Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):

Some 85,000 low-income Canadians, mostly women, will benefit from this proposal starting in the fall of 1985. Costs to the Government will be approximately $200 million in 1985-86. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), will be providing detailed information.

I am also announcing measures to improve veterans' pensions in order to ensure a more equitable and generous treatment from a society which owes our veterans so much.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):

The cost of these measures will be $22 million in 1985-86. My colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) will be providing further information.

Expanding employment and creating new opportunities is at the heart of our program for national economic renewal. We are committed to providing lasting jobs for all Canadians who want to work. The government will therefore be committing an additional $1 billion in 1985-86 primarily to help Canadians to acquire new skills and to find jobs in the private and public sectors.

Our goal is not to do more of the same through temporary make-work programs, but to offer those who are unemployed real opportunities to make a useful contribution to society. This requires a fresh outlook and new approaches that will ensure that employment and training programs are delivered more effectively than in the past.

The total cost of the new expenditure and tax initiatives I have announced tonight will be $1.5 billion in 1985-86. In addition, the government previously announced an allocation of $200 million to the Canada Works program, for direct employment creation in 1985-86. The expenditure reduction and revenue recovery measures I announced earlier will more than offset the cost of these measures. Indeed, the deficit we inherited for 1985-86 will be brought down from $37.1 billion to $34.9 billion and our inherited financial requirements will

Economic Statement

be reduced even further, from $32 billion to $29.2 billion. We cannot be satisfied with the level of the deficit and I intend to propose further measures in my budget following consultation on the proposals set out in the Agenda paper.

The measures I have introduced reflect the direction in which it is essential to go. We have begun to reduce the deficit. We have done so while increasing resources for our most important priority-employment creation-and while enhancing our support for individual Canadians who need and deserve assistance.

I am tabling the documents I have referred to earlier and Notices of Ways and Means Motions covering the tax and tariff measures I have described and a measure dealing with the interpretation of Canada's tax treaties.

There is an abundance of strength, energy, vitality and resilience in the people of this great country. Our imagination and enterprise are boundless, and there is no reason on earth why we cannot work together to build the kind of future we all want for ourselves and for our children.

This government is determined to lead the way in a national process of economic renewal. The agenda which we bring forward tonight provides a roadmap for a challenging and rewarding journey. It represents a new beginning for Canada. Change must come. The old ways of doing things have not worked. But change must be based on understanding, discussion, and above all, fairness.

This is a vital part of our mandate: to consult and to listen before acting. Building greater understanding of our problems and casting a broad net in our search for solutions are keys to success. The goals are clear; reaching them is the challenge.

I will begin by meeting provincial finance ministers and treasurers tomorrow, and the process will continue up to and beyond a National Economic Summit under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister early next year.

There will be no surprises. Our agenda is open and it is on the table. How fast we pursue it will depend on the support and understanding it commands in the Canadian community. [English]

As we begin discussion on this agenda, I would ask Canadians not to lose sight of the broad national purpose to which we are pledged. We all come from different walks of life, different regions of the country, and we all have different backgrounds and interests. But our common bond is the desire we all share to see a strong and prosperous Canada. Achieving this will improve the lot of each and every one of us. We can achieve it if we work together to make it happen.

Let us remember that a strong economy leads to strong democracy, to greater protection for our basic values. And our future depends in a fundamental way on how we develop and strengthen our economy and democratic institutions.

November 8, 1984

Economic Statement

We must have faith in ourselves and in our country. We must stop acting as if we were helpless in the face of capricious events outside our country. Let us strengthen our resolve to deal with those matters that we can control and thereby strengthen our place in the challenging economic world around us.

With the support, understanding and co-operation of all Canadians, we can make this country strong again. We can refurbish our image in the world as a good place to do business and we can build a future in which Canadians from all walks of life, in all regions of the country, can share in growing prosperity.

That is the purpose of this economic agenda. That is the goal of this government.

That is the challenge for this nation.

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):

Mr. Speaker, 1 understand there is a program on television called "That's Incredible" which usually deals with such events as the Hunsinger fumble, back in 1954 but I really do believe that our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself, would be a good candidate for that show.

We have heard a budget this evening, Mr. Speaker, telescoped into a Throne Speech debate; something on which there was no consultation. Frankly, I am not too surprised. If I were the Minister of Finance I would be very reluctant to subject this quite remarkable document and those that accompany it to a budget debate. Nevertheless, I would ask the Minister of Finance to assure us that he will be in the House tomorrow during Question Period, notwithstanding his commitment to the provincial Ministers of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to start this evening by offering my congratulations to my hon. friend, our new Minister. I still intend to do so, not because of his statement this evening but because he had the courage to take on this difficult task today.

I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House that we had great expectations of the Minister in question.

He is known to us as a serious, responsible, diligent Member of Parliament. He has been in the House now for several years and I think all of us have had some admiration for the solid performance and the intelligent and often non-partisan approach he has taken.

So now, unfortunately, he is trapped, as it were, by promises the Right Hon. Prime Minister made during the election campaign, promises that were generous and impossible to keep,

and now the Minister has to take the responsibility for those promises. I will elaborate on this later in my speech.

I should tell you one other thing before getting to the body of this remarkable document. The Minister of Finance has other talents. He is a tennis player, I understand. In fact, I have seen his forehand. But tonight we have witnessed his backhand, and I can tell you it is not elegant and it hurts.

I feel, and I suspect that many in this Chamber, many in the two rumps of the Conservatives and those on the other side who do not look overjoyed with this particular presentation, feel that this is really not the work of the Member we have seen on this side of the House for many years. There is inspiration here from perhaps the "happy hacker" of 1979, or perhaps his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who has been wise enough to leave this place, at least for the time being. He cannot suppress his blush.

Mr. Prud'homme:

Look at him.

Mr. Johnston:

Quite right, he cannot suppress his blush. We all expected a great deal more, and I feel Canadians have been severely let down.

Having read the Throne Speech, and having heard the Minister read this document tonight, I must say that the Prime Minister had the wisdom not to defend the Throne Speech during his comments in the House yesterday. I read this new approach which, although I do not like to repeat, I will.

But I would do so just the same.

This government is prepared to lead this process of renewal. We have set for ourselves four challenges: first, to put our own fiscal house in order so that we can limit, and ultimately reverse, the massive build-up in public debt and the damaging impact this has on confidence and growth; second, to redefine the role of government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation and less of an obstacle to change and innovation; third, to foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise; and fourth, to bring about these changes in a way that is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice that is characteristic of Canadian society.

It all sounds terrific.

That is a lot of good rhetoric, and it is followed by what could only be described as a traditional "x" budget exercise badly carried out, as I will demonstrate in a few moments.

When I read this remarkable document this evening an image came into my mind with which all of us, at least of my age, will be familiar. We often used to look out on the cold streets of this city, my city, and undoubtedly Baie Comeau in the winter time, and would see the sparrows out there trying to get the oats out of the horse manure. I spent much of this evening trying to find the oats in this particular document. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no sparrow would get fat on the oats contained in this particular piece of draftsmanship, with the exception, of course, of the continuation of the budget

November 8, 1984

proposals which were tabled earlier this year by our Minister of Finance, and which I am happy to see will be introduced into legislation.

I was looking at Barbara Amiel's comments this week after she reviewed the Throne Speech; "pretentious cliches, shopworn ideas". Now, Barbara Amiel is not known as a pillar of the Liberal establishment. I am anxious to see what Barbara Amiel has to say tomorrow morning now that she has read the second piece of this presentation.

Mr. Prud'homme:

She is leaving Canada after having read that.

Mr. Johnston:

I do not think it will be that bad. She pointed out, as all others have pointed out, that the promises so generously made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign are completely and totally incompatible with any kind of deficit reduction, and the Minister of Finance knows that full well. Certainly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), who I see has had the good sense to take his leave as well, estimated those during the campaign at a cost, I think, of $20 billion. We on this side of the House know that that is impossible. We did not expect miracles from the Minister of Finance this evening.

Although he did promise miracles during the campaign, we do not expect any here.

The Minister said, when he looked at the projections which were presented to us, that in his view they were unacceptable. 1 agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They are unacceptable because, between the summer and November, using the same departmental officials, somehow the deficit for 1985-86 has blossomed from $27 billion odd to $37 billion odd. That is in fact about $9 billion more, and someone owes us a very good explanation for that inflated Figure.

Oh, oh!

Mr. Johnston:

That has happened since this gang got its hands on the machinery of government.

Mr. de Cotret:

Ask Lalonde.

Mr. Johnston:

What we have watched here this evening is an exercise by which the deficit has been inflated, and then a budget exercise which brings it down to something like $34 billion in 1985-86. When the Throne Speech was read the Governor General told us that, yes, indeed, the deficit would be reduced, I believe in an orderly, balanced and fair way. What was also stated in the Throne Speech was re-emphasized in the rhetoric here this evening. I keep coming back to this point, Mr. Speaker, because we must be very careful with that group to make sure that the rhetoric we hear on the one hand is matched by action on the other. We have not seen that yet. We have seen just the contrary, as I will point out.

Economic Statement

That being said, we were told that the Government would re-energize the private sector and that the jobs we all want to see would come from the private sector.

Sure, they are going to stimulate the private sector. They are going to find thousands of jobs in the private sector with their new policies.

I have in front of me the expenditure and program review under the signature of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). He looks a little sheepish and is also blushing, as he well might. Let us review some of these cuts that have been introduced. I will only mention a few of them because I do not want to take too much time in the House. Although they were not dealt with in any detail in the Minister's presentation, I think Canadians and my colleagues who have not had the opportunity would be interested in looking at a few of these measures that will stimulate the private sector and create jobs.

They are found in an interesting series of appendices to this document. For example, with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, $75 million will be removed. I will not debate the merits of that, but will leave that to the critic. However, is that the way they will create jobs? Certainly not in the CBC. I ask the Minister of Finance how many jobs are involved in that cut? I am sure that he knows, but he did not tell us this evening. There is to be $7.5 million cut from cultural agencies such as the Canada Council, National Art Centre and probably theatre groups right across Canada. Where is the job creation in that cut or the stimulating of the private sector? With respect to the PIP Program and exploration and development, there is to be a cut of $250 million. Will there be many jobs created in the private sector through that cut? Clearly not, Mr. Speaker.

Let me continue with respect to research and development. Where is the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) who told us during the election campaign that they were going to increase R and D spending to 2.5 per cent of GNP, doubling it? Here we find that $34.6 million is removed from the National Research Council immediately, as well as other research programs being terminated. Is there a lot of job-creation there?

Let us consider the Program for Export Market Development. That is a program which we designed to stimulate export-led growth in this country to create jobs in this country. The Government will take $4 million out of that program. Are there many jobs being created there? The same is true for the Canadian Commercial Corporation from which $5 million is being taken. Again, this directly affects our exports and the capacity of this country to export to the world. An amount of $9.6 million is directly being taken out of the social housing program which provides work in the construction sector. We are all aware of the number of jobs that are created by the

November 8, 1984

Economic Statement

Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program across the country. That represents a $29.4 million job loss.

I turn to Industrial Incentives Programs. I see the Minister of DRIE sitting across the aisle. There is $200 million taken out of the IRDP. That is the only real program which is designed to help small and medium sized businesses in this country. While the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other Ministers opposite have said that that is where the jobs will come from, they are taking out $200 million in 1985-86. The way that program works means that applications would have to shut down in 1984-85 because they are ongoing through those periods. What kind of approach is that to the stimulation of jobs in the private sector? Did the Minister propose an alternative? Did he come forward and say that they will take $200 million but another program to stimulate that sector, in keeping with the rhetoric of the Throne Speech, would replace it? I have not found one innovative idea to create jobs in any of those sectors.

Let me cite a few more measures. There is "rigorous management of programs". That is interesting.

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

What about VIA Rail?

Mr. Johnston:

My leader mentions VIA Rail. I do not purport to cite all of them, just those that come directly from the page. VIA Rail does appear on the page, with $93 million, repair facilities and so on.

However, let us deal with other measures that touch people directly. For example, the Government will reduce the six-week eligibility for unemployment insurance payments and get it down to three weeks. That involves $5.8 million.

There is the Mobility Program. On the one hand the Minister just discussed giving some form of tax relief in these communities that are affected by plant shutdowns, but on the other hand $2.8 million is taken out of the Mobility Program of Employment and Immigration. That program is designed to assist workers to relocate to areas of higher employment, allowing them to get jobs in other communities where jobs are available. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the students, who came to make representations to Members of the Conservative Caucus and a number of us as well, were still here. With respect to the Canada Student Loans Program, $5 million of financial help for students in this country is removed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is blushing, as he should. I must repeat the response he gave in the House earlier today. I can see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is chortling because at least his commitment was satisfied in the Throne Speech debate.

Canagrex is gone.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Johnston:

I will let the response come from the critic and those people who use Canagrex to get their products into foreign markets. You might find another mechanism, but none

of you are prepared to come forward with this other mechanism. Let us see it.

The General Industrial Training Program to provide financial assistance to employers to provide skills training is absolutely critical today in order for those people to get upgraded jobs. We see that $40 million is taken from that program. However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will conduct a study. In fact, there has been a new industry created by the Government. It is studies, consultations and committees. While there will be much unemployment there, it will certainly not be productive, particularly since in most instances the Government is trying to re-invent the wheel.

I thought the Prime Minister would blush at the mention of Summer Canada. There will be $85 million gone from this program which provides employment for students during summer months. The $84 million CHIP Program-another good employment program-is gone.

It is interesting to note with respect to capital projects that the Washington Embassy has been deferred a year. I hope the Prime Minister discussed that with the President.

I found it particularly interesting that two of the major research centres-the Manufacturing Technology Institute and the Research Institute in Shawinigan-were both cancelled. One happens to be in the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), while the other happens to be in the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).

Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):

How did they get there?

Mr. Johnston:

Is the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) in the House tonight? The Maritime Forestry Research Institute in Fredericton, New Brunswick, seems to have escaped the axe. It is an institute of approximately the same magnitude. Incidentally, that was put into the Member's riding, for which he should be grateful. I think the cuts speak for themselves.

Finally, the greatest embarrassment of all must be reserved for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates). How could you do it to him? He was sent to Washington to say that the Government would increase defence spending. He was to put new uniforms on our troops and increase our commitment to NATO, which we are told has been neglected by the previous government. But what do we find? The sum of $154 million has been taken out from departmental operations in Defence, with the bald statement that these savings can be realized while maintaining Canada's commitment to NATO. What kind of credibility does that leave the Minister of National Defence? In fact, what kind of credibility does that leave the Government as a whole? He has always said that we would maintain our commitments to NATO. I come back to my point.

November 8, 1984

[ Translation]

Where are the jobs with these cuts? Can anyone tell me that? Does he think I did not notice that he is establishing here-

-Members from Quebec.

Mr. Johnston:

Another thing-

There is the Natural Gas Laterals Program in Quebec, $85 million. Current construction will be completed but the rest of the program will be cancelled. Again this means jobs out the window.

I had thought that we might see some symbolic cuts. Unfortunately we have found some real cuts, damaging cuts. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that restraint starts at home. I understand Maxwell Henderson was on Canada AM this morning. He made that point. He said, "cuts begin at home just like charity, let us ground the JetStars, let us put them on the ground for a while"-