright and five short-range radar stations? In excess of $120 million. The press failed to report that I had arranged matters so that the consulting engineers doing this work are from Newfoundland. We are now busy ensuring that when the tenders are called they will be called in amounts which are not too large for Atlantic Canada and Quebec companies to handle. The press did not report on that. So this is a little failure of the press
which I am glad the hon. gentleman gave me a chance to point out.
In addition, when we were in St. John's last week, the Minister responsible for housing announced a new federal-provincial global agreement in social housing with Newfoundland. The press neglected to give that the attention it should have been given. Some $6.6 million will be allocated for the Agnes Pratt Senior Citizens Home in the district of St. John's West which I have the honour to represent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I didn't ask that, John. We are not interested.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not interested. They are interested in Newfoundland. Some 150 chronic care beds will be implemented at the Agnes Pratt Home and the Golden Heights Home in Bonavista in the district of my friend, the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinty-Conception, Captain Morrissey Johnson, that seal captain of international renown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The press should be criticized occasionally. Some $25 million will be spent under this new social housing agreement in Newfoundland for those who cannot afford to do it all themselves. Some 2,400 new households will be created in
1986.	We are extending the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program throughout every nook and cranny of the province.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't get wound up, you're just supposed to answer one question.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is being done because of the new Government in Ottawa and the Government in St. John's, and because of yours truly who has fought so hard. They will know down there when they receive their RRAP assistance who is responsible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on a question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, one hesitates to give the Minister a chance to get wound up again. However, I cannot resist asking a few questions of him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You won't get any answers!


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to ask a few questions with respect to his superb oratory. However, the facts were not quite so superb, although the oratory was not bad.
With respect to his reference to the program for older workers, might it not have been fair to mention that there is a reduction in the amount of money to be provided in the Budget for older workers displaced and facing readjustment? Also, might it not have been honest when talking about the Canadian Jobs Strategy to mention that the Budget reduces the funds to the Jobs Strategy program and does not increase it? Might it not have been more accurate to have noted that the $50 rebate of which the Minister spoke so proudly is just to make
March 7, 1986

up for the loss which poor people in the Maritimes will suffer as a consequence of the 1 per cent increase in sales tax? In talking about Challenge '86 might it not have been more honest for the Minister to say that this program, too, has been reduced in terms of the amount of money it will receive this year? Finally, in talking about the Atlantic provinces, and if the Minister wanted to boast, might it not have been more wise to boast about the 3 per cent income tax surtax which every Maritimer and Newfoundlander will have to pay? That might have been a more fair and a more honest representation of the realities which Atlantic Canada will suffer as a result of the actions of this Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, as is quite obvious. I could see that hon. gentlemen in the Opposition were not agreeing with some of the points I was making because not only could I see their heads rattling but I could hear them.
With respect to the points the hon. gentleman rattled off a few minutes ago, the unemployment rate has gone down to 9.8 per cent. It is under 10 per cent for the first time in three or four years. Therefore, if there is any diminution in the amount allocated for employment programs in the coming year, surely it is a reflection of the fact that the employment situation is better.
There is some $800 million allocated for employment and training programs in the coming year. There is $125 million allocated to the Program for Older Worker Adjustment which will replace the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. There is a $100-million-a-year program for a duration of three years which will total $600 million with matching provincial funds. There are employment initiatives for people receiving social assistance. If he wishes, the hon. gentleman can say that is less. I say it is more and I say that the need is less than the need was and that the need, as the figures show today, will be going down.
We have a Budget that encourages enterprise. It encourages efficiency and reduction of Government spending and it is equitable. The hon. gentleman over there never mentioned the minimum tax that higher income people are going to have to pay of at least 25 per cent, also a part of this Budget. The official Opposition spent 20 years putting exemptions and tax loopholes into Budgets, exemptions and tax loopholes which we are now closing.
As one of the examples of equity in this Budget, we have the 25 per cent tax on higher income earners. It is reasonable to believe that that is not entirely equitable for some of them, but certainly in the context of the whole fiscal system, for the first time a tremendous loophole has been plugged, yet members of the NDP never croak up to say how appreciative they are of this. Certainly members of the Official Opposition do not because they are the ones who provided all these loopholes in the first place.
The Budget-Mr. McCurdy
As an Atlantic Canadian, I am happy to have had the chance to explain to the House what we are doing in Atlantic Canada. I did not have a chance to explain how we doubled spending under IRDA and regional development last year. We are now spending over $80 million as compared to $40 million on average in the previous eight years of the Liberal administration. I did not have an opportunity to really go into this matter. If I had, I am sure that those over across the way would have been even more dumbfounded and green with envy than they are right now. I challenge one of them to ask another question, just one other question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Sorry, the time for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I really must confess that while witnessing the tremendous oratorical skills of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), 1 laughed unashamedly at much that he had to say. Almost everyone listening to his speech was overcome with the humour and the encouragement to laughter that so often characterizes those who are otherwise hurting deep inside. If the Minister of Justice had had to admit during the course of his oration how bad this Budget is, he would have had tears in his eyes. It is a fit substitution to encourage laughter in us and in his eyes. It is a fit substitution to encourage laughter in us and in himself to obscure the deep hurt that this Budget is going to cause him and his Party, and is already causing in the Province of Quebec as reported in the newspaper this morning.
The Minister said that our heads did rattle. Of course, the Minister's head does not rattle. It is so full of nonsense that it has little room for rattling. In fact, the Minister went so far as to subject the Budget of his own Party to reductio ad absur-dum. I can understand that because when I went home last weekend I called a number of my constituents at random. The judgment that is to be applied to this Budget was expressed in no uncertain terms by all to whom I talked. It was expressed in a very simple, six-letter word, "unfair". The word "unfair" was used by those who themselves will be the victims, the average Canadians. But the Budget was also deemed to be unfair by those who are not going to be subject to the offensive imposition of taxes that the middle-income earners are being subjected to.
Senior citizens are appalled by this Budget that has another devious content, and that is that the average hardworking Canadian who has a hard enough time making ends meet will have to pay the cost for the poor while the rich go scot-free. The Budget is a clear attempt to alienate the average, hardworking Canadian from the poor who are being hurt the most by conditions in the country, conditions which are being perpetuated by the Government.
The complaint of unfairness in this Budget is something that will be repeated again and again. It has been repeated by members of the two opposition Parties and very quietly by members of the Tory Party itself. However, the complaint will come from all across the country until the devils are tossed out.

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. McCurdy
There is something even more significant in this Budget, something that continues a pattern of the past. The Government promised change. I have to describe an impression of politics that I had from the outside, and that is that politicians are too often unable to see beyond today's press scrum or next year's election sufficient to do the things that are necessary to assure the long-term destiny of this country. This has not changed. Those politicians have difficulty in addressing the concerns of the future and have difficulty doing things within a long-term context which will address in a deliberate, coherent and systematic way what must be done to assure that Canada's destiny will be properly fulfilled. That has not changed.
Part of assuring the future of this country is to assure the future of its young people. The plight of the youth of Canada has been described in recent weeks by the New Democratic Party task force on youth which consulted nearly 600 young people from coast to coast, and by a Senate Committee on youth engaged in a similar exercise. There are differences between the two reports, but they say quite clearly, as did the United Nations when it declared National Youth Year, that there is an incipient crisis among youth that must be addressed. It is a crisis that is manifest in the high rates of unemployment among the industrial nations of the world. It is so serious, indeed, that this alienation and unrest has caused riots in many of the cities in Europe.
In order to avoid that kind of social dislocation in other countries the United Nations, for that specific reason, declared last year International Youth Year.
In Canada we celebrated International Youth Year, sponsored by a Minister who was supposed to be an advocate of youth and who had the responsibility for focusing the concerns of this nation of the needs of young people. We know the sad litany of truths about the real intent of the Ministry of State for Youth. The Minister of Justice talked about hypocrisy. What would be more hypocritical than to have 700,000 young people unemployed, many without a hope for the future? The Ministry exploits the office, not for the purpose of helping youth but to assure the recruitment to the Progressive Conservative Party of the young people of this country.
We have had hyprocrisy from this Government until it is falling out of our ears. This is a Government that has been described as accident prone. No Government would be as accident prone as this Government if it were determined to follow reasonable principles of integrity and commitment to the needs of the people. The way in which the young people of Canada have been treated by the Ministry and the Government is a shame for which the youth are owed an apology.
In response to questions put to the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), we have been told that so much has been done to create jobs for young people and that this new Budget offers so much. If "lie" were not an inappropriate word, I would say that that was the word which could be properly applied to what the Government has done.
Youth are affected in the same way as others by some of the
Budget measures. The new 3 per cent surtax will affect young
people just as it affects all other people in Canada. Young
people will also be affected by the sales taxes. They will be affected by all the taxes that affect other people. While young people are unemployed, one could have expected some effort on the part of the Government to manifest its interest in young people, not by cutting expenditures which benefit youth but by increasing expenditures for the benefit of youth.
Let us look at what the Government has done. The Minister of State for Youth has claimed that the Canadian Job Strategy is the Government's indication of a commitment to the needs of youth in job creation. My God, listen to this commitment, Mr. Speaker. Some $160 million or 8.6 per cent of the Budget out of the Canadian Job Strategy has been cut. That is how the Government serves the young people.
The Government tried to pull another dirty trick on the young people. The Government said $30 million will be put into the census and the young will get jobs. They want 12 week jobs, Mr. Speaker, but they will get six week jobs if they can get the jobs while they are going to school. They will also be in competition with the adults who are also seeking those jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: Do they have to be Tories?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is a good question. Of course, we have an indication that it may be necessary, through the communication of one of their Members, but we will not enter that dispute right now.
In addition to the $30 million diverted from Challenge 86 to the census, there was an additional cut of $8.6 million. This ia how the Government serves the youth of this country. If one looks at the Budget for the Secretary of State for Youth programs, we find it has been cut by $22.7 million, a decline of 56.6 per cent. Then, in 1987-1988 an additional $100 million will be cut from the Canadian Job Strategy. What promise for the future the Government provides for the young people. What promise for jobs? What promise for the future is it providing for the youth?
The Government has failed the future when it failed the youth. The Government has failed them both by this Budget.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government has failed the test.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We could talk about the insensitive abolition of Katimavik. We could talk about the sorry litany of things not done for the youth but to the youth. The youth, we are told, by the Government, must be the human resources for future economic development. That is what the Government thinks of the youth. The youth are resources like fish, trees and soil. That is the Government's view. The Government does not address the human concern that the young should be properly educated, properly trained with the skills by which to build the country and so have successful and creative lives for themselves.
If we look at what the Government has done with the
universities we will see that they are a shambles. In one
university we visited the lights are being taken out of reading
March 7, 1986

rooms to save hydro. In another university they are burning books to save library space. In another university assignments are not given because there is not enough money to provide paper. Our universities are in a tragic situation, so bad financially that increasingly accessibility to the universities is being cut. Potential students who only recently achieved access to university, the women, the disabled, the minority groups and natives, are finding it too difficult to get into university. Someone going to university now has to borrow to the maximum, as low income families do. They will be faced with a debt of $40,000 in interest plus principal. It will cost them $350 a month for nine years before they have a secure life debt free from the cost of attending university. This is how bad the situation has become.
It is so bad that the best of our professors are leaving Canada and for those who get into university, they will find that the quality of education has deteriorated. Yet the Government is cutting the rate of increases in transfer payments, the rate at which it meets the costs of the operation of the universities with the provinces. This has been addressed, at least in part in previous discussions.
We have reached the conclusion that the heads of the Government are impervious to reason, to understanding, and in their ability to look to the future and plan for the future.
This attitude is manifested also in the nonsensical, hypocritical devious way in which the Government has treated science. This is a Government that claims to understand that if the country is supposed to have an economic future, it must be dependent upon the development of research and technology to a level which can reasonably be expected to compete with other countries. At present, we are winning a good, tight race, just slightly ahead of Italy. Pretty soon we will be behind Monaco, at the rate the Government is going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will have five minutes when we resume.
It now being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.17 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1.17 p.m. the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) had the floor. The Member not being present, we will continue with debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Adjournment of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been ample time provided for debate, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been informed that because of slippery conditions on the hill the buses are running late. Therefore, the ringing of the bells will be extended and the vote will take place shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1986-1987
[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
The House resumed, from Friday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
country and to face up to our responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, this strategy... we must not forget that we are looking to the future and that we are particularly concerned with development plans. I must emphasize that the development plan is both regional and sectorial. I remember last year in the House when, after the election campaign and after the Minister of Finance had brought down his first Budget, a wholesale attack was launched on the Budget and the measures it contained.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you remember, but at the time I compared the House to a chicken coop, because our hon. friends opposite kept saying: You promised jobs, jobs, jobs and all you did was cut, cut, cut. And they kept repeating the same "cut, cut, cut", sounding like a bunch of chickens.
Today, I suppose we could say the attitude of the Opposition has changed, but in any case they are not listening very carefully because there is no one in the House. Their attitude may have changed, Mr. Speaker, because 586,000 new jobs were created, and whatever the Opposition said at the time, which was widely publicized, and the press could perhaps help us in that respect, because they can go back to their files and see what they wrote. The press will tell us it is true, the Opposition told us last year: The Budget brought down by Mr. Wilson will lead to the loss of 200,000 jobs. And now, Mr. Speaker, we have 586,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, that is why it is very important to take another look at Mr. Wilson's Budget speech and look at the statistics it contains, to show how beneficial our action as a Government has been.
Still on the subject of regional development, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that we are putting $3.8 billion into regional development-I will let my hon. friend from the Atlantic provinces elaborate on the Atlantic Enterprise Program and the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit. I think it is only fair to have the Member for this region comment in greater detail on these measures.
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon,-I invite my hon. friends and colleagues opposite to come in,-to speak to the Budget tabled last week and to express my support for the Government's action at this time, which I may remind the House, is primarily aimed at maintaining a continuum. We shall see how the Budget continues and consistently maintains the principles laid down in the November economic message, the first financial statement tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984, and the May Budget tabled a while ago. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Budget, which is aimed at maintaining continuity, deserves to be analyzed and discussed, and that is why I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate.
The Budget's action is sustained and logical and relevant,
and it introduces and is part of a strategy to develop our
Mr. Speaker, something must be said about measures especially designed for the North. Effective January 1, 1987, all northern residents will be eligible for a net income tax deduction of 20 per cent related to their dwelling, up to a maximum of $225 a month for each individual, or $450 if the taxpayer resides in a self-contained domestic dwelling. In other words, Mr. Speaker, first it is no longer temporary, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said this morning, it will be on a permanent basis, it will be part of the Standing Orders of the House, of the Budget process, and it will be a statutory provision as of now.
So the first thing is the possibility of a deduction related to the dwelling. As a second measure, Mr. Speaker, we will also allow more travel deductions for northern residents, not only for medical purposes but also for vacation travel. There will be no set limit for trips to hospital, but all other trips will be
March 7, 1986

limited to two. This second measure is in addition to the first one concerning the dwelling deduction.
The third important point is the maximum tax of $50 on domestic flights. These three measures will cost the Government $ 120 million which will be recouped elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, it shows that the Government is taking action on a regional basis. More striking examples can be found in the new Jobs Strategy program, Mr. Speaker. Ever since we have been elected we have been trying to change the general pattern followed by our opponents who sit now on the Opposition benches.
Mr. Speaker, what they had in the past was a job creation program which was exactly the same from coast to coast. Little did it matter whether a man was a resident of St. John's Newfoundland, Vancouver or Victoria, Northern Canada, Valleyfield or Beauharnois, whether he liked it or not, Mr. Speaker, the program was Canada Works. It was the same pattern in Vaudreuil as well.


Richard Grisé: And Chambly!


Jean-Guy Hudon: And Chambly too, the same pattern, Mr. Speaker, Canada Works, the same program throughout Canada.
It all began at the Victoria Conference, Mr. Speaker, and then with our new employment development strategy we decided to act on six different fronts. Six possible programs. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, what really matters is the results we are getting. Members opposite predicted that with his last year's Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would do away with 200,000 jobs. He created instead 586,000 new ones. And he created these 586,000 new jobs out of his concern for regional development. Our six avenues for job creation will be negotiated later, province by province. Just like Quebec, Ontario and Vancouver, New Brunswick will have the opportunity to adjust these six avenues. But we are going even much further than that, Mr. Speaker.
Not only are we negotiating province by province but, for instance, New Brunswick could decide on the basis of an economy which is more difficult at times, to put more emphasis on community development rather than on any other program. It will be New Brunswick's own choice.
Moreover, we have set up around the Canada Manpower Centres throughout the province possibilities to adapt regionally these employment programs. For instance, Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick could decide to focus on program No. 2 toward community development. On the other hand, the Fredericton area could decide, because of its high unemployment level, to move towards the employment development program. And this flexibility is yielding great benefits. We went from the 200,000 job losses which our opponents predicted to 586,000 new jobs. People should remember that, Mr. Speaker.
Borrowing Authority Act
This indicates that the Canadian economy is recovering; while unemployment levels and interest rates are down and inflation rates are at their lowest levels since 1971, consumer spending and building permits are rising. I suggest that instead of rummaging through garbage to find letters, Members opposite, the so-called "bottoms-up gang", should pay attention to the signs of our economic recovery.
If you happen these days to enter the offices of Members opposite, you find them sifting through trash. All you will see is their backsides in the air, because their heads are in trash cans.
They are looking for letters. They should look instead for indicators which the media mention every day, although they are not given enough impact or emphasis.
That is the first point. This flexibility we are demonstrating at the regional level for Northern residents will apply also both to the employment strategy and social programs.
Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) say that we had forgotten only five hundred thousand families... As you know, the Budget set the income limit at $15,000 for sales tax refunds in the case of the needy. Obviously, our development is regional and sectorial. We have chosen to help a given category of people. The same applies to indexation and a whole lot of services. For instance, we provided assistance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 last year. This shows that we want to emphasize sectorial development, Mr. Speaker, and that is very important.
As far as regional development and Northern programs are concerned, the facts are there. They are also there as concerns regional development under the employment strategy. They are right there for everyone to see.
However, we cannot lose sight of debt control. In fact, the estimates and borrowing bills necesary to support the budgetary proposals should be readily accepted, like the Budget itself, because we are asking Canadians for money to reduce the deficit.
That is very important, Mr. Speaker, and there is no reason to rejoice when we look at the deficit figures since 1966-67. At one time, a balanced budget was an absolute necessity in Canada. In fact, Mr. Wilson has announced a deficit of $33.75 billion and this should not be exceeded even though we have had problems during the year. None of us wanted the failure of the Western banks. Yet, with this Budget, our $33 billion deficit will go down to $29,465 billion, and if we bring down the deficit by $3 billion, this will mean in fact that we are reducing it by $6 billion because, when you have a $33 billion deficit, you have to borrow to make up for it. You have to go to the bank and borrow, and it is costing us $3 billion a year only in interest. We are therefore paying our $3 billion and

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
reducing the deficit to $29.8 billion, and after a few years, around 1990 and 1995, we shall have a balanced Budget, the Canadian people can be sure of it, because the deficit has certainly sky-rocketed.
It started around 1970, 1971 and 1972 when deficits of $600 million were forecast. Suddenly, in one year, the deficit increased to $1.5 billion. This is $1 billion over the expected deficit, and this is where it all began. Afterwards, Turner came in with a projected deficit of $450 million and an actual deficit of $1.6 billion. In 1973-74, the projected deficit was $975 million and the actual figure was $2.2 billion. That is terrible, Mr. Speaker.
An Hon. Mlember: Horrific!


Jean-Guy Hudon: It shows how much money you need just to pay your debts. However, the best is still to come. In 1980-81, Mr. MacEachen forecast a deficit of $14.15 billion and came up with an actual deficit of $13.5 billion, $600 million less. That did not suit him well since, in 1982-83, he forecast a deficit of $19.55 billion and the actual deficit was $27.6 billion. These debts have to be paid. It was a deficit of $27,689 billion.


An Hon. Member:: A mistake!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Exactly, a mistake of $9 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: The Liberal Government.


Jean-Guy Hudon: After that, Mr. Speaker, they try to tell us what to do and they search the trashcans for letters.


Mrs. Mailly:: It is natural for them to be sneaking in garbage cans.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Bills that are now before the House, including the Borrowing Authority Bill. And, concerning that, the deficit, the management of our debt, Canadians now realize that 25 per cent of federal revenues are used up by the debt, whereas ten years ago, 5 per cent only of the money collected from Canadians was used to pay for our debt. The figure now is 25 per cent.


Claudy Mailly: Those elastic budgets of the Liberals!


An Hon. Member:: That is interest only! It is a scandal!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Just for the interest, 25 per cent of the money we are collecting goes to interest charges on this debt. Then we will have to pay it back, because Canadians are people of honour, they are going to pay their debts.


Don Boudria: You dare talk about honour, you!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You talk about honour? What were you doing here at 1:15?


An Hon. Member:: Canadians are sick and tired of paying.


Jean-Guy Hudon: The minute they walk into this House, Mr. Speaker, it shows. They start barking.
The last item that deserves to be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is Government efficiency. Government efficiency must be improved because while we are paying our debts, while we are reducing our deficit by several billions each year, we have nonetheless to restrain our expenditures and our programs so that the money we are getting from the taxpayers will be used for debt servicing indeed. And all Canadians will benefit. Sometimes in my constituency people ask me: What have you done for Canada, what have you done for me, a car salesman in my area? What did we do? With our fiscal policy and our financial policy, we succeeded in restoring confidence in the Canadian economy, in containing interest rates, so that when you were selling in 1980-81, 6 per cent, economic growth increased automobile sales by 29 per cent. That kind of signal shows that the economy is on the right track. All Canadian men and women are pleased today that they have decent interest rates for their mortgages. I know many Canadian men and women who during certain years sold their houses at 22 per cent.
Therefore-and Canadian men and women will remember this-economic growth is not a matter of surveys, it is a matter of hard facts.
Canadian men and women must be able to borrow at decent rates. Canadian men and women must be able to buy at a general economic growth rate that inspires confidence in the future. The inflation rate is the best since 1971. Why? Because of the Budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. Second, because of the actions that have been taken. People, the financial community know that we have paid, we are paying our debts. We are reducing Government programs in order be able to meet our obligations.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what I wanted to say on Bill C-99 through which it is proposed to give money to Canadians in order that they may borrow on the market.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments and ask the previous speaker some questions. He had stated at 1.17 p.m. that he would be the first one to speak on the Budget after the recess. You know what happened, Mr. Speaker, it is a grim day for Canada since-


Jean-Guy Hudon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that the questions and comments must have to do with the Hon. Member's speech.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with
it. After having been deceived by that individual and after that
grim day for Canada, why should people trust him? In a few
March 7, 1986

days, we will be celebrating Good Friday, and here is someone who has betrayed us and he will be considered as the Judas of Canadian Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, why should we trust him . . . Have you considered that a disputed budget, in spite of the Member's comments, has been approved today by only 25 Government Members?


Jean-Guy Hudon: And no Member of the opposition.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Twenty-five Tory Members. It is shocking! The Member has been stating facts inconsistent with the policy of the Quebec Government which rejects the Budget-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Question!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Hon. Member has to say about Alain Dubuc's comment: "Wilson missed the boat." And 25 Conservative members! This is worthy of a Duvalier or a Marcos! This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that democracy .. . Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to ask the Hon. Member, in concluding, whether he thinks the measures this Budget contains are fair and whether he thinks that in this country we should let 25 Conservative members take advantage of their majority and adopt a Budget all by themselves, and whether he thinks that the refundable child tax credit that is given to only part of the population while the other part is ignored, whether he thinks that is justice, and whether he agrees that democracy has been trampled today-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about trampling democracy. I can only say that we voted on and adopted the Budget, and that there may have been only 22 Conservatives in the House of Commons, but there were 22 times as many Conservative Members as Liberals. And he made all this fuss just to say there was only one Member in the House when the Budget was being discussed.
And as for my word, Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of promises, but as a Member of this House, I do not have to make any promises, and I was supposed to speak this afternoon, and Mr. Speaker, I did not lie, I did indeed speak this afternoon-
So what am I being accused of?


Jean-Claude Malépart: A fault confessed is half redressed:


Jean-Guy Hudon: What fault? And Mr. Speaker, should I be ashamed of what is said in the press?
Mr. Speaker, I am never ashamed of what is said in the press as long as it accurately reflects the situation. And everyone, including my adversary from Montreal-Sainte-Mar-ie (Mr. Malepart) has a right to his opinions, including yesterday when various flights of fantasy-
Borrowing Authority Act
Mr. Speaker, ideas are like socks: they have to be changed from time to time, otherwise they start to smell-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member's speech, I can see why the Conservative Party dropped in the popularity ratings in Quebec. I see why this party, this Government dropped in the ratings-
Mr. Speaker, I have here the results of yesterday's and this morning's polls, and the Conservative Party now has 27 per cent of the vote in Quebec, while the New Democratic Party has 26 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Does he approve the 1 per cent increase in sales tax that will affect Quebecers and Canadians in general? It is not just the 1 per cent today. There has been a 3 per cent increase since Mr. Mulroney was elected. Does the Hon. Member agree with the 3 per cent increase in sales tax that will affect the average Canadian? Does he approve this, when that same party is being extremely generous to the rich in Canada? Does he approve of this, Mr. Speaker?
I have another question: Does the Hon. Member approve of the 3 per cent increase in income tax for Canadians?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all this week to debate the Budget and other Government legislative measures. The Budget has been adopted. We are now on a different Bill and I can see that Members of the Opposition are trying indirectly to resume the Budget debate. I should think that Hon. Members have enough work to do and are serious enough to debate the Bill now under consideration and stick to the issue, and particularly to avoid all remarks which are irrelevant to the Budget or the Bill under study.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair, the remarks on the question of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville are relevant since we are dealing with Bill C-99 concerning the borrowing authority.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the Bill before the House, a Bill to borrow $22 billion. We need this money now because we have a Government which has been wasting too much money, a Government which has lost public support over the past three to six months, more so than any other Government in Canadian history.
So I would like to know the opinion of the Hon. Member from Quebec, namely whether he is in favour of taxes, taxes and more taxes on the backs of Canadian men and women, these questions of taxes and levies with no end in sight, Mr. Speaker. Does he agree with that?
11318

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am not overly concerned about polls. They may brag and feel complacent because the results show 26 per cent against 27 per cent for the Conservatives, but you know very well that in Quebec the New Democratic Party Members always enjoy renewed popularity between elections, but the people will not vote for you.


An Hon. Member:: Renewed popularity is all they ever get.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it shows the boldness of Mr. Wilson. If we were the kind of people who govern according to the surveys, we would only have proposed so-called popular measures, as our opponents used to do. They gave, they indexed, they gave, they indexed and then they were ditched. What do people want in Canada, in Quebec? They want people who honour their commitments. You are asking me if I support the 1 per cent? I am the one answering. You are asking me if I support the 1 per cent, the 3 per cent? Yes, Mr. Speaker, having been one of the 22 members who voted for the Budget. You were not even here to vote, you were not even here to vote against it, you of the New Democratic Party. You were out eating. I was here to vote for the Budget, and I support that. What I stand for, Mr. Speaker, also in personal life because it is the same thing, I stand for honouring my debts, tightening my belt in some areas in order to pay my debts, whether they are 1 per cent or 3 per cent.
Secondly, you say we are giving to the rich. We introduced a minimum income tax, Mr. Speaker, so everyone must pay. But I can tell you that the rich did not build this country, investors did. And the braggers, we had plenty of those who wanted to solve other problems, who came here and solved everything. But it took investors in the Province of Quebec to put people to work, to put money up front and to take risks. They are the one I will encourage, Mr. Speaker, because they will be creating jobs. It is not I who will be creating the jobs.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that in 14 years I have never felt that my rights as a Member were infringed upon before today.


Mr. Valcourt:: Tell the truth. Where were you?


Bill Rompkey: The truth is this, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not you operate on technicalities is up to you, Mr. Speaker, but there is an intent behind the rules. That intent involves courtesy and civility. In my opinion, neither courtesy nor civility were used today. In the Budget debate and in the Throne Speech debate my experience has been that individual Members of Parliament are given latitude to speak not only on the content of the Budget or the Throne Speech but about their own ridings. It is a time when the individual Member of Parliament has his day to speak on behalf of the people who sent him here. I feel that latitude was abrogated today in a shameful way.
Whatever you say about the technicalities-and you may be right that people were not here a few minutes after two o'clock, and you may be right in your interpretation of the new rules which, I thought, gave more power, more authority and more place to individual Members of Parliament-the mood, the intent or the motive behind those rules was not heeded today, in my opinion. I feel that on this major issue I have been affronted as a Member of Parliament for the first time. I resent that and I want it on the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: I was here to speak shortly after two o'clock.
I wanted to make a speech on a major Government initiative but I was unable to do so because of what I think is a light-hearted and frivolous attitude toward this place in which we stand. I do not condone that. I condemn it and I resent it.
Now I want to make some comments about the Budget that was just passed.


Claudy Mailly: This is the borrowing authority.


Bill Rompkey: I want to speak on the borrowing authority Bill because I did not get a chance to make those comments about the Budget.


Claudy Mailly: You will make the same speech.


Bill Rompkey: In this Budget, again, the Atlantic area has been cut adrift by a Government which is philosophically bent upon letting the private sector take its own initiatives. If you think I am biased, Mr. Speaker, I want to read some comments made by the Premier of Newfoundland who is of the same persuasion as the Government opposite. Premier Peck-ford, at a news conference put the case as well as I can put it, but what he said comes from a less biased person than myself. He said:
-over-all, it looks like Newfoundland is going to be part of a national economic recovery which is going to make recovery here more difficult.
-what the federal Government is actually doing is transferring its deficit from the federal level to the provincial levels and the end result will be that the over-all national debt, considering the situation in each province, won't change all that much.
He went on to say that the province is still trying to assess exactly where Newfoundland stands but that at present it looks as if the only people to benefit really from the Budget are the low-income earners. While this is a positive thing, over-all Newfoundlanders are going to have less disposable income than before. In the Evening Telegram of February 28, 1986, he went on to say that the federal Budget will provide about $8 million for low-income families but that this year about $6.5 million will go out of the province as a result of higher taxes and that next year that figure will escalate to about $13.5 million.
I want to emphasize again that these are not my figures or
comments. I adhere to them and support them and this is what
I want to say, but these are the comments of the Premier of
March 7, 1986

Newfoundland. He said that this money is in addition to what the province will be paying the federal Government in alcohol and tobacco taxes. He says that there will really be more taken out than we will get back. He is concerned about a reduction in regional economic development funding this year. He said that the federal Government is cutting this funding by 28 per cent, but he does not know how this cut will affect funding for specific areas such as mining, forestry, fishery, and the province's railway. These are questions that we have to ask in the days and weeks ahead. He said that if reductions in these areas are high, the province may not be able to get current joint programs renewed. He went on to say that it appears that we will be adversely affected.
Those are the comments of the Premier of Newfoundland, and those are the same comments that I want to put on the record today. The fact is that the Atlantic area has been cut adrift in a sea of free enterprise. As a result of the Budget there will be a net drain from the Atlantic area. The increase in income tax through the surtax which has been put on, together with the increase in the sales tax, mean that more money will be going out of Newfoundland than will be coming in. You must bear in mind that we are talking about the area which already has the highest unemployment rate and the highest cost of living in the country. The Budget, which we should be talking about, is going to drive those rates up even more. There is not even relief on gasoline prices. I suspect that the position taken by the Premier of Newfoundland is supported, not only by Atlantic politicians, but indeed by groups such as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.
The other thing that disturbs me, which may be the most important issue apart from the reduction in cash transfers and the net drain on the Atlantic area, is the lack of emphasis on young people. The recently released Senate report says that we have a national tragedy in the country. It talks about a lost generation. In my province close to 50 per cent of eligible young people are unable to find employment. I believe that this is a national tragedy. Yet, the Budget does not address that at all. Katimavik and other Government programs for young people have been cut out and there is nothing to replace them. The most important thing about this Budget is its lack of emphasis, compassion, direction, and policy with regard to young people in the country.
As the Premier has said, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. The imposition of an increase in sales tax means an addition to the 12 per cent provincial sales tax in Newfoundland which results in the highest tax level in the country.
What will the cuts be in fisheries, transport, and other programs and Departments which we have depended on over the years? We already know that there has been a $20 million cut in fisheries on top of the previous $40 million cut. We must look very closely at those programs to see what the Atlantic area will be losing. The economy in the Atlantic area is a special case. The private sector is weaker there than elsewhere in the country.
I want to quote from an article in the business section of
The Globe and Mail. It says:
Borrowing Authority Act
Statistics Canada delivered a sharp blow yesterday to Finance Minister Michael Wilson's optimism that business capital spending would increase substantially this year.
The agency reported that business investment is expected to rise by only 2.5 per cent in current dollars this year. In his budget last week, Mr. Wilson predicted that investment-excluding price increases-would grow by 7 per cent.
The following is what it says about the Atlantic area:
For all four Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the Territories, however, the results of the survey are bad news.
The forecast says capital spending in the Atlantic provinces will drop by 9.2 per cent, which could wipe out last year's gain.
I put that on the record to show you, Mr. Speaker, that when you cut back on Government programs, whether they be transfer payments, departmental spending, or employment in Government Departments in that province, you hurt more those who are already weaker. It is important to point that out. As I and other speakers have said before, there is great disparity across this country. We must be flexible and make adjustments and allowances. I fear that my province is going to suffer more from the cuts in programs and the increased taxes. We have always depended upon the Government of Canada to support the weaker economy in that area. The attitude is now to cut the Atlantic region adrift.
We see an example of that in the allowed move of Air Canada from Gander Airport to St. John's. Gander is a specific case in point. The federal Government has always viewed Gander as being vulnerable. It has been an airport town. That is its mainstay. If you do away with its raison d'etre, you destroy the economy of that town. I am afraid that the moving of Air Canada international flights from Gander to St. John's is going to affect the economy of that town. That is symbolic of the existing attitude. There must be a protective attitude for communities and areas which need that economic support. That attitude no longer exists.
I see no reference in the Budget to the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation which has been proposed for northern Newfoundland and Labrador. There are great resources in that area, but capital infusion, entrepreneurial skill, and administration are weak. We need the intervention of something like the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation to shore up that area and protect the fishermen and plant workers along that shore who are the most vulnerable of any in Canada.
What has happened to the continuation of the roads program which has been in effect over the years? When Government programs are cut back, the provision of necessary infrastructure is cut back. Those provinces which are weak in infrastructure and need that to support their economy and any new economic initiatives suffer. We want the roads program to continue. There are many roads which we still need to have built on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. I was hoping for some indication that the Government would deal with that kind of problem. I am afraid that there is no regional development policy. Parliament and Government have always felt that certain regions need special attention, but I see no indication in this Budget of a regional development policy. If you treat

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
everyone alike, you favour the strong and maltreat the weak. That is what is now happening.
The Government has been saying that the Atlantic Enterprise Program is the new economic saviour for the Atlantic area. I would like to say a few things about that program. First, the level is set so high that it will be virtually impossible for most small businesses in Newfoundland to take advantage of it. Fishermen require loans of between $10,000 and $15,000 on an average. However, the lower limit on the Atlantic Enterprise Program is $250,000. There will be very few small businesses in my constituency which will want to borrow that much. Even if they do, it is not clear how the Atlantic Enterprise Program will mesh with existing programs in DR1E and other economic departments of the Government. It is not clear what the meshing will be between that new program and the ones which already exist. In any case, business will still have to deal with the banks. We are talking about a loan program here. I do not know what the record of the chartered banks is like anywhere else in Canada, but in my riding there is clear evidence going back over the years that they are just not dealing with small business. Putting Atlantic small business in the hands of the chartered banks is an abrogation of responsibility. You are throwing them to the wolves because historically the banks have avoided or ignored small business. That will continue.
The Atlantic Enterprise Program deals only with capital expenditures. We know, coming out of the recession, that most businesses already have spare capacity. What they need most, in my experience, is not money for capital expenditures; it is start-up and working capital which is needed. If I have heard one request over the years from small business, it is that they need money to get started. They have to make a profit before they can pay taxes and qualify for tax breaks. So we need to have a program which deals with start-up and working capital. That is not what the Atlantic Enterprise Program does.
There were options open to the Government. It could have used programs which were working already. There are federal-provincial agreements already in place. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been cut back, but it does have programs dealing with small business. Why not pick a program which is a winner and fund that? If you want to help small business, put money into programs which are already working. Do not start one which has very little chance of success. Really, what we are talking about here is shadows. The $1 billion may not exist. In other words, when the banks decide to make a loan to a small business, only then will the Government be liable for a guarantee. So we may never see that $1 billion in the Atlantic area. I doubt we will. It looks impressive but I do not think that money will flow.
The Government could have put money into improving the infrastructure in the Atlantic area. That is what we need. If businesses in Newfoundland and the rest of the Atlantic area are going to compete, they need improved infrastructure. However, that is what we are losing here. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans lost some of its budget, and so we have the small craft harbours program, which is important to small fishermen, being eliminated altogether. Small business is where most of the jobs across this country are going to be. However, there are no initiatives which I can see that address the serious economic problems we have. The dependency so far has been on oil. The tendency has been to hang programs on that one nail. We see the price of oil dropping now which causes serious doubts and concerns about what is going to happen to projects such as Hibernia. If we put all our eggs in one basket we are really going to be in trouble economically in my province.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to say all I wanted to say on this Budget today. In closing, I want to highlight again the serious effect this Budget has had on regional programs. In a communique, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), said that the treatment of the lesser-developed regions of Canada threatens to divide the citizens of this land permanently into the haves and have-nots. That says it as well as I could. We have seen a diminishing of regional development initiatives and Departments such as Agriculture, Communications, Energy, Mines and Resources, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport. We have seen these department programs cut. Yet that is where the initiative has come from for regional development in this country. We are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and I cannot condone that or support it. I have some serious concerns that this Budget, tacked on to the last one, is going to further cut the Atlantic provinces adrift. They will drift farther out to sea on the tide of a free entreprise economy.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member who just spoke is an honourable Member. I must mention that he was present in the House when we came to the vote on the Budget. He is concerned about his riding. As a new Member of this House I do not have the experience of the Hon. Member. Nevertheless, I have been here 18 months and I have noted that the role of the Government is to make sure that legislation comes before this House and to a vote as quickly as possible, particularly that which will relieve certain difficult situations in society. The Hon. Member was present when the Budget came to a vote. He is concerned about his riding. Unfortunately, an NDP Member, the Hon. Member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), did not return to the House for the end of his speech and answer questions we could have asked him. We then found ourselves in a situation where we could have a vote on the Budget so that we could give relief to those families which have been giving 15 per cent of their child tax credit to discounters in order to get the money sooner. We could move forward on the sales tax rebate of $50 for each adult and $25 for each child. We could put forward the Bills which will help farmers who are in difficulty. I am sure the Hon. Member is sympathetic to the cause of the farmers in Atlantic Canada, indeed all over the country.
Therefore, I would just like to ask him this question. If the
situation were reversed and he were a Minister in the Govern-


March 7, 1986

ment, as he was in the previous Government, and found himself in a position where the Opposition was not present for debate when it was supposed to be, would he have just said: "I am not going to worry about the people of Canada who could benefit from these measures, I am just going to carry on debate for the rest of the afternoon"? Would he have done that?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member in the spirit in which they are taken. 1 would simply say this to her, that in terms of budget initiatives some are assumed to go into effect as soon as the Budget is read by certain Government Departments. There is an assumption normally made that even as debate is taking place Departments will have to assume that the measures proposed by the Government are going to be passed eventually, and they proceed to act as if that were the case.
Second, of course some budget measures will have to be approved by individual legislation, which is quite different from the budget debate. If a piece of legislation came forward for farmers or some other group in the country, I fully agree that it would be incumbent on us to move that as quickly as possible, but what we are doing here today is taking part in the Budget debate. I say to her again, as I said earlier on, that in my experience the two debates in Parliament where latitude and freedom are granted are the Throne Speech debate and the budget debate. It has been assumed over the years, I think, that individual Members are given time to speak in these two debates. Normally, in my experience, as I recall there was not an attempt made to cut off Members from speaking on the Budget debate or the Throne Speech debate. It has been acknowledged on both sides of the House that that is the practice that has been followed. I appreciate her intervention, but I have to say to her again that I regret that that practice was not followed through today because of a technicality.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rises on a question or a comment?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, on a comment. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that we had no intention of disturbing the mood of the House. At the time the vote was called there was no one in the House from the Opposition and we were prepared to proceed with the business of the day. I have a great respect, and I say this very sincerely, for my hon. friend.
I think my colleague has made many of the remarks I want to make. Had we had any indication whatsoever that someone from the Opposition was prepared to speak, we would have reverted, I would have asked for unanimous consent to revert to the Budget debate to allow him to do so. That is the very reason that we have called debate on the borrowing Bill in order to give members of the Opposition who had speeches they wanted to make an opportunity to speak, and we are pleased to give them that opportunity.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for a question or comment?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since we are commenting on the speech of the Hon. Member, I would like to tell him that it is unfortunate that the Government decided to cut off its own speakers by holding the vote on the main motion.


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is indeed the case because the length of your intervention and mine was limited in the Budget debate, which is supposed to be a special debate where Members can speak about the projects and the problems of their constituencies and suggest solutions, and this was taken away from us. As for the Conservative Members who voted for the motion, as well as those who were unable to vote because they were either in the lobby or were on their way to the House, I must unfortunately tell them that when we adjourned at 1:17 p.m., we had agreed that the next speaker would be a Conservative, more specifically the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon).


Claudy Mailly: I was there.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry, but you were not. However, i was, and the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, who is a gentleman, will himself recognize that he came to my seat to tell me that he would like to speak after 2 o'clock. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was supposed to follow him. Since the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry did not rise, the vote was held. I am sorry, Madam Member for Gatineau, but you should listen instead of talking. Perhaps you can do both at the same time, but I know that I cannot. Listen to what people tell you. You were not even here at the time.


Claudy Mailly: Yes, I was here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you were here, then you should understand.


Claudy Mailly: I was indeed in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You were not here in your place together with the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) when-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I am aware that the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) has referred to what happened during the vote on the Budget. I had hoped, however, that we would not spend the whole afternoon debating this point. As there is a bill before the House, I urge Hon. Members to make comments or ask questions to the sponsor of this bill. I recognize again the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Budget was adopted on division, there remain 41-


An Hon. Member:: No!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There remain 41 ways and means motions on how to implement the budgetary measures. I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether he has had the opportunity to examine and study these ways and means motions and whether he could comment on the first bill resulting from these Government initiatives, Bill C-99, seeking $22.6 billion in borrowing authority.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not come prepared to discuss the ways and means motion or the borrowing authority, but certainly the borrowing authority has to be linked to the economic program of the Government. I have to say again that my concern is about the general tone, the general attitude, the general intent of that economic program. If you borrow, you borrow to refurbish your coffers, and spend more on the programs that you have in mind. What I am saying is that the general direction is wrong, whether we are talking about spending, the regular Estimates or borrowing. The direction is to allow the free enterprise system to work its will, wherever it will, however it will. I am saying that when you do that, you discriminate against areas of the country which have a weaker private economy. That is what is wrong. The Government should look to its regional development policy and support programs to make sure it is not harming indefinitely the economy of an area which is already very fragile. I say quite seriously to the Government that I am very concerned that the economy of an area that is already weak is going to be further weakened by the general economic thrust.
If you simply allow the market-place to work, it will do so, and there will be more people from our area moving to Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. They are there now, and many of them are happy to be there. Many of them are good solid citizens. I hope that more go there, but I want them to go because they have a choice, not because they have to. Many from Cape Breton will leave too. I am afraid the only alternative left, if you do not have the ways and means to provide economic initiative in that region, is mobility. I do not want to see more people "going down the road". There was a very good film about Cape Breton, about Nova Scotia, called Going Down the Road. It says it all, Mr. Speaker. It points to the tragedy of young people who have no option.
What I am saying is that the economic policy of this Government has to take that into consideration. Young people may leave home, and I hope many of them will, but they should not leave because they have to. They should leave because they want to. There should be a way whereby they can live where they were born, where they want to live, and have a decent life for themselves. I am saying that the economic policy has got to change if that is going to happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member
for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil).


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority. This year's borrowing needs will be $22.6 billion, and this represents a 25 per cent reduction in the borrowing needs of the Government of Canada. This Government is spending smarter, using its resources more effectively and more efficiently.
I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by the Hon. Member from Newfoundland about the history of going down the road that was experienced by Atlantic Canadians, Newfoundlanders, people from eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. That movie was made when the previous Government was in power and at a time when Atlantic Canadians had no options. In 1984 they exercised their options to elect a new Government. Since that time they have achieved new economic options as well.
The Budget of May, 1985, put in place a series of incentives for the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia which clearly identify and highlight our Government's commitment to regional development and to Atlantic Canada. Cape Breton was the object of some of the most flagrant spending abuses in history. Money was poured into this region of Canada with very little attention paid to long-term economic benefits.
When our Government came into power in 1984, we inherited a very high rate of unemployment and accepted the responsibility to address that problem not only in Cape Breton but throughout Atlantic Canada and the entire country. Canadians have benefited from the creation of 580,000 jobs since this Government came to power. That is more jobs in 18 months than the previous Government was able to create in its final full term in office.
The new options to Canadians, particularly Atlantic Canadians, are conclusive. Our efforts to apply fiscal responsibility in the management of this country will benefit Atlantic Canadians because they realize that as the pressure on public expenditure increases there is less money for programs aimed at regional development, less money for sound social programs and less money for new programs. Furthermore, our ability as a Government to continue financing existing programs is stretched.
Atlantic Canadians know very well that the interest on loans increased from $1.7 billion 15 years ago to $22 billion in 1984-85. That is the interest that taxpayers in this country are paying on the deficit with which every Canadian has been saddled. Everyone has heard the Opposition cry about the state of the dollar. We have heard comments that some people in this country cannot spend as long a time in Florida this year because of the changing value of the dollar. Being able to visit Florida is still very much a luxury in Atlantic Canada, to the disappointment of many of my constituents, but we are still affected by the deficit, the falling dollar and high interest rates. For example, we know that high interest rates represent the single greatest obstacle to new economic opportunities in
I!

March 7, 1986

this country. Atlantic Canadians are prepared to support the efforts of the Government to bring some control to spending.
The position of the Opposition with respect to deficit reduction was recently the subject of comment by a columnist in The Globe and Mail who described the Liberal's response as: "Depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches". That is an assessment with which I and many of my constituents agree.
Let us consider what we have been able to achieve in our efforts to control the deficit and put a ceiling on Government spending. Growth of discretionary spending has been cut to almost zero from an average growth rate of 43 per cent in the three years prior to the Government taking office. In fact, it will be $530 million lower in 1986-87 than over the previous year. Total program spending will be held to $86.6 billion, which is lower than last year's spending. This is the first absolute decline in total program spending in over 20 years.
There are many Canadians who did not understand what the deficit meant but today are beginning to understand that it has very real consequences in their daily lives. It has real consequences on the price they pay for a loan at the bank, on their mortgage rates, the price they pay for goods at the store and it affects their opportunity to get a job.
Let me refer to other comments made about the Government's effort to bring some fiscal order to the management of this country. Hugh Anderson of The Gazette describes the Budget as: "A careful, politically prudent response to a legacy of grievous mismanagement". An editorial in the The Globe and Mail states: "Mr. Wilson's financial trend lines are things of beauty after years of irresponsibility".
The Budget recognizes the needs for poorer Canadians, a disproportionate number of whom live in Atlantic Canada. They will benefit from some of the specific steps we are taking to help low income Canadians who are a major concern to the Government.
For example, the child tax credit will provide greater assistance to low income families. It will provide for prepayment of $300 per child in November, 1986. Canadians, many elderly and low income Canadians, will be eligible for a refundable sales tax credit of $50 per adult and $25 per child. Training programs and efforts to put people to work have been stepped up, and $100 million a year for the next three years is directed to a special program to held social assistance recipients find employment.
I could go on to talk about the generous assistance program that has been put in place for Canadian farmers who are suffering from a very high debt load that has accumulated over the last decade. That was a period of low prices for crops and very high interest rates.
Of course, the most effective way to help needy Canadians who are unemployed is to provide them with a job. Canadians do not want a cheque from the Government of Canada, they want an opportunity to create their own wealth in our society and an opportunity to participate in the Canadian way of life. They want the opportunity to own their own home and pay
Borrowing Authority Act
their own bills. This opportunity has been denied to hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of Canadians over the last decade and Atlantic Canada has been particularly affected by the former Government's policy of spending without thought and efficiency in the last number of years.
I am not one of those who accepts the doom and gloom comments and observations of the Opposition. I am not one of those who believes that the situation which has always existed in Atlantic Canada must continue. I am of the generation that believes times will be better in Atlantic Canada. Our Government reflects that view and we believe that action can and is being taken for Atlantic Canada that will make significant progress in addressing the very severe economic problems facing Atlantic Canadians.
Let us consider the facts. Special programs have been established for Atlantic Canada. There is the Atlantic Enterprise Program which involves a wide expenditure of funds to encourage private sector lenders to make loans for business start-up or expansion through Government guarantees. There will be interest rate subsidies of up to 6 per cent on business loans used to support productive new private sector investment. These are sensible initiatives that require the support of the Government of Canada. It is a new approach that requires the Government to put some money on the table. If grants and mere dollar amounts are all that were required to improve the plight of Canadians, then we would have been successful long ago.
Atlantic Canadians will also benefit from the Atlantic Opportunities Program. That program was recently announced by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), a Member from Halifax and an Atlantic Canadian with considerable clout in Cabinet and the Government. He has been able to persuade his colleagues, along with other Ministers and Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Opportunities Program will direct hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing power to small businesses in Atlantic Canada. I cannot agree more with the Hon. Member who said that small business will be the source of job creation. That is precisely what we are doing in this program. We are directing hundreds of millions of dollars to small business people. Over the next four years, Government procurement in Atlantic Canada will increase to $2.2 billion, almost 40 per cent higher than the current $1.6 billion. This $600 million increase is expected to create significant long-term benefits for industries in Atlantic Canada and will generate over 20,000 person years of employment, or an average of 5,000 jobs per year. This is a program which does provide opportunities for small businessmen.
We can be negative about it. We can say it is not going to work; it is just an ideological proposal from the Progressive Conservative Government. However, we do have a precedent which was introduced in the Budget of last year. It was to apply to eastern Nova Scotia and the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia. It called for a beefed-up IRDP Assistance Pro-

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
gram up to 62 per cent, it provided for a Cape Breton investment tax credit which is working. There is a great deal of interest being shown in the benefits of this program and it has had a great deal of success. We have put in place the Enterprise Cape Breton Program. There are the other benefits, of course, which apply to Atlantic Canada. With the reduction of development incentives in other parts of the country, these incentives become even more attractive. Some people call this system a tax loophole. Where I come from, it is an incentive program designed to result in employment for the people in my region.
Let us look at some of the support the Government of Canada has given. I do not want to go through all of Atlantic Canada, but we heard earlier today the Minister of Justice talk about the very considerable support which has gone to Newfoundland. The Atlantic Accord gave to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia full control and ownership of the resources offshore in the same way as if they were onshore. This is something the people of Atlantic Canada have wanted for three decades, since Robert Stanfield was Premier of Nova Scotia. We have delivered. We recognize that offshore resource development is an opportunity which can be best utilized by the people who live in Atlantic Canada.
I would like now to speak about the initiatives in my riding. I have prepared a list of the various support programs the Government has given to my constituents. It has, for example, funded the construction of a Nautical Institute. Phase three was recently announced. That is a $18 million project which will attract teachers, students and support services which will have a significant impact upon the people of my region. Last week a $13 million manufacturing facility was announced for Guysborough county and for my home village. That announcement was something the people have waited for for 30 years, because in the last 30 years, there has not been one significant private sector announcement of this type in Guysborough county, notwithstanding that we had a Government in Ottawa which poured money into the region. An $8.7 million plant has been announced for another part of my riding on Cape Breton Island. That project will provide 50 jobs. In Toronto that may not be a lot, but in Arichat, Nova Scotia and on Isle Madame, 50 jobs is something they have waited for for well over 25 years. Another small plant worth $3.5 million has been announced which will result in the creation of 70 full-time jobs in Port Hawkesbury. That is a significant achievement and the first of its kind in a very long time.
We turn now to the forestry sector. Far from moaning and complaining about the state of the forests we inherited, we put money into forest management. We announced four forestry joint-venture programs which will result in employment in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. We announced a special forestry program for natives. We provided support to the major pulp producer in my riding in the amount of $4.1 million. We supported a local mining company to the tune of $1.3 million. We built an industrial park. We provided for federal participation in a forest management program, including the construction of a nursery. We provided for upgrading
of tourism facilities in the Cabot Trail area of my riding. These are just some of the initiatives that the Government has taken in an effort to diversify the local economy in order to provide community-based industry. The incentive program brought forward and put in place by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is working in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
I could identify other successes. In Sydney, we committed well over $100 million to modernize the steel mill. We committed $40 million to upgrade and clean up the tar ponds there. We put money into Glace Bay in an effort to alleviate the short-term and long-term unemployment problems of that community. What we must remember, and what the people do remember, is that the problem was there in September of 1984. The problem was not created in Atlantic Canada in the last year and a half. However, many problems have been solved in the last year and a half.
As a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I am very proud and supportive of the record of accomplishments of this Government. I intend to work and aggressively promote the interests of our region because, for the first time in many decades, Atlantic Canada is being recognized by the federal Government as a special area. Special incentives are being put in place and results are being achieved which will mean long-term economic benefits. That is all possible as this Government moves to manage the deficit, and bring about a better economic environment, so that economic opportunities can spread from coast to coast.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) during his speech but I believe that at four o'clock on Friday it is usual for us to proceed to Private Members' Hour. I notice that the Chair did not see four o'clock. Therefore, I take it that Standing Order 39(2) applies. I would like to make sure that the House understands that if we are proceeding now until five o'clock with the legislation before us, it is because there was not 24 hours notice of a Private Member's intention to present a Bill, or a motion, for that matter. 1 just wanted to make sure we all understood that. We are proceeding until five o'clock under Government Orders, Bill C-99, is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). In a recent edition of Atlantic Insight the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) were the only two Members from the Government side who came out looking good. 1 believe Atlantic Insight referred to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso as a cocky and shrewd young Member. However, it was not so nice to certain other Members from Atlantic Canada, but I will not go into that here. I know the Hon. Member takes his responsibilities seriously. He talked about the gloom and doom of the Opposition. I wish to indicate to the Hon. Member what the Premier of Newfoundland has said in this regard. He is not in Opposition, he is in
March 7, 1986

Government. He happens to be of the same persuasion as the Hon. Member. How would the Hon. Member respond to the Premier of Newfoundland who says that Newfoundlanders are going to have less disposable income than before? He also says that there will be more taken out than will be put back. That is not the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is a comment made by the Premier of Newfoundland.
I would like the Hon. Member to respond to these points since I think they are important. When he talks about job creation in the private sector what does he have to say in reply to an article in The Globe and Mail with respect to Statistics Canada which indicates that for all four Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the Territories the forecasts for capital spending are that it will drop by 9.2 per cent? That is not the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is an account from a reputable Canadian news agency. When the Hon. Member talks about jobs being created across the country, that may be true. However, would he admit that only 8 per cent of the new jobs which have been created have been created in the Atlantic area?
Finally, if the Hon. Member feels that the private sector is to be put front and centre-and I agree with that-and if he thinks that that is the appropriate policy, would it not be better to wait until the private sector has had a chance to do its work before we cut government programs which have historically supported the economy in the Atlantic area? In other words, are we not putting the cart before the horse? Does the Hon. Member not think a more sensible course of action to follow would be to continue the support that we have historically given to the Atlantic economy until such time as the private sector has had a chance to become healthier?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first point raised by the Hon. Member, I invite him to read the comments made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) as they will appear in the Hansard for today. The Minister is from Newfoundland. He very eloquently and effectively put forward the case of the Government vis-a-vis its support of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. We have very capable Members in the House who have responded to these same points. It would serve no purpose for me to repeat what the Minister of Justice said today. In any case I could not compete with his oratory and eloquence.
With respect to the business of the private sector and waiting for it to do its job, I point out to the Hon. Member that we suffer from a deficient private sector because of the policies about which he speaks. He wishes to continue these policies. I can tall the Hon. Member that in my riding there are no more churches left to paint and there are no more graveyards which need picket fences erected around them. The grant program has really been exhaustive. It would serve no construction purpose to continue it. Therefore, that type of Government program, which the Hon. Member advocates should be continued-


Bill Rompkey: That is not what I said at all.
Borrowing Authority Act


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -is of minimal importance. In my riding we have achieved success in terms of developing the private sector. However, we also have a balance. We have public involvement in a different way. In Cape Breton, as in all of Atlantic Canada, we now have some of the richest incentive programs possible, all this is an effort to bridge our economy to the oint where we do not need to get the private sector involved. However, we do have the bridging. These programs cost the Government of Canada a great deal of money. In my riding we are developing a diversified economy with a private sector base.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to felicitate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) for his speech with respect to the borrowing authority Bill. He has been described by Atlantic Insight, and by my hon. friend, as being cocky and shrewd. He is much more than that. His constituents should know that he is also an extremely hardworking and diligent Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and comments on the speech, please.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the Hon. Member's speech must have been prepared in the late hours of the night since it is the Hon. Member's custom to work late and hard.
We Albertans are facing an uncertain future, perhaps, with the prospect of declining world oil prices. However, in discussions regarding the Budget in Alberta we find that Albertans do not begrudge in the least the very special treatment being given by the Government to Atlantic Canada. I know the Hon. Member has lived and studied in Alberta. I would like him to tell the House what long-term prospects he sees for Alberta and, indeed, Atlantic Canada under the enlightened policies of this Government.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, first, I would say that we are preparing for the influx of Albertans to Cape Breton. We expect to have a great many jobs there for them.
In response to the Hon. Member's specific question, the deficit is a major economic impediment to growth in the country. If we fail to address the deficit, we fail to address the priority of lowering interest rates and getting the economy moving again. The deficit is important in Atlantic Canada for that reason as well, just as it is important in western Canada. In an effort to diversify the economy of Alberta we are providing considerable support to the agricultural sector. We have also provided a new energy program for the Province of Alberta.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) for his very aggressive pursuit of the interests of his constituents, and of all Albertans, which have resulted in very understanding policies both for the Atlantic region and the western regions of the country.

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a short question. He just made the statement that growth is impeded by deficits. How does the Hon. Member reconcile that statement with the fact that last year we had a 4.4 per cent growth rate while we had a deficit, which was quite worrying, but nevertheless huge, of about $38 billion?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I can only speculate about just how great that growth rate would have been if the deficit had been lower.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to follow the mutual admiration society which preceded me.
This afternoon I would like to make a speech to the House which takes an historical perspective on the present difficulties which our country faces. I would like to try to pinpoint, perhaps more than some of our usual partisan exchanges do, some of the underlying difficulties which face us as a nation, and in doing so consider the challenges which lie ahead.
The problem which we face as a country has roots which go back to the 1970s and, in particular, back to the oil shock of 1974. 1 would like to consider what that shock did to growth rates in our country, what it did subsequently to business investment and, after that, to the savings rates of the ordinary family. In that period of time, we have to see the source of these quite complicated economic problems which we now confront.
As Hon. Members know, the oil shock brought a very, very rapid increase in prices to petroleum products throughout the world. Something not as clearly recognized is that it also brought a massive downturn in the growth rates of virtually every country in the world. Canada, because it was a producer of oil, was not hit immediately by the downturn in that growth rate but by 1975 and 1976, Canada began to experience that squeezing of growth rates that were being experienced throughout the rest of the world.
There are some statistics in the very valuable book which the Department of Finance puts out each year. The one I am referring to is the economic review from April 1985. It shows quite healthy growth rates in Canada up to the end of 1974 and then a plunge in 1975 to a growth rate of only 1.2 per cent. That was marked that same year by a decrease which was unprecedented for Canada of 6.4 per cent in exports and by a decrease in our imports to a slightly lesser extent. Clearly, what happened is that growth slowed down in the rest of the world, that squeezed our exports and since we are a country which exports a massive proportion of our output, the consequence was that our growth rate got cut very dramatically.
As a consequence of that, in 1976-77 and indeed in 1978, the business investment in Canada virtually collapsed. There was a 1.2 per cent increase in business investment in 1976, a 1 per cent increase in 1977 and a 1 per cent increase in 1978. Of course, as a consequence of that massive slowdown in both exports and private-sector investment, there was a tremendous upturn in unemployment. If we return to the figures for 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978, we see a gradual increase from the level of 6.9 per cent up to 8.3 per cent of unemployed.
Typically, Governments in the post-war period have responded to that kind of situation with a counteracting increase in activities. For instance, they have cut taxes and increased expenditures to try to make up for the fact that business investment and exports were not playing the roles expected of them. What we got instead from the Government of the day was the start of this strategy of cut-backs and restrictionism which has been so damaging to the economic recovery of Canada.
This course of action in fact took a new cycle starting with the oil shock of 1979 which equally hit economies throughout the world very, very hard. The squeeze which had hit world economies in 1975 was repeated but accelerated and in 1980 and 1981, there were tremendous squeezes on the economies of Britain, the United States and France. That in turn hit back on the Canadian economy particularly through our export balance, which again in 1979, 1980 and 1981 failed dramatically compared to the rate of increase in the past. Of course, when those exports did not take place, business investment also get squeezed and did not take place.
We see that in 1981, business investment began to slow down a bit, but by 1982 and 1983, because there is always a lag with business investment, there was an actual massive decline in the business investment of 9.1 per cent in 1982 and an unprecedented 12.4 per cent in 1983. In short, these complex issues came together in a way that had the effect of, first, hitting our trade partners, second, hitting our export earnings, and third, hitting the business investment that normally takes place in Canada. The consequence of that was to increase unemployment rates massively. By 1983, there was an unprecedented unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent.
What is the normal response of Government to that kind of squeeze of economic activity? It is to try to expand Government expenditure. It is to try at the same time to cut back taxes so that people have some sense of confidence, some extra money to spend and some ability to get the economy moving again despite this collapse of exports and earnings from business investment. That did not happen. Under the Liberal Government, we had instead tax increases and cut-backs in expenditure which also reduced the amount of economic activity. In short, we had a self-induced, almost suicidal collapse in our economic strategy and activity. Along with this, we had a lack of thoughtful industrial strategies. We did not make the effort to build up a high-tech manufacturing sector which could export into the world in areas where price competition was not as great. We did not have the emphasis on some of our
March 7, 1986

resource sectors, like agriculture and forestry, which might have got us out of the problem.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we found a target under the past Liberal Government and we find the same target under the present Government. This target is to cut the deficit because somehow, almost by magic, that will rekindle the sense of dynamism and optimism in the business community, and the investment that those industries will undertake will be enough to give us recovery. That did not happen.
What we found, and we have found it with the present Government, is that this crisis in economics that we call a crisis of aggregate demand, a lack of demand within the country, has led to high unemployment and has led to serious currency problems.
Our currency began to drop. When that happens, ironically it gives us some advantages. In particular, it has given us, for the last year and a half, an advantage in the face of the American economic recovery. The U.S. economy has moved ahead quite dramatically. As a result, our exports, particularly because of the reduced dollar, have also moved up quite dramatically.
If we take, for instance, 1984, we get the incredible figure that in that one year our exports increased by 19.7 per cent, mainly in the form of exports to the U.S. Because of the massive deficit it was running, it had high levels of aggregate demand, low levels of unemployment and a consequent booming economy which sucked in all sorts of output from our economy.
It was great while it lasted. It lasted through 1984 and through 1985. That, rather than anything the Government here has done, has given us the 580,000 jobs about which the Conservatives like to boast. The point of this kind of more complicated understanding of our economic situation is that we still face a very high savings rate among consumers, a very low level of aggregate demand compared to what we need to get full employment in Canada. As a consequence, we face a situation in which a Government is doing nothing to deal with the domestic sources of our problems and is instead counting on the foreign answer of the United States economy's rapid growth.
Unfortunately for us as a country, that economic growth in the United States is not going to be sustained. There are two reasons we can be certain of that. The first is that we got within the Budget a projection which indicates a declining growth rate in the United States. The second, frankly, is that we have forces of protectionism at work in the United States that as our trade spokesman I have to say make me very, very frightened.
We have at this stage a surplus with the United States of almost $20 billion. I am certain that this will not be allowed to continue. It is just starting, but the protectionist squeeze on us from the United States is bound to come. This squeeze will come first in the area of softwood lumber. It will probably hit us by May or June of this year. The United States is expected
Borrowing Authority Act
to cut back exports from our present level of about 35 per cent of the U.S. market to about 25 per cent. That will wreak havoc in the economy of British Columbia. Because of oil price decreases the revenue we receive from the United States will be much less. Cut-backs will occur in the automotive sector which has been such an engine of growth for us here.
I feel that particularly with respect to my constituency of Essex-Windsor which produces a great deal of automotive output. We see quite clearly a slowdown in the expansion of consumer demand in the United States for automotive parts and automobiles. That is already costing us some jobs and it will spread throughout this economy.
Faced with that, Mr. Speaker, it means we have to turn back to our domestic sources of potential growth. That is why this Budget is such a tragedy. Instead of doing that, it is making the domestic sources of growth much more difficult with its increase in taxes and its cut-back in Government expenditures.
We have suggested an alternative by which we would shift the tax breaks presently received by corporations, which we know are not generating employment expansion, to tax breaks to people. This would cut people's tax burden and increase aggregate demand in the economy. We would also shift our expenditures to help assist local initiatives and community drives to try to get not expenditure and make-work projects that are run out of Ottawa, but instead local efforts to bring an expansion at the local level and an improvement in the local possibilities and potential of our communities right across the country.
That kind of approach, combined with an imaginative and an aggressive industrial strategy led by Government would give us some chance in the future.
As I see it, and I say it with regret, the Government's strategy, which is being adopted, of relying on the foreign impetus from the United States, now faces such impediments over the next 6 to 12 months that the great pleasure which Conservatives have had in the reduction of unemployment is going to cease. We are going to see ourselves facing once again a crisis of economic growth which will damage all parts of the country, Atlantic, Pacific, western and central.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has made several points today. Most of them give absolutely no credit to this fine Budget. 1 think it is a fine one, and word is coming back from different areas of the country that people are indeed willing, in a number of cases, to make some sacrifices in order to restore financial stability to the country. I just checked and I found that the dollar closed at 71.25 this afternoon. That is up 45 basis points. There were some doom and gloomers speaking during the past several days of debate, but I think the merits of the Budget are starting to show through now.
As I have said on a number of occasions, I think it is a very
finely balanced Budget, as was the one preceding it and the
Economic Statement of November 1984. That balance exists

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
in terms of expenditure cuts, which account for about 70 per cent of the total reduction, the other 30 per cent coming from taxes. Taxes are finely balanced between individuals and corporations as they are among various individuals. The needy are receiving a substantial break through the innovative sales tax refund which more than offsets the 3 per cent surtax.
The Member continues to repeat the argument, which has no substance, that the Government deserves no credit for the 580,000 jobs which have been created since September, 1984. That statement is totally without merit. It was this Government that dismantled the National Energy Program with alacrity and dispatch. It was this Government that saw how negative the Foreign Investment Review Agency was. Many people were putting forward numbers with regard to approval levels. However, the word was out around the world about the needless problems encountered by people who applied, only to be turned down. Under the leadership of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) that was changed. Not only was the name changed, but investment is now welcomed into the country, which investment creates jobs.
The Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the entire front bench have done a tremendous amount to create a new climate of confidence in the country, which will lead to even greater numbers of jobs by the end of this year and next year. The Member has tremendous talent in this area. 1 ask him to be a little more complete and a little more direct and honest with regard to the substance of the Budget. Give us a little credit on a Friday afternoon.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, because it is a Friday afternoon, I am actually going to do that. There are three parts of this Budget which I found quite interesting, useful, and helpful.


An Hon. Member:: You almost said "good".


Steven W. Langdon: I will even say "good". The first is the principle that when tax changes are introduced there should be a rebate for the poor to ensure that they are not squeezed as hard as others. I think the Hon. Member made a technical mistake. The rebate program is not for the 3 per cent tax increase, but for the 1 per cent sales tax increase. In response to that, I certainly offer praise.
The attempt to make investment grants for industry more responsive to the varying needs across the country is a good step forward. It is good because those grants were, by and large, ineffective in persuading companies to undertake investment. They respond to aggregate demand, but not to Government hand-outs in most cases. They do respond with respect to location. By leaving certain incentives in for Atlantic Canada, the Government has given a kind of skewing to Atlantic Canada which is deserved, given the much higher unemployment rate which exists there.
Finally, I think that the changes being implemented by the Farm Credit Corporation with respect to its commodity-related mortgages for farmers is a useful innovation. Unfortunately, the Farm Credit Corporation told the Committee on Agriculture last Thursday morning that there are about
39,000 distressed families in the country. The corporation will be able to help only 6,000. Therefore, it is a step, albeit a small one.
Despite the fact that it is Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would not want my response to a question such as that of the Hon. Member to be entirely positive. The abolition of the National Energy Program, which, of course, was met with such glee, has now created major problems in Alberta as oil prices decline. They have come, once again, to see the virtue of regulated prices as they did during the 1950s.
With respect to FIR A, my experience in my constituency has been that exactly what we feared would happen has happened. U.S. companies have started to merge. They have taken money out of our country to finance those mergers, and we have lost both capital and jobs in the process. In any event, Mr. Speaker, you must judge a Budget by its basic thrust. For the reasons which I indicated in my speech, 1 think its basic thrust is wrong.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite said that Albertans had come to see the virtue of regulated prices. I happen to be a Member from Alberta, and I would like to assure the Member opposite that Albertans see no virtue in regulated prices. They have not done so for the nearly seven years during which I have sat in this Chamber. Indeed, they see great harm in that. They have seen the imposition of regulated prices bring about a partial collapse of the entire Canadian economy. They have seen suicides, spousal battering, and child abuse as a consequence of ill-fated regulated prices. For the Member to stand in this Chamber and indicate that Albertans see the virtue of regulated prices is to ignore the reality of our historical experience with regulated prices. The Member would indeed be hard pressed to find anyone outside of his own Party in the entire population of Alberta who would see the virtue of regulated prices.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 predict that very shortly, if the price of oil continues to fall, we will be faced with a request from the Alberta provincial Government for the establishment of a floor price for oil in the country just as was the case in the 1950s. It is that which I take to be a new recognition that regulation on the upward trend of pricing, which may hurt you at the time, is also something which can defend you when prices fall through the floor. At the moment in Alberta there are a great many economic operations which are facing potential collapse which should not be facing that kind of pressure simply because of what is happening to world oil prices. On that basis, I think a floor price for oil produced in this country, in order to keep an oil industry for the future, is something which I support, and I suspect a great many Albertans support it as well.


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 found the Hon. Member's comments concerning the National Energy Program very interesting. Coming from that region myself, I do not see where the NEP would have helped Alberta in the present
March 7, 1986

circumstances. The Hon. Member linked the oil price rise in 1973-74 first with our export trade, then with investment, and finally with employment. Canada was unique among the OECD countries in having its own made-in-Canada price. The rest of the world's trading nations bit the bullet immediately and absorbed the price increase. Can he give us his analysis of the effect on Canada of having a made-in-Canada price at the time?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that could be answered in a long way or a short way. In view of the time let me answer it in the short way. The effect was to hold off by perhaps 16 to 18 months the economic downturn which hit the rest of the OECD countries. The economies of France, Britain and the U.S. faced massive deterioration in 1974. We did not begin to experience that until late 1975 or perhaps the beginning of 1976. However, we did not escape it because the collapse in the economies of our trading partners hit the demand for our exports, which in turn restrained business people in my community, for example, from making investments in factories or other forms of business.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of regret that I stand to address the borrowing Bill when I had hoped to address the Budget.


Claudy Mailly: You will make the same speech anyway.


An Hon. Member:: You were not here.


Sheila Finestone: The memory of Members across the way is very short and convenient. I was in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: This borrowing Bill seeks $22.6 billion, an increase from last year of $4.6 billion. That is a rather sad comment because a borrowing Bill is one of the ways in which the Government expresses it options, political philosophy and direction. I suggest that this might indicate that at a time when we have had, according to the Government, an improved economic situation, of which the Government can be duly proud, and improvements in the general economy, we would not have had an increase in borrowing. However, the Government has shown poor judgment and no political direction. We have had bad decisions with respect to the Gulf transaction, which cost us about $850 million in a tax ruling; we had $1.5 billion given to the Northland and CCB. The Government says it is $825 million, but by the time the bills are added up it will be closer to $1.5 billion. The capital gains exemption will cost $4.5 billion to $5 billion by the end of the decade. The phasing out of the petroleum gas revenue tax will cost approximately $8 billion until the end of the decade. Gasoline is going up and it is affecting everyone and everything.


Mr. Layton:: Gas?


Sheila Finestone: Yes, the cost of gas is going up. If you go to
the pump and fill your tank you will be quite surprised at what
the price is.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claudy Mailly: Because of the Liberal Government in Quebec.


Sheila Finestone: Costs for farmers are up, therefore the price of food is up. Lower and middle-income groups are having a very difficult time. Perhaps if the Hon. Member across the way would stop talking and yelling she might learn something.


Claudy Mailly: Not from you, lady.


Sheila Finestone: The debate on this Budget clearly reflects the loyalty of the Conservative Party. The Party is loyal to a few members of a privileged elite. That massive vote which brought the Government into power was a very important manifestation on the part of the voters who said, yes, it is time for a change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Sheila Finestone: That is what they said in September, yes. 1 strongly recommend that the Government not test the waters now because I do not think Members across the way would be so happy at the voters' present reaction. They are unhappy, suffering from lack of leadership-


Philip Derek Lewis: Where is Jean Chretien when you need him?


Sheila Finestone: In order to understand the full effects of the Budget it is imperative that it be examined jointly with the May, 1985, Budget. That examination will prove that the onus is on the individual taxpayer and consumer to reduce the deficit. It is not the well-being of the people which is the major focus, it is the famous national deficit. The heavy burden is being placed on individuals as opposed to corporations and businesses. Over the next three years corporate taxes will decline and taxes on individuals will increase.
Few people will benefit from this Budget, and those who do are the people who already live comfortably. Even they are embarrassed at how well they come out in this Budget. The Government has decided in its second Budget to hit the average taxpayer again. This Budget clearly shows that the Government has no intention of promoting equal opportunities within the economy. It seems to be set on widening instead of reducing the ever-increasing gap between the well-to-do and the poor. There are presently 4.5 million Canadians living below the poverty line. They do not find the cavalier attitude of my Conservative confreres very pleasing. It certainly is not filling their stomachs. These people were hit hard last May and are being hit hard again. The reality is middle-class people on welfare, and soup kitchens. All Members have to do is to go into their riding and stop talking to the rich who supported them, but talk instead to the ordinary people who are very unhappy.


An Hon. Member:: Particularly in Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: This is a biased Budget. It does nothing for
the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, youth, families or public
servants. I do not know where these Members are from, but if

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
they would go to their office instead of dilly-dallying and travelling around the world


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claudy Mailly: You mean like Don Boudria?


Sheila Finestone: -they would find people who are unemployed, unhappy and in need of consideration and help. People are sitting very nervously at home. They are very concerned about where the axe will drop next. I do not know how members of this Government can possibly look at themselves in the mirror. Does this Government not have a social conscience and social responsibility? It certainly does not look that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Sheila Finestone: I would just suggest that if you look at the employment equity legislation and the response to our Equality For All Report, you would find that it speaks volumes. It is undirected, undefined and shows no real commitment. It is just lots of words.


Some Hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 10, 1986


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and I would urge all Hon. Members to do the same thing and support my request.
You have all noticed that the Government's Budget contains an error concerning the tax credit prepayment, the kind of error that was made with respect to the deindexation of old age security pensions. Knowingly or not, the Government decided to ignore 538,000 families entitled to the tax credit. As a result of the ceiling arbitrarily set at $15,000, the Government penalizes those families and delivers them in the hands of tax discounters.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, considering that the greatest majority of those families are headed by women, and considering that we are on the eve of International Women's Day, I am sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow March 8 being International Women's Day, I should like to pay homage to an outstanding Quebecer and Canadian, Marie Gerin-Lajoie.
She was French Canada's first graduate bachelor. She was the forerunner of those who took up the fight for the cause of women. She worked for many years in social services and founded the Institut Notre-Dame-du-bon-conseil, a religious group devoted to social action.
Marie Gerin-Lajoie belonged to a great family that associated privileges inherent in academic achievement and wealth with social responsibilities.
It was her mother who fought to open Quebec's first classical school for girls. Her mother was also one of the founders of
the Federation nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Her grandmother founded Sainte-Justine Hospital.
Mr. Speaker, Marie Gerin-Lajoie was certainly far ahead of her time in her thinking about the place of women in society. The story of her life is an example which should be a source of inspiration to all of us.



HOUSING


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, adequate affordable housing is a problem that affects many Canadians. It is a very serious problem for persons in the Atlantic Region, and an especially serious problem for women.
In the Halifax region the housing vacancy rate has been below 1 per cent for the past five consecutive years. This makes finding housing difficult for all persons, but for female-led, single parent families, it is almost intolerable.
The average monthly rental cost for an apartment in the Halifax area is $583, while the average monthly shelter allowance for a family of three or more is only $468. As a result, over 65 per cent of female-led single parent families in the Atlantic region have had severe affordability problems in finding housing, even at the 30 per cent level of income for shelter.
Today, March 7, a group of women called Mothers United for Metro Shelter, are demonstrating in front of the Halifax Legislature demanding adequate and affordable housing for themselves and their children. I hope the Tory Government is listening.



EXTENSION OF NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS

Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, the Budget brings to northerners and those living in remote regions of Canada the long-awaited announcement of equity and increased fairness with respect to the taxation of northern benefits. Reports from across the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and northern Manitoba indicate an appreciation for a Budget which recognizes and addresses the high cost of northern living. The new system extends housing, travel, and person-

March 7, 1986
al tax measures to a wide range of northerners for the first time.
Let it never be said that the Government does not look after the poorer regions of Canada. Let the record show that the majority of Northerners applaud the courage of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in bringing this increased tax equity to northern Canadians.

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget brought down last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) we see a development we have not seen since the beginning of the postwar period: a reduction in Government spending. Not only has this Government managed to bring a decade of irresponsible spending on the part of the previous administration to a halt, it has reversed the trend. Thanks to measures taken by our Government, the deficit will drop below $30 billion and the increase in the national debt will be under control.
Our actions will increase the confidence of investors in Canada's prospects and will help bring down interest rates. This will provide for a continuum in the creation of jobs in this country, an area that under this administration has progressed remarkably well. Mr. Speaker, like all other Canadians, the people of the riding of Chambly agree with our Government that reducing the deficit and creating jobs should be our primary goals if Canada is to become prosperous once again.



THE BUDGET


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, what do New Brunswickers think of the Budget? I will quote from an editorial in the Moncton Times and Transcript. It reads:
Fair, firm, and probably effective. The Budget is unpleasant, but necessary medicine to restore economic health. It is a finely crafted intricate plan to cut spending, increase revenues, stimulate employment, encourage confidence in the dollar, lower interest rates, reduce the deficit and debt charges, yet give help to those regions, sectors, groups, and individuals most in need.
It is linked to trade and jobs, using the business sector as the engine of growth, and is intended to send a mesage to the financial communities at home and abroad, where there is no sentimentality, that the Government is serious in tackling the deficit.



NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House a number of times over the past few months to address problems concerning the Native Economic Development Program and, more specifically, its inability to achieve what it was mandated to accomplish. Since the Conservative Government took office it has continually reminded Canadians about efficiency, co-operation, and, of course, jobs, jobs, jobs. The experience of applicants to the NEDP leads me to believe that the opposite is in fact the rule of thumb.
Groups such as the Nishnawbe-Aski Development Fund, and the Yukon Indian Development Corporation have been frustrated for far too long by a Ministry which does not appear to recognize the major purpose for which it was intended. That purpose, of course, is to foster an increased economic base for the first citizens of Canada.
The Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette) is in one respect, at least, more fortunate than his colleague responsible for youth-he has some money in his budget with which he can actually do something. Why does he not stand in this House and tell the people of Canada that he is sorry for dragging his feet all this time and that, after Question Period today, he is really going to get to work?



POLITICAL PARTIES


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am starting a public debate on the method of financing Canadian political parties, with a view to limiting contributions to political parties to $5,000 per year, and only by individual voters, which would exclude corporations, associations and unions. I shall have another opportunity to inform the public on the subject at the national convention of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, which will be held next week in Montreal.
I would ask all Members on both sides of the House to examine the information I have prepared and to think about this proposal, so that together we can help put the political process in Canada on a more ethical basis and improve the democratic process.
Not only should political parties make sure that financial contributions do not impose a measure of dependence on the party, there should not be the slightest hint of such dependence.
March 7, 1986

[DOT] (mo)



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, today I am very proud to join my colleagues in observing International Women's Day, a day which marks the concerted move by women to participate fully in the consideration of the social, political, and economic concerns of our society as full partners. Last July I had the opportunity to participate at the UN End of the Decade Conference on Women in Nairobi. The Conference proved to be a giant step forward for the democratization of the women's movement. It has now become a populist movement for women around the world.
The National Film Board produced, through Studio D, in co-operation with the private sector, a very fine film called Visions of Women/Visions des femmes. It is challenging and celebrating and-

-and it makes a commitment to celebrate the status of women and the success of this conference.

I would like to encourage all Members here today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.




John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, when International Women's Day was first celebrated, Canadian women were in the throes of fighting for the most basic political right, the right to vote. Today the full range of issues of concern to women occupy centre stage in our political arena. This is due to the remarkable growth in the influence of women's groups and the integration of women into the decision-making process. The Government has made steady progress in its efforts to accelerate the appointment of women to federal Government boards, agencies, and commissions.

Since we have been in power, one quarter of these positions have been filled by women. Last week, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) announced a 22 per cent increase in the appointment of women judges.
Our Government will keep up this trend until women account for 50 per cent of such appointments.



THE BUDGET


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is attempting to do the impossible, sell his Budget in British Columbia, a province where food banks, unemployment guidance centres, UIC and welfare are the major growth industries. With unemployment hovering around 14 per cent and youth unemployment at more than 20 per cent, with a pending crisis in the forest industry regarding U.S. trade, the mining industry in neutral, the fishing and agricultural sectors in serious difficulty, and business still reeling from the recession, what does the Government do? It raises taxes by $1,305 per household, ignores the forest and mining industry, cuts back on help to farmers, reduces support for the fishery, and offers no special consideration to one of the hardest hit areas of Canada. The Budget will actually worsen the economic condition of British Columbia through federal Government lay-offs, program cut-backs, and reduced consumer purchasing power. After years and Socred/ Tory-type Budgets in British Columbia, the Prime Minister will have a tough time convincing British Columbians that Socred/Tory times are not tough times.



AGRICULTURE


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Budget of the Minister of Finance announces economic assistance programs for farmers. For instance, the Government will increase the budget of the Farm Credit Corporation during the next two years. A $700 million program has been set up for commodity based mortgages. These mortgages will be offered at a 6 per cent interest rate to farmers who have serious debt problems and will assure them of having long term and stable financing.
Initiatives will also be taken to make it easier for farmers who must look for another job. A new program will provide them with vocational guidance, retraining and temporary financial assistance services. These measures to support Canadian farmers will cost $65 million this year and $130 million next year.
The 3 cents a litre fuel tax rebate for primary producers will be extended for one year to January 1, 1988.
Mr. Speaker, all this is in addition to the many achievements of our Government to ensure the prosperity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS OPPOSITION TO BILL C-96

Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to Bill C-96, legislation which will cut federal contributions to provincial health care programs by over $4 billion over the next five years. According to the Canadian Medical Association, the cuts will create a two-tier health care system in Canada where one quality of health care will exist in richer provinces, and second or third-rate services will exist in the poorer provinces.
The New Brunswick Medical Society agrees with the Canadian Medical Association and has expressed its concern over the effects the cuts will have in our province where health care programs are already approaching a crisis due to a lack of funds. New Brunswick does not have the money or the taxing ability to raise its share of health care costs, and the Conservative Government, obsessed with slashing, should realize that and withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday hundreds of workers came to Parliament Hill to ask the Government to take action and help them save their jobs in Lauzon. This morning, we hear that 44,000 people in Quebec lost their jobs during the month of February, and that 23,000 young people have lost their jobs in this country. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What does the Minister intend to do to help the 44,000 Quebecers who lost their jobs in February, and especially the employees at Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon who were laid off, or will be in a matter of weeks?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see once again that the employment level is keeping to below 10 per cent. This is the second month in a row where the rate of unemployment has been below 10 per cent at this time of year. We know that some 52,000 jobs have been created in the Province of Quebec over the last year. We know as well that that is not good enough. The programs that we have put in place are working. That is why we will continue to move in this direction. We
want to make sure that job creation in Quebec is at the same level and rate as it is elsewhere in the country.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. I will try with another one, and I may be luckier. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Youth. As I said a moment ago, 23,000 young Canadians lost their jobs in February. Does the Minister think that she can be of any assistance to the unemployed youth of the country since she has no budget, no program? What can she do for the youth of this country with a chauffeur and a limousine?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are some $700 million in employment and training programs directed to young people in this country. It is having an impact. Certainly we want to see more done. I have said that time and time again. With the Job Entry programs, Challenge '85, Challenge '86, and the institutional training programs for young people, these are having an impact. That is why there are far more young people working today than when we took office in 1984.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Youth does not even have the responsibility to answer the question in this House.


THE BUDGET
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister responsible for regional development. This morning's figures indicate that unemployment is very high in a number of regions across the country. Could the Minister explain, considering the high unemployment rate in these regions, why the Budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance show that the regional economic development envelope has been cut by $15 to $9 billion for the years 1984-85 to 1987-88?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one more opposition MP who has not understood the facts. Perhaps we can get through to them this way-in the hour that they intend to question the Government negatively, another 70 Canadians on average will be added to the work force of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 7, 1986


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is every hour of every business day another 70 Canadians are getting jobs. Just think if the whole 70 of the Opposition could get back to work-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who wanted to hear some positive questions. Here is one. Yesterday, 1,000 workers came here from Quebec, begging for jobs. On what page and at which item is there any indication that these people will have their jobs? Could the Minister inform the House where it says so in the Budget?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to a similar question yesterday, the Government is responsible for the bulk of the work that is now going on in shipyards. We plan to continue to route work into our shipyards.
If the Hon. Member will be patient, I am sure that even he will be rather pleased with the type of work that the Davie shipyard and other shipyards will be able to gain in the coming weeks and months.


REQUEST FOR SOLUTION TO PROBLEM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I asked a positive question, and the Minister was incapable of giving me an answer about the Budget. Now for my supplementary. Forty-four thousand jobs have been lost in Quebec! Could the Minister inform the House which page says how we can prevent the loss of 5,000 jobs in the East? What about the designated areas? On what page are they?

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, clearly the MP has not been listening. When I said that another 70 will be added to the Canadian workforce nationally in the hour they apparently intend to spend with their negative questioning, it is partly a result of the very excellent Budget brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). Yesterday,
1 met with representatives of a number of women's groups from Quebec. All, without exception, said that the Conservative Budget's substantial tax increases put a heavy burden on women. Is that the meaning of Conservative justice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first let me point out that one of the interesting things about the employment figures published this morning is that jobs for women have increased. 1 think most women would be happy to hear that.
As I said yesterday, the people of Canada know that this is a fair Budget and that it targets our spending to the areas which need it most. There is a refundable tax credit for people in the lower tax brackets, and the child tax credit is being paid earlier. That is something of benefit to women across the country.


DURATION OF SURTAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, particularly women who make decisions affecting the family, know full well that the taxes imposed by the Government, taking into account the compensatory measures brought in, are an unjust burden on every Canadian family.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Considering that it is the woman who is usually involved in the decision-making process in the family, and that the 3 per cent surtax is very unfair because it hits everyone the same, why did the Minister of Finance tell a Montreal-based journalist that the Government intends to lift the surtax on the rich next year but has not planned to lift the surtax on ordinary Canadians until 1988? Why is there that injustice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the surtax on the rich is considerably larger than it is on the poor, as the Hon. Member knows.
For an elderly widow with an income of $10,000, the increase as a result of the surtax is $2, which is more than offset by the refundable sales tax credit.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to deal with the question of unfairness. Is it Government policy, as the Minister of Finance told a Montreal journalist, that the Government plans to lift the surtax of 3 per cent on ordinary Canadians? Although this is not in the Budget, he plans to do it in 1988, which is an election year,

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions
while lifting the surtax on the rich next year. Is that fair? If it is good enough for the rich next year, who not lift the tax for ordinary Canadians at the same time?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the tax policies of the Government are directed particularly at those most in need, and the Hon. Member knows that. We have already suggested in the Budget that the refundable sales tax credit is an innovation that is evidence of the kinds of things we think are useful for people in lower-income brackets and that are fair.

[ Translation]


AWARDING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns once again the compensation contracts a number of Conservative Members want to award to the party's financial backers.
According to a report by Canadian press yesterday, a Conservative Member who chose to remain anonymous said that similar lists had been drawn up by other Conservative Members.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how many more Conservative Members engaged in drawing up similar lists, and could he give the House the assurance that he will put an end ot this practice immediately, to ensure that Canadians will not see their taxes being spent in this manner.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is talking about and I do not think he does either. Contract procurement practices are set down by the Treasury Board. I think the Hon. Member might be referring to the matter he raised yesterday. The practices that were designed and laid down by the Government of which he was a supporter are still in place and, if anything, are more rigid now than they were under the previous administration.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE DISSOLUTION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I do not know what I am talking about, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Member published the "Sorry, I'm Tory" letter of yesterday? Will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately cause the dissolution of the Ritz-Carlton committee chaired by Mr. Roberge, a comittee that has as a member the Hon. Member for Quebec East? Will he put an end to this right now in order to ensure that the Government continues to have the faith of the Canadian people and the faith of all
Members of the House, which he could ensure by dissolving this kind of repugnant committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is clear.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I answered yesterday. The explanation was quite simple. The hon. gentleman who originated the letter, recognizing his mistake, has (a), apologized for it, and (b), written to all of the original recipients of the letter to tell them the correct procedure which is set out in the Treasury Board guidelines and Public Works procedure for the allotment of contracts.


Don Boudria: What about the Ritz committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE BUDGET
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the Robin Hood myths of the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware that figures from the National Council on Welfare show that the combined effects of the 1985-86 Budgets, excluding sales tax, will take $58 of disposable income from a woman with two kids who exists at half the poverty line? Is this the kind of meeting of special needs about which the Minister of Finance has been talking?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how many times I have to explain this to Hon. Members opposite. What we have done was to aim our policies at the people who need them the most, the people with the lowest incomes. Everyone loves to do numbers, but we know what the truth is.


NATIONAL COUNCIL ON WELFARE STUDY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, apparently the people who need it most are those in the highest income brackets. Is the Minister also aware that this study from the National Council on Welfare contradicts the Robin Hood philosophy of the Minister by indicating that a poor family headed by a woman will lose $58, not even including sales taxes, while a rich man who earns over $100,000 per year will gain $422? How is that possibly helping those in greatest need?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member forgets some of the other things that we have been doing in this connection. One is that we have reduced the dividend tax credit which is aimed directly at this mythical male person about whom the Hon. Member is talking. We have also eliminated income splitting.
March 7, 1986

We have introduced a minimum tax. I do not understand why those people opposite do not seem to be able to read.


INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Youth. For several weeks now the Minister, with her chauffeured limousine, has been boasting about her advocacy role in promoting her Government's success in creating jobs for the youth of the country. The unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada this morning show an increase in youth unemployment from 15 per cent to 16.4 per cent. What is the Minister's next move to ensure her credibility with our youth and improve the lot of unemployed youth?


Don Boudria: Hire a young chauffeur.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want the Hon. Member to know that youth unemployment has come down 2 percentage points since this Government took office. Some 50,000 more young people are at work today and have meaningful jobs than when we came into office in September of 1984.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because they are getting older, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We are continuing that progress with Job Entry programs for those young people who have not been able to finish high school, for summer students who are coming out of university and college with Challenge '86, and with any other number of programs which are underway in the Department of Unemployment and Immigration.
I would urge the Hon. Member to make sure that those people in her part of the country get their applications in by the end of the week-


Lucie Pépin: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -for Challenge '86 projects for young people.


BUDGETARY ESTIMATES-YOUTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has lost her voice and her staff, I am giving her another opportunity to speak up and answer for herself.
Where in the estimates can one find funds earmarked to create more employment for the 700,000 youth who are hopeless and jobless?
Oral Questions


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, $700 million have been set aside this year for youth training and job creation. More than 200,000 youth are now or will be involved in employment programs this year.
That is what the Government has done. The unemployment rate has gone down to the lowest level ever and this trend will continue.


MINISTER OF STATE (YOUTH) INQUIRY IF LETTER MADE PUBLIC ORIGINATED FROM DEPARTMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). Can she confirm that the letter made public yesterday did come from her department and bear her signature?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we have checked this last night and indeed the letter came from my department and bears my signature.
Quite obviously an error was made when the letter was drafted. Neither I nor my department ever intended to use public funds for partisan purposes.
I would suggest the wrong word was mistakenly used, and it should read "Party", not "Government". I do not think that anyone in a political "party" would not want to recruit people, so there was an error in the text.
If this incident has embarrassed the Government, my colleagues or the House, I apologize.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize that in the circumstance in which she has clearly lost control of her office, she really has no choice but to resign?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have not lost control of my office. I have no intentions of resigning.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It has lost control of you.


Andrée  Champagne: I have made a mistake, and I think there is no one in this House who can boast of the fact that they have never in their lives made a mistake of one word somewhere.


John Barry Turner: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: It was a mistake the letter became public.

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that part of the decrease in world oil prices had been passed along to the consumers in a two-cent per litre reduction at the pumps. I want to know why only part of the saving has been passed along to the consumers? And why do we have to wait so many weeks for further benefits?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has answered this question any number of times in the House, including yesterday. She pointed out that there is oil in the system, that the price decline reflects earlier declines, and we would expect that recent declines will be reflected as well.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has never answered this question, never.


WHOLESALE PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Minister of State for Finance tell me and this House why the Canadian wholesale market price for Canadian products in Canada is kept artificially high when the market price for refined products in the United States is going down? Will the Minister tell the consumers why this is happening? And will she tell the independent retailers why this is happening?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence that there is an artificially high price for petroleum products in the Canadian system, absolutely none, and I do not think the Hon. Member has, either.
If the Hon. Member knew how the market works, he would not need to ask this question any more. It has been answered any number of times by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In spite of the Government's claim of an outstanding record in job creation, Statistics Canada shows that there has
been a drop in the real unemployment rate from 10.9 per cent to only 10.7 per cent since the Conservatives were elected back in September of 1984.


John Carnell Crosbie: Come on. You are really straining.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And there has actually been a loss of 149,000 full-time jobs since the election of her Party. In light of this information, how can the Minister justify cutting SI00 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy when there has been a real loss of 149,000 jobs since September of 1984-full-time jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Your nose is getting a little longer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this House is that we have "Statistics Allmand", "Statistics Nystrom", and I am well content to stay with Statistics Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: How is that nose now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Statistics Canada reported this morning that the unemployment rate has stayed below 10 per cent, and that since September of 1984 almost 580,000 new jobs have been created.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, they don't like that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is widely spread across the country; in all regions, in all age groups, and in all sectors. We know it has to improve, and that is why the Minister of Finance brought in the Budget he did, and we will see improvement again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about real Canadians, not seasonally adjusted Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


ELIMINATION OF YOUTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the Minister explain why her Government eliminated the entire budget of the Department of Youth when youth unemployment has gone up since the election of the Conservative Party in September of 1984, in real terms, from 17.5 per cent to 18.1 per cent?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate for young people is 16.4 per cent-down two full percentage points since we came to office. This means there an additional 50,000 young people who are at work today who were not at work in September of 1984.
I have already said we do not think that is good enough. We want to continue that progress, which is why we are putting S700 million of funding into youth employment programs this year. We expect that at the end of the year, Sir, you will see even better progress than we have had to date.
March 7, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.
On December 13, 1985, a motion was passed in the House calling for the establishment of a committee to examine the domestic wheat price. What is the status of that reference at this time?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Government is well aware of the Hon. Member's interest in this matter. I can tell him that the terms of reference are presently a matter for discussion among the House Leaders-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was a bit worried about the question because it is really a question of House business. 1 think that perhaps it should be put that way.


THE BUDGET
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Finance). According to the Conference Board, the Government would not be able to reduce the deficit as it had hoped. Can the Minister of State (Finance) confirm whether the new 6 per cent business transfer tax to be levied as early as October 1 this year will offset the Government's revenue shortage not forecast in the February 1986 Budget? How do you propose to balance that Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit bemused by all this focusing on what the Conference Board has said and has not said. Perhaps I could quote precisely what it has stated in its own hand.
Although we have used different assumptions regarding oil prices and interest rates, our analysis shows the federal deficit to be under $30 billion for 1986-87 and decreasing thereafter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON NEW TAX IMPLEMENTATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. Can the Minister assure the House, and all Canadians, that no new tax will be implemented until the next Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a hypothetical question. The Hon.
Oral Questions
Member is once again trying to spread confusion on the basis of a newspaper report concerning a Conference Board study which we did not write and for which we are not responsible.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Could the Minister explain why the Government has done nothing to assess the impact on women of its job cuts in the Public Service? Is it fair that most of these job cuts should be concentrated in the Public Service where wages are the lowest, therefore affecting job categories where the proportion of women is the highest?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for posing what is a very sensitive and difficult issue. As Hon. Members know, the situation which was outlined by the President of the Treasury Board is a temporary one. The former Government Departments become tremendously unwieldy. I have been in touch with the President of the Treasury Board about the sensitivity in relation to these necessary actions. The Government has taken a number of actions which are designed specifically to see that those affected such as women enter the Canadian Jobs Strategy. If we look at the question of employment, broadly speaking, and particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is making what should be a statement. On a supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE CONDUCTED
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the situation is temporary, the lay-offs which are taking place are permanent. Will the Minister responsible for the status of women ensure that the Government undertakes and publishes an impact study with respect to the effect of the Public Service job cuts on women? Since women make up 41 per cent of the Public Service of Canada, will the Government guarantee that no more than that percentage of employees who are women will be fired as a result of the job cuts?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that there is a maximum amount of sensitivity in this whole area along the lines of which the Hon. Member speaks. The question of employment equity, and the question of getting women out of ghettoized jobs where they are the first affected when there are these movements in any part of the economy, are a matter of priority. This is also true for the question of equal pay for

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions
work of equal value, so that people, especially women, are not so adversely affected when these sorts of situations are forced upon us.


EMPLOYMENT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In his Budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a new job strategy targetted at women who want to return to the labour force. Could the Minister assure the House that she will respect the needs of women in her new program, contrary to what she has done in Bill C-62 dealing with employment equity?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question. [English]
Bill C-62 is before the House for debate. I trust that the Opposition will give support to employment equity. When the Hon. Member was the chairperson of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women I know that she did not put forward any proposals for employment equity. At this point I would urge her to move forward, to progress, to come into the real world, and to support programs which give women a chance.


EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY- MINISTER'S COMMITMENT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to emphasize that the Governement has turned down all the amendments that the Liberal Party had proposer to this Bill. Could the Minister, and I hope she will listen to and understand my question because she failed to answer it the first time around, could the Minister assure the House that she will not implement a new job strategy program if women as a group do not feel that this program meets their requirements? That is quite clear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which started in September of last year, there was a particular program which was directed toward women reentering the workforce after having been out for a number of years. I have had a chance to visit a number of these projects across the country. This morning, at a meeting with representatives from womens' organizations, I had a chance to talk about these projects. I was told by all that this is a very excellent approach to take, to help women get back into the labour force. I wish the Hon. Member would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Canadian women have denounced free trade with the United States because of the major disturbance it is likely to create for women employed in the service industry. Does the Minister think it is fair to open up without adequate protection this area where 80 per cent of workers are women?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for raising a question on which I have had a number of representations from womens' groups across the country. I wish to suggest to the Hon. Member that I think the women of Canada have a lot of faith in the future of the country. They also recognize that, as we enter into discussions, we are doing so because those most vulnerable at the moment, in terms of these fluctuations, tend to be women who are ghettoized in many jobs. I have had conversations with Mr. Reisman and the Minister for International Trade. I have been pressing them to see that within the negotiation team there will be a person or group particularly designated to see that the interests of women, who tend to be the first affected, or who are in vulnerable jobs, will be protected.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I hope that person will, in fact, be a woman.


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE MADE PUBLIC
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister guarantee that the study with respect to the impact of free trade on women being undertaken by Labour Canada will be made public and discussed directly with women representatives of the banking, insurance, communications and other service industries affected?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the discussions which are undertaken, and the mandate of those negotiating, will be to be in touch with those who are particularly concerned. Obviously there has to be a dialogue. If at the end of the day there is an agreement that is good for Canada, it will be because there has been a discussion and an agreement in the interests of all Canadians, particularly women.
March 7, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the nine Canadians who were part of the brainwashing experiments in the late 1950s.
Florence Langleben, who was one of the nine, died on January 2, 1986. Her son, Wayne, lives in my riding of Don Valley East. He would like to know when the Government will release all the facts on this sordid experiment, and especially the facts about the CIA funding of this terrible experiment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when we came into office this problem came to our attention. We have taken action on the problem.


John R. Rodriguez: With the speed of a snail.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some months ago I appointed an independent outside counsel, in the person of Mr. George Cooper of Halifax.


John R. Rodriguez: Is this a crab following a dead cod?


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentleman wants to answer this question, he can. Perhaps he knows more about it than I do.


John Edward Broadbent: Probably.


John Carnell Crosbie: That may be. But he has certainly not achieved anything in that connection for a number of years now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Neither have you.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why does the wise one not wait and listen to see?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: We have waited a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. None of this back and forth. It is not getting the question answered.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great importance to certain people. Why there should be these cheap interjections, I do not know.
Mr. George Cooper was appointed by me to act as an independent counsel to review in detail any connection the Government of Canada or any of its agencies had with respect to these certainly unfortunate events of some years ago. He is expected to conclude his report shortly, and the Government will then consider his report to see whether the Government has any responsibility whatever in connection with this matter.
I have no doubt that, after we receive the report and have had some time to consider it, we will make a statement, if not make the report public.
Oral Questions
In the meantime, two members of the Department of Justice visited Washington at the beginning of this week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister knows 1 cannot let him go on. He may want to complete this answer under Statements.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But it is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: All the questions and answers are important. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


RAILWAYS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Transport.

My question relates to a declaration made by the Minister's press secretary who said that maintaining the CN shops in Moncton from a purely business standpoint would be impractical and a money loser.
Is the Minister using his press aide as a messenger to the people of Moncton? Is he preparing them for bad news?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member knows that this is a matter that we take very seriously. There are several options being considered. An evaluation in being undertaken. I share with the Hon. Member the concern of the workers involved, and I can also assure the Hon. Member that we are trying to work out a satisfactory and positive solution to this whole difficult problem.


AIDE'S STATEMENT
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that such a statement from a ministerial aide is good publicity for the CN shops, especially when CN is looking at different arrangements to keep the shops open and protect the 1,200 jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in a very emotional debate, such as that which is taking place on this very important issue, a lot of statements are made, some of which vary in degrees of accuracy. I think the Hon. Member himself has, from time to time, tended to overstate the case. I hope that he will just be patient and work with us toward working out a satisfactory solution.

March 7, 1986
Oral Questions YOUTH


WORDING OF MINISTER'S LETTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth. I want to give her the opportunity to correct a very serious misleading of the House in which she indulged-and I say that quite seriously- earlier in the Question Period.
The Minister has acknowledged that she wrote a letter to her cabinet colleagues. She said there was only one word in it that was a mistake.
Considering the whole letter is about partisan politics, and begins with references to a political agenda and includes these sentences, Mr. Speaker-
Mfrs. Mailly: She has already dealt with that.


John Edward Broadbent: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that this is becoming a long preamble. Could we have a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Considering the Minister says in the letter:
Caucus requires tools to maintain its political linkages with youth-
Support to the recruitment efforts of the PC Youth Federations-
-are important: Which one word among these many was the error the Minister made?


John R. Rodriguez: The whole letter.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have apologized for anything in the letter which could-


John R. Rodriguez: The whole letter.


Andrée  Champagne: -be construed as a partisan word.
I think that linkages with youth by members of any caucus are very important. I would imagine the Leader of the New Democratic Party would certainly want his people to have linkages.
We are working with the young people of Canada. Now that they know what we have done, what we are doing, and what we will be doing for them, I can understand why the Leader of the New Democratic Party would be worried.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Considering that letter is a blatant attempt to use public funds for the recruitment of young people to the Conservative Party of Canada, would the Deputy Prime Minister not acknowledge that this is an abuse of the powers and responsibilities of a Minister, and request the Prime Minister of Canada to ask for this Minister's resignation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much further the hon. gentleman, or Members applauding opposite, would want any Minister to go. She has been honest and forthright-


John Edward Broadbent: She got caught.


Erik Nielsen: -in admitting the authorship of the letter, in admitting a mistake of the letter and in apologizing for it.
Surely even the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is sufficiently human to admit mistakes from time to time and to apologize for them.


John Edward Broadbent: If you are in the Cabinet you resign, Mister.


STATUS OF WOMEN
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Is the Minister aware that groups or professions eligible to act as guarantors of passport applications are almost without exception male-dominated ones, and, for example, the profession of nursing is not included on that list? What is the Minister prepared to do about this apparent, if unintended, discrimination against 50 per cent of the population?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising this matter. It is a matter which, on reflection, has a good deal of validity.
I will undertake to talk with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has responsibility for passports, and review that list in this light.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 had a question on potatoes for the Minister of Agriculture. However, as he is absent, I will address a question to the Minister of National Defence.
On January 24, 1985, the Government announced a new Combined Mess for CFB, Summerside. Construction was to begin in October, 1986. Is that project on schedule?


Harvie Andre: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information at my disposal. I will take the Hon. Member's
March 7, 1986

question as notice and, as soon as I obtain the information, I will bring it to the Hon. Member's attention.


PROVISION OF FUNDING
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Estimates for that project. Is that an oversight in the budgetary process or is the project being delayed? I would like to have a response to that question, Mr. Speaker.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the exact number of projects we have on the go but it is in the hundreds.
In any event, the final decision on which will proceed this year, for Estimate purposes, must be in by October 31. As a consequence, the fact that it is not in the Estimates cannot be taken as absolute assurance that it will not be proceeded with this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations. In Nicaragua recently Contra invaders financed by the United States ambushed a truck, killed four peasant mothers, wounded others, and killed a Swiss agronomist. Will the Minister publicly ask President Reagan to withdraw his request to Congress for $100 million more to pay and arm the murderers of women, children, and civilians in Nicaragua?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has already announced its policy concerning Nicaragua and Central America. I personally have had the opportunity to visit that country. We have a program which we apply very consistantly and we continue to support the Contadora effort.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer to the question. I asked for a public statement of opposition to the funding of these murderers.


REQUEST FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF CENTRAL AMERICA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has visited the region and is, therefore, familiar with the support of the churches for the Nicaraguan Government in its opposition to the funding of the Contras, and the support of at least eight Governments in that area, will she join those Governments and churches in asking for the demilitarization
Point of Order-Mr. Kaplan
of Central America, including the withdrawal of American troops?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is both the practice and tradition of the Mulroney Government to co-operate with volunteer organizations. We are also involved in various programs with Church organizations. I want to emphasize that the Canadian policy differs considerably from the American policy and that we have every intention of sticking to it.


POINT OF ORDER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, this being the first opportunity to correct something I said during Question Period. During Question Period I said that in the vicinity of 50,000 new jobs had been created in the Province of Quebec since the election. That was a mistake. I should have said that 112,000 new jobs have been created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) raised a point of order which drew attention to an apparent breach of Standing Order 99(2), formerly 70(16), for those who have figured out the new numbering system.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments requested a comprehensive response to its fourth report presented on October 17, 1985. The Standing Order provides that a comprehensive response should be tabled by the Government within 120 days of the presentation of a special committee report when such a request is made.
I must rule that the Hon. Member has raised a valid point of order, the Standing Order being quite clear. I simply indicate, therefore, that the Member has raised a point of order and this ruling will serve to draw the breach of the Standing Order to the attention of the Minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could you give the House some guidance as to what happens to remedy this breach of the Standing Orders which you have noted?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that I cannot. The Hon. Member may wish to read the Standing Order. He will find that it is silent on that matter.

March 7, 1986
Statements by Ministers


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, under the provision of Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the remedy.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION TABLING OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) I have the pleasure of tabling the response of the Government of Canada, dated March 7, 1986, to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration presented to the House on Thursday, November 7.
[ Translation]


PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON DAY CARE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House today, in both official languages, the March 7, 1986 Report of the Task Force on Child Care, pursuant to Standing Order 67.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, to rise in the House on the eve of International Women's Day. We all know that International Women's Day began as a one-day protest of intolerable working conditions for women in the United States.
[ Translation]
Today, this event has undergone considerable expansion and is celebrated throughout the world during a full week of activities.

International Women's Day is one illustration that the women's movement has become global in scope. The movement's character is such that it can embrace women of all cultures, races, and economic conditions. Women are bound together by their commonality of purpose, their movement toward equality, and their desire for an equal chance.
Nowhere was this world-wide sharing of goals more evident than at last year's Wold Conference of Women in Nairobi, Kenya. The Nairobi Conference was a landmark event. I am proud to say that Canada was instrumental in the development of a comprehensive blueprint of action to improve women's status to the end of this century. These strategies for the future are being used to guide our Canadian development of policies related to women and issues of concern to women. They include our employment equity legislation designed to improve the status of women in the workplace, and our efforts to position more women in decision-making positions in government, agencies, boards, and commissions.
The Government made a promise that in its first term of office appointments of women to federal boards and agencies would reach 30 per cent of all appointments made en route to the eventual goal of a full 50 per cent. I am pleased to say that we are not far short of that interim goal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Improvements have been made to public and private pension plans. Further, new laws will facilitate the enforcement of support orders. There will be a legislated end to the decades of discrimination perpetrated against Indian women. The Canadian Jobs Strategy, for example, is now in place. It ensures that women have an equal chance in all federal training programs.
Since we took office in September, 1984, employment for women has increased by 306,000. Unemployment among women has decreased by 79,000. Fifty thousand young women have found jobs under Challenge 85.

These programs, as well as others we have developed, are tangible proof of the Government's commitment to creating conditions that will give Canadian women, on an equal footing with men, an opportunity to achieve their full economic potential.

That same philosophy, Mr. Speaker, underlies the Budget. While recognizing those most in need, its intention is to restore the nation's economic confidence through fiscal responsibility which will create an economic climate in which Canadian women, as well as men, can see their initiatives and efforts fairly and justly rewarded. Presently, women own one-third of Canada's small businesses and their numbers are growing. Women are responsible for starting two-thirds of Canada's new small businesses, and this is having an important effect on the Canadian economy. Women entrepreneurs will find evidence of the Government's support and encouragement in this

March 7, 1986

Budget. It will reduce the tax rate on small business income, double the amount of guaranteed loans available under the Small Businesses Loans Act, and broaden the tax rules providing deductions for allowable business investment losses.
Mr. Speaker, today I tabled in the House the report of the Task Force on Child Care.

The important and comprehensive body of research the task force presented will be a valuable formulation to the public hearings of the parliamentary task force on child care. I expect it to be a useful guide in the ongoing discussions addressing Canada's child care needs. Finally, I believe the report will encourage public discussion and debate on child care and child care needs in this country. It is a much needed debate because child care is fundamentally linked to women's equality. It is fitting that an airing of such issues should be renewed on this, the eve of International Women's Day.
In conclusion, as we salute the women of Canada, indeed the women of the world, it is timely to recall the commitment made at the Halifax First Ministers' Conference chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and attended by the Premiers, to bring front and centre next meeting scheduled for November for the economic equality and social justice issues as they relate to women.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on the occasion of Internatinal Women's Day. I especially want to emphasize the work of women, both outside and inside the home, of all women whatever their income, and to tell them that this is their day and that it is also a good day for Canadian women to tell this Governement that instead of simple statements of principle, they want this Government to keep all the nice promises we have been hearing since the 1984 elections.
I wish to stress the leadership given by the Canadian Government at the Nairobi Conference and point out that this Government should apply the same energy in implementing the principles discussed at this conference for the benefit of Canadian women. The Minister spoke about Bill C-62 on employment equity, and I simply want to remind the House that all the groups who appeared before the Parliamentary Committee said that they were dissatisfied with this Bill because it provides no objectives or quotas. Their recommendations were quite strong and, as an opposition Member, I must admit that I am certainly not satisfied with this Bill myself.
The percentage of women appointed to senior positions was also mentioned. The Prime Minister himself admitted publicly in November 1985 at the Halifax Conference that he was not satisfied with the percentage of women he had appointed.
Statements by Ministers
There have been statements in all the newspapers. As recently as this week, there was a statement by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) about the appointment of ten businessmen to a new board set up to help amateur sport, but no woman was included. Once more, statements of principle are very important, but we are still waiting for them to be implemented.
We have examined the new Divorce Act. It is true that there have been improvements. However, during the election campaign, we were told that a central agency would be established to collect alimony payments. We are still waiting for such an agency.
Then, there is the employment strategy. In this regard, I would like to speak about the needs of women. Employment programs are being set up, but they do not address the needs of women. A tremendous number of jobs are said to have been created for women; but those are part-time jobs. And also, to reduce unemployment where women are concerned, they are referred to a program that creates ghetto jobs in which there is no opportunity for promotion. Those women who are living on unemployment insurance benefits are the ones who have been living alone for months and cannot then rely on any assistance program.
Who looks after their children? How can they learn to make up a budget? I think that job creation is good for reducing unemployment for promoting publicity for children's programs but as far as women are concerned, I can assure you that it will not work unless assistance programs are established. With no reference of course to part-time jobs, because most of them are part-time jobs.
Concerning the philosophy of the Budget, we know that it was supposed to help the poorest people. The poorest people are women responsible for single-parent families. They number over 72 per cent in Canada, and their income is in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 and they have been hurt by the Budget. There are taxes on drugs, a 3 per cent tax and a one per cent tax. I think it is unfortunate that the Budget has not been of any assistance to those women.
Speaking of women entrepreneurs, yesterday there was a press conference with women entrepreneurs in the Gatineau Valley area. They all told us: "We have no idea how we are going to survive with the new Budget."
Also when referring to the discussions, the Minister has tabled a report on child care. I am quite happy to have that report. Certainly all this will help the new parliamentary Task Force on Child Care. But then again, this involves the spending of an extra $1 million, and looking at the recommendations of the report that was tabled, I believe many of them could be implemented without having another task force on child care. The need is urgent. There are recommendations for the Government, recommendations that have to be implemented in 1986-87.

March 7, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Then, at the end of the briefing we had on that report, we were told that the new Task Force on Child Care budget has just been cut to 5 points. Is this a public relations exercise on the part of the Government, or is it definitely its way of tackling the child care problem?
I obviously object to the cuts that were also announced in the new Budget concerning the positive action for women program of the Secretary of State. The Montreal Office of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women will close as of May 31, 1986. If this Conservative Government wants to show it is doing something for women, it will have to prove it. Concerning also the program for battered women and all the grants, it was acknowledged in this House last week that everything was under review, that we would see in due course where the grants would go. There would be an overall approach.
For now I will tell the Conservative Government that I am very satisfied with the declaration of principle, but I would very much like to see the Government fulfill all those wonderful promises we have been hearing about since September of
1984.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on International Women's Day, Canadian women join their sisters around the world to celebrate our achievements in working towards greater equality and our determination to work together in solidarity with our brothers to overcome the many obstacles that remain. At the Nairobi conference we joined women from rich and poor nations who are determined that Governments must make major changes to overcome obstacles and achieve real equality by the year 2,000. We will help each other.
Here in Canada, women in recent years have organized as never before to create a much broader understanding and to demand needed changes. We must remove economic barriers which still keep women in low-paying jobs with inadequate child care. We must continue to work for equal treatment and fair opportunity on all fronts. Women have achieved political power. We must use that power to bring about needed reforms to achieve true equality.
This Government made promises to women when it was elected. It is accountable to women to keep these promises. We are pleased that jobs for women have increased in some regions. However, we want these jobs to be adequately paid and full-time, with equal opportunities for promotion. Women want more access to training and retraining programs with child care, and language assistance for immigrant women. Women were promised employment equity. Unfortunately, the Government refuses to change the employment equity legislation to reflect the very serious concerns of Canadian women, particularly women trade unionists. We were promised pension reform and protection for older women. There has been no expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. The greatest crisis in Canada is perhaps the need for child care. Canadian women want definite action this year, not just a further delay.
In Nairobi, Canada advocated increased assistance for women in developing countries, women who are barely surviving and carrying tremendous burdens. I am ashamed as a Canadian that Canada has broken faith and has cut back on foreign aid to these women.
At the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax before Christmas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) committed his Government to a framework for economic equality with particular priorities to the impact of economic decisions on women. In the most important of government economic decisions, however, the Budget, the Prime Minister has broked his promises to the women of Canada. Unfortunately the Conservative Budget has dealt women a backward blow. Women who still earn 63 cent dollars will suffer most from the very unfair tax measures which will cost families over $1,300, including last year's sales taxes. This will push many women below the poverty line. The refundable tax credit will not begin to cover the actual sales tax poorest families' pay, much less compensate them for deindexed family benefits which will decrease the value of their income each year. Women are the victims as tough restraint programs are imposed by this Government. Women in clerical and service jobs are the first to go as public services are chopped, contracted out or privatized. The $4.8 billion Health and Welfare cut over the next four years and $2 billion in reduced transfer payments will deprive women of services as well as jobs. As I said, we are very concerned that Canada's job strategies also have had budget cuts.
Today we will be receiving the recommendations of the parliamentary Task Force on Child Care chaired by Katie Cooke. I am encouraged that the Minister has assured Canadian women that this important report will be given serious consideration and will provide the launching pad for this Government's special committee so we may find funding mechanisms for accessible, affordable quality child care. However, we do not want more promises. The Government must make an initial infusion of funds this year as an expression of good faith.
On behalf of Canadian women, my Party extends very warm greetings to women across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the Arctic Circle. Women who give so much of their love, their talent, their energies and their work to their families, their neighbours, their fellow workers and, indeed, to humanity, we salute you.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, relating to the point of order that was answered by the Speaker about an hour ago about reports, I wish to ask the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) whether he intends to fulfil the obligation of the Standing Orders by introducing this day a response to the fifth report of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which was tabled in this House 120 days ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chairman must rule that this is not a point of order, it is a question.
March 7, 1986


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman just ruled it is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot address a question to the Minister at this time.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-second report of the Selection Committee. If it is agreeable to the House, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM ACT
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-85, an Act to amend the Petroleum Incentives Program Act without amendment.

In both official languages, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has asked, with the permission of the House, if I could introduce on his behalf the Bill that was just referred to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) to present the Bill in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven W. Langdon: for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an Act to Protect and Enhance the Quality of Drinking Water in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?
Introduction of Bills


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the unanimous recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights to prohibit discrimination within federal jurisdiction on the basis of sexual orientation.
At the present time gays and lesbians are not protected from discrimination in employment or access to services or accommodation. This injustice and this denial of equality must end.


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

Elliott William Hardey: for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an Act to Amend the Export and Import Permits Act (import of motor vehicles).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this Private Member's Bill today, the purpose of which, as indicated by the title, is to ensure that 50 per cent of the market value of the parts of a motor vehicle imported into Canada from a country other than the United States are made in Canada. This Bill is being proposed in an effort to protect our automotive parts manufacturing industry. I call on Members from all sides of the House to read the Bill and lend their support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1986
Order Paper Questions

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its unanimous consent, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the twenty-second report of the selection Committee presented to the House this day be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 514 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Rodriguez: Is the Government carrying out construction on Canada Place in Edmonton and, if so was the work tendered and (a) if so (i) on what date did the tendering take place (ii) how many tenders were received (iii) which firm or firms won tenders and for what amount (b) if not, what method was used to select the construction firm or firms?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 333 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 333 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Garneau: 1.	Did the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion implement an economic development plan for the Magdalen Islands area, in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) on what date was the plan announced (6) what amounts were allocated (c) what is a list of authorized projects and, in each case, what amounts were allocated?
2.	What amounts are available for 1985-86 in this area?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 7, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of Ministerial Statements, Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 6, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were four minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Further questions or comments? Resuming debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to visit Newfoundland last week, as I frequently do, to promote the Budget. I will not say that I was defending the Budget because I found it was not necessary to defend it, only to explain those parts with which people may not be totally familiar. It is one of the finest Budgets ever presented to the House. I will not mention any of the possible exceptions, out of modesty, but it is a Budget based on the concept of enterprise, efficiency and equity. I will explain that as I go along.
My remarks are devoted to showing the kind of preferential treatment that we are offering Atlantic Canada. My theme will be that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is like Prometheus bound, because he is faced with the desperate fiscal situation left to him by our predecessors. He does not have much room to manoeuvre but where he has any room he has exercised his discretion to help Atlantic Canada, lower income people and the small business part of the economy in this country, because that is where the jobs are created.
First, I do not have much to say about the pitiful orations we have heard from the Official Opposition during this debate, including the depressing spectacle presented by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. Rather than give my opinion, I will quote an impartial source. Jeffrey Simpson, a non-partisan person, had this to say in The Globe and Mail on March 5:
The Liberals' response to the Budget offers further depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches.
He said:
The Liberals prefer everyone to forget that they are the architects of the slide from a balanced budget to a $36-billion deficit. Rather than inducing in them a pinch of modesty, to say nothing of shame, their shoddy stewardship of the nation's economic affairs is now conveniently ignored.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
Party leader John Turner, upon returning to public life, knew how shoddy that stewardship had been. He pledged repeatedly that if elected he would halve over seven years the federal deficit, then estimated at about $29-bil!ion.
He goes on to point out how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) came under the influence of Senator Keith "Gravy" who changed his mind on what he should do. The article goes on to state:
The Liberals are now criticizing Mr. Wilson for a "massive tax grab," especially on low-and middle-income Canadians. But what is their alternative?
What is their alternative? Not once have we heard an alternative from the ragtag, tatterdemalion remnants on the Liberal benches. We know the alternative of the New Democratic Party; we have heard the same croaking alternatives for 15 years. However, we do not even know what the alternative of the Liberal Party of Canada is.
Mr. Simpson ended his article by stating:
Liberal arguments merely reflect the party's grievous intellectual inconsistencies, to say nothing of flagrant opportunism and blatant hypocrisy.
A measured editorial writer from The Globe and Mail is making that judgment. Is it any wonder that poor Jean Chretien had to flee from the grievous intellectual inconsistencies, the flagrant opportunism, the blatant hypocrisy and the depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the Opposition benches? It is a wonder that he could stomach it for so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I will leave the tatterdemalion ranks and make some positive comments.
I wish to address myself to Newfoundland because this is a part of the country that is certainly one of the more regionally deprived areas. Since September, 1984, 6,000 jobs have been created in Newfoundland. The figures are even better for the end of February. The total number of jobs created by our predecessor, between February, 1980-when the Liberals deceived themselves back into power after defeating the second greatest Budget of the century-and 1984 was 2,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate in Newfoundland has fallen by 4.6 per cent since the election; from 23.8 per cent in September,
1984,	when we took office to 19.2 per cent at the end of February. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has the gall and audacity to get up in the House and talk about jobs. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland while the Liberals were in power between 1980 and 1984 rose by 10 per cent. That is an astounding figure. Yet we hear these paragons-these sump pits of hypocrisy-asking questions about the job figures during every Question Period. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland rose by 10 per cent between 1980 and 1984 but has already gone done 4.6 per cent in the 18 months since we took office. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deserve a pat on the back because their record, compared to the miserable record of our predecessors, is absolutely Hellenic in its brilliance.
Let me give the House some more statistics. In December,
1985,	manufacturers' shipments in Newfoundland were up by

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
41 per cent, compared to December, 1984. Bankruptcies were down 18 per cent and retail sales have increased by 7 per cent in the past year and 11 per cent since the September, 1984 election. The value of building permits is up by 11.5 per cent and 11 per cent more houses were under construction at the end of 1985 than at the end of 1984.
In spite of those facts, we hear those Members opposite trying to say that we are ignoring Atlantic Canada and that Atlantic Canada is somehow discriminated against. I will put the lie to that, if you give me enough time, Mr. Speaker.
I will not dwell on the pitiful shape of the deficit situation left to us by the Liberal-NDP alliance that practically wrecked this country in the last 15 years. I will not even mention that 22.8 per cent of all our spending in Canada for the year ending this March was to pay interest on the debt incurred by the Liberal-NDP wastrels and spendthrifts. It means that there was $25.61 billion that we could not spend on roads, services, economic development or improving the social security system. It had to be spent on interest on the debt left behind by those Members who we hear fussing every day about unemployment, jobs and Government policy. Mr. Simpson was being very polite when he talked about grievous intellectual inconsistencies, flagrant opportunism and blatant hypocrisy. He should have called it blatant opportunism and flagrant hypocrisy.
Let me explain what we have accomplished for Atlantic Canada in this Budget and elaborate on what has been done in Newfoundland in the past 18 months for which I and other Members here are proud to claim the credit. Action was taken for Atlantic Canada because we have influence.
I looked at a rag from Atlantic Canada called the "Atlantic Insight" magazine. One of its articles said that nothing has been done for Atlantic Canada and the poor PC Members there have no clout-they ain't got no clout. Well, if we ain't got no clout, why is the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen now. That is premature anti-clouting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about anti-mouthy?


John Carnell Crosbie: What happened in the Budget? First, there was a new program introduced, the Atlantic Enterprise program. There are $1 billion worth of loans for Atlantic Canada for business start-up or expansion. It has to be a minimum loan of $250,000 or greater, for new capital investment. This will go together with the possibility of lower cost financing through interest rate buy-downs of up to 6 per cent. That is to give the private sector a chance to grow and expand in Atlantic Canada.
In Atlantic Canada someone said: "Oh, this is not going to help us. We don't have a very strong private sector". My answer was: "How are we going to get a stronger private sector if the Government does not help it to become strong?"
Of all the parts of Canada, Atlantic Canada is receiving an entirely new program to help the private sector-that is, the four Atlantic Provinces and Atlantic Quebec. We are not forgetting our confreres in Atlantic Quebec, the Gaspe and Kamouraska, I think is the county. They are included in this program as well and we are happy to have them included. That is the great new program for economic development in Atlantic Canada. My comrade and friend, the Hon. Sine Stevens, is in charge of that.
What happened to the investment tax credit? It is phased out across the country everywhere except where? Except Atlantic Canada. Is that discrimination against Atlantic Canada? Is that prejudice against Atlantic Canada? Does that show we have no clout? What utter crap, Mr. Speaker. The investment tax credit is phased out across the country except in Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Quebec. The 20 per cent tax credit has been extended. The 35 per cent for small business has been extended to the offshore to help the development of the oil and gas and mineral resources which lie offshore. So the rest of Canada was eliminated from this program.
I hope no one from the other areas is listening to me because I am speaking now to Atlantic Canada. The investment tax credit is left in place. Is that discrimination against Atlantic Canada? No, it is discrimination for Atlantic Canada because the Government knows that we are regionally deprived and we need assistance.
The 60 per cent tax credit in Cape Breton has been left in place. It is eliminated everywhere else outside of Atlantic Canada and that is discrimination for Cape Breton. Does that show a loss of clout of those who represent Atlantic Canada? Not on your life. That shows that the present Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has a hell of a lot more clout than the person in the other place who sidled and snook up to that other place. He was shrewd enough to know that the shellacking was coming and he went to the other place and did not run in Cape Breton again.
I do not have time to go into all of the research and development, but there was a $300 million increase in research and development spending for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council, which will help us because we do not have that much R and D spending going on in the private sector. We need these granting councils to play a key role.
I was told there is nothing in the Budget for fishermen. What twaddle! Fishermen, farmers and loggers are going to continue to receive the three cent per litre rebate on gasoline and diesel fuel used in commercial activities. It is extended for a year to January 1, 1988. That is over 13 cents a gallon for every fisherman out there in his boat. In the inshore fishery or otherwise, he pays 13 cents a gallon less for his fuel. That is what is there for fishermen.
There is the extension of the Small Business Bond, the capital gains tax exemption, and the increase in the refundable tax credit for R and D. The 12.5 per cent tax on dividend
March 7, 1986

distributions will be repealed. The federal tax rate on small business is going to be reduced from 15 per cent to 14 per cent.
We do not hear the hyenas opposite mention the tax reductions. We sure don't. It will be effective January 1, 1987. The federal tax rate on manufacturing processes and income of small business corporations is reduced from 10 per cent to 8 per cent. The ceiling on total Government guaranteed loans under the Small Business Loans Act more than doubles from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. Who does that help? Small business, that is who. Where are the most small businesses in the country proportionately? They are in Atlantic Canada. Who is this all helping? It is helping Atlantic Canadians, that is who.
I hope the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) speaks in this debate, because while he was in the Government, it was all temporary. Every year the Government had to extend the northern benefits. Now we have put them on a permanent basis. All those who live in northern Canada, including Labrador, will receive a new permanent system of tax benefits for housing and travel. Under the new system, 20 per cent of their net income can be deducted up to $225 per month. There will be an income tax deduction for employer provided medical and vacation travel, and it will apply to those who are self employed as well as to employees. The Hon. Member should get up and cross the floor if he opens his mouth in this debate today, because we have put in place these permanent benefits to encourage the people who live in the north and who are developing northern Canada.
There was also the assistance for low income Canadians. There are more low income Canadians, unfortunately, proportionately, living in Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Quebec than in anywhere else in the country. What did we do there? Whenever we had any money to spare at all, we gave it to the lower income Canadians. The Child Tax Credit increased from $384 a child last year to $454 a child this year. There is a prepayment of $300 a child to be made in November to claimants who have family incomes of $15,000 or less. That will help at least a million claimants. There is a new refundable federal sales tax credit, $50 for adults and $25 per child, for families and individuals with incomes below $15,000. I am asked what this is going to do for fishermen. The average income of inshore fishermen is less than $15,000 a year. What is the Budget going to do for them? It is going to put a lot of money right into their pockets. And there is the New Democratic Party with its picayune, seal-like minds, waving their little flippers in opposition to the Budget when the Budget is doing all these things to help lower income Canadians. Four million families and individuals will be helped.
What did we do to help the disabled? We increased the disability deduction by $250. Last year we extended assistance to an additional 120,000 disabled Canadians. There are 185,000 disabled Canadians who will benefit as a result of the Budget this year. We extended the spouses' allowance last year. Wherever we have had a chance to do anything with the miserable fiscal climate left to us by our predecessors, we have exercised it to help create economic opportunity in Canada, and to help lower income Canadians and small businesses.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
I do not have time to go into the private pension plan improvements and the training and employment programs. There is a program for older worker adjustment of $125 million over the next four years. There is the Canadian Jobs Strategy. These are all helping Atlantic Canada tremendously.
Persons receiving social assistance are to have a special program. We are spending $100 million a year to try to get more of them to work. That helps Atlantic Canada tremendously also.
I see, Mr. Speaker that you are giving me the signal that 1 am running out of time. I don't have enough time and I have lots to say. In my last two minutes I am going to list some of the things we have done.
We set up the Offshore Development Fund for Newfoundland; 75 per cent from the Government of Canada, that is, $225 million. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) just announced $34 million worth of projects. We are supposed to have no clout?
We just put another $77 million into Fishery Products International in order to put it on its feet, and $5.6 million to upgrade its secondary processing facility at Burin. There is a $180 million roads agreement, $112.5 million of that put in by the Government of Canada.
Hon. Members opposite should see the monuments they are erecting to me down in Newfoundland.
We are pledged to build a penitentiary twice as large as the penitentiary which the Hon. Member for Grand Bay-White Falls-Ladrador pretends his then Government was going to put in. I have no time to go into the details. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite will ask me questions with respect to it.
Then there is money for pulp and paper mill modernization at Corner Brook and Grand Falls, some $46 million in total, $38.5 million of which is federal funds. I announced another $3.1 million for Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls several weeks ago. There will be $38.5 million in the federal Canadian Jobs Strategy program, $35 million from Ottawa.
There are two special programs to help fishermen. There is the extension of the Challenge '85 program in 1986. The allotment this year is over $5 million. There is MILAP assistance for Buchans and Corner Brook to the tune of $7.1 million which is money to assist 118 unemployed miners in Buchans. There is $300,000 for the benefit of five former millworkers in Corner Brook. I do not have time to elaborate. Hon. Members should have come with me to Buchans two or three weeks ago to see what they think there about who has clout and who has not and who is doing what for Atlantic Canada. Oh, it would have brought tears to the eyes of members of the N DP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is $4.8 million in special programs for fishermen prevented by ice from fishing. There was another $9.5 million for fishermen last fall who did not qualify for Ul, some 1,350 fishermen and 1,500 plant workers in all.

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
With respect to flood relief I turned over a cheque for $1.5 million in connection with the Exploits River flood damage. In regard to the Port aux Basques water supply, there was a promise made by the Liberals which was never carried out. We allocated $8.5 million for the Port aux Basques water supply. God, if I had the time to elaborate, Hon. Members would just fall over. They do not realize what we are getting away with.
There is a convention centre in the City of St. John's to which the federal Government contributed $1.7 million. There was some $93 million for the Goose Bay airport, a 10-year program of improvements there. We are going to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the Minister has finally put his speech out of its misery. I am also happy to note that the Government has regained its confidence in the press in that the Minister quoted from an article written by Jeffrey Simpson from The Globe and Mail of March 5, 1986. I note that the Government now shows its satisfaction with the way the press reports its propaganda. I would like to ask the Minister this. Has he had lunch recently with anyone from the press so that he now has them on his side spreading the propaganda of his own Party?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we do not express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the press.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You sure as hell did!


John Carnell Crosbie: The press are there and we live with the press. Of course, some members of the press are even more accurate and truthful than other members of the press. When we see a national columnist who is not known to be partisan come to the conclusion that the response to the Budget by the Liberal Party is "depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches" what can we do but note it and put in on the public record?
I am glad the hon. gentleman asked me the question since I am a bit angry with the press who did not make sufficient of the North Warning System. Of course, we are now placing North Warning Stations in Labrador. Would Hon. Members like to know what will be spent in Labrador with respect to two long-range radar stations at Saglouc and Cartwright and five short-range radar stations? In excess of $120 million. The press failed to report that I had arranged matters so that the consulting engineers doing this work are from Newfoundland. We are now busy ensuring that when the tenders are called they will be called in amounts which are not too large for Atlantic Canada and Quebec companies to handle. The press did not report on that. So this is a little failure of the press
which I am glad the hon. gentleman gave me a chance to point out.
In addition, when we were in St. John's last week, the Minister responsible for housing announced a new federal-provincial global agreement in social housing with Newfoundland. The press neglected to give that the attention it should have been given. Some $6.6 million will be allocated for the Agnes Pratt Senior Citizens Home in the district of St. John's West which I have the honour to represent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I didn't ask that, John. We are not interested.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not interested. They are interested in Newfoundland. Some 150 chronic care beds will be implemented at the Agnes Pratt Home and the Golden Heights Home in Bonavista in the district of my friend, the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinty-Conception, Captain Morrissey Johnson, that seal captain of international renown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The press should be criticized occasionally. Some $25 million will be spent under this new social housing agreement in Newfoundland for those who cannot afford to do it all themselves. Some 2,400 new households will be created in
1986.	We are extending the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program throughout every nook and cranny of the province.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't get wound up, you're just supposed to answer one question.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is being done because of the new Government in Ottawa and the Government in St. John's, and because of yours truly who has fought so hard. They will know down there when they receive their RRAP assistance who is responsible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on a question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, one hesitates to give the Minister a chance to get wound up again. However, I cannot resist asking a few questions of him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You won't get any answers!


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to ask a few questions with respect to his superb oratory. However, the facts were not quite so superb, although the oratory was not bad.
With respect to his reference to the program for older workers, might it not have been fair to mention that there is a reduction in the amount of money to be provided in the Budget for older workers displaced and facing readjustment? Also, might it not have been honest when talking about the Canadian Jobs Strategy to mention that the Budget reduces the funds to the Jobs Strategy program and does not increase it? Might it not have been more accurate to have noted that the $50 rebate of which the Minister spoke so proudly is just to make
March 7, 1986

up for the loss which poor people in the Maritimes will suffer as a consequence of the 1 per cent increase in sales tax? In talking about Challenge '86 might it not have been more honest for the Minister to say that this program, too, has been reduced in terms of the amount of money it will receive this year? Finally, in talking about the Atlantic provinces, and if the Minister wanted to boast, might it not have been more wise to boast about the 3 per cent income tax surtax which every Maritimer and Newfoundlander will have to pay? That might have been a more fair and a more honest representation of the realities which Atlantic Canada will suffer as a result of the actions of this Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, as is quite obvious. I could see that hon. gentlemen in the Opposition were not agreeing with some of the points I was making because not only could I see their heads rattling but I could hear them.
With respect to the points the hon. gentleman rattled off a few minutes ago, the unemployment rate has gone down to 9.8 per cent. It is under 10 per cent for the first time in three or four years. Therefore, if there is any diminution in the amount allocated for employment programs in the coming year, surely it is a reflection of the fact that the employment situation is better.
There is some $800 million allocated for employment and training programs in the coming year. There is $125 million allocated to the Program for Older Worker Adjustment which will replace the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. There is a $100-million-a-year program for a duration of three years which will total $600 million with matching provincial funds. There are employment initiatives for people receiving social assistance. If he wishes, the hon. gentleman can say that is less. I say it is more and I say that the need is less than the need was and that the need, as the figures show today, will be going down.
We have a Budget that encourages enterprise. It encourages efficiency and reduction of Government spending and it is equitable. The hon. gentleman over there never mentioned the minimum tax that higher income people are going to have to pay of at least 25 per cent, also a part of this Budget. The official Opposition spent 20 years putting exemptions and tax loopholes into Budgets, exemptions and tax loopholes which we are now closing.
As one of the examples of equity in this Budget, we have the 25 per cent tax on higher income earners. It is reasonable to believe that that is not entirely equitable for some of them, but certainly in the context of the whole fiscal system, for the first time a tremendous loophole has been plugged, yet members of the NDP never croak up to say how appreciative they are of this. Certainly members of the Official Opposition do not because they are the ones who provided all these loopholes in the first place.
The Budget-Mr. McCurdy
As an Atlantic Canadian, I am happy to have had the chance to explain to the House what we are doing in Atlantic Canada. I did not have a chance to explain how we doubled spending under IRDA and regional development last year. We are now spending over $80 million as compared to $40 million on average in the previous eight years of the Liberal administration. I did not have an opportunity to really go into this matter. If I had, I am sure that those over across the way would have been even more dumbfounded and green with envy than they are right now. I challenge one of them to ask another question, just one other question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Sorry, the time for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I really must confess that while witnessing the tremendous oratorical skills of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), 1 laughed unashamedly at much that he had to say. Almost everyone listening to his speech was overcome with the humour and the encouragement to laughter that so often characterizes those who are otherwise hurting deep inside. If the Minister of Justice had had to admit during the course of his oration how bad this Budget is, he would have had tears in his eyes. It is a fit substitution to encourage laughter in us and in his eyes. It is a fit substitution to encourage laughter in us and in himself to obscure the deep hurt that this Budget is going to cause him and his Party, and is already causing in the Province of Quebec as reported in the newspaper this morning.
The Minister said that our heads did rattle. Of course, the Minister's head does not rattle. It is so full of nonsense that it has little room for rattling. In fact, the Minister went so far as to subject the Budget of his own Party to reductio ad absur-dum. I can understand that because when I went home last weekend I called a number of my constituents at random. The judgment that is to be applied to this Budget was expressed in no uncertain terms by all to whom I talked. It was expressed in a very simple, six-letter word, "unfair". The word "unfair" was used by those who themselves will be the victims, the average Canadians. But the Budget was also deemed to be unfair by those who are not going to be subject to the offensive imposition of taxes that the middle-income earners are being subjected to.
Senior citizens are appalled by this Budget that has another devious content, and that is that the average hardworking Canadian who has a hard enough time making ends meet will have to pay the cost for the poor while the rich go scot-free. The Budget is a clear attempt to alienate the average, hardworking Canadian from the poor who are being hurt the most by conditions in the country, conditions which are being perpetuated by the Government.
The complaint of unfairness in this Budget is something that will be repeated again and again. It has been repeated by members of the two opposition Parties and very quietly by members of the Tory Party itself. However, the complaint will come from all across the country until the devils are tossed out.

March 7, 1986
The Budget-Mr. McCurdy
There is something even more significant in this Budget, something that continues a pattern of the past. The Government promised change. I have to describe an impression of politics that I had from the outside, and that is that politicians are too often unable to see beyond today's press scrum or next year's election sufficient to do the things that are necessary to assure the long-term destiny of this country. This has not changed. Those politicians have difficulty in addressing the concerns of the future and have difficulty doing things within a long-term context which will address in a deliberate, coherent and systematic way what must be done to assure that Canada's destiny will be properly fulfilled. That has not changed.
Part of assuring the future of this country is to assure the future of its young people. The plight of the youth of Canada has been described in recent weeks by the New Democratic Party task force on youth which consulted nearly 600 young people from coast to coast, and by a Senate Committee on youth engaged in a similar exercise. There are differences between the two reports, but they say quite clearly, as did the United Nations when it declared National Youth Year, that there is an incipient crisis among youth that must be addressed. It is a crisis that is manifest in the high rates of unemployment among the industrial nations of the world. It is so serious, indeed, that this alienation and unrest has caused riots in many of the cities in Europe.
In order to avoid that kind of social dislocation in other countries the United Nations, for that specific reason, declared last year International Youth Year.
In Canada we celebrated International Youth Year, sponsored by a Minister who was supposed to be an advocate of youth and who had the responsibility for focusing the concerns of this nation of the needs of young people. We know the sad litany of truths about the real intent of the Ministry of State for Youth. The Minister of Justice talked about hypocrisy. What would be more hypocritical than to have 700,000 young people unemployed, many without a hope for the future? The Ministry exploits the office, not for the purpose of helping youth but to assure the recruitment to the Progressive Conservative Party of the young people of this country.
We have had hyprocrisy from this Government until it is falling out of our ears. This is a Government that has been described as accident prone. No Government would be as accident prone as this Government if it were determined to follow reasonable principles of integrity and commitment to the needs of the people. The way in which the young people of Canada have been treated by the Ministry and the Government is a shame for which the youth are owed an apology.
In response to questions put to the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), we have been told that so much has been done to create jobs for young people and that this new Budget offers so much. If "lie" were not an inappropriate word, I would say that that was the word which could be properly applied to what the Government has done.
Youth are affected in the same way as others by some of the Budget measures. The new 3 per cent surtax will affect young people just as it affects all other people in Canada. Young
people will also be affected by the sales taxes. They will be affected by all the taxes that affect other people. While young people are unemployed, one could have expected some effort on the part of the Government to manifest its interest in young people, not by cutting expenditures which benefit youth but by increasing expenditures for the benefit of youth.
Let us look at what the Government has done. The Minister of State for Youth has claimed that the Canadian Job Strategy is the Government's indication of a commitment to the needs of youth in job creation. My God, listen to this commitment, Mr. Speaker. Some $160 million or 8.6 per cent of the Budget out of the Canadian Job Strategy has been cut. That is how the Government serves the young people.
The Government tried to pull another dirty trick on the young people. The Government said $30 million will be put into the census and the young will get jobs. They want 12 week jobs, Mr. Speaker, but they will get six week jobs if they can get the jobs while they are going to school. They will also be in competition with the adults who are also seeking those jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: Do they have to be Tories?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is a good question. Of course, we have an indication that it may be necessary, through the communication of one of their Members, but we will not enter that dispute right now.
In addition to the $30 million diverted from Challenge 86 to the census, there was an additional cut of $8.6 million. This ia how the Government serves the youth of this country. If one looks at the Budget for the Secretary of State for Youth programs, we find it has been cut by $22.7 million, a decline of 56.6 per cent. Then, in 1987-1988 an additional $100 million will be cut from the Canadian Job Strategy. What promise for the future the Government provides for the young people. What promise for jobs? What promise for the future is it providing for the youth?
The Government has failed the future when it failed the youth. The Government has failed them both by this Budget.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government has failed the test.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We could talk about the insensitive abolition of Katimavik. We could talk about the sorry litany of things not done for the youth but to the youth. The youth, we are told, by the Government, must be the human resources for future economic development. That is what the Government thinks of the youth. The youth are resources like fish, trees and soil. That is the Government's view. The Government does not address the human concern that the young should be properly educated, properly trained with the skills by which to build the country and so have successful and creative lives for themselves.
If we look at what the Government has done with the universities we will see that they are a shambles. In one university we visited the lights are being taken out of reading
March 7, 1986

rooms to save hydro. In another university they are burning books to save library space. In another university assignments are not given because there is not enough money to provide paper. Our universities are in a tragic situation, so bad financially that increasingly accessibility to the universities is being cut. Potential students who only recently achieved access to university, the women, the disabled, the minority groups and natives, are finding it too difficult to get into university. Someone going to university now has to borrow to the maximum, as low income families do. They will be faced with a debt of $40,000 in interest plus principal. It will cost them $350 a month for nine years before they have a secure life debt free from the cost of attending university. This is how bad the situation has become.
It is so bad that the best of our professors are leaving Canada and for those who get into university, they will find that the quality of education has deteriorated. Yet the Government is cutting the rate of increases in transfer payments, the rate at which it meets the costs of the operation of the universities with the provinces. This has been addressed, at least in part in previous discussions.
We have reached the conclusion that the heads of the Government are impervious to reason, to understanding, and in their ability to look to the future and plan for the future.
This attitude is manifested also in the nonsensical, hypocritical devious way in which the Government has treated science. This is a Government that claims to understand that if the country is supposed to have an economic future, it must be dependent upon the development of research and technology to a level which can reasonably be expected to compete with other countries. At present, we are winning a good, tight race, just slightly ahead of Italy. Pretty soon we will be behind Monaco, at the rate the Government is going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will have five minutes when we resume.
It now being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.17 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1.17 p.m. the Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) had the floor. The Member not being present, we will continue with debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Adjournment of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been ample time provided for debate, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been informed that because of slippery conditions on the hill the buses are running late. Therefore, the ringing of the bells will be extended and the vote will take place shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1986-1987
[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
The House resumed, from Friday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
country and to face up to our responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, this strategy... we must not forget that we are looking to the future and that we are particularly concerned with development plans. I must emphasize that the development plan is both regional and sectorial. I remember last year in the House when, after the election campaign and after the Minister of Finance had brought down his first Budget, a wholesale attack was launched on the Budget and the measures it contained.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you remember, but at the time I compared the House to a chicken coop, because our hon. friends opposite kept saying: You promised jobs, jobs, jobs and all you did was cut, cut, cut. And they kept repeating the same "cut, cut, cut", sounding like a bunch of chickens.
Today, I suppose we could say the attitude of the Opposition has changed, but in any case they are not listening very carefully because there is no one in the House. Their attitude may have changed, Mr. Speaker, because 586,000 new jobs were created, and whatever the Opposition said at the time, which was widely publicized, and the press could perhaps help us in that respect, because they can go back to their files and see what they wrote. The press will tell us it is true, the Opposition told us last year: The Budget brought down by Mr. Wilson will lead to the loss of 200,000 jobs. And now, Mr. Speaker, we have 586,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, that is why it is very important to take another look at Mr. Wilson's Budget speech and look at the statistics it contains, to show how beneficial our action as a Government has been.
Still on the subject of regional development, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that we are putting $3.8 billion into regional development-I will let my hon. friend from the Atlantic provinces elaborate on the Atlantic Enterprise Program and the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit. I think it is only fair to have the Member for this region comment in greater detail on these measures.
Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon,-I invite my hon. friends and colleagues opposite to come in,-to speak to the Budget tabled last week and to express my support for the Government's action at this time, which I may remind the House, is primarily aimed at maintaining a continuum. We shall see how the Budget continues and consistently maintains the principles laid down in the November economic message, the first financial statement tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984, and the May Budget tabled a while ago. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Budget, which is aimed at maintaining continuity, deserves to be analyzed and discussed, and that is why I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate.
The Budget's action is sustained and logical and relevant, and it introduces and is part of a strategy to develop our
Mr. Speaker, something must be said about measures especially designed for the North. Effective January 1, 1987, all northern residents will be eligible for a net income tax deduction of 20 per cent related to their dwelling, up to a maximum of $225 a month for each individual, or $450 if the taxpayer resides in a self-contained domestic dwelling. In other words, Mr. Speaker, first it is no longer temporary, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said this morning, it will be on a permanent basis, it will be part of the Standing Orders of the House, of the Budget process, and it will be a statutory provision as of now.
So the first thing is the possibility of a deduction related to the dwelling. As a second measure, Mr. Speaker, we will also allow more travel deductions for northern residents, not only for medical purposes but also for vacation travel. There will be no set limit for trips to hospital, but all other trips will be
March 7, 1986

limited to two. This second measure is in addition to the first one concerning the dwelling deduction.
The third important point is the maximum tax of $50 on domestic flights. These three measures will cost the Government $ 120 million which will be recouped elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, it shows that the Government is taking action on a regional basis. More striking examples can be found in the new Jobs Strategy program, Mr. Speaker. Ever since we have been elected we have been trying to change the general pattern followed by our opponents who sit now on the Opposition benches.
Mr. Speaker, what they had in the past was a job creation program which was exactly the same from coast to coast. Little did it matter whether a man was a resident of St. John's Newfoundland, Vancouver or Victoria, Northern Canada, Valleyfield or Beauharnois, whether he liked it or not, Mr. Speaker, the program was Canada Works. It was the same pattern in Vaudreuil as well.


Richard Grisé: And Chambly!


Jean-Guy Hudon: And Chambly too, the same pattern, Mr. Speaker, Canada Works, the same program throughout Canada.
It all began at the Victoria Conference, Mr. Speaker, and then with our new employment development strategy we decided to act on six different fronts. Six possible programs. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, what really matters is the results we are getting. Members opposite predicted that with his last year's Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would do away with 200,000 jobs. He created instead 586,000 new ones. And he created these 586,000 new jobs out of his concern for regional development. Our six avenues for job creation will be negotiated later, province by province. Just like Quebec, Ontario and Vancouver, New Brunswick will have the opportunity to adjust these six avenues. But we are going even much further than that, Mr. Speaker.
Not only are we negotiating province by province but, for instance, New Brunswick could decide on the basis of an economy which is more difficult at times, to put more emphasis on community development rather than on any other program. It will be New Brunswick's own choice.
Moreover, we have set up around the Canada Manpower Centres throughout the province possibilities to adapt regionally these employment programs. For instance, Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick could decide to focus on program No. 2 toward community development. On the other hand, the Fredericton area could decide, because of its high unemployment level, to move towards the employment development program. And this flexibility is yielding great benefits. We went from the 200,000 job losses which our opponents predicted to 586,000 new jobs. People should remember that, Mr. Speaker.
Borrowing Authority Act
This indicates that the Canadian economy is recovering; while unemployment levels and interest rates are down and inflation rates are at their lowest levels since 1971, consumer spending and building permits are rising. I suggest that instead of rummaging through garbage to find letters, Members opposite, the so-called "bottoms-up gang", should pay attention to the signs of our economic recovery.
If you happen these days to enter the offices of Members opposite, you find them sifting through trash. All you will see is their backsides in the air, because their heads are in trash cans.
They are looking for letters. They should look instead for indicators which the media mention every day, although they are not given enough impact or emphasis.
That is the first point. This flexibility we are demonstrating at the regional level for Northern residents will apply also both to the employment strategy and social programs.
Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) say that we had forgotten only five hundred thousand families... As you know, the Budget set the income limit at $15,000 for sales tax refunds in the case of the needy. Obviously, our development is regional and sectorial. We have chosen to help a given category of people. The same applies to indexation and a whole lot of services. For instance, we provided assistance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 last year. This shows that we want to emphasize sectorial development, Mr. Speaker, and that is very important.
As far as regional development and Northern programs are concerned, the facts are there. They are also there as concerns regional development under the employment strategy. They are right there for everyone to see.
However, we cannot lose sight of debt control. In fact, the estimates and borrowing bills necesary to support the budgetary proposals should be readily accepted, like the Budget itself, because we are asking Canadians for money to reduce the deficit.
That is very important, Mr. Speaker, and there is no reason to rejoice when we look at the deficit figures since 1966-67. At one time, a balanced budget was an absolute necessity in Canada. In fact, Mr. Wilson has announced a deficit of $33.75 billion and this should not be exceeded even though we have had problems during the year. None of us wanted the failure of the Western banks. Yet, with this Budget, our $33 billion deficit will go down to $29,465 billion, and if we bring down the deficit by $3 billion, this will mean in fact that we are reducing it by $6 billion because, when you have a $33 billion deficit, you have to borrow to make up for it. You have to go to the bank and borrow, and it is costing us $3 billion a year only in interest. We are therefore paying our $3 billion and

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
reducing the deficit to $29.8 billion, and after a few years, around 1990 and 1995, we shall have a balanced Budget, the Canadian people can be sure of it, because the deficit has certainly sky-rocketed.
It started around 1970, 1971 and 1972 when deficits of $600 million were forecast. Suddenly, in one year, the deficit increased to $1.5 billion. This is $1 billion over the expected deficit, and this is where it all began. Afterwards, Turner came in with a projected deficit of $450 million and an actual deficit of $1.6 billion. In 1973-74, the projected deficit was $975 million and the actual figure was $2.2 billion. That is terrible, Mr. Speaker.
An Hon. Mlember: Horrific!


Jean-Guy Hudon: It shows how much money you need just to pay your debts. However, the best is still to come. In 1980-81, Mr. MacEachen forecast a deficit of $14.15 billion and came up with an actual deficit of $13.5 billion, $600 million less. That did not suit him well since, in 1982-83, he forecast a deficit of $19.55 billion and the actual deficit was $27.6 billion. These debts have to be paid. It was a deficit of $27,689 billion.


An Hon. Member:: A mistake!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Exactly, a mistake of $9 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: The Liberal Government.


Jean-Guy Hudon: After that, Mr. Speaker, they try to tell us what to do and they search the trashcans for letters.


Claudy Mailly: It is natural for them to be sneaking in garbage cans.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, that is why I support the Bills that are now before the House, including the Borrowing Authority Bill. And, concerning that, the deficit, the management of our debt, Canadians now realize that 25 per cent of federal revenues are used up by the debt, whereas ten years ago, 5 per cent only of the money collected from Canadians was used to pay for our debt. The figure now is 25 per cent.


Claudy Mailly: Those elastic budgets of the Liberals!


An Hon. Member:: That is interest only! It is a scandal!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Just for the interest, 25 per cent of the money we are collecting goes to interest charges on this debt. Then we will have to pay it back, because Canadians are people of honour, they are going to pay their debts.


Don Boudria: You dare talk about honour, you!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You talk about honour? What were you doing here at 1:15?


An Hon. Member:: Canadians are sick and tired of paying.


Jean-Guy Hudon: The minute they walk into this House, Mr. Speaker, it shows. They start barking.
The last item that deserves to be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is Government efficiency. Government efficiency must be improved because while we are paying our debts, while we are reducing our deficit by several billions each year, we have nonetheless to restrain our expenditures and our programs so that the money we are getting from the taxpayers will be used for debt servicing indeed. And all Canadians will benefit. Sometimes in my constituency people ask me: What have you done for Canada, what have you done for me, a car salesman in my area? What did we do? With our fiscal policy and our financial policy, we succeeded in restoring confidence in the Canadian economy, in containing interest rates, so that when you were selling in 1980-81, 6 per cent, economic growth increased automobile sales by 29 per cent. That kind of signal shows that the economy is on the right track. All Canadian men and women are pleased today that they have decent interest rates for their mortgages. I know many Canadian men and women who during certain years sold their houses at 22 per cent.
Therefore-and Canadian men and women will remember this-economic growth is not a matter of surveys, it is a matter of hard facts.
Canadian men and women must be able to borrow at decent rates. Canadian men and women must be able to buy at a general economic growth rate that inspires confidence in the future. The inflation rate is the best since 1971. Why? Because of the Budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. Second, because of the actions that have been taken. People, the financial community know that we have paid, we are paying our debts. We are reducing Government programs in order be able to meet our obligations.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what I wanted to say on Bill C-99 through which it is proposed to give money to Canadians in order that they may borrow on the market.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments and ask the previous speaker some questions. He had stated at 1.17 p.m. that he would be the first one to speak on the Budget after the recess. You know what happened, Mr. Speaker, it is a grim day for Canada since-


Jean-Guy Hudon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that the questions and comments must have to do with the Hon. Member's speech.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with it. After having been deceived by that individual and after that grim day for Canada, why should people trust him? In a few
March 7, 1986

days, we will be celebrating Good Friday, and here is someone who has betrayed us and he will be considered as the Judas of Canadian Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, why should we trust him . . . Have you considered that a disputed budget, in spite of the Member's comments, has been approved today by only 25 Government Members?


Jean-Guy Hudon: And no Member of the opposition.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Twenty-five Tory Members. It is shocking! The Member has been stating facts inconsistent with the policy of the Quebec Government which rejects the Budget-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Question!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Hon. Member has to say about Alain Dubuc's comment: "Wilson missed the boat." And 25 Conservative members! This is worthy of a Duvalier or a Marcos! This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that democracy .. . Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to ask the Hon. Member, in concluding, whether he thinks the measures this Budget contains are fair and whether he thinks that in this country we should let 25 Conservative members take advantage of their majority and adopt a Budget all by themselves, and whether he thinks that the refundable child tax credit that is given to only part of the population while the other part is ignored, whether he thinks that is justice, and whether he agrees that democracy has been trampled today-


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about trampling democracy. I can only say that we voted on and adopted the Budget, and that there may have been only 22 Conservatives in the House of Commons, but there were 22 times as many Conservative Members as Liberals. And he made all this fuss just to say there was only one Member in the House when the Budget was being discussed.
And as for my word, Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of promises, but as a Member of this House, I do not have to make any promises, and I was supposed to speak this afternoon, and Mr. Speaker, I did not lie, I did indeed speak this afternoon-
So what am I being accused of?


Jean-Claude Malépart: A fault confessed is half redressed:


Jean-Guy Hudon: What fault? And Mr. Speaker, should I be ashamed of what is said in the press?
Mr. Speaker, I am never ashamed of what is said in the press as long as it accurately reflects the situation. And everyone, including my adversary from Montreal-Sainte-Mar-ie (Mr. Malepart) has a right to his opinions, including yesterday when various flights of fantasy-
Borrowing Authority Act
Mr. Speaker, ideas are like socks: they have to be changed from time to time, otherwise they start to smell-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member's speech, I can see why the Conservative Party dropped in the popularity ratings in Quebec. I see why this party, this Government dropped in the ratings-
Mr. Speaker, I have here the results of yesterday's and this morning's polls, and the Conservative Party now has 27 per cent of the vote in Quebec, while the New Democratic Party has 26 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Does he approve the 1 per cent increase in sales tax that will affect Quebecers and Canadians in general? It is not just the 1 per cent today. There has been a 3 per cent increase since Mr. Mulroney was elected. Does the Hon. Member agree with the 3 per cent increase in sales tax that will affect the average Canadian? Does he approve this, when that same party is being extremely generous to the rich in Canada? Does he approve of this, Mr. Speaker?
I have another question: Does the Hon. Member approve of the 3 per cent increase in income tax for Canadians?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all this week to debate the Budget and other Government legislative measures. The Budget has been adopted. We are now on a different Bill and I can see that Members of the Opposition are trying indirectly to resume the Budget debate. I should think that Hon. Members have enough work to do and are serious enough to debate the Bill now under consideration and stick to the issue, and particularly to avoid all remarks which are irrelevant to the Budget or the Bill under study.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair, the remarks on the question of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville are relevant since we are dealing with Bill C-99 concerning the borrowing authority.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the Bill before the House, a Bill to borrow $22 billion. We need this money now because we have a Government which has been wasting too much money, a Government which has lost public support over the past three to six months, more so than any other Government in Canadian history.
So I would like to know the opinion of the Hon. Member from Quebec, namely whether he is in favour of taxes, taxes and more taxes on the backs of Canadian men and women, these questions of taxes and levies with no end in sight, Mr. Speaker. Does he agree with that?
11318

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am not overly concerned about polls. They may brag and feel complacent because the results show 26 per cent against 27 per cent for the Conservatives, but you know very well that in Quebec the New Democratic Party Members always enjoy renewed popularity between elections, but the people will not vote for you.


An Hon. Member:: Renewed popularity is all they ever get.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it shows the boldness of Mr. Wilson. If we were the kind of people who govern according to the surveys, we would only have proposed so-called popular measures, as our opponents used to do. They gave, they indexed, they gave, they indexed and then they were ditched. What do people want in Canada, in Quebec? They want people who honour their commitments. You are asking me if I support the 1 per cent? I am the one answering. You are asking me if I support the 1 per cent, the 3 per cent? Yes, Mr. Speaker, having been one of the 22 members who voted for the Budget. You were not even here to vote, you were not even here to vote against it, you of the New Democratic Party. You were out eating. I was here to vote for the Budget, and I support that. What I stand for, Mr. Speaker, also in personal life because it is the same thing, I stand for honouring my debts, tightening my belt in some areas in order to pay my debts, whether they are 1 per cent or 3 per cent.
Secondly, you say we are giving to the rich. We introduced a minimum income tax, Mr. Speaker, so everyone must pay. But I can tell you that the rich did not build this country, investors did. And the braggers, we had plenty of those who wanted to solve other problems, who came here and solved everything. But it took investors in the Province of Quebec to put people to work, to put money up front and to take risks. They are the one I will encourage, Mr. Speaker, because they will be creating jobs. It is not I who will be creating the jobs.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that in 14 years I have never felt that my rights as a Member were infringed upon before today.


Bernard Valcourt: Tell the truth. Where were you?


Bill Rompkey: The truth is this, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not you operate on technicalities is up to you, Mr. Speaker, but there is an intent behind the rules. That intent involves courtesy and civility. In my opinion, neither courtesy nor civility were used today. In the Budget debate and in the Throne Speech debate my experience has been that individual Members of Parliament are given latitude to speak not only on the content of the Budget or the Throne Speech but about their own ridings. It is a time when the individual Member of Parliament has his day to speak on behalf of the people who sent him here. I feel that latitude was abrogated today in a shameful way.
Whatever you say about the technicalities-and you may be right that people were not here a few minutes after two o'clock, and you may be right in your interpretation of the new rules which, I thought, gave more power, more authority and more place to individual Members of Parliament-the mood, the intent or the motive behind those rules was not heeded today, in my opinion. I feel that on this major issue I have been affronted as a Member of Parliament for the first time. I resent that and I want it on the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: I was here to speak shortly after two o'clock.
I wanted to make a speech on a major Government initiative but I was unable to do so because of what I think is a light-hearted and frivolous attitude toward this place in which we stand. I do not condone that. I condemn it and I resent it.
Now I want to make some comments about the Budget that was just passed.


Claudy Mailly: This is the borrowing authority.


Bill Rompkey: I want to speak on the borrowing authority Bill because I did not get a chance to make those comments about the Budget.


Claudy Mailly: You will make the same speech.


Bill Rompkey: In this Budget, again, the Atlantic area has been cut adrift by a Government which is philosophically bent upon letting the private sector take its own initiatives. If you think I am biased, Mr. Speaker, I want to read some comments made by the Premier of Newfoundland who is of the same persuasion as the Government opposite. Premier Peck-ford, at a news conference put the case as well as I can put it, but what he said comes from a less biased person than myself. He said:
-over-all, it looks like Newfoundland is going to be part of a national economic recovery which is going to make recovery here more difficult.
-what the federal Government is actually doing is transferring its deficit from the federal level to the provincial levels and the end result will be that the over-all national debt, considering the situation in each province, won't change all that much.
He went on to say that the province is still trying to assess exactly where Newfoundland stands but that at present it looks as if the only people to benefit really from the Budget are the low-income earners. While this is a positive thing, over-all Newfoundlanders are going to have less disposable income than before. In the Evening Telegram of February 28, 1986, he went on to say that the federal Budget will provide about $8 million for low-income families but that this year about $6.5 million will go out of the province as a result of higher taxes and that next year that figure will escalate to about $13.5 million.
I want to emphasize again that these are not my figures or comments. I adhere to them and support them and this is what I want to say, but these are the comments of the Premier of
March 7, 1986

Newfoundland. He said that this money is in addition to what the province will be paying the federal Government in alcohol and tobacco taxes. He says that there will really be more taken out than we will get back. He is concerned about a reduction in regional economic development funding this year. He said that the federal Government is cutting this funding by 28 per cent, but he does not know how this cut will affect funding for specific areas such as mining, forestry, fishery, and the province's railway. These are questions that we have to ask in the days and weeks ahead. He said that if reductions in these areas are high, the province may not be able to get current joint programs renewed. He went on to say that it appears that we will be adversely affected.
Those are the comments of the Premier of Newfoundland, and those are the same comments that I want to put on the record today. The fact is that the Atlantic area has been cut adrift in a sea of free enterprise. As a result of the Budget there will be a net drain from the Atlantic area. The increase in income tax through the surtax which has been put on, together with the increase in the sales tax, mean that more money will be going out of Newfoundland than will be coming in. You must bear in mind that we are talking about the area which already has the highest unemployment rate and the highest cost of living in the country. The Budget, which we should be talking about, is going to drive those rates up even more. There is not even relief on gasoline prices. I suspect that the position taken by the Premier of Newfoundland is supported, not only by Atlantic politicians, but indeed by groups such as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.
The other thing that disturbs me, which may be the most important issue apart from the reduction in cash transfers and the net drain on the Atlantic area, is the lack of emphasis on young people. The recently released Senate report says that we have a national tragedy in the country. It talks about a lost generation. In my province close to 50 per cent of eligible young people are unable to find employment. I believe that this is a national tragedy. Yet, the Budget does not address that at all. Katimavik and other Government programs for young people have been cut out and there is nothing to replace them. The most important thing about this Budget is its lack of emphasis, compassion, direction, and policy with regard to young people in the country.
As the Premier has said, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. The imposition of an increase in sales tax means an addition to the 12 per cent provincial sales tax in Newfoundland which results in the highest tax level in the country.
What will the cuts be in fisheries, transport, and other programs and Departments which we have depended on over the years? We already know that there has been a $20 million cut in fisheries on top of the previous $40 million cut. We must look very closely at those programs to see what the Atlantic area will be losing. The economy in the Atlantic area is a special case. The private sector is weaker there than elsewhere in the country.
I want to quote from an article in the business section of The Globe and Mail. It says:
Borrowing Authority Act
Statistics Canada delivered a sharp blow yesterday to Finance Minister Michael Wilson's optimism that business capital spending would increase substantially this year.
The agency reported that business investment is expected to rise by only 2.5 per cent in current dollars this year. In his budget last week, Mr. Wilson predicted that investment-excluding price increases-would grow by 7 per cent.
The following is what it says about the Atlantic area:
For all four Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the Territories, however, the results of the survey are bad news.
The forecast says capital spending in the Atlantic provinces will drop by 9.2 per cent, which could wipe out last year's gain.
I put that on the record to show you, Mr. Speaker, that when you cut back on Government programs, whether they be transfer payments, departmental spending, or employment in Government Departments in that province, you hurt more those who are already weaker. It is important to point that out. As I and other speakers have said before, there is great disparity across this country. We must be flexible and make adjustments and allowances. I fear that my province is going to suffer more from the cuts in programs and the increased taxes. We have always depended upon the Government of Canada to support the weaker economy in that area. The attitude is now to cut the Atlantic region adrift.
We see an example of that in the allowed move of Air Canada from Gander Airport to St. John's. Gander is a specific case in point. The federal Government has always viewed Gander as being vulnerable. It has been an airport town. That is its mainstay. If you do away with its raison d'etre, you destroy the economy of that town. I am afraid that the moving of Air Canada international flights from Gander to St. John's is going to affect the economy of that town. That is symbolic of the existing attitude. There must be a protective attitude for communities and areas which need that economic support. That attitude no longer exists.
I see no reference in the Budget to the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation which has been proposed for northern Newfoundland and Labrador. There are great resources in that area, but capital infusion, entrepreneurial skill, and administration are weak. We need the intervention of something like the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation to shore up that area and protect the fishermen and plant workers along that shore who are the most vulnerable of any in Canada.
What has happened to the continuation of the roads program which has been in effect over the years? When Government programs are cut back, the provision of necessary infrastructure is cut back. Those provinces which are weak in infrastructure and need that to support their economy and any new economic initiatives suffer. We want the roads program to continue. There are many roads which we still need to have built on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. I was hoping for some indication that the Government would deal with that kind of problem. I am afraid that there is no regional development policy. Parliament and Government have always felt that certain regions need special attention, but I see no indication in this Budget of a regional development policy. If you treat

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
everyone alike, you favour the strong and maltreat the weak. That is what is now happening.
The Government has been saying that the Atlantic Enterprise Program is the new economic saviour for the Atlantic area. I would like to say a few things about that program. First, the level is set so high that it will be virtually impossible for most small businesses in Newfoundland to take advantage of it. Fishermen require loans of between $10,000 and $15,000 on an average. However, the lower limit on the Atlantic Enterprise Program is $250,000. There will be very few small businesses in my constituency which will want to borrow that much. Even if they do, it is not clear how the Atlantic Enterprise Program will mesh with existing programs in DR1E and other economic departments of the Government. It is not clear what the meshing will be between that new program and the ones which already exist. In any case, business will still have to deal with the banks. We are talking about a loan program here. I do not know what the record of the chartered banks is like anywhere else in Canada, but in my riding there is clear evidence going back over the years that they are just not dealing with small business. Putting Atlantic small business in the hands of the chartered banks is an abrogation of responsibility. You are throwing them to the wolves because historically the banks have avoided or ignored small business. That will continue.
The Atlantic Enterprise Program deals only with capital expenditures. We know, coming out of the recession, that most businesses already have spare capacity. What they need most, in my experience, is not money for capital expenditures; it is start-up and working capital which is needed. If I have heard one request over the years from small business, it is that they need money to get started. They have to make a profit before they can pay taxes and qualify for tax breaks. So we need to have a program which deals with start-up and working capital. That is not what the Atlantic Enterprise Program does.
There were options open to the Government. It could have used programs which were working already. There are federal-provincial agreements already in place. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been cut back, but it does have programs dealing with small business. Why not pick a program which is a winner and fund that? If you want to help small business, put money into programs which are already working. Do not start one which has very little chance of success. Really, what we are talking about here is shadows. The $1 billion may not exist. In other words, when the banks decide to make a loan to a small business, only then will the Government be liable for a guarantee. So we may never see that $1 billion in the Atlantic area. I doubt we will. It looks impressive but I do not think that money will flow.
The Government could have put money into improving the infrastructure in the Atlantic area. That is what we need. If businesses in Newfoundland and the rest of the Atlantic area are going to compete, they need improved infrastructure. However, that is what we are losing here. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans lost some of its budget, and so we have the small craft harbours program, which is important to small fishermen, being eliminated altogether. Small business is where most of the jobs across this country are going to be. However, there are no initiatives which I can see that address the serious economic problems we have. The dependency so far has been on oil. The tendency has been to hang programs on that one nail. We see the price of oil dropping now which causes serious doubts and concerns about what is going to happen to projects such as Hibernia. If we put all our eggs in one basket we are really going to be in trouble economically in my province.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to say all I wanted to say on this Budget today. In closing, I want to highlight again the serious effect this Budget has had on regional programs. In a communique, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), said that the treatment of the lesser-developed regions of Canada threatens to divide the citizens of this land permanently into the haves and have-nots. That says it as well as I could. We have seen a diminishing of regional development initiatives and Departments such as Agriculture, Communications, Energy, Mines and Resources, Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport. We have seen these department programs cut. Yet that is where the initiative has come from for regional development in this country. We are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and I cannot condone that or support it. I have some serious concerns that this Budget, tacked on to the last one, is going to further cut the Atlantic provinces adrift. They will drift farther out to sea on the tide of a free entreprise economy.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member who just spoke is an honourable Member. I must mention that he was present in the House when we came to the vote on the Budget. He is concerned about his riding. As a new Member of this House I do not have the experience of the Hon. Member. Nevertheless, I have been here 18 months and I have noted that the role of the Government is to make sure that legislation comes before this House and to a vote as quickly as possible, particularly that which will relieve certain difficult situations in society. The Hon. Member was present when the Budget came to a vote. He is concerned about his riding. Unfortunately, an NDP Member, the Hon. Member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), did not return to the House for the end of his speech and answer questions we could have asked him. We then found ourselves in a situation where we could have a vote on the Budget so that we could give relief to those families which have been giving 15 per cent of their child tax credit to discounters in order to get the money sooner. We could move forward on the sales tax rebate of $50 for each adult and $25 for each child. We could put forward the Bills which will help farmers who are in difficulty. I am sure the Hon. Member is sympathetic to the cause of the farmers in Atlantic Canada, indeed all over the country.
Therefore, I would just like to ask him this question. If the situation were reversed and he were a Minister in the Govern-


March 7, 1986

ment, as he was in the previous Government, and found himself in a position where the Opposition was not present for debate when it was supposed to be, would he have just said: "I am not going to worry about the people of Canada who could benefit from these measures, I am just going to carry on debate for the rest of the afternoon"? Would he have done that?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member in the spirit in which they are taken. 1 would simply say this to her, that in terms of budget initiatives some are assumed to go into effect as soon as the Budget is read by certain Government Departments. There is an assumption normally made that even as debate is taking place Departments will have to assume that the measures proposed by the Government are going to be passed eventually, and they proceed to act as if that were the case.
Second, of course some budget measures will have to be approved by individual legislation, which is quite different from the budget debate. If a piece of legislation came forward for farmers or some other group in the country, I fully agree that it would be incumbent on us to move that as quickly as possible, but what we are doing here today is taking part in the Budget debate. I say to her again, as I said earlier on, that in my experience the two debates in Parliament where latitude and freedom are granted are the Throne Speech debate and the budget debate. It has been assumed over the years, I think, that individual Members are given time to speak in these two debates. Normally, in my experience, as I recall there was not an attempt made to cut off Members from speaking on the Budget debate or the Throne Speech debate. It has been acknowledged on both sides of the House that that is the practice that has been followed. I appreciate her intervention, but I have to say to her again that I regret that that practice was not followed through today because of a technicality.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rises on a question or a comment?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, on a comment. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that we had no intention of disturbing the mood of the House. At the time the vote was called there was no one in the House from the Opposition and we were prepared to proceed with the business of the day. I have a great respect, and I say this very sincerely, for my hon. friend.
I think my colleague has made many of the remarks I want to make. Had we had any indication whatsoever that someone from the Opposition was prepared to speak, we would have reverted, I would have asked for unanimous consent to revert to the Budget debate to allow him to do so. That is the very reason that we have called debate on the borrowing Bill in order to give members of the Opposition who had speeches they wanted to make an opportunity to speak, and we are pleased to give them that opportunity.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for a question or comment?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since we are commenting on the speech of the Hon. Member, I would like to tell him that it is unfortunate that the Government decided to cut off its own speakers by holding the vote on the main motion.


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is indeed the case because the length of your intervention and mine was limited in the Budget debate, which is supposed to be a special debate where Members can speak about the projects and the problems of their constituencies and suggest solutions, and this was taken away from us. As for the Conservative Members who voted for the motion, as well as those who were unable to vote because they were either in the lobby or were on their way to the House, I must unfortunately tell them that when we adjourned at 1:17 p.m., we had agreed that the next speaker would be a Conservative, more specifically the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon).


Claudy Mailly: I was there.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sorry, but you were not. However, i was, and the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, who is a gentleman, will himself recognize that he came to my seat to tell me that he would like to speak after 2 o'clock. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was supposed to follow him. Since the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry did not rise, the vote was held. I am sorry, Madam Member for Gatineau, but you should listen instead of talking. Perhaps you can do both at the same time, but I know that I cannot. Listen to what people tell you. You were not even here at the time.


Claudy Mailly: Yes, I was here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you were here, then you should understand.


Claudy Mailly: I was indeed in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You were not here in your place together with the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) when-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I am aware that the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) has referred to what happened during the vote on the Budget. I had hoped, however, that we would not spend the whole afternoon debating this point. As there is a bill before the House, I urge Hon. Members to make comments or ask questions to the sponsor of this bill. I recognize again the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Budget was adopted on division, there remain 41-


An Hon. Member:: No!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There remain 41 ways and means motions on how to implement the budgetary measures. I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether he has had the opportunity to examine and study these ways and means motions and whether he could comment on the first bill resulting from these Government initiatives, Bill C-99, seeking $22.6 billion in borrowing authority.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not come prepared to discuss the ways and means motion or the borrowing authority, but certainly the borrowing authority has to be linked to the economic program of the Government. I have to say again that my concern is about the general tone, the general attitude, the general intent of that economic program. If you borrow, you borrow to refurbish your coffers, and spend more on the programs that you have in mind. What I am saying is that the general direction is wrong, whether we are talking about spending, the regular Estimates or borrowing. The direction is to allow the free enterprise system to work its will, wherever it will, however it will. I am saying that when you do that, you discriminate against areas of the country which have a weaker private economy. That is what is wrong. The Government should look to its regional development policy and support programs to make sure it is not harming indefinitely the economy of an area which is already very fragile. I say quite seriously to the Government that I am very concerned that the economy of an area that is already weak is going to be further weakened by the general economic thrust.
If you simply allow the market-place to work, it will do so, and there will be more people from our area moving to Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. They are there now, and many of them are happy to be there. Many of them are good solid citizens. I hope that more go there, but I want them to go because they have a choice, not because they have to. Many from Cape Breton will leave too. I am afraid the only alternative left, if you do not have the ways and means to provide economic initiative in that region, is mobility. I do not want to see more people "going down the road". There was a very good film about Cape Breton, about Nova Scotia, called Going Down the Road. It says it all, Mr. Speaker. It points to the tragedy of young people who have no option.
What I am saying is that the economic policy of this Government has to take that into consideration. Young people may leave home, and I hope many of them will, but they should not leave because they have to. They should leave because they want to. There should be a way whereby they can live where they were born, where they want to live, and have a decent life for themselves. I am saying that the economic policy has got to change if that is going to happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil).


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority. This year's borrowing needs will be $22.6 billion, and this represents a 25 per cent reduction in the borrowing needs of the Government of Canada. This Government is spending smarter, using its resources more effectively and more efficiently.
I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by the Hon. Member from Newfoundland about the history of going down the road that was experienced by Atlantic Canadians, Newfoundlanders, people from eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. That movie was made when the previous Government was in power and at a time when Atlantic Canadians had no options. In 1984 they exercised their options to elect a new Government. Since that time they have achieved new economic options as well.
The Budget of May, 1985, put in place a series of incentives for the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia which clearly identify and highlight our Government's commitment to regional development and to Atlantic Canada. Cape Breton was the object of some of the most flagrant spending abuses in history. Money was poured into this region of Canada with very little attention paid to long-term economic benefits.
When our Government came into power in 1984, we inherited a very high rate of unemployment and accepted the responsibility to address that problem not only in Cape Breton but throughout Atlantic Canada and the entire country. Canadians have benefited from the creation of 580,000 jobs since this Government came to power. That is more jobs in 18 months than the previous Government was able to create in its final full term in office.
The new options to Canadians, particularly Atlantic Canadians, are conclusive. Our efforts to apply fiscal responsibility in the management of this country will benefit Atlantic Canadians because they realize that as the pressure on public expenditure increases there is less money for programs aimed at regional development, less money for sound social programs and less money for new programs. Furthermore, our ability as a Government to continue financing existing programs is stretched.
Atlantic Canadians know very well that the interest on loans increased from $1.7 billion 15 years ago to $22 billion in 1984-85. That is the interest that taxpayers in this country are paying on the deficit with which every Canadian has been saddled. Everyone has heard the Opposition cry about the state of the dollar. We have heard comments that some people in this country cannot spend as long a time in Florida this year because of the changing value of the dollar. Being able to visit Florida is still very much a luxury in Atlantic Canada, to the disappointment of many of my constituents, but we are still affected by the deficit, the falling dollar and high interest rates. For example, we know that high interest rates represent the single greatest obstacle to new economic opportunities in
I!

March 7, 1986

this country. Atlantic Canadians are prepared to support the efforts of the Government to bring some control to spending.
The position of the Opposition with respect to deficit reduction was recently the subject of comment by a columnist in The Globe and Mail who described the Liberal's response as: "Depressing evidence that hypocrisy and political opportunism are thriving on the opposition benches". That is an assessment with which I and many of my constituents agree.
Let us consider what we have been able to achieve in our efforts to control the deficit and put a ceiling on Government spending. Growth of discretionary spending has been cut to almost zero from an average growth rate of 43 per cent in the three years prior to the Government taking office. In fact, it will be $530 million lower in 1986-87 than over the previous year. Total program spending will be held to $86.6 billion, which is lower than last year's spending. This is the first absolute decline in total program spending in over 20 years.
There are many Canadians who did not understand what the deficit meant but today are beginning to understand that it has very real consequences in their daily lives. It has real consequences on the price they pay for a loan at the bank, on their mortgage rates, the price they pay for goods at the store and it affects their opportunity to get a job.
Let me refer to other comments made about the Government's effort to bring some fiscal order to the management of this country. Hugh Anderson of The Gazette describes the Budget as: "A careful, politically prudent response to a legacy of grievous mismanagement". An editorial in the The Globe and Mail states: "Mr. Wilson's financial trend lines are things of beauty after years of irresponsibility".
The Budget recognizes the needs for poorer Canadians, a disproportionate number of whom live in Atlantic Canada. They will benefit from some of the specific steps we are taking to help low income Canadians who are a major concern to the Government.
For example, the child tax credit will provide greater assistance to low income families. It will provide for prepayment of $300 per child in November, 1986. Canadians, many elderly and low income Canadians, will be eligible for a refundable sales tax credit of $50 per adult and $25 per child. Training programs and efforts to put people to work have been stepped up, and $100 million a year for the next three years is directed to a special program to held social assistance recipients find employment.
I could go on to talk about the generous assistance program that has been put in place for Canadian farmers who are suffering from a very high debt load that has accumulated over the last decade. That was a period of low prices for crops and very high interest rates.
Of course, the most effective way to help needy Canadians who are unemployed is to provide them with a job. Canadians do not want a cheque from the Government of Canada, they want an opportunity to create their own wealth in our society and an opportunity to participate in the Canadian way of life. They want the opportunity to own their own home and pay
Borrowing Authority Act
their own bills. This opportunity has been denied to hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of Canadians over the last decade and Atlantic Canada has been particularly affected by the former Government's policy of spending without thought and efficiency in the last number of years.
I am not one of those who accepts the doom and gloom comments and observations of the Opposition. I am not one of those who believes that the situation which has always existed in Atlantic Canada must continue. I am of the generation that believes times will be better in Atlantic Canada. Our Government reflects that view and we believe that action can and is being taken for Atlantic Canada that will make significant progress in addressing the very severe economic problems facing Atlantic Canadians.
Let us consider the facts. Special programs have been established for Atlantic Canada. There is the Atlantic Enterprise Program which involves a wide expenditure of funds to encourage private sector lenders to make loans for business start-up or expansion through Government guarantees. There will be interest rate subsidies of up to 6 per cent on business loans used to support productive new private sector investment. These are sensible initiatives that require the support of the Government of Canada. It is a new approach that requires the Government to put some money on the table. If grants and mere dollar amounts are all that were required to improve the plight of Canadians, then we would have been successful long ago.
Atlantic Canadians will also benefit from the Atlantic Opportunities Program. That program was recently announced by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), a Member from Halifax and an Atlantic Canadian with considerable clout in Cabinet and the Government. He has been able to persuade his colleagues, along with other Ministers and Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Opportunities Program will direct hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing power to small businesses in Atlantic Canada. I cannot agree more with the Hon. Member who said that small business will be the source of job creation. That is precisely what we are doing in this program. We are directing hundreds of millions of dollars to small business people. Over the next four years, Government procurement in Atlantic Canada will increase to $2.2 billion, almost 40 per cent higher than the current $1.6 billion. This $600 million increase is expected to create significant long-term benefits for industries in Atlantic Canada and will generate over 20,000 person years of employment, or an average of 5,000 jobs per year. This is a program which does provide opportunities for small businessmen.
We can be negative about it. We can say it is not going to work; it is just an ideological proposal from the Progressive Conservative Government. However, we do have a precedent which was introduced in the Budget of last year. It was to apply to eastern Nova Scotia and the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia. It called for a beefed-up IRDP Assistance Pro-

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
gram up to 62 per cent, it provided for a Cape Breton investment tax credit which is working. There is a great deal of interest being shown in the benefits of this program and it has had a great deal of success. We have put in place the Enterprise Cape Breton Program. There are the other benefits, of course, which apply to Atlantic Canada. With the reduction of development incentives in other parts of the country, these incentives become even more attractive. Some people call this system a tax loophole. Where I come from, it is an incentive program designed to result in employment for the people in my region.
Let us look at some of the support the Government of Canada has given. I do not want to go through all of Atlantic Canada, but we heard earlier today the Minister of Justice talk about the very considerable support which has gone to Newfoundland. The Atlantic Accord gave to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia full control and ownership of the resources offshore in the same way as if they were onshore. This is something the people of Atlantic Canada have wanted for three decades, since Robert Stanfield was Premier of Nova Scotia. We have delivered. We recognize that offshore resource development is an opportunity which can be best utilized by the people who live in Atlantic Canada.
I would like now to speak about the initiatives in my riding. I have prepared a list of the various support programs the Government has given to my constituents. It has, for example, funded the construction of a Nautical Institute. Phase three was recently announced. That is a $18 million project which will attract teachers, students and support services which will have a significant impact upon the people of my region. Last week a $13 million manufacturing facility was announced for Guysborough county and for my home village. That announcement was something the people have waited for for 30 years, because in the last 30 years, there has not been one significant private sector announcement of this type in Guysborough county, notwithstanding that we had a Government in Ottawa which poured money into the region. An $8.7 million plant has been announced for another part of my riding on Cape Breton Island. That project will provide 50 jobs. In Toronto that may not be a lot, but in Arichat, Nova Scotia and on Isle Madame, 50 jobs is something they have waited for for well over 25 years. Another small plant worth $3.5 million has been announced which will result in the creation of 70 full-time jobs in Port Hawkesbury. That is a significant achievement and the first of its kind in a very long time.
We turn now to the forestry sector. Far from moaning and complaining about the state of the forests we inherited, we put money into forest management. We announced four forestry joint-venture programs which will result in employment in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. We announced a special forestry program for natives. We provided support to the major pulp producer in my riding in the amount of $4.1 million. We supported a local mining company to the tune of $1.3 million. We built an industrial park. We provided for federal participation in a forest management program, including the construction of a nursery. We provided for upgrading
of tourism facilities in the Cabot Trail area of my riding. These are just some of the initiatives that the Government has taken in an effort to diversify the local economy in order to provide community-based industry. The incentive program brought forward and put in place by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is working in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
I could identify other successes. In Sydney, we committed well over $100 million to modernize the steel mill. We committed $40 million to upgrade and clean up the tar ponds there. We put money into Glace Bay in an effort to alleviate the short-term and long-term unemployment problems of that community. What we must remember, and what the people do remember, is that the problem was there in September of 1984. The problem was not created in Atlantic Canada in the last year and a half. However, many problems have been solved in the last year and a half.
As a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I am very proud and supportive of the record of accomplishments of this Government. I intend to work and aggressively promote the interests of our region because, for the first time in many decades, Atlantic Canada is being recognized by the federal Government as a special area. Special incentives are being put in place and results are being achieved which will mean long-term economic benefits. That is all possible as this Government moves to manage the deficit, and bring about a better economic environment, so that economic opportunities can spread from coast to coast.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) during his speech but I believe that at four o'clock on Friday it is usual for us to proceed to Private Members' Hour. I notice that the Chair did not see four o'clock. Therefore, I take it that Standing Order 39(2) applies. I would like to make sure that the House understands that if we are proceeding now until five o'clock with the legislation before us, it is because there was not 24 hours notice of a Private Member's intention to present a Bill, or a motion, for that matter. 1 just wanted to make sure we all understood that. We are proceeding until five o'clock under Government Orders, Bill C-99, is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). In a recent edition of Atlantic Insight the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) were the only two Members from the Government side who came out looking good. 1 believe Atlantic Insight referred to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso as a cocky and shrewd young Member. However, it was not so nice to certain other Members from Atlantic Canada, but I will not go into that here. I know the Hon. Member takes his responsibilities seriously. He talked about the gloom and doom of the Opposition. I wish to indicate to the Hon. Member what the Premier of Newfoundland has said in this regard. He is not in Opposition, he is in
March 7, 1986

Government. He happens to be of the same persuasion as the Hon. Member. How would the Hon. Member respond to the Premier of Newfoundland who says that Newfoundlanders are going to have less disposable income than before? He also says that there will be more taken out than will be put back. That is not the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is a comment made by the Premier of Newfoundland.
I would like the Hon. Member to respond to these points since I think they are important. When he talks about job creation in the private sector what does he have to say in reply to an article in The Globe and Mail with respect to Statistics Canada which indicates that for all four Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the Territories the forecasts for capital spending are that it will drop by 9.2 per cent? That is not the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is an account from a reputable Canadian news agency. When the Hon. Member talks about jobs being created across the country, that may be true. However, would he admit that only 8 per cent of the new jobs which have been created have been created in the Atlantic area?
Finally, if the Hon. Member feels that the private sector is to be put front and centre-and I agree with that-and if he thinks that that is the appropriate policy, would it not be better to wait until the private sector has had a chance to do its work before we cut government programs which have historically supported the economy in the Atlantic area? In other words, are we not putting the cart before the horse? Does the Hon. Member not think a more sensible course of action to follow would be to continue the support that we have historically given to the Atlantic economy until such time as the private sector has had a chance to become healthier?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first point raised by the Hon. Member, I invite him to read the comments made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) as they will appear in the Hansard for today. The Minister is from Newfoundland. He very eloquently and effectively put forward the case of the Government vis-a-vis its support of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. We have very capable Members in the House who have responded to these same points. It would serve no purpose for me to repeat what the Minister of Justice said today. In any case I could not compete with his oratory and eloquence.
With respect to the business of the private sector and waiting for it to do its job, I point out to the Hon. Member that we suffer from a deficient private sector because of the policies about which he speaks. He wishes to continue these policies. I can tall the Hon. Member that in my riding there are no more churches left to paint and there are no more graveyards which need picket fences erected around them. The grant program has really been exhaustive. It would serve no construction purpose to continue it. Therefore, that type of Government program, which the Hon. Member advocates should be continued-


Bill Rompkey: That is not what I said at all.
Borrowing Authority Act


Lawrence I. O'Neil: -is of minimal importance. In my riding we have achieved success in terms of developing the private sector. However, we also have a balance. We have public involvement in a different way. In Cape Breton, as in all of Atlantic Canada, we now have some of the richest incentive programs possible, all this is an effort to bridge our economy to the oint where we do not need to get the private sector involved. However, we do have the bridging. These programs cost the Government of Canada a great deal of money. In my riding we are developing a diversified economy with a private sector base.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wish to felicitate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) for his speech with respect to the borrowing authority Bill. He has been described by Atlantic Insight, and by my hon. friend, as being cocky and shrewd. He is much more than that. His constituents should know that he is also an extremely hardworking and diligent Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and comments on the speech, please.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the Hon. Member's speech must have been prepared in the late hours of the night since it is the Hon. Member's custom to work late and hard.
We Albertans are facing an uncertain future, perhaps, with the prospect of declining world oil prices. However, in discussions regarding the Budget in Alberta we find that Albertans do not begrudge in the least the very special treatment being given by the Government to Atlantic Canada. I know the Hon. Member has lived and studied in Alberta. I would like him to tell the House what long-term prospects he sees for Alberta and, indeed, Atlantic Canada under the enlightened policies of this Government.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, first, I would say that we are preparing for the influx of Albertans to Cape Breton. We expect to have a great many jobs there for them.
In response to the Hon. Member's specific question, the deficit is a major economic impediment to growth in the country. If we fail to address the deficit, we fail to address the priority of lowering interest rates and getting the economy moving again. The deficit is important in Atlantic Canada for that reason as well, just as it is important in western Canada. In an effort to diversify the economy of Alberta we are providing considerable support to the agricultural sector. We have also provided a new energy program for the Province of Alberta.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) for his very aggressive pursuit of the interests of his constituents, and of all Albertans, which have resulted in very understanding policies both for the Atlantic region and the western regions of the country.

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a short question. He just made the statement that growth is impeded by deficits. How does the Hon. Member reconcile that statement with the fact that last year we had a 4.4 per cent growth rate while we had a deficit, which was quite worrying, but nevertheless huge, of about $38 billion?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I can only speculate about just how great that growth rate would have been if the deficit had been lower.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to follow the mutual admiration society which preceded me.
This afternoon I would like to make a speech to the House which takes an historical perspective on the present difficulties which our country faces. I would like to try to pinpoint, perhaps more than some of our usual partisan exchanges do, some of the underlying difficulties which face us as a nation, and in doing so consider the challenges which lie ahead.
The problem which we face as a country has roots which go back to the 1970s and, in particular, back to the oil shock of 1974. 1 would like to consider what that shock did to growth rates in our country, what it did subsequently to business investment and, after that, to the savings rates of the ordinary family. In that period of time, we have to see the source of these quite complicated economic problems which we now confront.
As Hon. Members know, the oil shock brought a very, very rapid increase in prices to petroleum products throughout the world. Something not as clearly recognized is that it also brought a massive downturn in the growth rates of virtually every country in the world. Canada, because it was a producer of oil, was not hit immediately by the downturn in that growth rate but by 1975 and 1976, Canada began to experience that squeezing of growth rates that were being experienced throughout the rest of the world.
There are some statistics in the very valuable book which the Department of Finance puts out each year. The one I am referring to is the economic review from April 1985. It shows quite healthy growth rates in Canada up to the end of 1974 and then a plunge in 1975 to a growth rate of only 1.2 per cent. That was marked that same year by a decrease which was unprecedented for Canada of 6.4 per cent in exports and by a decrease in our imports to a slightly lesser extent. Clearly, what happened is that growth slowed down in the rest of the world, that squeezed our exports and since we are a country which exports a massive proportion of our output, the consequence was that our growth rate got cut very dramatically.
As a consequence of that, in 1976-77 and indeed in 1978, the business investment in Canada virtually collapsed. There was a 1.2 per cent increase in business investment in 1976, a 1 per cent increase in 1977 and a 1 per cent increase in 1978. Of course, as a consequence of that massive slowdown in both exports and private-sector investment, there was a tremendous upturn in unemployment. If we return to the figures for 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978, we see a gradual increase from the level of 6.9 per cent up to 8.3 per cent of unemployed.
Typically, Governments in the post-war period have responded to that kind of situation with a counteracting increase in activities. For instance, they have cut taxes and increased expenditures to try to make up for the fact that business investment and exports were not playing the roles expected of them. What we got instead from the Government of the day was the start of this strategy of cut-backs and restrictionism which has been so damaging to the economic recovery of Canada.
This course of action in fact took a new cycle starting with the oil shock of 1979 which equally hit economies throughout the world very, very hard. The squeeze which had hit world economies in 1975 was repeated but accelerated and in 1980 and 1981, there were tremendous squeezes on the economies of Britain, the United States and France. That in turn hit back on the Canadian economy particularly through our export balance, which again in 1979, 1980 and 1981 failed dramatically compared to the rate of increase in the past. Of course, when those exports did not take place, business investment also get squeezed and did not take place.
We see that in 1981, business investment began to slow down a bit, but by 1982 and 1983, because there is always a lag with business investment, there was an actual massive decline in the business investment of 9.1 per cent in 1982 and an unprecedented 12.4 per cent in 1983. In short, these complex issues came together in a way that had the effect of, first, hitting our trade partners, second, hitting our export earnings, and third, hitting the business investment that normally takes place in Canada. The consequence of that was to increase unemployment rates massively. By 1983, there was an unprecedented unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent.
What is the normal response of Government to that kind of squeeze of economic activity? It is to try to expand Government expenditure. It is to try at the same time to cut back taxes so that people have some sense of confidence, some extra money to spend and some ability to get the economy moving again despite this collapse of exports and earnings from business investment. That did not happen. Under the Liberal Government, we had instead tax increases and cut-backs in expenditure which also reduced the amount of economic activity. In short, we had a self-induced, almost suicidal collapse in our economic strategy and activity. Along with this, we had a lack of thoughtful industrial strategies. We did not make the effort to build up a high-tech manufacturing sector which could export into the world in areas where price competition was not as great. We did not have the emphasis on some of our
March 7, 1986

resource sectors, like agriculture and forestry, which might have got us out of the problem.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, we found a target under the past Liberal Government and we find the same target under the present Government. This target is to cut the deficit because somehow, almost by magic, that will rekindle the sense of dynamism and optimism in the business community, and the investment that those industries will undertake will be enough to give us recovery. That did not happen.
What we found, and we have found it with the present Government, is that this crisis in economics that we call a crisis of aggregate demand, a lack of demand within the country, has led to high unemployment and has led to serious currency problems.
Our currency began to drop. When that happens, ironically it gives us some advantages. In particular, it has given us, for the last year and a half, an advantage in the face of the American economic recovery. The U.S. economy has moved ahead quite dramatically. As a result, our exports, particularly because of the reduced dollar, have also moved up quite dramatically.
If we take, for instance, 1984, we get the incredible figure that in that one year our exports increased by 19.7 per cent, mainly in the form of exports to the U.S. Because of the massive deficit it was running, it had high levels of aggregate demand, low levels of unemployment and a consequent booming economy which sucked in all sorts of output from our economy.
It was great while it lasted. It lasted through 1984 and through 1985. That, rather than anything the Government here has done, has given us the 580,000 jobs about which the Conservatives like to boast. The point of this kind of more complicated understanding of our economic situation is that we still face a very high savings rate among consumers, a very low level of aggregate demand compared to what we need to get full employment in Canada. As a consequence, we face a situation in which a Government is doing nothing to deal with the domestic sources of our problems and is instead counting on the foreign answer of the United States economy's rapid growth.
Unfortunately for us as a country, that economic growth in the United States is not going to be sustained. There are two reasons we can be certain of that. The first is that we got within the Budget a projection which indicates a declining growth rate in the United States. The second, frankly, is that we have forces of protectionism at work in the United States that as our trade spokesman I have to say make me very, very frightened.
We have at this stage a surplus with the United States of almost $20 billion. I am certain that this will not be allowed to continue. It is just starting, but the protectionist squeeze on us from the United States is bound to come. This squeeze will come first in the area of softwood lumber. It will probably hit us by May or June of this year. The United States is expected
Borrowing Authority Act
to cut back exports from our present level of about 35 per cent of the U.S. market to about 25 per cent. That will wreak havoc in the economy of British Columbia. Because of oil price decreases the revenue we receive from the United States will be much less. Cut-backs will occur in the automotive sector which has been such an engine of growth for us here.
I feel that particularly with respect to my constituency of Essex-Windsor which produces a great deal of automotive output. We see quite clearly a slowdown in the expansion of consumer demand in the United States for automotive parts and automobiles. That is already costing us some jobs and it will spread throughout this economy.
Faced with that, Mr. Speaker, it means we have to turn back to our domestic sources of potential growth. That is why this Budget is such a tragedy. Instead of doing that, it is making the domestic sources of growth much more difficult with its increase in taxes and its cut-back in Government expenditures.
We have suggested an alternative by which we would shift the tax breaks presently received by corporations, which we know are not generating employment expansion, to tax breaks to people. This would cut people's tax burden and increase aggregate demand in the economy. We would also shift our expenditures to help assist local initiatives and community drives to try to get not expenditure and make-work projects that are run out of Ottawa, but instead local efforts to bring an expansion at the local level and an improvement in the local possibilities and potential of our communities right across the country.
That kind of approach, combined with an imaginative and an aggressive industrial strategy led by Government would give us some chance in the future.
As I see it, and I say it with regret, the Government's strategy, which is being adopted, of relying on the foreign impetus from the United States, now faces such impediments over the next 6 to 12 months that the great pleasure which Conservatives have had in the reduction of unemployment is going to cease. We are going to see ourselves facing once again a crisis of economic growth which will damage all parts of the country, Atlantic, Pacific, western and central.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has made several points today. Most of them give absolutely no credit to this fine Budget. 1 think it is a fine one, and word is coming back from different areas of the country that people are indeed willing, in a number of cases, to make some sacrifices in order to restore financial stability to the country. I just checked and I found that the dollar closed at 71.25 this afternoon. That is up 45 basis points. There were some doom and gloomers speaking during the past several days of debate, but I think the merits of the Budget are starting to show through now.
As I have said on a number of occasions, I think it is a very finely balanced Budget, as was the one preceding it and the Economic Statement of November 1984. That balance exists

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
in terms of expenditure cuts, which account for about 70 per cent of the total reduction, the other 30 per cent coming from taxes. Taxes are finely balanced between individuals and corporations as they are among various individuals. The needy are receiving a substantial break through the innovative sales tax refund which more than offsets the 3 per cent surtax.
The Member continues to repeat the argument, which has no substance, that the Government deserves no credit for the 580,000 jobs which have been created since September, 1984. That statement is totally without merit. It was this Government that dismantled the National Energy Program with alacrity and dispatch. It was this Government that saw how negative the Foreign Investment Review Agency was. Many people were putting forward numbers with regard to approval levels. However, the word was out around the world about the needless problems encountered by people who applied, only to be turned down. Under the leadership of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) that was changed. Not only was the name changed, but investment is now welcomed into the country, which investment creates jobs.
The Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the entire front bench have done a tremendous amount to create a new climate of confidence in the country, which will lead to even greater numbers of jobs by the end of this year and next year. The Member has tremendous talent in this area. 1 ask him to be a little more complete and a little more direct and honest with regard to the substance of the Budget. Give us a little credit on a Friday afternoon.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, because it is a Friday afternoon, I am actually going to do that. There are three parts of this Budget which I found quite interesting, useful, and helpful.


An Hon. Member:: You almost said "good".


Steven W. Langdon: I will even say "good". The first is the principle that when tax changes are introduced there should be a rebate for the poor to ensure that they are not squeezed as hard as others. I think the Hon. Member made a technical mistake. The rebate program is not for the 3 per cent tax increase, but for the 1 per cent sales tax increase. In response to that, I certainly offer praise.
The attempt to make investment grants for industry more responsive to the varying needs across the country is a good step forward. It is good because those grants were, by and large, ineffective in persuading companies to undertake investment. They respond to aggregate demand, but not to Government hand-outs in most cases. They do respond with respect to location. By leaving certain incentives in for Atlantic Canada, the Government has given a kind of skewing to Atlantic Canada which is deserved, given the much higher unemployment rate which exists there.
Finally, I think that the changes being implemented by the Farm Credit Corporation with respect to its commodity-related mortgages for farmers is a useful innovation. Unfortunately, the Farm Credit Corporation told the Committee on Agriculture last Thursday morning that there are about
39,000 distressed families in the country. The corporation will be able to help only 6,000. Therefore, it is a step, albeit a small one.
Despite the fact that it is Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would not want my response to a question such as that of the Hon. Member to be entirely positive. The abolition of the National Energy Program, which, of course, was met with such glee, has now created major problems in Alberta as oil prices decline. They have come, once again, to see the virtue of regulated prices as they did during the 1950s.
With respect to FIR A, my experience in my constituency has been that exactly what we feared would happen has happened. U.S. companies have started to merge. They have taken money out of our country to finance those mergers, and we have lost both capital and jobs in the process. In any event, Mr. Speaker, you must judge a Budget by its basic thrust. For the reasons which I indicated in my speech, 1 think its basic thrust is wrong.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite said that Albertans had come to see the virtue of regulated prices. I happen to be a Member from Alberta, and I would like to assure the Member opposite that Albertans see no virtue in regulated prices. They have not done so for the nearly seven years during which I have sat in this Chamber. Indeed, they see great harm in that. They have seen the imposition of regulated prices bring about a partial collapse of the entire Canadian economy. They have seen suicides, spousal battering, and child abuse as a consequence of ill-fated regulated prices. For the Member to stand in this Chamber and indicate that Albertans see the virtue of regulated prices is to ignore the reality of our historical experience with regulated prices. The Member would indeed be hard pressed to find anyone outside of his own Party in the entire population of Alberta who would see the virtue of regulated prices.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 predict that very shortly, if the price of oil continues to fall, we will be faced with a request from the Alberta provincial Government for the establishment of a floor price for oil in the country just as was the case in the 1950s. It is that which I take to be a new recognition that regulation on the upward trend of pricing, which may hurt you at the time, is also something which can defend you when prices fall through the floor. At the moment in Alberta there are a great many economic operations which are facing potential collapse which should not be facing that kind of pressure simply because of what is happening to world oil prices. On that basis, I think a floor price for oil produced in this country, in order to keep an oil industry for the future, is something which I support, and I suspect a great many Albertans support it as well.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, 1 found the Hon. Member's comments concerning the National Energy Program very interesting. Coming from that region myself, I do not see where the NEP would have helped Alberta in the present
March 7, 1986

circumstances. The Hon. Member linked the oil price rise in 1973-74 first with our export trade, then with investment, and finally with employment. Canada was unique among the OECD countries in having its own made-in-Canada price. The rest of the world's trading nations bit the bullet immediately and absorbed the price increase. Can he give us his analysis of the effect on Canada of having a made-in-Canada price at the time?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that could be answered in a long way or a short way. In view of the time let me answer it in the short way. The effect was to hold off by perhaps 16 to 18 months the economic downturn which hit the rest of the OECD countries. The economies of France, Britain and the U.S. faced massive deterioration in 1974. We did not begin to experience that until late 1975 or perhaps the beginning of 1976. However, we did not escape it because the collapse in the economies of our trading partners hit the demand for our exports, which in turn restrained business people in my community, for example, from making investments in factories or other forms of business.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of regret that I stand to address the borrowing Bill when I had hoped to address the Budget.


Claudy Mailly: You will make the same speech anyway.


An Hon. Member:: You were not here.


Sheila Finestone: The memory of Members across the way is very short and convenient. I was in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: This borrowing Bill seeks $22.6 billion, an increase from last year of $4.6 billion. That is a rather sad comment because a borrowing Bill is one of the ways in which the Government expresses it options, political philosophy and direction. I suggest that this might indicate that at a time when we have had, according to the Government, an improved economic situation, of which the Government can be duly proud, and improvements in the general economy, we would not have had an increase in borrowing. However, the Government has shown poor judgment and no political direction. We have had bad decisions with respect to the Gulf transaction, which cost us about $850 million in a tax ruling; we had $1.5 billion given to the Northland and CCB. The Government says it is $825 million, but by the time the bills are added up it will be closer to $1.5 billion. The capital gains exemption will cost $4.5 billion to $5 billion by the end of the decade. The phasing out of the petroleum gas revenue tax will cost approximately $8 billion until the end of the decade. Gasoline is going up and it is affecting everyone and everything.


Robert E.J. Layton: Gas?


Sheila Finestone: Yes, the cost of gas is going up. If you go to the pump and fill your tank you will be quite surprised at what the price is.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claudy Mailly: Because of the Liberal Government in Quebec.


Sheila Finestone: Costs for farmers are up, therefore the price of food is up. Lower and middle-income groups are having a very difficult time. Perhaps if the Hon. Member across the way would stop talking and yelling she might learn something.


Claudy Mailly: Not from you, lady.


Sheila Finestone: The debate on this Budget clearly reflects the loyalty of the Conservative Party. The Party is loyal to a few members of a privileged elite. That massive vote which brought the Government into power was a very important manifestation on the part of the voters who said, yes, it is time for a change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Sheila Finestone: That is what they said in September, yes. 1 strongly recommend that the Government not test the waters now because I do not think Members across the way would be so happy at the voters' present reaction. They are unhappy, suffering from lack of leadership-


Philip Derek Lewis: Where is Jean Chretien when you need him?


Sheila Finestone: In order to understand the full effects of the Budget it is imperative that it be examined jointly with the May, 1985, Budget. That examination will prove that the onus is on the individual taxpayer and consumer to reduce the deficit. It is not the well-being of the people which is the major focus, it is the famous national deficit. The heavy burden is being placed on individuals as opposed to corporations and businesses. Over the next three years corporate taxes will decline and taxes on individuals will increase.
Few people will benefit from this Budget, and those who do are the people who already live comfortably. Even they are embarrassed at how well they come out in this Budget. The Government has decided in its second Budget to hit the average taxpayer again. This Budget clearly shows that the Government has no intention of promoting equal opportunities within the economy. It seems to be set on widening instead of reducing the ever-increasing gap between the well-to-do and the poor. There are presently 4.5 million Canadians living below the poverty line. They do not find the cavalier attitude of my Conservative confreres very pleasing. It certainly is not filling their stomachs. These people were hit hard last May and are being hit hard again. The reality is middle-class people on welfare, and soup kitchens. All Members have to do is to go into their riding and stop talking to the rich who supported them, but talk instead to the ordinary people who are very unhappy.


An Hon. Member:: Particularly in Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: This is a biased Budget. It does nothing for the poor, the unemployed, pensioners, youth, families or public servants. I do not know where these Members are from, but if

March 7, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
they would go to their office instead of dilly-dallying and travelling around the world


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claudy Mailly: You mean like Don Boudria?


Sheila Finestone: -they would find people who are unemployed, unhappy and in need of consideration and help. People are sitting very nervously at home. They are very concerned about where the axe will drop next. I do not know how members of this Government can possibly look at themselves in the mirror. Does this Government not have a social conscience and social responsibility? It certainly does not look that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Sheila Finestone: I would just suggest that if you look at the employment equity legislation and the response to our Equality For All Report, you would find that it speaks volumes. It is undirected, undefined and shows no real commitment. It is just lots of words.


Some Hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 10, 1986