1983-05-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate on the budget. Since I realize that there is a certain amount of latitude allowed in the debate, I want to go on record now as stating how disappointed the Progressive Conservative Party is in the attitude of the New Democratic Party toward property rights when, on Friday, they refused unanimous consent to send the question of property rights to committee.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member must address the budget in the debate and not deal with completely extraneous matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has barely begun his speech. The Chair is astutely conscious of the problem of relevance, as is any occupant of the chair.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I too am distressed that the NDP, having refused consent, now feel so concerned about the decision they made on Friday when they refused to allow the motion to be treated as a non-confidence matter, refused to allow it to go to committee and, in effect, refused to allow Canadians the protection of property rights in the Constitution.
I examined the budget from the perspective of my constituents. Simcoe North is representative of Ontario, being half urban and half rural, close enough to Metro Toronto to understand its problems but far enough away so that we do not get confused. For a nation with the promise that Canada has, we in Simcoe North are concerned about the way the country is suffering under the Liberals. Our economy should be leading the world. Canada's human and economic resources are second to none, but for too long Liberal administrations have pursued a "buy the vote now, our children pay later" policy. While the Liberals chased a Charter of Rights, Canadians watched their
jobs, their businesses, their homes, their farms, their hopes and their dreams slide down the drain.
Before discussing the budget directly, I want to address the general economic situation facing Canada on budget day. Our unemployment stood at 12.6 per cent, a post-depression record. We had youth unemployment at 21.3 per cent. Over two million Canadians were unemployed or had given up looking for work.
In Midland, Ontario, the Midland Free Press reported that a staggering 4,300 people were registered with the Canada Employment Centre. Midland has 33 per cent unemployment.
Canadians wanted a budget that would produce jobs, but they did not get it. Business bankruptcies in Canada in 1982 were 33 per cent higher than in 1981, 63 per cent higher than in 1980 and 91 per cent higher than in 1979. As we can see, business bankruptcies have doubled. The economy of the riding of Simcoe North is based on small business. Canadians wanted a budget that would address the problems of small business. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they did not get it.
Home owners in Simcoe North, as did home owners everywhere, suffered through the horrendous mortgage interest rates created by the Liberal Party's high interest rate policy. Mortgage interest rates rose as high as 21 per cent and 22 per cent, causing misery to my constituents and to all Canadians during 1981 and 1982. Power of sale and foreclosure proceedings became the order of the day as a result of Liberal policies. Canadians were looking for a provision for the deduction of mortgage interest from taxable income or mortgage interest rate protection in the budget. They got neither.
As I have mentioned, Simcoe North is half rural and half urban. My farm constituents engage in beef and dairy cattle operations as well as in hog and lamb operations. My constituents also grow cash crops. During the past two years farmers have faced the problems that small business faced, including high interest rates and restricted credit. They were looking for a budget that addressed the problems of farmers. The budget did not do that.
What about the taxpayer? Disposable income has shrunk considerably due to inflation and high unemployment. The taxpayers in my riding were not looking for a budget that increased taxes, but it did. The budget increased taxes on the lower and middle class, not directly but in the traditional Liberal way, that is by deception.

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
People in Simcoe North were also concerned about the deficit. We do not want to mortgage our children's future with horrendous deficits; we want spending controlled. We want to eliminate the waste.
Given those problems facing us today, Mr. Speaker, what is our position on the budget? How do we view it? Did it address job creation, the problems of small business, mortgage interest rates, the plight of farmers, the lower and middle class taxpayer and the deficit? Those are the points on which I want to base my remarks today.
Faced with record high unemployment as a result of Liberal policies, what did the Finance Minister do to reverse the trend? First-and I approach this with some spirit that the Government has recognized something-the	Minister
acknowledged what Progressive Conservatives have been saying for years, namely that the private sector creates jobs, not the bureaucrats. I must admit that there is great interest in how the Finance Minister ever made the bureaucrats swallow that pill, but having swallowed it, let us look at the budget itself to see whether or not the Minister, in true Liberal tradition, was saying one thing and doing another.
The budget unveiled Special Recovery Programs designed to dazzle the Canadian people into thinking that the Liberals are doing something. The Liberals are going to spend $4.8 billion on capital projects next year. Of course, all Canadians realize that figure was originally $4.6 billion, which was adjusted overnight as a result of what is known colloquially throughout Canada as the "Lalonde leak". That is a good indication to Canadians of how much care went into the preparation of the program. We are asked to believe that this will accelerate the recovery of the economy. In fact, we all know that it is another Liberal pork-barrel scheme to buy votes and favours.
[DOT] (MIS)
The area of Midland-Penetanguishene will be shocked to find that the ILAP designation has been eliminated in the budget. After three months of waiting for that designation, after all the time and money spent on its application, the hopes and dreams of those people were dashed by the Government when it abandoned the ILAP concept.
We honestly thought that the Liberal Government would understand the crying need to create jobs in Canada. Once again we are amazed that they do not. Instead of quick and easy programs designed to encourage business, to hire people and to train them with a minimum amount of fuss and paperwork, we are besieged with short-term projects of devious long-range value. The programs referred to under the budget initiatives boggle the mind. Their end value as vehicles for employment are doubtful.
However, I would suggest that the enrolment of 5,000 young people in the reserve and regular forces of the Canadian Forces is a step in the right direction. In my opinion those young people will be enrolled and learning a trade and preparing themselves to make a contribution to Canada long before the bureaucrats in Ottawa have designed the forms for the other so-called job-creation programs. After all that, after enunciating the fancy programs, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) admits that unemployment will average an unacceptable 12.4 per cent in 1983 and that there will be 55,000 fewer jobs in 1984 than there were in 1981. What a sad commentary on an economic statement which, in the words of the Minister of Finance, was to help more than 1.5 million Canadians who want to work but cannot find jobs.
What did the budget do for small business? Canadians know that the Liberal Party is responsible for the current joke about small business: "Do you want to own a small business while the Liberals are in power? That is easy, buy a big one and wait." As I suggested, the investment tax credit provisions are complex. They presume the availability of funds to make investment and thus qualify for the tax credit. In fact, the available capital of small business has been severely impacted as a result of the Liberal-created recession. Small business has very little money to invest.
The other investment provisions are, in my opinion, for stockmarket investors, not for small business. What about the Federal Business Development Bank? I see the Minister responsible for small business in the House today. I understand he will make an announcement when he speaks, so let me deal with that announcement. What about the noises concerning what will be done through the FBDB? As a lawyer who worked with small business until becoming involved in politics, I want to say that when I see the Federal Business Development Bank doing something for small business, that is when I will believe it; not with announcements, not with brochures, but when I see it actually doing something for small business.
Let me quote from a letter I received from a constituent that deals with the Federal Business Development Bank, the "people's bank":
As you have been advised, prior to the completion of our investigation of your request for financial assistance the Federal Business Development Bank will require a prepaid commitment in the amount of $3,950.
That is the kind of help we are giving small business. It is a bank of last resort. If you are going broke and have $3,950, it will look at what you are doing. If the Liberals are serious about helping small business, they will act immediately to improve that image. They will put money into loans, not bureaucrats who pretend they understand business.
When the Minister makes the announcement about the Federal Business Development Bank becoming an investment bank and taking shares in small business, the question I will have for the Minister is how will the FBDB maintain its objectivity as a banker when it puts on the investor's hat? Why, when it is not the policy of the chartered banks in Canada to ask for a commitment from small business before looking at a loan proposition, is the Federal Business Development Bank demanding that kind of money?
Lastly, under the guise of helping small business, I want to deal with the loss carryforward provisions, called the loss carryovers. The Minister makes a big deal about increasing the loss carryover provision as a boon to small business. The
May 2, 1983

suggestion is that this will provide increased certainty to firms so that they can benefit more effectively from tax losses that they sustain. That is ridiculous. What kind of economy operates on the hope of tax losses? What kind of businessman or woman is proud of tax losses and wants them so they can carry them forward? I suggest to the Liberal Party that if they tell that to any bank manager in any small branch, they will laugh. That is what the business community will do to the Liberal Party with that provision.
Let us now move on to homes. The Minister of Finance helped the well-to-do invest in the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. They are encouraged to release funds for the purchase of homes, furniture and appliances. What about the great bulk of Canadian home owners, the home owners who suffered through the Liberal high interest rate policy years? They are ignored. There is no provision in the budget to protect home owners against the ravages of high mortgage interest rates. Our policy, well stated and well enunciated, is that Canadians should be able to write off mortgage interest against other income. We would also consider mortgage interest rate insurance. However, the budget completely ignores Canadians who pay 20 per cent and 21 per cent on homes as a result of the high interest rate policy.
1 suggest that Canadians who presently own homes will not forgive the inaction of the Liberal Party from 1980 to 1982. We cannot allow the wrath of power of sale and foreclosure proceedings to continue to visit Canadian home owners without mercy. It may be Liberal policy, but it certainly is not Conservative policy.
What about the farmers? After the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the most embarrassed Minister of this Government on budget night had to be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The budget is an insult to farmers. The only thing they are promised is the great boondoggle-being able to carry their losses back further and forward further. Isn't that an incentive? One can see the bureaucrats on Sparks Street coming up with that line. The budget proposed changes to enhance the ability of all farmers and Fishermen to utilize losses in one year to reduce taxes in the other year. In other words, they intend to see that these people keep losing money which they can write off over a longer period of time. That is nonsense.
At the same time as the Minister of Finance is promoting farm losses to enhance farming as an occupation, he is ignoring a very real problem. I refer to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act which states that farmers who incur losses on their farming operations are denied the opportunity to apply that loss to reduce non-farm income in excess of $5,000. In other words, the loss is levelled out to $5,000, a 1960 figure. Many of my constituents in Simcoe North have two jobs. They work very hard at farming and of necessity work on a full or parttime basis at another job.
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that farmers do not farm to lose money. Because of the Government's interest rate policy and lack of concern for the farming community, farmers are losing more than $5,000 a year and yet are working off the farm as well. When will the Liberal Government wake up to the reality of the situation in this country? When will it understand what is going on out there? Mr. Speaker, we support the review of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act in order to bring it up to modern day standards.
What did the Minister of Finance do to the taxpayer on budget night? I am interested in what he did for the middle and lower income Canadians who foot the bill of the Government for Liberal wastefulness. He increased taxes. Federal sales tax will be increased by one percentage point October 1, 1984. Tax exemptions for children will no longer be indexed for inflation. The federal tax reduction will be reduced. The standard deduction of $100 for charitable donations will be removed. The Canadian ownership special charge will be maintained, although we have no plans to buy anything. Telecommunications charges will be subject to a 6 per cent sales tax.
Only a Liberal Finance Minister could increase the taxes of lower and middle income Canadians and then claim that the economy will improve because lower and middle income Canadians will spend more money as consumers. It is twisted logic, but then again, the definition of Liberal logic is twisted logic.
What about the deficit? What is $31.3 billion? That is the projected deficit. It is more than Ottawa spent in total in 19741975. A $31.3 billion deficit is equal to $3,120 per taxpayer, $1,200 for every man, woman and child in Canada. One tax dollar in three goes to service the debt. Given that problem, what did the Minister do to address it in the budget? Nothing. There is no indication of restraint in the budget. There is no provision in the budget to cut spending, just a provision for future spending. The Government is gambling. It is gambling that revenues will increase rather than taking action to control and reduce spending.
Government spending was up 17.6 per cent in 1981-1982; 16.8 per cent in 1982-1983, the year of the six and five provision; and it will go to 12.7 per cent in 1983-1984. When will the Government balance its books? Similary, the Government accepts the fact that over 12 per cent of Canadians will remain out of work. That is a national tragedy.
On budget night the budget looked reasonable to us but detailed examination of it has revealed the usual Liberal flimflam. It contains no depth of stimulation, no depth of concern. Once again, the Liberals have failed to help the unemployed, small business people, farmers, the home owner and the lower and middle class.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the Chair recognizes the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey).

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Rompkey
Hod. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), for the particular attention he has paid to my client group, the medium-sized businesses of Canada. As I have travelled across the country in the past months to speak with business people, it has become clear that there were a number of specific issues that could be dealt with in the budget that would go a long way toward helping this dynamic part of our economy play a major role in the economic recovery. I am pleased to say that the budget incorporates many of those measures.
My own Committee, the Consultative Committee on Small Business, has been discussing many of these initiatives over the past few months. They were of the view that the adoption of these initiatives would provide a significant stimulus to this segment of the private sector and contribute to our industrial and regional economic development objectives. I could not help but be pleased to see how many of the recommendations that I made on behalf of the Small Business Consultative Committee became part of the budget. There is a growing awareness of the tremendous value of small business to Canada's economic well-being. Perhaps these businesses do not stand out individually, with some particular exceptions, but collectively they provide the base on which our industrial strength stands. The analogy would be to compare it to a hockey game. The superstars get all the credit but they could not do their job unless the rest of the team did theirs.
I believe this budget will significantly help small business do its job. Clearly, a first priority was to take action directed at providing employment. Bringing forward a number of major capital projects will project a stimulus into the economy in the short term. These undertakings have their own direct, beneficial impact. They also have a spin-off impact on the small business community which supplies the needs of the larger firms. This group will benefit from the pick up in demand.
At the same time the budget recognizes another immediate need-the need to provide assistance to companies that have undergone a tremendous period of pressure during this global recession. Smaller firms were particularly hurt through this period. They do not have internally generated resources to draw upon to the same extent as large firms and they do not have the same access to externally generated funds. The Minister of Finance has been sensitive to this debt-equity problem of small business.
I must concur with the Minister of Finance when he said:
The way in which so many have managed to pull through the recession is a tribute to the dedication and entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians.
He was referring to small firms which he described as "one of the most dynamic and innovative elements in the private sector". The budget takes a number of positive measures that will enable our small firms to restore their balance sheets. It is the first step necessary to provision themselves to take advantage of the economic recovery now building momentum.
Improving the investment climate and increasing the availability of internally generated funds will allow our industries to invest in innovative activities. These are the very activities that Canada needs most to ensure our competitive position both at home and in world markets.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the way the specific measures in the budget are of benefit to small and medium-sized firms. While the provisions are beneficial to all Canadian industries, I believe that small business people can see themselves singled out as a major vehicle of our economic recovery.
The measures addressing business losses will provide a major improvement to the cash flow of businesses, increasing the carryback to three years instead of one and providing the alternative of carrying losses forward for seven years instead of the previous five. This will have an immediate impact on small business. More important, this measure will stabilize the small business cash flow once the recovery takes hold and profitability returns. The provision for the carryback of capital losses to be increased to three years from one will have a similar impact and will improve a company's cash flow.
Additional changes, such as removing the upper limit of the investment tax credit, will be welcomed by small business. So too will be the provision for the remission of a portion of the tax credit directly to the business. This, of course, provides significant benefit to those firms without taxable income. It is a major measure in view of the serious erosion of small business profits in the past year.
As the House is aware, the budget proposes to refund 40 per cent of our new tax credits directly to the firm. This will be particularly valuable in assisting firms to finance research and development or purchase certain manufacturing, transportation and construction capital assets. Firms that combine this measure with the tax credit to purchase common shares will find that they are able to reduce their cost of new equity issue. The tax credit to common share purchasers will also encourage the injection of new permanent capital and liquidity into businesses. This must happen if companies are to redress their serious debt to equity ratio problems. It has been a longstanding problem for smaller businesses to raise equity. This budget measure, by appealing to venture capitalists and individuals, will help overcome that problem.
Hon. Members will also note that the Minister of Finance proposed a number of measures for discussion that will enhance the ability of firms, particularly small firms, to benefit from R and D tax incentives and to attract financing for R and D ventures.
In my discussions with the small business community in Canada it was clear that its major request was that its needs should be addressed through the tax system. The small business community was saying that the programs are there but people did not necessarily have the time to read the brochures and fill out the applications. It was asking for a break within the tax system. It held that this approach would provide the
May 2, 1983

framework within which it could adjust to its own particular circumstances. I am pleased to note that the budget does exactly that.
That is not all the budget has done to assist small business; other specific measures will also be beneficial. I note the increase in funding for the program of export market development and would point out to the House that the principal beneficiaries of this measure will be small businesses. The Government has repeatedly stressed the value of exports to our economy. It is perhaps not well known that small firms play a major role in our export business. To encourage even more participation-because it is particularly difficult for small businesses to break into this highly competitive area-additional funding is being made available.
Here in Canada, the construction industry will be particularly helped by the budget. The Minister of Finance has provided an additional $355 million to speed a continued recovery in the housing industry as well as the funds that will be spent as part of the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. I point out to this House that almost 97 per cent of the construction firms in Canada are small businesses. It is evident that they will benefit significantly.
Also in the budget, I am pleased to note, is a proposal that responds to another major consideration of small businesses. The Minister of Finance, in responding to a request from many associations and groups, announced that the Canada Tax Foundation will hold a national symposium this summer on the subject of simplifying the tax system. As a former Minister of Revenue I applaud that. As we know, simplifying a tax system is far from a simple process, but I look forward to participating in this endeavour that will be of such benefit to Canadian firms.
In his budget address the Minister indicated that I would be providing information on the expanded role of the Federal Business Development Bank. The Bank has long played a valuable role in assisting the needs of smaller businesses. As it evolved from its beginning as the Industrial Development Bank, the need to modify the Bank's role became evident.
I am announcing today that the Federal Business Development Bank, while maintaining its traditional functions of term lending, will expand and refocus its client services and progressively embark on its role as a merchant banker. This latter role will enable the bank actively to identify new business ventures and participate in their development. In doing so, the FBDB will usually take a minority position with the intention of selling the shares after a few years. The Bank's new role will continue to focus on the needs of the small firms and it will complement the tax measures outlined in this budget. Taken together, the two thrusts will substantially improve the business environment for Canadian firms.
The basic service of the Bank has been term lending and this will continue. At the same time we must recognize that the Bank has been facing increasing competition from Canadian chartered banks and other lending institutions in this area. That is as it should be. In fact, I believe that the Federal Business Development Bank has, in a way, been instrumental in creating this competition for itself. By demonstrating that
The Budget-Mr. Rompkey
term lending can be profitable in a number of cases that the other institutions had already rejected, it caused these other institutions to re-examine their practices. Their examination obviously led them to conclude that many Canadian firms who had already been turned down were in fact good prospects.
As a consequence, as I have noted, commercial institutions have moved to increase their lendings to smaller firms on terms which they can afford. I would hope that the role of FBDB as a catalyst will continue, believing as I do that Canadian banks can go much further in their efforts to help the smaller firms.
I have met with the Bankers' Association and I am meeting with each bank individually. In those meetings I have asked them to review their collateral demands which, I believe, are often excessive and to consider additional training of their staff in how to deal with the special needs of smaller firms. I have stressed to them that there appear to be different levels of service across Canada, with firms in British Columbia and Newfoundland expressing particular concerns.
There is one consequence of the increase in term lending by the banks which we cannot ignore. FBDB has increasingly moved to provide term lending to higher risk firms. It is clearly the lender of last resort for Canadian companies and is, therefore, the institution which is running the greatest risk. It is reasonable, then, to expect that it will incur losses in its term lending portfolio. When one considers that the chartered banks, with their choice of loans and their emphasis on collateral, incurred losses in 1982 of $1 billion more than they had anticipated, it is evident that the FBDB would have even greater problems. I believe this is a reasonable cost of doing business with the Government operating in partnership with Canadian firms. If we had no losses, I would believe we were not taking sufficient risk.
The Bank does not restrict itself to term lending. Without question, a major need for many Canadian small businesses is information and advice about the management of their operations. Additional funding will be provided so that FBDB's current business and information services can be expanded. The client services offered by the Bank have proven invaluable to many firms in the establishment of their long-term viability. The Bank will particularly emphasize the delivery of these services outside the major urban centres of Canada. So we hope, Mr. Speaker, that the FBDB will particularly focus on small business and on small business in rural Canada. Small businesses will be assisted in the preparation of their proposals which they will be taking to the private sector financial institutions. In this way we will be meeting a demonstrated need and, I hope, will also spur the chartered banks to greater effort in this regard.
These services must be offered at a cost which smaller firms can afford, and to do this the Bank has traditionally subsidized this service from the profits made on its term lending role. As I have pointed out, these profits will be harder and harder to achieve as the other lending institutions move into areas that

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Rompkey
the FBDB has shown to be money makers. In spite of this, we believe this service to be invaluable to the Bank's clients and as a consequence the costs must be absorbed.
The progressive expansion of the "merchant banking" function of the FBDB will Fill this gap which exists for small firms seeking financing. As the Bank develops its investment banking capability FBDB will address the equity and other financial requirements of promising small businesses. These are the very businesses upon which we depend for innovation but for whom the raising of equity presents the greatest difficulty. Essentially, the Bank will be a deal maker for these smaller firms. It will package financing arrangements for a fee or it may participate directly as an equity partner or holder of stock options.
In conclusion, I repeat that I believe this budget recognizes the tremendous value of small businesses to our economy. These firms will play a significant role in leading us on our road to recovery. They have the flexibility to move quickly into promising new ventures. They are the innovators who provide new products and processes. They are the network of suppliers who enable larger firms to continue. It has often been noted that employment creation is largely done by Canada's smaller enterprises. This budget, by providing significant assistance to them, will clearly assist us to achieve our overriding goal, that of providing long-term, meaningful work to Canadians in all parts of the country.
Again, I congratulate the Minister of Finance for presenting the small businesses of Canada with a package of tax measures and other stimulative initiatives which will enable them to grow and flourish. This budget has responded to the needs of, and to the requests made by, the small business community. When they take advantage of the opportunities which are presented, as I am sure they will, Canada's industrial capability will be enhanced.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister responsible for small business. In a letter from the Federal Business Development Bank to a constituent of mine it was stated, in part: "Prior to the completion of our investigation of your request for financial assistance, the Federal Business Development Bank will require a prepaid commitment in the amount of $3,950". By contrast, the standard practice of the Canadian banking system, as received this morning from the Director of Public Affairs, is: "It is not standard practice for the chartered banks to level a commitment or standby fee on loans". The only exception might be in the case of a large multi-million dollar loan with a fixed rate.
Will the Federal Business Development Bank abandon its practice of requiring commitment fees from Canadians who go to them for loans?


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the particular instance, I would like to receive the details from the Hon. Member. I can assure him that I will take it up with the Bank. I would say in general that the people to whom I am listening, who are on the Consultative Committee which I have
and, moreover, the study done by the Federation of Independent Business, which is certainly not the great defender of the chartered banks has shown that collateral was too high and that service was not given to small business, particularly in the rural areas where there was no competition. My effort has not been to get FBDB to respond to small business because, indeed, they have been responded to by and large. For example, 23 per cent of the portfolio of FBDB is in tourism, which is essentially all small business.
I will be glad to look into the individual case which the Hon. Member has raised because I know of his sincere concern in this area. I do feel, however, that the reality is that in the past FBDB has been a lender of last resort but has been focusing on small business; and in my speech this morning I pointed out that we want them to do even more of that in the future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is: Will the Federal Business Development Bank abandon its practice of charging commitment fees?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it is the practice of the Bank to do this. I undertook to look into this particular case, but I do not want to comment further on it until I have had a chance to examine exactly the point the Hon. Member is raising. As far as I know, however, it is not the practice to do that.


Mr. Domra:: Mr. Speaker, we all listened with interest to the announcement of the Minister of State for Small Businesses concerning the terms of reference being changed for the FBDB and the re-focusing, to use his words, I believe, of banking interest into the business community; that is to say, taking minority positions or inventing for equity in the small business. It is shades of Nordair or Maislin Trucking, where you go into a situation in dire straits, invest money and in return take an interest. It is shades of General Motors, and on and on the list goes.
My question to the Minister is a very direct one. Is there an opportunity in those investments in small business by the Federal Business Development Bank for the business to purchase back without bonus, without penalty and without notice? In other words, if they invest in the company in order to bail it out of its difficulty, as a Government moves into the private sector, can the private sector buy back without notice, bonus or penalty?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize the main thrust of this budget. The main message here is that if recovery is to come, and it will, then private enterprise has to be the main engine of the economy. To go even further, I would say that small business is the drive shaft, and that is exactly what we are emphasizing here this morning.
The main point is, however, that the preferred option, obviously, is to let the private sector do the job. If it needs some help, then how is that help going to be given? In the whole process of merchant banking, I do not think the first option would be to take an equity position. Possibly if there is other capital available from private sources, that might be the preferred option, and in my opinion would be. I have seen
May 2, 1983

certain cases in my own area, although I do not know whether the Hon. Member has seen them in his area, where unless that is done, the deal just does not fly. So there is a provision here for taking an equity position.
I do not think we should necessarily target that as being the first option, because I repeat that the main thrust is to let private enterprise do the job wherever possible. As far as unloading afterwards is concerned, I mentioned in my speech that there were certainly provisions for doing that and I would hope it would be done as easily and as quickly as possible.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, that question was not answered satisfactorily. The question was a very direct one. If the Government is to take an equity interest in the private sector for the purposes of bailing out that business or helping it over a difficult period in its economic development, is the Minister prepared, as the Minister responsible for small business, to assure the House and the Canadian business community that there are no strings attached in a permanent investment by the Government of Canada into the private sector? In other words, will the Minister guarantee the House that that equity can be purchased back by the business from the Government without notice, bonus or penalty? What could be more simple than that question? Answer yes or no.


Bill Rompkey: The answer is that it can be purchased back from the Government. With regard to the details of how that will be done, I would say to the Hon. Member that in the next couple of days I hope to give more details of the change in the FBDB. However, the general answer to the question is "yes", without saying "yes" to each one of the individual points which he raised, because within the next couple of days I hope to make a more specific announcement as to exactly how these functions will be carried out.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems which now seems to be confronting many smaller, older municipalities is that plants which have been the mainstay of employment in those municipalities are now closing and moving away, sometimes moving to other municipalities, sometimes closing entirely and just moving out of the country. I can see nothing proposed by the Government in its budget which begins to address that question. The question really involves responsibility to the municipality for the money which was spent in developing the infrastructure from which the company benefited, responsibility to the workers and their families who are totally disrupted and, in many cases, destroyed by the decision, without being given adequate notice or opportunity to participate in any discussion or decision making.
Does the Minister not feel that we have reached a point in time in this country when corporate behaviour must be altered somewhat and we must place some additional demands on those who make very important economic decisions which affect not only individuals but also entire communities? If so, would he subscribe to the idea that there might be some need to demand from the corporate dicision makers, large and
The Budget-Mr. Donald W. Munro
small, that they sit down, well in advance of a decision to close, so as to discuss the problem with their employees, municipal officials and various levels of Government, and to discuss the way in which they are reaching their decision so that the solution might be found and those companies are not placed in the position of having to move and the employees are not placed in the position of probably being unemployed, perhaps some of them for the rest of their lives?


Bill Rompkey: It is first of all important to point out that the budget will hopefully help companies to expand. Whereas companies have suffered losses before and have had to close down, the budget may indeed make others change their minds. People in my constituency are saying: "Look, have the companies looked at these new tax provisions? Maybe they can change their minds. Maybe they can take advantage of these provisions and rethink the whole process." Some closedowns may be affected because of the tax provisions here, but I do agree that the private sector has responsibilities, not only in getting the economy moving, but also in letting people know of their exact plans. There is a responsibility to the community. I know of cases where banks have pulled out local branches. It is the only game in town. One cannot pull out the hospital or the school.


Ian Deans: That's right.


Bill Rompkey: However, one can pull out the banks. I think banks have some responsibility to provide a service. They should not simply take money out of the community but should show some responsibility toward it. The same kind of responsibility applies to corporations. I might even say that it applies to Crown corporations. They have not always been the most responsive to the needs of communities either, even though they are creatures of the Government.
I think the point is well taken, but I do not think we should be focusing on the past. Hopefully, things that have happened in the past might be rethought in the light of the budget provisions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and answers has expired.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, basically I have two main threads to follow in my remarks today, the first being specifically directed to some of the unusual features surrounding and, indeed, leading up to the presentation of the budget of April 19. The second, while more general, is still related to the conduct of the Government in the fiscal field and its effects on economic recovery.
The springboard, if I may use the term, for my first series of comments was that utterly childish but, at the same time, rather frightening melange of arrogance, pettiness and teenage tomfoolery indulged in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on Monday, or perhaps it was Tuesday, a fortnight ago, once he had bought his new shoes. I refer, of course, to his date with the cameraman. This was followed, as we all remember, by a quite unbelievable sequence of arrant stupidities

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Donald W. Munro
which could have been either intentional or the result of poor staff work. Again, I refer to the tabling first of one set of budget papers, followed by another, and finally, it would seem, by a third and possibly even a fourth.
The sleight-of-hand involved or the bad staff work calculated to cover up an inexcusable slip brought on by the arrogance to which I have already referred, or which was perhaps intended to do not more than lay this sort of smokescreen or create a diversionary issue around the matter, ended up in an exhibition of such sniggering self-justification on the part of the Minister as to be an egregious insult, I suggest, to the proprieties and the dignity of the House. It will stand forever as a blot on the record the Minister of Finance.
This was indeed a budget of recovery, as it was called by the Minister. It was fixed up at the last minute in an effort to effect the recovery of the Minister from an unpardonable lapse from orthodox parliamentary practice. At the last minute he quite obviously fudged the books by adding an extra $200 million to his proposed expenditures. He did not have time, however, to determine either where the $200 million was to be spent-


Mr. Cosgrove:: Job creation.


Donald W. Munro: -or from whose pocket it was to come. In this fashion he tried to extricate himself unscrupulously from a very sticky and thoroughly demeaning situation, that of exposing his budget in public before budget night. Surely a case of indecent exposure. I will leave it at that for a moment.
Yet this performance, planned or not, contrived or simply stumbled upon or into, was, in a manner of speaking, no more than the most recent in a sequence of events surrounding budget presentations. I hesitate to suggest that it could be the culmination but it was at least the last in a three-year series of distortive manipulations of the rules and traditions of the House surrounding budgets, their presentation and their consequences.
With all due respect, before the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey) leaves the Chamber, I would suggest that he contrived another one today. He might more properly have introduced his suggestions on Statements by Ministers in order to allow a debate. Instead, like some other Ministers, he worked it into his budget speech and had only ten minutes of questions. As I say, this is probably not the culmination but just one in a series.
Not content with playing with the documents that had to be tabled, the Minister of Finance announced one or two days later that the whole business of budget secrecy was outmoded and we should follow the U.S. practice. As far as the U.S. practice is concerned, I hope his staff will bring to his attention the comments made in a letter published in The Globe and Mail on April 27 by the Hon. Eugene Forsey in which he indicated that there is no possibility of drawing a parallel between that performance and the United States practice.
Of course, the Minister reversed himself on the logic of that comment by suggesting in a later comment that the T.V. cameraman whom he had teased and tormented even to the length of suggesting that he might like to use his zoom lens, was no better than a thief. Who is to say what other monstrous charges are still to come after that suggestion?
The history of budget presentations by this Government is not a very reputable one on other accounts, because it is breaking new ground in parliamentary tradition, whether intentionally or not, by allowing a single session to extend beyond three years. That is a revolution in itself. It is a record for which the Government, or at least some of its Ministers, are apparently unaccountably proud. Today is the five hundred and first sitting in our fourth year of this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament. However, that is another story which will have to be saved for another day because the mess surrounding the budget presentation is what we are concerned with here. Whether a parliamentary session extending into a fourth year is legal is a completely different issue.
To return to the budget, matters arose as far back as April, 1980 when the then Minister of Finance who is presently the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), used most of his time during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on April 21, 1980 to introduce a mini-budget statement-it is even called that in the Hansard index-and a Ways and Means motion. This is to be found at page 243 of Hansard of April 21, 1980. This is probably the first time that a Ways and Means motion has been introduced in such a manner.
This is only the first break with parliamentary traditions in the fiscal field during this session. The record over the next three years is just as startling, as I propose to outline.
A question of privilege that followed from that unusual performance in April of 1980 was raised by Members from this side of the House, because to accept such a practice without comment was to deprive Members of their rights to consider the budgetary proposals that were then being outlined. That is an important point. The debate on the address was almost completely concluded by that time and the Minister, therefore, was not subjected to questioning on the presentation of his mini-budget. Paragraphs 516 and 517 of Beauchesne were extensively quoted but to no avail, as seen by the ruling of the Speaker at page 459 of Hansard of April 28, 1980.
The next unusual performance with respect to budget presentations which I believe deserves being recounted occurred on October 28, 1980 when, in addition to announcing proposals to increase sales and excise taxes, customs tariff changes and changes in unemployment insurance premiums both for employees and employers, the same Minister of Finance then sneaked in an entirely new program under the guise of taxation proposals, one which has come to be known as the National Energy Program, a plan to governmentalize the energy industry.
It is a program that has had at least two serious consequences, as we are now finding out. First, it drove a great deal
May 2, 1983

of exploration activity out of the country and thereby deferred sine die the achievement of one of the laudible objectives of the plan, namely energy self-sufficiency. Second, it aggravated in a needless way and to an unusual degree our relation with offshore investors except, I must add, those who would be overwhelmingly advantaged before very long by the govern-mentalization process. An example of this is the acquisition of the Canadian operation of a foreign owned chain of service stations at inflated prices. Of course, I refer to Petro-Canada's acquisition of Petrofina at a cost of $1.6 billion which was in itself a gross overpayment for a static service station asset. This governmentalization proposal made in the course of that budget presentation was a further departure from the normal practices of the House.
We next come to the budget of November 12, 1981, still in the same session of Parliament, 20 months into the Thirty-second Parliament. We must remember that this was the budget that was torn to shreds bit by bit, as the days went by, by the very Minister who presented it. In all, some 90 changes were announced to the budgetary proposals that had been made public on the night of November 12.
mis budget of November 12, 1981 was eventually approved, if that is the right word, on December 8. It was approved but nibbled away at as though by mice. There were 90 changes to a budget that was approved. What, then, is the value of approval? What are Government backbenchers doing supporting their Government and then watching it shoot that approval full of 90 holes? Is there no honour left in this House? I am compelled to ask that question.
Even the budgetary deficit forecast in that budget of November, 1981 was repudiated in the Minister's next budget of June 28, 1982, which was some 26 months into the same session. In the previous November the Minister had forecast a $10.5 billion deficit. By June, only eight months later, he was obliged to announce that that deficit had almost doubled, from $10.5 billion to $19.6 billion, and that the financial requirements, instead of being the $6.6 billion announced in November, 1981, had virtually tripled to $17.1 billion only eight months later.
The budgetary process was obviously breaking down in a number of ways. Its provisions were being altered and withdrawn. Its forecasts both as to deficits and expenditures were being completely revised.
Another mini-budget was introduced by the new and present Minister of Finance on October 27, 1982. This was done by means of a statement introducing a Bill to secure authority to borrow an additional $4 billion. Again it was a break in tradition and an outright denial by the Government of the right of Parliament to discuss budgetary proposals when they are made. Bill C-128, the borrowing authority Bill, was passed within the week. It was approved by the silent majority on the other side of the House on November 2, 1982.
On December 7, 1982, a month later, Bill C-139 was introduced to amend the income tax law as a result of the provisions of the June budget. That Bill was not passed until
The Budget-Mr. Donald W. Munro
March 24, 1983. It received Royal Assent on March 30, 1983, the day the Easter break began.
What do you think happened next, Mr. Speaker? The next chapter of the budget saga began. Believe it or not, five days after the income tax Bill had been given Royal Assent, the Minister made public a document entitled "Draft Amendments to the Income Tax Act" claiming that time had not permitted him to introduce these amendments during the debate on Bill C-139. This was his assertion when the Bill had been before the House for over three months, since December 7, 1981. It was another breakdown in the budgetary process. The amendments to the Income Tax Act consequent upon certain provisions of earlier budgets had been before Parliament for three and a half months and had only just been passed. Lo, a new set of proposed amendments was made public during a parliamentary recess. That document reached my desk on April 6 while I was in my riding during Easter recess. Is it any wonder that we ask ourselves where our Parliament is heading?
But that is still not the end of the story. We now come to the events of April 18 and 19 last. Those irregularities have been gone over at some length in the House and by the media, and the Chair has ruled that they do not constitute a breach of privilege. Breach of privilege or not-and I insist on my right as a Member of Parliament to remain unconvinced by the argumentation used to uphold the Minister of Finance-the events surrounding that occurrence of the zoom lens and the Minister of Finance's recovery proposals remain one of the sadder happenings of this overextended first session of this Thirty-second Parliament, which is now over 36 months old and going into its fourth year.
The Minister even had to compound his arrogant disregard for Parliament. The nature of his offence, though it may not have been regarded by the Speaker as a breach of privilege, was outlined by my colleague the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) on April 21, the first opportunity he had really to speak after seeing the material on the budget that had been tabled two evenings before on April 19. The account of the tabling of the various documents during and just following the presentation is provided by the Speaker in her ruling. There were so many documents involved, however, that it is difficult to extract from the Speaker's comments the exact documents or tables to which reference is made.
I know for a fact that I received one correcting document that very evening in the lobby. It was called an "addendum" and was intended as an insert after paragraph one on page three of the budget speech. It was in effect the Minister's apologia. It was not his recitation of mea culpa or meum delictum, his self-redeeming rationalization and the discovery of $200 million to add to the year's expenditures on recovery, but his own recovery.
I also received, upon request to the Table, as the Hon. Member for York-Peel was spelling out his question of privilege, a much more complete set of corrections to a number of

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Donald W. Munro
pages of a budget document entitled "Fiscal Plan". These corrections were in manuscript. It is a disgraceful looking document, one that ought not to have been tabled even to save the Minister's face and his skin. I am glad to say that document was not stamped by the Table. We have not only the "addendum" to the budget speech but also "the unrevised version" and the "hand-corrected version" of these budget papers. The confusion that these documents caused on their own, merited something more than the big, self-satisfied grin with which the Minister favoured us once he had been excused for his outrageous behaviour. It is worth noting the dates that I have already mentioned of these outrageous events.
Then on April 26 we had the ruling of the Speaker that there was no question of privilege. Surely there is a lesson to be drawn from this whole experience.
Given this history of shifts and changes, budget presentation and budget alterations-90 of them remember in one budget- and given that record of reversals and revisions, how can we be sure that the income tax provisions as they now stand, even for 1982-83 will remain intact? And because of that uncertainty, how are corporations in particular, and individuals to a lesser degree, to plan their financial future?
A stable tax climate, accent on stability, is all-important for healthy economic growth in the nation. That stability we have not had in Canada for at least four years now. Uncertainty and the burdensome national debt load, I suggest, are two of the principal obstacles to economic resurgence in Canada.
A word of caution therefore. Before we get out into the streets to sing the praises of this budget, let us think on these things. Let us dwell on the atmosphere of uncertainty that has been generated, and let us remember with respect to the debt load, to quote the lead editorial of the Financial Times of April 25, 1983:
The legacy of the past eight years is a collapse of federal revenues from 18.7 per cent of GNP in 1974-1975 to 15.7 per cent last year and a jump in expenditures from 19.9 per cent to 23.1 per cent.
This jump in expenditures is over the same period. A sobering summary, especially when coupled with the prospect of having to deal shortly with another borrowing Bill, this time for $19 billion. This will be on top of the $62.6 billion-let me repeat, on top of the $62.6 billion-already authorized during the life of this session of Parliament.
Having said all that, I am still at a bit of a loss, I must admit, to determine whether this whole budgetary fiasco in the Thirty-second Parliament can be laid at the door of carelessness or whether there may not be a deliberate scheme to downgrade the entire parliamentary process. In any event, the warning is worth sounding: once we are completely enmeshed in these devious toils, there will be no escape. Let us, therefore, be perpetually vigilant, lest we lose this instrument of democracy that has been so long in the making.
That being said, I would like to turn to another review of this Government's performance, but I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are rising.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt but the Hon. Member's time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). The Hon. Member was in the House when I raised the question, which I think is vital in terms of the economic direction in which the country is going, with the Minister in charge of Small Business.
In reviewing the budget and looking at the economic conditions of the country, particularly as they apply to unemployment and even more particularly as they apply to single industry towns and older cities where municipalities have come to rely on established companies for their employment opportunities, does the Hon. Member have any comment to make on the proposal that we have reached a point where corporate decision making is not just simply the responsibility of the directors or for that matter the shareholders of each and every private corporation, that in order to develop a sense of responsibility to the municipality from which corporations derive significant benefit in terms of the infrastructure that is paid for by the citizens of the municipality-the roads, the sewers and the other things that go into making municipalities places where workers work and live-workers and their families who at times are totally ignored by decisions made to close plants- and I am sure that in the area the Hon. Member represents and from his past experience he has seen-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to participate in the debate; therefore, would he put his question to the Hon. Member?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what you are saying, but the rule says that I may ask a question or make a brief comment.


Some Hon. Members:: "Brief'.


Ian Deans: That is fine. Would the Hon. Member support a new code of corporate conduct that would require some prior consultation with those who are most affected in order that some solutions might be found to eliminate the need to close some of the plants that are being closed in this country and thus establish some stability in many municipalities?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is an approach that is very similar to the approach being offered by the Government. What the Hon. Member fails to see is that within the taxation climate with which we are compelled to live, corporations are facing difficulties, grave difficulties. They are quite capable of managing their affairs, carrying on their business, and producing and employing if the tax structure allows them; but this proposal that came across the floor this morning, for example, is just another foot in the door for the socialist horde, if you like: "Let me get a hold of some of the equity of your company, and once we get in, we will take it over".
May 2, 1983

There is another solution, the solution of tax incentives, tax incentives to employ, to produce and to export. Those are the solutions which give the man who has the initiative pride in his work to expand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Socialism has not worked. It cannot work. The other solution is the only one.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member just out of curiosity. If the tax incentive method is the one the Hon. Member is proposing, how does he rationalize it with a budget deficit that must grow as a result of reductions in taxes and as a result of tax incentives? How does he rationalize those two points?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is socialist economics if we ever heard it. The Hon. Member does not seem to realize that with increasing production and increasing employment there will be increasing taxes. It is as simple as that. The socialist approach has been tried in the country by this Government for over 15 years. The Hon. Member is able to talk about corporate responsibility and use that term without blushing. I am suggesting that corporate responsibility is what the Conservative philosophy engenders, encourages and rewards.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a short question to the Hon. Member. He says that the socialist approach is the one being used in the budget. Why is it, then, that commentators are calling it a Conservative budget and the stock market has kind of gone ape over it? The index has gone up and so on. Also he used the term "socialist hordes". Does he think the socialist hordes are at the gates of the Government of British Columbia?


Mr. Taylor:: We hope they stay outside.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, I think so. I recommend to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) the April 25 edition of the Financial Times from which I drew some comments. All the media are not commenting favourably on the budget.


Paul James Cosgrove: Ninety-eight per cent are.


Donald W. Munro: If the Hon. Minister wants to go by the 98 percentage, there are other percentages which I could bring to the attention of the House. For example, the drawdown of the earnings of Canadians is a very high percentage with which we should deal. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway should not get out on the streets and laud this Budget too highly, because he will come down with a bump one of these days.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, having just heard from the far right of the House and also from the far left of the House, I would like to say a few
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
words on behalf of the common, practical, middle group in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let us take a look at the budget and its reality. I, like many other members in the House, have been here for some time and have seen many budgets brought in. We have always witnessed the same procedures prior to budgets, with Hon. Members rising and asking the Minister of Finance questions about what will be in them. When the Minister does not tell them, he is accused of being too secretive; when something happens, he is accused of a leak. Even when it is taken out of his office he is accused of a leak. Following the presentation of a budget, our mail load either lightens or strengthens according to what is in the budget. Of all the budgets I have seen going through the House, my mail load is the lightest it has ever been on any budget in the last 17 years. This is a clear indication that many people out there are satisfied with it and are willing to give it an honest and fair trial period.
I will talk about a number of matters this morning. One relates to a question which I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in the House a few days ago about the policies of Canadian chartered banks. I do not want my comments to be portrayed as bank beating. I think it is a problem which must be solved if we are to improve the unemployment situation in Canada. I am referring to the matter of projects financing of small businesses and small industry.
The chartered banks of Canada have lately had policies whereby they will not release funds to small industries to help them pay their labour or buy material so that they can produce manufactured goods, fill contracts and orders. As a result, I know of one company which recently had to turn down a $3 million contract. I want to make it very clear that there is very little sense in the Government putting up billions of dollars in an attempt to promote employment and asking members of the private sector to put their money on the line to try to improve the economy and the unemployment situation, if we do not have the total co-operation of the Canadian financial structure. I hope the Minister of Finance continues his discussions with the Canadian banking community so that small industries can get on with the job of producing goods, paying labour and creating more jobs.
In answer to my question the Minister of Finance indicated that he expected all sectors of the economy to carry their weight. That is the answer to the problem at which I am looking.
I was glad to see in the budget the Extended Youth Training and Employment Program whereby 5,000 young people will be taken into the Canadian Armed Forces to be trained in basic and general trades. The sum of $75 million will be allocated toward this Program. It will also provide vocational training. It will help young people make the transition from school eventually into the work force with trades and vocational training to

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
their credit. The Canadian Armed Forces has some very good instructors in the fields in which these young people will be studying. I want to tell the military community how much we appreciate the way they welcomed the Program with open arms. 1 am sure that they will do an excellent job.
I would like to refer to another area of activity which is a relatively untapped resource in the over-all structure of the Canadian economy. I am referring to the tourist industry. Over the years the Provinces have really not had an aggressive policy to develop or assist tourism. Of course, the federal Government is limited by jurisdiction, but I would like to give an example of an entrepreneurial effort that deserves a lot of credit. It is an area of the economy by which we can increase jobs and the tax flow into the treasury of Canada by helping others and providing them with a framework within which to work.
There is a great future in tourism. A case in point is the white water rafting business which operates on the Upper Ottawa River in the Beachburg-Forester's Falls area. Three companies have been playing a lead role in the development of white water rafting on the Upper Ottawa. Last year Wilderness Tours took 32,000 people down the white waters of the Ottawa River. Another company known as Ottawa River White Water Rafting brought down about 12,000 people. Another company, the OWL, Ottawa white water leaders, took down 5,000 people in 1982. In 1983 Wilderness Tours in particular is expected to go from the 32,000 in 1982 to 47,000. That is entrepreneurialship of the first order. This is why I wanted to put it on the record today.
I think both Governments, provincial and federal, must place a great deal more emphasis upon tourism because there is great future job potential. It is not an area which will be totally invaded by technology like industrial jobs. We could provide more jobs for general labour through the tourist industry than through any other existing industry at the present time.
These companies place a great emphasis upon safety. They have outstanding records in terms of safe operations. It is in their best interests for customers to have the benefit of good equipment and expert employees. These employees are well trained and the people who go on white water tours are in safe hands. To date they have not had an accident. This is a relatively new industry in Canada, approximately 12 years old. It is catching on fast and has great potential. The employment potential is outstanding.
There is something the Government must look at and do something about. Companies in the white water rafting business want safety regulations set by Government. This is not to protect their image, which they look after themselves. They want to be protected against others coming in with cheaper equipment which is not safe. This could cause accidents and give the whole industry a bad name.
I have been working with the Coast Guard people in the Department of Transport and with other levels of Government
to try and bring this about. The industry will be submitting regulations for our perusal and, hopefully, adoption. That is the route to go. Those in the industry are the experts. Regulations they submit will protect their interests and the safety of people. They know best. This is a good example where industry can work hand in hand with Government, bringing in regulations which will protect an important segment of the tourist industry in Canada.
I will retract a bit to point out that there is no Act of Parliament dealing with tourism safety, something that is needed. I hope we will see something along this line in the Throne Speech. At present, responsibility for regulations governing the safety of this industry is under, of all things, the Canada Shipping Act. Under the regulations of that Act, operators on the Fraser River in British Columbia are covered. There are general regulations which affect all operators, whether they be on B.C. rivers or on the Ottawa River between Ontario and Quebec.
There is need for a second set of regulations which are more technical. Obviously the equipment required on the Fraser River is different from that required on the Ottawa River. There should be two phases of regulations, a section of which should be more technical, related to the geography of an area such as that in which the white water rafters operate.
I wish to add to my argument with regard to how important that industry is to tourism. A large complex is to be built in Ross Township on the Ottawa River. The company building it, Wilderness Tours, will put up $800,000 of its own money. That is how much faith they have in the industry. They have received $110,000 in 50-50 federal-provincial funding from the Eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement. By next year, Wilderness Tours expect to have over 200 employees. That is a sizeable number and shows the employment potential.
Before my time runs out, I also want to deal with airports. Airports have been referred to in some of the follow-up documentation of the capital projects listed in the budget. I want to emphasize this very strongly. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and other Cabinet Ministers will take note of this point. Regional airports are very important. Some emphasis must be placed on capital funding for small regional airports. It is part of the infrastructure of those communities. You can try to attract industry, jobs, small and large businesses, but without proper facilities to provide the rapid transit which people demand you will not have the infrastructure which appeals to business leaders.
There are regional airports in Kapuskasing, Cochrane and other parts of Ontario. Pembroke is a case in point. The airport is owned by 12 municipalities. There are two return flights to Toronto a day. These small airports are important because they are feeder lines for the larger airlines. People can get where they want to go. These airports can handle private aircraft, both pleasure and business. Such an airport is an attraction for business.
There is little sense in Government spending millions of dollars on industrial parks and other infrastructure without
May 2, 1983

providing the total package. We must never forget the transportation factor. Any member of the northern Ontario caucus knows how important the transportation factor is. Flying schools are also very important. Many of these smaller airports provide such instruction. I repeat, these airports attract business to the area.
I do not want to conclude before saying something about forestry. As Hon. Members are aware, the northern Ontario caucus sponsored a forestry conference in Thunder Bay the first weekend in February. It was a major success. Business people from the various sectors of the industry across northern Ontario attended that conference. It provided good input. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), to whom the Canadian Forestry Service reports, attended that conference, as did three or four other Cabinet ministers. I thank them. It is that type of interest and personal relationship that builds up confidence in the business community. Business people realize that the Government is interested in them. This is important if we want their help in improving the economy and, therefore, the employment situation in Canada.
At that conference we discussed basic issues involving the forest industry, including tax problems. I know there are special tax measures in the budget for those in the forestry business. There is something crucial in the future for the forest industry.
Those with a basic knowledge of the business realize that one of the major problems over the last number of years has been a lack of forest management. The federal Government is inhibited to a large degree with regard to upgrading our forests because of the jurisdictional problems. I have a note here which is rather revealing. It is headlined "Ownership". Approximately 92 per cent of Canadian forest lands, excluding the Yukon and Northwest Territories, is owned by the Provinces. Seven per cent is privately owned and less than 1 per cent is federal Crown land. That shows how inhibited the federal Government is without built-in federal-provincial agreements to upgrade the forests and put people to work in the forests.
Private ownership in the forest industry is significant in some parts of the Atlantic Provinces, the southern agricultural regions of Ontario and Quebec and in some of the prime forest areas of the B.C. coast. Domestic ownership of the pulp and paper industry was 70 per cent in 1980 and domestic ownership of sawmills and other wood industries was over 80 per cent. Approximately 75 per cent of Canada's combined forest products industries are domestically owned.
While the forestry sector is of obvious value to Canadians, employing over 11 per cent of our work force when in full production, several key variables present a challenge to the industry's continued strength. These include export trade, timber supply and general economic trends. It behooves us as a federal Government to keep in place tax measures that will be an incentive to the industry through difficult times and through good times as well so that a balance can be struck that will keep the industry intact. The forestry sector plays a major
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
role in upgrading the forests in our land. I cannot emphasize the importance of research and development in the forestry field strongly enough.
We must come to grips with the jurisdictional problem in Canada at the federal-provincial level so that the federal Government will be legally able to have greater input into reforestation programs and into improving Canada's forest species, as we now have a situation where there is far too much second and third grade timber. Many operators who have been in the business for years find this a real danger to their future. If there is anything that discourages them from expanding and creating more employment in those areas, it is the poor quality of timber.
Since the Minister of the Environment is here today, I would like to see this particular jurisdictional issue dealing with the forest industry of Canada go to a full-scale federal-provincial conference with forest resource Ministers from the various Provinces and appropriate Ministers from the federal Cabinet involved. I would like to see them come to a sound agreement so that there will be no more jockeying back and forth saying: "You cannot come into my backyard and I do not want you bringing in this money because you are interfering in my jurisdiction," and so on. If we are to have a mature forest, we must act like mature people and develop a good, sound program.


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Speaker, you can understand the interest I have in the last part of the Hon. Member's speech. I was particularly struck by his recommendation of a conference of forestry Ministers who will meet to avoid any irritations or possible objections to expenditures by the federal Government in this area, a request for more co-ordination.
I would first like to salute his speech and thank him for it. However, does he not think that the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers is the appropriate forum in which those consultations should take place? If he does believe that that would be the case, would he furnish to me some suggestions about which of the issues he has described might be raised with the ministers of forestry under that umbrella?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister's suggestion that the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers would be a good route to go. I would hope that they would consider those strong recommendations and that both levels of Government would indeed act on them, because this is an issue that must not be discussed ad infinitum. I know how strongly the Minister feels about this and I know that that would not be his intention.
Personally, I do not care how it is done as long as it is done effectively, as long as the agreement that is made works smoothly, as long as there will not be continued wranglings down the road, and as long as real emphasis will be put on the reforestation problems of this country in order to upgrade the timber and give businesses a more profitable operation and a better route to go.

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
Mr. Speaker, I would just say in closing that I appreciate the Minister's question because it is not every day that Cabinet Ministers question backbenchers.


Ian Deans: Or even ask for their opinions.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Hon. Minister asks for my opinion. I will certainly vouch for that and I appreciate that. I would like to give him every encouragement to go ahead with this. I would certainly lend all the support I can to him in his efforts to bring this about. As I say, go the route that will be productive and useful for years to come.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a related matter with the Hon. Member. I share his concern about the shortage of fibre which at one point appeared to be reaching crisis proportions in certain parts of Canada. However, because of a serious decline in sales of forest products, the fibre shortage problem at the moment seems to be taking second place to the more serious problem of how the forest products industry can sell their products. The industry has been exceedingly dependent upon the U.S. market, a market that has been very soft as of late. The result in Canada has been very high unemployment in that sector of our economy.
I would ask the Hon. Member if he has made any assessment of other possible markets that the forest industry could look to, and is he satisfied that the Government of Canada is doing all within its power to assist the industry in opening up those markets? If he has thought about this, what areas other than the U.S. market are areas the forest industry could look to with some optimism?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. The Hon. Member has noted that because of the downturn in the forest industry, there has not been the same demand for forest products. As a result, there is no longer a fibre shortage. That is my understanding of his statement. However, I would have to state that that is a poor way to improve the fibre shortage problem in Canada. I would hope that we would be able to bring in a program that, as I mentioned to the Minister of the Environment, will continue to improve and increase the wood fibre industry in Canada so that we can gear it to a strong economy and fibre will be in supply on a constant basis rather than only during future downturns in the economy.
As for trade, it is rather interesting that the Hon. Member should ask that question as I recently asked the Minister of Industry (Mr. Lumley) who is also the Minister in charge of DREE, a similar question in the Finance Committee. He informed me that his Department, prior to his taking on new duties, and when he was Trade Minister, worked in the Middle East and other areas of the world in an attempt to create more markets for Canadian wood products. I believe he mentioned a program that he recently initiated with the B.C. Government, the federal Government and the forest industry of B.C., each one paying a third of the cost to promote international sales. I believe that program is still ongoing. If the industry is willing to participate in that program, it will be of benefit to the program itself because the industry will want to see a very
aggressive policy of searching for markets for their business. I think the fact that they are part of the act will probably cause them to spur on Canadian Trade commissioners and others involved in the process. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker.
The recent problem we have gone through, safely for the time being, with the United States market is one that we do not want to see again for a long time. As the Hon. Member noted, it is a warning that we cannot rely forever and a day on the traditional markets but will have to go out and dig for new markets. Obviously the Middle East has to be one of the areas and the more emphasis we place on this, the better. Because the Hon. Member has raised the question and others have shown an interest in it, I think it would be interesting for Members of the House to receive the official update on where the program stands. We must review our sales programs from time to time in order to make sure that they are working well and that they are producing.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had been looking forward with some degree of anticipation to the budget. As a result of some of the questions asked by Members of this Party and the answers received, I had come to believe that it is entirely possible that the Liberal Government had at last begun to understand the real problems of the land. I hoped that for the first time in the three years that I have been in this House it would acknowledge that unemployment was a matter of considerable seriousness, and that the majority of the unemployed were faced with severe economic dislocation that could affect many of them permanently. I had hoped that the Government was going to address that particular problem directly as a priority.
I confess to a sense of disappointment on budget night. I listened with interest; in fact, I was rigidly fixed as I watched the Minister go through his budget. I waited, as did many Canadians, at least two million and maybe more, for that point in the budget statement where he would begin to speak about their problems.
Many of these people have worked in factories and offices for 25, 30 or 35 years. They have gone to work every day, doing what they were asked, producing what was required of them. For this they received a remuneration that allowed them to live at an average level and perhaps buy a home some years ago and raise their families. Now they are unemployed at an age when finding an alternative occupation is extremely difficult, if not impossible for some of them. They are unemployed at a time when they were looking forward to building a nest egg for their retirement, at a time when unemployment means a cessation of contributions to the pension plan to which they belong. In the final analysis, that means their pension will be less when they reach age 65 or whatever is retirement age in their occupation. They are people between the ages of 54 and 62 primarily who look to us for some sense of how their problems can be resolved.
May 2, 1983

The budget did not even recognize that was happening. Neither did the budget recognize that there are literally tens of thousands of young people, some in the 20 to 30 age group, recently married with families to raise and pretty bleak job prospects. There are others who are leaving institutions of higher learning, university or post-secondary schools, who do not know where to look for the employment that we have long said was the desire of this society.
A week ago today, at just about this time of day, I spoke in Hamilton to 300 high school students. They asked me, quite justifiably, what kind of employment opportunities there are for them. They are not able to go on to post-secondary education, nor do they see the benefit of it. Where are the jobs that successive Governments have led them to believe would be available for them? They are willing and eager to work but they do not know where to turn. In many instances their parents are unemployed, so they know that if they are unable to find employment with the experience they have, their own chances are severely reduced. They asked what is going to happen to the country and where it is going.
Why did this come about, Mr. Speaker? It is all too easy to suggest that current economic conditions are the result of decisions made or economic downturns that occurred in other parts of the world. That is a cop out. Of course we were affected by the world downturn, but we did little if anything to try to compensate for that by improving and increasing economic activity in Canada. We took the view that we- meaning the Government, and I might go so far as to say the Conservatives-were not required to support the kind of measures proposed by this Party two years ago when it was evident what we were about to face. They were not prepared to support the kinds of measures that would have resulted in job creation in the municipalities across the country that even then were beginning to show an economic downturn.
When we were talking about building the railroad and providing job opportunities and a decent transportation system for Canada, the Tories and Liberals said it could not be done and that we could not afford it. When we were talking about building homes to accommodate those who could not find a decent place to live at a price they could afford, it was the Tories and the Liberals who said we could not afford it.
When we were saying we ought to be going ahead with the completion of the east-west pipeline in order that we could be truly energy self-sufficient and at the same time create jobs and build an infrastructure that would enable the country to grow, it was the Tories and the Liberals who said we could not afford it. They said that when there were 900,000 people unemployed and the deficit was $11 billion. That is when they said we could not afford it. Now we have two million people unemployed, the deficit will be over $30 billion, and, more important, we are spending about $1 billion per day to keep people unemployed.
When we look at that we must say there was gross mismanagement based upon the Conservative-based policy of fiscal abuse and an inability to understand that investment in Canadians is good investment. The Tories and the Liberals said that we could not afford it.
I will come back to that after one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, on April 25, 1983, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) announced on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that under the Special Recovery Program, the Federal Government would be spending $630 million over the next four years to renovate the Coast Guard fleet. The program provides for the construction of eleven new ships, refitting of three other ships and the purchase of several smaller vessels. According to the Minister of Supply and Services, both the construction projects and refitting operations will have a very high Canadian content and are expected to create 20,000 jobs between now and 1986.
Madam Speaker, this is very encouraging news for Canadian shipyard workers. However, I am also counting on the Canadian Government to give these recovery projects a more regional flavour, and I therefore hope that in the interest of fairness, Quebec shipyard workers will also benefit, particularly at Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. in Lauzon. Although the Government has shown an interest in awarding contracts to this particular shipyard, Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. is now operating at 33 per cent of its normal employment capacity. I hope that this message will be heard by the powers that be.



CALL FOR ECONOMIC CONTACT WITH TAIWAN

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the Republic of Taiwan has made great economic strides over the last 20 years. Despite its small size, Taiwan has attained a per
25042

May 2, 1983
capita income of some $3,000 American, and an ever-increasing economy for the needs of its 20 million people. Their economy and living standards are now second only to Japan in Asia. In an amazingly short time Taiwan has narrowed the gap between the top wage earners and the ones on the lower end of the scale from 20-to-one to four-to-one. There is every indication as well that even this gap will become smaller in the years ahead.
Although Canada has some trade relations with Taiwan, this is only the tip of the iceberg of what could really be accomplished. Taiwan is steadily increasing its economic and political contacts with the West. However, Canada is the only one of the developed countries which does not have trade or liaison offices in Taiwan. The establishment of such trade offices would be the first step and would advantageously increase trade between our two countries. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I call upon the Government to recognize this fact and start immediate negotiations toward this end.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, despite the current recession, agriculture continues to be one of the strongest contributors to our economy. Consequently one would expect that the commitment to agricultural research and development, which is so essential to the future
viability of this sector, would be uppermost in any wellmeaning Minister's mind. However, agricultural research does not seem to fit within the hierarchy of the Liberal Cabinet's priorities.
Over the past decade the annual increase of Agriculture Canada expenditures on agricultural research and development represented about 1 per cent. This lack of growth in spending on research has meant that our country has fallen behind in terms of adequate facilities, equipment, and research staff. Recent studies show that money spent on agricultural research provides benefits to the Canadian society of 30 to 70 times that of the original amount spent. If nothing else, this should make the Liberal Cabinet think twice when it considers further reductions in research investment.
If the present policies of the Liberal Cabinet toward agricultural research and development persist, our farmers will find it difficult to meet the target of doubling food production by the year 2000. The Cabinet must be urged by all Members of Parliament and citizens to abandon its shortsighted measures aimed at short-term political gains, because the long-term implications pose a serious threat, both to our resources and to the country's capability to feed our people and the many peoples of the world.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in his flippant answer to my serious question on Friday, suggested that he had more support for his position on Crow than the New Democratic Party. I would suggest to the Minister that he has not been reading his mail, or else the pressure is getting to him. I challenge the Minister here and now to hold a referendum in western Canada with farmers offered a choice between the Pepin-Gilson proposal and the New Democratic Party proposal.
We have letters and petitions from pool committees, co-op boards, municipal councils, farm union locals, Chambers of Commerce, and from tens of thousands of individual farmers, all opposed to the Pepin-Gilson plan. We have proof presented here in the House of massive approval of our proposal.
The rumours of many drafts and of many meetings of Cabinet on Crow legislation are evidence of a Government furiously backpedalling from an unpalatable and unworkable proposal. I plead with the Minister to stop this process, to take a good look at the NDP plan, which is sensible and farsighted, which will build a revitalized and publicly responsible railroad, and which will provide more jobs in the short and long run as well as providing massive support among farmers in western Canada. The NDP plan should be the one put into law.
May 2, 1983



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the CRTC's telecom decision on hearing aid compatibility of telephones, granted residential and business telephone subscribers the right to buy their telephones from any manufacturer, but did not require that the newly purchased phones have the same "fluxcoil" contained in the Bell Canada phones, which allows them to be used by any hearing aid wearers.
The pending proliferation of incompatible phones will require the 200,000 hearing aid wearers to buy and carry around a battery-powered, hockey puck shaped, acoustic coupler and hold it between telephone handsets and their hearing aids. The CRTC decision could also force Bell Canada to stop including fluxcoils, which cost slightly over one dollar, in their telephones, in order to be able to match the prices at which those companies that do not include the fluxcoil will sell their phones.
I view the CRTC decision as a major blow to the hearing impaired and one which contravenes the objectives contained in the 1981 special committee report, "Obstacles", namely, increasing the accessibility and participation by the disabled in Canadian society.
In addition, I feel that fluxcoils in receivers should be treated simply as a basic part of the telephone network, the cost of which all users should share in order to preserve and enhance universality of telephone service.
For these reasons, I urge the Cabinet to consider reversing-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on Friday the House debated an amendment to the Constitution which would have enshrined property rights in the Canadian Constitution. The NDP refused to allow the question of property rights to be considered by a committee of the House. The NDP refused to allow this matter to be treated as a nonconfidence motion in order that it would proceed. In short, the House and the country should know that the NDP has clearly refused to guarantee property rights for Canadians.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, last November the CRTC decided not to require that all telephones meet a technical standard which would ensure that telephones would be compatible with the use of hearing aids. By making this decision, the CRTC missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the telecommunications field and to advance the human rights of hearing impaired Canadians.
Telephone accessibility is a vital issue for Canada's 1.5 million hearing impaired citizens. The CRTC's decision will have a profound effect on employment opportunities for the hearing impaired, and on their ability to have contact with family and friends, as well as their ability to communicate within the community generally. To the hearing impaired it also means a frustration of their right to live independently.
The Canadian-Co-ordinating Council on Deafness, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, the Canadian Hearing Society, and the Hard of Hearing Club of Ottawa have requested, through a petition to the Cabinet, that the CRTC decision be changed. In all of these circumstances it is inappropriate, and not in accordance with acceptable public policy, to allow this obstacle to be placed before the right of the hearing impaired to equal, universal use of the telephone system.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, a year ago 1 spoke to 30,000 people in Vancouver at a rally supporting nuclear disarmament. A week ago 65,000 people attended a similar rally. Another 20,000 came out in Toronto and several other communities.
Earlier this year a Gallup Poll showed that of those who had an opinion nearly 60 per cent opted for not testing the Cruise missile.
Last week a Gallup Poll in the U.S. showed that 64 per cent of Americans supported a freeze motion calling for a mutual, verifiable freeze, including a freeze on the testing of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, which would include flight testing of the Cruise missile. This weekend the American Catholic Bishops called for a halt in the production of new nuclear weapons systems, reminiscent of the statement of the leaders of Canada's major churches last December.
In 1984 Canadians and Americans will be expressing themselves at the polls. Can anyone doubt that the majority on both sides of the border will deal harshly with politicians who are not serious about arms control?

May 2, 1983
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION



PLEA THAT ELECTORATE REGISTER DISPLEASURE

Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, it comes to mind that there have been some rather notable and prestigious "Rows". Included among these would be Saville Row, King's Row, and Ontario's former Lieutenant-Governor, Earl Rowe, all evoking thoughts of quality and honour.
How unfortunate it is for Canada that those who occupy the front and centre seats across this Chamber from me have done nothing to command, in this context, equal respect. Rather, they, by their actions, individually and collectively, reinforce my position with respect to the need for capital punishment. The latest Gallup Poll indicates how strongly the vast majority of Canadians share my distaste.
The public realizes that Parliament is being robbed of its dignity, responsibilities, and rights. There is no such thing as freedom of information, only cover-up, corruption, and ineptness. The Government does not uphold the tenets of democracy. It exists only to reward chicanery, deceit, and personal gain, whether that of past or present Ministers. The names Lalonde, Gillespie, and Mackasey are famous or, rather infamous.
The examples of telephone calls to judges, forged signatures, hit and run drivers, lobbying, Senate appointments, free Air Canada passes, the uranium cartel and the refusal to prosecute enemy agents are included on a list which is endless, and everything is condoned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
What we see across from us is not King's Row; it is Skid Row. I appeal and have every confidence that the Canadian electorate will register its displeasure and disgust at the polls when the next general election is called.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. When questioned about the Department of National Defence layoffs the Minister has implied that at the end of each fiscal year the Department lays off its term employees, and he has insinuated that nothing unusual is happening this year. Is it not true that, for the past many years, the end of March layoffs have been a legalistic bookkeeping operation and that, up until this year, the employees laid off on March 31 have been almost invariably rehired on April 1 ?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I understand the question of the Hon. Member for Victoria, because many Members of Parliament wanted to ask a question on this subject last Friday during
Question Period. It concerns the policy of the Department with respect to laying off term employees versus some of the employees it hired through the NEED Program.
I can very clearly state, concerning this question of the normal employment in the Department versus the NEED Program, that the instructions given to my Department were very clear, and I have them here. The departmental managers of the CTE, which is the NEED Program, have been well warned and also very severely instructed to ensure that the CTE employees are to be employed in jobs that are incremental to those planned by the NEED Program or planned before April of 1983. Therefore, what I have to say on that is that, NEED or no NEED Program, some of our term employees had to be laid off on March 31. Because of the NEED Program which was then implemented and given to the Department of National Defence, we were able to hire some employees to do some jobs which would not have been done without the NEED Program.


NEED PROGRAM-EFFECT ON REHIRING TERM EMPLOYEES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. First, I wonder if the Minister would guarantee that he will table the document from which he has just been quoting, as is the custom in the House.
Further, is it not true that this year hundreds of so-called term employees, many of whom have worked for the Department of National Defence for several years without missing a single day, have been laid off and are now drawing unemployment insurance? Is it not correct that in many cases, particularly in the low skill trades, their jobs have been taken by people hired under the NEED Program of the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would say that the Hon. Member for Victoria is correct in part. Following the question of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton on Friday, I told him that I would send him all the information required to explain the process of the laying off or employment of the term employees, and also the procedures and instructions given by the Department of Employment and Immigration in so far as the requirements which we must fulfil, to employ employees, under the NEED Program is concerned.
Therefore, in one way or another, I can assure the Hon. Member that if we did not have the required amount of money and the help of the NEED Program, there would be more people unemployed than there are at the moment. This is indeed the principle of the issue concerning the NEED Program versus the layoff of some of our term employees.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Minister forgot to assure me that he would table the document from which he quoted in answer to my first question.
May 2, 1983


LAY-OFFS AT ESQUIMALT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, on Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt 114 term employees were laid off on March 31, about half of them from the construction engineering department which looks after the maintenance of buildings, roads and grounds, and the remainder from the ship repair unit. This was done in line with a budget restriction on term employees. Since April 1 dozens of replacements have been hired using funds allocated in support of the Minister of Employment and Immigration's NEED Program. Will the Minister not now admit that this is really a totally non productive boondoggle that is going on which will be at a cost of millions of dollars to the UIC fund?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think that 1 can question the well thought out NEED Program, which I think is a good one for employment in general. In that respect the question can be asked of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I think he will defend his Program very ably, and I might add that I agree with whatever he says about it. I believe it is a very good program.
With respect to the document which was requested by the Hon. Member for Victoria, I can give him this note that I have in my hand. I can assure the Hon. Member that we studied Chilliwack, CFB Ottawa, and many other bases across the country, to determine what would happen by laying off our term employees versus the implications of some employees coming in under the NEED Program. I can give the Hon. Member details of what happened in all of these different areas. There will be a letter sent to the Hon. Member-


Mr. Broadbent:: I wrote you, too.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Yes. Each of your requests will be given an explanation of what happened and why it happened. It is all done regularly in the course of normal practice. We will also stress the fact that the NEED Program has helped tremendously in giving further employment to some who did not have employment, allowing us to carry out work which would have stopped on March 1.


HIRING AND LAYING OFF OF EMPLOYEES AT HALIFAX
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence as well. I first want to point out to him that the matter of the administration of the NEED Program in the Department of National Defence is a real problem involving real people. Therefore I want to put this case to him.
At Willow Park, an installation connected with CFB Halifax, there were four term employees laid off at the end of March. In April, six employees were hired. My information is that they are performing identical services in identical jobs. Given that information, will the Minister now look into the situation to find out exactly what is happening? If these newly hired persons are in fact performing the same work and
Oral Questions
services as the term employees who were laid off, will he now undertake to take immediate action to rectify the situation? These people need their jobs.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I understand the intervention of the Hon. Member very well, I know he was one of the first to ask for information about the situation. While I recognize that, Madam Speaker, as I said before we will try to get to all those particular cases at each base.
If you have names, such as the Hon. Member for Halifax West had, who, I know, asked me about a cetain person who had been laid off because of the NEED Program, according to his allegation, whose name is Mr. Dent, 1 believe, I can give information as soon as it is requested. We have all the particulars. It will be very clear as to why they were laid off and the terms under which they could be re-employed; if for example we had more regular person-years coming in from Treasury Board. As well, we can describe all the benefits that the NEED Program has provided to Defence at the moment.


Howard Edward Crosby: May I state for the record that the employee to whom the Minister of National Defence has referred is Stephen Dent. He resides in Halifax West. He is the very person with a young family, mortgage, and other debt payments, who was dismissed from his job.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since he has heard the presentation of all these cases in the House of Commons and has heard of the complaints about the application of the NEED Program, and gave an explanation before the committee, what does he now say about these allegations of misapplication of the provisions of the NEED Program? What does he say about these people who are being hired in the name of job creation while term employees are being dismissed from their jobs to make room for these new hirings?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, there is not much that I can add to the explanation already given by the Minister of National Defence, other than to emphasize the fact that the program is established to provide incremental and additional work that would not normally be supplied in terms of whatever business or organization is employing these funds.
If there are cases, whether in federal, provincial, municipal or private sector departments, where there seems to be a transgression of that purpose, we would be prepared to look into them. We have already taken the concerns raised by

May 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Members of the House and met with the Minister of National Defence about them. He has provided the explanation which he has given today which is, in fact, that the term contracts came to an end at the end of April, I believe. That was the reason for the termination. It had nothing to do with the NEED Program.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A week ago he said that there were, in his view, major differences between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States concerning policies affecting Latin America. Specifically, he said:
We object to the interference in the internal affairs of other countries by any major power, even if that power is a friend.
Considering that since the Prime Minister made that statement the President of the United States has said that his Government intends to continue financing and training groups who will be making invasions into Nicaragua from Honduras, does the Prime Minister stand by what he said just over a week ago? Did he make that clear to the President of the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do. What I indicated clearly to the President of the United States is that I thought he had made a very positive suggestion when he proposed in his statement to Congress that there be an agreement by all parties, an international verifiable agreement, that neither side-the U.S., Soviet Union, Cuba nor any other power in this case-intervene in the internal affairs of the Central American States. I thought that was a very positive suggestion. I hope it would have the support from my hon. friend.


John Edward Broadbent: I am pleased to indicate to the Prime Minister that that kind of proposal has our unequivocal support. We have said that a number of times.


TRAINING OF INSURGENTS BY UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the President's address to Congress which seemed to be aimed very clearly at getting additional funds for military related activities in that region, he also said that the reason the United States was financing and training groups in Honduras that were making attacks in Nicaragua was to prevent the flow of arms from Nicaragua to El Salvador. Since then, just yesterday in fact, the head of the largest insurgent group that has been financed and trained by the United States, denied the truth of what President Reagan said. He said in fact that the groups have nothing to do with stopping the flow of arms to El
Salvador but that their main purpose is "ousting the present government in Nicaragua".
Considering tht the insurgent groups themselves are saying that, will the Prime Minister follow up on his earlier criticism of such activity by indicating to the United States that the Government of Canada disapproves of this kind of interference that is being encouraged by the United States, and that costs lives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I made it clear to my interlocutors that, as far as the objectives and historical analysis of the events in Central America were concerned, Canada was not in agreement with the United States, and I know that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, also made that point to Secretary Shultz.
With respect to the point of non interference by outside powers in that area, I am very happy to hear that the NDP has stated, and I quote its Leader, "The President of the United States has unequivocal support of the NDP on that point". I think it is important to put that on the record because very often the Leader of the NDP makes light of my support for the President of the United States. I think he should be thanked now for having made it clear that he also unequivocally supports the President of the United States on that point.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the fact that lives are being lost every day in that region merits a little more concern than scoring what seems to be rather trivial debating points. I indicated our clear support for that part of the statement of the President of the United States where he called for a treaty among all states involved in the region that would be verifiable and would prohibit interference in other States' activities. I also mentioned that the Government of Nicaragua has long indicated support for that.
I come back to my question to the Prime Minister. Will he now make his position clear that the United States activity in financing and training groups-the head of which in the past 24 hours, said that their purpose is to bring down the Government of Nicaragua-must stop, and the Canadian Government takes an unequivocal position on it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am just as unequivocal as the Hon. Member when I condemn the interference by other countries in the affairs of Central American countries, just as I condemned certain countries in the area for their interference in countries of that area. I think I had the support of the President of the United States when I re-enunciated my expression of Canadian Government policy that what happens in a country is its own affair. When a country begins to export its revolution to other countries then we begin to worry.
May 2, 1983

The reason I underscored the support of the Leader of the New Democratic Party for the President's policy is not to make a trivial debating point. It is because so often the Leader of the NDP, because we support the Americans in some things, assumes that we support them in all things and that in some way we are in a position of solidarity with their position on Central America. Just as with the NDP, there are some things that we think the United States does well and some things on which we do not support them. My answer was making that quite clear. I am glad I am sharing the same ground as the Leader of the NDP on this.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National defence. I hope he is satisfied of the need under the NEED Program for refusing to employ a number of people who have a good employment record and who are being replaced by people who may not be as well trained to fulfil the jobs they are being asked to fulfil. Can he explain to the satisfaction of this House and to those who have been laid off the criteria for refusing to re-employ term employees and for replacing them with others who may not be appropriately trained to fill the jobs?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman that we have some term employees who are very competent and very efficient but they still are, according to us, term employees. It was well understood during the 1982-83 budget year that these people were employed as term employees and that on March 31 their terms would expire and they would be without jobs. Then, at that time, we had a reduction in man-years from the previous year for term employees. Therefore, we had to lay off many of them. Then came the NEED Program which gave us some money and supplementary man-years to hire some people under certain conditions. But the normal term employees are still on the list for recall if we have the man-years to hire them. But the Hon. Member must not mix the two programs together. No program is supplementing the other. The NEED Program should be incremental to the existing program for our term employees.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the Minister may have satisfied himself that they are incremental to those but he has not satisfied the House nor those who have been laid off. Those people are being replaced by people who may not be qualified.


PLIGHT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell us what criteria
Oral Questions
are used to choose those who are going to replace the people who have been laid off and who have built their futures on the expectation-over many years as the Minister knows perfectly well-of term employment terminating and then being reinaugurated at the beginning of the next fiscal year?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I agree again that some of our term employees have been hired by us for many years in a row, but they were always term employees and they understood, maybe better than the Hon. Member, that at one point their jobs would be terminated because they were not regular employees. This is what I am trying to make the Hon. Member understand. There are two programs. The NEED Program people who are employed are not replacing our regular term employees. This Program is incremental to what is already in existence. Our term employees in 1982-1983 would not have a job anyway on April 1, 1983, because we do not have the person-years to hire them.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
450TH ANNIVERSARY OF DISCOVERY OF CANADA, AT GASPE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Several months ago, I wrote to the Minister to draw his attention to the fact that 1984 will be the 450th anniversary of the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier at Gaspe, and I asked him whether the Canada Post Corporation intended to issue a stamp commemorating this event. Could the Hon. Minister inform the House whether he is considering such action, and does he intend to give a favourable reply very shortly to the people of Gaspe and to all Canadians?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to confirm that the French Minister of Postal, Telecommunications and Broadcasting Operations (PTT), Mr. Louis Mexandeau, and myself have agreed to have a joint issue in 1984 of a stamp commemorating the 450th anniversary of the discovery of Canada by Jacques Cartier.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He knows perfectly well the only reason we have term and indeterminate employees in National Defence is so

May 2, 1983
Oral Questions
that we can lay them off once a year and not pay them pensions from the Public Service of Canada.
Why has the Minister deliberately chosen to cut back on the casual funds for the various branches within his Department, within National Defence, construction engineering being one example where we will lose 35 men because the Government cut back the funds and the Minister is going to replace them, as my colleague from British Columbia has just suggested, with people who are not qualified and trained? Can the Minister tell me why he would deliberately choose to do that? And while the Minister is on his feet, Madam Speaker, will he tell us why there is a clear direction that anybody hired under the NEED Program within his Department may work only three weeks, or that period of time which is required to qualify for unemployment insurance?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would not like the Hon. Member to mislead this House by saying that our term employees are just hired year after year just so we do not have to pay them pensions or something like that. There is a whole area of term employees. Some work for a month, three months, four months, six months, and sometimes a year. So you see, there is a whole range of term employees.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There are five year term employees.


Maurice Lamontagne: The Hon. Member knows very well that if we could employ them all and make them regular, I would be much happier, but we have instructions from the Treasury Board which year to year asks what our requirements are. We give Treasury Board our requirements. Treasury Board judges whether it can give so many man-years or not. This year, 19831984, there have been cuts in man-years as far as term employees are concerned. This is why we have to rearrange our priorities every year. We have to decide where we will use our term employees and where we need them for priority jobs. This is why sometimes there is a shift from one base to another depending upon the priority of the work to be done by the Department of National Defence. It is as simple as that.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is balderdash, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity about wishing he could hire everybody on a permanent basis, but the Minister must not mislead the troops and must not play games with them. The situation is too serious, Madam Speaker.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister to respond to the second part of my question. Has he, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, or Treasury Board in fact, sent out a directive with instructions that within his or any other Government Department that men and women hired under NEED shall work only for the period of time required to make them eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and that thereafter their employment shall be terminated and they will be replaced under or within the NEED Program? Are those the instructions which he sent out? If so, do they apply specifically to the Department of National Defence, or in fact to all Government Departments where there are a significant proportion of employees under the category of either casual, term, indeterminate, or whatever combination of those terms is applicable?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member I could categorically tell him that there is no such guideline nor has one ever been promulgated by my Department.


J. Michael Forrestall: You should have a chat with your colleague.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would like to continue, if the Hon. Member would allow me to answer his question. The guidelines for the NEED Program are very clear. They will allow sponsors to make applications for employment lasting anywhere between 12 weeks and 52 weeks. The range of length of a project is up to the sponsor, whether a federal Department, agency, private sector or whatever. That is the full range of those projects. Those are the guidelines, and no other guidelines have been issued saying that they will be terminated after a certain period of time.


INCOME TAX
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the inequities in the income tax policy concerning the child care expense deduction. It is our understanding that in order to qualify for the $2,000 per child tax deduction for child care expenses both parents must be working, unless the lower income spouse is infirm, in an institution, or is a full-time student. Will the Minister agree that this policy discriminates against thousands of unemployed parents who are in a situation quite frequently these days where a father or mother is laid off but he or she must have child care in order to seek employment? Such a family is not eligible to deduct child care
May 2, 1983

costs nor are the increasing numbers of low-income families who pay little or no income tax. What will he do about these inequities?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that people who are unemployed and are searching for jobs are obviously in situations where they do not have jobs. This is a situation similar to other cases under the Income Tax Act where some benefits are available only to those in a particular situation. In this case the requirement is that one has to have child care expenses because one is not at home to look after children.
The fact is that most people who are unemployed find work during the course of the year. If we look at the statistics we see this. There is no doubt about it. In order to claim the total Child Tax Credit one does not need to have a high income during the course of the year. For example, a family with two children will be able to claim the full $4,000 child care expense if the lower income earner makes $6,000 in the year. This example demonstrates the accessibility of this particular program and the relative ease with which one can benefit from it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My understanding of the figures is that one out of five unemployed people is unemployed over a year and certainly would be paying very little income tax, and therefore would not be eligible for this benefit.


REQUEST THAT TAX CREDIT REPLACE CURRENT PROVISION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, we believe that all families, regardless of income, must have access to affordable quality daycare. However, the Minister knows that tax deductions are regressive, providing a bigger break to people with higher incomes and no break at all to families who pay little or no income tax and who can least afford child care costs. I know the Minister is a humanitarian person. Would he consider a fairer system which would convert the child care deduction into a child care tax credit with higher benefits for low-income people? It would not cost any more but it would provide the greatest benefits to those with the greatest needs. How about that?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the responsibility for daycare services is a provincial one, as the Hon. Member well knows. The federal Government contributes to daycare expenses under the Canada Assistance Plan, and has been over the years. However, it is not the responsibility of the federal Government to assume the administration of daycare centres in the country. It is a provincial responsibility.
As far as the Hon. Member's suggestion is concerned, I remind her that in the budget I have maintained the Child Tax Credit at a higher level than would have been otherwise, exactly for the reasons referred to by the Hon. Member. At the same time I think a case can be made for exemptions, credits or tax measures which are related to the incomes of individuals.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


PROCESSING OF CLAIMS FOR REFUGEE STATUS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He knows there has been great concern expressed by Members of the House with respect to the time required for the processing of claims for refugee status under the Immigration Act. Can the Minister tell the House how he will deal with the problem, and when?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should point out to Hon. Members of the House that, because of the increasing incidents of difficulty in other parts of the world, the number of refugee claims in Canada went up in 1982 to over 3,500. Obviously that has put a very severe strain on the system that was elaborated under the Immigration Act, 1978, particularly the one requiring that there be a series of appeals from the Refugee Advisory Committee to the Appeal Board. In order to speed up that system substantially we are starting today two major projects-one in Toronto and one in Montreal, the two international centres-in which oral hearings will be allowed in front of the Refugee Advisory Committee. This will substantially increase both the fairness and, we hope, the speed.
Our estimate is that we should be able to speed up the processing by close to a year and therefore make a substantial inroad into the backlog which has developed because of the enormous volume of refugee claims we are now receiving.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. I direct it to that Minister because he and his Cabinet Committee have usurped some of the powers vested in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by a statute of Parliament. Negotiations for restructuring of the deep sea fleet and the plants in Newfoundland and the Atlantic Provinces has been ongoing now for four months. The Minister is charged with the responsibility of these ongoing negotiations. Many of the plants involved have been down for a year or more. On behalf of the thousands of unemployed plant workers, fishermen and trawlermen who are entitled to an answer, when will the Government reach the end of these negotiations? When can we expect a decision? What are the options the Government is considering?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the negotiations are ongoing. There has been no usurpation of power whatsoever by anyone. I notice the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not in the House. If he
May 2, 1983

Oral Questions
were in the House I presume the Hon. Member's question would be directed to him. It is true that I chair a Cabinet Subcommittee charged with over-all direction of these ongoing negotiations which are being actively pursued at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister put his finger on the problem. The last time we raised a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the restructuring we were told that we had to take it up with the Minister of State for Economic Development who now has the responsibility, and that is on the record.


NEWFOUNDLAND PROPOSAL
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, today in St. John's the Fisheries Council of Canada is holding its annual meeting. There is a conference taking place, sponsored by some of the downed plant workers and the Newfoundland Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union. They are expressing their great concern over the failure of the Government to act, and over the failure of the Government to protect the interests of plant workers and fishermen. This Government seems to be more intent on protecting certain corporate interests.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries-I am sorry, that was a Freudian slip-I want to ask the Minister of State for Economic Development who has now assumed his role, what position the Government is taking on the proposal which he has now had from the Government of Newfoundland for the past month or more, and on the proposal he already has from a number of the downed plants in Newfoundland, with regard to the management of the fleet and the integration restructuring of some of the affected companies.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not think that was a Freudian slip. As I said when I answered the first question, I suspect that had the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans been in the House these questions would have been directed to him. When one talks about the lack of Government concern, one should realize that it is the Government which has taken this initiative. It is the Government which has constituted the subcommittee of Cabinet Ministers to oversee these negotiations. It is the Government which commissioned the Kirby Report, the recommendations of which are on the record, and it is the Government which is addressing the need and the issue of restructuring. How can the Hon. Member say that the Government is not concerned? It is one of our primary concerns, one that we are actively working on and one that we hope to bring to fruition in the very near future.


TIME TAKEN IN REACHING DECISION
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. A few days ago-and it was only a few days ago-the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
when asked the very question my hon. friend put to the Minister, said that this question should be put to the Minister of State for Economic Development.
It was a year ago January that the Government announced the Kirby inquiry into the Atlantic fishery. The Government had known that events were difficult and times were troublesome, from the summer of the year before. How can the Minister come into the House at this time and say that this is not a question for him to answer when the Minister heads the very committee that is studying it? How in the name of Heaven can anybody do any planning in the Atlantic fishery while the Minister and his committee dither and dither, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans keeps sloughing the question off to the very Minister who is the head of the Cabinet committee which is supposed to come up with some answers?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am flattered that the Minister of Fisheries apparently referred the question to me to be answered, and I answered it in his absence.


Donald James Johnston: The question has been answered.
As far as dithering is concerned, the amount of concentrated effort put in by Ministers, the Minister of Fisheries in particular, Mr. Kirby and the members of the task force, is probably without precedent in trying to bring this problem to a satisfactory solution for all concerned. On that basis I do not think the Hon. Member has really founded his question upon reality.


EMPLOYMENT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic Development. It stems from the fact that the Mayor, a warden, and a representative from the Peterborough Labour Council have continually tried to get a meeting in Ottawa to discuss job creation in a high unemployment area in the Peterborough region. They have been passed from Minister to Minister.
We read in the paper this past weekend that there was, to use the words in the paper, a private secret meeting between a Minister of the Crown and the President of the Liberal Riding Association of Peterborough, along with two other association officials. The purpose, as reported in the paper, was to discuss job creation in the Peterborough area.
How do you get on the preferred list to see a Minister about job creation in a marketing area of Canada if you happen to be in one of the 135 ridings in Canada that is not represented by a Liberal Member? Do you have to go through the Liberal


James Aloysius McGrath: You did not.


DISCUSSIONS ON CREATING JOBS IN PETERBOROUGH AREA
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1983
[Stage Direction]
riding association president in order to have a meeting on economic development anywhere in this country?
Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, clearly you do not have to go through the president of any Liberal association, but if Liberal presidents are active in their ridings in trying to support job creation in those districts, they are to be commended.
The fact is that Members of this Government meet regularly with representatives of municipalities, economic regional councils and so on, on a continuing basis. In fact on Friday I met with a group of such representatives in Trail, B.C., working in that area of the Kootenays. If there are any members or people who wish to make representations directly to Ministers of the Crown on job creation, the door is always open to do so.


CRITERIA FOR MEETING WITH MINISTERS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the Mayor of Peterborough, Bob Barker, Warden Bob Allan representing 18 municipalities of the County of Peterborough, and Paul Crough, member of the Peterborough Labour Council, were referred first to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, and then to the Minister of State for Economic Development. To this date they have not had an answer. Simultaneously, a Minister of the Crown met in a private confidential meeting in the City of Oshawa. How does a mayor, warden, reeve, or elected official from the Peterborough area get a meeting if he does not happen to be a president of a Liberal riding association?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if the Mayor of Peterborough had called my office, he could have requested a meeting. I have not met with him, but I will be glad to follow the matter up. I can certainly assure Hon. Members that that would be an exception and not the rule. I have met with groups, as have my colleagues, from all across the country, including many areas of Ontario, many ridings not represented by Liberal Members of Parliament. If the Hon. Member wishes to bring the mayor to my office, I will be more than pleased to meet with him.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State who is also the Minister responsible for co-ordinating the Government's response to the "Obstacles" report. The Minister knows that last Fall the CRTC made a decision that all telephones in Canada did not have to be made compatible with hearing aids. The Minister also knows that a part of that decision was based on the cost of
Oral Questions
modifying telephone sets. Since a number of associations representing hearing impaired individuals in Canada have since appealed that decision to the Cabinet and pointed out that the information which the CRTC had was wrong, will the Minister tell us whether Cabinet has made a decision on this question and, if not, when will it?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question and confirm that representatives of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association have written to me in recent months to draw my attention to this very important aspect of the rights of the handicapped in Canada of having the same access to telephone services as their fellow citizens. I personally replied that I was very sympathetic to their request, which I fully supported, and that I intended to support their representations in Cabinet when the decision in question was discussed.
Consequently, I can assure the Hon. Member as well as those who are supporting this request that we shall be very seriously considering the need to give the rights of the handicapped full recognition.
All Bell Canada telephone sets are equipped with fluxcoils that can be activated by the T-switch on hearing aids.
As for telephone sets provided by B.C. Telephone, only 79 out of 1.7 million are equipped with fluxcoils. Madam Speaker, I certainly agree that all handicapped persons in Canada should have exactly the same rights in this respect.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. I have before me a contract of Mr. Edward Hershey, a part-time employee in Vancouver, in my riding. He tells me that he applied for a job, went through the test, and so on. He says that the Department is no sloppy budgeter. Will the Minister please tell me what I should say to Mr. Hershey who said, and I agree with him, that he is a victim of the Government's willingness to lay him off in order to hire some NEED employees so that the Government can pad the job-creation figures? Will the Minister agree that this is unfair to these employees? Is he prepared to do something about it in reply to the letter I wrote him about Mr. Hershey's case? This is now going on coast to coast.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member send me the details of the case, and I will look into it very carefully. I do not think there is any question of my Department acting unfairly to any of its employees. We have a very good relation-

Supply
ship with our union. I know the union has protested about some cases. We investigate these cases very conscientiously.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. It is a question about big versus small. How is it in a society where urban people can get a multitude of television channels and in central Alberta and west central Alberta they can scarcely get two, where urban people can get telephone service for a fee and rural people do business while their neighbours listen in, that the Minister can justify that our city cousins get free delivery door-to-door while the post offices in the communities of Cadogan, Metiskow, Veteran, Oyen and Hanna, will have rural postal service removed, in the very areas where, by reasons of distance, that is the service that is needed, and actually distance is used as an excuse for taking the service away?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the service in rural Canada is a service that has been given throughout the years by the Post Office. It is not only an obligation but a goal of the Canada Post Corporation to maintain postal customer service in all areas of Canada, including rural and remote areas, at a price that is equivalent to the one charged in other parts of the country. The Hon. Member will realize that it is much more expensive to deliver the mail in these remote areas of the country than it is in urban Canada. Throughout the years the Post Office has maintained this type of service and will continue in the future, despite the fact it is incurring heavy losses in performing this service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp:
That, whereas the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada were so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
May 2, 1983
Now Therefore the House of Commons resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section: "60.1 A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to
include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 (property rights),"
3.	This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 (property rights).
Madam Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 12(3), the House will now proceed with the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Epp, seconded by Miss MacDonald, respecting a proclamation amending the Constitution of Canada with respect to property rights. Call in the Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Allmand	Dupont	LefebvreAppolloni (Mrs.)	Dupras	LoiselleAxworthy	Duquet	LumleyBachand	Evans	MacBainBaker	Ferguson	MacEachen(Gander-Twillingate)	Fisher	MacGuiganBeauchamp-Niquet	Fleming	MacLaren(Mrs.)	Flis	MacLellanBerger	Foster	MalepartBlais	Francis	MarceauBlaker	Frith	MasseBloomfield	Garant	MastersBockstael	Gauthier	McCauleyBossy	Gendron	McRaeBreau	Gimalel	MunroBujold	Gingras	(Hamilton East)Burghardt	Gourd	Nicholson (Miss)Bussieres	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	OlivierCaccia	Gourde	OstiguyCampbell (Miss)	(L6vis)	Ouellet(South West Nova)	Gray	ParentCampbell	Guilbault	Penner(LaSalle)	Harquail	PepinCampbell	Herbert	Peterson(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PinardChenier	(Mrs.)	PortelanceChretien	Hopkins	ReidCollenette	Hudecki	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Isabelle	RobertsCdte (Mrs.)	Johnston	RobinsonCousineau	Joyal	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cullen	Kaplan	RompkeyCyr	Kelly	RooneyDaudlin	Killens (Mrs.)	RossiDawson	Lachance	RoyDe Bane	Lajoie	Savardde Corneille	Lalonde	SchroderDemers	Lamontagne	SmithDeniger	Landers	TardifDesmarais	Lang	TessierDingwall	Lapierre	TousignantDion	Lapointe	TrudeauDionne	(Charlevoix)	Turner(Chicoutimi)	Lapointe	VeilletteDionne	(Beauce)	Watson(Northumberland-	LcBlanc	WeatherheadMiramichi)	Leduc	Whelan-126.Dubois	[English]
['Agreed.']
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, April 29, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977.


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

[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 question will be answered today: No. 4,660.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	At any time, did the Cuban government give free airline tickets to any Canadian University Service Overseas personnel and, if so (a) what were the tickets worth (b) does the Government approve of CUSO-funded personnel accepting subsidies from communist governments?
2.	At a recent meeting, did CUSO pass a resolution calling on the Government to adopt a neutralist policy and to pull out of NATO and NORAD and, if so, was the intent of the resolution to allow Canada to free itself from commitments that would permit the manufacture of components for the Cruise missile and permit the testing of the missile in Canada?
3.	Is Mrs. Iona Campagnolo a member of the CUSO board and, if so, does this membership conflict with her position as President of the Liberal Party of Canada?
4.	Does Treasury Board intend to restore a $500,000 cut from CUSO's budget, in light of CUSO's threat to close its Tanzania project?
5.	Was CUSO's budget cut by the Canadian International Development Agency and, if so (a) by what percentage (b) does the cut reflect a real dollar reduction or just a reduction in the rate of increase (c) how does the cut compare with cuts by Cl DA in grants to other non-governmental organizations?
6.	Are CUSO personnel in Zambia involved in support for national liberation (terrorist) movements and, if so, to what extent?
7.	What is the Third World Foundation and is this organization being established as a successor to the Futures Secretariat?
8.	At a recent meeting, did CUSO consider setting up a United States foundation for fund-raising purposes and, if so (a) was this matter referred to a committee for further consideration (b) does the Government approve of CUSO raising funds in a foreign country?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canadian Interna-

May 2, 1983
Order Paper Questions
tional Development Agency and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows:
1.	(a) CUSO, an international development agency, is a private, non-governmental organization and therefore, this question should be directed to that organization, (b) CUSO is a private, non-governmental organization. In addition to any programs which the Government of Canada assists financially through the Canadian International Development Agency, CUSO may undertake programs in developing countries and in such cases the recipient organization, governmental or non-governmental, may contribute to some of the costs of the program.
2.	See 1. (a) above.
3.	See 1. (a) above.
4.	At its meeting of March 10, the Treasury Board considered and approved an appeal from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to restore $522,000 to the approved two-year contribution to CUSO by CIDA.
The Board's decision reflects present expectations concerning the performance of foreign inflation and the provision of a small contingency allowance to provide for unexpected financial requirements associated with emergency and medical evacuations and other unforeseen but urgent demands.
5.	No.
6.	See 1. (a) above.
7.	The possibility of a new organization called the Canada/ Third World Foundation, or by another title, is one of a number of options being considered to improve the implementation of Canadian technical assistance programs with developing countries. The foundation has no official status and is at the idea stage only. The suggestion of such an option was raised even before the Futures Secretariat was organized.
8.	(a) See 1. (a) above, (b) CUSO is a private, non-governmental organization which raises its own funds from a variety of sources. See also Part 1. (b) above.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, If question No. 4,733 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What percentage of Canada's total foreign aid contributions in (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were comprised of food aid?
2.	For each recipient country and as a total, what were the volumes and dollar values for each food commodity supplied by Canada as foreign aid in (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83?
3.	By commodity, what percentage of Canada's agricultural exports in (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were represented by food aid contributions?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was in the midst of putting on the record my views with regard to the complicity between the Tories on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other hand in an attempt to deprive Canadians of an opportunity to work.
I know that there are in this country a large number of people who, when the budget was presented slightly less than a week ago, were very disappointed. They had hoped to be able to see some signs that the budget would bring about the economic recovery which would ultimately put them back to work. They had also hoped, in the area which I represent, to see some indication on the part of the Government that it understood the destruction which was taking place in some of the older municipalities in Canada as a result of decisions being made by companies, some of long standing, to close their doors and to walk away. Some were leaving to go to other municipalities, maybe because they were being offered additional incentives. Some were rationalizing their enterprises, as they like to put it, in order to maximize profits. Others were moving from Canada altogether, some to the United States, to allow their home base manufacturing operation to have more
May 2, 1983

of the North American market production, and others still were moving offshore altogether.
Last week, in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and in a subsequent question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley), 1 suggested that it was time that we in Canada began to understand the devastation created by the unilateral moves being made by these companies. 1 suggested that it was time for us to demand some quite different corporate behaviour and that it is necessary for the decision-makers in the corporate sector to recognize the investment which municipalities have laid out in providing the necessary infrastructure which made it possible for them to locate there in the first place. It is time for those same corporate decision makers to understand the destructive nature of their decisions as they relate to workers and their families and the problems which occur when the main breadwinner, be it a male or a female, is suddenly found no longer to have employment. Often this happens to them at an age when finding alternative employment is virtually impossible.
Today, when the Minister in charge of small businesses was speaking in the debate, I asked him whether he did not think it was time that the Government presented to the House of Commons some measure on behalf of the people of Canada to try to come to grips with the destruction which has now become a part of all too many communities in every part of the country.
Let me just tell Hon. Members about Hamilton. In the last two weeks, we have heard three major announcements involving companies of some long standing. In two cases, the companies were closing entirely. In another case, the company was laying off its entire work force, with no real date for return in sight. We were speaking of hundreds of people who had put out everything they had on behalf of those companies. In no instance was there prior consultation or opportunity for the employees, their representatives, the municipality representing the taxpayers in Hamilton, the provincial Government representing a substantial investment in our municipality or the federal Government to meet with the companies involved to discuss an alternative.
After years in Hamilton, Consolidated Bathurst sent its employees a letter at Christmas last year thanking them for the hard work they had done which had resulted, in part, in the company having a substantially better year than it had had in many years. In fact, it was enjoying a profit. The letter stated, "We look forward to your cooperation next year in making 1983 an even better year". The company then sat down with those same employees and their representatives at the negotiating table in January and they reached a decision as to the contract. There was not one single hint that the plant was planning to close, not a whisper that it proposed to move out of the community altogether.
In March, not two months later, an announcement came out of the blue that the plant would be closed, the equipment would be sold and the production would be moved to the Montreal base. That is just not good enough. That kind of behaviour is obscene. It was a clear indication of a lack of
The Budget-Mr. Deans
corporate understanding. If it were one isolated case, one might say that this must certainly be considered, but over and against everything else, it is unusual. However, it is not an isolated case. Just last week we discovered that Allan Industries had decided not to reopen its plant. There was no one single hint that it proposed to close. There was no discussion, no opportunity to consider the possibility of assistance in finding markets. There was no opportunity to discuss whether assistance of one kind or another might enable it to create a more profitable position for itself and, therefore, for its employees. We discovered it was closing because a reporter from the Hamilton Spectator called to ask when the company expected to return to production. It was mentioned that the company had prepared a press release dated approximately two weeks previously, which it had not bothered releasing, indicating that the plant was to be closed and that the work was to be done in the parent plant in the United States.
Then, of course, International Harvester was once the mainstay of the Hamilton community, but we find that now it is in dire straits. What do we see? We see these workers accepting a vastly reduced contract arrangement but, even at that, there is still no work for them.
One goes through the municipality and finds that there are places where we could in fact have been creating employment directly. National Steel Car has an idle capacity of almost 100 per cent. The Government could and should be ordering its hopper cars but it has not yet placed its order, keeping those workers unemployed, making it less and less likely that the plant will return to full production. I am saying to Your Honour that there are examples after examples in my community of decisions to close which have detrimentally affected people and where the companies involved have not even had the common decency to discuss the matter in advance. On the other hand, companies which ought to be working at a much greater level of production, or even at all as in the case of National Steel Car, are being impeded by decisions that are either being made or not made by the Government.
The Government has brought forward a budget which states that if a company wishes to retool its operation to make it more productive, the Government will help. But that is not the problem in this country. There is up to 30 per cent or 35 per cent of unused productive capacity now. Who in his right mind who has a plant with 30 per cent of its capacity idle would borrow money to create an entirely new productive capacity far in excess of what he has now and have 50 per cent or 60 per cent of it sitting idle? That is not where the problem lies. The problem is at the consuming end where consumers have lost confidence in this Government. Consumers have lost confidence that the Government's measures will help them in any beneficial way.
Interestingly enough, the Government is supported right down the line by its Conservative allies at every single turn. When we proposed that there ought to be stronger measures to make it more profitable for consumers to purchase now and

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
better measures to get plants into production now, all that we heard from both the Conservatives and the Liberals was that we cannot afford it.
We should not ask whether we can afford to embark upon the necessary projects in this country that will create work, establish a strong and viable infrastructure in order to transport our goods and have the port facilities capable of handling those goods, to make ourselves energy self-sufficient from coast to coast and be able to use our skilled industries properly. Rather, the question should be, can we afford not to do it? Our answer is clearly that we cannot afford not to embark on projects like that. They should be undertaken now so that people can be put to work instead of being paid to sit at home.


Hon. Romlo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support these measures I would first like to commend my colleague, the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Lalonde), for the imaginative approach to the economic challenges which face us. Many of the measures which he set out are meant to encourage Canadians to invest in their own industries, to facilitate the growth of our productive capacity and to create the type of climate in which productive enterprises will thrive.
The Minister of Finance has made it clear that the Government's first concern is to help those Canadians who want to work and cannot find jobs. That goal calls for what the Minister of Finance has described as a new partnership for recovery, involving labour, business and Government united by a sense of national purpose.
This is what this Government has done in housing. It has provided incentives and encouraged Canadians to purchase and repair their homes. In fact, the annual rate of starts has increased from 86,000 last summer to 177,000 in March. This improvement in housing starts translates directly into jobs. Given the estimates by the industry associations, these figures suggest that employment related to residential construction will increase from about 176,000 to approximately 354,000.
Yet that is not the full story. The Government's home renovation assistance has added a further 20,000 person-years of employment. These achievements clearly demonstrate the Government's concern for the unemployed.
We have taken a realistic course and one which will see jobs created. But it is a course that recognizes that any sustained growth must come from the private sector. This budget recognizes that no matter how well the private sector may operate as an engine of economic growth, there will be people who still need help to provide for themselves the necessities of life. In difficult times their lot is painful. I share my colleague's pride that this Government has not removed the social program protection for those who need help the most, especially for those who are not organized in order to negotiate from a position of strength.
I particularly welcome the measures which strenghthen our traditional social programs and make special provisions to assist low income families with the raising of children. The Government's commitment to economic recovery and job creation and its concern for those in greatest need apply equally in one of my areas of responsibility, which is housing. A total of $335 million in additional resources over the next 18 months has been allocated to housing in this budget. It is designated for the purpose of stimulating economic activity, creating jobs and extending assistance to those people, including native peoples, who are living in inadequate, crowded or unaffordable accommodation. This is in addition to over $1 billion that has been channelled into housing measures over the past year, over and above the regular CMHC budget of some $2 billion.
I welcome the decision to allocate another $30 million to the Canadian Home Ownership stimulation Plan because this extension will enable assistance to be available to small builders, in particular to those who could not start houses through difficult winter conditions. This new allocation will approach the figure of $750 million as the total Government investment in the home ownership plan, and that means that already more than 200,000 Canadian households have been assisted in buying a home.
The Minister of Finance also announced significant modifications to the Registered Home Onwership Savings Plan. These changes will encourage those who have invested in Registered Home Onwership Savings to use these savings to purchase a new home and furniture and appliances. It will continue the stimulus that has already been provided to the housing sector. It will encourage savings to be taken out of bank accounts and put to work creating employment, generating housing starts and demands for furniture and appliances.
This measure has been criticized as being inequitable and as offering greater benefits to the wealthy. Let me say that over 80 per cent of RHOSP contributors have incomes between $10,000 and $30,000. Less than 2 per cent have incomes over $50,000. First-time homebuyers are not wealthy.
As I said earlier, starts in March were at an annual rate of
177,000.	With the extension of the Home Ownership Stimulation Plan and the additional incentives provided through the changes that I have just described, we will have a good chance of exceeding the 150,000 starts predicted for 1983. I think we might go well beyond that mark if we can continue to instil confidence in the housing market, especially if there are no jumps in the interest rate situation that we have at present.
The housing industry associations have responded very favourably to these measures. The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada has said that it is very happy with the budget and has predicted that these measures will increase housing starts by as much as 10,000. This means an additional 20,000 to 25,000 person-years of employment.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, besides, the Chairman of the Retail Council of Quebec stated that the changes in provisions with respect to furnishings and household appliances will provide a new stimulus for the purchase of expensive items which has been a major problem in the retail trade during the last eighteen months. The Director General of the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association, an organization representing about 500 furniture
May 2, 1983

manufacturers, said that the Budget would make a big difference to them.
1 also would like to point out that the Government has not forgotten tenants. There has been an encouraging improvement in the vacancy rate recently, but there is still a shortage of rental accommodation in certain areas. 1 shall recall, if I may, that the Canada Rental Supply Plan introduced last year was, in fact, aimed at correcting local shortages. To date, some
14,000	rental units have benefited from this plan and 16,000 more may do so in 1983.
1 would like to add that our Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, by helping tenants to purchase a home, is helping to increase the number of housing units available. As I mentioned before, the Government has not forgotten its social responsibility. In the housing area, steps have been taken to implement programs that will help Canadians with low or modest incomes to improve their homes or to acquire one. These measures are also helping to create jobs. Some $325 million has been provided in the budget for helping low-or middle-income families through home renovation programs, non-profit housing programs, co-operative housing and Indian on-reserve housing.
Our housing stock is getting older. More and more attention will need to be paid to maintaining and improving the existing stock. Close to one million houses are in need of some major repair. The Government's decision to provide an additional $160 million for home renovation combines good housing policy, its concern with low and moderate income households, and job creation.
Of this $160 million, $120 million has been provided for the Canadian Home Renovation Plan. This has proved to be a popular and successful program. It is very effective in generating employment and stimulating economic activity since home owners are required to put up $3 of their own for every $1 of Government grant. By those terms, the additional $120 million announced by the Finance Minister will result in a total new investment of $480 million. The average income of households benefiting under this plan has been assessed at between $20,000 and $24,000.
A further $40 million has been allocated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, commonly known as RRAP. RRAP helps low income households maintain their homes in a safe, healthy and satisfying condition.
The RRAP Program is a sensitive Program, preserving both the housing stock and the social fabric of the community. In fact, one of my colleagues at an international conference said recently that under the Program houses are repaired with the use of the wheelbarrow and not the bulldozer.
I know all Members of this House will agree that our native people face housing conditions which are often unacceptable. This Government has provided a further $40 million for building and improving housing on Indian reserves. That pro-
77) e Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
gram is administered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), but in terms of my own portfolio, I want to tell Hon. Members that funds for the rural and native housing program were recently increased by $6.7 million for 1983 and by $20 million for 1984 and succeeding years.
But the budget did not stop there, Mr. Speaker. The budget increased by 2,500 to 25,000 the number of units that will be supported this year under our social housing programs. This represents a commitment of some $125 million over the life of these projects.
It is easy to talk about these housing measures in terms of units and dollars and it is easy to speak about this in a somewhat impersonal way, but these measures affect real people, real households, in a direct way. They are not just dollars. They dramatically affect the well-being of low income households, be they in our cities, in our rural areas or on reserves. We are talking about programs which assist the elderly. Yesterday in my own riding I saw the opening of some 20 units for the elderly. These programs also assist the disabled. I recently saw a co-operative housing project which counted among its occupants a good number of handicapped people. These programs assist single parent families, victims of family violence, and our native peoples. There can be no doubt that this budget, while good for business, also addressed many pressing housing needs faced by low income Canadians.
During the year ahead, as in months past, housing will continue to play a vital part in putting more people to work, not just on the building sites but in all those sectors of business which produce building materials and supplies and which make and distribute the furnishings, appliances and household goods and services that people buy when they move into a new house. These materials, supplies, goods and services are mainly produced in Canada. Through housing, the Government has provided economic stimulation while at the same time rendering an essential social service by providing good, affordable shelter in a safe community environment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Mr. Blackburn:: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions for the Minister. While we in this Party welcome several of the initiatives in the budget to stimulate the housing industry in general and we agree it will generate a fairly significant number of jobs in the construction, home appliances and furniture sectors, 1 would like to come back to what I asked the Minister in Question Period last week or the week before with respect to the housing envelope. I am sure the Minister is doing what he can within Cabinet to promote the construction of a sufficient number of units for low rental accommodation, but he knows that in this country we need, over the next five years-and this is not a ballpark guess, it is a pretty close figure-50,000 units a year. I am not suggesting that we build new ghettos, as we have come to call some of the old housing, but an equitable mix in our various communities. Could the Minister give me any encouragement that the figure he men-

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. LeBlanc
tioned in his speech for social housing for low-rental people will be increased, and increased significantly, in the next two or three years? This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I have one supplementary question to follow.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member and I disagree on the issue; I think we may disagree on some of the wording. I take issue with him somewhat when he refers to social housing being limited to the 25,000 units, as important as they are. I might say that some SI60 million-and I would have to check the exact figure-is spent under RRAP which is really directed to low-income families. It provides forgivable loans and in many cases allows people in rural areas-and I have seen some in my own Province-to remain in their own homes and in fact continue to enjoy the milieu in which they have grown up and spent their adult lives. In a way this program is a social housing program as well.
The condition of the housing of native people certainly allows me to refer to the very considerable budget increased by $40 million by the Minister of Finance a few days ago. This is social housing of the highest priority. Because of the per unit cost of the program, in other words the cost of finding a housing solution for a relatively small number of people compared with the need, my predecessor ordered an evaluation of social housing programs. That evaluation is now in our hands. I hope it will be made available to Hon. Members who are interested in housing in the coming weeks or months so that we may have a discussion. Organizations including the co-operative housing movement recognize that we must find a way to bring in more people under social housing programs. As the Hon. Member indicated, the queue of people waiting is very long.
I do not want to return to the creation of ghettos. I do not think anyone in the House would want that. As I said a few days ago, we must find a way to get a bit more bang for the buck. I recognize this and I continue to impress it on my colleagues, but 1 think it will require a fair amount of imagination by all those concerned in the area of social programs to find a way, be it a rental allowance that has some pros and cons or some other, to accommodate more people who are waiting.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. It is a more specific question. It relates entirely to the City of Montreal. I know there are housing needs in every city small or large across Canada, but Montreal has the highest density of renters per capita of any Canadian city. It also has the most critical housing shortage for low-income families. It is reaching critical proportions. The high figure is estimated at between 300,000 and 400,000 people in the City of Montreal who are in desperate need now of adequate geared-to-income housing.
What specific initiatives is the Minister presently addressing for the City of Montreal? Could he also inform the House if any groups in the City of Montreal have approached him or his departmental officials directly requesting a broader program and a more liberal program, if you will pardon the expression, to assist the 400,000 people who are in desperate need of adequate and decent housing in the City of Montreal alone?


Roméo LeBlanc: I have had some discussions with the representatives of the City of Montreal in past months. I will meet with them again. The Hon. Member is correct when he says that Montreal with its high percentage of renters presents special problems. In fact, the City itself is addressing this issue. In co-operation with the City we were able to bring forward 2,400 units in the past year. Also the City has rather imaginative projects which it is bringing forward, including the use of some former railway land. We are discussing as well a way to improve the situation in terms of older stock of small apartment blocks of three units or six units where the owner resides in one and rents the remaining units. A lot of this housing, if it were upgraded, would afford perfectly good housing in communities or in parts of the city from where residents simply do not want to move or where they prefer to remain.
We are taking an approach which is as flexible as we are allowed under the law, recognizing that Montreal's problem is not exactly the same as that of other large cities which have peculiar and particular problems. Perhaps I have not been precise enough. If the Hon. Member wants to be more precise, I will try to answer him.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I just have one more question. In his speech the Minister made passing reference to co-operative housing. Some time ago I asked him a question on co-op housing and I believe that his response was to the effect that it was the most expensive kind of social housing. Of course that point is debated by the Canadian Co-operative Housing Association. Its figures tend to differ from the Minister's departmental figures, but I do not want to get into that kind of an argument at this point. Since the Minister is responsible for that kind of housing initiative, would he be prepared to sit down soon with representatives of the Canadian Co-operative Housing Association in Ottawa to see if they could get their figures more closely together, to see who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps both are wrong or both are right; I do not know. Would he be prepared to meet with them to explore better ways of expanding the co-operative public non-profit program? To my way of thinking, it may be expensive-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member expects a response, he should allow some time for the Minister.


Roméo LeBlanc: I will try to be as brief as possible. I said recently that social housing, because of its very nature, is expensive. I simply mean that the program which writes down interest rates to 2 per cent over a 35 year period will obviously be costly. I do not apologize for that. As I said earlier, my concern is to try to get as many people as possible covered by the program or by the amount of money, which will always be finite, even if we doubled the number of units in the social housing program.
May 2, 1983

The co-operative housing group falls under the general umbrella of 25,000 units. I understand their feeling. Perhaps they are not getting as many units as they would like. I have had discussions with them. In fact, I met at some length with a co-operative group in Toronto. We had what I thought was a very positive discussion on the number of units that should be assisted housing or low-income housing. We tended to define the ideal situation as being between 15 per cent and 25 per cent. I think the co-op movement has made an interesting case. I listened very carefully to its suggestion of increasing the percentage of assistance to apartment or home dwellers in order to cover a larger percentage of people when we invest in a large project. That discussion will continue. I have certainly met with them and I will meet with them again. I think the debate on whether or not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, since the presentation of the budget on April 19 many Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have dealt with many of its varied aspects in very concrete ways. Therefore, in order not to be repetitive, I will direct my comments on this budget to two specific areas, agriculture and tourism. In real terms, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) gave only token assistance to these two sectors of the economy that today face serious difficulty. With regard to agriculture, the extra $100 million available in the budget is available only to farmers in distress. This is characterized by many producers as nothing more than a band-aid solution since in Ontario there are only 5,000 to
8,000	farmers who would qualify as being in dire straits.
With regard to the Finance Minister's announcement that he will allow farmers to carry their losses over ten years instead of seven, this too is not much more than a band-aid solution. If the Minister were inflicted with a serious physical wound. I am sure he would expect more than a band-aid, yet that is all he offers to the farmers in distress, many of whom are being forced to leave farms which their families have occupied for generations.
Members opposite have asked what our Party would do and what solutions we have for agriculture. First, our Party would provide up to $100 million to assist producers in re-negotiating their existing high interest loans to levels more in line with current rates. We would establish farm financial review boards which would be used as an advisory and appeal mechanism and would be set up in each Farm Credit Corporation region.
In addition, we would implement the agri-bond concept which would encourage retired farmers and others to invest their savings with the Farm Credit Corporation and thus provide tax incentives, including a waiver of capital gains tax.
The Budget-Mr. Mitges
This would pave the way for stable and low interest rates and a continuing source of available capital for agriculture. As this House knows, the agri-bond concept has wide support across the country, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
We also advocate the elimination of the 9 per cent federal sales tax on farm fuels. Although Canadian farmers use only 3 per cent of all energy consumed in Canada, they use 6 per cent of the gasoline and 10 per cent of the diesel fuel. About one-quarter of the farm operating expenses are owing to the direct and indirect cost of energy. The removal of the 9 per cent sales tax would reduce the cost of diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon, and the elimination of a natural gax and gas liquids tax would result in reducing the price of natural gas and fertilizers, thereby lowering the general cost of farm operations. All these measures Canadian farmers would have welcomed from the Minister of Finance with, I dare say, open arms.
In today's desperate economic conditions, many farmers have been forced to engage in other off-farm activities to maintain a semblance of cash flow and to help maintain their farm operations. Therefore, we support repealing Section 31 of the Income Tax Act which is being used by Revenue Canada as a means of reclassifying such farmers as part-time farmers, thereby limiting farm loss to only $5,000. This reclassifying has resulted in many farmers being hit with back taxes in the thousands of dollars at a time when many such farmers are on the brink of financial collapse.
We strongly urge the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to take a long, hard look on what this section is doing to the agriculture industry. Indeed, because of the present Government's over-zealous enforcement of Section 31, many in the agricultural industry have the impression that the Government's secret goal is to replace the independent family farm with the large corporate farm.
I would be remiss if I did not mention tourism as far as this budget is concerned. There is a conspicuous absence of any concrete mention of tourism in this budget. Tourism is an industry that needs a lot of help and support, but it is not getting it from this Government. It gets lots of rhetoric, lip service, but no concrete assistance. This was well expressed by a constituent of mine, Mr. Gordon Canning, president of Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd. of Collingwood, Ontario, in a letter dated April 25, in which he said to me:
We are certainly having our problems as an industry in being recognized by the federal Government. The recent budget just reinforces our unhappiness and exasperations. In a brief to the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, Minister of State for Finance, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada asked simply for a recognition in the budget that tourism was of vital importance to Canada's economy. That recognition was not given and indeed the policies announced have a negative impact on the tourist industry or give support to other industries. For example, the tax on liquor has been increased-and although we can claim tax credits for certain kitchen equipment, other equipment such as snowmaking, grooming and chair-lift equipment did not apply because they are not used to produce goods for sale or lease. Prior to the last budget we were allowed full capital costs allowance in the first year on new investments, but that was reduced to half and no change was made to that ruling in last week's budget.

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Mitges
He went on to say that in helping to do its share, the provincial Government has already committed $12 million for municipal services in the Blue Mountain/Craig Leith area. The official plan for the development of the area, if it occurs, will involve over $100 million worth of construction.
The acceleration of this plan will depend on the federal-provincial tourist agreement that has been forthcoming for the last two and a half years. This is indeed a long time to discuss any agreement. In the meantime, everything is at a standstill just because some politicians and some bureaucrats cannot make up their minds. This is indeed a sad state of affairs.
The plight of the tourist industry in Canada was well documented in the debate that took place in the House of Commons on Thursday, April 13 of this year. Possible solutions were well documented. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey) took part in the debate and seemed to be in accord with many of the recommendations made in the debate. It only remains to be seen what action will spring forth as the result. All of us hope, for the sake and for the survival of the tourist industry in Canada, that some long-awaited positive initiatives will be undertaken.
Although I stated that my comments will be mainly directed to agriculture and tourism as dealt with in the budget of the Minister of Finance, there are other areas of this budget that require a brief comment. For example, there is the bleak prospect for the unemployed to whom the Minister of Finance offered yet another band-aid. Today over two million Canadians are unemployed. Unemployed people want to work but cannot find jobs.
It is hard to take the Minister of Finance seriously when one considers that by March 31, 1983, only 32 per cent of the greatly-touted NEED Program was committed, never mind spent. Regardless of how you look at it, the bottom line of this Program is not really to get people back to permanent work but to help them re-qualify for UIC benefits. The unemployed want real and lasting jobs, not Government handouts. By and large this new budget does nothing to give the unemployed any real hope for bona fide jobs.
As for youth unemployment, this is indeed a national disaster. On budget night, the Finance Minister proudly announced an extra $70 million for this summer's student employment program. However, when one considers that in 1982 the program was cut from $120 million in 1981 to $100 million, this budget's $170 million program really represents only a $50 million increase from 1981.
The Minister of Finance is playing a numbers game regarding the 621,000 unemployed young Canadians under the age of 25. Perhaps what is even more serious is that this Government by its policies seems to be trying to create the idea among young Canadians and saying to them, "Don't worry, we'll find you a temporary Government-sponsored make-work job. When that runs out, we will give you unemployment insurance. When that runs out, we will introduce another Government program just long enough to requalify you for Unemployment Insurance benefits once again." I wonder
about the lasting effect that attitude will have on our country's future productivity levels and on the young people of Canada.
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that despite the Finance Minister's glowing description of the employment programs, the true fact is that in 1984, there will be 55,000 fewer people with jobs than there were in 1981.
As we are all aware, a great concern of our Party is the financing of this budget. There is the old saying that there are two things a person cannot escape in this life, death and taxes. There is a third word that this administration will add to that old saying, and I will return to that in a moment.
To finance this recovery program, the Finance Minister announced that the 1982-1983 deficit will be about $25.3 billion and in 1983-1984 will be $31.3 billion. To help finance this so-called budget that is supposed to get business going and increase employment, he will increase the federal manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 10 per cent effective October 1, 1984. As this tax is imposed at the manufacturer's level, it will be a hidden tax. This also means that this increase will not filter down to the retail level until a few months later, in plenty of time for the 1984 election to have come and gone. In addition, this increase will probably be passed on to consumers who will likely blame the merchant, not the Government. How does the Minister of Finance expect to get business going in these economically precarious times with a policy of increasing the costs of business? How does he expect the embattled and cautious consumer to spend money when he raises the price of products?
I have never before heard of a policy that will get consumers to spend, make industries more productive and lower employment by increasing production costs and that is just what this tax increase does. In fact, this tax increase violates the main theme in the Minister of Finance's budget of getting the unemployed back to work.
The third word which the Minister of Finance has inserted into the old phrase is deficits. "All Canadians can look forward to death, deficits and increased taxes." This is how he and his predecessors have changed this old phrase. To help finance his so-called $4.8 billion recovery program, he will increase the 1983-1984 deficit to $31.3 billion.
Many economists tell us that there are not enough private savings or private sector moneys available to finance this deficit without interest and mortgage rates rising as they did one and a half years ago. So the Canadian consumer has another bright prospect to look forward to. In addition to record high taxes and record high unemployment, we now have record high deficits, an unsavoury epitaph in memory of a Government's term of office and one that is regarded by most Canadians today and will be regarded by many Canadians in the future as a terrible episode in Canada's history. It is a terrible nightmare that it will take us a very long time to overcome. It will take a long time to make right the terrible damage and terrible afflictions that this Government has forced upon the country and upon the people.
May 2, 1983


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been present to hear the address of the hon. gentleman. Since the Member was very positive the day after the budget in his own analysis of the budget and its provisions, 1 wonder what since then has had him change his views. 1 am amazed that the hon. gentleman who represents an area that includes the Colling-wood Shipyards would not have commended the Government for its initiative in introducing a major program of acceleration in shipbuilding which undoubtedly, because of the highly competitive nature of the Collingwood Shipyards, would provide them with an opportunity to get a portion of that business.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I did not comment on the whole budget in my speech. I more or less emphasized its impact on the agriculture and the tourist industries. The agriculture industry, as 1 mentioned, is still in dire straits and needs a great deal of assistance.
The budget contained a few provisions that 1 did not think were too bad at all. Commenting on the assistance to the Collingwood Shipyards, my main concern is the 1,300-foot drydock that we have been trying to get now for many, many years. This has been sloughed off by perhaps both the federal and the provincial Governments claiming that more and more studies are needed. This has had a detrimental effect on the shipyards, and we are no closer to a solution to the problem than we were several years ago. This does not take away from the fact that we did get some assistance for a new crane at a value of some $2.5 million, for which I would like to thank the Minister. I have no objection to that.


Mr. Neil:: Taxpayers' money.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: As the Hon. Member has said, it is taxpayers' money, money that is going to a good cause and will create more jobs. However, the bottom line is the drydock. Now that the Minister has spoken about this, 1 wish that something would be done to make the drydock a reality rather than a lot of rhetoric.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that the hon. gentleman referred to the drydock and also to the assistance provided relating to the crane. I am also sure that the hon. gentleman has noted the public announcement relating to the two floating crane contracts for direct export that have been obtained by Collingwood as of April 20 last. Again, of course, the Government is pleased to have been involved, along with the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the export supply directorate which negotiated the contract.
I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has raised the question of the drydock because I would like him to advise me whether he has made representations to the Province of Ontario relating to their joining the federal Government in the market survey affecting the necessity of a floating drydock. The hon. gentleman will recall that, on the occasion of my last visit to Collingwood, there was an indication that we were ready to proceed with that market survey. No market survey had been conducted before to my knowledge. There was also an indication that while the obligation of the provincial Government
The Budget-Mr. Masters
was only $6 million, the obligation of the federal Government would be in the vicinity of $25 million. 1 suggest to the hon. gentleman that he might approach officials of the Province of Ontario and ask if they would like to switch positions with us. We will pay the $6 million and the Province will pay $25 million. Then perhaps we would not need a market survey.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not questioning the Minister's $6 million and $25 million figures. I think they are bona fide figures. For his information, 1 have made representations to the provincial Government to have this market survey done, but 1 would also like to point out that, if the Minister will remember, 1 talked to him on that very occasion back in Collingwood. At that time, I asked him whether, if the market survey showed a favourable position for a 1,300-foot drydock and the Province went along with its share, he would be inclined to go ahead with the federal Government's share of the $25 million. 1 do not think I received a direct answer from him in that respect.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Charter of Rights-Administration costs. The Constitution-Cost of patriation; the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Fisheries-Negotiation of North Pacific Salmon Fishing Agreement-Protection of Chinook and Coho species, (b) Dangers arising from over-fishing; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Penitentiaries-Request for public inquiry into correctional service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Falonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to comment on the budget statement.

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Masters
I would like to begin by talking about the amount of money that is being invested by the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada to help us continue on the road to recovery. I think all Hon. Members and the country recognize that at last we seem to be on the road to recovery. Everything indicates that it will continue if we behave responsibly and recognize it will be a slow and fragile recovery.
The Government has put out $4.8 billion in investment money to try to assist that recovery as appropriately as possible. The danger in tossing big figures around is that they sound impressive and certainly a great of capital is going back into the system.
What pleases me about the budget is that the Minister has recognized that all we can do is take funds and try to use them for leverage in the private sector so that we can have a permanent recovery with permanent jobs that will last for many years to come. We recognize, even though we do not always articulate it, that Government by itself can do very little to create long-term jobs and that they must come from the private sector. As a nation we must have confidence in our ability to look after ourselves and compete in world markets.
While a great deal of money goes into immediate job creation-and I will go into the reasons why I think that is appropriate in a moment-I think that is one of the salient features of the budget. It is part of a necessary trend in the country that 1 hope will continue. It is part of the consultation process.
The truth, whether we are being politically partisan or worrying about our vested interest as businessmen, as labour leaders or educators, is that there is a tendency to fall into the trap of working in a vacuum. We know that it cannot work that way but we all have our individual horse to ride. We have to be concerned with whatever our constituency might be.
In the long run it takes a lot of honest disagreement to come together in the right forum of discussion, starting with the idea that we agree to disagree but will still communicate with each other so that a consensus can be reached. We can then start to move in the direction of looking after the common good of most of the people in Canada.
1 believe we see, to a very large degree, the fruits of the proper consultation that has taken place across Canada in the last budget. Many Hon. Members feel that they are part of the consultation process, as I do having had the opportunity to work with many groups in my constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and to hear their concerns and ideas and transmit those to the Government. 1 believe that some of those ideas and thoughts are represented in a budget that makes a lot of good sense to the people of Canada. It is not perfect, but there is not much perfection in this world as yet, Mr. Speaker.
I think people have recognized that a budget has been put together that takes steps to try to create jobs immediately and do the necessary work to put the country in a position to do better in the future and to create long-term jobs. It has also established a climate whereby business, labour, Government
and educators can work together to create those jobs and build upon the upturn that we see in the economy.
There are many general benefits to Canada in this, Mr. Speaker. The consultation process is one very important and often overlooked device that has been improved upon in the budget. We are concentrating on putting Canada in a position of better competition. We are going to build the infrastructure of the country in such a way that we can better serve the people we want to serve. More important, as a trading nation we are doing those things that will put us in a more competitive position to meet the changes that are rapidly taking place in international trade.
As a trading nation I think the fact that the budget addresses ways to help us identify new markets is very basic. It will help us to be more competitive in finding those markets and it will help us be more sophisticated in our approaches to foreign trade in more parts of the country. Thunder Bay is a world port, a national port, the second busiest in Canada, so it is very much concerned with what happens in world trade.
During the economic downturn many people have asked why we blame our problems on people offshore. When you live in a part of the world where about 80 per cent of the product goes offshore, whether it be to the United States or to other nations of the world, you begin to realize that you are a part of a global community. You welcome items in the budget that will help the Export Development Corporation to be more aggressive, to work more closely with the manufacturers and suppliers of services in regions such as Thunder Bay. You also become very interested in DRIE which is the device that will bring together the indicators in the economic field that will more properly address the regions of the country and help them share in the development of industry. It will play a major part in the economy of Canada but will also be available to the people of the regions who are alert enough to want to secure export markets.
To digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, let me say that throughout this budget and other budgets there is a threat that has to be remembered and that is, that Government can do certain things to help but the prime motivator of the economy is the entrepreneurial spirit that is present in the business community with labour leaders and educators, and that is important. Therefore 1 would urge people in my region and in other regions of the country to seek ways to work in harmony by utilizing existing Government programs, examining options in business that will lead to future development, remembering all the while that it takes the entrepreneurial spirit of the people of Canada to achieve this. That, in turn, will bring about the long-term receovery that we want and will help us face an even more confident future.
The national training program and the additional moneys going to help youth is a very important aspect of the budget. We will make that money available to students who have to borrow in order to complete their education. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has identified the need to work harder with the young people of the country so that we will find options and be able to look confidently to
May 2, 1983

the future. I think we cannot spend enough money in that area. There is never enough money for it. As a nation, we must look at how we treat our youth, how we encourage them and what values we give them so that they can join in the spirit of the entrepreneur and be able to find their future.
I should like to speak about some of the comments I have received in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario about the budget. In all honesty, I have to tell you that the comments by and large have been very positive from all groups. We will always have an element that wishes for more, but there are some measures in the budget on which I should like to comment. There are efforts to stimulate home building, home renovation; for example, the allowance within the budget that first-time purchasers, if they are not ready to buy their home right now, will be able to buy furniture and appliances. These stimulation methods have been applauded, Mr. Speaker, not because of what they do right now but because of what they will accomplish in the future. Home construction and apartment construction have increased in Thunder Bay and are continuing to do so. That is the kind of enterprise which really turns on the economy in a fast way and in the short term. I can see our sawmills becoming busier, our retailers becoming more active. I can see the very positive effects of a sudden upturn in the sale of homes, whether brand new homes or resale homes. Once people start moving in that direction, the spin-off effect is well known. That is happening now in northwestern Ontario, and that is why I am happy to see that the budget zeroed in on that crying need for housing.
A while back a comment was made about the shipbuilding program. We have a shipyard in Thunder Bay and 1 have been in contact with them to ensure that they will be alert in bidding for any new contracts which will be forthcoming. However, I would just like to make a point about programs such as the shipbuilding program which is getting under way in Canada. It is not always possible to target the money to a specific yard. The important thing to remember, however, is that once that industry becomes busy, such as the Collingwood yard, then Thunder Bay automatically becomes busier. I would hope that some of the direct orders can be placed in our particular yard, although that would depend upon a number of factors; the position of the yard to compete for a particular program, its desire to get into it, and so on. But as soon as one very important sector of the economy, such as the shipbuilding industry, becomes busy, all yards gain. So that program, besides answering a very particular need right now, will do many parts of Canada great good because whether a shipyard receives a direct order or not, it will still benefit from that program.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, a seminar on forestry was held in Thunder Bay called "Focus on Forestry". All these people were gathered in Thunder Bay, educators, environmental people, labour people, as well as six Ministers. We invited everyone we could think of who would be interested in the forestry industry, an industry which forms so much of the wealth of northwestern Ontario and of Canada. We had a
The Budget-Mr. Masters
long, serious discussion to see how the Government of Canada could become more involved in encouraging that particular industry, and we have seen some positive results. One of the items discussed was the need to provide more protection for our forests, to protect them from disease, to protect them from fire, and so on. Therefore, the purchase of more water bombers, which was announced, is very important to the forest industry in northwestern Ontario, as well as to all of Canada. We see annually too many of our trees going up in smoke which could be used to better serve the economy of this nation. 1 would like to see many more things come out of the "Focus on Forestry" seminar and I detect signs of that in the budget.
The community of Nipigon is most interested in a forestry research station for northwestern Ontario. Quite naturally, they would like to see it in Nipigon, and so would I, if it is at all possible. 1 believe that we have to spend more money on forestry research. Whether or not it is located specifically in Nipigon-although I make the plea for it to go to that community-the main point is that the Government of Canada is moving more and more into increasing its already fairly substantial assistance to the forest industry. Research will be of great benefit to the entire forestry industry in Canada. Forgive me if I sound parochial, but I would be pleased to see northwestern Ontario considered as the site for such an enterprise.
Northwestern Ontario has several universities. Lakehead University is already benefiting from increased dollars going into forestry research through programs which it has in place. I would like to see more done in that area, and I make the pitch for Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario simply because we have such a large percentage of that industry. 1 believe, however, that there are other economic benefits for the forest industry which are inherent in the budget, and that is that we are encouraging people to examine ways to manufacture more products for various industries, including the pulp and paper industry. What I believe is happening as a result of the budget is an upturn in the economy. People are finding more confidence in themselves and saying, "We have gone through difficult times. It is now time to go ahead." Since the budget, I have received a large number of representations from business people within northwestern Ontario, and I am pleased to say there is a very positive response from various levels of Government, asking, "How can we work with you? How can we help you to develop this new product line for the pulp and paper industry? How can we help you to export your lumber products, your paper products more efficiently to points around the world?" I also have found that the business community, in line with the budget, is saying, "We have to expand our thinking. We have to think of finding a better balance of markets around the world." That is an area where we can more properly work with the federal Government, and that industry is beginning to do so. I believe that that is materializing out of the budget. However, the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, is a guide.
I believe we in northwestern Ontario have already recognized that there is much good in the budget, and that there is

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mrs. Cossitt
room for more suggestions, for more improvements. I am hearing from constituents on that score also. 1 believe we must recognize that the budget has tried to identify where the most good could be done for the business community of Canada, to help create permanent jobs while at the same time not abandoning our need to maintain the social services of the nation. In that respect, the verdict seems to be "Northwestern Ontario", and it is very positive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers, comments?


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak today on the budget. There have been many before me who have spoken well on measures contained in this budget, putting forth excellent argument in favour of it and also about what the budget fails to do. I do not profess to be an economist. Indeed, many in this Chamber are not. The Chamber is made up of Hon. Members with various areas of expertise. However, as the elected Member for Leeds-Grenville, 1 do feel the need to put on the record the feelings of my constituents, which indeed are the same as those of many Canadians across this country, with respect to how the measures in this budget are going to affect their lives.
Canadians have been putting up with months of frustration, dejection and hardship in the fervent hope that the much anticipated April budget would provide them with some relief. In many cases they were disappointed. Canadians were even more disappointed with the circumstances surrounding the bringing down of the budget, a budget we hoped would give Canada new direction.
After years of high unemployment, high interest rates, record bankruptcies, sky-rocketing deficits, two disastrous budgets and financial statements, it was understandable that so many voters were demanding a new, sound fiscal policy to put Canada on the road toward economic recovery. Canadians were desperately wanting to place their trust again in the Government. They were waiting to hear that, with perseverance, things would get better. The last thing Canadians wanted to hear was the call for the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) because of the careless budget leak. Canadians were looking to the Minister of Finance for responsible action on their behalf, not the irresponsible action of a Minister seeking headlines. Yes, indeed, he did receive those headlines, but not the kind that he expected.
The Minister of Finance attempted to do what he could to salvage a sagging economy, a direct result of past Government policy. Of course, there are some positive aspects to the budget. Hopefully, by utilizing the private sector, we can maintain that slight progress which has been made toward economic recovery.
In introducing his budget, the Minister acknowledged the seriousness of the unemployment situation by saying, "We must do all we can to relieve the anguish and hardship that
unemployment is inflicting on Canadian workers and their families". Although the Minister would have us believe that he is genuinely concerned about the plight of so many of Canada's citizens who are struggling to survive these devastating economic times, he has failed to do more than just acknowledge this. What he has done has been to sugarcoat a budget which miserably fails in addressing this vital problem. He has done nothing to relieve the anguish and hardship being felt by unemployed Canadians.
Today unemployment is at an incredibly high rate of 12.6 per cent, according to the Government's official rate. Sadly, however, the Government has neglected and ignored the other .5 per cent of Canadians who have become so dejected and despairing that they have given up on their search for work. They are desperate people who have a right to have jobs. They are two million Canadians living in absolute fear of their futures, with no security. That does not speak well of the Government's record.
The Minister of Finance fell short when he addressed the unemployment situation and beamingly predicted that he expected the unemployment rate to continue to be over 10 per cent by the end of the fiscal year 1986-87. In other words, he was telling us that he expected we would still have high unemployment. The prediction was based on a growth rate of 4.5 per cent. If we consider the other side of the coin and do not maintain that 4.5 per cent growth rate, we will be in an even graver position.
Unemployment and its effects permeate every aspect of Canadian life. It is not only imperative to put people back to work, but also to keep them working. How can the Minister of Finance expect us to put our faith and trust in a budget which contains measures we know have failed in the past?
The job creation programs are not new. They are perhaps reorganized, but they are definitely not new. We have heard of Summer Canada Programs, Work Experience and NEED, all short-term job creation programs, and we should be considering long-term employment opportunities. These job creation programs are designed to help create jobs immediately, but experience has taught us to know better.
The NEED Program is a prime example of how quickly the Government can move on its urgent job creation initiatives. Announced last November, in 18 months it was to have started
60,000	jobs, but six months have gone by and only 10 per cent of those jobs have actually been created. It was only with the constant pressure of the Opposition that the Government was forced to come good with its promise and get these jobs started. But how many new jobs are actually being created by this program? In fact, some of these jobs are ones which, under normal circumstances, would be filled by people already employed by the federal Government or other agencies.
In a desperate attempt to make itself look good, the Government has approved projects en masse and juggled figures with abandon. One wonders again how the Government can expect the Canadian people to trust and have faith in it.
May 2, 1983

I am deeply concerned about the type of jobs the Government is creating for our unemployed. These jobs are averaging up to 20 weeks in length, just long enough to qualify the recipient for Unemployment Insurance benefits. Short-term employment might work well for students, but for a parent with mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay it will only offer temporary relief. I desperately want to see these people off the unemployment lines, as much as they do themselves, and that thought is shared by everyone in this Chamber.
Record rates of unemployment are placing a serious drain on the Unemployment Insurance fund. The Government has already added to the large deficit by borrowing money to meet the high demands of this fund. If unemployment does not drastically decrease, the Government will be required to borrow more and more to meet the ever-increasing demands. We cannot afford to continue to fuel a deficit which has already reached proportions never before known. Reducing unemployment would reduce the deficit and halt this trend which can only lead to permanent debt and ruin for Canada.
The Minister has predicted a deficit reduced from $31.6 billion this year to over $25 billion for the fiscal year 1986-87. It is certainly not a very optimistic outlook. Canada can no longer sustain an accumulated deficit which is expected to reach over $282 billion by March 31, 1987. Again, this is all based on the expected growth rate of 4.5 per cent being achieved.
Of special concern to me are the youth of our country. Over 30 per cent of our young people will be unemployed this year, a disastrous situation for the future of our great nation. Without the energy and new ideas of our young people, Canada has no future. As that energy stagnates, enthusiasm wanes and new ideas crumble into a feeling of frustration and anger, with Canada's future becoming bleaker and bleaker.
The future of Canada is in the youth of today, and they need all the encouragement that we can provide. However, the economics of youth unemployment are matched only by the devastating social and psychological effects of this constant struggle on hundreds of thousands of young people who are just plain giving up. Soon we will be faced with a massive group of young people with no spirit, drive, ambition or experience. We cannot continue to allow them to pay for the effects of a sluggish economy. We should be nurturing the minds and spirit of our young because they hold in their hands Canada's future. They need optimism to meet their dreams and ideals, and opportunities to allow them to utilize their initiative. We must be very careful not to stifle their natural willingness to produce. They, too, were hoping once again to be able to replace their dejection over the Government with faith and hope contained in measures in the budget. The Government has recognized the problem and budgeted $95 million for wage subsidies for employers who take on young workers on an internship basis to provide training.
Even the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has said that the youth employment situation was to reach a danger point this fall when new graduates would
The Budget-Mrs. Cossitt
discover their job prospects were very scarce. Let us hope that this program will help to head off that very grave situation.
Let us consider what the Minister included in his budget which would supposedly bring about immediate employment. The new Special Recovery Capital Projects which are being announced faster than the notices can be printed are supposedly to be of high priority and of an urgent nature. However, the first of these projects will not get under way until next fall, six months from now. This is the Minister's response to the serious situation facing two million Canadians. Most of them cannot afford to sit around and wait until next fall for jobs.
In his speech, the Finance Minister indicated his support for incentives to the private sector to help it increase productivity and create long-term jobs. It is only by restoring consumer and investor confidence that Canada can once again begin to grow. Fortunately, the Finance Minister has taken heed of the many economists and the Opposition Members who have stated time and time again that the key to economic recovery is in the private sector. We now have a Finance Minister who is willing to put his faith and trust in the private sector.
However, his incentives for small business do fall short of achieving the stimulus needed to promote growth. He has, in effect, ignored the desperate financial state of many of our small businesses today. Businesses which are already on the verge of bankruptcy cannot go out and spend money they do not have on new equipment to get a tax credit. We have what I call a "spend now pay later budget". On the one hand there are incentives to stimulate the housing industry and provide employment. Fortunately we are already beginning to see the effects of that incentive since real estate is beginning to pick up appreciably. On the other hand, the Finance Minister will curb that stimulus by imposing a one per cent increase on the cost of construction materials.
We are also receiving a left handed stimulus through the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan where funds can be withdrawn from the plan to purchase items for the home without being subject to income tax, thereby stimulating the need for products and services, but next year we will see that stimulus curbed with the imposition of a one per cent increase in the federal sales tax.
We all know that revenues are desperately needed to meet the spending needs of the Government but I question the way with which this Government is collecting those revenues.
The best way to increase Government revenues is by putting people back to work, having them contribute to the public trough and stimulating the need for services and products through their increased purchasing power. Of course, the means of doing this is the most difficult task of all, but I believe there are many areas that have not been looked into with a view to realizing this goal. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), so adequately pointed out earlier, the tourism industry was sadly neglected and the farming community received an additional $100 million

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mrs. Cossitt
through the Farm Credit Corporation to finance farmers who are already in debt.
The Finance Minister's task is not easy and his budget can only succeed if the people of this country have trust and faith in their Government. A budget which was brought down in the manner that it was has destroyed that faith and trust and destroyed the confidence which Canadians were hoping to regain. A budget that had the possibility of doing so much for the confidence of Canadians lost it when it was brought down with the shuffling of figures to bail out a Finance Minister's reputation.
In conclusion, I want to read into the record a copy of a letter that had been addressed to the Minister of Finance. It was sent to me and I feel that it expresses very well the opinion of many Canadians. It says:
It is 8:22 p.m. April 19/83 and it is in utter frustration and desperation that I write this letter to express my total humiliation at your disgusting performance of the past 24 hours. Very briefly put, you have leaked a budget on Monday evening and in Parliament, in front of the entire Canadian populace, told me that you 'were forced' to change certain figures to take care of your 'fiscal responsibility'. Just to fully insult me, you laughed at me while you heard the honourable (compared to you and your band of hoodlums) Opposition express their disgust at your actions.
All this while, after doing nothing for any business community in this country except tax them more and more for Monique Begin's social handouts, you hand me a $31 billion deficit budget, higher than world price oil costs, endless expansion of the bilingual Civil Service and day to day demonstration of the Liberal inability to operate in any but a cover-up mode.
You and your Government are beyond words. You are living proof that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In total seriousness-
He signed his letter. His wife added a P.S. which is very indicative of the feelings across Canada. It reads:
If my husband and I ran our household like you run our country, we would be out on the street in rags. The Liberal Party's complete arrogance in their attitude towards the people who support them through taxes, leaves me aghast. My only weapon is my vote and you can be sure I will use it.
I conclude with those comments which I do feel have been very indicative of the lack of trust, confidence and faith that the Canadian people have in their present Government.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. lady's speech with a great deal of interest. I found that her comments were very objective and thoughtful for the most part and, taking into account the necessary partisan attitude that must be taken in this place, tended to be very constructive.
However, the letter which she read from one of her constituents tended, in my view, not only to be rather inappropriate but undoubtedly motivated by philosophies that the hon. lady just does not share. By reading that letter is she attempting to indicate that she supports the comments and allegations that are made within that particular letter?


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Minister's comments with respect to my remarks. This letter was sent to me but it was addressed to the Hon. Minister of Finance. Of course it would be interesting to learn of the response that he has given to my constituent.
While I may be very objective in my view of the measures contained in the budget, I do agree with many of the views contained in this letter, such as that the budget does miss some very important ways to bring about continued employment in Canada.
The letter is here, if the Hon. Minister has challenged its content and validity. If he would confer with the Hon. Minister of Finance, I am sure that he could get a copy of that letter from his files.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the question was whether the hon. lady agreed with the comments made in that letter. There are two areas in it which, in my view, she would want to reflect upon. One concerns the author's remarks which indicated that he considered the social security system in Canada as being "Begin's handouts", if memory serves me correctly. The second area was with reference to the Government's misspending funds for bilingualism. Knowing the area from which the hon. lady comes, I trust that that may be a popular view. 1 was wondering if those were her views?


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, the general thrust of this letter is certainly one with which I agree. The Hon. Minister brings up the matter of bilingualism. As he well knows, in the area of Leeds-Grenville that I represent, bilingualism has been a very volatile issue. It is an issue that I would not want to comment on at this particular time because it cannot be dealt with adequately in a space of a minute or two. It encompasses a great deal, not just with respect to bilingualism in the Public Service but to the whole aspect of unity within Canada, both of French and English Canadians. As I said, it cannot be commented on adequately in a couple of minutes' time.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on the Budget that was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on April 19 of this year.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance, for two reasons. My first reason is that before bringing down his Budget, the Minister arranged for consultations with various socio-economic partners across the country, during which he met with directors of financial institutions, heads of large corporations and small- and medium-sized businesses, and labour officials across Canada. Secondly, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance for having brought down a Budget that not only meets the needs and aspirations of all Canadians but also, and first and foremost, deals with our main problem here in Canada unemployment since the Minister has given us a Budget aimed at economic recovery and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget contains a special recovery program that provides $4.8 billion, over the next four years, to accelerate economic recovery and provide new capital facilities that will increase competitiveness and generate the new jobs
May 2, 1983

Canadians need. The program provides $2.4 billion in investment support to stimulate job creation through the private sector. First of all, it will allow businesses fuller use of the investment tax credit, which will cost more than $1 billion.
Second, the scope of investments qualifying for the 7-percent investment tax credit is being broadened to cover heavy construction equipment, thus providing about $125 million of tax support.
Third, a special investment tax credit will be refundable and will allow companies which otherwise would have been unable to claim the present tax credit to be refunded a portion thereof, which represents a cost of about $400 million.
Fourth, a special recovery share-purchase tax credit will reduce the cost of new equity issued before 1987 by firms undertaking investments after the budget and this will cost about $240 million.
Fifth, a $300 million special recovery investment fund will be used to provide additional assistance for economic development projects of national and regional importance.
Sixth, a special recovery export financing fund will provide $180 million to help Canadian exporters.
Mr. Speaker, this program also includes public investment projects worth $2.4 billion. About 100 public projects will be implemented throughout Canada, and last Friday, I joined my colleague, the Member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), in announcing a $40 million investment project for the Societe du vieux port de Montreal, which will be used to build capital facilities and cycle paths and a pedestrian walk along this area. I feel that this investment will enhance tourism and create jobs, and I am sure that further announcements of this kind will be made in the Montreal area to help the people of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, as far as employment is concerned, with a more vigorous, more dynamic and more productive private sector, new employment opportunities will be created for Canadians. The Canadian Government is trying to create an economic climate that will promote and stimulate the creation of permanent and productive jobs. However, the Government is aware that it is also necessary to provide assistance to the million and a half Canadians who are unemployed but willing to work. In 1983-84, more than $1.5 million will be spent by the Government on direct job creation. This is the largest program of its kind ever introduced in Canada, and under this program, nearly $900 million more will be spent than last year. The Canadian Government has given serious consideration to the basic needs of Canadians who have been exposed to prolonged periods of unemployment. Last October, the NEED program was an initiative that was very successful, contrary to what our Progressive Conservative colleagues may have said, and the provincial governments have also provided financial support for this job creation effort. In Quebec, however, the PQ Government has refused to co-operate. Nevertheless, Quebecers will not lose out, because the Canadian Government and all the Liberal caucusses from Quebec will see to it that
The Budget-Mr. Malepart
these funds are distributed through the job creation programs of community organizations or through the private sector.
The Government of Canada has decided to provide $280 million more for the NEED program and an additional $150 million goes to the Special Employment Initiatives Program for increased spending on employment intensive projects under existing construction programs and so on. An increase of $100 million is approved for expenditures on job creation projects under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which allows laid-off workers to continue to receive UI benefits when doing voluntary work on community projects.
The Canadian Government is meeting the needs of Canadians, despite our present economic problems. The Liberal Government has kept its promise to help Canadians who need help most. Canadian young people are among the groups that will benefit most from the Lalonde Budget. The Canadian Government has recognized the need for a co-operative strategy for manpower training involving all governments, business and workers. The purpose of this new strategy is to help ease the difficult transition from school to work. That is why the Canadian Government has decided to commit an additional $280 million to meet the needs of young Canadians who have not been able to find jobs. A sum of $60 million will be added to the Canada Student Loans Program, raising total funding to $141 million. This year, some 185,000 students will benefit from the program.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not forget Canadian families. The Liberal Government realizes that child care expenses can put a considerable burden on single-parent families. The child tax credit has therefore been increased in order to help families that need it most. At the present time, single parents and working mothers may deduct child-care expenses for which they have receipts, totalling $1,000 per child up to the age of 14. The Budget proposes to double that amount by raising the ceiling from $1,000 to $2,000 per child, to a maximum of $8,000 for a family. In addition, the new Budget has maintained the child tax credit. This year, it will be $343. The threshold of family income, below which the maximum credit will be paid, will be $26,330. Mr. Speaker, farmers and fishermen also stand to benefit from this budget. Although it may seem rather surprising that a Member from downtown Montreal should be referring to the benefits for farmers and fishermen, like all consumers I am well aware that by helping farmers we are helping consumers, because if the Government does not meet the needs of these people, we consumers in the urban areas would have to pay more for what our farmers and fishermen bring on the market.
In fact, farmers will derive benefits from the Minister of Finance's budget because an additional $100 million will be provided this year for special FCC loans to farmers in financial distress. Eligible recipients will be entitled to interest rebates of four percentage points for the first two years. A particular advantage to them will be the special provision allowing farming losses to be carried forward ten years rather

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Malepart
than the seven years applying before. Farmers and fishermen will be benefitting from the same measures, and they will now have more time to make their operations commercially viable, before the period during which losses suffered during the last year of operation can be deducted expires.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget small businesses. Hon. Members are aware that the small business sector is one of the most important industries in Quebec as far as economic activity is concerned, and some of the proposals made by the Minister of Finance are aimed at this sector. Small businesses have always been one of the most dynamic and creative elements in the Canadian private sector. The Canadian Government wanted to do something for them and allow them to take immediate advantage of all the proposals contained in this budget. With this in mind, a Special Recovery Refundable Investment Tax Credit of 40 per cent has been provided. The Government has also decided that they alone would be immediately eligible for the three-year carryback provision. Finally, there will be major changes in the terms of reference of the Federal Business Development Bank to enable it to play a more dynamic and supportive role in advising small businesses on their total financial needs and assisting them in meeting those needs. It is readily apparent that this budget is the result of intensive consultations between the Government and representatives from the private sector, labour, business and industry. Another very important area which affects every Canadian man and woman is housing. In his budget, the Minister of Finance has committed $335 million over the next 18 months to promote housing, create jobs and provide assistance to those of our fellow-citizens who are harder hit.
I am pleased that the Government has decided to allocate $30 million more to the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan. This increase will enable small contractors who were unable to make new housing starts during the winter to get the assistance they need and allow thousands of Canadians to buy a home. These new allocations will bring up to nearly $750 million the amounts invested by the Government in this program, which has already helped over 200,000 Canadian families to buy a home.
The Minister has also announced significant changes to the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. These changes will encourage those who have invested in a RHOSP to use their savings to buy new homes, furnishings and appliances. The impetus already given to the housing sector will thus be maintained. Canadians will be encouraged to withdraw their savings from the bank and use that money to create jobs, promote housing starts and create a demand on the furniture and appliance market.
Last March, the annual rate of housing starts was 177,000. With the extension of the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan and the further incentives provided by the changes to the RHOSP's, we are confident that the level of 150,000 housing starts forecast for 1983 will be exceeded.
Another very important program, Mr. Speaker, is the Canadian Home Renovation Plan, which provides grants of up to $3,000 to people wishing to renovate their homes and
improve their housing conditions, but which is also very effective in creating jobs. Indeed, $120 million of extra funding were announced by the Minister of Finance, bringing total new investments to $480 million. This will create 20,000 new jobs, and the average income of families benefiting from the program ranges from $20,000 to $24,000. Moreover, an additional amount of $40 million was added to the very important Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The RRAP is helping low income families maintain their homes in adequate health and safety conditions. Certainly all Members here recognize the importance of that program and will welcome as I do the extra $40 million to be expended over the next two years. In addition to creating jobs, the RRAP program helps low income families improve their homes and maintain safety standards.
There is another important aspect for low and medium income people, those I call LMIP, just like small and mediumsized businesses are referred to as SMB. The Minister of Finance has agreed to add 2,500 units to the social housing program, which will bring the total target to 25,000 units all across Canada. This represents a commitment of some $125 million to be spread out over the duration of those residential projects.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to remind you and Hon. Members of what the Canadian Government has done in the area of housing in Quebec. We seldom can rely on the PQ Government to show what the Government of Canada is investing or doing in Quebec, so I think it is important today to remind all of our fellow-citizens of what the Canadian Government is doing in the area of housing. First, since the inception of the Canadian Home Renovation Plan, which provides for individual grants of up to $3,000 for house renovation, that program has been available to citizens who own a single-family dwelling or what we call a duplex. I can state that in recent days, further to the representations made by my caucus colleagues from the Montreal area where the so-called triplex and quadriplex buildings are popular, I have asked the Minister and the management of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation whether the program could not be amended in order that a larger number of people may use the program. I can state that since its inception, the program has helped well over 14,000 families for a total expenditure of $24,332,000.
I should mention another very important program, intended for the renovation and improvement of housing throughout Quebec, namely the RRAP program, involving as it does 13,294 families for a total of $42 million in the Province of Quebec alone. Those two programs have been set up to improve housing conditions and create jobs.
I also wish to point out another really efficient program accepted by Canadians, by Quebecers generally, that is the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan. Indeed, since its inception, 45,000 families have taken advantage of the program thanks to $135 million in grants earmarked for Quebec.
May 2, 1983

An Hon. Member, that is my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) has pointed out that the Loginove Program in Quebec seems to be effective. I wish to say to my colleague that under the Canada Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, 30,025 new housing units have been financed. Recently I read a report where with reference to a statement made by a spokesman of C.N.T.U. Construction, it was pointed out that the Loginove Program had been a fiasco since the construction of 50,000 units had been expected under that program and unfortunately there had been only 3,800 units. If we compare those 3,800 units with the 3,000 financed by the federal Government I think that the latter can be proud of having stimulated the recovery of the building industry in Quebec.
Another major program is the program for subsidized housing which is being implemented under Section 56(1) and which can be either public, that is, administrated by non profit organizations, or private, that is, administered by co-operative organizations. Part of subsidized housing becomes a provincial responsibility.
In 1982, some 6,807 housing units were built in the province of Quebec, some 3,456 of which were turned over to the Government to be used for low cost lodging or shelter. Again, unfortunately, we could not rely on our PQ colleagues, for either through dishonesty or ignorance, they never acknowledge the fact that these funds are coming from the Canadian Government. Also, there is the home building program which provided the province of Quebec with 1,000 new units at a cost of $7 million.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, and considering that my time is almost expired, I should like to say that over $245 million were spent by the Canadian Government on construction I suggest, in view of the additional funds which the Minister of Finance has provided in 1983, that there is evidence of recovery in the housing industry and better housing prospects in Canada, as a result of the Canadian Government's policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) has the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I wonder if the Hon. Member could advise the House of the situation in the building industry in Montreal and whether he is aware of the recent increase in the number of new starts in his own region as a result of this Government's policies in the area of residential housing.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, statistics show that the $3,000 grant to people buying a house has certainly resulted in a significant rise in the number of housing starts in the province of Quebec. There is also collaboration between the Canadian Government and the municipalities. As an example, the City of Montreal has also established a program of grants within the framework of a project calling for the construction of 20,000 dwellings and called-and as the minister responsible for Housing said earlier, there have been meetings with representatives of the City of Montreal in order to establish some coordination in the planning for house building and renovation. Just last Friday, I had the pleasure of
The Budget-Mr. Malepart
meeting with the heads of the construction section of the FTQ and with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in order to consider another possibility in the area of house building in Quebec-although there was a salary increase-a possibility which would help some elements of the population, some people who are experiencing difficulties in the renovation sector. I am convinced that the meeting was quite productive and will have positive results.
I gave some figures a few moments ago. If we draw a comparison with the Corvee habitation program under which 11 per cent financing over three years was then available, only 3,800 units were built under that program, whereas Quebec recorded 30,000 housing starts mainly because of the $3,000 grant per unit and thanks to the Federal Government. I think that all building associations spokesmen will agree with that. But there is another aspect which people have a tendency to forget, namely our housing rehabilitation programs which are not accounted for under housing starts. It is therefore important to recall that when we talk about housing starts we should keep in mind that a good many contractors in the home rehabilitation field create jobs which are not reflected in statistics on housing starts.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, in my riding as well people are very interested in housing. I come from a suburban area just west of the City of Toronto. The housing industry is one of our major employers. I must say, as a quick comment, that the $3,000 grant, together with the lower interest rates last year, gave an enormous boost to the housing industry in Mississauga. It is also important to note at this stage that the continuing commitment this Government has to social housing has been very well received in Mississauga. We have an active co-operative movement, a good non-profit agency for the city and a good private non-profit organization. They take advantage of the social housing units that we have included, and the 2,500 extra were very welcome.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us about some of the mechanics of the RHOSP Program for new home purchasers? Some people in my riding are very interested. On the weekend I received a complaint that it might take a month or two for this program to be set up and operated. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know when the Program will come into effect and how quickly people can start to take advantage of it?


Jean-Claude Malépart: In answer to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, I think he is right when he suggests that the Canadian Government has been active on the social housing market, and the Minister of Finance did add 2,500 units to meet the demand in that area.
As to the new RHOSP Program, I know that there were some meetings recently to open up lines of communications with various circles and to keep people informed. I feel confident that in the near future all Hon. Members and Canadians

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Neil
generally will be made aware of the application procedures for this program so that people will be able to benefit as early as possible from the grants the Government made available to home buyers.
Another very significant initiative is the Home Ownership Program for Canadians which is designed to spur the construction industry and under which loan insurance is available. Last year, more than 24,000 Quebec families took out loan insurance through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation program. Some 24,000 families were able to buy a home and guaranteed loans amounted to over $7 million.
That is just another program which deserves mention because it is available throughout Canada and has given encouraging results, not to mention the $3,000 grants and the home rehabilitation projects. In that respect, I think we can be proud of those programs, as well as of our staff and of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials who play a major role and keep people well informed.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to listen to Members opposite and Government Ministers talk about what the Government has done or what their program has been. They take the credit and overlook the fact that if it was not for the taxpayer of Canada, who pays the taxes and who pays the interest on the tremendous amount of debt that this Government has incurred over the years, these programs would not be available. Therefore, the thanks should go to the taxpayers of Canada rather than to this Government.
I listened with interest on Tuesday, April 19, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) presented his budget in the House. It was interesting to hear him say that much will depend on the collective behaviour of Canadians and on the response of the private sector to the measures that he was proposing in his budget. It has taken the Government about 15 years to understand the importance of the private sector as it relates to the economy of our country.
One of the largest parts of the private sector, the free enterprise sector in Canada, is the farming community. When I came into the House to listen to the Minister present his budget, I anticipated there would be something of substance in it with respect to the farming population. Quite frankly, I was disappointed because it was not until the Minister reached page 9 of his budget that the question of farming was raised, and then it was very disappointing. Those things that Members on this side of the House and the farming community in general had hoped would be in the budget just were not there.
There were two items, basically. One is referred to on page
9.	It refers to the provision which allows farming losses to be carried forward ten years rather than the seven years applicable to other businesses. If you are not making any profit and there is no profit in sight in the immediate future, the fact that you can carry forward your losses for a period of ten years is of little satisfaction to those in financial difficulty.
The second item in the budget on page 10 refers to an additional $100 million which would be made available to the special Farm Credit Corporation loans to help farmers in financial distress. That is important. When I listened to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) say how great the budget was with respect to the farming population, I wondered what budget he was referring to. Then I realized that he really does not represent a farming area; he represents an area in the City of Montreal, and I suspect that his knowledge of farming and of the problems that farmers and the farming community are facing today is very limited.
That the Minister of Finance has ignored agriculture in this budget is not surprising or unexpected. Over the years, agriculture has not had a high priority with the Government. This sector of our economy has been ignored by the Government despite the fact that agriculture is the backbone of our country. For example, grain sales are one of the largest factors with respect to our balance of payments.
Without a healthy agricultural economy, we cannot expect to have a healthy economy throughout the country. When agriculture is in the doldrums and things are tight in the agricultural economy, machinery manufacturers and dealers throughout the country suffer, the manufacturers of cars and trucks suffer, those in the retail trade suffer-


Donald W. Munro: Fertilizer.


Douglas Charles Neil: Fertilizer, as my hon. friend has said, and those in the small business area-


Jean-Jacques Blais: He is always talking about fertilizer.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Hon. Member on the other side has said that my colleague is always talking about fertilizer. I would suggest to him that there is a great deal of fertilizer on the Government side and it is not a very productive type of fertilizer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that the agricultural community does not expect handouts. It is a free enterprise system, and all it asks is the opportunity to produce, to sell and to make a reasonable profit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Increased production in the agricultural area requires research and development. What has happened in agricultural research and development over the last ten or fifteen years? The portion of the budget dedicated to agricultural research and development has increased at a rate of approximately 1 per cent per year. In other words, it has fallen behind the rate of inflation in the country over this period of time.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does not seem to be interested in research and development. Some $9 million has been available from the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund since 1972, money that belonged to the farmers, and an attempt was made to persuade the Minister and the Govern-
May 2, 1983

ment, first, to pay interest on that money because it was in a non-interest-bearing account and, second, to turn that money over for research and development. I submitted a Private Members' Bill in the House which was referred to committee. Subsequently, the agricultural groups in the West created an association for research and development, yet it took the Minister over two years to release the funds. He said, "I do not know how we can do it. It is complicated. I would like to give you the money, but," he said, "Treasury Board says that it does not know how to do it." It was finally done two or three weeks ago. I do not know how he did it, but it was a simple process. If he had problems, all he would have to do is bring a simple Bill into the House repealing the old Prairie Farm Assistance Act and turn the money over to the research group. But he did not understand that.
Today the farmer is faced with a cost-price freeze. Grain prices are lower than they have been for many years. There have been increasing input costs year after year, not only with respect to farm machinery, fertilizer and fuel oil, but everything the farmer buys has gone up in price. Yet the price of grain has gone down. It is becoming increasingly harder for the farmer to carry on.
One of the biggest features of input costs to many farmers has been interest costs, which in many cases have been as high as 25 per cent. Even the Farm Credit Corporation, a body that was set up to enable farmers to borrow on relatively easy terms, was charging interest rates in excess of 16 per cent. Presently that rate is down, of course, to 12.125 per cent. On the other hand, farmers who borrowed money from the Farm Credit Corporation at those high interest rates are locked into them for ten, 15 and even 20 years.
Doing a quick calculation, Mr. Speaker, it means that on an acre of land at a purchase price of $1,000 an acre with an interest rate of 12.125 per cent the interest per year is $121.25. The farmer will not receive $5 a bushel for his wheat this year, but if you consider the price of wheat as being $5 a bushel, he would require a yield of 25 bushels to the acre to pay the interest alone on the purchase price of that acre of land. The farmer would have to farm his land on a continuous crop basis in order to generate enough money on an annual basis. Most farmers operate on a two-year crop rotation cycle. They summerfallow half and they crop half. In other words, only half of the farmer's land is producing grain in any one year. If this is the case, then you must double the yield on that land. At a 12.125 per cent interest rate on land for $1,000 an acre, a farmer would have to produce 48 bushels per acre just to pay the interest. He would not be paying anything on the principal, he would not be covering his fuel costs, his fertilizer costs or the other input costs.
Interest rates have been a concern of our Party for many years. Over the years, we have put forth proposals to the Government and to the Farm Credit Corporation that would see the Farm Credit Corporation acquire money at very reasonable rates so it could loan it to the farmer at probably half the rate being charged at the present time. We recommended the agri-bond program whereby an individual in the
The Budget-Mr. Neil
farming area or a retired farmer could lend money to the Farm Credit Corporation at a low interest rate on the basis that the interest that he received would not be taxable, or at least would be taxable at a lower rate than normal. We also recommended a capital gains investment program whereby a retired or retiring farmer would invest the capital gains portion of the selling price of his land with the Farm Credit Corporation at a low interest rate for a period of, five years and the capital gains tax would be waived. Sucft programs would eliminate the need for the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow offshore. This is precisely what it did. On February 21, 1983 the Minister of Agriculture, through the Farm Credit Corporation, made this announcement, and I quote him as follows:
Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan today announced that Farm Credit Corporation Canada has undertaken its first venture in the international capital markets.
FCC has issued $50 million worth of notes at 12'/s per cent due March 31, 1993. The notes are non-callable prior to maturity and have been listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.
The Farm Credit Corporation has tied itself to 12'/s per cent for ten years. The Government has refused to consider the recommendation from this side of the House for the agri-bond program or the capital gains investment program. This means that the Government is prepared to subsidize offshore lenders, probably for a period of ten years, but is not prepared to consider cheap money from a source where it is readily available.
It is interesting that before the budget came down the Minister of Agriculture and the Manager of the Farm Credit Corporation appeared before the Agriculture Committee and were questioned with respect to the agri-bond and the capital gains investment programs. We asked if there was any possibility that these programs, a combination of them or some other relief, would be dealt with in the budget. While they said they were not privy to the budget, they indicated that they had made presentations to the Minister of Finance with respect to these programs and were optimistic that something would be in the budget to enable the Farm Credit Corporation to obtain funds within this country at a low rate of interest, in this way enabling it to service the farming population. It must have been a great disappointment to them when they listened to the budget speech on April 19 and learned that there was nothing in it with respect to these programs. It would appear to me that the Government is more interested in subsidizing foreign lenders than it is in doing a proper job for the farming community.
I spoke earlier about the cost-price squeeze with respect to farmers and about low grain prices. A short time ago the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board announced a reduction in the initial price over the previous year. As well, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) made an announcement which indicated that the cost of transporting grain from western Canada to the shipping points would double in three years and would increase five times by the year 1990. If the Government continues in power and continues to ignore the agricultural

May 2, 1983
The Budget-Mr. Neil
community it will do a great deal of harm to those people who are the backbone of the country.
I hope that the Minister and Members of the Government will give some thought to what can be done to help the agricultural community. I assume that this Session of Parliament will end shortly and that we will have a Speech from the Throne in the fall. I hope that by that time the Government will have listened to some of the advice and the pleas offered by Members on this side on behalf of the farmers.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. gentleman. In view of the fact that he claims the Government is not interested in agriculture, when it introduced one of the most important initiatives in this House relative to agriculture, why did his Party systematically oppose passage of that measure? I speak of the Canagrex Bill which has been systematically opposed by the Official Opposition. Could he explain why that Party is opposing that very, very progressive piece of legislation?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister's knowledge of agriculture and farming is limited. If he had read the debates or the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when we dealt with Canagrex, he would understand our concerns. He would also understand there are few if any agricultural organizations left which support Canagrex in the form in which it was presented to the House.
A short time ago the Minister of Agriculture cited the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as an example of a national organization that was behind him 100 per cent with respect to Canagrex. If he had read the news reports he would have noted that the support was qualified. It did not support the Bill in the form it now takes.
I could stand here for an hour and tell the Minister why we do not support Canagrex, Mr. Speaker, but it is all on the record.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case then why is it that on another measure-although it is a transportation matter it has a great deal of implication for the agriculture industry- which was introduced by the Government for the improvement of the transportation system and which would save agriculture-the Tory Party has not supported the Government in the handling of the Crow? Why does it not insist that the Crow be dealt with expeditioulsy so that the legislation can be in place in time for the next major grain season starting in August of this year?


Douglas Charles Neil: That is an interesting question and an interesting observation by the Minister. The legislation he refers to is not before the House. All we have are statements the Minister of Transport made to us three months ago which were followed by a Government advertising campaign worth almost $1 million, to try to sell the program. The advertising in the Province of Quebec said one thing and the advertising in western Canada said entirely the opposite.
How does the Minister expect the Opposition to support any program until it knows what is in it? We do not know. It is rumoured that what was announced two or three months ago is going to be entirely different from what he will bring before the House, if he ever does.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has agreed by his comments that indeed Canagrex is a major agricultural issue which this Government has introduced. The hon. gentleman has agreed, in dealing with the Crow issue, that it is a major initiative that this Government has introduced which impacts on agriculture. How can the hon. gentleman then honestly say, having recognized that we have introduced major agricultural issues and having recognized the initiatives which we have been instrumental in bringing forward, that this Government does not care about agriculture?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Crow rate changes as proposed by the Minister of Transport have not been introduced in the House. The Minister is reading into my answer his own conception from his Liberal mind. He makes his own decisions and tries to twist things around to make them agree with what he thinks.
As far as Canagrex is concerned, had the Minister of Agriculture listened and accepted the amendments which we proposed, that legislation could have been passed a long time ago. However, the Minister of Agriculture has been so stubborn that he will not listen to the Opposition Members and accept any amendments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 1982 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) what the total cost was going to be for administering the Charter of Rights and repatriating the Constitution. The Minister of Justice would not give us the cost. I followed up with a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) as to whether he had conducted a cost-benefit analysis in these instances. Again, I did not receive an answer. Canadians have a right to answers regarding how their tax dollars are being spent, and for what reasons. They also have a right to know what, if any benefits Government expenditures will give them.
May 2, 1983

The Auditor General has said that the Government has lost control of the public purse. The Auditor General has also reported sloppy accounting practices in the Government. The estimated deficit for the fiscal year 1983-84 was $29 billion. But, with the new budget, the Liberal Government has once again broken its record. The projected deficit is now $31.3 billion. Negligence on the part of the Government has given rise to various inefficient and costly Government policies. Cost-effectiveness is not a consideration.
On November 9, 1976 I cautioned the House that the Government should investigate Canadair expenditures. I also said the Government should table all documents regarding Canadair aircraft and how many tax dollars are committed to Canadair.
On December 2, 1976 I warned the Government again of Canadair's disaster course. I said the Government should come clean and state its plans and expectations for Canadair and that the Government should start revealing true information about Canadair's financial position.
On February 24, 1977 I moved that the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to appoint an independent committee to investigate the structural problems Canadair was then experiencing with production of new aircraft.
Here I am again, seven years later, reiterating my warning. Once again, the Government is bailing out Canadair, another Crown Corporation, which is, and has been, on a disaster course. Last fall Canadair's financial assets were turned over to another Government-owned company, the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Since that time a financial report has been prepared but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has refused to make it public. The Prime Minister has told Canadians that "We would be on the road to financial disaster if nothing was done to bring spending under control". In spite of these comments, the Liberal Government is allowing further funding of this Crown Corporation which has consistently mismanaged its finances. We now learn that Canadair is planning to lay off 570 people by mid-July. The taxpayers' bill to bail out Canadair will amount to $2.3 billion.
The Liberal Government has lost control of spending. The taxpayer does not know where his tax dollars are going. The Liberal Government's lack of accountability and lack of cost-benefit analysis has been reported time and time again by the Auditor General. In 1962, there were only 28 Crown Corporations, controlling $8.4 billion in assets. Today there are over 300 Crown corporations controlling $67 billion in assets. Revenues of Crown corporations in the most recent fiscal year were $31.9 billion and expenses were $33.6 billion.
In 1982, the Auditor General reported the following concerning Crown corporations:
Most corporations are virtually known even to the best informed members of the tax paying public. Yet.. . they represent a hole in the taxpayer's pocket... a consistent negative return on investment.
Adjournment Debate
There are no adequate provisions for Parliament to review the budgets of over 300 corporations in which the Canadian public has an interest.
The next excerpt from the Auditor General's report of 1982 is a true representation of what is occurring in Canadair, innumerable other corporations and, no doubt, in many federal Government departments and agencies:
Without public exposure, the temptation is overwhelming to send good money after bad in the hope of reversing the situation, no matter how hopeless the situation has become-
The Progressive Conservative Government wanted tighter control over Crown corporations by Government. We started introducing legislation to act upon the recommendations along these lines from the Lambert Commission, the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. As we were defeated, we could not implement the legislation.
The Government owned Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation wasted more than $20 million in public funds developing a computer system which was technically impossible to use.
On April 26, 1982, I informed the House that the National Energy Program drove investment out of the country, which resulted in a loss of approximately 60,000 jobs across Canada. The Liberal Government could not possibly have been considering cost effectiveness when implementing this program.
As the House is aware, the Liberal Government and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) made public their intention to make Canada a French state. Cost benefit analysis has received absolutely no consideration in this regard, as demonstrated by the Secretary of State in the following excerpt from his speech:
Francophone rights cannot be bought, sold, substracted from, divided or multiplied in terms of dollars and cents in the budgets of a troubled economy, and that will apply, I promise you, for as long as I am Secretary of State of Canada. If I have to cut back some programs-and I've already done so-there is one area in which I have no intention of using the scissors: the advancement of Francophone rights in Canada. Another thing that needs to be said: as we say in French, "like it or not", it is going to take a little more money-
There has been no White Paper or Green Paper on the proposal to make Canada a French state, and no permission from the Canadian people. In the future, all Government programs should have a cost benefit analysis done before being implemented.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to address the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) in a supplementary question of November 17. I do not intend to address the various spurious allegations which he has made with regard to numerous topics, from Francophone rights to Crown corporation policy, from the Auditor General's Report to Canadair, et cetera. I will try to keep my response relevant to his original question which related to spending on the Constitution.
A number of events and activities were immediately associated-


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Author.

May 2, 1983
Adjournment Debate


Peter Joseph Lang: -with the proclamation of the Constitution Act on April 17, 1982. Parliamentary authorization for supplementary spending in the amount of $1.8 million has been approved by Parliament to offset the cost of these, including the cost of the visit of Her Majesty The Queen. The $1.8 million also provided for costs incurred by the Canada Broadcasting Corporation in covering the proclamation ceremony and in mounting the gala concert which celebrated the proclamation. It also provided for costs incurred by the National Arts Centre, the Department of National Defence, Public Works Canada, Parliament itself, the Prime Minister's office and the Conference Centre. These funds voted to the Secretary of State of Canada are to reimburse the Departments and agencies I have just noted.
In addition to funding the visit of the Queen, the Secretary of State of Canada also funded various official receptions, lunches and dinners, including the dinner for young achievers hosted by the Prime Minister; travel and living expenses of senior officials from Britain who were our guests; travelling expenses of guests invited to the dinner for young achievers; expenses of the choirs from Calgary and Moncton which entertained during the ceremonies and the printing of programs, menus and invitations.
These items are only those for which the Government has obtained supplementary authorization from Parliament. Additional expenditures were incurred by several departments and agencies, including the RCMP, National Defence and the Canadian Unity Information Office which were covered out of appropriations voted by Parliament in relation to Main Estimates for 1982-83.
All of this relates, of course, only to the proclamation itself. Patriation has taken time and the process goes back at least a decade. Over the last ten years or so a series of federal-provincial conferences have been held in relation to the constitutional question. The last of these prior to the proclamation resulted in expenditures by the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat of about $113,000. The constitutional reviews leading up to patriation involved some costs, mostly in the form of legal fees for lawyers consulted on the significant issues involved. About $1 million has been spent by Justice Canada on legal costs over recent years.
As the Hon. Member himself has pointed out, the effects of patriation will also be felt into the future. Would one wish or expect otherwise? The Department of Justice will be spending $3.3 million in 1982-83 in order to review its statutes and regulations in relation to the Charter of Rights. Undoubtedly, additional costs will emerge, perhaps within Justice, perhaps within the courts themselves, or perhaps elsewhere.


FISHERIES-NEGOTIATION OF NORTH PACIFIC SALMON FISHING AGREEMENT-PROTECTION OF CHINOOK AND COHO SPECIES. (B) DANGERS ARISING FROM OVER-FISHING
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker.
I notice that the Member from the Government side who will
presumably be the spokesman on behalf of the government for the fisheries question is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang). He knows even less about fisheries than the man who answered the original question which I am debating today.
I wanted to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) a question on April 27. I waited for some time to do so. 1 eventually had to direct the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who knows a little bit about international relations but not very much about fisheries. Therefore I feel I am being slighted. The parliamentary process is not working properly when we cannot get someone who knows about fisheries to answer questions about fisheries.
It was known that my questions today would be about negotiations of the North Pacific Salmon fisheries. These questions are quite detailed. The questions I asked were about the regulations related to the fishing season that is now in process and the dangers of the absence of an agreement between Canada and the United States. That question was originally designated for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He was not in the House. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister answered the question, but he obviously was not listening to it. He was talking about the treaty. I knew that the treaty had not been ratified. Everyone on the West Coast knows that the treaty has not been ratified. He dealt with my first question, which was purely domestic, by telling me that the agreement had not been ratified between Canada and the United States. I knew that.
My second question related to the international agreement in the absence of ratification. However, I find it absolutely intolerable that I should be expected to accept a reply from a Minister who is landlocked in the middle of Ontario, knows nothing about West Coast fisheries, but gives me a prepared statement in answer to my question. Therefore, I feel I am entitled to withdraw from this particular operation today, the late show or whatever it is called now, be allowed to rise again soon and have someone who knows what he is talking about answer the question I tried to ask on April 27, as reported at page 24901 of Hansard. I do not feel there is any point in the world listening to any reply that has been written for the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. McDermid:: He does not know what he is reading either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is not in a position, under the Standing Orders, to prohibit a reply by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang). The Parliamentary Secretary may choose to try to assist the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) with a later reference, and as he suggested, I am really not empowered to recognize points of order or questions of privilege during the adjournment motion. I shall recognize
May 2, 1983

the Parliamentary Secretary and we shall have to take it from there.


Donald W. Munro: Without preventing me from raising the question again, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am not able to assure the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that he will have an opportunity to raise this question again in any way other than in the ordinary course of events. I think his points have been understood. It is not up to the Chair to rule on whether or not this question for debate ought to be made the subject of another question to be heard earlier than those of other Hon. Members.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is not satisfied with the answer even before he has heard it. The Department has taken the time to investigate and has come up with a response to the questions he has asked. I understand the purpose of the late show is to respond to a question in more detail when an Hon. Member is not satisfied with a first response. I will give him the response that has been prepared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The draft Pacific salmon treaty between Canada and the United States was initiated in its present form by the two countries' negotiators on February 1, 1983.


Donald W. Munro: I know.


Peter Joseph Lang: The negotiators submitted the text to the two Governments with the recommendation that they approve the drafts and take action to implement the treaty's provisions beginning in 1983.


Donald W. Munro: That I know too.


Peter Joseph Lang: The treaty itself contains fishery management annexes which set out how the two countries should manage their intercepting salmon fisheries in 1983.


Donald W. Munro: Exactly.


Peter Joseph Lang: However, it quickly became evident that there was a great deal of opposition to the draft treaty in the State of Alaska.


Donald W. Munro: What about the fish?


Peter Joseph Lang: The new Alaskan governor responded to this discontent by establishing a three-man task force to advise him on to whether or not Alaska should support the treaty. The task force reported negatively, and the Alaska governor informer the U.S. Secretary of State on March 28, 1983 that there were six areas in the treaty which required, in his words, renegotiation.
In the meantime, the Governors of the States of Washington, Oregon and Idaho-
Adjournment Debate


Donald W. Munro: What about the regulations?


Peter Joseph Lang: -all of which have a key interest in the treaty, came out with strong public support for it. The support by the Governor of Washington overrode considerable opposition in that state from fishing interests which felt they would be adversely affected by the treaty's provisions.


Donald W. Munro: None of this is new.


Peter Joseph Lang: Despite this support, the United States has indicated its desire to see changes to the treaty in a number of areas, most of which correspond to the areas of concern identified by the Governor of Alaska.


Donald W. Munro: Meanwhile the fisheries will be destroyed.


Peter Joseph Lang: Canada indicated in early March that if the U.S.A. could not or would not implement the Treaty's terms on a provisional basis in 1983, nor would Canada. Therefore, on April 27, 1983, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced fishing plans for 1983 that are not entirely consistent with the treaty. This action was taken after careful consideration and discussion with the industry advisers who had served as members of the Canadian negotiating team. Many of these advisers have been part of the delegation since negotiations began in 1970.
Canada's action in not implementing the treaty could have significant effects on the conservation of chinook salmon in particular.


Donald W. Munro: Exactly.


Peter Joseph Lang: Unless a treaty can be put in place, Canadian catches of salmon bound for the U.S.A. are likely to increase, and our catches of our own Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon will far outweigh expectations in the U.S.A., which normally shares that harvest inside Juan de Fuca Strait.
Canada remains hopeful that accommodation can be reached, but the United States cannot expect Canada to accept unbalanced changes to a treaty which took much effort to negotiate and demanded many compromises.


Donald W. Munro: But meanwhile?


Peter Joseph Lang: It is clear that the treaty would be in everyone's interest and would lay the groundwork for significant benefits to be gained by the fishermen of both countries in the future.


Donald W. Munro: No question.


Peter Joseph Lang: And it is the only route which will allow us to prevent the kind of misunderstandings that have guided the opinions of Alaskan fishermen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There was a third question under the adjournment motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 2, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Friesen). That Hon. Member is not present and I would presume that his question will be placed back on the list in the normal course of events.
That being the case, 1 do now adjourn the House until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.21 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 3, 1983