1986-03-03

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 35 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 3, 1986

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the loss of Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden, whose life was tragically cut short last Friday by an assassin's bullet. Olof Palme was not only a great Prime Minister of Sweden, he was a prince of peace and a champion of justice for all mankind. I had the honour of meeting with him on two occasions. I shall never forget his warmth, his vision and determination. It is thus with a personal sense of loss that 1 express the shock, the outrage and the grief of all Canadians.
Prime Minister Olof Palme was a rare and precious amalgam of idealism and action. His dreams were never idle. He had a vision of social justice in Sweden. He acted. He worked long and hard to help it come true for his own people. He had visions of international peace and progress, and he acted and worked to help those visions come true for all of the world's people.

Prime Minister Palme dedicated his intellect, his talents and his energies to the cause of social justice. He did so in his own country, where his passion for justice translated into a social system that has attracted the attention of many Canadians. He did so on the international scene, especially in the case of Third World countries, whose tenacious advocate he had become.
The economic and social development of these countries is one cause he championed at all international venues. The arms race was to him devoid of logic, because it deprived the Third World of resources that were absolutely essential to the wellbeing of so many people who were still deprived of social justice.

A peacemaker is dead, felled by an act of evil in a land where, until Friday night, a Prime Minister could walk the streets like any private citizen in freedom and complete safety. But though armed cowards have been able to end the life of this great man, they have not been able, and never will be able, to defeat his cause. The shining memory of Olof Palme and the legacy of his love and work will endure to inspire men and women of peace and goodwill throughout the world.
To his injured widow, to his family and to the people of Sweden, we extend our deepest sympathy. We share their
grief. Sweden has lost a great Prime Minister. The world has lost a courageous statesman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, 1 rise to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) in offering words of condolence to the family of Olof Palme, to the Swedish Ambassador who is here in the Chamber, and to the people of Sweden for the tragic and yet unexplained shooting of their Prime Minister.
The world recoils in horror and shock that an eloquent voice for peace and human dignity has been so brutally silenced. It is doubly shocking that such an act could take place in one of the most highly civilized, progressive and peaceful nations on the face of the globe.
Mr. Palme, who I knew before and after he became Prime Minister of Sweden, was a dominant force in Swedish politics for the past two decades. He was also a dominant and leading force in that earnest yearning search for world peace. In fact, he shared the world's stage for a number of years with our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, who was a close friend of Mr. Palme's, in their joint efforts to encourage the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, to lessen tensions and seek common ground for a real and lasting peace.
I spoke to Mr. Trudeau this morning. He joins with me in sending his condolences to the family of Mr. Palme and to the people of Sweden in their loss. As Mr. Trudeau said, Sweden, under Olof Palme, was a neutral nation. It was non-aligned in the real sense of the word. Mr. Trudeau spoke of Mr. Palme as a "pioneer for peace" and I can only add my heartfelt agreement.

Olof Palme vigourously criticized U.S. intervention in Vietnam and had no hesitation in expressing his views on the subject. However, he also strongly denounced interference by the Soviet Union in various regions of the world, especially the invasion of Czechoslovakia and more recently, when the Soviet Union took part in the hostilities in Afghanistan.

Olof Palme was also a champion of the world's poor. Very few world leaders felt as passionately as he did that the plight of poor nations is one of the greatest challenges facing us today. In his own country, he led the fight during the last election in September 1985, to preserve and defend the social

March 3, 1986
The Late Olof Palme
welfare system which is renowned as being the most advanced and most progressive in the world.
The people of Sweden have lost a highly articulate and sometimes controversial spokesman for social justice. The world has lost a man who devoted himself to peace and to the dignity of the human spirit. His death is a great and tragic loss, not only for the people of Sweden but for every human being who believes in what he stood for. We will mourn his passing and in so doing we will celebrate the ideals for which he stood.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!
MO)


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, distinguished Vice-President of the Socialist International, was cruelly assassinated on Friday in Stockholm as he was walking after having seen a movie with his wife-so typical of both the man and the nation which he happened to have led. It was so typical that he was simply out walking, that he had just viewed a recently produced Swedish film and that he was unprotected. All of these facts say a lot about the man.
I have known Olof Palme for more than 10 years. I profoundly regret his passing, both as a colleague and as a friend. He was a marvellous, energetic and imaginative citizen of the world.
Olof Palme devoted himself to improving the human condition, not simply in his beloved Sweden but throughout the globe. He came to his social democratic philosophy not by birth but by conviction. Born into the Swedish aristocracy, born affluent, he thought with depth and passion about the future of his nation and about the future of the world. He became a dedicated and imaginative social democrat.
I would like to say something very briefly about his goals because I think they are instructive for us all. He was determined, first, to improve his own society by means of achieving a better distribution of power and income at home. He never ceased saying that a true democracy must extend the same principles of liberty, equality and participation from political institutions to the economy. In my view he was quite correct in seeing this and not state ownership as the fundamental principle of democratic socialism. Therefore, it is not accidental that the Swedes probably have more individual rights than any other industrialized democracy in the world. It is not incidental that they probably have the most equitable distribution of income of any advanced society in the world. Finally, it is not accidental that in Sweden, perhaps more than in any other nation, in the past decade under his immensely creative leadership, more progress has been made in involving ordinary men and women in the decisions which actually affect them in their places of work.

I also would like to mention his concern regarding the effects of rapid technological change. While accepting technological change in a very positive way, he was at the same time
determined to provide a clean and healthy environment for his people and to aim for full employment.
More than any other industrialized country, Sweden has been able to achieve goals that a number of countries have wrongly branded as incompatible.

It is not accidental that one of his most recent acts as Prime Minister was to name the man who has now succeeded him as Minister responsible for the future, a man who would have had responsibilities in his Cabinet for co-ordinating activities of various departments to ensure that future planning would result in the implementation of these goals and philosophies in which he so profoundly believed.
The third aspect of Olof Palme's life which I would like to underline in this world of increasing nationalism-and I speak as a nationalist of one sort, as a man who can see nationalism having very many positive forms-is that he was well aware that much of nationalism, or many types of nationalism, can lead to very unfortunate consequences. He was therefore a determined internationalist.
In this regard he was among world leaders in working incessantly for peace and disarsament. He worked incessantly in the international domain to solve the problems of the Third World and to ensure that those countries, largely in the northern part of the globe, did what they could to redistribute wealth among the people of the globe and, more precisely, to encourage developments in the Third World which would facilitate development in that part of the world to bring about increasing levels of prosperity in the elimination of poverty. To that end Sweden has one of the most distinguished records of all nations in allocating a certain high percentage of its Gross National Product to other poorer countries.
Third, he was determinedly insistent in making his criticisms, as a leader of a small nation, of the two superpowers. He never hesitated to say-and not in a self-righteous way- what was wrong when a decision either by the Soviet Union or by the country to the south of us was taken in a way which violated the rights of others, or potentially threatened the peace of the world.
I will always remember others telling me about Olofs decision many years ago to marry, in a formal way, a young Czechoslovakian girl as an act which would enable that young woman to come to freedom out of her society, which is what she wanted. The marriage was later dissolved. It was not a breach of faith; it was a commitment made in the understanding that that woman would be free in Sweden.
I will always remember that Olof Palme was among the world leaders who condemned the American involvement in Vietnam as totally inappropriate and inconsistent, as he well knew from his American experience, with the best traditions of the United States. He was criticized at the time, but he was right. The same Olof Palme was among the very first to condemn the Soviet Union's brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia. He was a consistent man, consistently believing in freedom and
March 3, 1986

consistently speaking out against the violation of freedom by any other nation in the world.
Our condolences go to Mrs. Palme, their children and the people of Sweden. Sweden has lost a great Prime Minister. The world has lost a determined champion of freedom, equality and peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure the House would want to express its memory and its respect in the usual way.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present yet another petition signed by 84 residents from my riding, all of whom live in the area of Manor Park, which will be most negatively affected by the possible proposal of the National Capital Commission to build an embassy in the Mile Circle.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from the workers of the American Canning Company of Hamilton. These petitioners call upon Parliament to rescind the change to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will see pension income being used as earned income.
I have another petition signed by 50 residents of Nova Scotia and one signed by 100 workers of Sackville, Nova Scotia, again calling upon the Government to rescind the regulation which will see pension income being considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by a significantly large number of constituents of mine in which they ask the Parliament of Canada to take action to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a group of anglers from the Miramichi region which deals with cut-
Order Paper Questions
backs in fly salmon fishing in 1985. In the petition, they express concern about the Government's present salmon regulations. They have asked me to convey to the House through this petition their objections to the present quotas. I do so and submit this petition on their behalf.



MULTICULTURALISM


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to have the following motion received by unanimous consent and passed without debate:
That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, presented in the House on Thursday, February 27, 1986, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. 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.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 498 and 509.


Mr. Kaplan: Was the guarantee fee which Massey Ferguson agreed to pay the Government for its loan guarantee in the 1985 Fiscal year waived and, if so (a) for what reason (6) what is the revenue loss expected to be?


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: (a) Yes, based on a commitment by the previous Government in February, 1983, associated with Massey Ferguson's 1983 refinancing.
(b) $312,500 in fees payable less $78,000 in consulting fees incurred by the Government in respect of the refinancing which Massey Ferguson agreed to pay, for a net cost of $234,500.
moo

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Hon. F. MacDonald REVENUE FROM FOREIGN PERIODICALS


Ms. McDonald: 1.	In the last year, what was the total revenue received from American periodicals mailed in Canada?
2.	Are such periodicals charged a lower rate than normal business mail and, if so, what (a) was the total subsidy received (b) share of the subsidy was paid by each department?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	The total revenue earned from second class foreign periodicals mailed in Canada was $18.6 million in 1984/85. It is not known what proportion of this amount is from American publications.
2.	No. These publications are currently charged a rate comparable to that of quantity third class commercial mailings.
[ Translation]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 11009).
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Government's record of job creation and growth, and to address those measures in the Budget that will support this employment growth. Eighteen months ago when this Government was elected, our mandate was very clear. It was to create jobs and we have certainly delivered on that promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But it was also clear that we had to tackle the problems inherited from the previous administration: uncontrolled growth of the deficit, programs that failed to produce results, and employment programs that were only short-term, bandaid solutions.

We were given a mandate; we were called upon to restore fiscal responsibility, to release the creative spirit and entrepreneurship of Canadians and to create real employment opportunities. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the other day in this Budget speech, "cutting the deficit is not an end in itself. It is the means to an end. It is the means to achieving lower interest rates, higher growth and more jobs." We are reaching those goals.
In our first Budget of May of last year, we committed ourselves to reducing the deficit to $33.8 billion for fiscal 1985-86. We will meet that target. This year, the deficit is projected to drop to $29.8 billion. By the end of the decade, the deficit will have been reduced to $22 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The skeptics in the opposition parties said that we could not cut the deficit and produce jobs at one and the same time. Jobs are being created in record numbers and the deficit is coming down.
Since September 1984, 580,000 new jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has fallen below 10 per cent for the first time since 1982. It is important to note that fully 81 per cent of those new jobs are full-time jobs. During the term of the previous administration, only 18 per cent of the new jobs created were full time. What a difference; what a change.
In Canada, we now are creating jobs at twice the rate of the United States. We have created more jobs in the last years than all of the countries of western Europe combined. Across Canada, there is a renewed sense of direction and stability.
Between September 1984 and January 1986, employment has grown in every region of the country. Just look at the results: it has increased by 51,000 new jobs in British Columbia, by 90,000 new jobs in the prairie region, by 239,000 new jobs in Ontario, by 156,000 new jobs in Quebec and by 30,000 new jobs in Atlantic Canada. I would be the first to say that even though we have made progress, that progress is still not enough. While there has been substantial growth-


John R. Rodriguez: Say it again.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am pleased to hear that members of the Opposition agree with that. While there has been substantial growth, it is not fully shared all across the country. Clearly more needs to be done in areas like Atlantic Canada and that is why the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) have introduced the Atlantic Enterprise Program, to stimulate private-sector job creation through major loan guarantees.
The steps that we have taken so far show that we are moving in the right direction. Since the Government assumed office,
73.000	more young people have been able to find jobs and
292.000	more women have been able to find jobs. The growth
March 3, 1986

has been stimulated by a number of initiatives outlined in the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance of November 1984 and in the Budget of May 1985. We have already begun to see the results of the measures outlined in those two economic statements. There is a renewed confidence in the Canadian economy. Investment in manufacturing is up 22 per cent this year over last year. New housing starts are up 37 per cent, to almost 200,000 units. Inflation is at its lowest level in 14 years, and there is a return of consumer spending confidence.
[ Translation]
Through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we have made the connection between job training and real labour market requirements.
Mr. Speaker, the allocation of $800 million to the Canadian Jobs Strategy in 1987-88, as announced in the Budget, will give us the longer term financing we need to plan our activities in terms of future labour market requirements.

This is the right strategy, It is the first strategy to deal head on with the real needs of the Canadian labour force, a strategy which addresses the needs of young people trying to break into the working world for the first time; the needs of women wanting to re-enter the labour force; the needs of the longterm unemployed, of older workers and of workers who need retraining to be able to cope with technological change; the needs of workers in communities suffering severe economic decline; and the needs of individual Canadians and entrepreneurs with new ideas which promote and develop economic activity. Just as important, the Canadian Jobs Strategy also recognizes the needs of business and industry. In fact, the strategy is a bridge between job training and the skill requirements of the market-place, bringing them together. We have discontinued old, ineffective programs. We have eliminated slush-fund spending, and we have introduced new innovative and effective programs to stimulate long-term job creation and training.
I am pleased to report that to date, in a period of six months, more than 14,000 projects are under way under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, projects from one coast to another. I personally had the opportunity to visit a number of these projects. In Calgary, I saw disadvantaged young people learning a solid trade in the automotive industry. In Thorold, Ontario, I visited workers learning how to cope with and operate new technology so that they could keep their jobs and keep their plant productive and operating. In Peterborough, I watched young people being trained in the latest techniques of robotics. In Sherbrooke, Quebec, I talked with women who were receiving help in assessing their own skills and getting on-site experience in the labour market. The investment we are making in people through the Canadian Jobs Strategy is a very good example of how to "spend smart".
The Budget-Hon. F. MacDonald

Mr. Speaker, the federal allocation of $100 million for each of the next three years to help social assistance recipients is another example of money well spent. These funds are aimed at enhancing employment opportunities for social assistance recipients through the job development and job entry program that are part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.

It is very much a part of the Government's program and its determination to find solutions to the economically and socially destructive cycle of welfare dependency and to work with the provinces in designing effective solutions to the problems faced by Canadians. It is smart spending because it starts from the premise that the very best assistance we can help provide is a meaningful job.
Money which would have otherwise been used solely for income support can now also be used to open doors into the workforce for people who were formerly or previously dependent solely upon welfare-doors which can lead, for them, to increased personal dignity. We are already experimenting with this kind of approach. These experiments are showing the benefits of such an approach because they are working. For instance, a good example is a job entry project in Saint John, New Brunswick, where the sponsor has committed 10 of the 30 training positions associated with this project to Canadians who were previously social assistance recipients.
In addition to the $100 million being allocated by the federal Government for programs and projects of this nature- $100 million which by the way is over and above the funding for the Canadian Jobs Strategy-we can also look forward to matching provincial dollars. That could double the potential funding available to assist social assistance recipients. This means that in the next three years up to $600 million could be available for 120,000 new opportunities in jobs and training for those who need it most.
I should also like to mention that our commitment to assisting those in greatest need goes further. Other programs or measures have been undertaken in the Budget. We have annonced new programs to help farmers and to help older workers. For farmers caught in the cycle of low prices and an intolerable debt burden, we are offering commodity-based mortgages, debt restructuring, tax breaks on fuel and other support. In addition, in cases where farmers must leave the farm to find other employment, a rural transition program is being put into effect which will provide farmers with job counselling, with retraining and with interim financial assistance. This is the first time that this group will be able to receive such support and be able to enter retraining programs. It means an additional commitment to farmers of some $50 million over the next two years.
We have also introduced an aditional program to address the problems of displaced older workers. Quite often, as we are all aware, older workers are those who are hardest hit by technological change, by industrial adjustment and by resource depletion. However, the usual training, wage subsidies, mobili-

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Hon. F. MacDonald
ty allowances and other programs are not always available for such individuals, so we have announced a four-year SI25 million program for older worker adjustment. With the cooperation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the provinces and the private sector, this new initiative will assist older workers who lose their jobs through major lay-offs or plant closures and who have no immediate prospects of reemployment.
It is clear that we are taking steps in a number of areas to improve the prospects of Canadians who need the most. We are doing this through greater training opportunities under the Canadian Jobs Strategy; through increased support for social assistance recipients in the area of job training; through initiatives to help farmers climb out from under a heavy debt load, and through steps to help older workers remain active in the labour market.
Probably the most important sector of our economy in terms of job creation is small business. For this reason, the Government has taken steps as announced in the Budget to strengthen the small business sector. We know that is where the dynamism is and where the new jobs will be created. Tax rates on small business income will be reduced. Rules providing for allowable business investment losses will be broadened. Total Government guaranteed loans under the Small Business Loans Act will be increased by 250 per cent. We are determined, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, that small business will continue to be the engine of growth and new jobs.
I would say, Sir, that jobs are just not created because people want them. It requires a commitment by the Government to take a new look at how we can identify the problems that exist, find new solutions and tackle the problems head on.
New training programs for social assistance recipients is a difficult issue, but we are tackling it. Special programs for farmers is a difficult issue, but we are tackling it. Older worker displacement is a very difficult issue, but we are tackling it.

Mr. Speaker, the measures this Government has taken and is taking in this Budget provide a sound basis for sustained growth for the rest of this decade.

Canadians can look forward to the future with confidence, Mr. Speaker, a future built on fiscal responsibility, on cooperation and on individual initiative, a future of continued economic growth and prosperity and, most of all, of jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, once again we have had more propaganda from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with respect to what the Government is doing about unemployment. Sure, 580,000 jobs have been created since September, 1984-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: -which, by the way, is far from being a record. Over 600,000 jobs were created when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance, and between the period 1978 and 1982 more jobs were created, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Minister is using those figures over and over again to disregard very serious employment problems. I am not the only one who says so.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of an article, in which she is referred to, in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine. The magazine quotes Edward Carmichael, Senior Policy Analysit for the C.D. Howe Institute, who is saying exactly the same thing I have been saying, that those encouraging employment statistics also veil some severe inequalities that could have very grave implications for the older workers, the parttime and temporary workers and the fact that we have four times as many people unemployed for more than one year than we did in 1981 and twice as many as we had in 1983.
In a poll published last week, 55 per cent of Canadians said they had little or no faith in the employment policies of the present Government. I quote from an editorial in the St. John's Evening Telegram'. "Nothing to cheer about when you still have 1.25 million people unemployed". The Minister is cheering about her job strategy program, but after announcing that program last February in Regina and announcing it again in June, what happened? Because the Minister cannot put the program in place fast enough to do the job, $226 million of her budget has been dropped. She did not even know what she was going to do when she announced the program in June. She has said that it is under way. But let me tell the Minister that 26 projects have been approved in the west end of Montreal and not one is under way at the present time. Not one person is working on a program she announced last June and announced in Regina in February. If the Minister is really serious about unemployment, let us have more than what she has given us.
With respect to part-time work, yes, the trend was recognized under the previous Government. It appointed the Wallace Commission which made recommendations with respect to the problems of part-time work. There is nothing in the Budget and nothing in the Minister's programs to implement the recommendations of the Wallace Commission to provide labour standards for part-time and temporary workers, or to prove pro rata benefits for them so they will be protected like all other workers.
The Canadian public, and it can be seen in the polls, does not appreciate the Minister brushing under the rug real unemployment problems by simply boasting about the total number of jobs created without any reference to the quality, the salaries, benefits and wages associated with those jobs. I would ask the Minister to address those underlying problems in the labour market relating to employment which Canadians want her to address and then I will cheer with her.
I cheer the fact that we have had some jobs created, but it is not enough to ignore those problems by repeating statistics. It will not do any good to the 700,000 young people about which
March 3, 1986

her own Conservative Senator said that something must be done. When she starts giving us answers to those matters, then we will all cheer on all sides of the House.
Mliss MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, throughout the discussion that has taken place with regard to job creation and training, there has been no one who has said more consistently than I that it is not enough. Yes, we are pleased with the fact that
580,000	new jobs have been created in the last 16 months, but it is not enough. That is why we have the Canadian Jobs Strategy and why we are announcing new programs in this Budget, programs for the people who need them most, our older workers and those on social assistance. These initiatives are being taken and I would ask the Hon. Member to study them.
I do want to say that of those 580,000 new jobs, 81 per cent are full time. In the last administration, of the number of jobs created in that four-year period, only 18 per cent were full time. That is a tremendous difference. We are moving in the right direction.
The Hon. Member talks about lapses and not being able to put programs into effect in time. I must tell you, Sir, that lapses are part of the normal Government operation. The Member who was a Minister should recognize that. What he should also recognize is that during the height of the recession, when unemployment was higher in Canada than at any time since the Depression, the Liberal Government lapsed $650 million in the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The Hon. Member also mentioned the long-term unemployed and the fact that their number has increased since 1981. Indeed, I agree with him. It has increased since 1981. But all of that increase took place between 1981 and 1983. The numbers are there for the Hon. Member to see.
Since January 1983, the number of Canadians unemployed for one year or more was then 292,000. In January, 1984, the number was 309,000. In January, 1985, the number dropped to 299,000 and in January, 1986, it again dropped to 245,000. The trend is in the right direction, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I think she has been doing a good job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I hope we are not going to get into a partisan debate back and forth. We all want many more opportunities for Canadians. I would like our target to be full employment. There has been a considerable improvement in the rate of employment, but in my province of British Columbia the situation is still pretty serious.
This is International Women's Week and I know the Minister is very committed to equal opportunity for women. I would like to ask her two or three questions about the Canada Jobs
The Budget-Hon. F. MacDonald
Strategy. I hope she will answer in a way that will help us learn how we can adapt this program considerably more to the needs of women. Figures from the Canadian Congress on Learning Opportunities for Women indicate that the percentage of women enrolled in Government-sponsored training programs has decreased steadily since 1979 during the Liberal regime. In 1984-85 the figure was only 18 per cent, which is still low. Why can we not have a very positive affirmative action program to achieve a 50 per cent rate of women in training programs?
There is concern because the Canadian Jobs Strategy lumps youth and women together in the job entry and re-entry program, although their situations are different. For example, you must have been out of the labour force for three years in order to qualify. That is not adapted to the needs of women who are phased out of federal programs or who are impacted upon by technological changes and need retraining. Why do we not have a separate focus on the special needs of women?
There is also concern that training allowances are at inadequate, low levels which seem to assume that the women have a provider. The levels are simply not adequate for women who are looking for training in their own right and, in many cases, have children to support. I know there has been some increase in subsidies for child care, but there is still concern that the women will not earn enough to live on while supporting kids.
There is also a concern that there is a trend to providing training money for private colleges. The private colleges are really not able to give the same kind of high quality training, and often their tuition rates are higher. Why are we not focussing on beefing up vocational training in public institutions which have been unfairly cut back on?
Those are the questions I have. Why can we not have a 50 per cent target rate for women? Why can we not design the program to better suit women? Why can we not have better training allowances suited to women, particularly those who are heads of families? Why can we not beef up government-subsidized training programs rather than private training institutions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her questions. All of those issues deserve to be very seriously addressed. I will First address the question of whether the ratio of women in job creation and training programs can be 50 per cent.
In the programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy there is now an emphasis on the inclusion of women and minority groups such as disabled persons, native people, and visible minorities. We are seeing some improvement over the six-month period. Difficulty arises in that we have had a number of programs, particularly training programs, built into the system. They are not part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, but are part of the on-going community college training through Manpower training programs, and have been primarily dominated by apprenticeship programs.
Only 4 per cent of the people enrolled in the apprenticeship programs are women. It is basic to everything that we begin to

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Baker
turn that around. In a sense, that is one of the biggest obstacles that must be overcome. I think the figures for the first six months of the Canadian Jobs Strategy program will bear out that we are making progress in that area. However, we have a long way to go in the other areas. I am trying to tackle that and I welcome every bit of support I can get. This often relates to fields in which men have predominantly been given the opportunities, particularly the primary resource industries.
The second question was with regard to job entry and re-entry. These are two quite separate programs. One is for young people and the other is for women coming back into the labour force. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are assessing the Canadian Jobs Strategy as we proceed with it. It may be that those two programs should be separated even more than they are presently, with even more distinct criteria. I do not intend to change that until after the end of the fiscal year. Even now we are going through a reassessment to discover where the weaknesses of the new strategy are. This is not locked into place, carved in stone, or anything of that nature. We know that there will have to be adaptations. Again, I would appreciate suggestions from all Members as to how they think it can be improved.
With regard to the allowances, they have been increased in the last year. We have made it possible for people who are on part-time job creation or training programs to qualify for them. Therefore, we are making improvements. It is again a question of financial resources. We have increased both the training allowances and the dependent care payments, but I know that there is more to be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Minister, but we have exceeded the time allotted for questions and comments. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to conclude her answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would just like to respond to the fourth point which the Hon. Member raised with regard to using private colleges as opposed to public colleges. This issue is now under discussion with the provinces as the time approaches for renewal of the National Training Act agreements which expire at the end of March of this year.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to give the Minister a portion of my time to conclude her remarks because I was hoping to hear something in her remarks that I or other MPs would find useful, or that made some sense. The Minister and the Government claim that they create jobs. In and ad in the evening Telegram in Newfoundland last week the provincial government claimed that it created 8,000 jobs in the past year. Now the federal Government is claiming that it created 6,000 jobs in Newfoundland in the past year. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the unemployment rate has gone up. Canadians are asking where these jobs are that are being created. If all these jobs are being created, surely the number of unemployed
would go down. Our birth rate cannot be increasing that much. People cannot be returning to Newfoundland at the rate of 8,000 a year to take all the new jobs that the Government is creating. The Minister says 7,000 in Newfoundland. The Newfoundland Government is claiming credit for 8,000. That is 15,000 jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: I suspect they are the same jobs.


George Baker: No, no, I would not say that. I trust the word of the federal and provincial Governments. They have created
15,000	jobs. However, nobody knows where the jobs are.


John R. Rodriguez: They are on paper.


George Baker: I guess they are on paper. That is what is wrong with a lot of the remarks just made by the Minister. She reads things on paper and actually believes what she is reading. She says that her great employment program has done such wonderful things. They are training people for jobs which, in most areas of Canada, do not exist. I wonder if the Minister has actually looked at an application form for her Jobs Strategy Program. I am not talking about POWA, RTP, or these other things, I am talking about the job development program. That is where the majority of the funds go in her employment strategy, as she calls it.
When you look at that program, which 1 suppose replaced LIP and the Canada Works Programs, you do see a change. The sponsor now has to apply for a program in which he is to train people for jobs which need filling. However, what do you apply for if you are in Gander Bay, New World Island, Joe Batt's Arm or Virgin Arm, Newfoundland? You have had two phases of the water system put under ground by the job development program of the previous Government. Now you have to apply for a project under this program which trains people for jobs which exist but cannot be filled from the general workforce in the general area. How do you do that if you are digging ditches? You cannot. So all of those projects go by the wayside. How do you apply for a project to finish off your wharf if everyone in the community knows how to construct a wharf? How do you apply for a project to build a building if you have an excessive number of carpenters out of work? You cannot do it. So that the legacy of this Government in Newfoundland will be, as I am sure it will be in other areas of Canada, that we have two phases of a water system in place but never to be finished as long as this Government is in power. Obviously those people living in the areas concerned will want to get this Government out of office in order to get their water systems finished, construct their wharves or build community buildings.
The Minister should also look at the hiring criteria. In order to get a referral for one of her famed job development projects you must have been unemployed for 24 of the previous 30 weeks. Here we go again. We are going to have an affirmative action program here, there, and somewhere else, and in the process the majority of people are disqualified. You have to be unemployed for 24 of the previous 30 weeks. That means
March 3, 1986

someone working for seven weeks in the previous seven months cannot go back to work. If someone is coming back into the workforce, they are not allowed to go to work. A student just coming out of school has not been unemployed for 24 of the previous 30 weeks, according to the Minister's definition where you are registered with the manpower office and actively seeking work. A student is not actively seeking work because the student is a student. So when that person gets out of trade school or vocational school they do not qualify under the major part of this Government's so-called job development program.
Suppose you have a project starting in a community which involves some carpentry work. You have a young man or a woman who just came out of a vocational school or trade college trained as a carpenter. They need some work experience. That person is not allowed to be referred to this job development project. Why? Because that person went to a trades college and learned carpentry work. They were not actively looking for work. It is incredible when you look at it. The most discriminatory program ever announced by the federal Government was announced by this Minister.
The Minister spoke about social assistance in such glowing terms a moment ago. She is going to help people presently on social assistance to find employment. Everyone in this Chamber knows what has been going on over the past 10 or 20 years under the Canada Assistance Plan. We all know about the works programs of the provincial Governments across this country and what they do. In the case of Newfoundland, some $24 million has been dedicated this year to putting those people presently on social assistance back to work. Unfortunately, they put them to work only for as long as it takes to qualify for unemployment insurance. The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) knows exactly what I am talking about. He is perhaps the only person in the Chamber, apart from myself, who really knows what I am talking about.


Mr. Johnson:: You are assuming you do, George.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That is a wild assumption.


George Baker: The unfortunate part of what the Minister has announced is that there are rules and regulations governing those sorts of jobs as well. In other words, must have a dependant in order to get any of these jobs. If the Minister were to stand up and say no, that is not correct, we are going to remove the discrimination from the program and you do not need a dependant in order to go to work, she would then have to go to her office and withdraw the statement tomorrow because the provincial Governments would never agree with it. So we can see the discrimination built into all of these programs, yet the Minister says we are going to put people to work who are now on social assistance. That is quite a problem.
People on social assistance have been going on these work programs for years and years and years, training for jobs for years and years and years. Last year in the Newfoundland budget they were going to put 8,000 people to work under
The Budget-Mr. Baker
social assistance, training them for jobs. This year it is 10,000. Do you know why? Because the 8,000 they put to work before have now run out of their unemployment insurance and they have to put them on another training program. So the numbers go up every single year.
This federal Government turns around and says, "Oh, we are going to spend $100 million now under the Minister's department". Well, all that is doing is taking the money that would have normally been spent under the Canada Assistance Plan, which is 50-50, and putting it under this program, which again is 50-50, $100 million. That is all it is, a direct transfer from the Canada Assistance Plan. The Minister is shaking her head.
I would like to read from the Budget as follows:
It is expected that this program will be successful in reducing the need for federal and provincial social assistance payments under the Canada Assistance Plan by similar amounts.
There it is. The Minister was not aware of that. Let me point out just one additional thing, and then perhaps I will get on to the Budget. The Minister and the Government are, of course, responsible for the insane program whereby they are trying to cut back on unemployment insurance, so they take pension income as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes.


An Hon. Member:: Shameful.


George Baker: An incredible scheme. To see somebody on veteran's allowance-I am glad the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is here in the Chamber today. I am sure the Minister for Veterans Affairs has written to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) objecting to this, just like the Minister of Defence (Mr. Nielsen) did. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has done that. In fact, I am positive he has done it. Of all of the people that this affects, the veterans of this country-Is the Minister saying the veterans are not? Who does the Minister think she is talking to now? This program covers all pensions for which work was done in getting the pension. In other words, if you served overseas and you are on a pension for serving during the war, it is affected by that measure. I know, because I have the cases.
A fellow phoned me up the other day. He said, "George, 1 am getting a one dollar cheque in the mail". I said, "What is that for?" "He said that is for unemployment insurance". "1 am a veteran. I am 63 years of age and I just got a cheque for one dollar. I was supposed to get $250, but I only got a one dollar cheque".


John R. Rodriguez: It costs more to print the cheque.


George Baker: Absolutely right, it costs twice as much to even print the cheque.


An Hon. Member:: Last time he will go Tory.

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Baker


George Baker: Then of course the first week that you qualify for UIC you get a week's unemployment insurance in your first cheque. Then the following cheques you get two weeks at a time. The second and third weeks will come along and he will get a $2 cheque. He will keep getting that $2 as it goes along. What an outrageous thing. If he were a millionaire he would still get his UIC, would he not? It is not a pension that he is collecting. This is the Government and the Minister that take that kind of actions and stand up in this Chamber and say, "Oh, look what we have done". I can assure you of one thing, most Members in this House are going to appeal. I am sure they are going to encourage their constituents to appeal these decisions made by employment and immigration on their cheques. In other words, hopefully we will now have hundreds of appeals for people who are getting $1 a week unemployment insurance.
The Minister and the Government probably do not realize how important an unemployment insurance cheque is. That is the size of it. Do you know that in a great many rural areas of Canada the size of your unemployment insurance cheque is a sign of your social worth? The man that can go in and cash an unemployment insurance cheque that is $280 a week, $550, $600 every two weeks can take some pride in that. In most fishing areas it means that that man really fished and really worked hard. He has a big cheque and brings it to the Post Office to change, as they do in some areas, or to the banks or the local store. Can you imagine what it does to a man to walk in now with a $1 cheque? The case of the fellow I mentioned said he was going to wait for his daughter to come out from St. John's and give her the $1 cheque to bring it back and change it because he was too embarrassed to cash it. I have two minutes left. Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes let me say this, getting back to the Budget. The Government claims there is a problem now. After running up a deficit in this year of $34 billion-we only talk here about billions, we don't talk in millions anymore-they claim there is a problem. After overspending more than any serious Government ever did in the first seven months of office, they now say 17 months later, "We have got a problem". The most glaring example of that is, when this Government took over it took $18 billion a year as payment on the national debt. Now it is $26 billion since the Tories took over. They claim now that there is a big problem; the people are responsible, blame the people. They are saying in this Budget, we are going to go further than that, we are going to punish the people of Canada. We are going to increase their taxes, we are going to cut back on services. We are going to cut back on expenditures and increase taxes. Why? Because they claim they have got a problem. This comes from a Government that wasted $2 billion on a bank bail-out that they could not effect properly. A mistake, a blunder, an error costing $2 billion, and they said: "What's a billion, give or take a billion, who cares". This is a Government that sees the Prime Minister's office staff double in size. It is going to cost $6 million this year to run it. The cost of running the Privy Council office increased by another million this year to $11 million. The Minister's staff increased when
they took over. The Government turns around and says: "We have a problem and therefore we are going to punish the people of Canada". The people of Canada are not going to put up with this much longer.


Mr. Penner:: Bravo!


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


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am compelled to make some comments about the remarks of Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), because I am sure he would not want to leave this House and the people who might be watching on television with false impressions.
I wonder if the ad that I have in my hand is the one that the Hon. Member referred to when he said that the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was taking claim for all the jobs that were created. If he is, I would say that the Hon. Member should apologize to the people here for leaving a false impression. This ad explicitly states that in 1985 the federal and provincial Governments cost-shared a $38.5 million program under Canadian Jobs Strategy. It goes on to say that in the fall of 1985 the federal and provincial Governments cost-shared a $9.5 million emergency fisheries response program. It concludes by saying: "Co-operative action of both orders of Government". TThere is nothing at all about one Government, either federal or provincial. It is both levels of Government because that is the way the Conservative Government works. It consults with the provinces and brings in programs in conjunction with them.
I want to refer very briefly to the fact that unemployment dropped in Newfoundland and Labrador in January of this year at a rate unequalled to that of any other province in Canada. Most of us are astounded that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland-where unemployment is still at a high and unacceptable level-could drop at a time of year when fishing is pretty well at a standstill, except for the deep sea trawlers and not much work is taking place in the logging industry. But that is a fact and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) knows that.
I detect a bitterness in the comments being made in response to the Budget by Hon. Members of the Official Opposition. In 1978, knowing full well they had to do something to curtail deficit spending, they implemented cost cutting programs. In 1979 they were defeated, but they came back in 1980 full of bitterness and began rampant spending from then on. Lots of Canadians did not realize that until the fall of 1984 because of the discussions being carried on with respect to the Constitution. The Liberal Party thought that the National Energy Program would save them but it did not bring in the revenue they expected. All of a sudden the people realized what the Liberal Party was doing with respect to spending and elected a Progressive Conservative Government. We intend to continue our policy to bring down the deficit so that we can have continued economic growth.
March 3, 1986


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what ad the Hon. Member is talking about, but 1 am sure there must be two ads; one Government claiming credit, another Government claiming credit and now both Governments claiming credit for the
8,000	jobs. What I was referring to in my remarks was the fact that the total number of unemployed people in Newfoundland has not decreased. I am not talking about percentages, I am talking about the total number.
As far as the deficit is concerned, the hon. gentleman who just commented is, 1 believe, one of the Hon. Members in this Chamber who would hope that there would be an increase in Government spending in his own riding. I would refer him to the fact that 90 per cent of the entire la dette publique, the public debt of Canada-


John R. Rodriguez: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The hon. gentleman did not know I could speak French.


John R. Rodriguez: You are trilingual, George.


George Baker: What is the problem?


John R. Rodriguez: In French!


George Baker: The problem is this Government! Canadians are not responsible for the problem. No sir.


Mr. Vincent:: No, the Liberals are!


George Baker: The people of Quebec are not responsible for the problem. The people of Manitoba are not responsible for the problem. This Government is responsible for the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Twenty-three per cent of the national debt has been accumulated by this Government in the last sixteen months. That is true. And today, this Government is blaming Canadians. Today, this Government is punishing Canadians.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) must have a bad memory. Let me recount events starting in 1975. It took this country 108 years to accumulate a national debt of approximately $20 billion. In nine short years the Party of which the Hon. Member is a part went on a spending orgy and the debt of this country is now around $200 billion. That would be no problem if we did not have to pay interest, but we do. Canadians are finally realizing the gravity of this situation. Almost 40 per cent of what we take in in revenue must now go to service the debt. Myself and all my colleagues in my Party applaud our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for having the intestinal fortitude to bring forth a Budget which is fair and which gets at the reduction of our deficit year by year.
The Budget-Mr. Chartrand
In the year just ending, our total spending will have grown by 3 per cent versus 3.9 per cent as forecast last May. That is a record in itself. If we eliminated the servicing of debt there would be absolutely no increase in spending. That has not happened in 20 years. So we are clearly on the right track under the leadership of our Minister of Finance, and 1 cannot for the life of me understand why the Hon. Member would turn such a blind eye to the history of which he was an integral part.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I admit that 90 per cent of the total federal debt, the net debt, is about $225 billion. The gross debt, if we add up our guarantees to Crown corporations, and so on, would be another $80 billion or $100 billion. It is interesting to consider when these debts multiplied. Ninety per cent of the total debt was accumulated in the past 10 years. Fifty per cent of the total debt was accumulated in the last four years, and 23 per cent of the total national debt, the net debt, was accumulated since the Tories have been in office. Those are the facts and figures. They are in black and white in the documents of the Minister of Finance. So when I say 23 per cent of the total national debt was accumulated in 17 months of Tory rule I am not wrong, according to the figures of the Minister of Finance. Neither is the hon. gentleman wrong in saying that 90 per cent of the total national debt was accumulated in the past 10 years, and neither is he wrong in saying that half the total national debt was accumulated in the past four years.


Bill Attewell: Who made the commitment?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about commitment. According to the Budget Papers, the greatest single increase in the national debt was accumulated by the present Tory Government since it came to power. It accumulated more debt in a 16-month period than any previous Government ever accumulated. With one correction, the hon. gentleman was correct in saying in his broad overview that $225 billion is not the total national debt. It is more like $350 billion, since one has to take into account loan guarantees, borrowings by Crown corporations and other matters such as that. I would point out to Hon. Members that expenditures in each one of those four categories in terms of the gross national debt went up by over 30 per cent under the Conservative Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand).


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: In many respects, Mr. Speaker, the February 26 Budget tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will long be remembered by Canadians, and it will have a significant impact on the future of our country. Our Government has chosen to steer a new course by resolutely tackling the excessive deficits which had

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Chartrand
been undermining the Canadian economy for a number of years.
As Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul I am proud to be associated with this spectacular reversal in public finance and Canada's economic climate. Since our Government came into office we have witnessed a series of positive economic indications. All told, 580,000 jobs have been created since September 1984, including 129,000 during last January alone. The unemployment rate dropped from 11.7 per cent when we took over down to 9.8 per cent last January, the lowest it has been in four years. The national growth rate, productivity, housing starts and consumer spending were all rising indicators in the past year, a sure sign that there is renewed confidence in Canada's economic prospects. Private sector investments have increased considerably over the last two years and business circles expect this trend will continue.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, our Opposition colleagues would rather not draw attention to these figures, intent as they are on making people believe that our performance so far has been negative. Unfortunately for them, the results can already be felt and Canadians are quite capable of seeing that for themselves.
One might wonder what prompted such a show of confidence in the economic renewal in Canada. The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker.
Right from the start in November 1984 the Minister of Finance outlined our economic strategy and has stuck to that plan ever since. In his economic statement he stressed that the Government would make a concerted effort towards lower deficits and public expenditures, and that it would take appropriate steps to boost employment. The May 1985 Budget and this one are the outcome of that policy, Mr. Speaker. They are part and parcel of a coherent approach which leaves little doubt that our Government will indeed honour its commitments. Last year's real deficit did not exceed the forecasts, an achievement unheard of under previous Liberal administrations.
A Government which keeps its promises and steers in the right direction, that is what explains renewed confidence in the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, our Government's first priority has been job creation and, in that respect, our achievements over the past 16 months went far beyond anything ever done by our predecessors. We have no intention of resting on our laurels. A few months ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, a novel approach concerning the role of Government in job creation. By advocating ever more direct private sector participation, and particularly by promoting skill investment and training, the Government was finally able to stop allocating huge funds to the ad hoc job creation programs of the Liberal administration whose main objective was mainly to achieve a facticious decline in unemployment levels. When it
comes to job creation, Mr. Speaker, our Government has been able to set new trends.
Like the rest of Canadians, the residents of Verdun-Saint-Paul had been asking for a sensible and efficient job-creation program.
Those among my constituents who have the misfortune of being unemployed can now rely on a well designed and functional program to help them find a job. In addition, the Minister of Finance has shown the commitment of our Government to its employment strategy by injecting $800 million more in this program for 1987-88.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the small business sector is the one which creates the most jobs in Canada, and this is especially true in Quebec and my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul. That is why our Government has taken the necessary action to encourage job creation as much as possible in this vital sector. The Minister of Finance has announced a 2 per cent decrease in the taxation rate for small businesses. The ceiling for loans available to these businesses will increase from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. The $500,000 capital gains exemption should also encourage many people to invest in small businesses, which will create new jobs.
The Government is therefore addressing the problems in the small business sector as in many other areas.
One group of Canadian men and women will receive particular attention from our Government, namely that of welfare recipients. We see it as our duty to improve their lot, and it is in this context that the Government recently signed an agreement with the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan. The Government will invest $100 million a year to provide welfare recipients with a valid alternative and the possibility of finding productive employment. Equal amounts will be paid into the program by the provinces, which shows the extent to which harmony between Government levels is possible in a context of national reconciliation.
Another group to which the Government wants to provide special assistance is that of older workers. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased by this initiative since my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul includes many such workers. This is a very vulnerable group, because when they lose their jobs, their lack of adequate training makes it very difficult for them to find other employment elsewhere. To remedy the situation, the Government has set up a new Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Once more, Mr. Speaker, this initiative will be made possible under agreements signed with the provinces. The Government will spend up to $125 million under this new program during the next four years. Thanks to the consultations between the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and the provinces, as well as labour and business representatives, this program will be adapted to the real needs of our older workers faced with a constantly changing labour market.
March 3, 1986

Mr. Speaker, in spite of all these employment initiatives, the Government has not forgotten its obligations as far as the most disadvantages in our society are concerned. I am thinking for instance about senior citizens and low income families. Already last year, widows and widowers aged between 60 and 64 began to receive the spouse allowance. This is important for these people. The amount involved can often make the difference between financial difficulties and worry-free life. We are proud to have introduced this legislation.
The Government has also shown in this budget its determination to improve the situation of low income families. The child tax credit, which amounts to $384 per child in 1985, will increase to $524 by 1988. In addition, families will receive a prepayment of $300 per child so that they will not have to seek the services of tax discounters. Such measures are important for low income families. There are many such families in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and I am happy to see that, in spite of the sacrifices required from all Canadians this Budget provides mechanisms to help those most in need.
These are not the only initiatives of the Government, far from it. A federal sales tax credit will also be provided for families with a net income under $15,000. For a family with two children, this credit will amount to $150, which will fully compensate the few dollars they will have lost because of the additional taxes collected from all Canadians to reduce the deficit.
Veterans and their surviving spouses have not been forgotten either. Their benefits have been improved and they are now treated more efficiently and generously than before. The Government has also decided to provide further assistance to the handicapped by adding $250 to the existing tax deduction, raising it to $2,860. In doing so it has recognized its responsibility towards the most unfortunate in our society.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want to maintain this country's social programs which are among the most modern and the most generous in the world. However, the shocking increase in the deficit during the last years of the Liberal government has imperilled the very existence of these programs for future generations. With the national debt that is growing three times as fast as the national economy, it is imperative to put our public finances on a sound basis. We must provide old age security benefits for the elderly in Canada. In fact, it is largely to guarantee the survival of our institutions that the Government has tried to remedy the situation by bringing down a responsible Budget that will go down in history as a Budget that pursued the objectives of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to join in the Budget debate I would like to state first that I feel that the sins of this Budget that will be visited
The Budget-Mr. Parry
upon the people of Canada are, in large measure, not sins of commission but sins of omission. I would like to say right off the bat that if ever we saw a Budget in which the benefits were almost all flawed and the flaws almost totally without benefit, it is this Budget that meets those sad and lamentable criteria.
There are measures in this Budget of which 1 and my Party can approve, but they are measures, almost without exception, that have drawbacks which will greatly blunt their usefulness, not only in pursuing legitimate economic objectives for Canadians but more particularly in the way in which they will affect and in some cases not affect individual Canadian families.
I would like to begin by looking at the sales tax credit the Government has proposed to introduce. I do this because I believe that if one cannot say something good about something, one really should not say anything at all. The sales tax credit is a worth-while idea. After all, it is an idea that has existed in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and others for some time now, in fact for over a decade in the case of Ontario. I do believe it is right to have some degree of support for those low-income families who, by virtue of taxes which are imposed upon consumption, are paying a far higher proportion of their disposable income on sales taxes than is the case for people who are fortunate enough to have higher revenues.
We see this sales tax credit as being a legitimate measure. We see the gearing of the sales tax credit to family size as being legitimate and indeed even praiseworthy. However, in so saying I must make the comment that others have made, that the cutoff level for the sales tax credit is niggardly and one that does not reflect the realities of poverty in Canada today. It does not reflect the level at which families can be poor in Canada. Such are the costs of living either in large urban centres or in remote northern communities that there are many people who will not benefit from this sales tax credit but who can legitimately and fairly be classified as poor in terms of their incomes and outflows, their lifestyles and their very limited ability to choose the way they spend their incomes.
I would like to read from an excellent local newspaper, The Citizen of Ottawa-


John Barry Turner: Hah, it's a Grit paper.


John Edmund Parry: The article states that this last Budget's implicit presumption, for example, that $15,000 is a poverty cut-off line for a family of four, has some observers deeply worried.
I understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) is dissatisfied with the newspaper, perhaps because it is not backing his latest campaign.


John Barry Turner: Tell the truth. Save the Circle.


John Edmund Parry: The article goes on to quote a spokesman for the social policy reform group who says that the Government is setting the poverty line between $15,000 and $18,000 and that that is about 75 per cent of the real poverty line for families with children. That, I think, is a perfectly legitimate criticism

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Parry
of this sales tax credit, and it illustrates the way in which the Government is giving with one hand to those who need it and taking with the other from a large proportion of those who do in fact need it as well.
I think it is a good measure to introduce a prepayment of the child tax credit. We have already, I believe, put a stop to most of the abuses of the income tax system and the delays to which refunds were subjected, but I think this is another measure that is worth while, the increase in the child tax credit similarly so.
I can support the introduction of an investment tax credit for Atlantic Canada, but I would like to ask the Government if it has ever heard of British Columbia, and if it is aware that the unemployment levels in many centres in British Columbia are higher than comparable centres in Atlantic Canada. As well, there are communities in other parts of the country, including the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, where there is localized unemployment, and by localized I mean that there is unemployment in one particular job market in a community from which people cannot travel hundreds of miles on a daily basis to get to work. I would like to ask the Government why it is not tailoring this tax credit to the needs right across the country rather than concentrating on a particular region.
The elimination of minor deferrals of tax such as those on investment tax credits, the elimination of deferrals on salary compensation and the elimination of the rather farcical situation in which it was possible for those who married on December 30 to claim one spouse as a deduction for the entire year, are not measures that I or my Party would criticize. Similarly, the reduction of the small business tax is not something we would criticize. Again, they are not meas"res worthy of widespread condemnation, but they are indicative of a misunderstanding on the part of the Government of the true objectives of a Budget, and more particularly of what small business in this country needs.
The problem facing small business has been described time and again, and I am surprised the Government, with the great lip service it pays, has not yet gotten the message. The difficulty is in starting small businesses and getting them off the ground. It is not the profitable small businesses that need this sort of incentive or assistance, but those having difficulty getting on a profitable basis. I am surprised the Government does not realize that.
There will be funds for the adjustment of older workers to employment and funds for people to make the very difficult transition, as it often is, particularly for single-parent families headed by women, from the home to the workplace. If these measures are put into effect in a humane and practical way, and not in the kick-them-in-the-rear-end fashion that the unlamented Social Credit Government of British Columbia as it styles itself has tried to use, these could be beneficial, as could be the farm assistance, the Atlantic Enterprises and the housing deductions for people in isolated posts and northern communities.
However, in this area the Government has thrown a cat among the pigeons. Apparently it does not know yet which
isolated posts it is talking about, and that is something that needs clarification. Flexibility in Registered Retirement Savings Plans is something that has been requested for a number of years. The cutoff at the age of 71 was not something that was practical or fair.
It may come as a surprise or shock to some of the people who have been travelling around the country over the weekend to hear this, but I am not even going to criticize the publicity strategy the Government is using in relation to the Budget. I think Government Members have the right, if they truly believe in the Budget that has been tabled, to sell it to different parts of the country. I think they even have the right to talk to their local media rather than the national media. I think it is not a bad idea for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to go to Kitchener, Ontario, to talk about his Budget. However, I do not like what I hear after all the advanced preparation, intelligence and application of human and financial resources which went into preparing Government Members so they could go out to sell and defend the Government.
[ Translation]
Then a Member comes into the House and reads his speech from beginning to end. That, Mr. Speaker, is a shame. If a Government Member is so convinced that it is a good Budget he should be smart enough to defend it without reading a speech which he has learned by heart and which was probably drafted in the office of the Minister of Finance.

If they cannot defend it without notes, 1 wonder what they are doing defending it at all.
I should like to turn to the real objectives of the Budget as I see them. We know that the 1985 Budget was tailored to the satisfaction of the demands of Bay Street. In 1986, the Government added Wall Street to the itinerary and tailored the Budget to the demands of Wall Street and Bay Street. There was a magic number. The Government was aiming to get the deficit down below $30 billion, which has been done on the backs of Canadian people. The Government did not do it by eliminating tax breaks, introducing fairness into the system or by going through expenditures and pruning out those which were inefficient. It did it by blanket cuts, and on the backs of ordinary Canadians. It has done it while preserving almost all tax breaks or incentives. It does not matter what one calls them, they are there and the people who are getting them know what they are. They are breaks designed to help wealthy taxpayers minimize their tax commitment or exposure. Again it does not matter what one calls them. They know that they are being helped by the Budget.
What has been substituted? It is principally a raid on the purses of middle-income groups. We have come up with a figure. Since the Government came to power, the average Canadian family in the middle-income range is paying an extra $1,305 in tax to the Government. It is a telling criticism
March 3, 1986

of the objectives of the Government and the way in which it has pursued them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the measures introduced last Friday can indeed be called a Budget. My answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
A Budget must include an over-all economic strategy, not only a tax strategy, and that is all we got from the Government.
Mr. Speaker, a Budget in the 80s must set targets in terms of job creation and in terms of unemployment levels acceptable to the Government, which is more than the forecasts we got. Forecasts are useful of course, but regardless of the Government or Party in office the Budget has to give a clear indication of what the Government is aiming for.
That is exactly what is missing in this Budget, Mr. Speaker. There is no reference to employment or to an economic strategy, and of course there can be no such strategy without public support. Obviously that is another missing element of this Budget.
Mr. Speaker, let us take the British Government as an example.

The Thatcher Government, which over the years has had the support of business and the financial community, has driven up the level of unemployment in that sadly afflicted country. At the same time it has not met its fiscal projections.
We should be asking why our Government does not have popular support in the Budget. Obviously the Government is loading the burden on the individual. Individual taxes will increase four times faster than corporate taxes this year. By 1990, those taxes will have increased 10 times over the increase in corporate taxes-$2.9 billion compared with $295 million. It is scandalous. The Government is pursuing the Liberal policy of shifting the tax burden from corporations to individuals. In fact, if we include last year's tax changes, individuals will be paying $7 billion more in personal and sales taxes, while corporations will be paying $75 million less.
Another reason the Budget will not have the support of the people is that there are no unemployment rate targets, as I have said. The Government is proud of what it believes is its record, a reduction of .8 per cent in the unemployment rate between 1984 and 1985. Frankly, the Budget shows that the Government is taking advantage of the economic recovery and of job creation in the private sector which have little or nothing to do with the measures taken by it. It is relying on the private sector to create jobs and is cynically cutting back in job creation and the types of measures that would lead to a reduction of 2.5 points in unemployment this year, which is what we in the New Democratic Party believe it should be.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) spoke about a developing consensus. Indeed there is a developing consensus. It
The Budget-Mr. Parry
is that the tax system is unfair, and nine out of ten Canadians said that in the Gallup poll.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is indeed a callous Budget. It is a fact that Canadian men and women wanted employment to be a priority. By shifting that responsibility over to the private sector the Government is taking a laissez-faire approach rather than showing leadership. Obviously a 6.5 per cent decrease this year and next year is not good enough. The Budget slashes roughly $200 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, the very program which the Government was bragging about and advocating as being the solution to unemployment in Canada. What a shame, what a let-down, Mr. Speaker!

What should this great attack on the deficit have done? The deficit was cut in the Budget to $29.5 billion. Why? It was largely because the voices to whom the Government listened demanded that it should be cut.
I should like to spend a moment or two on the matter of the deficit. While I acknowledge that it is indeed a problem, one which has to be controlled in the long term, it is not a problem which should be solved on the backs of the people of Canada. We know that unemployment insurance is putting a heavy drain on the public purse, but we know as well that it is because the strategies which are being used are not tailored to the objectives. Incidentally, the Government's anti-inflation strategy has produced the highest real interest rates in the history of the country. It is missing the mark, and that it why the deficit is going up.
What should have happened if the Government had been correct in the way it was attacking the deficit and if the deficit was really the prime preoccupation? Of course the financial markets should have manifested their confidence in the leadership of the Government of Canada, with the value of the Canadian dollar rising and with interest rates going down. These are the signs of confidence. Instead, the fact is that the dollar has gone down and the interest rates are staying up. That is happening not only because the international financial community and the Canadian financial community realize that the Government has gone overboard, but because the Government is also basing its Budget on false assumptions. That is a very serious charge, and I would not lay it if I did not believe it. It is a charge to which the Government must put up a defence, not send out its Members in massed ranks with pre-canned speeches for simple regurgitation in front of the House, which does no credit to them or to the House of Commons.


John Barry Turner: Tell the truth.


John Edmund Parry: I am telling the truth, and that Hon. Member had better get his place on the list so that he can answer some of these charges. Predicating the oil price $22.50 per barrel when it is presently sitting in the $15-$ 16 range is misleading the Canadian public. We know that the Budget measures

March 3, 1986
mean that for every dollar the price of oil stays below $22.50, the Government will lose $200 million. This means that there will perhaps be a budgetary shortfall of $1 billion to $1.5 billion which will turn up next year and which the Government will try not to explain. Similarly it is predicated upon the assumption that the interest rate will be at 9.5 per cent, which again is unrealistic at a time when it is 12.5 per cent. What we really have is a degree of fraudulence in the Budget. Canadian people are being misled, not only by the measures which constitute an attack on them, but also by the fact that the Budget predictions and projections are not founded on sound information.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your tolerance, and 1 thank the House for the time. There is much more 1 should like to say, and I hope to say it when Hon. Members on the other side rise and question me when the House reconvenes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week I drew your attention to the fact that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) wants to censure his officials in their contacts with the public. The Minister says that in the past officials made public statements outside their area of expertise and caused public confusion.
Today I would like to put fully on record the case where one of Canada's leading experts on toxic chemicals, an employee of Environment Canada, spoke about toxic chemical contamination to which we, as a society, are subjected. The Minister disowned this official.
Shortly after the Minister's remarks, the Royal Society released a report which called the Great Lakes the most contaminated body of water in North America, confirming many of the official's earlier remarks.
The inevitable conclusion is that it is the Minister who is speaking outside his area of expertise. Perhaps he should be muzzled for his own safety.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today we begin International Women's Week. I stress the international dimension of this week and the opportunity it affords to assess the condition of women at home and around the world.
The Nairobi Conference, in calling for increased development assistance for women, recognized the key role women play in Third World economies. Canada endorsed the Nairobi recommendations, yet the Government, which had already abandoned the UN goal of 1 per cent of GNP for development assistance, has now abandoned its own goal of 0.7 per cent by 1990 and replaced it with a "well, maybe" 0.6 per cent by 1995.
Cuts to Canada's commetment to development assistance, cuts that will most severely impact on women in the Third World, are nothing short of shameful.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, we in the riding of Kent are preparing to fight the highest lake water levels ever this spring.
We are not condemning Departments of Government for the high water, or other members of society, nor are we condemning God for excessive rainfall and low evaporative conditions, but we continue to wonder if the International Joint Commission would implement all the insignificant decisions that are available to man, such as allowing 4,000 cubit feet per second of water to flow normally north into James Bay; and negotiating a temporary increase of another 4,000 cubic feet of water per second into the Chicago sewage diversion. If another 4,000 cubic feet per second were allowed to move over Niagara Falls by lowering the Grass Island Pool, and perhaps another 2,000 or 3,000 cubic feet per second through the Welland Canal, we wonder if this, totalled together, would amount to something significant to give even a little relief during these temporary times of high lake levels.
We must consider every possibility, no matter how insignificant, to attempt to bring Lake Erie levels down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
March 3, 1986



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today about a very troubling aspect of unemployment insurance.
Last week we heard to our astonishment that unemployment insurance investigators had discovered an insurance fraud of $800,000. It is a fact that cases of unemployment insurance fraud are being discovered almost daily. We have been told that more than $3 billion is lost annually in this way.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask the Government to give the Forget Commission the authority to investigate fraud-a mandate it does not have at this time-in order to give the Commission the kind of access it needs to get at the very root of this problem. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Commission of Inquiry be given the necessary tools to re-organizate the Unemployment Insurance system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The 60 seconds are up.



DECLINE IN PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-IMPACT ON EAST COAST PROJECTS

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has estimated in its Budget that oil prices will be $22.50 In reality, the price of West Texas intermediate crude is now $13.26 U.S. That is the price on which Canadian crude oil prices are based. The Government of Canada was warned when it cancelled the PIP that it was going to destroy exploration and production in the offshore, in the Beaufort Sea, and to some extent, given the current fiscal regime, in the tar sands. That is becoming a reality.
On the weekend a report by Deacon Hodgson of Calgary and Toronto estimated that the industry will lose $9 billion in revenues this year and it will be impossible to find the money in the current fiscal regime for the tar sands or the offshore. I want to bring to the Government's attention the fact that it has destroyed the best chance for regional economic development in Atlantic Canada, by killing Hibernia and destroying the offshore of Nova Scotia. I ask the Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to give these important projects in Atlantic Canada a chance for life.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has taken exception to NDP estimates of the tax hikes his Budgets have imposed on the average family of four. Mr. Speaker, we used conservative estimates. A 3 per cent increase in federal sales tax adds $450, higher taxes on oil and gas add $250, higher personal taxes add $385, higher UI premiums and lower family allowance payments add $125, and higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes add $95 over the three Budgets.
I do not know how much the Conservative Budgets have cost hard-drinking, heavy-smoking, coast-to-coast truck drivers. I doubt if there are any left to ask as they have probably all gone bankrupt.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Saskatchewan marked its tenth annual Kinsmen Telemiracle. For the second year in a row this 20-hour television extravaganza raised over $2 million for the benefit of disabled residents of Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan residents have long been recognized for donating more on a per capita basis to support world-wide relief programs, but this latest outpouring gives credence to the old adage that charity begins at home. We have long recognized the important contribution of the Kinsmen association, but I would also like to acknowledge and salute the people of my home province who, in spite of tough economic times, recognize the need for continuing support of this very worth-while project.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to listen to what the regions have to say about the latest Budget.
The day after the Budget Speech, local television and radio stations commented as follows and I quote: "The Wilson Budget will not harm the regional economy but will have a positive impact."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this Budget will have a positive impact on the economy of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, since each economic sector stands to benefit from the concrete and effective measures it contains.

March 3, 1986
For the mining industry, tax benefits that are essential to investment have been maintained. For the agricultural sector, a financing plan is being introduced that takes into account the income volatility in this sector. Finally, as a result of the tax incentives in this Budget, the small business sector, which plays such an important role in creating jobs, will benefit from increased investment by Canadians and see its tax rate drop from 15 to 13 per cent.
Another factor of particular relevance is that the tax on gas was not increased, a fact much appreciated in remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of reception this Budget received from the regions, which found it to be a balanced and responsible Budget.



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment tragically affects the lives of far too many Canadians each and every year. Those hit hardest by work shortages are men and women over the age of 40 who have families and loved ones to care for. Fortunately, thanks to the progressive policies of the Government, these people have new hope.
Together with promoting a healthy economy that led to the creation of over 40,000 jobs for older workers last year, the Government announced in last week's Budget a new, innovative program to help older unemployed people find work. The $125 million Program for Older Worker Adjustment will provide immediate assistance to older Canadians who find themselves out of work because of plant closures and lay-offs. The Program for Older Worker Adjustment is further evidence of the Government's commitment to providing caring and responsive social assistance to those who need it most.


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



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, no Canadian automobile manufacturer offers a windshield washer reservoir of capacity equal to our winter's combination of slush and salt. The present reservoirs seem designed for winter somewhere between Atlanta and Sacramento. Why can't Canadian manufacturers offer a large reservoir, equipped with a gauge as an option? In normal snowy conditions one cannot drive from Toronto to Montreal without filling up the reservoir at least once.
As well, why does the washer fluid sold in Canada, and marked on the container "good to 40 degrees below zero", freeze into an impenetrable glaze on a cold windshield?
The Canadian consumer is paying up to $3 for a four-litre container of this stuff and it is sometimes even more expensive than even gasoline, if that is possible. Yet it is largely coloured water. How many accidents have been caused by our automobiles being equipped for someone else's winters? Why can't we have standards from the Department of Transport or-


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



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and provincial Ministers of Culture are meeting today and tomorrow in Montreal on a number of critical questions for Canadian cultural independence. Film production and distribution, and publishing, are the most urgent matters and both require federal-provincial co-operation if Canada is to have a mature and truly distinctive culture.
The provincial Ministers have grudges that Telefilm Canada money is not easily available outside Montreal and Toronto, and access must be assured. However, no amount of increased production of Canadian films will be worth the trouble if Canadians do not get a chance to see them, and distribution is a provincial matter.
I urge the provincial Ministers to act promptly and vigorously on the recommendations of the task force on film distribution. The provincial Departments of Education have a strategic role to play through their purchasing policies as well. They must say no to retreads posing as Canadian content with a few Canadian pages slapped on. The publishers must support real Canadian content, with authors producing their work here. Again 1 call on the provincial Ministers to be energetic-


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



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, once again Canadian men and women are being threatened by a strike at Canada Post. The Letter Carriers Union says it has been without a contract for two months and has threatened to go off the job if no agreement is reached on wage conditions and job security.
March 3, 1986

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are sick and tired of paying for the corporation's bad management. They are sick and tired of paying for abnormally high absenteeism among its employees. My constituents in Saint-Colomban, for instance, fail to understand why they cannot have a decent Post Office, since as taxpayers they are paying the bill for this mismanagement.
In his February Budget, the Minister of Finance clearly demonstrated that the Conservative Government is determined to deal with this problem. Canada Post is to prepare a new operational plan that will increase productivity and efficiency and improve the reliability of its service.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all Canadian taxpayers are prepared to support this Government and not give if there is a strike by the letter carriers, who in any case ought to prove they are efficient before making strike threats.



THE BUDGET


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, at last we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who believes it is time to pay our bills and stop borrowing to pay for excessive spending. The country has been awash in red ink for the past decade. Prior to 1975 Canada's fiscal structure was one of the soundest and best managed in the industrial world. Reckless spending by the previous Liberal Government made it one of the weakest. Now we have a Minister of Finance who is implementing financial restraint.
Runaway spending has been brought to an abrupt halt. Total spending for the year ending March 31, 1986, will increase by less than 3 per cent, well below the 3.9 per cent forecast last May. Excluding interest payments, there will have been a zero increase in spending this year, a remarkable achievement. Canadians know the Minister is on the right track, and they will give him unstinting support.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday I drew to the attention of the House the substantial cuts made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the regional economic development spending envelope. However, when one looks more closely at the various cuts to the various Departments contained within this envelope, it becomes more disturbing.
Seven programs in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been cut, and the cuts are somewhat staggering. For the IRDP the cut is 80.74 per cent. Under the heading
Oral Questions
"Transfers and Contributions" it is 34.3 per cent. Under the Defence Industry Productivity Program it is 5.8 per cent. Under the Shipbuilding Industry Program, it is 17.4 per cent. Under contributions to non-profit and commercial operations in support of tourism there is a 17.6 per cent cut. Native people in this country have received a 48 per cent cut. It is very clear and very evident that the Government is not concerned with regional economic development anywhere in the country, whether it be British Columbia or Atlantic Canada.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE NEA DEMOKRATIA PARTY OF GREECE

Mr. Speaker:: May I advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Constantin Mitsotakis, President of the Nea Demokratia Party of Greece.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF LABOUR FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Speaker:: May 1 also advise Members of the presence of the Hon. Joe Mombourquette, Minister of Labour from the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in the House the Minister of Finance virtually admitted that his assumptions of oil prices and interest rates had been made because of printing requirements and did not reflect reality. My question to him is due to the fact that the projections on oil prices and interest rates are out of date and do not accord with reality. Would he be willing to table in this House more accurate up-to-date projections so that we would have a better grasp of the real deficit and other projections of the Budget in current terms, so that the country would have a more up-to-date picture?


John Edward Broadbent: Don't hold your breath, John.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me advise the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the year has not started. It starts in about four weeks'

March 3, 1986
Oral Questions
time. Second, Michel Belanger, the Chairman of the National Bank of Canada, who probably knows quite a bit more about interest rates than the Hon. Member behind the Leader of the Opposition, said in an interview over the weekend:
Short-term interest rates at 9.5 per cent struck me as being realistic.
As far as the oil price assumption is concerned, I commented on that last week. I said that there would be an immediate downward impact on revenues from oil and gas companies, but an upward impact as the effects of this were felt through the economy, and the balance was slightly in favour of increased revenues for the Government of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Nice dream, Michael.


John Napier Turner: I wonder whether the Minister will be able to give us an up-to-date quotation from Mr. Yamani of Saud, Arabia on his oil projections.
[ Translation]


DIVISION OF FISCAL BURDEN
John Napier Turner: In
his two consecutive Budgets, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has cumulatively increased by 27 per cent the tax load to be carried over the next four years by the average family earning $15,000 a year, whereas over the same four years a family with an annual income of $200,000 will pay only 2 per cent more in taxes. In the opinion of the Minister, is that a fair way to distribute the tax load so as to control the public debt?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the Member's attention to a document that is called Social Justice, A Record of Achievement. This is the record of achievement of this Government in introducing fair social justice measures in this Budget, and in previous Budgets, in order to provide people, particularly low-income Canadians, with some of the assistance they need. There is the change put forward of increasing the child tax credit-


Mr. Orlikow:: They don't believe it for a second.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the acceleration of the child tax credit payment; the refundable sales tax increase that was introduced in this Budget; the direction-


David Orlikow: They know you are not telling the truth.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -of $100 million to help those Canadians who are on social welfare get back into the job force. These are fair measures that have been introduced in this Budget. These are fair measures of which this Government is very proud.


REFUNDABLE SALES TAX CREDIT
John Napier Turner: 1
think the House is beginning to take note-and 1 am sure the
country is-that the new style of the Government in responding to any questions in this House is not to respond to the question but to come up with a prepared line having very little relevance to the particular question posed. My final question- that is just a remark, Mr. Speaker, to allow you to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Just a question, please.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my third question to the Minister of Finance is this. Why do not all Canadians below the poverty line get the $50 sales tax credit while everybody who is eligible for a capital gain gets a $500,000 exemption, which is a $125,000 lifetime bonus?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I
have made it quite clear that the refundable sales tax credit is a model on which we wish to build in future Budgets. We have chosen the $15,000 threshold as being a reasonable level which we should introduce and gain some experience from it, and from there build in future Budgets.
Let me comment here from "In search of Robinhood", which states: "Most of Mr. Turner's Budgets did not maintain relative income positions-".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Order.


Mr. Ouellet:: Irrelevant. Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: "-They benefited highest income families and our lower middle-income-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to me that the economic fallout from the Budget of our Minister is disastrous.
So what is he going to do today, tomorrow and this week to strengthen our dollar which is still very weak, even at 2 o'clock this afternoon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of commentators from the Canadian private sector who have indicated in a very forthright way the support they have for this Budget, that we are on the right track, we are getting the deficit down, we are setting the stage for lower interest rates. We have a record of performance in the creation of 580,000 jobs which shows that this Government's policy, in its comprehensive form, is doing the job of getting the country out of the doldrums it was in under the previous Government, and moving on to greater heights. That
[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
March 3, 1986
[Stage Direction]
is the direction of this Government and we are going to continue along those lines.
Donald James Johnston: It would be good to get at least one answer
this afternoon.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Donald James Johnston: Let
me try again, simply, without any preamble. The Minister remembers that he led us to believe that everyone-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: No.


An Hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have a large number of Canadians who have been quoted as saying they support this. Yes, there is a tough message. I have never denied that there is a tough message here.


John Edward Broadbent: That's not the question. Deal with the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that not a preamble?


Donald James Johnston: Well, I suppose it might be considered as such. Will the Minister agree with the statement he made in this House just several weeks ago that interest rates would fall immediately after his Budget? And will he assure Canadians who are suffering from these crushing taxes that their suffering will not be compounded by a further increase in interest rates this week, and that we will start to see the fall in interest rates which he promised?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric used by the Hon. Member indescribing these taxes as "crushing taxes" is totally inappropriate. Let me read from the Hon. Member's Bible, the Toronto Star: "A key message in Wilson's Budget was that if we want these programs, we're going to have to pay for them. That is not unreasonable". That is the message of this Budget. We have to get back to a little bit of fiscal sanity.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The message that Canadians understand, and the message which they support, is that this is a necessary Budget. It is a Budget which is necessary to get on top of the problems we have been left with-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It's unfair.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and it is a Budget which is going to get this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer is becoming a speech.

[DOT] (M25)


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gauthier:: Come on, Mike. Just table the document.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is something which the previous Government did not understand. It is something we understand, and something which Canadians understand.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have my doubts about that.


THE BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The average taxpayers do not like the Budget and foreign investors have also turned thumbs down on the Budget. The dollar fell again today.
My question to the Minister is very simple: Would he tell the House of Commons who has condidence in this Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are a wide range of Canadians who have been quoted- could 1 read, Mr. Speaker, from a number of-


OFFSHORE INVESTMENT BY CANADIANS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the average Canadian certainly does not like it, and whatever businessmen may be saying to the Minister they are doing something else with their dollars-they are investing them outside the country. The Minister should be aware of that.
Considering that the figures released by Statistics Canada on Friday show that last year there was a net investment abroad by Canadians of $4.9 billion, which is a 20 per cent increase, or a worsening of the situation over the year before, will the Minister acknowledge that these long-range investors are expressing non-confidence in the Government's economic policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that creates jobs, that is, investment- investment in new facilities and investment in new equipment. Some 580,000 jobs have been created since September, 1984. The Hon. Member surely understands that the reason these jobs have been created is because of the massive investment that has taken place during this period of time-investment that has been related to the increasing confidence of Canadians in the policies of the Government.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 3, 1986
Oral Questions


SIZE OF OFFSHORE INVESTMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the Minister actually answered questions. 1 wish he would return to that practice.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I just answered the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that there was a 12 per cent increase of investment in Canada in the past year, and an outflow increase of 29 per cent, will the Minister be candid with the House and acknowledge that it is the outflow investment increase of 29 per cent-or $4.9 billion-which is the main structural problem with the Canadian economy? Speculators understand that, which is why they are investing abroad instead of in Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying which states that statistics can lie-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: They're your statistics, your figures, fella!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're the expert, Michael.


John R. Rodriguez: You're really original, Mike!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please? Will the Hon. Minister complete his answer briefly, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Hon. Member a very brief answer.
The Hon. Member has displayed great adeptness over the months at being able to fiddle around with apples-and-oranges comparisons.


John Edward Broadbent: They're your figures!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He is using my figures, yes. But he is twisting them around in the most distorted way I have ever seen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance would be interested in some statistics which do not lie. The price of west Texas intermediate crude, on which Canadian oil prices are based, has dropped to $13,26 U.S. a barrel. Canada earns more than $7 billion selling oil to the U.S. What will be the cost to the Canadian Treasury, and the effect on the Minister's projected deficit, given that the Budget's projection of $22.50 U.S. a barrel is totally and wildly inaccurate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the fifth time this question has been asked.


John Napier Turner: The price goes down every day.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The very wise Leader of the Opposition is saying that the price goes down every day. What does that do to the economy, he asks.


John Napier Turner: What does that do to your projections?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will tell the Hon. Member what it does to the economy. It increases the spending power of Canadians. It increases the competitiveness of Canadian industry. That creates economic growth, which generates a great deal of revenue for the federal Treasury, revenue which will offset the drop in the price of oil. So there is a two-way street here and, as I have said on many occasions, there is a balance which is slightly in favour of the Treasury of Canada as it relates to taxes.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and answers are becoming longer. Just a question, please.


EFFECT ON OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance agree with the assessment of Deacon Hodgson that Canada's oil and gas industry will lose $9.1 billion in revenue this year and that financing for tar sands of offshore development will be impossible to acquire under the current fiscal regime? Can the Minister give us an answer for a change, rather than rhetoric?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to answer the questions of the Hon. Member on many occasions. I say to him again: Yes, there are some negatives as a result of the price of oil. I have never denied that. With his very blinkered-like approach to the subject, the Hon. Member ignores the benefits of lower oil prices. Could he answer this question for Canadians who are watching? Why is it that members of his Party have been pressing for lower oil prices? The big reason is because lower oil prices benefit consumers. It will give them more money to spend on other things that will generate economic activity and will generate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister
March 3, 1986

of Finance deny that the 1985 net outflow of investment capital was $4.9 billion and that this outflow detrimentally affects the value of the Canadian dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a note here which indicates that net long-term capital outflow is a plus, or an inflow of $400 million, and net short term is plus $1.1 billion. That amounts to $1.5 billion in total inflow.


STATISTICS CANADA FIGURES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister to require of his officials that they review the Statistics Canada figures released on Friday last because those Figures clearly show a net outflow of investment capital in 1985 of $4.9 billion? When the Minister Finds out that we are telling the truth, will he at least accept that our numbers are accurate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did make a mistake. The net long-term capital inflow was $3.9 billion, the net short-term capital inflow was $700 million, making a net inflow of $4.6 billion, not the $1.5 billion that I thought it was.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. How can the Minister claim in his Budget that the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program is a great success when the budget of that program has lapsed $226 million? Here is a program which was first announced last February, and then last June. The reason given for the lapses was that component parts of the program were not ready. What kind of success is that?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to respond by talking about the success of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. In six months alone, some 14,000 projects are now under way, involving thousands and thousands of Canadians. The Hon. Member asked about lapses. Lapses have occurred over the years, and at the height of the recession, at the very time when unemployment was at its highest since the Great Depression, the Liberal Government lapsed more than $650 million.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the ques-
Oral Questions
tion. The reason given by officials in her own Department was that the programs lapsed because they were not ready.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question.


William Warren Allmand: I will be willing to enter into a debate with her about what happened a few years ago, at any time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now, please.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, how can the Miniser rely on a program that is only half finished to help the 700,000 youth unemployed described by the Senate as a new lost generation? My figures indicate that this program has only created 26,000 jobs since last June, and that is no record at all. How can that help those 700,000 young unemployed?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the programs under the Department of Employment and Immigration are particularly directed toward young people. There is the Challenge '86 Program for the summer. There is the Job-Entry Program throughout the year. In total, with all programs from this Department, some $700 million has been directed this year toward programs involving some 218,000 young people, 40 per cent of the total budget of the Department.


THE BUDGET
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who chose to increase economic inequalities for women in the Budget. Does the Minister admit that the Budget will have a disproportionate impact on women who will suffer more from the tax increases because their incomes are lower, and who will also lose more jobs and more services as a result of the very drastic Public Service cuts? Did he not conduct a study of these very serious inequalities that he has imposed on women?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject that allegation. We have taken a number of major steps forward in the budgetary area that particularly help women. The increase in the child tax credit and the acceleration in the child tax credit payment-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Only the very poor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She says that it is not enough. We would like to do more, Mr. Speaker, but we have done an awful lot more than any Government in recent years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The change in the refundable sales tax credit, and the opening up of pension plans to part-time workers, which is of particular importance to women

March 3, 1986
Oral Questions
in the labour force, are major steps forward that the Government has taken.


REFUNDABLE SALES TAX CREDIT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, why will the Minister not admit that his Budget pushes more women and children into poverty, particularly those half million in the $15,000 to $20,000 bracket, and that the refundable tax credit about which he raves is only for the very poor and will not even pay for last year's sales tax increases, much less cover the loss in the indexation of family benefits which the Minister also imposed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the statements of the Hon. Member are totally false, and I listened to what she said-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They are not false. How can you say that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She is being critical of me because 1 have directed in this Budget-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Women are being critical of you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to listen and talk at the same time. I think the Hon. Member should listen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You should listen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have said before that Hon. Members who ask questions should allow the answers to be heard. Order, please. The Hon. Minister will finish briefly.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is criticizing me for doing something to help the very poor. I am very proud of doing something to help the very poor. That is what this Government is all about.


GOVERNMENT TAX POLICY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance not agree that, as a result of the last two Budgets, the Conservative Government has, by deliberate tax policy, widened the gap between the rich and poor in society and that, by lowering the benefit levels to $15,000 for the refundable sales tax and the prepayment on the child tax credit, there is now a new Conservative definition of poverty?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the allegation of the Hon. Member. We have done two things in this Budget that are helping the people who are below the poverty line, the acceleration of the child tax credit and the introduction of the refundable sales tax credit. I have indicated that these are both initiatives that we want to watch and learn from, and perhaps in a future Budget we will be able to enhance them. Why is it that the Hon. Member
cannot congratulate us for these progressive, innovative new changes in budgetary policy?


POVERTY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance now telling us that his Government has a new definition of poverty which will condemn nearly 300,000 poor families to conditions that are even worse?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is the most outrageous distortion of a good policy initiative. There has never been any new-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Three hundred thousand families.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very hard when the Hon. Member asks a question and cannot stop asking it once he takes his seat. We have indicated very clearly that there is no new definition of poverty here. What we have said is that, within the limited resources that the Government has, we have introduced two major new initiatives to help those people in low-income brackets, the low-income sales tax credit and the acceleration of the child tax credit payment, both of which have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DUTIES OF MINISTER
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Government took office, some $100 million has been cut from youth expenditures. Now the Minister of State for Youth seems to be in the process of disappearing. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what are the duties of the Minister of State for Youth who has neither program nor budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in point of fact, as a result of the initiatives of the Minister of State for Youth-


Some Hon. Members:: She is gone.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -youth unemployment since September, 1984, has declined by almost three full percentage points.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: She has disappeared with them.
March 3, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the Minister mentioned, 580,000 new jobs have been created. The Minister of State for Youth and all Ministers are collaborating to ensure that even further jobs are created.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO YOUTH
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think that it might be useful for the youth of the country, much less the House of Commons, if he answered the question? Where is the indication of commitment to youth, seen as necessary as a result of two task forces, in this Government? Is it manifest in the kind of support it gives to the Minister of State for Youth who has neither program nor budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, nothing could better indicate the difference between a socialist and a conservative. When he is talking about programs for youth, he is thinking of a bureaucracy, and we are thinking about jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: That must be an all-time low.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: If you don't need her, why keep her?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. My constituents have expressed concerns regarding the United States Farm Bill and the probable effect it will have on the initial price of wheat. There is a good deal of concern and a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the farm community in western Canada these days. What can the Minister indicate to the House regarding initial grain prices for the 1986-87 crop year?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious situation. Everyone who understands the U.S. Farm Bill, and particularly what the European Community is doing as far as subsidies are concerned, realizes that we face a very difficult situation. The Hon. Member should know that in Europe, for instance, the subsidy on wheat is over $100 per tonne, and on barley it is something like $130 per tonne. We find that very difficult to compete with. However, 1 can tell the Hon. Member that we are facing the issue and we will do the very best we can. We expect to be able to announce initial prices at
Oral Questions
the usual time, which is some time at the end of March or the beginning of April.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Government likes to take credit for creating thousands of jobs in Montreal. Is the Minister of Finance ready to recognize that his Government is responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Montreal and why did he not declare Montreal, especially East Montreal, a designated zone in his Budget, as many people had asked him to do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure from where the Hon. Member is getting his statistics. Since September, 1984, 70,000 jobs have been created in the city of Montreal. I believe that that is 13 times greater than the jobs created during the course of the previous Government. As far as Montreal is concerned, the Hon. Member is very much aware of the fact that we have said that we want to discuss the possibility of creating an international banking centre for that city. That is something of which I think he would be very supportive.


CREATION OF JOBS IN MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance seems to believe that the Banking Centre, which could eventually create 35 jobs in two years, is not the answer, but, and my question is very specific, what concrete action will the Minister take now to help the former workers of Bombardier, Vickers, Lafarge and La Fonderie who, in spite of the figures quoted by the Minister, are now unemployed and waiting for concrete action to be taken so that they may find employment in Montreal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must understand that jobs are created by a healthy private sector, a private sector which is investing and growing because it has confidence in the direction of the policies of the Government, as has been demonstrated by the
70,000	jobs created in the Montreal area. That is what will make the number of jobs grow, not a lot of bureaucracy in Ottawa trying to dream up ways which have been proven not to work under the previous Liberal administration.

March 3, 1986
Oral Questions TOURISM


EFFECT OF GASOLINE PRICES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Tourism. The Canadian Automobile Association survey revealed that most Canadians who vacation by car are shortening or cancelling their trips because of high gas prices. Eighty-six per cent of them say that the price of gas influences their travel plans. Now that the Canadian price is 40 per cent above the U.S. price, comparing Fort Frances, Ontario, with International Falls, Minnesota, half a kilometre away, what will the Minister do to help the tourism industry, and indeed Canadians to see their own country?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the concerns of the Canadian Automobile Association. In fact I met with the Association approximately a week ago. I do not think Canadians are as gloomy as is the Hon. Member. A Gallup poll was just released indicating that one in five Canadians across the country will be going to Expo in Vancouver. Most of them will be driving, so I think Canadians have a lot more faith in the Government and in our economy than has the Hon. Member.


ATTENDANCE OF EASTERNERS AT EXPO 86
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Referring to the same survey to which the Minister in categorizing me as gloomy made reference, it showed that 10 per cent of eastern Canadians would attend Expo. What will the Minister do to increase that percentage?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the most positive thing the Government could do to increase the percentage of Canadians travelling in Canada this year is to keep interest rates down, and that is exactly what we intend to do.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does he agree with the statement reported this weekend, made by his former adviser, Mr. William Mackness, to the effect that our dollar would be stronger if our interest rates were lower and closer to American interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the levels of the dollar and of interest rates are very closely intertwined. We have indicated in the past that, as we achieved a greater degree of stability in the exchange markets, which seems to be coming back this week, we will be able to see lower interest rates.


Ian Deans: What? Seems to be coming back this week!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am quite confident that the 9.5 per cent interest rate projection in my budget document is a fair projection and, as I indicated, is supported by people in the private sector, including Michael Belanger, President of the National Bank.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. He said a moment ago that he was very proud to help the very poor and that that was what his Government was all about. I want to ask him about what he has provided for the handicapped in the Budget. He offers a small increase in a deduction which he says will benefit
185,000	people. Why does The Fiscal Plan show at page 42 that, for its first full year of operation, that deduction will cost the Treasury nothing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things to help disabled people. First, we increased the deduction in the last Budget and in this Budget. Second, we broadened the definition of who qualified for the disabled deduction, and that was a major expansion. Third, we said that we would spend $100 million to help those on social welfare to find jobs. Many of those people are disabled. We are trying to help them become more self-reliant. Those are three major changes in the Budget which are very important improvements for the disabled.


SITUATION OF THE HANDICAPPED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the statistics of the Minister show that the cost is exactly zero.
I would like to ask him why, if he really wants to help the handicapped, he did not introduce a credit instead of a deduction so that more handicapped would benefit more and those who have lower incomes would have the same benefits?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the question about why it was not effective in 1986-87. The effects of the change in this tax year will be felt in the next tax year as the tax return comes in. That is a specific answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It refers to 1986-87.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member wishes to ask me another question on it, I would be happy to respond.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.
March 3, 1986


EXPOSURE OF WORKERS TO CIGARETTE SMOKE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will be aware of a report obtained under the Access to Information Act showing that employees in nearly all offices under federal jurisdiction are exposed to smoke pollution at unacceptable levels, causing very high numbers of death from lung cancer. Why is the Minister of Health not working to bring in legislation to give adequate protection to employees under federal jurisdiction? Why is he instead suppressing the information that shows just how high is the level of risk?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First, Mr. Speaker, this Minister is not suppressing the information. The information that was received under Access to Information was in draft form. I have full intention of releasing it. Second, we are looking to publishing it in a scientific journal. That will be done.
1 think the Member, if she is fair about it, knows this Government and this Minister have been very active in the area not only of passive smoking but of smoking generally. We want to reduce its incidence.
The report, I think, verifies many of the things that the Hon. Member, I, and others have said. In terms of legislation, possibly the Member should just be a little patient for that.


SMOKE-FREE OFFICES-ECONOMIC SAVINGS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns another study obtained under Access to Information on the effects of smoke. Will the Minister concede the number of millions of dollars which these studies show could be saved by bringing in smoke-free provisions?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I am not quite clear to which study the Hon. Member is now referring. I can tell her that when people look at the revenue Government receives from tobacco taxes, that figure, even though it is high in terms of the Budget, is considerably lower than the loss in revenue in health care and other tangential costs, not to mention productivity costs.
If the Hon. Member has another study in mind, I wish she would be a little more specific about it.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


ALLEGED PRACTICES BY OFFICIAL AT TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Recent publicity alluding to improper practices by Immigration officers at Toronto International Airport have raised serious concern about the immigration process at the airport. Could the Minister comment on these alleged practices, and assure the House that they will no longer continue?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member says, these comments are alleged. I will treat them as allegations.
I want to assure the House, however, that such practice is not the policy of the Department of Employment and Immigration. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I wish they would present me with it and I will ensure that anything of that nature is stopped forthwith.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the Minister's own Department have admitted to various of the news media that that practice has happened and that management has condoned it.
Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately cause an investigation to be established and, if those practices are occurring at the Malton International Airport and elsewhere, will she see that they are stopped immediately, rather than saying they are simple allegations and expecting that they will go away by themselves?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any evidence of any wrongdoing of this nature, I wish he would give it to me forthwith and I will see that it is stopped.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION FOR DISAPPEARANCE OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to know why the Minister of State (Youth) learned of the disappearance of all her youth programs in the estimates, without even getting a direct signal from the Prime Minister. Is that another example of the influence of youth, women and Quebecers in the Prime Minister's Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. In those three cases indeed, the Hon. Member is-inadvertedly no doubt-misleading the House. In

March 3, 1986
Oral Questions
the three cases she referred to, the answer is altogether different.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DUTIES OF MINISTER OF STATE (YOUTH)
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if in that case, there are no programs left under the Minister of State (Youth), I would like to ask the Prime Minister what the responsibilities of the Minister of State (Youth) are now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yes, but wait! There is nothing to be lost by waiting. The fact is that our prime responsibility is not to build up a new bureaucracy. Our first obligation towards youth is to keep creating permanent job and this is exactly what we are doing. But have no fear concerning youth. This will be linked in due time not only with other programs, but with very important initiatives that will create more jobs for our young people.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. U.S. Ambassador Niles said last week, referring to the Cruise:
There was no danger in the tests to anybody. Sometimes they don't work, that's why you test them.
Does the Minister support the impropriety of an American official announcing a resumption of testing over Canadian territory before we have even had a report on why the last missile crashed?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not seen all the report. 1 do not know what Ambassador Niles said.
As I indicated in an answer to the Hon. Member's Leader, the Canadian Government has to be satisfied as to the reasons for that crash. Once it is satisfied, the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the previous Government will be honoured.


REQUEST THAT MISSILE BE TESTED OVER UNITED STATES TERRITORY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the cause of the second crash appears to be mechanical, pretty fundamentally mechanical, would the Associate Minister of National Defence tell the Americans, that from here on in, they should go back to the drawing board and then test or retest their Cruise missile over their own territory until at least they get the mechanical bugs out of it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have some information that is not available to me or to the Department of National Defence-


An Hon. Member:: It would not be the first time.


Ian Deans: That is nothing unusual.


Harvie Andre: -in that he seems to know what the reasons for the crash are.


John Edward Broadbent: We assume it was not God's will.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The path for the test was chosen very carefully. There are all kinds of safety mechanisms to ensure Canadians and Canadian property are not damaged and are safeguarded. Those precautions remain in effect. I do not think there is any reason for the Hon. Member to try to scare Canadians in this regard.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada this coming Thursday will be legally in a position to strike. The Minister of Labour has refused to appoint a mediator; this past week-end, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated in Western Canada that postal employees would go on strike at their own risk, because they were being threatened with privatization. Could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell me whether he is still responsible for Canada Post?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that he is a little behind. A mediator, in the person of Mr. Bill Kelly, has been assigned to assist the two parties. Mr. Kelly was assigned at the joint request of Canada Post and the Letter Carriers Union.


POSTMEN-ALLEGED PRIVATIZATION THREAT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: This past week-end, Mr. Speaker, was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans threatening postal employees with privatization? Was he speaking on behalf of the government?
March 3, 1986


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I learned long ago not to comment on what could be attributed to the press because nine times out of ten the press happens to be lacking in accuracy.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Eighty six per cent of all RCMP personnel in Quebec have voted for collective bargaining without right to strike, as suggested by the Association of 17 Divisions. Could the Minister assure RCMP personnel in Quebec that he is not going to oppose this essential request?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: No, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR RELATIONS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Charter of Rights grants all Canadian men and women the freedom of association, and also the fact that the RCMP is the only-


Mr. Speaker:: A question, please. This is a preamble.
[ Translation]


Svend Johannes Robinson: -why does the Minister insist on maintaining this parternalistic approach to labour relations?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Hon. Member, who comes from a Party that purports to speak for working people, has not listened to the expressed wish of the majority of members of the RCMP.
The Hon. Member should know that, across the force, the divisional representatives who are elected by the rank and file, oppose unionization.
Instead of showing contempt for the wishes of the vast majority of members of the force, members of the New Democratic Party should be supporting their views.
The Budget-Mr. Darling


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he dispel the confusion that was created last Friday by way of his reply to the Member for Laurier, and admit that the amount of money which he indicates will be available for research and development already exists and is not an addition to the budgets of the research and development community across the nation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be careful about the questions he asks. The budget was clearly reduced by the previous Government. We were left with a bubget which was decreasing for those three granting councils. We have reinstated the amount of money to the previous level and have provided for an additional 6 per cent matching increase if the private sector wishes to support these programs. The way in which we have done this allows for a growing integration of the efforts of both the private and public sectors, which will result in much better research and development.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in a dilemma. I am in receipt of notice of a question of privilege and a point of order which an Hon. Member has indicated he is prepared to present later. The House indicated that it was going to adjourn at this time. Therefore, we are under a House order. We will, therefore, honour that House order and I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) at 4.30 on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period.
Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 27, 1986, this sitting is suspended until 4.30 o'clock p.m. at which time the House will proceed to Government Orders, subject to my previous comments.
At 3.02 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment
11126
[Stage Direction]
March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Darling
of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 11009).
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to have the opportunity to say a few words on the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I was home on the weekend and I contacted a good many of my constituents from all walks of life, including doctors and businessmen. The general consensus was that, although no one likes to pay taxes or have their taxes increased, it was a pretty good Budget. We had been promised a pretty tough Budget and a good many of my constituents were gratified that it was not even more serious.
Canadians realize, and the people in my riding have been saying the same thing, that we have been trying to spend ourselves into prosperity. That is impossible. Most of us are aware that we have to live within our means, that we cut our coat according to our cloth.


Bill Attewell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my colleague and friend, but the Elon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) spoke for 20 minutes and I would like the opportunity to reply to some of the statements he made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker has already ruled on this matter and the decision was that if the Member is not present when the House resumes debate, there will be no period for questions and comments.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the great amount of money that we owe and the fact that our deficit is such that something has to be done about it. All Canadians realize that we do not want to become another Mexico or Argentina with huge debts and spiralling inflation. If we are going to do something about it, then we have to bite the bullet. The Minister of Finance has gambled that Canadians will accept the tax increases which are aimed largely at the middle-income taxpayer, as part of this great fight against the deficit.
There has been a great deal said about the load being placed on the middle-income earner. According to the NDP the middle-income earners are going to be a thing of the past. I think that with this Government and this Budget the middle-income people might become a thing of the past by moving one step higher into the lower echelons of the higher-income groups. I also think the great majority of people known as the middle-income earners know that they have to dig down in order to pay this deficit off. The previous Government, which was responsible for the huge deficit we have now, did not tax people as much as it should have and everyone, in whatever income bracket, benefited from that.
One of the things I know a good many people are worried about is the fact that our children and grandchildren should not be saddled with a huge debt which will be a millstone around their necks. It is up to us to see that we share in the attempt to cut that huge deficit.
Prior to the Budget, business leaders, economists and a good many of our news columnists were saying that this Budget must be tough. Some of them went so far as to say they wanted the Minister to announce tax measures and spending cuts totalling as much as $10 billion. While many of us feel that this might be a very sound Budget, it would certainly put a tremendous load on the average taxpayer, which we certainly did not want to do.
It is interesting to note that our total deficit is around $225 billion. That figure has been bandied around by many speakers here today and it is probably well within the range. However, The New York Times, one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, as well as one of the most quoted, stated the day after the Budget came down that the Canadian deficit for this year would be $225 billion. I am quite sure that this created some shock waves not only in the U.S. but on money markets and with economists around the world. This probably had a detrimental effect on our dollar. It is the U.S. deficit for this year which is around $224 billion, which is about the same as our total debt.
The Minister of Finance is hoping that through the various tax measures and expenditure cuts we will be able to get the biggest bang for the buck. Rarely does a Government commit itself to such clear-cut and long-range plan for handling the coffers of the nation. The Budgets of May, 1985, and February, 1986, are a testament to the constituency of this Government. We have put our cards on the table for all to see, which is yet another anomaly in Government circles. In tune with our philosophy, from the outset this Budget will help to restore fiscal integrity. It will make Government more effective at less cost and will encourage private initiative.
This administration inherited a hodge-podge of problems from the Liberal Government, the most notable of which was blatant financial mismanagement. The deficit and the national debt are soaking up much needed capital to service interest payments on the debt. As we are all aware, it is understood that one dollar in every three dollars collected in taxes goes to service the national debt. Based on the old accounting system the deficit for this fiscal year will be down over $3 billion from the year before to $33.8 billion. From there this Government sees a deficit of $29.8 billion next year and reducing down to $22 billion in the 1990-91 fiscal year. Putting the brakes on our debt is probably the most positive signal that Canada could send from sea to shining sea.
As the world sees our Government program with expenditures reduced to levels prevalent in the 1960s, as a share of the economy, confidence will increase and investment in Canadian goods will follow. Virtually no Government expenditure has been left unscathed from the Finance Minister's frugal rapier. All federal Departments and all non-statutory programs have been implicated in cost-cutting measures. Members of Parliament and Senators will have a $1,000 slice cut from their salaries. I believe that was probably the most popular item in the Budget. I would also have included a lot of the grand
March 3, 1986

mandarins and deputy ministers who make a lot more money than Members of Parliament, and in all probability put in about half as much work time as most Members of Parliament.
While some tax increases have been introduced in a humane and careful fashion, fully 70 per cent of the deficit reduction measures will emanate from reducing expenditures. This Government also intends to shop for suitable buyers of Crown corporations. For instance, Teleglobe, Canadair and Eldorado Nuclear are on the block for perspective purchasers. The $500 million special reduction in non-statutory spending for the 1986-87 fiscal year is equivalent to 2 per cent of the cost of those programs. This will reduce operating costs for all Departments on an ongoing basis, as departmental spending may not exceed 2 per cent per year following 1986 and 1987.
Departments will also be encouraged to increase productivity and realocate funds to absorb increases in their costs. These initiatives will save the taxpayer $850 million next year, and will amount to $2.8 billion in 1990 and 1991.
It is abundantly clear that this administration is planning for the future. It is most refreshing and encouraging to see a Government setting its sights beyond the next election in the best interests of the people it represents. At the same time the Government is showing a considerable amount of courage by facing the economic music. The previously untouchable Canada Post has been ordered to come up with a new plan of attack to reduce its operating deficit to nil while it improves service. This may be an almost impossible task, but certainly it will give it something to shoot at. Let us hope that under the direction of the new President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Donald Lander, this will take place, or at least there will be a major step in that direction. I will admit that Post Office bashing has been a very popular Canadian past-time. This Government would rather work with Canada Post in an earnest effort to bring the Crown corporation into line. As a Member of Parliament from a rural area I know that from among the criticisms that come to my desk against certain Government departments those against the Post Office probably lead the way. 1 will admit that a year or so ago I think it was running a close second to the Department of National Revenue, but that is no longer the case.
Also, in the interest of reducing the red ink in Canada's bank book, we will reduce the amount of foreign aid expenditures. Increases in our foreign aid commitment will be shaved by $1.5 billion over the next five years causing our contribution to grow at a slower rate than is currently the case. Let me emphasize that there will still be an increase in foreign aid each year, but not as great. Those increases are targeted at 8.7 per cent per year, to remain at .5 per cent of the Gross National Product. It is expected that our contribution will climb to .6 per cent by the middle of the 1990s. There will be absolutely no doubt about Canada's willingness to continue playing our role as a team player on the international stage. Growth and defence spending will also be curtailed by 1 per cent in each of the next two years. I would remind budgetary critics that these are not cut-backs, they are smaller increases
The Budget-Mr. Darling
than have been the case in the past. The Government's decision to reduce the rate of growth in defence spending will save the taxpayer about $285 million.
With the myriad facts and figures inherent in the budget process this Budget is about people. The heart-wrenching plight of low-income Canadians is frequently the focal point for Government planning and decision-making. More assistance for low-income families resulted from the increased child tax credit introduced in the May, 1985 Budget. In the past, the poor have been forced to wait for their credit until their income tax returns have been processed and returned. As a result, many tried to expedite the process by paying tax discounters to give them a partial payment before the tax return was filed. In an effort to prevent this from happening the Government is proposing to pay the child tax credit in advance. The $300 repayment per child will be paid in November of this year to families with a 1985 income of less than $15,000. Need I say more about the fairness of this Government?
The shining success of this administration includes the follow-through on our promise of jobs and more jobs. The turn-around in the rising rate of unemployment has been astounding. There are many people in this place who have played a role in bolstering job creation across the country. The Government is being commended from all sectors for creating
580,000	jobs since the September 1984 election. Eighty-one per cent of those jobs, let me emphasize, are full-time jobs. Some statistician figured out that that came to one job every 90 seconds.
In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka where employment opportunities drop markedly during the winter months, the situation was improved considerably. This winter there are 500 fewer people drawing unemployment insurance benefits, and some businesses have been able to retain employees normally laid off at this time of year. In my home village of Burks Falls I was speaking to the manager of the oldest company there, Thompson Heyland, and I asked him how things were there. That plant usually has a regular workforce of about 80; they have 100 now and are looking forward to providing summer work for a good many students. That is certainly welcome news. The administration has created an average of 30,000 jobs per month since it came to power, compared with a meagre 7,400 jobs per month created by the Liberals during their heyday. This means we have created, as I see it, a job every 90 seconds. It is notable that 580,000 jobs have come about in a mere 16 months, while it took the former Government about 55 months to create just 406,000 employment opportunities.
Canada's employment rate of 9.8 per cent is the lowest it has been since 1982. The Government is turning all the right screws to get it even lower in the future. It would seem that the sterling job creation abilities of this Government are undeniable. The tragic rate of youth unemployment has also decreased from 18.3 per cent to 15.9 per cent. This is certainly

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Darling
something we do not want to brag about but which is certainly an improvement. The rate is still much too high and steps are being taken to bring the rate down and correct the situation.
There have been 43,000 new jobs opened up since the last election compared with the loss of 283,000 jobs for youth under the Liberals' guidance. University, community, college and high school students stand to benefit from the new Challenge 86 Program this summer. The business 1 mentioned earlier in my home village will hire 10 students. It is no wonder that employers across Canada are sitting up, taking notice and taking advantage of the summer youth program.
The federal Government has set aside S210 million for the purpose of helping students find work this summer. Last year Challenge 85 was a great success and secured some 101,000 jobs for students. The Challenge 86 Program invites provincial and municipal Governments as well as businesses and nonprofit organizations to use the program to their best advantage. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has assured us that Challenge 86 is not just another make-work program to keep students busy. She has clearly delineated the difference between mere activity and wholesome productivity. Her program is designed to create career and learning-related summer jobs which may be of great use in the future. Priority will be given to students to fill the 25,000 jobs available through the 1986 census as well.
While the Government is tackling the problem of high unemployment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I would like to ask him to conclude his speech, please. His time has already expired, but he may conclude.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, let me emphasize that this Budget is certainly going to do a great job of putting Canada back on the rails. It is going to cut down the deficit. It is going to provide more jobs. I am certainly pleased to commend the Minister of Finance for the great job he has done.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) on his comments. I think they are heart-felt. However, when he talks about how this Budget is going to tighten the screws on certain things, I think what he probably means is that it is going to tighten the screws on the low-income earners and those who can least afford to pay.
The Hon. Member mentioned in his speech some concerns he had about the Post Office. I wonder if he could clarify to this House, since we have been recieving a number of mixed messages, what the position is of the Progressive Conservative Party or of the Government on the Post Office? Do they believe in a universally accessible postal system? Do they want to privatize it, or does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) want to come in like the Canadian Rambo to tell the postal workers how this Government sees things? What is the position of the federal Government on the Post Office?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for that question. 1 would say that I hope that the Government's position on Canada Post is to have a post office that will deliver the mail within a reasonable time. I am well aware that there are targets and I would think that it is an improbable target to have Canada Post made self-sufficient within two years, so 1 am not saying that at all. However, the Canadian people feel that they should receive better service from their post office. A good number of years ago, the railways were carrying a lot of the mail. I was in business for a great number of years and I knew that in my own home village of Burks Falls, if I posted a letter by one o'clock in the morning-because I used to put my mail right on the train-it would be delivered in Toronto on that very day. So we are all hoping there will be much better service.
I am aware that it is a necessary service and that it is going to be pretty hard to make it a profitable service without increasing the rates even more than they are now, and they are too high in the view of a lot of people.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reason 1 asked this specific question of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is that, obviously, he represents not only urban centres but also a number of scattered rural areas which cannot necessarily be guaranteed a mail delivery if we were to move toward a private system. This is my concern and I think one which I would like the Hon. Member to address. If in fact threats made by certain Ministers of the Government about privatization were to be carried out, does the Hon. Member believe that not only Burks Falls but a number of small rural areas in his constituency would receive full delivery service, or would the service be concentrated on the major urban areas like the City of Toronto and the City of Hamilton?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, 1 must agree with the Hon. Member that certainly it would not be a profitable business for private carriers to deliver the mail in rural ridings. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka there is only one town in the entire riding which has street delivery of mail. The rest of the mail goes through the post office. I am also aware that the population is scattered, as it is in a great many of my colleagues' ridings. Certain Members of Parliament and, 1 suppose, prominent Ministers, have made statements that they would like to see the Canada post privatized. We all have certain ideas and dreams. That is not my view, but 1 believe it is the responsibility of the Government to try to do something to see that we do receive better service.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member about another element of the Budget. I think it is an element about which he has expressed a concern. That is the decision in the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of November of 1984 to prevent early retirees from collecting unemployment insurance. I am referring not only to those who work for the Armed Forces, those who fought in some of our wars such as the Korean War, but to those who worked in private companies like Black & Decker,
March 3, 1986

who found themselves sent out to pasture when the company closed down and who now find they are faced with a double whammy because they cannot collect unemployment insurance. Would the Hon. Member tell us whether he was disappointed, as 1 was, when the Minister of Finance failed to address this important question in his Budget?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, again, in reply to the Minister's question-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you.


Stan Darling: -I should not really have given the Hon. Member a promotion which, I am sure, she will not receive for some little while. I think the Hon. Member made one wrong move-


John Barry Turner: She should have stayed in Queen's Park.


Stan Darling: That is right, because there is no doubt that with her ability, she would have been in the front benches, but she is going to have to wait a long time here before she gets there.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question, there is no doubt that there are a good many Hon. Members on all sides of the House who have grave concerns. The Hon. Member is well aware that there is a task force, the Forget task force, which has been looking into that matter. I would be less than honest if I did not say that I have received probably a couple of dozen letters from constituents who are very disturbed and unhappy about the very situation she has mentioned. As has been mentioned by Members opposite, some prominent members of the Cabinet have voiced their concerns regarding this matter.
The Hon. Member has a valid point when she emphasizes especially those people who served in the Armed Forces. What the Hon. Member did not mention, and what I will mention, is that these people did not retire voluntarily. After 20 to 25 years of service they were given the golden handshake, and that was it. So 1 certainly share the Hon. Member's concerns with respect to that point.


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Hon. Member thinks about certain Crown corporations, including Canada Post, that allegedly misled early retirement beneficiaries. These are people who took early retirement after being invited to do so by Government corporations that promised they would receive unemployment insurance benefits, although in 1984, the Government's economic message made it quite clear that unemployment insurance benefits for persons other than those who had earned them would cease as of January 5, 1986.
What does the Hon. Member think of Government institutions that misrepresented the facts-there is no other word for
Privilege-Mr. Rossi
it-and urged people to take early retirement while promising them benefits they knew they would not receive?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague's question, I will repeat what I said before. I have very grave concern for those people who were presented with this misrepresentation. I hope in cases such as this that the industries will take a second look and try to work something out. Again, I would like to repeat that we are hoping that the Forget Commission will come up with an acceptable solution. It will certainly be helpful to those who are feeling the hardship now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of two questions of privilege. We will deal with them in the order in which I received them. First, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During Oral Question Period this afternoon, when a Liberal Member was asking questions, the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) said to the Speaker: "Question! Question! Question! Question!"
I then said to the Hon. Member in question: "Arrete de niaiser", which means "stop fooling around" in English, and then the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) just behind me said to me: "Cool it, you mafia mafioso!"
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) seems to think this is amusing, but 1 think it is insulting to people of Italian origin. We do not accept that kind of thing. Mr. Speaker, in this House we respect all ethnic groups. My hon. colleague for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and my hon. colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi) clearly heard what was said.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wonder whether these are his personal views or the views of the Hon. Member's party, when he uses the words mafioso and mafia in connection with people of Italian origin.
On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we respect all ethnic groups, and I think we should respect each other's origins. I will not stand for anyone using the words mafioso or mafia just because a person has an Italian name. Every ethnic group should be treated with respect.
I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his words, Mr. Speaker.

March 3, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Parry


Mr. Suluk:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the allegation of the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) concerning what he alleges I said during Question Period. If the comments are in the "blues", then 1 might consider whatever it is he might be requesting. However, if those comments are not in the "blues", then I question what motivation he has in raising this matter. Knowing that he was a former police chief, he may be well versed in the art of intimidation, which is what I consider his question of privilege to be. However, knowing the Chair's concern for civility in the House I will await a decision in this regard.


John Barry Turner: Order. What is this?


Carlo Rossi: Are you the Speaker?


John Barry Turner: Are you?
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I will not stand for those remarks about policemen either, because the police corps I belonged to is known as the best police force on the American continent, and I will never stand for any Member of this House using the words mafia or mafioso. Even if it is not reported in the blues, Mr. Speaker, there are three people who heard the Hon. Member back here. And speaking on behalf of people of Italian origin, I will not tolerate anyone calling someone a mafioso.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the matter into consideration and a ruling will be issued as soon as possible.
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on a question of privilege.



APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE FROM HOUSE

John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence and with the indulgence of Hon. Members, I rise on a question of privilege to offer my apologies, particularly to government Members, in that I was not back in my place at 4.30 p.m. when the House reconvened in order to answer questions or receive comments on my speech made with respect to the Budget. This arose because I attended the memorial service for the late T.C. Douglas. I would never wittingly make a speech in this House which I was not prepared to defend. I apologize to Members who sit on the Government side that I was not here to receive any comments or questions which they might have had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 11009).
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the budget debate. What I truly regret is that there is so little to be said that is positive about the Budget. After hearing the reaction to its first Budget, I had hoped that the Government would in this Budget make changes to repair some of the damage done. I would much prefer it if I could congratulate the Government for having closed the gap it created between the haves and the have-nots in our society, or if I could see any evidence of a coherent economic plan showing that the Government has a realistic and workable agenda for economic growth in Canada. Unfortunately, I can do neither.
What we have in the Budget is essentially more of the same-middle and low-income families and individuals are saddled with yet more taxes piled on to the taxes they are now paying from last year's Budget, while the wealthy and corporate sector emerge virtually unscathed. Why did the Government choose to repeat itself in this way? Is it because it sees an easy source of revenue in its tax grabs from middle-income Canadians, a sure-fire source of funds which it is just too tempting not to exploit? This may be part of the reason the Government has turned again to the average taxpayer for two-thirds of the revenue it expects to take in this year.
There is also the appearance, and I trust I am wrong in this regard, of a kind of cynical gamble in what the Government is doing by piling on the taxes and spreading them out among many taxpayers regardless of ability to pay. Does the Government hope for resignation and acceptance of these measures without the emergence of an organized opposition? In this context the sales tax rebate for those who earn less than $15,000 per year, the prepayment of the child tax credit for those in the same category, and the increase in the disability pension will offer some relief. However, these measures will not come close to compensating these groups for what they will lose through higher taxes and deindexation.
We can choose to look at these minor proposals as signs of the underdeveloped Conservative social conscience or as cynical attempts to stifle potential sources of opposition to the Government's discriminatory tax increases.
When we compare the Government's two Budgets, we see that the Government is increasingly dependent on the middle-income taxpayer as a source of tax revenues. Even with the small relieving measures in this Budget, a single parent with a $15,000 income and two children will be paying over $300 more in taxes as a result of the Conservative Budgets. Money such as this out of the pockets of taxpayers will enrich
March 3, 1986

government coffers by nearly $3 billion extra by the end of the decade and at the same time, revenues from corporations will decline to less than $300 million. The kind of fairness there is in a Conservative Budget is $3 billion from individual taxpayers and $300 million from corporations.
As I mentioned earlier, both Budgets were also similar in their disturbing lack of a vision for the future. In the second Budget, there is as well the very clear indication that so far as deficit cutting is concerned, the means justify the end. It is quite all right according to the Government to tax the life and spirit out of the middle class in order to produce the right set of numbers. I would question whether the end justifies the means.
In this Budget there is a reassuring picture of a deficit just below the magic $30 billion figure. It is built on a set of very tenuous assumptions, and if the world does not unfold as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wishes, the picture will be seriously distorted. The Budget assumes that oil prices will be $22.50 per barrel. This appears to be somewhat optimistic as posted prices at this time are well below that. For each $1 per barrel fall in the price of oil, the Government loses $110 million in revenue.
The Budget also assumes an interest rate of 9.5 per cent, again perhaps an overly optimistic forecast. The Budget has so far failed to rally the dollar, and we know that the Minister of Finance is quite willing to induce higher interest rates to defend the dollar. Therefore, there are two scenarios that could scuttle the Government's deficit-cutting picture and jeopardize our economic growth.
The Government should consider the consequences of the action it is taking by leaning so heavily on middle and low-income Canadians. These people know very well that they are bearing the brunt of the Government's war on the deficit. In fact, to many Canadians, it feels more like war on the middle-income family. Just as Government expenditure cuts have an effect on Public Service morale, it is certain that repeated tax increases hitting primarily at middle and low-income taxpayers and bypassing the wealthy and the corporate sector will have a similar effect. We saw some vivid examples of this on The Journal on budget night.
Canadians at middle-income levels from whom the Government is extracting a disproportionate amount of tax revenue are showing signs of despair. They ask why they should keep on trying to make better lives for themselves and their children if the Government is constantly after them, first for a few dollars, then a few dollars more and a few dollars more after that. I am convinced that Canadians are willing to take a share in helping to bring the deficit down, but the Government is unfairly wringing revenue from middle-income Canadians and making little or no demands on others. This is clear for all to see and the Government should not think that it can continue to take unfair advantage without meeting some repercussions.
Also carried over into this Budget from the first Budget are many examples of confusing double-talk and disturbing signals. I have mentioned how the Government seems to have taken the easy way out by relying once again on tax grabs to
The Budget-Miss Nicholson
raise revenue. This is not only unimaginative but it is confusing when at the same time we hear rhetoric about the so-called tough decisions the Government has had to make.
We were told that this Budget will restore vitality to the economy. We would all like to see more growth in the economy but by taxing away more and more of Canadians' disposable income, surely we are more likely to see the opposite. Consumer demand and spending money creates jobs. When people have less to spend, they are more likely to forgo or defer purchases.
The Budget Speech says that Canadians can have confidence, a decidedly odd assertion because by taxing away so much of taxpayers' purchasing power, the Government has said that it has no confidence in taxpayers, or perhaps I should say no confidence in the average taxpayer. After all, the Government has left unchanged the no-strings capital gains tax exemption for the wealthy on the basis that it trusts well-to-do Canadians to make investments benefiting Canada. However, the treatment is not the same for those people as it is for the middle and low-income earners. The middle and low-income earner gives up consumer decision-making power because of tax increases and then is admonished to put his or her confidence in the Government.
The Budget also makes much of the funds it is allocating to certain areas including the $75 million for cultural initiatives and the $300 million over the balance of the decade to the Medical Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. What is not stated in the Budget is that the agencies involved are in great need of these funds and more because of cuts previously made by the Government since it came into power. In culture and communications, for example, over $122 million was cut. This Budget replaces $75 million of that.
The Budget contains a long rationalization about Canada's role in the world community which was meant to make the $1.4 billion cut in foreign aid sound like an increase. However, the facts are clear and no matter how much travel the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does around the world, it is quite clear that our foreign aid is not being increased.
There are a number of other things in the Budget that are nebulous. For instance, the Minister of Finance has often said that 70 per cent of the reduction of the deficit represents expenditure cuts and 30 per cent comes from tax increases. However, when we look at these expenditure cuts, we see that much of it is in forecasts. For example, looking at the Estimates, we see that about $2 billion will be cut from reserves. Reserve money is money to be used in case of emergency but it is money that the Government really does not plan to spend. Taking that away is not a saving of $2 billion.
There are other smoke-and-mirror tricks that are done by assuming that certain growth and expenditures would happen based on the 1984 figures. When the Government introduced its first set of Estimates last year, they were the highest ever. This year, we have Estimates which are 4 per cent above those of last year. Granted, we were told in the Budget Speech that a

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Miss Nicholson
further $500 million would be trimmed off those Estimates, but we do not know where. Presumably it will be related to the Nielsen Report which we are expecting on March 11. However, that raises another set of questions. Why has it taken so long to let us have that report?
In the budget papers there was no mention whatever of youth, and the budgetary estimates show no programs in the youth Ministry. Last year, being International Youth Year, there were some moneys but there was much more emphasis on public relations. Apparently the Minister's office and role remain, but there are no programs to be administered. Are we to assume from this that the Government will be conducting some public relations about youth but has no real programs to assist in the area of youth unemployment?
Earlier I mentioned the foreign aid cut. There was some modification to that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced that some outstanding loans would be converted to grants. However, the fact still remains that Canada's commitment to increasing foreign aid has been postponed for several years.
We are now in the third year of recovery from a particularly cruel and harsh world recession. For 18 months of that recovery period, the Conservative Government has been in office. We are now reaching a point where traditionally one might expect some kind of cyclical downturn. Has the Government faced this? I think there is an indication somewhere that the Minister of Finance recognized this as a scenario. If it is, how does he justify the emphasis on tax, tax, tax?
A well-known commentator writing in The Citizen stated that the Finance Minister "does not look like a riverboat gambler, but his Budget is a political and economic gamble more suitable to a double or nothing card shark than to a man who looks like a bank accountant or a Sunday school superintendent. By piling taxes on taxes, it is a fiscal plan which risks touching off a national revolt against rising taxation". I would also add that the gamble in piling on taxes and in reducing consumer demand may indeed assist in touching off a recession. Tax increases at a time of economic slowdown can slice into the ability of the economy to produce revenues and can create problems which are at least as bad if not worse than the problems of the deficit. In spite of all the Minister's brave words about reducing expenditures, he presents us with a Budget which is really based upon tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend. It is a gamble which may come off; it is also a gamble which may bring very difficult results.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the closing remarks. I had taken several notes here to support my comments aimed at the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). But I heard the closing remarks about "spend, spend, spend" and "cents, cents, cents". I wonder whether she recalls another remark that was made by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he said: "Jobs, jobs, jobs". And I think that
in French we could use the same words: "Jobs, jobs, jobs", even in France. After the allegations she just made about the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Trinity to comment on the fact that since we came to power in 1984, 580,000 jobs have been created in Canada, and the unemployment rate has come down below the 10 per cent mark for the first time since 1982. I would like her to comment on those results when she uses the word "gamble". I would like to hear her comments on those results they are not the product of a "gamble", but are very factual results.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are in the third year of recovery, and of course jobs are being created.


Claude Lanthier: Bravo.


Aideen Nicholson: Jobs are not created by Governments. They are created by the economy, by the free market sector, on which the Hon. Member's party lectures us so much. If this Government were not in power, if it were a Liberal Government in power, I would fully expect that the employment creation rate would have been very much better than what we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Aideen Nicholson: I do not think that to achieve under 10 per cent in the third year of recovery is anything of which to be proud. An unemployment rate of under 10 per cent translates into a lot of very unhappy people. I see them in my constituency office every day. It is no comfort for them to be told that the Prime Minister says that there are 400,000 new jobs out there. They are having difficulty finding one. To be sure, the unemployment situation is not as cruel as it was in the depths of the recession, but it should not be. We should have made a lot more progress by now.
As we come out of recession, many employers have found that they can manage with fewer people. We are not seeing the same kind of rapid increase in job creation, and the jobs which are being created now are very selective. Highly trained, well educated or highly skilled persons can easily obtain jobs. Unskilled persons and young people are having extremely difficult times. There is no reason for any of us to be complacent about the employment situation. To be sure, it is better than it was during the recession, but there are still many Canadians who badly need someone to be concerned about them and their future employment situation.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's speech was niggling on the Budget, but she referred to oil prices in part of her speech. She should know that the Economic Council of Canada conducted a study on oil prices, taking the figure, for example, of $19 U.S. per barrel. It indicated that that was a plus in terms of improvement of national productivity, in terms of wiping out the deficit by at least $5 billion in that reduction by 1990, and in terms of more employment. The fact is that there are more users of energy than there are producers. While we lose some taxes in what we collect from the energy indus-
March 3, 1986

try, we pick up taxes and investments in jobs, particularly in central Canada.
Speaking to that whole issue, because the real issue is jobs, could the Hon. Member give her Party's forecast on the loss of jobs? In November she will recall that her leader said we would lose 200,000 jobs as a result of the November 1984 Economic Statement, and she will recall the finance critic for her Party saying that we would lose 100,000 jobs as a result of the May Budget. She will also recall that the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said we would lose 55,000 jobs as a result of the May Budget.
Can the Member give her forecast as to how many jobs this terrible Budget as she calls it will cost the country?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had two questions, the first one having to do with the effect of oil prices. I would agree with the Hon. Member in the long term, and I believe this is what the Economic Council said, that lower prices for oil stimulate our economy, with all the desirable results that he has mentioned. But in the short term, lower prices for oil will take away a lot of revenue from the Government on which the Government is counting in its Budget.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we are both right. The long-term results of a fall in oil prices are certainly desirable, but in the short term the Government's projection of reducing the deficit based on the figures quoted will not work.
About employment, many jobs were lost as a result of the November Budget. One has to look at the fact that even though new jobs are being created, an awful lot of jobs are being lost. In the Ontario manufacturing sector, for a start, there has been a very high job loss. Some of the new jobs being created are not jobs with the same quality.
For example, in one town heavily dependent upon the steel industry that I know of, hundreds of unionized steel workers who were fairly high earners, lost their jobs. Some have jobs now but they are at $4 an hour. There is a lot of this kind of exchange going on and many part-time jobs are being created.
The other thing one has to remember is that the Statistics Canada method of recording the labour growth, admittedly the same way it is used internationally, does have some problems in it. Anybody who has worked for one hour in the last month is regarded as being in the labour force and employed. People who have not sought work in a certain period, I think it is also a month, are not counted as being in the labour force at all.
Until such time as the international way of keeping employment figures improves, there will be a lot of disguised unemployment, and these raw figures do not indicate the quality or the permanence of jobs. That is a factor that concerns us too.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult it is to criticize a Budget like this which is so good, so fair and so equitable, but I was interested in the last remarks of the Hon.
The Budget-Miss Nicholson
Member when she said, in a blanket kind of way, that this Budget is one of tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend.
1 would invite the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to look at the figures. She will see that the additional revenues being raised are quite modest considering the debt that has to be repaid, which debt was built up over the Liberal years of Government. There is something like $1.5 billion in new revenues on a base of about $70 billion with only a 2 per cent increase in taxes.
As for the spend, spend, spend part of her remarks, I would invite the Hon. Member to look at the figures. The annual increase in program expenditure growth over the last four or five years for the Government of which she was a supporter averaged between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. This Budget proposes no growth in program expenditures, no growth. In fact, on the non-statutory items a decrease in spending of about 2 per cent is forecast.
How can the Budget be described as tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend? Nothing could be further from the truth.


Aideen Nicholson: By the Minister's own admission, taxes are rising by $3.4 billion in the coming fiscal year, by $5.2 billion in the year after that and by $8 billion in the 1990 to 1991 fiscal year. There are the taxes.
As for the spending, I repeat, the Estimates tabled by the Government last year were record high. This year's Estimates have a 4 per cent increase on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments? The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) resuming debate.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am always always pleased to rise in the House, especially to comment on the Budget which was tabled last week and on which 1 had the opportunity to work for over three months.
There is one thing that always amazes me when I listen to the speeches of Members of the Opposition: 1 look at the November 1984 economic statement, the May 1985 Budget and the February 26 Budget, and I realize that we have been hearing the same speeches three times in a row.
Among other things, they do not even mention the 580,000 jobs created over the past year and a half. Not a word about the fact that for the first time in Canada's history 129,000 new jobs were created in January 1986. They do not say anything about that, Mr. Speaker.
And yet we can still recall their speeches of November 1984 and May 1985 about a bad economic statement and a bad Budget. Well, had the economic statement and the May 1985 Budget been as bad as all that, there is no way we could have created 129,000 jobs in a single month, in January of this year. It was an unprecedented achievement in Canada. Mr. Speaker,

March 3, 1986
The Budget-Miss Nicholson
I would suggest that the Opposition come up with new speeches and change their tune.
Mr. Speaker, we do not hear anything either about the 2 per cent drop in interest rates since September 1984, or the inflation rate which has gone down to the 1971 level of 4 per cent, the first time at 4 per cent since 1971. The best way to draw a parallel with 1971 is to read the Fiscal Plan. Here is something for Members of the Opposition to chew on. Page 36 shows that in 1971 personal income tax as a percentage of the GNP was 7.7 per cent, whereas the projection for 1985-86 was 7.2 per cent.
In other words, the personal income tax-to-GNP ratio will be lower in 1985-86 than it was in 1971-72. Not a word about that, Mr. Speaker, yet these are positive factors which are highlighted in the Budget.
The one thing which has the Opposition running around in circles is that for the first time in 20 years we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who rose in the House and stated: "My year-end deficit will be $33.8 billion." He said that in May 1985, Mr. Speaker. Then in February 1986 he rose again to confirm that this year's deficit will indeed amount to $33.8 billion.
But it is not the first time that a Minister of Finance does not err in his estimates. This serves to prove another point: the economic statement of November 1984 was right on, the Budget of May 1985 was perfectly consistent with the 1984 statement, and the 1986 Budget is the confirmation of the good job done over the past 18 months by the Minister of Finance and this Progressive Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker.
We have taken a deficit which was to reach about $39 billion, and we have first reduced it to $36 billion. It is $33 billion this year and the projections are for less than $30 billion for the fiscal year 1986-87, while creating jobs, and reducing both the interest and inflation rates. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Members opposite have nothing to say. The outlook is good. Unfortunately for the Opposition, the economic climate in Canada is good.
Spending cuts and tax increases will account for 70 per cent and 30 per cent respectively of the deficit reduction. Again, Mr. Speaker, these tax increases are consistent with what we have always preached. First of all, a progressive and across the board 3 per cent surtax for all Canadian taxpayers. Those in higher income brackets will pay 3 per cent on a higher amount than those in lower income brackets, which makes it progressive, Mr. Speaker.
As for the federal sales tax, we are implementing a federal sales tax credit. That is a fine initiative. Hon. members opposite have been very quiet about this. That $300 advance which low-income families will get in November-


An Hon. Member:: They are not here!


Mr. Robichaud:: One of them is here.


Pierre H. Vincent: There is no Fiberal Member present, and those outside cannot hear us. Sit down and listen to the good budgetary measures, then you may speak about them later. They are afraid of the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Fast Thursday, I took part in three open lines and I met businessmen in West Island with my hon. colleague Gerry Weiner. I met also other businessmen in the fine riding of Trois-Rivieres and I met the representatives of the Association des contracteurs de la Mauricie. All these people are unanimous, Mr. Speaker! This Budget meets exactly the needs of Canada and responds perfectly to the economic situation left by the previous Government. It is indeed the previous administration which was responsible for this $200 billion debt, and Canadians are aware that they must help reduce this deficit which increases by $35 billion annually. They are aware that the previous administration has created a national debt which is out of proportion and with which we cannot live. Out of $100 billion in federal spending in a given year, $50 billion go for social programs, and $25 billion, thanks to the previous Government, which pay interests on the debt created by that government. That means $100 million a day. I can say that the people in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres would be happy to have these $100 million to spend on serious programs rather than on wasteful projects as was the case in the past. However, we have to pay the bill, and this is what we are going to do now, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that I met with people from Trois-Rivieres and Montreal and that all are in favour of the Budget. They all accept that there is a small price to pay and that we have to take care of it now because, in one year, or two or three, it will be too late. We can no longer tolerate that 25 per cent of our expenditrues each year go to pay interests on our debt. The situation is impossible! No business could survive if 25 per cent of its yearly expenditures went simply to pay interests on its debts without repaying even part of the principal. Not one business could survive and the federal Government cannot either.
I have taken part in open line programs where people call to give their impressions. The comments were all favourable. Even low income Canadians are happy with the beneficial measures we have proposed for them. Everyone is happy except the Opposition naturally. That is unfortunate.
I went to a conference and a man told me: "I am a Fiberal, but I must admit that your Budget is good. I must admit that it is realistic and serious."


An Hon. Member:: Was this in Shawinigan?


Pierre H. Vincent: In the Sait-Maurice riding. I did not dare to name it before, but I shall do so now. People recognize that

.

March 3, 1986

this Budget is serious and realistic, even in a constituency which will become Conservative in a short while, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 84(6) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the subamendment now before the House. [English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Riis, seconded by Mr. Parry, moved:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House further condemns the Government for its brutal, uncaring and unfair tax increases on average income families while at the same time lowering taxes for upper income families and the corporate sector, and for its refusal to undertake an overhaul of the income tax system to bring about tax fairness and to give Canadians a tax system that they can understand."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being 6.12 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 4, 1986