1982-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, whereas Premier Lougheed of Alberta has come forward with extra loans to the consortium building the Prince Rupert grain terminal, ensuring that the project will go ahead as planned, whereas the proposed terminal would have been scrapped without this increased funding, and whereas the terminal will become an integral part of the grain handling system of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House commends Mr. Lougheed's action, which shows the type of political and economic leadership at the provincial level that is sorely lacking at the federal level.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. At a value of less than 80 per cent of the American dollar, the low Canadian dollar should be drawing record numbers of American tourists to our beautiful country but, instead, travel to Canada by Americans this summer has dropped badly, up to 30 per cent in some areas. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House demands that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism do everything in his power to let Americans know what a bargain it is to holiday in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on the urgent matter of deterioration of peace and international order. Present deliberations by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean are testimony to the fact that this House, and Canadians, are critically concerned about events in that part of the world. Honduran armed forces and mercenary involvement in two neighbouring countries, El Salvador and Nicaragua, has now been made clear. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House and the Canadian government protest growing military assistance by Honduras to El Salvador, continuing Honduran armed forces harassment of border area refugees, and Honduran based mercenary attacks on Nicaragua; and that Canada review the status of Honduras as our targeted country in Central America for foreign aid.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS DUPLICATION OF SERVICES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, bearing in mind the desire of most Canadians to have the federal government reduce its deficit, now accumulated to a total of $135 billion, a deficit which is known to create an unacceptably high level of taxation, both direct and indirect, as demonstrated by the fact that when Canadians purchase $15 worth of gasoline they pay only $5 for gas and a whopping $10 in taxes, and in light of the study commissioned by the western provincial governments which identified 100 areas where duplication

July 16, 1982
exists in federal and provincial services, and the western premiers' task force on constitutional trends third report, which identifies nine areas of duplication which should receive immediate action for efficiency, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House recommends that an all-party parliamentary committee be struck to consider the suggestions of the western premiers with respect to duplication of services by government and that that committee report to Parliament in the fall of 1982 with the objective of pointing out where the Government of Canada, via co-operation, can save taxpayers' dollars.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, in view of the nearly 10,000 additional industrial lay-offs reported today by the Canadian Press, together with the announced 60 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies, and in view of the forecast of failure by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) of the government's restraint program because, as he put it, "Canadians are rather spoiled," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House demands that the call by the Canadian Federation of Labour and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for the federal government to control its spending be heeded by this spoiler of people's dreams, the Liberal Government of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the review carried out by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his officials respecting the plight of Mirabel Airport has apparently concluded that forced transfers of passenger flights to Mirabel would be ludicrous and damaging to the air transport industry. There is now a report that cargo operations will be diverted to Mirabel. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to recognize the errors of his Liberal predecessors and find some use for Mirabel that will not continue to inflict damage on the Canadian air transport industry and its users.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives joined the growing number of organizations and individual Canadians who are calling for much needed reform of our public pension system as being the best way to help our elderly, many of whom are living in dire poverty. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House calls on the government to increase immediately benefits provided under the Old Age Security Act to bring all seniors above the poverty level, and raise benefits under the Canada Pension Plan to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage, and further, that the government be directed to stop attempting to destroy the universality aspect of the old age security system as witnessed by the recent decision to cap cost of living indexation of this plan.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Department of Justice has recently done a study on the aboriginal rights provisions in the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which apparently suggests that any special treatment, according to native peoples would discriminate against nonJnatives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this study be made available to Members of Parliament and native people in order that they can better prepare for the coming constitutional conference.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
July 16, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, as a result of a resolution passed by the town of Fort Erie, and in light of the fact that the ice boom placed in Lake Erie at the mouth of the Niagara River for several years has resulted in lower temperatures in Fort Erie, Fort Colborne, and Wainfleet, a later planting and growing season, additional heating bills, and a hampering of the shipping industry in the area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the Canadian government, through its spokesmen on the International Joint Commission, reject the future placing of the ice boom in Lake Erie at the mouth of the Niagara River.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, unemployment amongst the Indo-Chinese boat people has reached 25 per cent across Canada, while in Toronto estimates are that only 25 per cent have been able to find full-time employment. These southeast Asian refugees have a difficult time in the job market because of an inability to speak English, and because they cannot afford to take training to improve their skills or gain trades certification. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to take immediate action to provide jobs, language and trade training so these refugees are no longer forced to lose face and can be the contributors to society that they strongly desire to be.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


FUNDING OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR STUDENTS LIVING OFF RESERVE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has arbitrarily and unilaterally cut off financial assistance for instructional supplies for elementary and secondary school children of treaty Indians who live off reserve in Alberta. This attack on the treaty rights of indigenous peoples is in direct opposition to the Government of Canada's legal obligation to uphold its treaty commitments. Approximately 20 per cent of Alberta treaty Indians are forced to live off reserve because of the lack of viable economic development activity within the reserves. Whereas the fully sanctioned rights of treaty Indians are not to be denied because of place of residence, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this directive be immediately withdrawn and that the treaty Indian students of Alberta be assured that the right to education will be respected, and further, that this government recommit itself to meaningful dialogue with the native peoples of Canada, reject unilateral action, and uphold the recently endorsed Charter of Rights.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the first six months of this year compared to last year farm bankruptcies in Quebec are up 243 per cent, 533 per cent in Manitoba, and over 60 per cent in Canada as a whole. Since farmers are facing a 17 per cent decrease in their net income this year over last-we do not even have the figures for forced farm liquidations-can the minister state that his present economic policies, which may help only 600 of the over 300,000 farmers in Canada, are adequate to meet our food production requirements?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member will have to make up his own mind on that subject. In my view the policies put in place in the budget are essential to bring about recovery in the Canadian economy. The way to succeed, the way to improve the situation, is to make the

July 16, 1982
Oral Questions
difficult changeover from the 12 per cent society we are presently in to a 6 per cent society. That is the basic approach of the government, and I believe it will lead to success. 1 hope the hon. member will find that approach satisfying and will join the growing number of Canadians who now see the justification for the approach taken by the government.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: That is little comfort to the hundreds and hundreds of farmers being forced off their farms by high interest rates, taxes, and product prices far below the cost of production.


REQUEST FOR INTEREST RATE RELIEF
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, bearing in mind that the average age of Canadian farmers is in excess of 50 years, and noting that the majority of bankruptcies are the young farmers of this nation who are attempting to put into practice the most advanced technical methods in the field of agriculture, what real assurances can the Minister of Finance give this country that there will be people to take over from the older farmers who are retiring? Why will he not act quickly to bring about some real interest rate relief for this sector, and move in the farm fuel tax area? Can he not give these young farmers some hope?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in the budget there is additional support for farmers facing financial difficulty, and a program will be administered through the Farm Credit Corporation which will substantially reduce the interest costs of farmers. That is a very important step taken in the budget.
The hon. member is quite right in underlining the importance of bringing down interest rates, and I am encouraged by the report yesterday that the bank rate and the prime rate have both decreased, in combination with a strengthening of the Canadian dollar. Both those trends justify the policy course established by the government in the recent budget.


RAILWAYS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given that the current price of wheat, barley and oilseeds in Canada is far below the cost of production and that there are real doubts that the world will have the ability to pay much more in the near future, can the minister assure us that he has the funds available from the Minister of Finance for his Crow rate package in the fall, or are we to believe the memo which has recently been released? Madam Speaker, is this whole process doomed to place farmers in an even more tenuous financial position in the future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is aware, he is saying it now, that the world price of grain has gone down. But my hon. friend is also aware that the quantity of Canadian exports has been going up tremendously. As he knows, this year Canada is going to hit all-time export records in almost all types of grain. So there is somewhat of a compensation there of quantity for price.
On the subject of the availability of funds for the western transportation exercise that we are now in, the Minister of Finance has assigned $1.35 billion on top of an existing $1.8 billion in the next four years. That is money available now. There is no doubt about that.


Mr. McKnight:: Is this the western development fund?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Consequently, planning for western rail transportation is going full steam ahead.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On January 31, 1980, during the last election campaign, the Minister of Agriculture, in a speech in Alvinston, Ontario, stated the following:
Fuels used in farm production will be exempt from any excise tax and a special price structure established.
What happened to that price structure? Why has the minister not been able to convince his cabinet colleagues to relieve the farmers of Canada from the federal rip-off of 60 cents a gallon on the price of farm fuel, constituting some 40 per cent of the price? if the minister is not able to convince his cabinet colleagues to fulfil his election promise, why does he not do the honourable thing and resign?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and some of his colleagues make great sport out of what the price of fuel is for farmers producing food products in Canada.


Miss MacDonald:: It isn't funny.


Eugene Whelan: When we are making this accusation we are insinuating that farmers we compete with are paying less for fuel. Let us put some of the facts on record. Apparently farmers in P.E.I. pay 34.5 cents per litre and in Maine they pay 32.6 cents per litre. We can go on down the list. You will find in comparing most of the states in the U.S.A., the western states and the eastern states, with the provinces, that there is not much difference in what the farmers are actually paying for fuel. We would all like to see the amount we are paying for fuel less than it is. We all know that the whole energy program is a Canadian program, and I am all for it.
July 16, 1982


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We were all shocked at the announcement by Dofasco that 2,100 employees will receive indefinite lay-off notices to be effective in October and November, and that, if there is not a turnaround in the economy, a second wave of lay-offs may be necessary.
Dofasco is one of the most stable employers on this continent, with good productivity levels and high morale. In fact its advertisements state "its strength is people". Inasmuch as the thrust of the budget is restraint, which will have little immediate effect on the market supplied by Dofasco, can the minister advise whether he can see any options open to the government that will hold off the second wave of lay-offs suggested by Dofasco?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware of the budget provisions. What I know about the situation is that these lay-offs are not to take place for some time, that Dofasco has all the good assets which the hon. member has mentioned, and because of that it has been operating close to capacity. It is projecting these lay-offs because of a decline in economic activity and because of the recession. I assure the hon. member that the quickest way to assist Dofasco and other firms is to succeed in reducing inflation in this country and to put ourselves on the road to recovery by reducing the rate of inflation from close to 12 per cent to 6 per cent. I enlist the hon. member's support in that campaign in the months ahead.


CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE BUDGET PROVISIONS
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. The minister knows that Dofasco feeds the automotive industry, the heavy transportation industry, and the appliance and housing industries. We cannot seem to get straight back-to-back answers from the minister responsible for housing and the Prime Minister on the white paper on mortgage policy. The appliance industry is tied directly to housing starts. The automobile industry is not operating at anywhere near capacity, and the downturn in heavy transportation can be linked directly to the national energy policy.
[DOT] (U25)
Will the minister assure the House that he will again, on an urgent basis, examine the capital cost allowance provisions in the budget to see whether they can be returned to the pre-November 12, 1981, status, and to see whether a new form of financial instrument can be put in place to encourage investment in industry so that some hope for an upturn can be seen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member
Oral Questions
raised two points. One has to do with the capital cost allowance. It is true that in the budget of last November the capital cost allowance was changed, not to increase the total liabilities of any firm under the tax law but to advance those payments. The change was made basically to assist in the reduction of the deficit. Hon. members have asked in the intervening time to go back, as the hon. member repeated today, to the pre-existing situation. If I had accepted that advice I would have added another $ 1 billion and I thought that would not be acceptable to members of the Conservative Party who are deploring the already large deficit which we have at the present time.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, 1 also want to ask the Minister of Finance a question related in many ways to the questions just asked. He will be aware that in the announcement by Dofasco it indicated that it was not its overseas or out-of-the-country sales that were the problem primarily, that it was its domestic sales which had dropped off so dramatically that the company was now faced with, or at least was announcing the lay-off of almost 20 per cent of its work force.
In view of these facts, along with the fact that the Steel Company of Canada has 2,600 people unemployed who would normally be working, and Algoma has announced that 2,600 people will be laid off within the next few weeks who should be working-all of which are related directly to the fact that consumers in Canada cannot afford to buy the products of Canadian manufacturers-will the Minister of Finance move to bring down interest rates to a level which will allow consumers to purchase? Will he place quotas on the importation of automobiles from offshore in order that Canadian automobile manufacturers can get back on track and get their share of the market re-established? Will he make a decision in favour of Canadians, for once in his life, and forget about the problems of other countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked that we take action to reduce interest rates. We have taken action; we have taken direct action to reduce the rate of inflation. If we can get the rate of inflation down to 6 per cent, as we propose to do with the assistance of the main economic factors in the economy, then I assure the hon. member that interest rates will come down. They will not come down in the way we want until we get the rate of inflation down. There is no magic wand which can be waved to bring down interest rates. The only group in the country which has that naive idea is the New Democratic Party.


Ian Deans: The Minister of Finance talks a lot of rubbish. He knows full well that interest rates in the United States are running in the mid-teens, while inflation is reported to be down

July 16, 1982
Oral Questions
around 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent. 1 say to the Minister of Finance that that kind of argument just will not wash, that interest rates sit by themselves in isolation and they do not necessarily bring about any assistance to the inflationary spiral.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO RESTORE DOMESTIC MARKETS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, we have unemployment on the east coast. We have major unemployment in Quebec. We have unemployment in the Province of Ontario the likes of which we have not seen since the Depression. We have 5,500 out of 6,000 woodworkers in Port Alberni laid off and not likely to return to work. How long must the people of Canada wait for this government to take action to re-establish a consumer marketplace and therefore re-establish the manufacturing sector?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know of anyone in the country any more who is not convinced that there is a direct relationship between interest rates and inflation. The hon. member has not made that connection. I met with the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress some time ago who tabled some suggestions in which they said that interest rates should not be more than 2 per cent above the rate of inflation, thereby acknowledging that there is a direct link between the rate of inflation and interest rates.


Mr. Blackburn:: How about the U.S.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member shouts about the U.S. Let me ask him to look at West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. All of these countries have much lower rates of interest than Canada because they have much lower rates of inflation. That is the fact.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I ask him to look at Canada. Is the minister aware that yesterday the Government of British Columbia gave approval to an LNG project, a S3 billion liquid natural gas plant on the west coast to be built by Dome Petroleum, and that five ships will be used? They will be built in Japan. Is the minister aware of this quote from Mr. van der Linden who is the project manager for Dome, who said:
Initially, we were looking at construction in a Canadian shipyard. That is not entirely out of the question, but there seems to be very little interest by the Canadian and B.C. governments.
We are not looking for a magic wand, but would the minister explain to the House why, in this concrete example of
where we could use Canadian steel to build Canadian ships, are he and the government not interested? What has happened to the government's industrial strategy and job-creation strategy of creating jobs from spin-offs of megaprojects? This is a concrete example. No magic wand is needed for the minister to answer that.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, to begin, I am somewhat surprised at the hon. member criticizing a very important announcement that would provide major economic development in British Columbia. He is obviously not interested in supporting those kinds of initiatives that will bring a major degree of economic activity to his own province. I do not know what the purpose of this question is.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about the ships and the steel?


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we have negotiated a significant hiring program for Canadians in the shipbuilding and marine industry, under the Canadian oil and gas administration and under our manpower planning agreements.


An hon. Member:: What about the ships?


Lloyd Axworthy: We have been able to negotiate those agreements in the past year to provide additional job opportunities for Canadians in those industries under the administration of this government, which clearly demonstrates our interest in employing Canadians.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. 1 am advised that the minister met this morning with Dr. Kenneth Walker of Niagara Falls to discuss the question of the possible use of heroin by the medical profession in the treatment of terminally ill patients. I would be pleased if the minister would inform the House of the outcome of that meeting.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in most countries of the world heroin, for the time being, is not permitted for medical use further to a resolution, which is about 30 years old, of the World Health Organization. Therefore, in the name of Canada, we will refer that matter and the excellent report of the Cancer Society on the use of heroin for medical treatment to the World Health Organization, and we will refer other work, such as a monograph, to Canadian doctors to make sure they are aware of the equivalent existing drugs to alleviate pain.
July 16, 1982


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Transport is quoted as saying that he does not think that the government's restraint program to reduce inflation to 6 per cent can work. Does the Minister of Finance share the views of the Minister of Transport?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I share the views of the Minister of Transport, but they are not the views that have been quoted by the hon. member as the views of the Minister of Transport.


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT RATES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, if the restraint program is to work one thing that has to apply is credibility. That seems to be the factor which is lacking with this government, that Canadians just do not believe what the government is saying. The answer which the Minister of Finance just gave does not assure Canadians that that difficulty between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport has been resolved. With respect to credibility, if the 6 per cent restraint program is to work then business leaders, labour leaders and Canadians generally are saying that the government as well-


Mr. Chenier:: You do not want it to work, eh?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If you want to speak, maybe you will get a chance later.
They are saying that the government as well should hold the user fees which it charges for services to 6 per cent. Could the government indicate why it is raising rents, for example, in Pinawa at Whiteshell Atomic Research Housing by 15 per cent, by letter, a day after the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has again stated that there are differences of opinion between the Minister of Transport and myself about the restraint program. There are absolutely no differences of opinion. The Minister of Transport is solidly behind this program and he has demonstrated that, by exhorting all the agencies for which he has authority in the government to observe the guidelines of 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
I made it very clear in the budget speech, but hon. members have tended to overlook that sentence which stated that the government will monitor the price decisions of the regulatory agencies within its jurisdiction and take appropriate action where exceptional increases cannot be justified. Now, the hon. member has referred to the alleged rental increases by Canada Mortgage and Housing. That was dealt with yesterday by the minister responsible for housing. I believe the hon. member ought to continue his interrogation of that minister because I found his answers very effective as I read them this morning in
Oral Questions
Hansard. I would hesitate to reach his level of competence in answering questions. But 1 would say to the hon. member-I think it is important to say so-that it was stated in the budget that there were exceptional cases where increases might be justified. Among these exceptional cases that I would include would be the need to control the deficit and the necessity of controlling government expenditures. I do not think that he would espouse the idea that we should remove a justified increase in certain cases-I emphasize the word "justified"- from the person who is using that service and transfer the burden to the general taxpayer through an increase in taxes. That is one of the principles which will be used in defining these exemptions to which I have referred in the statement.


MEDICAL CARE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it is supplementary to that put to her by the hon. member for Niagara Falls. As the minister knows, there is a division of opinion in the medical profession on the use of heroin and its effectiveness as a pain killer for patients who are terminally ill, the victims of cancer or other dreadful diseases. There is also a division in the House, I am sure, but from information which I am prepared to give to the minister there seems to be considerable support among the general public for the proposition that it be used as a pain killer, especially in the treatment of these patients.

Given this division of opinion, even in the medical profession, would the minister consider permitting the appropriate standing committee of this House, as one possible instrument, to look at the proposition so that the debate on the matter could be opened to the public and so that those organizations and groups, including the medical profession, which have some views on the matter, could deal with the question? I ask the question of the minister because I would like the debate to be a public and an open one, and it seems that such a committee might be a vehicle. Would she at least consider that?


Monique Bégin: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker, although I must underline the deep emotions surrounding the issue of the use or rejection of heroin. I think we may first want to address the question within the scientific community on the premise that suffering Canadians should have access to the complete spectrum of choices involving relief from pain. I would be pleased to hear the views of hon. members as to the premise that I am offering. At this stage I do not think we want to enter into public debate because we may settle the issue within

July 16, 1982
Oral Questions
the medical community, but I will consider the option and discuss it with hon. members.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the fact that a leaked cabinet memorandum dated last January, dealing with western rail transportation, bears a strong resemblance to the recommendations made in the report on western grain transportation conducted by Dr. J. C. Gilson, could the minister assure the House that the consulting process conducted by Dr. Gilson and now in the hands of his ministry is a legitimate "hands off' one and is not being stage managed by the same Ministry of Transport officials who wrote the cabinet document in the first place? In light of that document, how can the minister assure us that the Gilson process was not merely a matter of Dr. Gilson playing Charlie McCarthy to the ministry's Edgar Bergen?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have just returned from a tour of the west. If my hon. friend wants to consult with those who are taking part in the decision-making process on how to implement the Western Development Fund with respect to western rail transportation, he will not find many people who will not say that there have been great changes since we started this exercise. As a matter of fact, there have been tremendous changes. If my hon. friend wants to compare the leaked document to which he is referring with the decision of cabinet as announced in Winnipeg on February 8, with the recommendation of Gilson on a number of subjects, he will come to the conclusion that there have been many changes as we have gone through the process. However, the subject is the same, so there are bound to be some resemblances.
cetera-as the Minister of Agriculture would say. At that time we also said there were a number of "issues"; for example, we asked, "to whom should the payments be made"; are variable rates acceptable or not"; what should be the statutory framework"; all issues on which the government sought the views of the interested parties. The views of the interested parties have been formulated through the Gilson recommendations. There are still ongoing discussions on this subject, and the government will act on the final results of these discussions. That is the process, which is highly democratic. My hon. friend should hold it in great admiration.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the House whether, as usually well informed sources have it, his officials have recommended that one of the runways should be closed to make Mirabel a going concern. If so, which one is to be closed, the landing or take off runway? And if this is not the case, how does the Minister intend to make Mirabel a profitable enterprise?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the runway issue is only one of the subjects now being discussed in the cabinet committee on the future of Mirabel. Today, I am unable to confirm or deny rumours in this respect, but I believe cabinet is going to make a decision on this question very shortly and that the usual announcement will be made.

REQUEST FOR FARMERS' REFERENDUM	[English]


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Can the
minister go a step further and unequivocally state that this government has not arrived at a plan or decision with regard to the Crow rate and the action that will be taken? Will he again reiterate the statements made by the Prime Minister several months ago that no final decision will be taken without reference to all the farmers of western Canada and the people who will be directly affected by any proposed change? Will there be a referendum, or some reference to the producers involved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am very sadly surprised that my hon. friend, who is an expert in this area, does not yet understand what is going on. In February, in Winnipeg, I announced on behalf of the government that there were a number of "principles" which the government held dear, one of them was that the Crow rate should be replaced by a statutory framework, et cetera, et


FINANCE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister refused a request by my leader that a parliamentary committee be struck to investigate ways of cutting fat from government spending. In view of the fact that since that time figures have been released showing that between March of 1980, and June of 1981, the government spent some $7,000 a day on taxis and over $275,000 a day on telegrams and other message services, will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision so that Parliament can act by showing restraint instead of simply preaching it to other Canadians?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the President of the Treasury
July 16, 1982

Board has undertaken to look into any such alleged abuses which are brought forward. I am confident that if any money can be saved in any of those areas, he will see that it is done.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is presiding over a government which, this year, is spending the taxpayers' money at the rate of $170,000 a minute, yet he feels that Parliament has no role to play in cutting the fat out of government spending.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT EXPENDITURES ON TAXIS AND TELEGRAMS
Henry Perrin Beatty: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport-if I could have his attention. In view of the fact that in the same period, between March, 1980 and June, 1981, his department was the big spender for both taxis and telegrams, and other message services, spending fully some $422,219 on taxis and some $7,119,711 on telegrams and message services, how could he justify this sort of expenditure at a time when he was planning to cut back public transportation services on the grounds that he did not have enough funds?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar, of course, with the details.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into the matter immediately. However, the Department of Transport is a big one. There are
23,000	employees from coast to coast.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do they all take taxis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are many people wanting immediate information and decisions on rates, tariffs, accidents and so forth. Therefore, it is justified that the Department of Transport, which is in the transportation business, should have a high communications account.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In a press story in the Kelowna Courier, the office of the minister announced a restricted, internal, peek-a-boo look at only one aspect of the very serious issues which prompted the call by the House standing committee for a full and independent inquiry into affairs of the British Columbia regional office and of the Westbank Indian Band. Madam Speaker, I ask the minister how is it possible to put
Oral Questions
such a low valuation on the work and the integrity of a committee of this House. How can it possibly be suggested that this cop-out of an in-house review is a reasonable undertaking of the minister's responsibility to those who have addressed serious allegations to him directly?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, ever since the standing committee made that recommendation I have received representations from the hon. member, and I have received representations from many of his colleagues in the House of Commons with respect to this issue. I have made available senior officials of my department, both to the hon. member and to other hon. members of the official opposition. Not once has the hon. member or anyone else turned over any names of those to whom they are directing their allegations. They have not given me one document in writing, of any kind, substantiating any type of misconduct on the part of officials. After months of nothing but innuendoes of the most disgraceful kind, they have failed to supply me with one iota of evidence.
Madam Speaker, may I say that the proper course for the hon. member and his colleagues to take, if they have some evidence, is to turn it over to the RCMP, if they feel that they have got some evidence of misconduct. That is what the RCMP is for, and that is what the responsibility of the hon. member is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Once and for all, if he is not prepared to take that type of action, would he cease and desist from these allegations for which he is not prepared to offer any substance whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the hon. minister that that is a dramatic cop-out. It is a falsehood. I have provided many-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


Erik Nielsen: Get on with it.


Frederick John King: All right, I will get on with it.


Madam Speaker:: That is right. Now get on with the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister this; in view of the names and information that I have provided to him, and that others have provided to him, when will he be willing to take straightforward steps to address the issues which many persons have brought to him directly, and which prompted the standing committee to urge the minister to set up an independent inquiry? When is he going to be willing to

July 16, 1982
Oral Questions
do something that will remove the stigma of cover-up from his department?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it is precisely because I would be irresponsible if I did anything other than what I am doing. If the hon. member is not prepared to back up in any substantive way his allegations, and if he continues to resort to innuendoes, I would be irresponsible if I were to appoint some type of independent inquiry which would be nothing but a witchhunt, to which the hon. member would continue to make innuendoes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -but he would not be prepared to offer any assistance. I again challenge him to take his allegations of misconduct to the RCMP, if he has them.


Mr. Siddon:: You take them to the RCMP.


John Carr Munro: Or, if he will give them to me, I will turn them over to the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, despite the yellings from some of those McCarthyites over there, 1 just want to-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I will have to whistle to stop everybody from yelling. Order.


Mr. Paproski:: On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I have appointed my Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Goodwin, together with senior officials of my department-


Erik Nielsen: That will be independent!


John Carr Munro: -to look into the two letters that I have received alleging misconduct against the chief and band council involved, as well as any other matters brought to the attention of my Assistant Deputy Minister that any member here wishes to bring to his attention. The hon. members already met with my deputy yesterday. If they will now turn over to this special task force under Mr. Goodwin any information they have, he will have a complete investigation made and report to me within a month.


An hon. Member:: It will be thorough?


John Carr Munro: Yes, it will be a thorough review, done by senior officials of my department, whose integrity-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A witchhunt?


John Carr Munro: No, it is quite different. That is precisely the point, Madam Speaker. To have senior officials of my department conduct a review of allegations that members of the opposition make is one thing; that is not a witchhunt. To do it in the irresponsible way the opposition is suggesting, is. That is the difference. It is too bad they cannot appreciate the distinction.


LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING TEMAGAMI BAND-RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He knows that the Temagani Band is the only group of Ontario Indians not covered by treaty. Their aboriginal rights are still intact. At present they have a federal land claim and are also involved in a court action with the Ontario government. Why has the federal government not recognized that the Temagami have a comprehensive rather than a specific land claim?
Also, why has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released confidential documents of the Temagami Band to the Ontario government, instead of honouring its trust obligation to keep these documents confidential unless there is a court order to release them?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, inasmuch as this matter, as the hon. member himself has just indicated, is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. I agree with the hon. member that it is a very significant question of law. Whatever documents we have turned over or made available through the court process, have been turned over as a result of legal advice I received from independent law officers of the Crown.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday Sherritt Gordon, which has already laid off one third of its work force permanently at Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids, announced that it would be extending its summer lay-offs by another eight weeks in those two communities. Since Sherritt Gordon is joined by all the other mining companies in northern Manitoba in having lay-offs occurring, I am wondering what one step the Minister of Finance is going to take to get those miners back to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me for a step to bring the miners back to work. I hope he understands that the situation is a little more complicated than one that can be solved by taking a single step. The mineral industry is in trouble, because of a recession that is
July 16, 1982

world-wide and a recession that is being experienced very deeply in this country. It is obvious to me that it is impossible for the Government of Canada to ensure that the production of each and every plant in the country is maintained when markets throughout the world are either weak or have disappeared. The Government of Canada does not have the resources to stockpile every product at a time of deep recession. Surely the hon. member understands that, and knows that the surest way to assist every worker and every industry in the country is to take the very big step of providing a way to ensure economic recovery in the country as a whole.


DEVELOPMENT OF EAST COAST OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question concerning exploration and development of east coast energy resources which I would like to address to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope the Prime Minister will take a personal interest in the plight of Nova Scotians who face drastic unemployment and whose hope for the future is the development of offshore resources.
Recently the executive vice-president of Petro-Canada, Mr. Joel Bell, accused Mobil Oil, the major operator on the east coast, of corporate foot-dragging and not getting along with the work of developing those resources. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he is satisfied with the pace of development and, if he is not satisfied, will he take steps through his cabinet sources to see that development is accelerated so that there will be jobs created for Nova Scotians and others on the east coast?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take this question as a representation into which I will, of course, look in consultation with the minister. I have utmost confidence in Petro-Canada and in Mr. Joel Bell. I know that is not universally the case on the other side of this House, but I can assure the hon. member that, as far as Petro-Canada is concerned, it can be relied upon to do what is best for the country and for Nova Scotia.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, July 15, 1982, and that he finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.
Tabling of Documents


PRIVILEGE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to know what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called me, whether it was a frog or a fraud. Whatever it was, I would like him to withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members are not required to withdraw language in the House unless it is considered to be unparliamentary. If the hon. member does not know which of those two words have been addressed to him, he can hardly have a question of privilege. Perhaps he would like to look at Hansard tomorrow.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I think they are both unparliamentary. Shame on the Prime Minister.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) is offended by the term used by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in referring to him, perhaps he will recall that Tuesday evening, he himself said-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton North was not accepted by the Chair, so it is obvious that there is no point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order

July 16, 1982
Petitions
41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, the report to the Minister of Agriculture by the Auditor General on the comprehensive audit of the Canadian Dairy Commission.


POINT OF ORDER
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is in the House, has expressed great faith in Petro-Canada. I want him to know that Petro-Canada recently hired 16 Norwegian and French workers contrary to the laws of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


PETITION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) and Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) join with me in presenting a petition on behalf of some 436 Canadians from the province of British Columbia, including the areas of Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Williams Lake, Clinton, Kelowna, Kamloops and others, and some from the province of Alberta. This list includes areas represented by NDP members, and their constituents have sent me the petitions because the NDP supports gun control.
The petitioners oppose the passing of Bill C-451 for many reasons, including the following: the bill does not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun; the administration of this bill, if it passes, would create another bureaucracy; and it would make all citizens who legitimately own and use guns second-class and third-class citizens.
It is the inherited right of Canadians to possess guns, as long as the firearms are used in a proper and responsible way. No Canadian government has the right to confiscate all guns, as this is the action of a police state.
We urge hon. members to refuse to pass this bill.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask that this petition be checked very carefully for accuracy. It is my understanding that there is a statement contained in that petition referring to the NDP that is blatantly inaccurate.


Mr. Skelly:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The reference to support by the New Democratic Party of Bill C-451 is absolutely false. Could you check that again?


Madam Speaker:: Order. Petitions cannot be debated before they are read.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the hon. members should tell their constituents. They are the ones who told me.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I wish to attempt to put a question of privilege before you and to ask for some clarification from you. I feel that my rights as a member of this House have been abridged and seriously harmed because of a comment made by an hon. member. Can Your Honour assure me that the petition presented by the hon. member for Bow River will not come before this House? It is wrong in its content. 1 think the hon. member presented that petition in a way which should not be permitted. We are clearly on the record as being on the other side of that. Would Your Honour give me the assurance that that petition will not come forward in its present form?


Madam Speaker:: The petition has been presented to the House. What will happen now is that the Clerk of Petitions will look at it and examine it as to form. The Clerk of Petitions will give an opinion as to the form of the petition only. Debate on the petition is another matter. That can occur much later, if it is read.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO AND MRS. JOHNSTON
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, just to change the subject for a minute, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce one of President Reagan's educational advisers who is sitting in the Leader of the Opposition's gallery, Mr. Marvin Johnston, who is the executive vicepresident of the University of New Mexico. His wife Stella is with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure this person is very welcome in the House of Commons, but only the Speaker may recognize visitors in the gallery.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,686, 3,286, 3,370, 4,112 and 4,212.
July 16, 1982


Mr. Beatty: From March 1, 1980 to May 31, 1981, what amount was spent by the government to purchase liquor?


David P. Smith: Records kept in accordance with Treasury Board Directive do not separate the cost of liquor and food. In all occasions where hospitality was extended and liquor was served, cost was combined with the cost of food.
See reply to question No. 2,674 tabled this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a cabinet meeting held at Ingonish, Nova Scotia in the fall of 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost, including transportation to and from, accommodation, food, beverages and the cost for the staff of cabinet ministers and of the Prime Minister and any others in attendance?
2.	For what reason was the meeting not held in Ottawa and would it not have been at a considerably less cost to the taxpayer?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: 1. Yes. Total invoiced cost; $19,069.09.
2. The cabinet committee on priorities and planning met at Ingonish, Nova Scotia, in September, 1981, in keeping with the practice established as customary in 1979, when the inner cabinet of the previous government met at Jasper, Alberta, and in 1980, when the cabinet committee on priorities and planning met at Lake Louise, Alberta. The reason for conducting such meetings away from Ottawa is to enable many ministers to (1) become acquainted with local problems, issues and concerns in areas of the country where direct access to ministers is normally limited and (2) consider the government's over-all priorities and expenditure plan.


Mr. Malone: 1.	What is the average length of time for a first class letter leaving (a) Toronto (b) Vancouver (c) Edmonton to arrive in Calgary?
2.	Does it take longer for mail to travel from Edmonton to Calgary than from Vancouver to Calgary or from Toronto to Calgary and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Are there any specific initiatives planned to give better postal service out of the Calgary post office and, if so, what are they?
4.	Can those persons who are serviced from the Calgary Central post office expect improved services and, if so, within what time frame?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows:
1-4 A number of variables such as fluctuating volumes, availability of transport, manpower levels, weather conditions, shift schedules, etc. determine the delivery times to and between the cities cited in the question. Recent improvements in productivity resulting from a change in allocation of physical and human ressources have rendered previous delivery standards obsolete. We can say, however, that delivery times
Order Paper Questions
have and are reduced. Revised standards and statistics will be available in the not too distant future.
In particular, mail delivery service in the Calgary area has been improved as the result of the expansion of door-to-door and group box service in the metropolitan area combined with the introduction of new programs directed at upgrading sortations, improving mail make-up, by reducing staff turnover and systems to simplify sortation. It is Canada Post's number one priority to improve service and this is already happening in the Calgary area.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the average annual consumption of (a) diesel fuel (b) gasoline on farms in Canada per farm acre or on the basis of any other measurement kept by the government and, of that amount, what is the average for that portion of the country (i) east (ii) west of the Manitoba-Ontario border?
2.	Did the government make an estimate of the effect on farmers of the steadily increasing price of diesel fuel and gasoline and, if so, what are all the details?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	Statistics Canada reports as follows: At present there is no consistent source of information on farm consumption of gasoline or diesel fuel by province or region in Canada. In provinces that have farm gasoline tax rebate programs or marked gasoline or diesel fuel (marked for off-road use such as farming, mining, logging, fishing, emergency generators) some rough estimates have been made of farm consumption. These estimates however, are only available for a few provinces and the information available is not consistent among provinces.
The most reliable indicator of fuel use on farms is the fuel, oil and lubricant expenditure estimate made by the Agriculture Statistics Division of Statistics Canada which in 1981 was estimated at $287.7 million east of the Ontario/Manitoba border and $691.2 million west of the border. Unfortunately, there is no distinction between gasoline and diesel fuel. Though there is a lack of data at the moment, a Statistics Canada Farm Energy Use Survey to be conducted in July, 1982, will provide farm diesel and gasoline consumption data by early 1983.
2.	Agriculture Canada: Yes. Some of the estimated impacts of a $l-a-barrel increase in crude oil price and equivalent natural gas price increase on selected farm inputs are in table 1 below and on production costs for selected commodities in table 2. It is virtually impossible to "make an estimate of the effect on farmers of the steadily increasing price of diesel fuel and gasoline-" because the Canadian economy is far too complex and farmers buy goods and services produced in many sectors.
A $l-a-barre! crude oil price increase and natural gas price increase would reduce net farm income per acre in western Canada by 2.8 per cent of the 1980 level; in central Canada by

July 16, 1982
Order Paper Questions
1.6 per cent of the	1980 level and Atlantic Canada 1.5 per
cent. Food prices are expected to increase by .2 to .5 per cent of their 1980 level depending upon the item and the food	
component of the consumer price index would increase by .35	
per cent.	
All these impacts are short term with no consideration given	
to higher fossil fuel	transportation costs, input substitutions
that may occur over longer-term changes in farm product prices or other adjustments in production levels and methods	
farmers may make.	
Table 1: Estimated price increases of a $1 a barrel crude oil price increase	
	Amount of Increase
Item	Per unit
Fertilizer Ingredients	
Nitrogen	1.28 cents a kilogram
Phosphate	0.55 cents a kilogram
Potash	0.37 cents a kilogram
Fertilizers	
Urea Fertilizer	$ 5.88 a tonne
Anhydrous Ammonia	$10.54 a tonne
Diammonium Phosphate	$ 4.85 a tonne
Muriate of Potash	$ 2.21 a tonne
8-32-16 Blend	$ 3.38 a tonne
Fuels	
Gazoline and Diesel Fuel	0.8 cents a litre
Pesticides	less than 1 per cent
Table 2: Estimated production cost increases price increase	caused by a $1 a barrel crude oil
Region	Amount of Increase Per Unit
Western Canada	
Wheat and barley on summerfallow Rapeseed on summerfallow Wheat and barley on stubble Rapeseed on stubble	46 to 48 cents an acre 57 cents an acre 63 cents an acre 78 cents an acre
Hogs Feedlot finished beef Cow-calf Eggs	37 cents a head $1.16 a head 63 cents a head 18 cents per 100 dozen
Central Canada	
Grain corn Soybeans Barley Winter wheat Eggs Broiler chicken Dairy Greenhouse (average)	$2 an acre 61 cents an acre 50 cents an acre 65 cents an acre 20 cents per 100 dozen 0.4 cents a bird $3.11 per cow $1,200
Atlantic Canada	
Potatoes Oats and barley Hogs Dairy Feedlot finished beef	$3.22 an acre 78 cents an acre 37 cents a head $2.24 a cow $1.87 a head


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): With reference to the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General at p. 27.13, volume II of the 1980-81 Public Accounts of Canada (a) how does the Solicitor General explain the increase in revenue for the RCMP from "Proceeds in Sales" from zero in the fiscal year 1979-80 to $3,494,568 in 1980-81 (b) what is the explanation for the increase from zero to $13,532 under the heading "Proceeds from the sale of ammunition to members"?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) Up to and
including 1979-80, the RCMP was authorized to use working capital advances for clothing and kit procurement/distribution (sale of uniform cloth to manufacturers, purchase back of finished garments from manufacturers, sale of kit to members and to provincial auxiliary units) and mess operations (purchase of raw food, cash sales and payroll deductions on meals provided to personnel). The revenues shown after the first five items under the "Proceeds from Sales" heading in 1980-81 public accounts were credited against expenditures within the above working capital advances in 1979-80 and, therefore, would not be considered as non-tax revenue for reporting purposes.
The above working capital advances were ordered cancelled by the Treasury Board effective 1980-81. Expenditures previously charged to these advances became chargeable to the RCMP Vote 15 and revenues previously credited there were deposited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This explains the appearance of the first five items under the "Proceeds from Sales" for the first time in 1980-81 public accounts.
The remaining two minor items under the heading "Proceeds from Sales" in the 1980-81 Public Accounts were "vote netted" up to and including 1979-80 and therefore not shown as non-tax revenue. In order to more accurately reflect RCMP operations and improve visibility within financial statements, these items were recorded as revenue credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund commencing 1980-81.
(b) Comparable sales of ammunition to members of the force, for purposes of weaponry proficiency, were made in 1979-80 but "vote netted" as opposed to being credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These sales were credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1980-81. See also the answer to part (a) above.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,674 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the
July 16, 1982

Elouse that Question No. 2,674 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: What was the total amount paid by the government for hospitality in (a) 1977 (b) 197S (c) 1979 (d) 1980 (e) the first six months of 1981?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hargrave:: Madam Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader please look again at question No. 4,328 which deals with stabilization in the beef cattle industry of costs and prices? I am sure that if he would talk privately to the Minister of Agriculture he would find that the minister has the answer in his hip pocket. Would he look into this for me, please?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to do that for the hon. member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on July 8 1 asked the parliamentary secretary about question No. 4,041 which deals with the various reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, the regulations with reference to the Economic Council of Canada, the report of the task force on regulatory reform and the government's reaction to them. At that time I specifically asked the parliamentary secretary what action he took to investigate why there were unnecessary delays and I asked him to make inquiries. Perhaps he could give an answer today, eight days later.
At the same time could he explain why question No. 1,439 which asks for routine information about the government's advertising program, should have taken more than two years to be answered?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first matter, I did make an inquiry and I have not received a reply. I will look into the matter again.
With regard to the second question, it is a complicated matter but the answer is in progress.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 15, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I had listed three alternatives, or three policy decisions that the government could make. 1 am struck by what I can only call the sleazy discussion of the Conservative Party, a recent example of which is the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) which were typical of their McCarthyite paranoia.
Bill C-124 has been called unfair by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), it has been called unfair by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) and it has been called unfair by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). All three hon. members say they will vote for unfairness, Mr. Speaker. They are all in favour of unfairness.
This coalition of Conservatives and Liberals, this coalition of the right, of the reactionaries who have not learned anything since the dirty thirties, means that the first victims of inflation are being attacked-the low-income earners and old age pensioners. These great official opposition Conservatives support the Liberal government in chiselling old people out of a few dollars a year. It is plain chiselling and I have to use the word sleazy.
As an innocent prairie boy I still want to learn something and I need some more instruction and explanation from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on how higher interest rates mean lower inflation. I still cannot figure that out. In this country higher interest rates have meant higher inflation. That has resulted in people losing their homes, people losing jobs, people losing farms and people losing businesses. But somehow or other, as R. B. Bennett and Mackenzie King proclaimed in '32, '34 and '37, keeping interest rates high was supposed to solve our problems.
Last night I suggested that the Government of Canada should declare a state of national economic emergency and do what was done when there was a declaration of war, only this time it should be a declaration of peace with all that that implies. It should be a declaration of peace that puts people in Canada to work, because there is so much to do.
The Conservatives want to vote for Liberals unfairness, Mr. Speaker, but may I suggest an alternative. For those who earn more than $75,000 or $100,000 per year-pick your own figure-we should amend the Income Tax Act and tax the amount of increases back 100 per cent. Anyone earning less

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
than $20,000 or $25,000 per year-pick your figure, maybe $30,000-should be left alone. They are not the cause of inflation, they are the victims-the first victims of it. Surely if the government were to blow the dust off the report of the Carter Royal Commission of 1966 and bring in revised income tax provisions and tax people on the ability to pay, then, if you were fighting inflation, you would first of all tax those who cause inflation. They are the profit takers and money takers- not the profit makers but profit takers. An income tax act should allow a reasonable return of profit, a reasonable return on investment. Anything beyond that should be regarded as pure selfishness and greed. The money changers have snuck in the back door of the temple again and the Grits and Tories keep them there.
As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the first target is interest rates. Until they are brought down nothing else will decrease. The costs of that policy are greater than the costs of inflation. The cost of high interest rates has caused the lay-offs in our steel industry at Ipsco, Dofasco and others and also in the forest industry. The evidence is in, Mr. Speaker; high interest rates mean higher and continued high inflation.
In 117 years we have had Conservative governments, Liberal governments, Conservative governments, Liberal governments, Liberal governments, Conservative governments and Liberal governments. For all the barbs that are thrown around, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any social democrats or democratic socialists who have brought these policies about. Why blame me? I am NDP.
It was not the wild-eyed radicals, the wild-eyed socialists, who put 1,300,000 people out of work in this country. It was not wild-eyed socialists who caused the bankruptcies of hundreds of farmers and thousands of small-business men. It was the free enterprise Grits and Tories and their alliance that preserved a system that has outlived its usefulness. They do not have the courage and imagination to make fundamental changes in the direction, the nature and the purpose of our system. The appeal to greed and selfishness, to make all you can and to hell with everybody else, perpetuated by Liberals and Tories for 117 years in this country still continues. That alliance is unethical, unchristian, unseemly and obscene.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Parliament should stay here and make a fundamental change in what the government is proposing. It should do that as we did in wartime. We declare a national economic emergency and do as we did then. We challenge Canadians because we have energetic and hardworking people, we have the money and the resources. We should invest-not spend-in the creation of employment and the satisfying of the genuine needs of the Canadian population. That means $1 billion a year for the next five years in housing, the ramifications of which are obvious. It means $1 billion a year for the next 15 years invested in transportation, and the ramifications of that are obvious. It means further large investment in the production of food. We can do it, Mr. Speaker, so for a change let us do what this country is capable of doing. Let us make a declaration of peace, as we did when we made a declaration of war. We have had enough of these frightened and small-minded men who cannot change their minds. We have had enough of the old parties and the old policies.
I have quoted ministers of finance and leaders of the opposition, both Grit and Tory, from 1932 to 1938. We get the same kind of speeches and the same kind of budgets out of the same kind of Liberals and the same kind of Tories now as we did in the dirty thirties. Mr. Speaker, this Parliament should sit and make a declaration of a national economic emergency and turn this country back to work; we are capable of doing it and have the resources to do it with.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. He would need the unanimous consent of the House for a question at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am just curious whether the hon. member has read the bill. He said that the Conservatives, if they voted for this bill, would be voting against senior citizens and old age pensioners. There is no mention whatsoever of old age pensions in this bill. It deals with judges, ministers of the Crown, members of the Senate and the House, and wage rates for civil servants. There is nothing at all in here about pensions, so I am curious whether the hon. member has read the bill completely.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks may have got a little convoluted, but I was referring to the fact that three Conservatives are already on record as saying this bill is unfair and they are going to vote for it. That means they are going to vote for unfairness, and I mentioned old age pensions in the context of the budget and chiselling old people-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is not in the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This bill chisels low-income earners in the public service. If the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. At this stage the rule of relevancy has to be brought to the attention of the hon. member.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-124 respecting compensation in the public sector, and to explain why I strongly support the leadership the government is giving with this bill to resurrect our economy with a new 6 per cent society. I do want to say, though, to my respected friend, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), concerning his comments about the free enterprise system, that it was this system, the working relationship between the public and private sectors and the ingenuity of Canadians, which built this country into the great society we
July 16, 1982

have today. 1 do not think it was some of the policies he has been advocating in his speech, as much as I respect him as a friend, which built Canada into one of the greatest nations in the world.
There have been many speeches in this House, Mr. Speaker, in the past week, on this bill, with I think some very constructive suggestions which my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), has indicated will be listened to in committee by the government before the bill comes back to the House for report stage and third reading. In the debate the details of the cause of inflation, our present economic situation and the OECD report have been outlined by several speakers.
In particular, I would commend hon. members to read the speech of our colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who I thought gave a very competent speech with respect to the situation and how we can resurrect our domestic situation. I would like to divide my speech into two parts, one with respect to my specific responsibilities concerning trade- because there have been many comments made by hon. members on both sides during the past week about the importance to Canada of exports and how they can lead us out of the present economic situation we are experiencing. Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments as an individual Canadian and Member of Parliament.
First of all, in reading some of the speeches I see that there has been a substantial lack of understanding of what the export market means to Canada, its makeup and mix, and how it affects the various regions of this country. Much of the viability of the Canadian economy as a major trading entity depends upon its ability to compete in export markets. This in essence is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is doing in trying to get Canada back to a 6 per cent society and make us more competitive. Almost one third of Canada's GNP is generated by trade in goods and services.
Approximately one-third of all goods manufactured in this country are destined for export markets. It is estimated that almost two million jobs in the manufacturing sector alone are directly the result of the production of goods and services for export. It represents roughly 20 per cent of the total labour market and work force in this country. I think it is imperative that we all understand the significance and magnitude of these facts. Our trade performance has allowed Canadian industry to specialize and become more efficient. It has encouraged investment, both domestic and foreign. Above all, it has brought real income gains and higher living standards to Canadian workers.
Equally imperative is the need for Canada to maintain and improve its international competitiveness. Failure to do so will harm Canadian industry, discourage investment, and erode the living standards of all Canadians. Today inflation is eating away at our competitiveness. It is no accident-and I think this was alluded to by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in response to a question this morning-that Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany, the two industrialized countries which have been most successful recently in penetrating
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
foreign markets recently, have also enjoyed the lowest rates of inflation within the OECD countries.
Canadian wage and price performance has recently moved seriously out of line with that of our major trading partners. For a country like Canada, with such an open economy, so dependent on trade for its economic wellbeing, it is important that our wage and price structure, as well as other cost components, not move out of phase with those prevailing in our major markets. We simply cannot afford a loss of international competitiveness. Devaluation offers no long-term, viable solution. We must bring inflation under control. We are asking all Canadians to take up this challenge and join with us in our fight against inflation.
I want to spend a few moments talking about Canada's recent trade performance, Mr. Speaker,-the changing composition of Canadian trade, and the reasons why it is so crucial for our future trade success to get better control of our wage-price performance. Recent Canadian trade performance remains a bright spot and source of strength for the Canadian economy. We have had a trade surplus for over 24 consecutive months, a record matched by very few countries in the world. Our over-all surplus in the trade of goods during the last 12 calendar months is approximately $10.4 billion.
During the first five months of this year our merchandise trade balance was running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of nearly $15 billion. We registered a current account surplus in the first quarter of this year. While the services deficit is increasing, we anticipate the current account will be in near balance for all of 1982. Contrast this with the massive merchandising trade deficit which the United States has incurred during the last couple of years and also the European community. You will see that this indeed is a bright spot in the Canadian economy.
In the 1981 calendar year, Canada achieved its second highest ever merchandise trade surplus of $7.4 billion. This came about as the value of exports increased 10 per cent. The volume of exports in real terms increased by over 3 per cent. These gains occurred in a year when world trade actually fell.
A very significant point which should be understood by all our colleagues here in the House is that while international trade fell, Canada had record trade surpluses during this two-year period. This was achieved in a time of little or no world growth and it enabled Canada to increase its share of world markets to 3.6 per cent from 3.2 percent in the preceding year. More important is that Canada's share of manufactured exports to developed country markets increased to 4.2 per cent from 3.7 per cent. The fact that we are increasing our share of markets when the world market was down augurs well for the future of all Canadians when the world economy turns around.
This marks another important feature that I want to highlight for you, Mr. Speaker. It is the labour-intensive side of our trade, the manufacturing side, not just end products but also

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
semi-processed goods. The most important gains which Canada achieved in the value of exports in 1981 came from three of the four top segments in the manufacturing sector. This reflects the dramatic increases over the last 20 years of the share of manufactured products in Canada's export trade.
In 1961, finished manufactured goods represented 8.8 per cent of Canadian exports. In 1981, this share stood at 31.2 per cent. In the first five months of this year, this share is showing increased strength. Unfortunately, this is a fact little known and little appreciated by Canadians.
Many Canadians have been concerned about our perceived role as "hewers of wood and drawers of water". Of course, Canada has been blessed with a large resource endowment in agriculture, minerals, forestry and energy. Canadians have built on this strength and we should make no apologies about this fact. It means that Canada does not need to import these products and that Canada has a much wider range of products available for export. But this does not mean that Canada is not a major exporter of manufactured products as well.
There is a mistaken tendency to consider that only end products, as defined by Statistics Canada in its commodity trade classification, can be classified as manufactured goods. According to this definition, only about 30 per cent of Canada's total exports in value terms would have qualified as manufactured exports in 1980. Elowever, if one broadens the definition to Statistics Canada's industrial classification, fabricated materials, primary manufactured, and end products, finished manufactured, as well as certain processed food products, we would find that over 70 per cent of Canada's total exports on a value basis would have qualified as "manufactured goods" exports.
For the purpose of making some international comparisons let us use the official United Nations definition for manufactured goods. On the basis of this definition, 55.4 per cent of Canada's total value of exports was classified as manufactured goods exports in 1979. This is in the same range as that of Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway and considerably ahead of Australia's 23.4 per cent. The U.S., which is considered to be the industrial giant of the world, has a comparatively moderate 67.4 per cent proportion of its total exports in the manufactured category.
Looking at volume, Canada's manufactured goods exports increased by 52 per cent in the period 1975 to 1981, a faster rate of growth than that achieved by any other industrialized country except Japan. It was considerably faster than the 26 per cent increase for the United States and compares favourably with the 37 per cent increase for the total European Community.
Another major element in our strong trade performance has been our success in winning major capital projects with the support of the Export Development Corporation. Capital projects have been a major priority for this government during the last couple of years for three simple reasons. First, success in projects means sales of capita! goods, which is the labourintensive side of trade. Capital goods sales will accrue to all regions in the country if we are successful in capital projects. Second is our image abroad as suppliers of high technology
goods and services, which is increasing dramatically. Third are the success stories which are being passed from one Canadian company to another, thus encouraging more effort in this area.
Never has there been another time in our history when Canadian businessmen and women have been competing for major capital projects around the world in the megaproject range, which we classify as over $100 million. Not only have we been bidding on them but we have been winning these contracts. The best example, I think, is the contract which Bombardier Corporation achieved in New York the other day. It is our largest contract in history, a $1 billion manufacturing contract which really says something for the future of this country.
I think the record speaks for itself. Canada has made significant strides in diversifying its export base and increasing the range of manufactured goods which it exports in addition to its primary goods exports.
A major impetus in our desire to be competitive and in our preparedness to be competitive to this development was the depreciation of the Canadian dollar during the latter half of the 1970s and the fact that wage and price developments were in line or below those of our major trading competitors. This allowed Canadian businessmen to strengthen their role in the world markets and penetrate new ones. However, we cannot always rely on the exchange rate to improve our competitive position. Instead we must achieve this through improving productivity and keeping costs under control.
For example, Canada at mid-1981 ranked sixth among the ten major industrial countries in terms of hourly wage compensation levels in manufacturing. This relative ranking, which has remained reasonably unchanged since the mid-1970s, played a major role in improving Canadian competitiveness. However, the gap in the absolute wage differentials has narrowed considerably since earlier in the 1970s, leaving Sweden as the only country where wage compensation levels were still as much as one fifth higher than in Canada. While we still hold a competitive edge in wage compensation levels in manufacturing, this edge has narrowed considerably since 1980. Small shifts can have a significant impact on our competitiveness.
We have seen the results of what can happen before. In the early 1970s Canadian wage compensation levels were second only to those in the United States. Canadian competitiveness suffered primarily from a decline in productivity and an increase in unit relative to our major trading partners. This led to a swing from a fairly strong surplus to a deficit in merchandise trade and an even greater deficit in the current account. Investment faltered, imports increased and the Canadian manufacturing base suffered.
As I indicated, exchange rate changes and better price-wage performance changed this picture dramatically in the latter part of the 1970s. However, the current level of inflation and increases in unit costs once again threaten our competitive position internationally. In the last quarter of 1981 wage settlements were in the range of 12.7 per cent on average. This compares with a figure of 5.6 per cent in the United States.
July 16, 1982

The U.S. is our largest trading partner representing approximately 65 per cent of our imports and exports. The consequences of such a divergence in our wage, and hence cost, performance, it seems to me, are clear.
Canadian future economic prosperity will be largely influenced by our success in the international marketplace. Yet as we all know, more and more countries are becoming keen exporters as rates of domestic growth slow. As well, recent years have witnessed the emergence of the so-called newly industrializing countries as strong competitors for a broad range of goods. The competition is becoming fierce.
To be successful, Canadian goods will need to be competitive in price, quality and delivery. But there is also another element to success in the international marketplace and that is the role of export financing. Competition in this area, particularly with government supported credits, has become particularly severe. While we have sought to make competitive financing available to Canadian exporters, it is clear that over the longer term Canada cannot hope to win a subsidy battle of national treasuries. The only way to win over the longer term is to lower inflation so as to bring interest rates down and thereby be more competitive in the financing we can offer.
What are the consequences if we fail to act? The most immediate consequence is likely to be a lower merchandise trade surplus. Canada requires a large merchandise trade surplus to balance its current services deficit. In these circumstances a declining surplus can lead only to a higher current account deficit. This, in turn, will impact on the exchange rate. The end result will most likely be even greater inflation and we will be trapped in a vicious circle from which it becomes increasingly difficult to extract ourselves.
Now I should like to turn to the area of domestic effects on trade. I have talked about the role exports play in strengthening Canadian economic performance. But trade plays another role as well in helping to keep inflationary costs down in Canada, and that is through imports. We must not forget that trade is a two-way street. A country can pay for its imports over the longer term only if it earns sufficient foreign exchange through its own exports. Canadian imports help in providing foreigners the means by which to buy our goods. As well, imports provide a source of competition, competition which helps to ensure that we keep our wage and price structure competitive, competition which allows Canadian industry to specialize in the areas where they are most efficient.
In the face of the current recession, we increasingly hear loud voices both in Canada and abroad calling for increased protection against import competition. However, we must avoid resorting to protectionism because of the cyclical downturn. This would not solve the problem of Canadian industry. Protectionism here will only be met by protectionism abroad, and our exports would suffer. Protectionism in Canada would also remove an important stimulant to Canadian industry to adjust and to become more internationally competitive.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
There have been exceptional circumstances where the government, as well as our trading partners, have acted to restrict import competition faced by certain industries because of exceptional and special social and economic circumstances. However, I want to reiterate that these are exceptional cases.
These measures are not permanent solutions, and Canadian industry should not consider them as such. The only long-term answer is adjustment and improved competitiveness. Canadian industry must make use of the temporary respite provided to ensure that they are in a position to compete both in Canada and abroad when these special measures are lifted.

As far as our trade interests are concerned, my message to you is very straightforward. The viability of the Canadian economy as a large trading unit depends mostly on Canada's ability to compete on our export markets. This country has made significant strides in diversifying its export base and increasing the range of manufactured goods which it exports abroad. However, prices and wages in Canada are rising dramatically above those of our principal trading partners, especially the United States. The result will be, if we do not act, a decline in our competitiveness internationally and also a decline in our foreign trade balance. This, in turn, would only feed inflation and further complicate an already difficult situation. The only viable solution in the long term is to control inflation and thus improve our cost price.
That is my message. It is a challenge addressed to all Canadians, asking them to help us overcome this crisis.

In my 11 years of public life, Mr. Speaker, this will be the third time that I have participated in a reduction in salary. I think it is important not to use the scapegoat theory. For many of us who come from various professions, we took a substantial cut in compensation to become Members of Parliament, mayors, councillors or provincial legislators. We did not choose this profession because of any monetary gains. For most of us this reduction is what occurred when we first entered public life.
At one time I was the mayor of a community which had the highest unemployment rate in Canada. That was the reason I entered public life. To set an example, I cut my public pay cheque by approximately 10 per cent. I can recall the first negotiation meeting I had when the person opposite me at the table said, "Just because you are foolish does not mean that we have to be." I do not happen to believe in the scapegoat theory, but I believe that these are extraordinary times and, therefore, we must take extraordinary measures.
As I travel across Canada, as I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House have done, I know the feeling out there is that we in Ottawa are insulated and insensitive to the specific problems faced by Canadians in all walks of life. I am sure my colleagues would agree that in politics perception very quickly becomes reality. It is important that we as parliamentarians, with the control which we have over a substantial portion of the Canadian economy including that with respect

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
to public servants, should show the leadership necessary to get us out of these economic doldrums.
I happen to be very fortunate to have many dedicated public servants living in my riding. I am not one who thinks that public servants are overpaid and underworked. Collectively, I do not think they are any more overpaid or underworked than people in the private sector. Elaving come from the private sector and having been relatively successful in it, 1 think there are as many mistakes made in the private sector as there are in the public sector. They just do not happen to have all the cameras and media people from across the country watching them as we do in the public sector.
In general, I have found that the public servants with whom I have worked in five different departments since coming to Ottawa are as dedicated as any of the employees I met during my days in the private sector. I think, from talking to rank and file public servants in my constituency and here in Ottawa, they are prepared to accept that leadership role.
I should like to talk about a matter which has affected me personally in the last couple of days. Many hon. members throughout the debate on inflation and unemployment during the past couple of months have talked about the tragedies of individuals who have come to their offices. Two days ago my next door neighbour, my best friend and the father of four children of whom I am the godfather, was killed in a tragic accident. It made the front page of the local newspaper because he was a very dedicated community leader. I want to recite, for the benefit of my colleagues in the House, what happened to this particular gentleman and a partial cause of this sad occasion. I am not attributing any particular blame.
He came to this country over 20 years ago and started at the bottom echelon with a small company employing about 25 people. He worked his way to the top of the company, and at one point where several years ago the company employed 500 people. Then a series of disruptions in the postal service over a period of time totally destroyed his mail order business, so much so that in the last four or five months his company was employing only 25 to 30 people as it had over 20 years ago. For months this gentleman had been fighting to try to save the company, not only for him but for the very dedicated people who worked for him during this 20-year period. He ran back and forth between Cornwall and Montreal, and Ottawa and Toronto trying to find some solution to salvage the company. In this process he wore himself down to the point where he fell asleep driving his car, with the resulting tragic consequences.
There is much human suffering with which we as Members of Parliament are very familiar. When we go to our riding offices on the weekends these people come in to see us. This is why I feel so strongly about this particular bill. No one likes to have something which has been, or is expected to be held back. Those of us who are parents and husbands know that when we have to reduce spending in our own families difficulties occur. Some of us know this as managers in our private lives before becoming parliamentarians.
If we listen to our constituents, as I do, we find that Canadians are thinking more about the future for their children than ever before. One of their great concerns is the legacy which we as a society will leave our children. Will we leave as a society the legacy which our ancestors left us? As parliamentarians and as legislators, I think we grossly underestimate the intelligence of Canadians, their understanding of the problems and their resolve to solve them. Also we underestimate the willingness of Canadians to share the bad times as we shared the good times.
I think the budget of the Minister of Finance helps us to share with those in the system who unfortunately have lost their jobs. If we, not just as the government and public servants, but at every level of government and in every business, commit ourselves to following the leadership set down in this bill, then after a short period of time we would be back on the road to recovery which each and every one of us desires.
Inflation affects everyone. Our legacy is very important. It is not only an individual responsibility, but also it is a collective one. We are asking all Canadians to join us in this challenge. The people of Canada expect leadership to start in Parliament. I sincerely hope that every member in this chamber, regardless of his or her party affiliation, will support this piece of legislation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to put a few comments on the record regarding Bill C-124 as they relate to the Canadian economy as I see it at this time. The first point that I want to make is that I believe restraint in the public sector and the federal government is necessary. It is necessary for a number of reasons. It is necessary when one takes a look at the ever-increasing expenditures that federal governments have been facing and making over the last years. For example, if one looks at the 1968 figures for Canada, one finds that Canada's accumulated deficit was approximately $17 billion. Today, some 14 years later, it stands at about $130 billion.
When one takes a further look at the figures, one finds that for every dollar of taxation collected by the federal government-we must keep in mind that these are dollars earned by ordinary Canadians which they have paid in federal taxes- everyone of those after tax dollars uses 23 cents to service the national debt. That money does not go to pay the national debt, just to service it.
I agree with those who say that cutting back is always difficult, but I believe it has to be done and examples have to be set. While there are flaws in Bill C-124, which I will point out later, it is for that reason that on principle only I believe the federal government must show example.
While members opposite may say it is the reaction of an opposition member, I am sure if the government has sufficient credibility in the country to make this bill work. Inflation may come down but I think as Canadians look at it objectively they may seriously question whether the government has that credibility. This is a serious point I am making because the
July 16, 1982

program can and only will work to reduce the ravages of inflation on ordinary Canadians if they sincerely believe that government has both the credibility and the willingness to cut back on its own pet projects in order to bring down inflation.
Before I expand on these points, I must say that I find the position of the NDP very interesting. I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in which he said, for example, that anyone who votes for Bill C-124 is voting for unfairness.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Your own members said that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If you will let me finish I will try to make a point. As I have stated, there is no question that Bill C-124 is rough justice and that it is unfair but the hon. member has also been around here long enough to know that some amendments could be considered and made in committee. I do not think that he should use his position as a Member of Parliament to infer that a bill does something which it does not do. As I read Bill C-124, 1 do not see any provisions on the old age pension included in it. Yet he made this distinct point that anyone who supports Bill C-124 supports a reduction of old age pensions. That is just not the case.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is the same principle.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are not talking about that issue. It is not in this bill. I think the member should at least have the insight to recognize that the bill does not deal with that section. There are many old age pensioners who are concerned about the ravages of inflation on their income today. One thing we should not do in the House is to project something to them which is not the case in this bill. I would ask the hon. member for Regina West to bear that in mind.
He also said that the mess we are in today is because of former Liberal and Conservatives governments. I want to expand on that as well. We in Manitoba are the only province which has an NDP government.


Mr. Nystrom:: You are lucky.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us look at the facts and see if we are lucky.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are you running for leadership?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Any time I can defeat you, I will run. That government made two promises during the election campaign. They were: first, if elected no Manitoban would lose his job; second, no Manitoban would lose his business. What are the details? It was interesting to notice today that the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who supports the NDP got up to speak. I imagine even he reads the report on business in The Globe and Mail because there is an article today entitled "Sherritt Gordon extends shutdown of Manitoba mines". There was a seven-week shutdown which was extended to eight weeks. The same thing applies to Inco. No matter how the NDP cut it, one point they have to recognize is the promise they made that no Manitoban will lose his or her job.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On account of the NDP.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are putting words in that were not there. I am simply saying to you, "Physician, heal thyself'!
They also said that no Manitoban would lose his or her business. One of the first businesses that went down the flue was one known as Schreyer Equipment. Since then, on main-street Manitoba, others have gone broke.
When I speak to businessmen and women they state that one of the reasons for their difficulty is a 1.5 per cent payroll tax. There is a payroll tax at a time when jobs are less numerous and businesses are struggling. What does the NDP government do? They add 1.5 per cent on to the gross payroll of every business. It is a tax to work. Here, they pontificate by saying that they would not do it this way. They do it quite another way; they tax for the right to work in Manitoba. They do this after the promises they made. When the NDP explain to me how they can achieve nirvana, I do not accept it.
Another point I wish to make to them bluntly is that when they say they will vote against the bill, it also means that they will vote against the salary cut of Members of Parliament. When you look at the bill you will see this is one section of the bill they will not support. Surely there is no question that Members of Parliament, senators and senior civil servants have a responsibility at this period of time to constrict their salary demands as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Leave that clause in and delete all the others.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: When I began my remarks 1 asked if the program can work. Can we get to the 6 per cent world of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is so fond of speaking? I said it would depend on credibility. Personally, I seriously question that credibility because of statements that have been made before by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) especially.
To illustrate this question of credibility, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley), for example, whom I believe to be a sincere person trying to do a good job for Canadians, said that we cannot follow the same course as Sweden, for instance. I agree. It is a country, however, that has remained and frequently been cited by the Prime Minister as a model that he would like Canada to follow.
There is also the question of credibility when the Prime Minister, during a year-end interview, questioned whether the marketplace either works or can work. That had a serious effect on the market economy and business generally.
I notice that it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I adjourn and continue at two o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At one o'clock the hon. member for Provencher had the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment for lunch I had pointed out that I believe restraint is necessary, but that restraint can only work if the government has a certain amount of credibility, and 1 raised doubts as to that credibility. Specifically in relation to Bill C-124, there have been criticisms that it is not fair. 1 am one who shares that view even though 1 have said that I support a restraint program.
When the bill goes to committee after the vote at four o'clock this afternoon, there are two specific areas that members of that committee should consider; that is, whether Bill C-124 needs to go so far or whether we need to go so far in relation to the terms of collective bargaining. As one reads the bill, one finds that it would put a cap of 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year thereafter on federal public service salaries. What it also does for that period of time, at least in the practical sense, is that it virtually eliminates collective bargaining.
There are areas in collective bargaining that could be and should be maintained even during that period. 1 will get to those areas, but before doing so I would like to give the reasons why 1 believe that to be the case. I believe that collective bargaining has worked in the public service. If one takes a look at the number of contracts that have been negotiated between the government and the public service, one finds that the number of times where breakdowns occurred is very limited. Granted, some of those were high profile ones. I would like to see some change there concerning essential services, but I am not speaking of essential services at this stage. Members could very quickly say that that refers to the post office, and I agree with them. I think Canadians should be and are entitled to the maintenance of certain services, and Canada Post is an essential service. But by and large, the record of negotiation and agreement around the table between the public service and the federal government has been good.
Should we, through Bill C-124, suspend that process for two years, I question what would be the climate when those two years end in terms of the collective bargaining process between the public service and the federal government. I said I would raise two points which I would think could still remain open for bargaining during that period of time. Other members will, 1 am sure, have other instances to mention. One is the matter of health and safety in the workplace. I have no doubt that the issue of health and safety in the workplace remains a legitimate and valid area of negotiation, even during this two-and-a-half-year period that is to start now. I have federal civil servants in my riding who work, for example, as inspectors in abattoirs. There is often a question of health and safety there that it is necessary to examine and this has to be negotiated.
There is also the question of Revenue Canada employees at the international border. I have a number of ports along the Canadian-United States international border. In fact, a study was done some time ago looking at the danger these men and women are often faced with in their work. For instance, there is the new sophistication of smuggling in the area of drugs. For some period of time they have been working with the department and with the public service trying to develop a plan whereby they could address these new, modern problems that these employees face at the border. I see no reason why in this two-year period that kind of negotiation should not go on. In fact, it should be encouraged to go on.
I also see no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in continuing the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Those areas should be continued in negotiation form during the next two years. I do not see how that would affect the restraint program in any way. There might be the argument that there would be some reclassification and therefore there might be some additional cost to the treasury, but I think on balance, for the net return and for the climate we can create, those are two areas to be discussed. I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that he look at that point seriously in terms of amendments, either from our side or from the government side. We could bring in amendments which would allow those processes to continue, and I think the collective bargaining process would be enhanced during that period of time should we do that.
I mentioned also, Mr. Speaker, the question of credibility. 1 have no doubt that we have to bring in restraint in terms of the cause of inflation. I have a press release here from UP1 in Paris which says that according to OECD, Canada led the western world in inflation in May with a 1.4 per cent rise for that month. The average for the western industrialized nations during the same month was .8 of 1 per cent. In other words our inflation rate was virtually double. So had the annualized inflation rate for the other countries of the OECD, with the exception of Spain and Luxembourg, which had the same rate for the month of May as we did. The average annualized rate was 8.4 per cent and we are in double-digit inflation. Therefore, the case being made that we have to reduce inflation and bring in restraint is backed by very clear evidence.
One area of credibility where the government is seriously lacking-and questions have been addressed to this in the House over the last couple of days-is the fact that the government is saying, "We will cap 6 per cent and 5 per cent, but we will not necessarily reduce the fees that we charge for users of federal government services." I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a letter from a federal public servant who lives in my riding. He works in Pinawa, Manitoba. Pinawa is the site of the atomic energy research station that is called the Whiteshell
July 16, 1982

atomic energy research station. It is a federal civil service community. These people are good citizens. They have worked hard in their contribution to Canada. Here is the first paragraph of that letter from a person who works there:
Enclosed herein is a copy of a rental increase notice that we received July 3, 1982. It is interesting in the fact that this is the same government that is busy selling the 6 per cent solution to the country which I believe is long overdue. However, it seems inconsistent with what they are saying and expecting others to do.
Here is a public servant saying that the 6 per cent world, or the capping of his income or salary at 6 per cent, is long overdue. When people are looking at the television screen, they should be careful to differentiate between some of the labour leaders and the rank and file who live in our ridings. Here is one person who as a Canadian, is saying, "That is fine". But he is also saying more, in the attached letter. It is surprising that this letter is dated one day after the budget came down. The budget came down on June 28 and the letter is dated June 29. In the letter he says that the housing that he is renting from the federal government is being increased in rent by 15 per cent.
This is what I mean by credibility. The government will have to examine its expenditures and also its fees to see whether or not it can rationalize them and reduce costs in order that the fees that it charges will be more in keeping with the 6 per cent world it is talking about.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce. They have written to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) pointing out to him the increases in the air transport tax maximum. For example, they point out that the average tax increase per ticket for Winnipeg travellers-or for Manitoba travellers, as I would put it-will go up $4.69 per ticket. To put it another way, it will be 68 per cent higher than the simple average in other Canadian airports. Now, you cannot have a 6 per cent world with 68 per cent increases. It is not possible. This is the dilemma the country and the government face. On the one hand, we have to rationalize those services; on the other hand, we ask Canadians to restrict themselves to 6 per cent.
I want to be positive and point out some other ways which I think would help in terms of bringing inflation down. Regarding the fairness of this measure, I would have preferred to see a bill whereby there would have been graduated percentages. By graduated percentages of increase, 1 mean that a person working in the federal public service below a certain salary would have received a cost of living adjustment, a COLA, and that it would have been graduated up to a certain salary level where there would be zero increase. That would have been more fair. I admit 1 have not got the figures with me and possibly when I make that suggestion I should have them before me, before I make the suggestion, when I am asked what saving there would be to the federal treasury. But in terms of visible fairness, I think that would be a better approach.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
[DOT] (M20)
There are ways other than this by which we can reduce inflation. I have already mentioned the deficit. There is no way the federal government can achieve the restraint it seeks by increasing the national deficit, as it has been doing. The government loses credibility when in its November budget it says the deficit will probably be $10 billion or $11 billion, and then it comes back seven months later, in June, and indicates it will be $19.6 billion or $20 billion. Anyone in this House who has looked at the figures knows that $20 billion will not be sufficient. It is more likely that $22 billion to $25 billion will be needed. That hurts credibility, and that hurts any restraint program.
The government must come to grips with the deficit. The argument put forward by the government for a "six and five world" is the only one we support. Why does the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance turn down the suggestion that we form an all-party committee and examine proposed expenditures before they are made? The examination should not take place after the expenditure is made, as we do in the Public Accounts Committee. In that committee we look at expenditures after the fact. Why do we as Members of Parliament not sit down and go through expenditures with a fine-tooth-comb and see where, in some cases, we might eliminate expenditures and, in others, where we might be able to suspend or postpone expenditures? In other cases we might be able to reduce expenditures at least marginally. Surely that is a valid exercise and a traditional role of Parliament. If the government really wants to bring about the restraint it seeks, I seriously question why it does not take that route. We have mentioned this before and I am mentioning it again. That is the way it has to be done.
Canada is a federal state. Without question, a federal state can be costly. We all know there is duplication in the roles of the federal and provincial governments. With respect to division of powers, the Fathers of Confederation felt it necessary that some services be jointly administered by the federal and provincial governments, with primacy being held by the federal government. I know a study of duplication of federal and provincial services has been undertaken. Why can we not undertake that kind of study? If there is duplication of services, let us see how that can be eliminated. That surely would be a valid exercise for Members of Parliament. Surely that would be a valid attempt to reduce the deficit and the current account deficit.


Walter David Baker: What about that silly decentralization program?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And there are other programs. I am talking about duplication, but when we are looking at restraint I think it is important that we do not fix ourselves narrowly on one program and think that somehow we can reverse what I believe has become a colossal problem for Canadians. We have to look

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
at every opportunity and every angle, and that is why I am putting forward these suggestions today.
There are other matters to which I want to refer. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), came in a moment ago and said, "What about the decentralization program?" Even though decentralization is a valid and worthwhile objective in a federal state, can we afford it at this time? Should we be increasing the deficit at this time? These are hard decisions. I know there are Members of Parliament who would say, "My community will get a certain service, so therefore I am for it". 1 can understand the politics of that and I can understand the interest, but right now I am more interested in turning the economic ship of state around than simply looking at what might be advantageous at this moment to any one specific area.
Another matter of concern in terms of reducing inflation is the matter of federal-provincial conflict. Recently the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has been having discussions with non-Canadian businessmen who want to invest in Canada. Non-Canadian businesses have not been willing to invest in Canada and feel that the reason Canada's inflation rate is higher than in the average OECD country is federal-provincial conflict. I think it is time for the Prime Minister to stop making statements like "Co-operative federalism is dead". The constant struggle and the constant bickering with the provinces should stop. We should study how we can reduce the level of conflict between the federal and provincial governments. 1 know that in a federal state there is a natural tension between provincial and federal governments. It has always been so, but at this stage I think it is important that we realize that federal-provincial conflicts have cost us a lot of money-one example is the energy conflict-and we must put some of that behind us.
There are other matters one could, and should, mention. Because of its actions this government has a reputation for being anti-business. Business people point out very quickly that there does not seem to be an understanding either at the ministerial level or on the part of the public service of what business is going through. Over the years it has been easy to tax business. It has been easy to increase tax rates and somehow to feel that business would always survive and continue and that jobs would always be available. However, things suddenly have changed. It is striking that individual Canadians have been saying that the business climate must be improved. These Canadians include business people and workers. Workers are saying that the business climate must be improved because, if it is not improved, workers' jobs will be lost.
The question of restraint is not necessarily the dominant one in the minds of many workers and other Canadians today. The dominant question is how Canadians can retain their jobs. With all the kindness I can muster, 1 suggest, especially to my government friends but also to my friends in the New Democratic Party, that they reconsider the anti-business words I hear so often. I hear the word "multinationals". I hear the word "transnationals". I hear anti-business words, and I think we should re-examine whether that is in the best interests of
Canada. I believe it is not. This country was built by entrepreneurship and risk takers, and Canadian workers as a group have benefited because businesses have prospered.
I want to leave the House with one last thought; Your Honour might ask whether it is relevant to Bill C-124. When I look at the restraint program and Canadian society, I wonder how a government which establishes national goals-and I do not refer just to this federal government-can transmit those goals to the average citizen and make the point that they have validity. We have been able to do that in times of war. We were able to do it during the great depression. There have been other periods of time during which we have been able to do that. However, as I see the ever-increasing growth of the social welfare state and its concomitant larger bureaucracy-I am not trying to paint with a wide brush-and as I see the infrastructure that kind of state needs to support itself, I believe it becomes more difficult to establish national goals, and citizens too often look at what could be a valid national goal not in the national context but, rather, in the personal context or in the context of a special interest group.
Let me give an example. I think most Members of Parliament here would agree that energy self-sufficiency in all forms is a valid national goal. I think we can agree on that quickly. However, when we look at methods we might use to achieve that goal, that is when we seem to fall apart. We are obviously facing restrictions in terms of the ability of government to deliver services, and we must ask ourselves how Canadians react to the restriction of those services. Because there is a larger national goal, and that is to restore the economy and restore potential future prosperity.
1 think the question with which this House has to wrestle is whether we want to maintain the social welfare structure. I think every member would agree that we do, but how are we to achieve it if the economy is not able to support that structure? All one has to do is consider the last census which shows an aging population and a very narrow demographic base to support it. What will happen 20 years from now when there may be a struggle because of age between those who are paying and those who feel the system should be paying them a pension?
Another matter that has bothered me in the years I have been here is that this Parliament is not able to establish valid national goals. This is the time when national goals should be established, and only time will tell whether the government will be successful in doing this. The chances of success will be much greater if we do not restrict ourselves to the program before us today but consider reducing expenditures in some of the pet projects of the government. We must seek more cooperation with the provinces and with business. We must also be willing to admit our mistakes and reject those things which have led us to the economic malaise we are now experiencing.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to
July 16, 1982

comment on this bill. In essence I support it, yet it is difficult to say that it is good legislation because of such and such a thing. The easy thing would be to stand in my place and vote at the appropriate time, claiming that I had to vote for it because it is a government bill and, in that way, I could hide behind the collective will of the government. I am not voting for it for that reason, however.
I support the bill in principle because I think it can be immensely significant if we allow it to be. By itself, it will not bring about any miracles. We are asking civil servants and employees of Crown corporations to accept restraint. Considering the size of the public service and of Crown corporations, a large number of people will be affected. We will even vote to curtail our own remuneration and I know that many people in the country would say hurrah to that. Through this legislation we are trying to show that we believe it is necessary to set an example.
The intent of the legislation will fail, however, if it is an isolated measure. We are asking people who serve this country very well to accept restraint, but I am not sure that all Canadians recognize that they have the same responsibility.
One of the things about the legislation that bothers me is that it may lead some members of the public to fall into the pastime of bashing the civil service. As the hon. member who spoke before me said, Canadians are well served by their civil service, particularly by the federal civil service. I do not subscribe to the idea that it is overstaffed with inefficient people. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you could walk into a manufacturing plant and see people whom you would think were not really gainfully employed or you could walk into a commercial establishment and find that ten clerks give good service but two do not. There is a people problem in everything.
In my experience with civil servants, I find they serve us very well and often under difficult circumstances. But it is popular to try to lay the blame for our economic ills on the doorstep of politicians and civil servants. Many people believe they should accept restraint because they are overpaid and underworked. I reject that idea. It is grossly unfair.
We have to start somewhere with this program and because of the difficulty that we all know of introducing total controls, which I think are unpalatable unless used as a last resort, we have somehow to get the message across to the people of Canada that we have serious economic problems. We must find ways of setting examples. If we give leadership, then I believe other people will fall into line with it.
No one wants a restraint program, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who just spoke mentioned the private sector and the necessity of protecting it. I subscribe to that idea. As a former president of a chamber of commerce, I still have an interest in their activities so I subscribe to the free enterprise system. I recognize that it built the country and, in the long run, will continue to contribute to its development.
There is a role for all of us, however. We have to start somewhere, and if we accept the idea that it is acceptable to have total controls but that we must show leadership and hope that the rest of the country will follow voluntarily, I think they
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
will work. If we can involve enough people in restraint, then perhaps the private sector will go along. If we ask our federal civil servants to accept restraint, then our provincial counterparts must ask the same thing of the people who serve them. Then the municipalities, the school boards and other organizations must follow, and in the end a very large number of people will accept restraint.
If that should happen, then in the normal course of events I would think most businessmen would negotiate with their employees, saying, in effect, "I respect what you do and I think you do your job well, but guidelines have been put forward that we think are reasonable and we should fall into line with them." By themselves they will not work, and so there is a domino effect the other way. We get into trouble because of dominoes falling the wrong way, and sometimes get out of trouble if we can have them falling in the proper direction. So perhaps the private sector will also begin to accept that, well, if I just have a modicum of faith, maybe we can live in a 6 per cent environment. If I participate, maybe it will work. I know many people listening this afternoon may say, well, this man is living in a dream world. Maybe I am being a bit of an idealist, but already we see signs that labour is saying that yes, given the difficult times and the example which is about to be set, maybe we can find ways to accommodate the direction the country ought to be going in.
I guess I have taken the long way around, Mr. Speaker, in simply saying to our civil servants and ourselves, the parliamentarians, please accept this restraint. I make the point in a mild manner that we in this House are accepting a reduction, but we are really asking public servants to accept a lowering of expectations in a very real way. However, if we just leave it with them, it is not going to accomplish anything. We have simply made them sacrificial lambs. However, if-and that is a big "if'-all of us say, no matter on what side of the House we sit or what enterprise we are in, that we really need to do something, if we believe the argument, a most valid one, that the biggest enemy is inflation and we will accept restraint, then just maybe other people will accept the same thing.
It has been said with regard to the civil servants, Mr. Speaker, that we are asking them-sure, we are imposing it on them through legislation, but we are really asking them-


An hon. Member:: That is called "telling", not asking.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: All right, we are telling them, but at the same time I am asking them and hon. members opposite to accept the idea that we have to start somewhere. If we continually throw up our hands and say it is always going to be 10 per cent so I want 12 per cent, where do we end up? We just continue the everlasting spiral. The logic is irrefutable. But everyone says yes, I will follow that but I will wait for the next guy to do something. We are trying to set an example for others to follow. And it can happen, Mr. Speaker. Everyone looks to the federal government to be the leader in economic matters. No

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
matter what the spending at the provincial or municipal levels, we take the rap for it. Well, if we are going to take the rap for it, let us do something about it.
I am glad to say that I did not hear any groaning in this House about not accepting a cutback in our wages because we believe we deserve the remuneration offered. I believe as a member of this House-and 1 think 1 speak for all members- I have to do something, and I am going to put my money where my mouth is. We have said we do not really want to go or should have to go to a whole pile of extraordinary measures to bring inflation, and thus the economy, under control. If we can get some support, some recognition, we can do it. You know, Mr. Speaker, I feel like Peter Pan, saying: "Do you believe? Everyone clap if you believe." However, sometimes you have to have that kind of vision and attitude.


An hon. Member:: You are closer to Tinkerbell.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Yes, maybe Tinkerbell will come and help because we believe.


An hon. Member:: You have Tinkerbell policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Going back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I am most impressed with the messages I have received from the many people who serve this country well in our civil service. That includes a son-in-law, so this process comes pretty close to home. It affects my daughter, it affects my grandchildren and, as I say, it is not an abstract "do it to somebody else" kind of problem.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Wait until the economy of Ottawa collapses.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I feel they are behaving responsibly. They are saying no, they do not like it, and nobody is going to jump up and down with joy. But they have said okay, we think we can live with it.
There are problems with certain aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am glad that when it leaves the House today at roughly four o'clock-I hope it will be at four o'clock-it will go into committee where there will be an opportunity for many witnesses from many areas of the economy to come forward and be heard.
While we are discussing the restraint on wages side of the economy, I have another plea to make. From the businessman's point of view restraint of wages is a great idea, but I hope the business community knows that they have to be very responsible and honest. I think our business community is honest, but they have to be very careful that whatever price increases they may have in mind are reasonable. Too often in this country we have seen price increases which, at least in my view, are really not that explainable. They have to look at how competitive they really are. If we see wage restraint, beginning with the example set by civil servants, and then we see a spiral of increasing prices, then we know we have a very tough road ahead of us and we will never really get out of the vicious circle in which we find ourselves.
We have a real need for everyone involved to recognize that, if they are not going to play the game fairly, then it is all for nothing. We have then done a great disservice to the public servants of this country by asking them to accept the imposition of restraint measures, and they are going to have to do this in isolation. I keep coming around and around to that point. I do not mean to be naive. I am just saying that if we accept the fact that we have great difficulty in this country and in the world because of inflation, we have to ask ourselves what we can do about it. Obviously, one of the things is to bring down as quickly as we can our cost factors, which include wages, productivity, and all the rest.
There is a saying "Let George do it". It simply means a job has to be done and by golly, it will get done. It will get done as long as "he" does it. Somewhere along the line we had better all start calling ourselves George, because we are all in this together. We all have the power within ourselves to make things work or not to make things work.
Briefly I would like to address myself to the official opposition and to the New Democratic Party on this point. There is a great onus on members of the opposition parties in these difficult times.


Ian Deans: What about you? You are the government.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: As there is also on us, yes. There comes a time when we should get away from the partisan line and concentrate on what really has to be done. Everyone here says that something has to be done. We hear different suggestions over open line programs ranging from asking us to spend more to asking us to spend less, or something in between, whatever it might be. But right now we know that one of the prime needs in this country is to find a device to give us a renewed feeling of confidence about the country and to find ways of restraining ourselves so that we can continue to enjoy the extremely high standard of living that we have enjoyed.
We have within this group, in this chamber that we all respect so much, the opportunity to say: "Okay, let us at least give this particular bill a chance to work." Let us see if it will do something. If it does not work because we blindly hope that the rest of the country will take heart by the move and will fall in line, then it is the opposition's turn to come back and say "See, I told you so".
In many areas of this country and in many sectors of our economy there is an opportunity for all of us to come four square behind the principle of letting something work.


Mr. Heap:: You should have done it six years ago.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I was not here six years ago.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You sure didn't learn much, did you? It didn't work then.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: But it is also the time not to dwell so much on what happened yesterday. It is time to ask right now, today,
July 16, 1982

what can we do that makes us enjoy today just a little bit more and that gives us a tomorrow that is even better than today? Today is bad for some people. I think sometimes we lose our perspective of things. But for many of us we have pretty good times. 1 have heard some speeches in the House on this piece of legislation which have referred back to the 1930s and so on. Yes, I do believe that we learn from history, Mr. Speaker.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You don't.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: We take it as something we have studied and we hope we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. But we only use that information as a building block. We have to bring it into the context of changing worldwide conditions, changing public attitudes and so on.
We are asking today for passage of Bill C-124 at this stage so that it can go to the committee. I want the public servants of Canada and the many other people affected to know that when this bill goes into committee there will be an opportunity for them to have direct input into the final form of this bill. In my view, the government has the opportunity to provide a very tangible example to the country, recognizing full well-and 1 do not think anybody is trying to kid anyone else; things are far too serious to play funny little political games or to take a cavalier attitude toward the individuals involved-that those who, by this piece of legislation, are put in the position of accepting less of an increase than they normally might have expected, are getting one nonetheless.
We are saying that this is something we can do immediately. If we do not know that now is the time to act, we have wasted a lot of valuable time in this House talking about many things that do not mean anything. We have an opportunity in concert with one segment of the economy over which we have some direct control to do something. In most segments of the economy-and this is often forgotten-our controls are all very indirect. But now we have an opportunity in a very direct way to work with people under our jurisdiction. We can say to them: "Will you accept restraint and, while we are making this restraint law, we hope you will accept it in the spirit that we respect you and that we need you to help us set this example to the country."
We are asking people to do this. We are praying fervently as hard as we can that the rest of the country, including hon. members opposite, will recognize that we are in serious times but they can be corrected by a collective will. This goes beyond just the political process. We should not be worrying so much about what our general political philosophies might be. It comes to the point where we have difficulties that are insoluble in isolation but are certainly possible to solve if they are taken collectively. I am coming back to a phrase that has been used about the civil service in this country. We are really asking them to be heroic. That sounds corny but it is not.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You are corny.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I hear the hon. member opposite but, by golly, 1 have had many contacts with public servants during the past week. They have indicated that they accept the fact that they must be example-setters in the area of employment. They accept it, but they hope that the rest of the country realizes that they are not overjoyed. By and large they have agreed to accept it as graciously and as sincerely as they can, as long as we play fair with them. I hope they will see a sign of that fairness.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why did you take away their collective bargaining rights?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: That item will be well discussed in committee next week. I think the hon. member has to be careful when he says that we are taking away collective bargaining rights. He should not confuse that with suspending certain portions of them. He should keep in mind that the bargaining process will continue throughout the restraint period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why don't you just get out of office? That is what the Canadian public wants.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I heard the hon. member opposite. 1 am afraid that hon. members opposite do not recognize-


Mr. Forrestall:: I am sitting opposite and I should like to be associated with that comment.


Mrs. Erola:: Then you will be labelled a socialist.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: The popular thing to do on this particular issue is to use it as a lever for votes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what you are doing.


Ian Deans: It is the worst move I have seen in 20 years of politics.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: As an individual Member of Parliament I am prepared to support this legislation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Because Trudeau told you to.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I support it because it is the responsible thing to do at this particular time.


J. Michael Forrestall: You were ahead of the game a few moments ago.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for hon. members opposite to deflect this debate into political arguments of partisanship and so on, but I believe there is a chance for the country to do what it has done so many times in the past. We must come together as one people with a common cause. At the present time the common cause is the fact that there is a totally unacceptable inflation rate in the country and there is a need to examine our ability as a nation to be more productive.
While this particular piece of legislation is asking a great deal of a few, I believe it will work if all Canadian workers rally behind it. They should rally behind the example set and

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
exhibit the belief that Canada can be an even better place in which to live.
Let me say in conclusion that, as I said earlier, it will not work if we leave it to George, unless we all call ourselves "George" and get behind it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is 3.05 o'clock and in 55 minutes hon. members will have to make a fairly fundamental decision. The decision has nothing to do with restraint. Good God, Bob Stanfield talked about restraint in the House 12 years ago. In fact, he talked about it in the 1972 and 1974 election campaigns. Not once during the course of this debate have 1 heard a member of government rise and say, "Canada, I am sorry I have blown it. 1 have goofed; I have not run our country well." I have not heard one of them indicate that he or she was prepared to apologize and to take some steps now to try to change the direction. We are hell-bent for hell. Our country is down the drain. In its haste to change the direction-unlike Casey who let her go-the government produced a restraint package.
I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. In the hasty in-cabinet drafting of this measure, I think government members were not fully aware of the consequences of the suspension of collective bargaining rights for which the nation strived so hard. It was not only public servants who strived for it, but all workers throughout the country. They were not aware of the implications of the wording of their hasty drafting. I doubt very much whether the drafters of the legislation bothered to refer to Dr. Finkelman's report, to the Heeney report, or to the extraordinarily good work of the joint parliamentary committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which dealt with employer-employee relations in the public service of Canada. Indeed, I have searched throughout the bill for some trace of recognition of the development of the collective bargaining process in the history of Canada. There is no trace whatsoever.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that there are several hon. members of the New Democratic Party who have taken up positions directly behind the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). In view of the television camera, it may be that the said hon. member might not take kindly to that. He might not want to be associated with people of that particular stripe. I wonder whether it is within the rules of the House for the hon. member to request that they take their proper seats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is entirely open to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) to request those sitting near him to move, but I must indicate to the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that any member may sit in any seat in the House at any time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, give me ten minutes over there in the seat of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I will straighten out the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: The late hon. member for Prince Albert would say of this rump sitting behind me, "Begone; I am on the track of lions, not of rabbits." Look at them, look at them.


Mr. Rose:: We share a concern.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, I know that.


Ian Deans: That is right.


J. Michael Forrestall: We share a deep concern about the violation of some very fundamental principles. I have said publicly that I cannot support this bill unless there is a clear indication by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that he is prepared to bring forward or to consider seriously amendments to the legislation at committee stage or at report stage. I hope he will consider amendments which we will put forward to remove the stench and odour permeating what is otherwise an absolutely necessary step for the country to take, that step being restraint.
As for my friends behind me-the four horsemen of the Apocalypse-where would this country be had we given them power? I do not really want to expand on that except to say to them that they had a former distinguished leader, David Lewis, who attempted to move their party from an ideological base to a power base. Their distinguished leader now, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), did not have the knowledge and the courage-he had the power and the authority as leader-but he did not know how to move his party from the ideological base to a power base. So they will stay there.


Ian Deans: Will you vote with us?


J. Michael Forrestall: Will I vote with you? You will learn that as I proceed. I do share the concerns of the NDP, but they are not only their concerns. They do not have a-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Monopoly.


J. Michael Forrestall: I was paying union dues when that hon. member was still in diapers.
However, Mr. Speaker, this subject is too serious to joke about. I cannot accept the concept of suspending the collective bargaining process. I do not measure it against restraint whatsoever. Restraint is necessary and it must be practised by all Canadians. The leaders of our unions must accept that, and I believe that they do. I was pleased with their reaction and what appears to be a growing consensus that some action must be taken. But this does not mitigate in any way the suspension of collective bargaining principles.
There is still an opportunity for the government side to have a member rise in his place to tell the House what it intends to do about this travesty, this miscarriage of justice to a fundamental and basic human right, before the vote at four o'clock. I understand and suspect it will not do that. Their failure to do so on the grounds that they are afraid of what Jean-Claude
July 16, 1982

Parrot might have CUPW and the postal workers do, afraid he might take any backtracking by the government as grounds to withdraw services on the principle that there is a mitigation of the suspension of rights and therefore allowing Jean-Claude Parrot to authorize a slowdown or withdrawal of services under a guise within the collective agreement process, is completely unacceptable. If that is the point around which the President of the Treasury Board refuses to indicate to the House and to the people of Canada why he will not entertain or introduce amendments to correct this travesty, then he and the government have taken absolute leave of their senses.
Is he not aware that members of the postal service of this country are not, for the most part, law breakers who willingly and willfully disobey because it is fun or something to do? They are not. God knows it is difficult enough to find a job today. If postal workers were to walk out now, the government knows it could pull a Reagan and fire them. What kind of leadership could we expect Parrot to demonstrate against that kind of pressure?
What I will now say will cause the NDP rump behind me to leave. Half of them have already left. My leader and this party are squarely behind any serious attempt by the government to restrain and control excessive expenditures. We are all aware that the rate of inflation is running at 12 per cent. What I think is damaging beyond comprehension is the fact that we also heard this week that while the public sector is at least sensible enough to restrain themselves to 11 per cent, the government still rambles on at 18 per cent or 19 per cent. If my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) were here he would confirm that defence expenditures ramble on at 18 per cent or 20 per cent. Individual departments can be seen to ramble on similarly, while the general public is restraining itself to 12 per cent. It is absolute nonsense.
We have had so much thrown at us in the last four or five days-I suggest in the last 14 years. When 1 came to this chamber the annual inflation rate was between 2 per cent and 3 per cent. Mortgages were reasonable, the cost of money was reasonable and jobs were available. The country was on the verge of prosperity. Had the government shown any concern or leadership we would not have the problems which exist today. The country was in good shape and ready to capitalize on our wealth and the capacity of our people. That did not happen, and we are now in a mess. Mortgage rates are outrageous, the balance of trade is too great and everything imaginable is in a mess.
The government recently decided to deindex pensions. They decided upon this course of action without any consultation with the people. What does this do to the people? There is no guarantee from the government that this program will work. I hope it will work, and 1 will contribute to it toward its success, but there is no guarantee that it will be successful. Yet the government arbitrarily demands the deindexation of people's pensions-not necessarily those of public servants only-which was one of the few protections Canadians had against the grasping greed of the government for taxes. If the government
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
wants to suggest a 6 per cent or 5 per cent rollback in my salary and allowances, it can take my whole salary if it will help. I survived before I came into public life 27 years ago and 1 will survive tomorrow one way or another. I can afford it, but do not take it out on the backs of people who have not been consulted or have no way of contributing to the debate.
I say to the government not to suggest to organized labour in this country that what it has done within the public service it is not going to do in the private sector. But of course they will. That is what I cannot accept.
Now 1 am asked how I will vote. The House leader for the New Democratic Party asks how I will vote? There is no question in my mind that I cannot support this bill. I cannot support the privation it will cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: I cannot support the suspension of collective bargaining rights. The reasons for that have been mentioned here by others, involving questions of safety in the work place, questions of equality, and questions of special circumstances that arise. I have pleaded publicly and privately with the President of the Treasury Board to give me some indication that the government is concerned about these privations.
Under certain circumstances, people will be deprived of the right to collectively negotiate their services for almost four years. The world in which we lived in 1978, the world in which we live in 1982 and the world in which we will be living in 1986 are entirely different. Our world changes, but not decade by decade as formerly; it changes virtually day by day. To suspend the right of millions of Canadians to collectively bargain would be immoral, if it were accidental, as a result of hasty drafting. If it were deliberate, to try and thwart Jean-Claude Parrot, then it would be immoral. Therefore, 1 cannot support the bill. My dilemma at home, of course, is that some good Liberal or socialist will stand up and say I am opposing the bill because I want my pay. Well, I have dealt with that.


Ian Deans: No, no.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not concerned about that. Again, I am concerned because the Inter-Union Committee Against Wage Controls states:
Bill C-124 effectively denies 500,000 working Canadians-
It is not that I am only concerned about the 500,000 working Canadians in the public service, but I am concerned about the moral authority that the bill will give to the government to extend that denial to the private sector. My fear, beyond the principles involved, is that if the government dares to pick a war with the McDermotts of Canada, it will be in trouble; our country will be in trouble and the government will lose the attainment of its objectives, which everyone in Canada supports at this point in time, 1 believe.
The Inter-Union Committee Against Wage Controls describes it in the following terms;
19428

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
This basic freedom, which has been the object of continuing struggle for the labour movement in this country and, indeed, throughout the industrialized world, will be removed for federal public servants and their colleagues in the para-public service. The proposed legislation goes far beyond crude and severe wage controls for federal public service workers. Bill C-124 suspends the Public Service Staff Relations Act-
That is not acceptable to me, it never has been and it cannot be in the future. There are other ways to achieve restraint.
The first part of the measure dealing with suspension is totally unacceptable. This legislation was introduced by former Prime Minister Pearson, legislation for which 1 have fought for 30 years. They are principles which I believe to be in the best interests of Canada in general, such as the right of employees to come together and say to the employer, "These are minimal rights that we believe are necessary in the work ethic and in the work place. We believe these to be the basic necessities to sustain our families, to clothe, house and shelter them, to ensure that they have access to higher education. We believe these are the minimum necessities if we are to have equality, equal pay for equal work, equality between the sexes in terms of access to opportuntiy through negotiation". And it goes on and on. 1 do not understand how the government can conceivably suspend all rights to the public servants after 15 years of responsible negotiation. This is not done in the name of restraint, because the suspension of rights is not necessary to the achievement of restraint.
The President of the Treasury Board has left the chamber. He was here earlier. 1 hope that he has gone out to prepare some notes because I still must decide how I will vote, whether I will abstain or whether I will support restraint, having said what I have said, and give a lie to 30 years of my life, which would be a terrible thing to do. If the government is serious, someone will stand up and say in this chamber, "Look, we are aware of the difficulties in this area. We will move to consider opposition amendments. We will introduce amendments of our own to remove this travesty, or at least seriously to qualify it." 1 would regret the absence of such an indication from the government, because 1 would perhaps have to take a position different from that of my party, which 1 do not want to do. I do not want to be accused, as I was in the French-Canadian press the day before yesterday, of being part of the reason for the flying apart in the Conservative Party. There is absolutely no disagreement between myself and my leader with respect to restraint, nor is there disagreement, 1 am sure, on the part of the vast majority of people in the country and the majority of hon. members, including those in the New Democratic Party sitting to my left, rather than behind me, where they belong. Oh, that might imply leadership. I am not sure I am acceptable as their leader.


Ian Deans: Careful, careful!


J. Michael Forrestall: 1 am sure that the government will have the simple, common decency to do two simple things: first, stand up and apologize to Canada for the mess the government has got them into and say, "1 am sorry, but this is what we must do. We must get on with restraint." Then, above all, the government should indicate to the House whether or not it will
introduce amendments in committee and whether it will seriously consider amendments brought forth by the opposition, amendments which will satisfy my deep concern about the suspension of hard-fought-for fundamental rights, responsibly used. The government should, finally, tell all those people on or very near pension why it was that it imposed deindexing upon them without consultation or public debate. It will hurt them immeasurably.
I have many reasons for opposing the bill and not voting for it. There are a lot of reasons also why I should. Overriding them all-and I speak very privately now-is simply the absolute rejection, my total, complete, utter rejection, of any suggestion that this House or that the government has any right to suspend, to defer, to cancel, to impair the rights of people to negotiate collectively on agreements for their services.
I look forward during the next half hour to hearing from the other side of the chamber some speaker on this matter. I suspect, by looking over there, that there is no one over there prepared to address those two or three questions. That will be a matter of regret for myself. It is a matter of regret, I am sure, for the people, who deserve better. Restraint can be achieved, but it will not be achieved through confrontation. It is wrong for government to impose arbitrarily such an absolutely repugnant condition and to attach such conditions to restraint as to make restraint unpalatable. There is a will to do everything that is necessary, to reduce standards, to take lower incomes-all these things arc in place. I say to the government: do not blow it by confrontation.
I implore the government to consider seriously, before four o'clock, the difficulty people are placed in when fundamental human rights are suspended, rights that were long and hard fought for. I thank my colleagues, and you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that I have been given.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: He spoke before.


Norman Kelly: No, Mr. Speaker, I spoke on Standing Order 75C, not on Bill C-124.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Kelly: Let me reply to that comment made by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, whose opinions I always look forward to in the House and always respect-and which may not have been caught by Hansard-he stated that, by standing, I was denying, I suppose, a member of his party, the opportunity to participate in this debate. I suppose that this is typical of the attitude of that party during this debate.
I want to put it on the record, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate today, the New Democratic Party, which comprises
July 16. 1982

about 11 per cent of the membership of this House, has taken more than 50 per cent of the speaking time on Bill C-124.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an unusual and generous courtesy extended by the government to that party in this particular debate. I think it gives the lie to the sentiments expressed earlier by the hon. House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 rose to speak only briefly in response to the hon. gentleman who preceded me-and who, 1 regret, is now leaving the Chamber.
The first point he made was to ask whether we have listened to the points that have been raised in this debate. My answer to him is that of course we have. As parliamentary secretary 1 have been in the House during the entire debate. Two or three Treasury Board officials have been present in the gallery each day to take note of the representations that have been made. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and myself have read Hansard every day to confirm the statements which we heard orally earlier in the preceding day. If you take all of the things that we have done collectively, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can reach any conclusion other than that we have listened very carefully to all the arguments that have been made by all members of this House, not only by the opposition but by the members of our own party.
As further proof of that statement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat some of the remarks made yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board in his intervention on the motion to introduce time allocation on Bill C-124. 1 will quote what he said, and 1 am speaking through you to the hon. gentleman who preceded me. He said:
Many speakers have raised the question of the effect of Bill C-124 on the equal pay for work of equal value provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I remind members that in response to a specific question in that regard, l have indicated that it was not the intention that this bill would interfere with those provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I said at the time and I repeat, that to remove any uncertainty in that regard I would be prepared to introduce an appropriate amendment to the bill.
Through that statement the minister gave visible, dramatic and concrete proof that he has been following the debate and is prepared to introduce amendments in committee. It is unfair and ungenerous of members opposite to suggest, as they have, that we have not been paying attention to the statements made in the House in the last four or five days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Kelly: The preceding speaker has called on the government, or a spokesman for the government, to apologize for the present state of the economy. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to apologize to that gentleman or to anyone else for the state of the economy. I firmly believe that the state of the economy would be as dismal as it is now no matter what party was in power.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Norman Kelly: The sentiments of the preceding speaker mirrored the feelings of a lot of Canadians. There is a feeling among Canadians that Canada is a paradise and because it is a paradise we should not be experiencing the same sort of economic problems that are threatening the rest of the world. But, because we are, there has to be a serpent in that paradise, there has to be a source of evil, and the source of evil is the Liberal Party or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Kelly: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that is a very prevalent feeling in Canada. There is no question in my mind that it is an inappropriate and inaccurate assessment of the basic character of the Canadian economy. Although we are blessed with riches and although we have a very highly educated and highly trained work force, Canada is a very vulnerable paradise. We do not have in Canada a closed economy that is impervious to the winds of change that are blowing through the international economic world today. Far from having a closed economy, we have the most open economy in the industrialized world; our economy is the most vulnerable to economic change. If we have a paradise, it is seriously flawed.


Ian Deans: That's right, and you people have been managing it for years.


Norman Kelly: It is a paradise that is unusually sensitive and that magnifies all the forces which are at play in the international world. If those forces are positive, then we boom; if they are negative, then we dive. There is no way we can escape the realities of the Canadian economy. That is the way we have been developed. That is the way we are, and we cannot escape that. It would not matter if we had a Conservative government in power today or-heaven forbid-a New Democratic Party government in power today; we would still be experiencing the same problems because of the nature of our economic system.


Walter David Baker: That is not so, and you know it.


Mr. Fisher:: That is true.


Frederick John King: How about President Reagan? You have not mentioned him yet.


Norman Kelly: It is an unwillingness to recognize that very basic fact about the Canadian economy which allows hon. gentlemen opposite to continue their unproductive posturing. The longer Canadians posture and the longer hon. members opposite continue to give rhetorical responses to the very real difficulties we face, the longer it will take us to reach the very real and productive solutions we must reach if we are to solve the problems we have.

July 16, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Ian Deans: How can we solve them if we benefit when things are good and suffer when they are bad? What are you talking about?


Norman Kelly: The best thing we can do at the present time when things are bad is to minimize the impact of the four influences to which 1 have referred. And, we must prepare our economy, our industry and our people for a change in the wind, for a rebirth, or renaissance, of the economic boom 1 think all of us believe will characterize the international economy in the mid and late eighties.
The last point raised by the hon. gentleman who preceded me was that, in its response to our present situation, the government is trying to take the heat off itself by focusing attention on other groups in society, which the government hopes it can successfully make scapegoats. We are not attempting to do anything of the sort. We are not singling out any group in society. There is not one group in society to which we are pointing and saying, "You are to blame, and therefore you have to bear the brunt of the program of restraint." There is not one, and 1 resent the implications of some and the direct accusations of others that there is.
What we are trying to do is to break the "What's in it for me" syndrome which seems to have captured the spirit of the Canadian public. Every time there is a budget, the first thing people say is, "What's in it for me?" It does not matter what their position in society is; they all say, "What's in it for me?" What we are trying to do is to ask Canadians to understand that they must stop saying, "What's in it for me?" and understand that they must begin saying, "What's in it for the country?" That is the key. What is in it for Canada? What is in it for our children? What is in it for our neighbours? What is in it for our communities? What is in it for our posterity? That is the key. If we can understand that we are trying to change that "What's in it for me?" attitude to an attitude of "What's in it for Canada?", we will have taken the first step on the road to recovery. If a person can understand that it is important for him to make a concession in order that someone in his family gets a job, someone on his street gets a job or someone in his neighbourhood gets a job, then the chance of his holding on to his job and his prosperity is greatly enhanced. It certainly is greater than if we were to ignore the interests and concerns of our fellow Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 3.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, July 15, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Madam Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.
Orders Nos. 51 and 52 stand by unanimous consent.
* *
*


INCOME TAX
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer firemen who receive no allowance from a government, municipality or other public authority, to deduct from their income expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties as volunteer firemen.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this motion today and to express the concern of all the firemen probably in every rural community-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 think the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) is somewhat at a disadvantage. Those members who are choosing to leave the chamber could perhaps do so in the next moment or two and the Chair will then be able to recognize the hon. member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my motion is to amend the Income Tax Act so as to allow a volunteer fireman who is faced with an expense to receive an allowance. The section in Question is Section 6(l)(6)(viii). It allows such
Income Tax
power of the aggregate of allowances received by a volunteer fireman from a government, a municipality or a public authority for expenses incurred by him in respect of, in the course of, by virtue of the discharge of his duties as a volunteer fireman, and does not exceed S500.
My motion today is in respect of the many volunteer firemen who do not receive an allowance from a municipal body or from a government. Volunteer firemen have expenses. They have the same type of expenses in rural as in urban areas of Canada. As everyone in this area knows, a constituency such as South West Nova is similar to many other constituencies across Canada which depend on these voluntary services of those who serve fire departments.
1 am sure everyone in this chamber will recognize without a doubt that the contribution and expertise of volunteer firemen to communities ensures the safety of people's homes and places of business, and that in general communities are protected against fire and other hazards.
When a call comes, these firemen drop whatever they are doing and answer the call. They could be at work, at a social event, or anywhere else, but they respond immediately. They do not think about what they are wearing or about what is happening except that they must go to fight a fire. They often do so at great expense to their own family's income.
What I am asking is that the extension of the Income Tax Act also apply to those volunteers who do not receive an expense allowance.
Volunteer firemen not only save the people in their communities from expense but they save municipal governments, provincial governments and the federal government. This amounts to many millions of dollars each year.
I am asking that the income tax branch of the department give a special status to volunteer firemen whose expenses are not covered. I am also asking for special status to be given to this volunteer group, in acknowledgement of the fact that there are many volunteer groups across Canada who work very hard on a day to day basis and are not recognized in the income tax system.
I would like the House to recognize the special status which volunteer firemen have. Their jobs go on for 24 hours a day. They cannot anticipate what damage will occur to their own personal clothing, shoes, or whatever. These expenses are often incurred as a result of fighting fires. There should be a tax break accorded to them.
Someone might argue that whatever they are wearing is old clothing. But one has to take into consideration that firemen do not know when a call to fight a fire is made.
In my own riding some firemen have to buy their own dress uniforms even though they may be volunteers in a fire department. Sometimes these people like to have a dress uniform, but there is not enough money in that rural community of a few hundred people to support these purchases. Perhaps through fund raising a local fire department is able to acquire dress uniforms, but the ability to replace them is not there.

July 16, 1982
Income Tax
Firemen lose a lot of clothing in fires. Some have huge cleaning bills. They have to purchase new shoes in some cases and there is the expense of dress uniforms. All of these things are important enough to warrant special status in the Income Tax Act.
How can this be implemented? I have spoken to some fire chiefs in my riding. They suggest a point system. In working with the Department of Finance, one of the items which that department says will be prohibitive is the deductions of expenses for volunteer firemen, who are not paid any allowances. This would not only significantly increase the cost of this concession, the cost to the Canadian people-and I will deal with that shortly-but it would also increase the administrative cost of ensuring that the expenses are reasonable.
The fire chiefs with whom I have spoken agree with the point system. We could take the activities of volunteer firemen and percentage them. For example, if we took into consideration 100 per cent of the activity of an individual fireman, he would be entitled to 100 per cent of a set deduction; but if another fireman gave 50 per cent of his personal time, he would be entitled to 50 per cent of the same set deduction. The deduction which I am suggesting would be the same as the one for people who receive an allowance, at a maximum amount of $500. I know this point was discussed when there were changes to that budget in 1981. At that time there was a discussion concerning raising the amount from $300 to $500. I think it could be worked on a point system.
Who would administer it? Why not the fire chiefs of each area? They know what is the participation of the volunteers in their own areas. If such a system were adopted, and if fire chiefs were keeping track of the percentages of participation in a given year, it would work. Also it would have the effect of perhaps increasing the awareness of volunteer firemen. It might encourage people within the community to volunteer for work within the fire department. Sometimes it is very difficult to obtain volunteers.
One deterrent to volunteering is the personal expense. It is a personal commitment of time, but it is also a personal expense from their private incomes because they must supply or replace clothing which is lost or damaged during a fire.
Surely it is a terrible feeling if a person is called from work at three o'clock in the afternoon to respond to a fire-if it happens to be a set type of work where the person wears a uniform or special clothes for his work, and he is called away to attend a fire, and, as a result of that call for help in his community, his work clothes are destroyed, he must go out and purchase another outfit in order to return to work the next day. The Income Tax Act does not take this situation into consideration. I would suggest that it should be included in the act.
In fact, 1 think the Income Tax Act now discriminates. When the deduction was increased from $300 to $500 under Section 6(l)(b)(viii) of the act, one argument was that it would discriminate against full-time firemen versus volunteer firemen. The act discriminates against firemen who give of their time, without receiving any deduction from their personal
income taxes or without receiving an allowance from a given municipal body because that body or people in that rural area do not have funds.
Representatives of the department have indicated that perhaps Canadians will not like an additional tax benefit for these people because it would be given to one group of people at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. There are many Canadian taxpayers living in rural communities who appreciate the concerns and problems within municipal and village fire departments. I do not think they are asking for a large deduction. I hope I have the support of the House for this motion which is asking that all volunteers receive the deduction and that there be a point system set up for the active participation of volunteer firemen. 1 do not think Canadians would begrudge the additional burden which would be created by amending Section 6(l)(b)(viii) to include volunteer firemen who do not receive any financial assistance from a municipal body.
In closing, 1 should like to say that this subject is of grave concern to local fire departments. 1 have been pressed by many people within my constituency in this regard. I am sure there are many hon. members in the House who can identify with the problem. Granted, some of them come from cities with paid fire departments and some come from areas with municipal governments which can provide assistance because they are wealthier than other areas of Canada, but I think volunteer firemen across Canada who do not receive expense allowances should be included in the Income Tax Act. I know this may create an additional burden upon some Canadian taxpayers, but we must look at the work done and the many millions of dollars saved by fire departments each year for Canadians and for all levels of government. I think the House should support my motion today.
Finally, I realize there are many volunteers across Canada in different organizations who feel that they should like to have a tax advantage for participating as volunteers. I am not making my request on behalf of that group because I know there is an ongoing study which is looking at volunteers and their roles, but I am asking for a special status for volunteer firemen who cannot pick and choose their hours of work; they are available and on duty 24 hours a day. Their expenses, because of responding to their duties on behalf of communities, are sometimes not recouped anywhere in the system, except out of their personal incomes. We are talking about ordinary Canadians who are giving ordinary people across Canada the benefit of their services. I think volunteer firemen should be recognized. They should be given a tax deduction similar to what is in the act. By allowing the fire chiefs to operate it on a point system, it would work. This motion should be looked at seriously and passed today by the House.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and to the point in presenting my party's point of view on this matter. I congratulate the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). I hope she does not have to run away
July 16, 1982

after presenting this motion to the House; hopefully, she will remain to vote on the matter before we finish today.
The hon. member paid a great tribute to many Canadians who volunteer their services to fight fires whenever they occur.
1 see the resident firebug is now leaving the House, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). He has done more to burn down the forests of Canada than any other person.


John Carr Munro: That is not nice, David.


Dave Nickerson: The hon. member paid tribute to many Canadians who volunteer their services and undertake risky work for which they should receive the thanks of all citizens.
We on this side of the House have supported this idea for some time. It is not a new idea. It has been with us for many years. There were provisions in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) of a few years ago to address this problem. It is strange that at that particular time that budget, which included this important measure, was not voted in the affirmative by members of either the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. It was one of the good provisions of that budget which might well have been brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budgets.
The whole question which is raised today demonstrates the inflexibility of the Income Tax Act and the income tax system. After all, what has been asked for are fairly minor technical changes which do not carry any real financial consequences for the Government of Canada. Billions of dollars are not involved. It is something that, with a little bit of thought, we should be able to clear up in a timely manner.
However, this does not seem to be the case. There seem to be many other instances of inequities in the taxation system, similar to the one we are faced with here, which are never dealt with. I do not know the reason. Maybe the people in the Department of Finance do not have the time to address these small details which cause so much consternation on the part of many Canadians.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) on the thought she has given to the details of how this might be put into law. She described a point system which might be one method of dealing with it, but there might be other ways as well. However, we are not talking about amendments to the act or regulations which might be made at this point, just the general concept of recognizing in the income tax system the expenses which volunteer firemen incur in the course of their services.
I hope that this motion, which has been presented by the hon. member for South West Nova, will not be talked out. I hope that the House will be as willing on this Friday to deal with this matter as it was last Friday to deal with the question of the Holidays Act in the quick way in which it got around the problem of changing the name of Canada's national
Income Tax
holiday. At that time, when it appeared to be in the government's interest, it just slipped through quickly.


Some hon. Members:: All parties agreed.


Dave Nickerson: I hope that, in the interest of volunteer firemen right across this great Dominion of Canada, we can expect similar treatment this afternoon.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP I am happy to rise to support the motion of the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). Certainly, of all the many voluntary or part time voluntary groups who contribute to our society throughout Canada, none perhaps is more deserving than the voluntary firefighters thoughout Canada in terms of the time and effort they expend in volunteer services and the sacrifices which they are prepared to make and which some have made.
1 think the record should not necessarily correct, but clarify, a remark made by my friend, the hon. member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) a few moments ago. Along with the defeat of the budget in 1979 was the defeat of a measure it contained which would have increased the exemption from $300 to $500. But that is one of the items that was included in the first budget, following their nine-month period in office, of the current Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), following representations from a number of members from this party and, I am certain, from others as well. It is not enough that the exemption should have been raised from $300 to $500. The request has certainly been made by associations of volunteer firefighters and fire chiefs across the country that expenses of $1,000 would be more appropriate. Perhaps this sum would even more appropriately represent the energies, the time and the potential sacrifices made by these people across the country, most of them men, but an increasing number of women, who contribute to the welfare of their communities in these ways.
A letter which appeared in the February, 1980 edition of the Canadian Firefighter written by a volunteer firefighter, 1 believe is very appropriate. I will quote one paragraph from that letter which reads as follows:
If you take everything into consideration, the hours we spend, the cost of our vehicles, maintenance, fuel, etc., let alone our clothes, loss of sleep, the freezings we take at 40 degrees or 50 degrees below, we might come close to breaking even, but paying income tax on the little we get for trying to help our community sure as hell looked after that; now I feel we are out of pocket.
The one problem that I see with the motion before us is that it appears to be unduly restrictive and insists that this provision would only be applicable to those volunteer firemen who receive no remuneration whatsoever. Certainly for those who receive some remuneration, the amount is usually so small as to make us feel that they should not be prohibited from receiving some additional assistance where their actual expenses warrant. This would come closer to the reality of facing their costs and situation.
I certainly think that members, especially members from rural ridings across the country, are very aware of the contributions that thousands of these volunteer firefighters make in

July 16, 1982
Income Tax
many of our smaller communities. Not only are they not paid, many of them who are called out to a fire sacrifice significant amounts of pay from their regular jobs in addition to sacrificing their time and putting themselves at risk in the service of their communities. It is quite an onus on those individuals, who give up wages at $12 to $14 an hour, who are already sacrificing their time to begin with.
I hope that members on the government side as well as those of us in the opposition will see our way clear not to talk this bill out but to act upon it and ensure that these thousands of hardworking and self-sacrificing Canadians finally receive some of the remuneration which we feel is appropriate for their services. 1 know that in my constituency alone and in the neighbouring area, both in West Kootenay and East Kootenay, there are literally dozens of communities in which these volunteer firefighters not only sacrifice their own time but contribute considerable amounts of money as citizens to pay for equipment. As my hon. friend for the Western Arctic, said respecting areas in the north, there are many smaller villages in our areas where there is no significant tax base to allow for even very basic equipment. In my area people will go out to hold bake sales or raffles in order to acquire money to buy an old truck to fix or to get some equipment which very often is not much better than a garden hose. They will sacrifice their time and efforts and money in order to get better equipment. They sacrifice their time in lost wages as well in order to assist their communities. In the communities of Fernie and Spar-wood in East Kootenay, in the community of Creston at the south end of Kootenay Lake and throughout the very small areas which are spread out in my riding of Kootenay, which has long valleys and rivers and mountain passes, there is no way that organized communities would be able to get vehicles and the manpower out there to assist in outbreaks of fire in those smaller areas, even if they were able to. They are almost impossible to reach, particularly in winter weather. Sizeable communities, such as Slocan, Siverton, New Denver, Nakusp, or Castlegar may have a full time chief, but it is the volunteer firemen who play a very valuable role.
Many people who already contribute much of their time and their money work as volunteer firefighters. Many people within industries, whether sawmills, pulp mills or other industrial establishments, contribute their time and effort in training. In some cases, they receive some slight remuneration, but in others they work on a strictly voluntary basis. Of course, it is in their interest to save their work places as well as their communities from fire. Because these people have the training, it is natural that they are often selected or volunteer to assist the community at large.
In addressing ourselves to the House, my colleagues and 1 certainly hope that this recommendation is supported so that thousands upon thousands of self-sacrificing Canadians will finally be given the kind of treatment under our taxation system that they deserve. I would like to make one final comment. At a time when the government and many Canadians are talking about restraint, what greater contribution could any group of people make than by saving literally
hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct ways, from one end of the country to the other, through their volunteer work? Certainly, if we are not willing to accord some measure of proper recognition to those who make all of these sacrifices at their own expense, then our appeals for other forms of restraint will begin to sound rather hollow. The little bit it will cost us to see that these people receive their deserved compensation will be next to nothing compared to the vast amount of money we are saving by their contribution and their sacrifices.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to inform my colleagues in the House that 1 have no intention of talking this bill out. I assume that the clock runs out at five o'clock, and 1 will stop speaking considerably before 5 p.m. I also want to take the opportunity to say how much I regret that the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who supports the bill, felt it necessary to take the opportunity of speaking on this bill to attack the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) in a rather needless, immature way and also again to attack the decision of this House a week ago today with regard to the Canada Day bill. He knows very well that that bill was passed by the House with hon. members representing all three parties in the House, and the House supported it. I do not think it behooves any of us to make derogatory comments about the decisions of the House.
In any case, I am happy to be able to lend my support to the motion today. I believe it is a motion whose time is past due. Voluntarism in the country is a very important social force in the fabric of various communities of this nation. There are many hundreds of volunteers who do many kinds of community work, but there are none whose voluntarism is more necessary to literally thousands of communities across this country than that of the voluntary firemen. They not only provide an essential service at no manpower cost to the various communities, but they also put their physical wellbeing and even their lives on the line to protect the lives and property of the communities in which they work. It would seem to me that we must take into consideration the amount of property damage that may be prevented by their voluntarism, which I am sure would run, in any year, into millions of dollars, if not even into billions. We must take into account the amount of injury that is prevented because they are there and willing to go into burning structures to save lives and to save people from injury. We can never calculate the debt the nation owes to these people for the lives they have saved, because how does one put a value on life? They save the country a good deal of money as well by preventing the injuries of which I have spoken. We must bear in mind that when someone is injured in a fire, very often the treatment for such injury is very long and costly. Therefore, every time a fireman helps to prevent an injury, he saves the community money in hospitalization, medication, rehabilitation and other medical fees. Every time a volunteer fireman saves a life, he saves the country the payment of support to the widow and family of the person whose life may be taken by a fire.
July 16, 1982

1 think, generally speaking, the communities in which those people serve show their appreciation in many ways for the efforts of voluntary firemen. I would think that it would be a credit to this Parliament and to the nation if we passed this motion today as a symbol of the appreciation of this nation for voluntarism and particularly for voluntary firemen. It will not cost the nation very much, and I find it a little difficult to accept that it is so hard to devise a regime by which this motion could be implemented. Surely if paid firemen can deduct expenses from income tax, people who volunteer, receiving no pay, should be able to deduct expenses incurred in their voluntary work of saving property and lives. They, too, should be able to deduct the expenses they incur.
I do not think that when we make that request here in the House, we are asking for too much. Through Your Honour, and speaking directly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), I ask him to lend his support to the motion so that the House can pass it today and give an instruction to the Department of National Revenue to devise a regime whereby voluntary firemen in this country will be able to deduct up to $500 from their income tax for the expenses they incur in the exercise of their voluntarism in the service to their communities and to their fellow men and women.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity of entering this debate. I have appreciated some of the comments made to the House this afternoon, particularly those of my good colleague and friend, the hon. member for Northumbcrland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and, of course, those of the mover of the motion, the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell), both of whom have brought to us a sense of the contribution that ordinary people make to strengthen the firefighting work in our country.
In my remarks this afternoon, I will be very careful to indicate that I do not in any way wish to downplay the importance of the contributions by firemen or other volunteers across our country. We live in a time when people tend to think that the government should be doing a lot of things to strengthen our country, and we forget that most of the strengthening and most of the hard work done to improve the quality of life is done by volunteers.
In my own community of Mississauga, for example, we have a special dinner every year, to which are invited just the heads of volunteer organizations from our city. It is always a sell-out. There is always at least 350 to 400 people there. Each of them represent scores and hundreds more in their own organizations. Those people are contributing enormously to the depth of activity and the quality of life in Mississauga. When we approach a topic like this and we talk about it here, we should always remember to be careful to recognize the contributions that such people make. Not everything is done by the government, and not everything that the government does has the
Income Tax
same quality or the same importance as that which volunteers do.


Ian Deans: Look at the budget.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it has been some 26 months since this motion was placed on the Order Paper. In the interval there have been some developments that are very relevant to this specific question. I would like to pass along some of the technical facts, just to get everything into perspective.
For one thing, in Bill C-54, which was passed last year, the Income Tax Act was amended to increase from $300 to $500 the amount of expense allowance which a volunteer fireman could receive from local government authorities on a tax exempt basis. I suggest that this amendment demonstrated that Parliament does recognize the important role played by volunteer firemen in many of our communities, and that Parliament is prepared to provide some financial support in this way.
Of course, the tax system is often used to further our social goals. We find that to be the case when the tax system gets involved with child tax credits, with job stimulants, with pensions, with the health care system, or with transfer payments to the provinces.
Even though the responsibility for providing municipal services, including fire protection, rests on local and provincial governments, the tax exemption that was added through Bill C-54 helps in an indirect way to shift some of the cost of volunteer firefighting services to the federal government. Undoubtedly the cost to municipalities of using volunteer firefighters would be higher if the expense allowances paid to the volunteers were subject to income tax. So the increase in the tax exemption allowances is one development that has occurred since this motion was introduced 26 months ago.
A far more important development, however, has been the material change in our economy during that time and a change in the government's ability to take on very large programs for new expenditures. For example, the budget introduced in June provided for substantial amounts of money to go to job-creation programs, to housing stimulants, to help for small business, to support for families, to extra help for farmers and fishermen. It is also noteworthy that this help for these specific sectors, for these specific programs, came as a result of savings that were generated inside the government's existing revenues. We did not find new revenues and we did not embark on new spending programs. We re-allocated the money so that the new stimulants we provided, or the new programs we undertook were paid for from existing planned revenues.
In the face of the very serious problems that are facing our economy, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has called on all of us to exercise a considerable degree of discipline and restraint. That, to a very mild degree, runs in the face of the motion that we have in front of us here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi is rising on a point of order.

July 16, 1982
Income Tax


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance would accept a question?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer any question that would be helpful to my colleague.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the parliamentary secretary, too. 1 wonder if the parliamentary can inform us if, to his knowledge, the officials in the Department of Finance have done any cost analysis relative to the implementation of this motion; and, if so, what the figures are? Could he also tell us at the same time whether, when they were doing that cost analysis, if indeed they did it, they made any effort to do a cost analysis of what it would cost the various municipalities across this country, and even some of the unincorporated areas, if there were no volunteer firemen; and how the two figures might compare?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Those are two good questions. I can assure the hon. member that it would be possible to get that information because, as I mentioned a couple of moments ago, we changed the exemptions. We had existing exemptions and we know what those are costing us, so it would not be a very difficult matter at all to judge how much the increase would add to the burden on the federal treasury. The information is there. I do not have it right now but 1 would be more than happy to collect that information for the hon. member.
The hon. member has asked me a second question. He wants me to compare that information with the cost of the damage by fires, or the cost of professional firefighting services to the local municipalities. 1 regret 1 do not have that information available to me at all. I would be guessing if I were to try to answer that question for him. However, we do have the information on the existing exemptions. I will dig that out, and I am sure we can judge how the impact of a higher exemption would affect income.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 was mentioning a couple of minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that the mood of the recent budget is that we must take great care to find funds before we begin any new programs or expand any existing programs. I note that probably matches the public mood. The public probably is prepared to support a considerable effort toward voluntarism where it exists now or in new areas in the future. 1 do not think the public will endorse a whole new set of government expenditures in areas where volunteers are already in action.
1 mentioned the general financial facts in order to emphasize the seriousness of the economic situation that we are facing at this point. The proposal submitted by the hon. member for South West Nova would not, of course, involve very large amounts or very large costs to the federal treasury; and we will get the specific number. But at a time when we are
asking public servants and other people across the country to tighten their belts and to accept a degree of restraint in the fight against inflation, it seems consistent to ask people not to extend their exemptions under the Income Tax Act, whether it be one particular group or volunteers. It seems to me that when we are asking our people here in Ottawa, our employees, to take a lower rate of pay, at the same time we cannot embark on brand new programs that will cost the federal treasury a lot of new money.
It is always an attractive idea for Members of Parliament to support some ideas, some kinds of tax concessions for various taxpayers, but these special tax arrangements involve a cost that must be covered by increasing taxes from other taxpayers or, as was done in the budget, by re-allocating existing tax money. So, if we say yes to one special group, can we really say no to another group that has an equally appealing case?
In my own area, for example, there is a little search and rescue group that is involved in emergency work. They have their own vehicles, they have cars, they have radios in those cars, they have special clothing, and so on. That is a very similar sort of experience as a volunteer fireman.
In addition to that, we have some volunteer rescue people who go out on Lake Ontario when pleasure boats get into trouble. They, too, incur expenses in the same way as volunteer firefighters. I wonder if we should be considering them under this kind of proposal.
The tax exemptions for allowances paid to volunteer firemen is an old long-standing provision that was introduced at a time when their volunteer services, were often the only way that many communities could get fire protection. We must realize that there comes a time, and I think this is one of them, when we must draw a line and resist requests for additional concessions under the tax system. I think that at this point in time the public mood is in that vein as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I call it five o'clock, I understand that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) may wish to transmit the good wishes of all those present in the chamber to all those here, whether in the chamber or in the visitors' galleries, for a good weekend. I am also informed that the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has indicated his desire to express his best wishes that the Chair have a good weekend.
Pursuant to these unsolicited good wishes and pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) I do now adjourn the House until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 19, 1982