1984-03-05

THE LATE JOHN KUSHNER


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to John Kushner, a Member of this House whose career has been dedicated to public service and who in many ways exemplified those qualities most desirable in a public servant. His entire life was one of devotion to family, to community and to this country.
His was a remarkable career of involvement in Calgary; in the community as a school trustee; as an alderman; on behalf of the labour movement as president of his union; and as a director of hospitals. However, the most important thing in my judgment is that John Kushner was a man of modesty and accomplishment. He accomplished things that really mattered on behalf of people, ordinary Canadians, and this gave him his greatest joy.
He was deeply proud of his heritage. I remember last December his speech at Maple Leaf Gardens to the World Congress of Free Ukrainians, a body which was a great source of pride to him. He spoke from the heart when he mentioned his immigrant roots and he spoke to the soul of Canada when he talked of the need for tolerance in this society, coupled with a strong and ringing defence of liberty, a quality that most immigrant groups bring to this great country. This was his overwhelming belief, along with the need to couple tolerance in Canada with a strong understanding of what we have achieved here. But most of all he believed that freedom must always prevail in Canada.
He was direct, encouraging and warm. He had both a sense of history and a sense of humour. To me he provided thoughtful counsel and loyal support. To my Party he provided dedication and deep commitment to his principles and to its unity. To Canada he provided an abiding love and a real sense of gratitude for the citizenship which he held in this country.
Mr. Kushner's involvement in our Party, both at the provincial and federal levels, goes back to the 1970s when he was elected to the Alberta legislature, and thereafter when he was elected to this House where he provided able and distinguished service.
In that very special way, as it is for most of us, John Kushner's greatest pride was his family. His greatest love was his wife and his children. John Kushner made a real difference in his community, in this Party, and certainly in this House of
Commons. This country is, in my judgment, a better place because of him.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and my Party, and I am sure on behalf of all Members in this House, I want to convey to Olga and her family our deepest condolences.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we were all shocked to learn of the sudden passing of John Kushner. Only a few weeks ago he seemed to be his usual robust self.
Mr. Kushner was a shining example of how Canada has been strengthened by contributions from people who came here from many lands. Born in Poland, he completed his education in the United States. He devoted himself to public service, both in education and in politics. He served his community for four years in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and for almost five years in this House.
Mr. Kushner will be especially missed by many members of the staff of the House, the little people like the messengers and maintenance staff who always found his door open when they needed advice or encouragement.
I especially want, on behalf of this Party, to extend sincere sympathy to the late Mr. Kushner's widow and her sons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I was personally shocked and depressed to hear of the passing of John Kushner. We have lost a good man. John Kushner was a people's politician. He served his people very well at the municipal level, at the provincial level and at the federal level. But to me John Kushner was even more; he was a friend. He was somebody in whom I could confide. He was somebody who offered me sympathy in some of my darkest moments.
We worked together for four years at the provincial level. John was very conscious of his ethnic background, a background similar to mine, and we tried hard provincially to do something on a multicultural level. I know his heart was in multiculturalism in this House because he recognized, as 1 have, that Canada was more than just the English and the French factions; it involved people from all over Europe, from all over the world, who came here to find a home.
I say bless him. I hope he has found peace. I offer my deepest sympathy to his wife and family. His family will be carrying on the political tradition, I expect, as his son, Stan,

March 5, 1984
Tributes
was in the Alberta legislature. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Hon. Members of the House when I say bless John Kushner; we hope he has found peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to express our sadness at the passing of John Kushner. Indeed, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said, he was a man of modesty and accomplishment. That is unique. He served his people well, serving, as I understand it, as a trustee, as an alderman in Calgary, in the legislature and here in Parliament since 1979. In other words, he served in all levels of government in Canada-municipal, provincial and federal. That is a real accomplishment.
He was active beyond politics and was very active in the multicultural area. He was deputy critic of multiculturalism for the Conservative Party at the time of his passing. He was of Polish background and very proud of it.
Further, I should like to make two personal observations. John Kushner used to sit near me and we had a little pact among our group. Many people see us arguing in Parliament, but when we leave this House sometimes, in fact most times, we talk to each other as friends. That is a good point about the Canadian Parliament, in my view. We also had a little shared pact. It is very hard to be a back-bencher and to have heckling when one first rises in the House of Commons to put questions. John was part of our little pact. We agreed that we would not heckle each other when we rose. That only applied around this part of the House. In fact, we encouraged each other when we asked a particularly good question and when we struggled with a bad question.
Personally, I will miss John. On behalf of the NDP, I should like to extend our sympathy to his wife and his two sons. To John, ave atque vale, hail and farewell. We will all miss you here, John.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say something about John. John and I go back to when he was the locksmith for the Calgary school board in the very early sixties. He and I have been brushing shoulders now for 25 years. I agree with every word that has been said, but nothing has been said about John and his spirit. This was a happy man. This was a man I never saw truly depressed, a man who oft times caused a smile, oft times gave one a lift just by being in his presence.
In terms of his service, it was to the people of his community. He was, I firmly believe, one of the best constituency men the House of Commons will ever see. John Kushner did not attend just some events in his riding; he attended every event and, more than that, he cared greatly for his people, the people of the area he represented. Whether it was on the school board, as an alderman, as a provincial MLA or here in the House of Commons, his was a life of service to the community.
He will be sorely missed in that area of Calgary. I will sorely miss him as well, miss him in the sense that another bit of laughter is gone, another bit of fun. He was a man you could truly admire because of his skills, feelings and the work that he did. I just want Olga, Jack and Stan to know that I grieve with them.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate my eminent colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), on his excellent Budget, which was entirely in line with the initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, the Budget is part and parcel of the Government's plan to build a strong and growing economy, and, as Minister of Labour, I may add I am particularly happy to see the emphasis placed by the Minister of Finance on creating lasting jobs for all Canadians who want to work. Since I took up my new duties, Mr. Speaker, I have constantly stressed the need for treating Canadian workers as full and equal partners with employers and the Government, and I believe that in our efforts to provide for economic recovery, it is absolutely essential that workers as well as employers should benefit.
I am therefore particularly pleased to see that the Minister of Finance intends to promote economic growth by fully co-operating with workers and business. He has stated publicly that he is determined to promote increased co-operation and economic well-being, using the most powerful mechanisms available to us under our tax policy.
To stimulate the economy, the Minister has decided to act through the private sector which, and we agree, considers itself to be the main creator of jobs. The Government will help, where the need arises, by lightening the burden of administration where feasible, and by leading directly where necessary.
We feel that the best stimulus for economic progress will come from the increased confidence of Canadians, whether they are workers, consumers, savers or investors.
The creative energy and entrepreneurship that flow from this confidence will shape our future.
March 5, 1984

Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress the importance of consultation with and full participation of workers in the economic recovery process. Although job creation will be a major factor in restoring the worker confidence, it will be useless if the old attitudes and confrontation tactics do not change.
If, as employers and workers, we try to take more out of the economy than we put in, our country's return to prosperity will be threatened and the economy will again be subject to inflationary pressures. Consequently, as Minister of Labour, I am pleased to see that we are phasing out the 6 and 5 program. The program has done the job it was intended to do. It has brought our inflation rate down from 12 per cent to 5 per cent, an accomplishment that has opened the way for new productive investments. However, the 6 and 5 program has not always been smooth sailing, especially for Canadian workers. I feel that new controls would only cause serious disruption in our economy. Once the 6 and 5 program is phased out, we shall, I hope, be able to turn over a new leaf and improve relations between workers and business.
Once the 6 and 5 program is terminated, collective bargaining in the private sector will not necessarily be tough, but it will be a serious matter. However, I am confident that all those who take part in the collective bargaining process will act responsibly, bearing in mind the responsibility they share for the Canadian economy and the general well-being of all Canadians, and refrain from any unreasonable disruption of labour-management relations through sterile and frivolous disputes.
Our present economic recovery must be kept growing. We cannot make excessive demands on this recovery, either collectively or individually, without endangering the economy in the long run. A sustained and strong recovery is our only chance of achieving the legitimate economic goals we all share, that is, job security, maintaining and enhancing our purchasing power, and constantly strengthening our competitive position, both on national and international markets. We have resolutely crossed the threshold toward a period of rapid development in technology and industrial relations. Refusing to take advantage of what modern technology has to offer would have disastrous consequences for the Canadian economy. One of the tangible contributions being made by the Government of Canada towards bringing labour and management closer together is the Employment Profit-Participation Plan, proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in his Budget Speech.
This plan is designed to bring workers and employers closer together, but it is certainly not intended to complement or replace the collective bargaining process. This plan should on no account be considered a substitute for collective bargaining. In fact, the Profit Participation Plan being proposed would provide a tax credit of 10 per cent of the profits shared under
The Budget-Mr. Ouellet
the plan, with 60 per cent of the tax credit going to employees and 40 per cent to the employer. I know the initial reaction of the unions to this announcement was mixed, which is not surprising, since the unions have always seen such plans as a plot to draw employees closer to management and, occasionally, to keep unions out.
I therefore want to make it quite clear that this is certainly not the Government's intention, and, although I may be repeating myself, what the Government supports is establishing an equal partnership and respect between workers and business. Details of how the plan will work were not given in the Budget Speech, since we intend to work these out with labour and management. In keeping with this concept, the Government intends to continue its consultations with business leaders and unions, in order to discuss the Profit Participation Plan in greater detail. We are particularly anxious to seek their views on the format and implementation of such a plan. To that end, I intend to consult in the coming weeks with leaders of Canada's major labour and business associations. I trust we shall be able to establish a plan that will be beneficial to all.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, repeat what was said in the Budget Speech, and I quote: "The Employee Profit-Participation Plan is designed to complement the collective bargaining process, not replace it. Experience has shown that to succeed, profit sharing cannot be a substitute for competitive wages". There is certainly no mention of forcing the profit sharing plan on workers. Another quote from the Budget Speech: "Any company wishing to establish a plan must form a labour-management committee. The details of the plan will have to be agreed on by both workers and management."
Pension reform is another Budget item that should be of particular interest to Canadian workers. The benefits deriving from a new partnership relation between workers and business must be shared equitably. We must therefore ensure that retired workers are able to live in comfort and dignity. For a long time, labour groups have been criticizing the deficiencies of the existing provisions of the Pension Plan. The proposals contained in the Budget will make our Old Age Security plan-and I have no hesitation in saying this-one of the best in the industrialized world. To start with, legislation will be introduced by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Begin) to increase the maximum payment under the Guaranteed Income Supplement by $50 a month. This raises fhe guaranteed income for elderly single individuals, that is, those who need help most in Canada today, to more than 60 per cent of the amount paid to couples, as recommended by many business, labour and women's groups.
Other provisions will provide protection against inflation for future pensions and will assist mobility by ensuring that employees acquire rights to their pension benefits after two

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Ouellet
years' service instead of ten. Individuals would also be allowed to take their benefits with them if they move to another job, a frequent occurrence during initial years of service among many Canadian workers. Further proposals will broaden pension coverage for full-time and part-time workers. There are provisions providing survivor benefits and ensuring equal treatment of Canadian working men and women. In addition, the Budget proposes to broaden considerably the Canada Pension Plan. We therefore have a whole series of pension-related measures that ought to help Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government intends to take further steps to improve the dialogue between workers, business and government, and I am referring to a proposal originated by my own Department of Labour. I am therefore pleased to be able to confirm today that Cabinet has approved the establishment of a government-union employee interchange program. The program embodies a concept first described in the Throne Speech. It will foster the exchange of personnel between labour organizations and federal Government departments for periods of up to two years. I believe that this program will improve understanding and communications between unions and the Canadian Government.
The experience and know-how of the labour movement can be extremely useful in the preparation of Government policy. On the other hand, civil servants will be able to explain to the unions how the Government's decision-making process works and how they can best put their case to the Government. Until now, there have been no meaningful employee exchanges between the Public Service of Canada and the Labour movement under the current program. However, I think that with time we can hope to have an admittedly limited but none the less efficient group of public servants and union representatives with the wide knowledge and experience which one can acquire only by working for a while in the other's field of work.
This project will cost $1.9 million over a three-year period, mostly to offset the cost of salaries paid to detached employees. The program will be operational on a limited basis with only five person-years in the first year, fifteen person-years in the second year and twenty person-years in the third year.
The other administrative provisions will be nearly identical to those of the Public Service Commission Interchange Canada Program. Each exchange will flow from an agreement between the originating organization-the host organization- and, of course, the worker who is directly concerned. As in the case of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre whose establishment I was pleased to announce recently, this new initiative of the Government of Canada shows to what extent we are committed to improving our relations with the labour movement.
In short, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Labour I fully endorse the remarks of the Minister of Finance that we cannot be
satisfied with past performance and past habits if Canadians are to meet the challenge of the future. Nor can we hope to work together towards a more promising future at the expense of another segment of the population. That is why the Government has made a series of proposals to meet the needs of workers and pave the way for more harmonious labour relations in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think we can say that Canadian workers, wherever they are, can look to this Budget as a guarantee of better and more numerous job opportunities, improved pension plans and more input in decisions which affect their life at work. In addition, the Government's labour program concerning employee detachment will surely have a strong impact on relations between unions and the Government. As for me, I shall continue to be attentive and responsive to the concerns and legitimate needs of labour. In fact, I plan to emphasize consultations with the unions so that they may have a voice in discussions on a national level. I am convinced that some type of social contract must of necessity be entered into with the unions which contract necessarily implies a spirit of co-operation if we want to have a sustained and equitable recovery. Mr. Speaker, working together can be really effective if each and everyone is willing to do his share. The Government believes in this principle and it was in this spirit that the Minister of Finance prepared his budget which I support enthusiastically.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There will now be a 10-minute period for questions, answers and comments.
[English)


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions in two areas with which the Minister dealt. The first question is with respect to the Employee Profit Participation Plan. The Minister indicated that at an early date he would be having consultation with business and union leaders in order to bring in the best and most workable plan. I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to identify what business and union associations he would be consulting with. Could he identify them by name today? If not, I understand that he might want to give me that information at a later date.
[ Translation)


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have already had discussions with the representatives of the Canada Labour Congress and we have agreed to meet with officers of the CLC later in March. I have also been in touch with the Chairman of the Canadian Federation of Labour who told me that he would approve of a meeting with his senior assistants before the end of March.
I would also like to consult with other Canadian labour organizations. I have not yet had any conversation or exchanged any correspondence with other national unions, but I plan on doing so within the next few days.
March 5, 1984

However, I have had a brief discussion with a representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and we hope to be able to sit down with this association later this month to discuss the program more fully. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), is himself planning to meet with certain management associations and national organizations to discuss the details of this new program.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that consultation might take place with associations representing small business, because it seems to me that if this plan is to become successful, one of the targets for the plan would likely be in the small business sector as compared to larger manufacturers and processors.
My principal concern with the Budget dealt with the section in which the Minister dealt with containing inflation. He talked about the potential for strikes in the Public Service and indicated that his Government would be willing to ask Parliament to legislate wage settlements in the face of lengthy strikes. That causes me some concern, and I believe it would likely cause the Minister some concern. He has not direct responsibility but certainly he should be concerned in this area.
We are the least able institution, in my view, to write a collective agreement. That should be the responsibility of union and employer. I am very concerned to see in the Budget that one particular sentence, particularly the words "to legislate a wage settlement", because as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) well knows, in Parliament we could end a strike without rewriting a collective agreement.
It seems to me his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), has not looked at that option, and I hate to do it at the best of times, although I know it is essential from time to time. He seems to indicate in his Budget that he would prefer the House to rewrite the collective agreement as compared to going only the half step of ending a labour dispute in order that the parties, under whatever vehicle we may choose to give them, could continue to discharge their responsibility, which is to write the new collective agreement. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Hon. Member's first suggestion to the effect that we should consult with the small business associations, I can assure him that this shall indeed be considered and that such consultations certainly will take place. I think that this is a great idea and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was also thinking about this when he referred to consultations.
On the other hand, concerning the Hon. Member's comments about the possibility that the Canadian Parliament might legislate a collective agreement, I hope that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said about this in his budget was hypothetical, and that, in the future, collective bargaining within the Public Service can lead to an agreement
The Budget-Mr. Ouellet
signed at the bargaining table by both parties and that what the Minister of Finance was saying will not happen.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with some of the statements the Minister made. In discussing the Budget, he referred to the Government's six and Five program, a program introduced without any consultation with labour groups. That was admitted by the Minister responsible. It seems that when the Government wants to do something which adversely affects labour, such as the six and five program which prevented unions from negotiating protection for part-time workers or negotiating packages to help people at the lower end of the economic scale, the Government acts quickly. The Budget introducing the six and five program was introduced in the House on June 28, I believe, and the legislation was ready as soon as the Budget debate was finished. However, when it comes to proposals which will enhance labour, it is never a program but always a study. It is always something down the road, not something the Government is ready to act upon. Under those circumstances, can you blame organized labour for being skeptical?
While the Minister is at it, perhaps he could explain why it takes so long for the Government to introduce legislation which will change Part IV of the Canada Labour Code to protect workers' safety, indeed their lives, in the workplace?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the government will not be dragging its feet as far as setting up a profit-sharing scheme is concerned. I suggest it would have been improper to announce forthwith such a scheme without first involving both employers and employees in the preparation and development of this profit-sharing scheme. The Hon. Member will certainly agree, therefore, that it was worth seeking the involvement of the interested parties as well as their co-operation in devising methods and mechanisms to operate this scheme. I can assure him that we will make haste and implement this program as soon as our consultations with employers and employees are completed.
As to his remarks concerning amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, I can assure the Hon. Member that the government has every intention of introducing the relevant bill at the first opportunity in March.


Mr. Lambert:: Getting back to the issue raised by my colleague the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, judging from the few remarks which we have heard so far, the program which the government has announced does not seem to differ much from the programs which have been in existence for a great many years on a voluntary basis. Now, has the government chosen to implement this program to demonstrate its gratitude to his colleague the Hon. Member who has since

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski been appointed Minister of State and who was heading a sub-commission to deal with this issue? Yet, I think I can say that these programs always meet with difficulties and suffer through lack of interest, for employees, foreign to the very notion of profit, are anxious to sell off their shares for cash. Cash is all that matters to labourers and employees, whether unionized or not. Could the minister indicate to us how the government plans to remedy these shortcomings which have plagued these plans for generations?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The answer by the Minister of Labour should be very short.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that the Government intends to provide both labour and management with another means of coming together. In this country, we have gone through a period of acute confrontation in labour relations. We are aware that during those years of high prosperity, we could live with that kind of environment in labour relations, where each party would aggressively fight for the biggest possible share of the pie. But now that we are going through hard times, there is certainly no collective bargaining possible any more when confrontation is the rule and each side is trying to get the better part of the bargain. Therefore, we must find new ways conductive to agreement, co-operation, understanding and collaboration. And this employee profit participation plan, which the Government has suggested to labour and management, is one method among others to help improve the labour relations environment in Canada.
As far as details are concerned, we will ask labour and management to help us work them out so that the plan is acceptable and beneficial to all parties.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks this morning by quoting the first lines of the Budget Speech delivered in this House on February 15. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said:
My Budget today is dedicated to building a strong and growing economy-an economy that will generate lasting, meaningful jobs for all Canadians who want to work, an economy that will provide the economic opportunity and security all Canadians seek.
My Budget puts into action the program for growth, opportunity, security and partnership outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
No one in this House, Mr. Speaker, and no one across this country, can argue with those objectives. However, I think it is fair to say, as speaker after speaker on this side particularly have said, that this Budget is simply not going to set the direction for the achievement of those objectives outlined. It is very interesting to note that the Speech went on at great length about reliance on the private sector as being the main engine for economic growth.
There was something in the order of 100 promises in the Speech from the Throne which we know will never be fulfilled by this Government. What is really interesting is that there are roughly 26 commitments to set up new task forces, boards and agencies which essentially postpone any decision-making or
any action in terms of dealing with the problems within various regions of the country. One can see that there is quite a collection of these boards. There is a task force on information technology, a task force on private trading houses, a task force on textiles and clothing, a task force on shipbuilding and a deep sea fleet. There is a task force on the service sector and a task force on co-operatives. There is a commission of inquiry into eastern Canadian potatoes and an Asia Pacific foundation. An office is being set up for industrial innovation. There is a new industrial and regional development board. Then there is a parliamentary task force on charities, consultations on the Canada-Japan auto pact, consultations on domestic air fares and consultations on acid rain. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly not leadership; it is simply a postponement and quite frankly a cop-out.
This Budget, I think it is fair to say, as my colleagues have pointed out, fails to address four basic essentials to economic recovery. As a result of the failure to address those basic economic essentials, I suggest that Canadians will be committed to a dubious, bleak and diminishing economic future.
Let me back that up with some examples. First is the issue of interest rates. Interest rates have continued to soar since the presentation of the Budget. As a matter of fact, I look at The Edmonton Journal of Friday, March 2 in which the headline reads "Rising Bank Rate is a Blow to Recovery". It goes on to state:
If Canadian policymakers maintain current fiscal policies, "the economy is just going to grind to a halt," warned Aron Gampel, economist with the Toronto investment firm Pitfield Mackay Ross Ltd.
He goes on to say:
The slowdown in economic growth caused by Ottawa's high interest rate policy is alarming, Gampel said.
He described recent GNP figures as a "disaster". Take away exports and the build-up of inventories, and growth actually declined in the final quarter of last year, he said.
We have a situation in which the Minister of Finance quite correctly pointed out at page 2 of the Budget Speech that inflation was brought down to 4.5 per cent at the end of last year, yet we have an interest rate which is up to 10.07 per cent. The spread is simply too great. At the end of 1982 there was a spread of roughly 3.2 per cent between inflation and the bank rate. Today it is approximately 6 per cent and that is simply too high. This problem has not been addressed.
There is nothing in the Budget that will encourage or motivate increased consumer demand. In fact, what is provided in the Budget but does not really address the issue since it is part and parcel of the leftovers from the previous Budget are some very huge, hidden tax increases which take effect in this fiscal year. We can see that approximately six of these tax measures will result in a tremendous amount of money being taken out of the Canadian economy.
For example, over the three-year period from 1984 to 1987, the special recovery tax will take out $2 billion from the Canadian economy. The changes to the federal tax reduction
March 5, 1984

over the three-year period will result in $4 billion of tax revenue taken out of the economy. The elimination of the standard $100 deduction over a three-year period will result in some $400 million being extracted. The deindexation of the child tax credit income threshold over the three-year period will amount to $700 million. The deindexation of child exemption will result in the removal of $250 million. Making the Canadian Ownership Special Charge permanent will amount to roughly $3 billion over the next three years. This represents an extraction of some $9 billion in order to pay for the Government's make-work programs, the puffery and fluffery and porkbarrelling such as we have seen in the House in the course of the last few weeks. There is nothing in the Budget to increase consumer demand.
Third, there is nothing in the Budget that will stimulate investment in this country by creating a more positive and conducive climate toward investment, both domestic and foreign. As a matter of fact, I think we all recognize that there are some structural problems within our economy. There are some industrial structural problems that will require huge investments of capital. There must be more investment in research and development and an increased percentage of productivity which will require huge expenditures of investment capital. That investment capital will not be realized unless a climate of confidence is created in this country.
It is interesting to note that in the Daily Commercial News dated November 8, a New York analyst says that foreign investors await a new government, not a new Liberal government but a brand-new government. The article indicates:
Foreign investors are waiting for a change in government in Ottawa before returning to Canada in a big way, a New York investment analyst said last week.
He went on to say:
If Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives take power, 'I think you will see an immediate change in investor attitude,' said Reinhardt.


An Hon. Member:: Pick what you want from the newspapers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some newspapers speak the truth, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend across the way does not like some of these quotations but the facts must speak for themselves.
That is an attitude which prevails in this country. The fact is that there has been a net outflow of investment capital of roughly $16.7 billion during the last four years, both domestic and foreign. That money should be spent here in Canada to generate jobs, improve our competitive ability and eliminate the structural deficiencies. There is nothing in the Budget which provides any assurance that that can happen.
That fact relates very closely to the fourth point that is not addressed in the Budget. It is mentioned but it is not dealt with in a comprehensive way. It concerns measures to improve competitiveness and productivity. I submit that that is closely tied to the ability to encourage investors, domestic and foreign, to invest in this country.
I suggest there is very little in the Budget for the 1.5 million or probably two million people who are unemployed and have been standing on the sidelines for far too long. In fact, there
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski are 193,000 fewer people employed today than at the start of the recession, in spite of all the Government's make-work programs. There are close to two million people in this country who have been standing on the sidelines and not participating. As a result they are losing any confidence in the system and there is no hope, optimism or promise.
It is more than simply an economic problem. It is a very major social problem, shameful social problem that has not been addressed by this Budget. What promise does the Budget provide? My colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) put these figures before the House and I think they should be repeated. The projection is for 1.4 million people unemployed this year, 1.3 million unemployed in 1985, 1.2 million unemployed in 1986 and 1.1 million unemployed in 1987. That certainly does not provide much faith, hope and confidence or do very much to raise the level of pride and dignity of these people who have been unemployed and standing on the sidelines. Those figures are simply not sufficient and one must really question their accuracy. While there was to be a deficit of approximately $11.8 billion in this fiscal year, there is a deficit of $31.5 billion. The Government is out by $20 billion. It is just a small mistake. It shows that we cannot rely upon the projections that are made in this Budget.
What hope does the Budget give to the thousands upon thousands of small businesses that have gone bankrupt over the last four years or to the farmers and fishermen? In 1983, 488 farmers went bankrupt, which is a 400 per cent increase from the year 1979. What hope is there for those people in this budget? Even that does not tell the true story because there is probably another 10 per cent who have voluntarily liquidated or gone out of business. There is nothing in the Budget to inspire confidence, hope and promise for farmers and fishermen.
More than 100,000 Canadians have individually declared bankruptcy since the Government was returned to office four years ago. What hope is there for these poor individuals who have lost their homes, their business, their jobs and all the material goods they have owned? This is a human tragedy. These are not simply human statistics; it is a tragedy.
The Speech from the Throne is really a litany of things that should be done but will not be done. It is an acknowledgment of the fact that this government has been a failure over the last four years. As I said and I repeat, there is nothing in this Budget to restore hope, promise and confidence, or to restore the pride and dignity of the people who have been standing on the sidelines for far too long in this land of ours.
The only positive development that has occurred during that last little while is the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to resign. In my part of the country this day would be referred to as "day five" of recovery because most Canadians in my part of the country are relieved that the Prime Minister has decided to pack it in. Let me read some of the headlines from the western papers. The first one reads: "Happy PET packs it in". The headline in The Edmonton Sun

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
reads, "Bye Bye. End of Trudeau era is greeted with relief'. That has inspired some confidence, about the only confidence that has emanated from this Government in the last little while.
Canadians are rejoicing today because they see a new era on the horizon. The landscape has changed somewhat. I think that is all for the good. I should say, however, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot blame the current Prime Minister for all of the difficulties, particularly the derision, contempt and disregard he has held for western Canada. The Prime Minister did not do it alone. We know what the current Minister of Finance and former Minister of Energy did for western Canada when he brought in the odious and pernicious National Energy Program which wiped out hundreds of thousands of jobs and small businesses.
We remember the former finance minister, Mr. Donald Macdonald, when he was Energy Minister and the attacks that he levelled at western Canada. We also know it was Mr. Turner, who is now aspiring to be the new leader, who really set us on this road to huge deficit financing. It is interesting to note that all Liberal Party members across the country are now rallying around Mr. Turner. It is strange to see them rallying around a quitter, but that is the way it is. Say anything, do anything to get into power; that is the most important thing.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) came to Edmonton last week and lectured Liberals there. As reported in The Edmonton Journal, he said:
-Alberta should welcome the collapse of the boom because the megaprojects were "too big, too difficult to manage, too difficult to finance and too risky".
Implicit in the Minister's statement is the fact that he is suggesting Albertans should be grateful for our 14 per cent unemployment rate, a crashing real estate market, and that we should be grateful for the bankruptcies, the foreclosures and the shattered dreams which have stripped away billions of dollars of revenue. This revenue has been transferred from the west into other areas, particularly into pork barrelling programs. Liberals who attended that meeting cheered him. They should have hissed him out of the room. That NEP constituted the downfall of the only engine of economic growth and development existing in the country at that time.
We must make sure that the current Prime Minister does not take all the blame for the failures of this Government over the last 15 years because Liberals were all by his side cheering him along. Let us take a look at the trial and error policies the Liberals have imposed upon us. It has been a policy of "impose and then back off'. What about FIRA? It was heralded as great to have, but when it was obvious that FIRA was destroying investor confidence in this country in undermining the integrity of our economy, the Liberals backed off. What about the National Energy Program? Every time this Minister of Energy announces a change, he is heralded as doing a great thing for the energy sector. But the Liberals destroyed the energy sector in the first place.
The Liberals have a policy of destroy and then restore. The Liberals are doing the same thing with VIA. Look at their
defence policy. Look at what they have done to NATO. The Liberals have cut back on NATO expenditures by 50 per cent. Now there is great interest to restore the commitment to NATO. What about the reduction in the defence budget? We did not see anybody in the Liberal Party coming to the defence of the three prairie provinces, which were going to be relegated to second-class status under the original amending formula that was advanced. There is no question that there is more to the Liberal Party than simply the Prime Minister of the day. There have been Ministers, like the former Minister of Mul-ticulturalism, who have suggested there is an attitudinal problem with the Liberal government of manipulation and ballyhoo, and to mention the activists who have said that the Party is governed by non-accountable, non-legitimate, non-elected members of the Party for manipulative electoral shams, and that the polls, propaganda and patronage are orchestrated by a small elite.
That is why we are in trouble today, that is why there is mistrust, and that is why this Government has no credibility. It really does not matter whether you change leaders or not. The problem is so entrenched and the attitudinal problem is so immersed within the Liberal Party that the only thing that can turn the country around is an election and a brand-new government. Canada needs a new government that will create jobs as its number one priority, that will build upon our natural strengths, that will restore the dynamic prospects of the agriculture, the fisheries, the mining, and the energy sector. We need a government that will turn those natural advantages into economic advantages. Until we have a government that is committed to doing that, we will stagnate and falter.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the comments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and his reference to what is happening south of the border. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we in Canada should go along with policies that leave over 40 per cent of our people living below the poverty line, as is the situation in the United States? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should not lower the number of those who are living below the poverty line? We have been trying to assist those people through this Budget.
Is the Hon. Member suggesting we should destroy our social safety net that we have for these people? We want to try to lower the number of people living below the poverty line so that fewer are caught in the transition taking place in the economy. The Hon. Member for Vegreville does not mention that expenditures in relation to GNP are 33 per cent lower than in 1979. I believe it is 9.2 per cent this year compared to 13.9 per cent for 1979.
The Hon. Member makes remarks about the "odious" National Energy Program being responsible for the slow-down. What does the Hon. Member propose we should do with natural gas in the west, where approximately 11,000 wells in Alberta are shut in due to lack of markets? The Canadian government removed the natural gas and gas liquids tax as of February 1, 1984. What has the Alberta Government done in
March 5, 1984

this regard? Has it lowered its royalties on gas to make it more marketable?
Finally, what has happened with the Ontario Energy Board? Has it approved a lower industrial rate to get this gas moving and to create cash flow for companies? If the National Energy Program is so odious, why in 1983 were over 4,000 oil wells-I am not talking about gas wells-drilled and completed in Canada? That is the highest number ever on record. The previous best year was 1980 when there were 2,600 wells drilled. Can he explain that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has given me an opportunity to make another speech.


Mr. Axworthy:: I hope it is better than the first one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I regret I did not get into transportation issues in my speech. I had fully intended to, but I noticed that the Minister removed himself from the Chamber during the time I was speaking.
I did not set out to compare Canada with the United States. However, the Hon. Member gives me that opportunity. There is certainly much more buoyancy, optimism and confidence in the United States than there is in this country with respect to employment prospects. The fact of the matter is that the United States has turned its economy around. Once again it is becoming a very dynamic and vigorous economy. The U.S. does not find itself in the same situation. Its unemployment rate is roughly around 8 per cent and its inflation rate is down. From the standpoint of providing the kind of stability required for future economic growth, the Americans have certainly carved out a pretty good path on the road to recovery. I sense that the policy of this Government is primarily to rely upon the anticipated recovery in the United States. That certainly does not represent economic leadership.
With respect to the deficit, if we compared the size of the two economies and they were on a comparable basis, we should be looking at a deficit in the vicinity of $18 billion rather than $31 billion with some prospect of it levelling off. We cannot believe those figures because they have been inaccurate over the last few years.
I am surprised the Hon. Member defends blindly the National Energy Program. He has been very closely involved in the agricultural community. He knows what it means to small family businesses and small family farms. The tragedy of the National Energy Program is that it destroyed that sector of the energy enterprise-the small operator, the small Canadian firm and the small family-operated business. I am not referring to those who became involved in the energy business or the surplus-related business as a result of the boom. I am talking about people who have been involved for some 10 years to 15 years. Their hopes and dreams were frittered away.
The energy policy was formulated to get even with the multinational firms. Foreign-owned oil firms are doing very well, but it is the Canadian ones that are suffering. We have
The Budget-Mr. Mazankowski
organizations such as Sulpetro, Dome and Turbo and all the little guys who are in business serving the oil industry. The Hon. Member should go into Red Deer, Lloydminster, or Drayton Valley to see the impact of the National Energy Program. That is where the difficulty arose.
If the Government would acknowledge the fact that it made a mistake, there would be some satisfaction and some move to restore confidence in that sector; but it simply continues arrogantly and stubbornly in the same direction and says, "It is too bad but we were right", and at the same time corrects its mistakes. It is policy by trial and error which has been devastating, damaging and certainly not in the best interests of individual Canadians or of the Canadian economy in general.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He quite rightly condemned the Government's economic policies, but I did not hear him elaborate on what sort of approach the Conservatives would take to the economy. However, I heard him laud and praise American economic policies and their results. Does this mean that a Conservative government, should there ever be one, would follow Reaganite, neo-conservative economic policies which would involve cuts in social services and continued unemployment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It would take me another 20 minutes to outline all the things we would do. Other speakers have done so, but unfortunately I got caught up in the many things that are bad with this administration and the prospect that things will not get any better.
The fact of the matter is that jobs are a number one priority. Certainly the United States has done a much better job than Canada in terms of job creation. We would do that for starters. Then we would be able to restore the dignity and pride of the two million Canadians who are standing on the sidelines and do not have any opportunity.
Unless we generate some new wealth in the country, we will be unable to provide the necessary funding and resources to maintain the social net about which the NDP and the Liberals talk but are not sure who will pay for it. We will restore some confidence in our basic industries-agriculture, mining, forestry and fisheries, but agriculture particularly.
The Government talks about how we should improve our competitive ability in agriculture, but every time a farmer fuels his tractor or combine, 62 cents of the cost goes into federal coffers. Our fuel prices are higher than those in the United States. Certainly that makes it difficult for producers to compete effectively. Those are the kinds of things which have to be remedied.
We have a $2 billion trade deficit in tourism. Why cannot we do something to reverse that? These are positive things which would stimulate growth and generate new wealth to pay for the programs that are in place. No one is talking about scaling down the social welfare net. However, if we do not generate the wealth we need to sustain those programs, it will have to be one alternative. There is another alternative. A Conservative government would generate the kind of confi-

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Lambert
dence, enthusiasm and enterprising spirit which would allow the country to forge ahead so that it can achieve its great potential.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). In his remarks he talked about returning the industry to private enterprise. Did he mean Petro-Canada, Suncor and those socialistic enterprises under the control of the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario?
Also he talked about the recovery in the United States. Is he aware of the terrible layoffs which are occurring in the United States steel industry? Because of those layoffs, companies such as Iron Ore of Canada have actually closed down operations and towns in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would rather talk about the problems, issues and proposed solutions within our own country because we have tremendous opportunities of which we have failed to take advantage. We have some natural strength which we have frittered away. For example, we failed to turn our energy advantage into an economic one and we failed to turn our tourism advantage into an economic one.


Rodney Edward Murphy: What about Suncor?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will get to that. I listened to the Hon. Member when he asked his question, but if he is saying that he wants to continue the Canadian Ownership Special Charge to further socialize industry ad hoc without any controls or accountability, I will meet him in the election campaign on that one. There is $900 million in a slush fund which was to be used to buy out foreign multinational companies. It is now being used as a political patronage porkbarrel. If the Hon. Member is in favour of that, as I suggest he is, I am sure Canadians would have a different view. I would certainly debate that on the hustings with him at any time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in 20 years the Liberal administration has increased the annual deficit five times the total Budget of 1963. When Walter Gordon became Minister of Finance in 1963, his total Budget, which incidentally provided for a small deficit relative to today, was a mere $6.3 billion. Now we wonder at the equanimity with which this administration since the days of John Turner has piled up deficits so that we have an accumulated deficit of close to $160 billion. That is the problem with which the Budget did not deal.
One can agree with the effect of some things in the Budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has at least deigned to look upon certain problems. He has taken certain corrective measures. We do not know how effective they will be.
For example, the Minister boasted about how he was simplifying taxation for small business. He did not do that from any Government initiative. I invite Hon. Members and anyone else who is interested to look at the testimony before the Economy
Affairs Committee in the fall of 1982. It dealt with the horrible mess of the proposals in 1980, 1981 and 1982, which had not been passed into law, under the general heading of income tax, as proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when he was Minister of Finance.
There are only two Liberals officially in the Chamber at the present time. I can see others who recall the testimony from organizations representing all parts of Canada, particularly that dealing with the complexity of taxation for small business. The proposals were going to add some hundreds of pages to the income tax text, not only statutory changes but regulations. No one knew what they said.
We have a peculiar system with regard to drafting legislation. A Minister such as the Minister of Finance makes certain proposals and they are put in the Ways and Means Motion, which is the general thrust or intent of the budget for that ministry. The statute changes and the regulations are written in the drafting section of the Department of Justice. There is a certain philosophy that applies there with regard to writing statutes. The net result is, as was admitted before the committee, that not even the tax officials in the Department of Finance really know what is meant by the text that parliamentarians are supposed to consider and pass.
Such is the system here that a tame government majority does as it is told. As George Bain said in The Globe and Mail of last Saturday, it almost makes you feel as though parliamentarians are nobodies. They are supposed to consider and pass legislation. We have a Government that presses for closure, allotted time. The past several years have been nothing but a scandal with regard to the allocation of time on income tax legislation. Not 5 per cent of the Government members understand what is being passed, and not many more elsewhere, because the language is so difficult. The Minister says this time he is going to remove a good deal of the verbiage and the requirements of that verbiage with regard to small business. We will see when the legislation is brought forward. It may be that the cure will be worse than the disease.
The Minister takes a bow toward farmers by introducing a very narrow amendment with regard to capital gains on the sale of farm land, allowing up to $240,000 of increase in sale price over purchase and in capital improvements, providing the farmer-not within the farm family group, but the owner- operated the farm for ten years, so that that may be invested in the RRSP. An investment in an RRSP implies that there is a fair amount of cash to be invested in an appropriate plan. The 1971 rule will not apply, but we do not know how far that ceiling will be lifted.
How long are the payments to be allowed? I ask the Parliamentary Secretary because he has some knowledge of farm financing problems. Are the limitations going to be ten years on any mortgage or agreement of sale, or as the previous Budget provided? Thank God that was eliminated. The Department of Finance was wedded to limiting any credit contract, such as an agreement of sale or a mortgage, to five years. Whether the payments had been received or not, whether interest had been received or not, whether capital gains
March 5, 1984

portions had been received or not, the taxpayer had to pony up in entirety.
There is a philosophy in the Taxation Division of the Department of Finance that as soon as a dollar has been earned, whether it has been paid or not, the Government has a right to a portion of it, and it wants it now. Of course, it is not entitled to it. The taxpayer does not exist for the benefit of the Government. The Government exists for the benefit of the taxpayers and the citizens of this country. That is the difference between the present Government philosophy and the Liberal Party, and the Official Opposition. We do not believe that people exist for the benefit of government. Government exists for the benefit of the people.
The Government must also spend the money that it sees it can get. It organizes programs that are easy to sell to gullible voters and then turns around and taxes those programs like it is doing with the petroleum acquisition tax. That is a plain grab. That petroleum capital assets acquisition levy has produced far more than what was required even though those assets were acquired at a scandalously high price.
The same goes for PetroCan, the so-called ideal of the Government and of the people who think that PetroCan is good for Canada. It is paying rates for drill ships and supply ships and for acquisition that is far in excess of the market and it is paying daily rates that are far in excess of the current market. However, because PetroCan is a Crown corporation, it does not have to worry about who will foot the bill. The gullible taxpayer will offer his or her wallet when supporting such programs.
The policy of the Government and the policy of PetroCan vis-a-vis the Canadian public is dishonest. PetroCan behaves in the crassest of manners. The public press alleges, that the standard of behaviour of PetroCan is similar to the behaviour of some foreign corporations like Imperial Oil and Exxon which have been in the country for 50 years or more drilling for oil. As well, there are the opportunists who want to cash in on the hard work and blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of people in the petroleum industry who are trying to make a go of things.
In one fell stroke, this administration, in 1980 and 1981, put an end to a good industry. This industry was working throughout the four western provinces. The administration did not realize it but at the same time, of course, it sure put an end to a lot of the Ontario and Quebec industries which supplied goods to the petroleum industry. Ask automobile workers how many fewer vehicles were sold annually as a result of this administration. I see an Hon. Member over there who is shaking his head. We know this for a fact. I am talking about trucks, automobiles, bulldozers, front-end loaders and the like. The market from western Manitoba all the way to the Pacific coast went straight downhill.


An Hon. Member:: American automobiles.
The Budget-Mr. Lambert


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. When the Hon. Member says American automobiles, he does not know what he is talking about. However, we do know what the decline in sales was and we know the number of automobile agencies that went broke and the number of auction sales of surplus equipment that went on. This all came about as a result of the National Energy Program.
The last point I wish to return to and really dwell upon, Mr. Speaker, is the question of capital gains on farm lands. It is now almost impossible for the owner of farm lands who faces a disposition either by will or by sale to determine whether capital gains taxes are to be paid or whether those taxes can be postponed. Those taxes can never be escaped because of every relieving provision implemented since the first one which was introduced by John Turner back in 1973 or 1974 after the imposition of capital gains on farm lands came about in 1971. That happened in spite of our express vote. I put forward an amendment which would eliminate any question of capital gains on the sale of farm lands for farming purposes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How did the NDP vote?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They came along with us on that one, as I recall. We had tax department interpretations which were just as ruthless as those of today. If a wheat farm were to be changed into a beef farm or if a farm were to be changed from one on which poultry was the principal occupation to one on which the production of honey was to be the principal occupation, it would not be deemed to be a similar purpose and would therefore be subject to full capital gains tax.
We now have all sorts of farming corporations which have been encouraged by the Department of Agriculture but are taxed by the Department of National Revenue. In the past there could not be devolution by will from a father to a son, a married daughter or a widow without attracting capital gains. Now those capital gains taxes are deferred one generation. At this time, this relief provides that if a farmer wills his property to his son and the son should die without leaving any direct heirs, the land, under the usual succession, could revert back to the mother and still be allowed as one of the deferrals.
Frankly, this situation is so expensive to the farming industry of the country. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been siphoned off from the capital that is required to own a farm in this country. No wonder we are having difficulties setting up young farmers who want to buy land. One of the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the sale price of a farm is always inflated by the amount of the expected capital gains tax. The vendor naturally tries to protect himself or herself and so the price goes up.
The Government has sucked those hundreds of millions of dollars which would have served as capital within the industry out of the industry. This capital could have been used to buy machinery, to build more buildings on the property, to acquire more land or to put more land into production. No, the ever-hungry, blood sucking operation that is conducted by the Government in order to finance plans that it announces or wants to announce without any idea of where the money will
1750

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Lambert
come from is one of the reasons we have this tax. It would be far better, Mr. Speaker, to scrap the capital gains tax on lands used for farming purposes and give some priority to supporting the agriculture industry in the country, an industry which is facing such a tough time today and will as well in the years to come.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I noted the comments of the Hon. Member and would remind him that prior to the imposition of the capital gains tax, representations were made by many farm organizations for the removal of the previous level of estate tax. As an alternative to that, they suggested a high capital gains tax. Little did they guess that we were heading into the high inflationary spiral of the 1970s.
The Hon. Member referred to Petro-Canada paying rates in excess of current market rates for supplies for drill ships, et cetera. Could he tell me if these are for exploration taking place in Canadian offshore regions or are they being paid by Petro-Canada International, which has formed a joint venture with British Petroleum to develp huge resources in the China Sea? It has contracts for Canadian technology and will use smaller Canadian companies, some from Alberta. This will provide jobs for Canadians. Do these rates reflect a higher level of risk in exploration work due to Canadian climatic conditions if they are in the Canadian offshore regions, or a higher level of risk in internationl waters as they work toward the development of these resources with British Petroleum in the contract with China?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Hon. Member got the kind of misinformation which would lead him to ask such questions. I am talking about the cost of ships PetroCan is using off the coast of Newfoundland. Newfoundland is no different from the North Sea as far as danger is concerned. Drill ships have been lost over there due to storms as well. I will find the article from which I got the information and let the Hon. Member have it. It refers to the rates being paid to Wolff, for instance, who is the darling friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), for the use of ships off the East Coast.
As far as what the Hon. Member has said about working with British Petroleum, I would remind him that this is a contract for work in the future off the coast of Nigeria and at some time, perhaps, off the coast of China. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell me that there is one piece of equipment belonging to PetroCan at work in those two fields. I seem to remember that PetroCan was going to develop Canadian resources, for the benefit of Canadians. If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me what is the benefit to Canadians of a Canadian Crown corporation working at very high rates in Nigeria and China, I should like to know. We will not sell one barrel of oil to them at any time. How is that deemed to be within the purposes of that great God-saving operation known as PetroCan, the thing that the Liberal Party used to steal the 1980 election?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I should like to suggest to the hon. gentleman that the Canadian operations being carried out in Senegal and Gambia reflect the high-risk international situation in those areas. The risk is due to international uncertainty. I would also suggest to him that if we look at the geographical location of PetroCan operations in the offshore of eastern Canada, we will find that there are areas with a higher degree of risk than others. For example, the area of Hibernia where the ice packs sometimes come down involves a higher cost than in other areas.
I would be delighted to receive the article to which the Hon. Member referred. I will follow the matter up and get all the information required to identify where this is taking place.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks very critically of Petro-Canada. It is difficult for us to get any reading on the policies of the Conservative Party and what it would do if it gained office. I wonder if the Hon. Member is saying that if his Party got into office it would privatize Petro-Canada. Would it sell it off? Would this apply also to Suncor, which belongs to the Ontario Conservative Government? Would the same policy apply to other public corporations, whether they be CBC or any other? What is the Hon. Member's attitude toward Petro-Canada? Does he mean that a Conservative government formed by his Party would sell it off?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this question is merely a reflection of the oversimplification of particular questions by the NDP. Petro-Canada is here with us. We cannot tear it down, there are no two ways about that, any more than we can tear down that 54-storey white elephant in Calgary which serves as the central palace for PetroCan. It was built with the Hon. Member's dollars but there is no need for it in Calgary.
Be that as it may, at the present time Petro-Canada is not operating a well-run, competitive, private enterprise. It can afford a lot of excesses by reason of some of the concessions it obtains from government. Incidentally, the Hon. Member is way off base regarding Suncor. The Ontario Government owns only a piece of Suncor, which was entirely privately owned previously. It should be remembered that Suncor is a different oil company from Syncrude, but perhaps the Hon. Member is confused in that regard.
I am not the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, but I have my choices. It would be a good thing for the Canadian public if we axed many of these Crown corporations on the head; on the other hand, there are some that are useful. While I am critical of part of the operations of the CBC, for instance, I find that the level of programming, particularly in radio, is something in which I can take pleasure. But I am not going to be held responsible by my answers in this type of debate for the total policies of this Party, any more than I can hold the Hon. Member accountable for the policies of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Debate.
March 5, 1984


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twiilingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a few words to say about the subject under debate today, the Budget presented recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). It is basically a good Budget, from three standpoints. First, there were no new tax increases; second, it contained additional benefits for those Canadians who need them most, namely, our elderly; third, and perhaps most important, it retains a Liberal attitude of not bowing to Conservative pressures to cut existing programs.
Let me deal briefly, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of major areas of conflict, general misunderstanding and, I believe, political confusion as far as my part of this country is concerned. The first fallacy, pontificated daily over and over by certain provincial governments and certain Members opposite, is that the federal Government has and is still cutting back on cost-share programs and direct transfers to provinces like Newfoundland. That is the first fallacy.
Let me take an appropriate example of the province with the highest unemployment, Newfoundland. This year, 1984, we will see the largest amount of federal transfers to the Government of Newfoundland. Transfer payments to the Government of Newfoundland will increase this year by some $100 million, as was the case last year. Equalization payments and transfer payments have been growing by leaps and bounds. It becomes an interesting formula and somewhat of an enigma if you listen to the provincial politicians who claim that just the opposite is true. For example, each time the price of oil went up over the last few years, provinces like Newfoundland received increased equalization payments. One dollar a barrel amounted to something like $20 million added in equalization at the end of the year.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, upon examining this entire formula on equalization, I believe it can be termed logically to a certain degree as taxation by the back door. One never hears the Newfoundland Government, or any other government of what we would call an economically depressed province, criticize the increases in the price of oil and gas for that very simple reason. There seems to be a social pact between all governments on this issue which I, personally, Mr. Speaker, strongly disagree with.
If we look at the established programs funding, or the formula of general increases under the Canada Assistance Plan, the same steady increase has been seen over the years. But how disguised and politically shifty that formula has become. For example, Mr. Speaker, the great debate in Newfoundland today concerns the cost of operating hospitals and homes for the elderly. A commission studying the question of homes for the elderly has just presented a report. I witnessed recently the presentation of a brief to a standing committee in Ottawa by the provincial minister of health for the Newfoundland Government. The brief said that the federal transfers for hospitals and homes for the elderly had decreased to 37 per cent of the total provincial budget in those areas. However, as was pointed out in the committee, the actual figures showed
The Budget-Mr. Baker
that 53 per cent of the entire hospital budget of the Newfoundland Government, and a full 60 per cent of the operating costs of senior citizens' homes, nursing homes and homes for chronic care, came from the federal Government.
The question I asked at the time, Mr. Speaker, was why the confusion? It was discovered that these transfers were made directly to the provincial Department of Finance and went into the consolidated revenue fund. The provincial minister of health could therefore say he did not see the money for hospital costs and the provincial minister of social services, who runs senior citizen and nursing homes, could say he did not see 60 per cent of his budget coming from the federal Government.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the most regressive piece of legislation ever passed in this House was when we decided to give each provincial government block funding; in other words, one big cheque to cover all matters involving cash transfers to provincial governments. The provincial governments receive the money and spend it as general revenue. The big lie comes in, Mr. Speaker, when they say, as the provincial minister of social services said recently: "The Government of Newfoundland has to totally finance the operation of senior citizens' homes". These transfers to the provincial treasury are for specific purposes and to make up for revenues which a poor province cannot receive. However, it is downright dishonest not to recognize that these cash transfers are being made and obviously are not being spent in the intended areas.
The provincial governments want to protect this block funding principle because it leaves them with more manoeuvrability. However, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that federal money, making up over half of the costs of running hospitals in Newfoundland, should be transferred directly to the provincial department of health, not to the provincial finance department, and federal funds earmarked specifically for the operation of homes for senior citizens, nursing homes and chronic care homes should go directly to the provincial department of social services and not to the provincial department of finance.
I would like to say a few words now, Mr. Speaker, about jobs and direct job creation as it relates to the federal Government, this Budget and unemployment. The Province of Newfoundland which I represent is going through the worst economic time in our history. Nothing is opening. Everything is closing down.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Except Mr. Peckford's mouth.


George Baker: My hon. friend says except the Premier's mouth. I must admit it would be some source of revenue if we were to tax each speech he makes.
Our three major industries in the Province of Newfoundland, forestry, mining and the fisheries, are in desperate straits. Paper mills are closing down. Mines are closing down. Fish plants are going bankrupt all over the province. That is the scene in Newfoundland today. What does the provincial government do in this state of desperation? It throws up its hands and says: "There is nothing we can do". But there is

March 5, 1984
something it can do, Mr. Speaker. There is something it could have done over the years but did not. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we could say that basically the situation in Newfoundland is the fault of our political system which we cannot do anything about. It cannot be corrected. It is still probably the best system in the world. But an extremely political government always looks to the short term, to the next election. It gives people a dream, and in this case it is an offshore hope, and then lets the people wither in despair onshore. There is no planning, no long-term employment measures, and no immediate solutions to anything.
Should I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a visit to the Indian reserves in the far northern part of the Kenora-Rainy River constituency. One of the items raised with me by individuals and band Councils was the status of Section 97 of the Indian Act. This matter was raised particularly by the North Cariboo Lake Band at Round Lake. This Section has permitted the bands to hold votes to determine whether or not a reserve would be wet or dry. It permitted the Minister of Indian Affairs to have the final say in the matter.
A year ago a Manitoba court struck down Section 97, claiming it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since that time havoc has reigned in northern Ontario reserves with some areas continuing to enforce Section 97, others not, and others laying charges under the Ontario Liquor Licensing Act.
Alcoholism in northern Ontario reserves has been called an epidemic. This was said by the Deputy Minister, Doctor Lyle Black, who is in charge of the Medical Services Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. That Branch is responsible for providing medical health services directly or indirectly to Indian bands. Of all the diseases which the Indian people are subject to, alcoholism is probably the worst. One of the weapons against this disease has been struck down by the courts.
In the name of those people who-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to him has expired.



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, one industry which received little attention in the Budget was tourism. The current figures on the travel deficit give very little encouragement. Canadians travelling outside the country spent a record $2,087 billion more last year than foreign visitors spent here. This deficit, which will worsen the country's balance of payments position, is up from the previous record of $1.2 billion posted in 1982.
This country earned $3.8 billion from international travel in 1983, up 3.5 per cent from 1982. During the same period, Canadians travelling abroad increased their payments by 18.6 per cent to $5.9 billion. Canadians are consistently lured out of the country by cheap gasoline prices in the U.S., and a favourable exchange rate in other countries. This loss also costs Canada an estimated 100,000 jobs and, Mr. Speaker, that hurts. When will the Government give tourism the breaks it needs to improve its position?



THE PRIME MINISTER


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks today on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) retirement I shall be prudent.


Mr. Chretien:: It is snowing outside.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am mindful that there is blizzard going on in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Last time this happened, Mr. Speaker, the eulogy proved to be somewhat premature. Accordingly, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and wish him well, but I propose to do so on the instalment plan. As the weeks unfold, and if the Prime Minister has not unretired, I will become progressively fulsome and complimentary. Should the situation change, all bets are off.
The campaign for the Liberal leadership and the Prime Minister's worthy succession is already giving signs of being very close and exciting. It looks as if it will be a nip and tuck battle right up until the bitter end-on March 16.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 5, 1984


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because of the Prime Minister's deep concern for policy and wanting to know where people stand on issues, a very appropriate concern because he has always wanted to know where people stand on issues, I know he must be comforted by the clear-cut positions some leading candidates have adopted over the years. Because of the Prime Minister's determination to avoid any right wing bias affecting his Party, he must be consoled to learn that policy making will now be removed from the back rooms of the Liberal Party and brought right up front, over smoked salmon and caviare at one of Toronto's best restaurants.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On September 12, Mr. Speaker, in my first remarks to this House I said that the Prime Minister was, in my judgment, an individual of accomplishment and class. I have had no reason over the past six months to change my view. I would never have voted for the Prime Minister, but neither would I have remonstrated vigorously with anyone who did.
As I am in the process of learning, the leadership of a national political Party is no small task. I have not yet had the experience, and the trials and tribulations, of doing so for 16 months. That the Prime Minister has done so on behalf of his Party for 16 years is a remarkable tribute to his talents and his unquestioned love of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: All the more so, Mr. Speaker, because the Prime Minister for 16 years has led a Party which Lord Birkenhead once described as akin to Noah's ark, "filled with all manner of strange beasts and wandering aimlessly all over the face of the earth".

Mr. Speaker, to those of us from Quebec, this is an important moment. There is no doubt about the sincerity of the Prime Minister in insisting on increasing the number of Francophones involved in Canada's decision-making apparatus.
No one can deny the energy and feeling with which he has always defined and defended his vision of a more bilingual Canada, more tolerant in its attitudes to minorities, either linguistic or otherwise.
This noble legacy will be defended with enthusiasm by his successors, in the interests of a united Canada.
From the outset I took part in regrouping the "No" forces in Quebec at the time of the Referendum, and I shall never forget the role played by the Prime Minister at that historic moment. The Referendum night was a great moment in the history of Quebec and Canada. In the future, anyone looking back on these events through the perspective of history must recognize the vital role played by the Prime Minister of Canada in the final outcome.
Tributes to Mr. Trudeau
It was the challenge of his career, and he met this challenge with courage and dignity.

One is always uncertain as to the ultimate judgment of history. Irrespective of that view, I am confident there will be little disagreement, Mr. Speaker-at least I hope-with the following personal assessment. He was a strong leader and an honourable man who cared for his country, saw its future threatened, and sought to make it right. When he leaves this Chamber he will do so with the scars of vigorous, democratic debate, and the memories of hopes dashed, and dreams fulfilled. He will leave with honour unsullied, and with the warmest good wishes of all to enjoy the pleasures of a family he loves so very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I speak today on behalf of the New Democratic Party and on behalf of our Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Unfortunately our Leader is in British Columbia and unable to return in time, because he would have wanted to speak.
I reread with interest the last goodbye statements that were made, and I could not help but think to myself: "I hope I don't say anything here today that will prompt you to reconsider." I must say that 16 years of leadership are a very long time. In those 16 years the United States has seen five Presidents, and other countries have had many leaders. It is an accomplishment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can look back on with pride.
We are much too close to the scene here in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, to be able to understand either the importance or the significance of the contribution that the Prime Minister has made. I will, as I must, leave that to the historians to decide.
I look back though, to 1968 and the years that followed, and I think of the varied presentations of self that we saw from the Prime Minister-the flower child of the 1960s, complete with rose and sandals, and the vision of a just society. It is a vision that I think we all subscribe to, and a vision that we all hoped would come to pass but, I might say, eluded us somewhat. However, it is still valid and still must be pursued. From there he went to the gunslinger, thumbs tucked in belt, threatening and challenging the country to rise to aspirations that the Prime Minister himself had set; and on to the new Father of Confederation seeking that compromise, that common ground, that would make Canada a viable entity as it entered into the new world politics.
I wonder how the Prime Minister will be remembered. I was thinking this morning, as I trudged through the snow-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I want to say that when I was told our Leader would not be here I had a sauna, looked up, and said: "Oh God, why me?"

March 5, 1984
Tributes to Mr. Trudeau


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: However, I think the Prime Minister will be remembered for his burning commitment to a Quebec within Canada, a Quebec which was understood by the rest of Canada, and a Quebec which understood the aspirations of the rest of Canada. I think he will be remembered for the fact that he was prepared to fight to achieve that vision by going into Quebec and to the rest of Canada to place, quite clearly and unequivocally, his views before the people who must, out of necessity, make the decisions on what this country is going to be. To this point, the measure of success of that goal is still difficult to be judged but, if one can judge it, it can be done on the basis that Canada is still together. Given the events of the recent past, that in itself is an accomplishment.
I think the Prime Minister would agree with us that the issue of federalism remains. Perhaps the focus has changed somewhat from the time when he first established where the country was going, but maybe he leaves us all a challenge, not only those of us in politics but those of us outside of politics, with regard to what our country will be a year or two from now. Will we be able to meet the aspirations of the various regions of the country? Will we be able to come to grips with the challenges and the solutions to the challenges of those who reside in the West who feel that they are not understood, of those who reside in the Maritimes who feel they are not understood, or of the native peoples of Canada who struggle continually for a place constitutionally guaranteed? Will we be able to establish a place within our country for the northerners of Canada who want to participate fully? That is the challenge that we must take up, along with the ongoing challenge of how Quebec and francophone or anglophone Quebecers fit within the greater future of the country.
It is always difficult to find appropriate words, but, as an aside, I may say I looked through the newspapers, and there are a couple of jobs available. I noticed them and I thought they were appropriate. There is one job advertisement here with the title "Super Salesperson". It states that a national manufacturer of established automotive and industrial product lines requires a sales person with five years' minimum experience. This is the interesting point, "travel 60 per cent of the time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -all expenses paid. Bilingualism an asset". The one problem may be the Toronto headquarters, but we may be able to work that out. With the pension, I think the $65,000 might be suitable.
There is another job that I thought looked appealing, perhaps, and had a similar resume requirement. It is at the King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. It provides free return air tickets annually. There is furnished accommodation. When you leave public housing, you will be able to go there. There is a monthly transport allowance, a relocation allowance, and then an end of service gratuity so that, 16 years from now, perhaps you can retire again.
We wish the Prime Minister well. We hope that his retirement is all that he would want it to be, and that he looks back with a sense of accomplishment and pride to the things he was able to do for the country that I undoubtedly know he loves. Bon voyage!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying on November 27, 1979, before I was so rudely interrupted-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I rise very briefly to salute the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as a formidable adversary, and as a man of extraordinary personal force, whose mark upon the country will exceed that of most of the great leaders of the nation.
He and I have disagreed-indeed we have disagreed more vigorously since I last bade him farewell than we had before that-but despite those disagreements I cannot overlook, as can no one in the House or the country, the extraordinary personal qualities of the man.
I do not want to go on at great length, but I admire particularly that he is a man who, despite the natural constraints of leadership and public life, was prepared to take great risks on behalf of views he held deeply, and was able to use his remarkable talents to enlist so many others in his cause.
I have never pretended to agree with his fundamental vision of the country, but I certainly have admired his ability not only to pursue that vision but to persuade so many that he was correct, and to enlist so many in his cause. The Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal has had an extraordinary and distinguished career in this country and in the House.
I am pleased to see him gone or going again, and I wish him most sincerely-

And I must do so in the second official language, since I believe that without him, without Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the status of French-speaking Canadians would not be what it is today. In this respect at least, he has changed our country. [English \
It is a much better country for his Prime Ministry, in that regard at least and I salute him for it. I wish him success and satisfaction in whatever career he chooses ahead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be appropriate to say a few words on this historic occasion, a momentous occasion certainly for the Liberal Party and for those of us who have worked so closely
March 5, 1984

with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over his 16 years as Leader of our Party and as Prime Minister of Canada.
The Prime Minister was good enough to call me before he made his decision public last Wednesday. I was in my constituency office in Port Hawkesbury where there were many people in to see me. I interrupted my work to take the call from the Prime Minister. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that even though I continued to see the rest of my constituents for several hours, my mind was constantly on the implications of the decision that had been conveyed to me by the Prime Minister. I could only reflect at that time what a formidable political leader he is, and what a brilliant Prime Minister he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Hon. Member from Hamilton asked how the Prime Minister will be remembered. He will be remembered for many things, and it is not for me to detail all those controversial, difficult, and profound issues with which he has successfully grappled during his period as Prime Minister. But I know he will be remembered as a political leader who dominated the public life of Canada all during his public career. He will be remembered as a leader who dominated the House of Commons and during that period had no peer in the ability to carry an argument. That is an admirable quality for those of us who appreciate the value of Parliament.
The Prime Minister worked in caucus. Over all those years he held the support and affection of members of that caucus. As well he held the support and affection of his colleagues in the Cabinet.
I believe the Prime Minister did make a good decision for himself and for the Liberal Party which he has served so effectively, but I cannot help but have a deep feeling of sadness at the decision, and I cannot help but have a very deep pride in having been associated with him all during those 16 years and having lived through the ups and downs of political life.
The Prime Minister's career, I think, can be a model for anyone, a career of dedication, personal tranquility and integrity. 1 think Canadians have every reason to be proud of him, as I am and certainly as every Liberal member is on this side of the House.
1 spoke on November 21, 1979, also. 1 want to read a sentence I uttered on that occasion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 said:
It has been my view since the last election that the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) could continue to lead our party and could succeed in returning this party to office in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not bad, Mr. Speaker, for in a sense predicting what happened subsequent to November 21, 1979.
Tributes to Mr. Trudeau
1 did speak in 1979, and I am speaking today. I did not keep the notes I used in 1979. The notes I use today I will keep against possible future use in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like others who have spoken, I had the privilege on November 21, 1979, of saying a word in favour of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because of his intention at that time to resign. He gave us that indication on November 21, 1979, but on February 18 of the next year, there he was again, re-elected Prime Minister.
In that process, as one who has been here for quite a while and who has known quite a number of Prime Ministers, I think it is a credit for the Prime Minister to have taken enough years so that, even if he leaves this job as Prime Minister in June of this year, he will become a gentleman who will have served 15 years and five months as Prime Minister which, of course, is longer than Wilfrid Laurier served. He was Prime Minister for 15 years and three months. That means, therefore, of the 16 persons who have been Prime Minister of Canada there was only one in our time who served for a longer time, Mackenzie King. But the one next to him will be the present Prime Minister. We congratulate him very, very much on that achievement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must say as one who has been here, I have known personally six of those who served as Prime Minister. We have had 16 Prime Ministers in the history of our country. Indeed, I met two out of two of the longest serving Prime Ministers. Of the six who were here I knew Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, and Joe Clark.
I suppose it is a natural thing for one who has been here to form an opinion of them. I was beginning to do that at the time of Mackenzie King, St. Laurent, and Pearson. But after that I certainly formed a very definite and strong opinion that the best of the Prime Ministers I have seen in those 40 years of mine were Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson.
Now, what am I going to say about the other one, the present Prime Minister? Well, we will just wait until he leaves and we start to assess him. But my opinion is that the present Prime Minister's 15 years make a total longer than the other two, who had 14 years between them, and I think he has had to face more severe and more difficult problems than previous Prime Ministers I have known. I think that applies to Governments and Parties as well. The problems facing Canada today are greater than they were before. During the time of the present Prime Minister they were greater for him than they were in the past. However, he has done a good job. He has worked hard. He has done his best to make this an effective country.

March 5, 1984
Tributes to Mr. Trudeau
When my day comes to sit back and reflect upon all those who have been Prime Minister, I shall be including his name along with St. Laurent and Pearson as persons who have done a tremendous job for the country. I am most grateful for what they have done for us through the years, and I am happy to pay tribute to the present Prime Minister today.
I have talked about our country having had 16 Prime Ministers over the years. Several had very short terms. Some made history, but not the typical ones. The atypical ones in this century about whom we all know are the two I have named already and the one we are naming now. If Parliament concentrates on trying to solve some of the problems facing us, we may do something about them. We will attempt to solve our problems, and this Prime Minister has prompted us to do so.
I made a statement about a week or so ago guessing when the election would take place. I even joined in the guess that maybe he would keep us around a bit longer. Of course we know what happened in November, 1979. We accepted that resignation, but he came back. What will happen this time, we do not know, but the general opinion is that he is making a contribution of which we are appreciative. Some of us have known him for a long time. I hope I do not spoil his story if I say that we had the experience of knowing him when he had some connections with members of our Party. I remember him being at some of our meetings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I even recall an occasion in Montreal when I presented a book that I had written about our Party. The present Prime Minister was there. He read it in both English and in French. He somewhat criticized the speech I made at the time. His main criticism was that it was not strong enough; that we were socialists and we should be stronger. I was delighted that he had that conviction and that he had an interest in some of us, such as Tommy Douglas who liked him so well, and others of the New Democratic Party. Because of that I dared to hope that the future years for that man would be tremendous ones for us. In the meantime along came Lester Pearson who brought some of the people close to us into here, into this Chamber, as Liberals. However, it is important to place an emphasis upon social problems, and he has done that. He has also done it as well on questions of world problems among other nations. He has worked very hard on that.
I have one main reason for being disappointed that he is leaving. It is because we should have a person who will continually work toward peace. As I say, I have known some of the Prime Ministers over many years. I have given my opinion of two of them who were very important in the past. I will put the present Prime Minister very high on the list I expect to draw later.
On behalf of my Leader, my colleagues, and my friends across the country, we are glad to join in this response. I
appreciate what he has done for us. We hope things will be better for him. We think our country will gain from the kind of government and concern for our problems which were delivered to us by the present Prime Minister. We thank him and we wish him the very best.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, for nearly five years I have had the honour and the privilege of sitting in the House with the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I have listened to him daily during Question Period and at our Liberal Caucus meetings. I have always been impressed by his great intellect, his grasp of a host of subjects, his way of conciliating divergent views, of putting things in perspective and simplifying the complex. My only regret, Mr. Speaker, is that all Canadians did not have the same opportunity to see him at work.

Most Canadians credit him for his contributions to Canadian unity and to the development of our country with the patriation of our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He is well regarded for his views on social justice and international aid. It is my firm belief that many areas for which he is criticized will be recognized as problems that cannot be attributed to any one person.

In recent months he approached the disarmament issue by trying to promote a dialogue between East and West. Many people tried to accuse him of ulterior political motives. Personally, I prefer to quote the late Governor General Vanier, whose words define the Prime Minister's actions better than any other comment could do. The Prime Minister recalled these words when he spoke in the Debate on the Constitution on March 23, 1981, and I would like to quote what Georges Vanier said in 1967, three days before his death:
The best time is always the present time, because it alone offers the opportunity for action, because it is ours, because on God's scale it is apocalyptyic, a time when the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn, and each one of us must chose his side, a time when there is no longer room for either the coward or the uncommitted.
Mr. Speaker, this is counsel all members of this House would be well advised to follow.

I would like to say on behalf of a new generation of Liberal Members of Parliament that we intend to carry on his work and the great traditions of the Liberal Party. We will be counting on his advice, support, and active involvement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, speaking with independent authority, I would like to state that, after almost 16 years of riding tall in the saddle, our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has decided to hang up his spurs.


Mr. Crosbie:: We think.
March 5, 1984


William J. Yurko: He leaves his hoofprints all over the nation, and indeed throughout the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not all.


William J. Yurko: This was one tough cowboy, unique in his time. He lassoed the strays, kept the nation whole, and prevented the herd from stampeding all over the place. He burned his bilingual brand upon the hide of the nation-an E/F brand with a multicultural bar.
On one of his most famous rides to the old country, he brought back in his saddlebags our individual and collective conscience. In his time he rode many horses-some ornery, some wild, some nags, some thoroughbreds, and only once did he get bucked off. But he did not quit for long. He dusted himself off and rode again. Now he rides slowly into the sunset. As a westerner I say: "Adios," "Drum Bun"-I know he does not know that "Drum Bun" means-good journey- and "Bon chance". Mr. Prime Minister, we respect you for what you have done. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it must be the grace of my new status, but so many kind words and cordial reminiscences seem to have brought on one of my rare moments of humility.
I would like to thank all those who spoke on their own behalf, and on behalf of their party, for their kind and gracious words. Above all, I want to thank the Members of my Caucus for their support, and I would like to thank especially my constituents in the riding of Mount Royal for their infinite patience and trust. I am always moved when I realize that it is thanks to our democratic system that we represent the Canadian people in Parliament, following a secret and written ballot, and when I realize that all the Members of this House are here thanks to this process. I think we all feel very honoured, as I do myself, at having been elected, in confidence, by a large section of the Canadian people.

Looking at the clock, I think that it will become apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to many of us who have been sitting through these statements, that I meant well by retiring on a day when Parliament was not sitting. I think that that in itself is one of the reasons why it took me so long to retire, because it did mean sitting with as much humility as I could muster- and that I can only do once in a while-listening to the very generous and friendly statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), the former Prime
Oral Questions
Minister, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the longest sitting Member in this House, who was good enough to show that his memory was still as keen as his mind, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who spoke on behalf of his Party and offered some help as to my future career, and the independent Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who seemed to have stated all the images that, as a younger man, I fancied myself living out, riding into the West. It happened in a different sense, but I was happy to be reminded of all these metaphors.
Of course, my deep thanks go to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who has been exemplary in his loyalty, his support, his hard work, and the devotion with which he filled his task.
It is a rare occasion when one can be judged by one's peers, and perhaps a few of my peers also, and be judged as generously as I was today. I can only express my deep gratitude for the thoughts expressed. Some may serve some day in my obituary, but I can undertake that they will not serve in any resurrection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the disposition of the House to proceed to Question Period?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, if it is the disposition of the House to proceed to Question Period, may I suggest that Question Period continue until 3.30?


Yvon Pinard: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would normally ask this question of the Prime Minister, but I do not want to shatter any illusions today. I just say to him: "Git along little doggie". My question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I will come back to the Prime Minister later in this last roundup. Oh, he is gone. He is spared being lassoed.
The Budget was brought down on February 15. Since then we have had several pieces of bad news about our economic prospects. Final domestic demand declined in the last three months of 1983, for the first time since the middle of 1982 when the recession was at its deepest. Business investment plunged 12.2 per cent in 1983, worse even than in 1982. StatsCan says that weak business investment will or may continue this year. Real personal disposal income declined in

March 5, 1984
Oral Questions
1983 again. It is now slightly below the level of 1981. The Minister of Finance admitted that this new Budget will have no effect on the economy, as is the analysis of most economists.
Having brought in this Budget, which is a failure and which will have no effect, what steps does the Government plan to take to overcome this bad economic news and start us on the track of a proper economic recovery which will put people back to work? What is the Government going to do, or is there going to be a three-month hiatus while the Liberal leadership business goes forward?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should recognize that the growth rates in Canada today are at the sustainable levels which we forecast and which the Hon. Member must know follow naturally from the initial impetus in the economic recovery that constantly occurs in the cyclical nature of our economy. The first surge of re-investment and the first surge of growth come from consumer spending. It is typically followed by a period of some retrenchment when the investment rates gradually pick up. That is what we are seeing today.
The Member speaks of business investment being at a lower level. If he will look at total capital spending he will see that in fact it is up. There is a percentage increase in total capital spending. He will know that part of it is from Special Recovery Projects which the Government put in place in the April Budget. We did so knowing full well that, in the first period of our economic recovery, inventories would be run down, that there would be a period when productive capacity would be more utilized and that the Government, in that initial period, needed to provide a capital impetus in the economy. That is what has happened. We are confident that the private investment will follow in 1984.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no one will swallow this jabber-wocky and gobbledegook.


REPORT ON ECONOMY'S PERFORMANCE-IMPOSITION OF TAX INCREASES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I show the Minister the Statistics Canada daily report for Thursday, March 1. Statistics Canada, the Minister's own agency, says this:
The slowing of the recovery in Canada in the fourth quarter was largely attributable to weak final domestic demand. Residential construction and business investment in plant and equipment declined at accelerated rates in the fourth quarter, and the recovery of consumer expenditure slowed.
Everything which has to do with promoting a recovery has slowed. In view of the fact that this domestic demand has weakened and is declining and slowing the recovery, can the Minister explain to the House why he is imposing $6.1 billion in additional taxes on the Canadian consumer this year, and in the next two years, including the sales tax increase of 1 per cent this coming October, or will the Government consider
doing away with these increases in view of this weakness in domestic demand?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been recently. Any economic forecast in Canada has made it perfectly clear, as did the Government, that after an initial period of strong recovery growth there would be a more sustainable level of growth stretching through late 1983 and into 1984. The Bank of Montreal, for example, in its recent forecast, welcomed such a sustainable rate rather than the rampant impetus that marked the first months of economic recovery.
With regard to the increased taxation that was forecast in the April Budget, it is our policy to continue that increase. The Bill with regard to the sales tax increase is before the House, and I trust that it will be adopted shortly. We will see the payment for the recovery programs met in part from the increased taxation that will be sustainable and will be affordable by the economy as the recovery goes forward. The Hon. Member knows that as well as I do.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister wonders where I have been. I have been out where the unemployed public, the people who are suffering from the lack of jobs and lack of recovery in this economy, are. That is where I have been. They want answers and action, not jabberwocky.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S BUDGET STATEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell us how the Minister of Finance was able to say in the Budget of February 15 that his goal was to secure the recovery, and that that goal has also been met, when all of these figures that I have mentioned here today, including those for domestic demand, business investment and real disposable personal income, are all down, but all need to be up and growing stronger in order for us to have any kind of recovery? How could that deceitful and fraudulent statement be made by him and by the Minister?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the forecast that the Minister made, and with which I fully associate myself, is accurate. We have seen rapid growth in Canada during 1983. We see continuing growth through
1984.	The forecasts are there, and the evidence is there.
The statistics which the Hon. Member opposite cites are for short term, and refer to the current recent quarter. They are not trends and are not of a nature that indicates where the economy is going. The economic recovery is taking place in Canada. Exports and total domestic sales are up. Investment is recovering. Inflation is down, and interest rates are down. The conditions now exist for full economic recovery and a restoration of growth in our economy.
If the Hon. Member opposite wishes to engage in his usual doom and gloom, and his distortions of statistics to substantiate his doom and gloom, and to speak of being tough and
March 5, 1984

nasty, that is up to him. That is not our policy on this side of the House. The statistics are evident. Recovery is here and is well under way.


REQUEST FOR SYSTEM OF TAX CREDITS TO COMBAT YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The Bank of Nova Scotia has charged that the economic outlook for Canada accompanying the Budget is too optimistic. That will mean an even higher unemployment rate than the Finance Minister has anticipated and predicted. Under those circumstances, will the Government consider a crash program designed to reduce unemployment? Specifically, will the Government consider introducing a system of tax credits designed to help young people obtain their first steady jobs?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite selects one forecast to substantiate his gloomy view of the Canadian economy. If he will look at any number of indicators, he will find that in fact there is every expectation for further growth during 1984.
With regard to his suggestion that the Government should somehow offer tax incentives to reduce youth unemployment, he will be aware of the range of programs that the Government has already put in place with regard to employment and training for young people.
I do not know whether the Member opposite is advocating higher deficit spending on the part of the Government. We on this side of the House believe that we have achieved a real balance between direct spending in the public sector to reduce youth unemployment and help retraining, and spending in the private sector. Equally, we have put in place a number of tax incentives and other measures to assist the private sector to create the jobs for young people where the jobs really can be created, which is in the private sector.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister that the Government has achieved an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, and that is unacceptable.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER ADVISER TO PRIME MINISTER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the Minister to another expert. In an article written after the Budget, Jim Coutts, a former adviser to the Prime Minister, argued for a fundamental change in our approach to job creation, not just an incremental increase in our programs. He calls the Finance Minister's unemployment projections of over 10 per cent unacceptable. I would ask the Minister what his reaction to that criticism would be, and if the Minister does agree that we need a fundamental change in our approach to job creation.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that we need a fundamental change in
Oral Questions
our approach to job creation. Last April, we did put in place major programs to reduce youth unemployment, including a massive retraining program. We have also offered incentives to the private sector which, as I say, we are convinced will sustain and enhance the economic recovery and from which real jobs will come.
As for the views of Mr. Coutts, the Hon. Member no doubt would want to address himself directly to Mr. Coutts, but I am sure that he equally would want to recognize the programs this Government has put in place which account in part for the high level of deficit financing and which we on this side of the House have recognized as essential during this period of economic recovery. We are confident that those dual programs of public and private sector incentives will bring down the rate of unemployment, as they have already in the past months, in Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, women have been and are today in the forefront of the disarmament and peace movement in Canada and elsewhere. He will recall that it was Sweden's Alva Myrdal who won the Nobel peace prize in 1982, and that it has been women in Canada, led over the decades by the Voice of Women, who have been in the forefront of the struggle to end the nuclear arms race. As a tribute to Canadian women, and women everywhere, will the Deputy Prime Minister, on this first day of International Women's Week, announce on behalf of the Prime Minister the one thing we all want to hear-no Cruise missile testing tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is asking for a very tall order by requesting that we abrogate a formal agreement we have made with the United States on 24 hours' notice. We have already made that decision and I do not think that her request at this stage is one that even she would think reasonable.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Deputy Prime Minister does not know that it is International Women's Week. I thought that he at least might make some reference to that. Perhaps he will do better in his answer to my supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT PENDING COURT DECISION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question of testing the Cruise is before the courts and that a decision still has to be rendered on the constitutionality of the testing, would the

March 5, 1984
Oral Questions
Minister not agree that the Government has every reason, and has had for the last several months, to say to the United States that we will not be able to go ahead with the Cruise testing? Why has the Government not done that when the issue has been and is before the courts and, indeed, there is an application for an injunction before the courts today? Why has the Government not said there will be no Cruise testing until the matter has been determined in the courts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is framing her question as if the Government were seeking a way out of carrying out its obligation to test the Cruise. We are not seeking a way out; we think that is an important contribution that we are undertaking, and to which we have agreed. I do not believe that the Hon. Member has provided me with any substantial reason why we should change course at this particular time.
The Minister of National Defence has already made clear that it is the intention of the Government to continue its co-operation with the United States. As I understand it, the fact that the matter is before the court in a particular way is no justification to suspend arrangements that have already been put in place.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister even knew about the testing. We only learned about it from Washington.


WOMEN'S CONCERN
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, may I go back to the earlier point I was making about the importance of women in the peace movement and in disarmament. He saw that himself at Stockholm. They were outside the conference hall; only men were inside.
Given the interest and concern of the women of this country in this issue, not only Cruise missile testing but the whole issue, will the Minister give serious consideration to having at least one woman involved in the arms control and disarmament division of his Department, and will he suggest to the Prime Minister that he do the same with his task force? Above all, will the Minister fill the position of ambassador for disarmament which has been vacant for many months, with a prominent woman who is concerned about the issues that that ambassador is supposed to be concerned about, namely, disarmament and peace? Will he put a woman in that position?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and
Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think the ideas which the Hon. Member has put forward are worth considering. I understand the concerns which women have about the basic question of the nuclear arms race. It is a concern that is deeply felt by women and, I believe, by all persons who are watching what is happening in the world. I am quite favourably disposed toward doing what is possible to reflect the particular point of view of women in the Department where that is possible. The Hon. Member has suggested
that we consider an ambassador for disarmament. I would do that, and if she has any candidates she would like to propose, I would be happy to receive the names from her.


Pauline Jewett: Don't you know any?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns acid rain and the meeting the Minister is to have tomorrow with provincial ministers.
In 1982 the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister of Employment and Immigration, said that over all we are committed to cutting sulphur dioxide emissions east of the Saskat-chewan-Manitoba border 25 per cent by the end of this decade, and that if we have parallel action from the United States we will commit ourselves to a reduction of 50 per cent. May I ask the Minister if he is now prepared to change that official position?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting tomorrow is to examine our over-all policy between provincial and federal Governments. I would not want to negotiate on the floor of the House what the outcome of tomorrow's conference will be. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to be patient. The purpose of the meeting tomorrow is to re-evaluate our policy, keeping in mind the fact that, even if we were to go all the way by ourselves, we would still be damaged, and considerably so, in some parts of Canada by acid rain emissions coming from south of the border.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister well knows, many Members of the House believe that his reasoning does not help, because we shall have to go to a 50 per cent reduction in any event.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he is prepared to go before his provincial counterparts tomorrow with a strategic plan for a 50 per cent reduction in Canada now, unilaterally, so that that position can be given to the many allies we have on the United States side of the line who are working with us to end the scourge of acid rain?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting is to develop a strategic plan with our provincial counterparts. I think that is the proper approach to follow, rather than announcing it on the floor of the House of Commons. I want to hear the input of my provincial colleagues, and to develop the plan with them.
March 5, 1984


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is some three months since the Prime Minister promised that removal of discrimination against Indian women would be a matter of urgent legislative priority.
Since three months have gone by and we have seen no sign of such a Bill I want to ask, first, when such a Bill will be tabled and second, is the matter of equality of Indian women on the agenda of the conference later this week between First Ministers and native leaders.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that the question of the legislation which she has mentioned is very much on the mind of the Government. It is a matter that undoubtedly will be related to the conference held later this week, following which we might be in a better position to indicate the progress or timing of that legislation.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT WITH URGENCY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in recent days this House has been seized, and rightly so, with inequities that exist in other parts of the country but this inequity, discrimination against Indian women, was created by an Act of this Parliament. If we have a right to speak to other Legislatures about what they should do, we should be getting on with cleaning up our own act. We have the right and the responsibility to do so. I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why there is not more urgency attached to this drastic situation by the Government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is urgency attached to this matter. The Hon. Member is not raising a matter that is not well known to the Government. It is true that the situation arises from legislative action previously taken by the Parliament of Canada and that that has to be corrected in order to reach the objective which she and we espouse. I want to tell her that there is urgency. She knows that there are quite a number of other Bills that have to be dealt with in the House, but that is not the reason why this matter is not going forward at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. As he would be aware, farm women have not received the
Oral Questions
financial recognition that is due to them. Farm incomes have been so low that it is almost impossible to take advantage or recent changes to allow a salary for spouses on the farm and their opportunity to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. If there were some attempt to increase the over-all farm income, however, such as taking off the sales tax on farm fuels, that would help considerably to increase small farm income. Would the Minister be prepared to support a rebate in the federal government sales tax so that farmers could have an increased income at this time?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of tax policy and the question should be directed to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State (Finance). I am not responsible for amendments to the Excise Tax Act or the Income Tax Act. That comes under the Minister of Finance.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I was not really talking about the excise tax; I was talking about the sales tax.


THRONE SPEECH PROPOSAL TO HELP FARMERS
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he is aware that many farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, however, they have been contributing to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. Just when the payments are most needed, the Five-year pay out formula has triggered absolutely nothing. When can we expect to see the legislation which was promised in the Speech from the Throne? And will the Minister agree to make these changes retroactive to the calendar year 1983 in order to assist many farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy at this particular time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the Hon. Member uses very loose terminology when he says there are many farmers facing bankruptcy. Does he mean 100? Does he mean 50? Does he mean thousands? Our figures show there are some farmers, but even we do not have accurate figures. However, we do have figures which show the farming industry in Canada, when compared to any other industry, is probably the best off of all. When the Hon. Member talks about the Western Grain Stabilization Act, he knows, and we have stated, that it is under review. The report is just about completed on how they can use the five commodities, how they can base the price so that perhaps there would be pay out on the individual commodities to those farmers. That report is not finalized at the present time.

March 5, 1984
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


EXAMINATION OF INCOME TAX FILES BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last week, or the week before, I asked the Minister about the existence of an agreement between the RCMP and the Minister of National Revenue concerning the examination of income tax files. Can he bring the House up to date, as he promised at that time? And could he tell us in what other kinds of instances is the agreement used?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the agreement to which the Hon. Member is referring has to do with RCMP officers investigating criminal cases such as organized crimes or other aspects of criminal activities. I should like to point out to Hon. Members that the confidentiality of tax files is paramount in such investigations; we ask for RCMP support when criminal activities are uncovered in the course of the investigation.


PROVISIONS IN AGREEMENT
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister agree that the agreement is only in connection with files dealing with the Income Tax Act, and that there is no suggestion whatsoever in the agreement that there is power to show the files to the RCMP in the investigation of crimes other than investigations under the Income Tax Act?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look into that particular aspect in order to give a better answer to the Hon. Member.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Mr. Michael Warren recently announced that Canada Post intends to get involved in various commercial enterprises. Does the Postmaster General really think that this should be allowed, at least until Canada Post becomes capable of delivering the mail, something it is certainly not doing very well yet?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of the Hon. Member is quite hypothetical since the suggestions made by the President of Canada Post do not entail activities which would have priority over the
Corporation's first responsibility, which is to deliver mail. There can be no doubt that mail delivery comes first, and I do not think that the President gave the impression that the Corporation is seeking other duties which would prevent it from continuing to provide all Canadians throughout the country with postal services which compare favourably with those of any other country in the world.


LIABILITY TO PAY CORPORATE TAXES
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Certainly the press made it sound as though the Director General of Canada Post was serious. If Canada Post is to be allowed to intrude on private enterprise, will it use its extensive government subsidies to help one or two companies compete with the rest of the business community? Will it then pay business tax in the communities where this takes place? And will it then pay corporate taxes, as any other corporation must do?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member ought to read again the Post Office Act where the duties and responsibilities of Canada Post are clearly set out. Members on both sides of the House voted unanimously for this legislative measure and I have the impression that the Hon. Member would be well advised to read the Act over again.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions on the role of women within the Public Service of Canada. My first question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it is in respect of his role as the Minister responsible for occupational health of workers in Canada. As the Minister is aware, there are proposals from his Department which we hope to have in front of the House, which would give workers in the Public Service, many of whom are women, the right to come under the Canada Labour Code in matters of occupational health and safety. I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether or not the Government is willing to give the same protection under the same legislation to those workers who work for the federal Government as it gives to workers who work for the private sector under the federal regime?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) answered a similar question in the House about three weeks ago. As I recall, in his answer he referred to a sentence in the Speech from the Throne which clearly indicates that, in that
March 5, 1984

field, the Government of Canada has every intention of dealing with its employees just as it does with all other workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.


PROTECTION OF WORKERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is obviously the same question to the same Minister. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party do not seem to be very concerned about occupational safety in the Public Service. Will the same legislation provide protection for federal Government workers as it does for other workers who come under federal labour legislation? Will those workers have the same legislative protection?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Hon. Member to be patient, for he will have an answer to his question as soon as we introduce amendments to Part IV of the Labour Code.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Six weeks ago, I think, I sent a letter to the Minister of Transport stating the concerns of a Quebec CEGEP after a representative of the Department of Transport in Quebec had announced the department's plan to cancel training courses for air traffic controllers in the Province. Since the Chouinard inquiry has stressed the need for such courses to train bilingual controllers, can the Minister assure us today that these courses which were to be given under an agreement entered into with the Quebec Government and valid for the next three years will be maintained? Will the agreement be respected? Can the Minister tell us whether he really intends to cancel this training course for air traffic controllers in Quebec?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, all the students enrolled in the programs at this time have agreed to complete their air traffic controller training at the Cornwall College. We have discussed the possibility of maintaining the air traffic controller courses with various CEGEP representatives and with the Quebec Departments of Transport and Education. I shall be meeting Mr. Clair Thursday of this week to discuss this matter.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I do believe that all my colleagues from Quebec and all the Members of this House are interested in this matter. Am I to
Oral Questions
understand that the Minister is willing to recommend that these courses be continued in Quebec since, according to the Chouinard report, nearly 300 air traffic controllers had to be trained there? As only 75 have now been trained, I would think the Minister will be able to tell us today whether he intends to maintain this training course in Quebec without reducing the importance of the course also being given in Cornwall.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have received several representations from the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean about this matter, but we must look at the applications for air traffic controller courses, and after having done so and having discussed the issue with Mr. Clair, we shall decide on the future of these programs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No doubt he has seen correspondence directed to him or his Department from various Jewish groups throughout Canada, as well as from Members of Parliament on this side, concerning a Mrs. Lillian Abadi and her two children, who were brutally murdered in Syria in December. These Jewish groups have indicated their concern and fear for the 4,500 Jews now in Syria. Has the Government made any representations to Syria, admittedly on humanitarian grounds, to see whether or not it would be willing to allow Jews to move if they wish, presumably to Israel, possibly Canada, or the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the concern which exists and which has been expressed by the Hon. Member and others. We take whatever steps we think will be effective in dealing with the Syrian situation. It is not a question which can be the subject of repeated or forceful representations because at times we have to guarantee the steps we take will be helpful rather than hurtful. However, within that framework we do our very best to assist cases such as he mentioned.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Minister would admit that he was pretty vague and general in his answer to me. Perhaps he could be a little more explicit. What steps is the Minister taking in this particular case? Is he using Canada's good will, for example, with the Government of Syria? Have we put forward the case for allowing Jews in Syria to

March 5, 1984
Oral Questions
emigrate if they so wish? Have we done that? What diplomatic channels are we using? Could he be more specific?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be as specific as I can, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member knows these matters are within the internal management and prerogative of the government concerned, in this case the Government of Syria. It would be easy enough for us to make either public or private representations which might have a short-term effect in meeting the Hon. Member's request but not be very helpful in getting the job done in Syria. That is what we have to keep in mind.
I know we have had this particular matter under consideration. I will inform myself as to whether there have been any recent representations on this particular case, and I will be glad to advise the Hon. Member.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Emergency Planning Order of 1981 has a provision which empowers the Solicitor General of Canada to establish, administer, and operate civilian internment camps, facilitate the selective reduction and transfer of prison populations, and to provide for the establishment of civilian internment camps. That has the effect of freeing people who have been convicted of a criminal offence in order to make room for people who have not been convicted. I would like to ask the Minister, who is charged with the protection of our civil rights, if he agrees with that provision?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am responsible for Emergency Planning Canada and I suggest the Hon. Member read the Order in Council carefully. He will realize that, with a minimum of understanding, he cannot come to that conclusion.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put my question to the Minister of Justice and have him answer it, not the President of the Privy Council. I want to know from the man who is supposed to be protecting our civil rights whether he agrees with that provision?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of interpreting the clause to which my hon. friend refers. Every proposal put forward by the Government in statutory form or for regulation is vetted by officials of the Department of Justice precisely for that kind of criteria.


RAILWAYS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport who, earlier this winter, in a speech to the Council of Transport Ministers, expressed his firm resolve to reduce the risk involved in the movement of dangerous goods by rail. Specifically he talked about reducing the speed of trains in densely populated areas, and about measures to deal with empty cars which carry hazardous products. What action has been taken in that regard? Can he give the House any indication which might demonstrate his firm resolve to deal with these very important and crucial issues?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think we can satisfy the Hon. Member because we have taken two very specific steps since that declaration. First, I met with the country's major railroads to talk about the issues brought forward. We agreed at that time that we would call together an advisory group of railroad and industry people, particularly the petrochemical industry, to talk about how further standards or measures might be developed and whether the existing requirements and standards are in fact satisfactory. We are now in the midst of drafting the terms of reference which would be agreeable to the parties involved.
Secondly, we have the new office of Inspector General of Safety in Transport, and I have given to him prime responsibility to begin examining the entire area of the movement of dangerous goods. He is now engaged in that and will be meeting tomorrow morning with a major group from Toronto to hear the representations on that issue. I have asked him to do an overview and report back to me on whether supplementary or ancilliary action should be taken.


DISTRIBUTION OF DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised the Minister has had a briefing document commissioned by his Department in response to the recommendations of M-Trac, the citizens' group from Toronto. I also understand this report has been made available only to Liberal Members of Parliament for the Toronto area. Will the Minister not make that information available to all Members of the House so that we can see precisely what he has in mind? Also, as I understand it, there are some very basic differences of opinion between the Minister office, the CRTC, and the railroads, about speed reduction and the issue of harmonic oscillation. Could the Minister tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the CTC over resolving these different points of view, and can he report to the House on the success or failure of those discussions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have had several rounds of discussions, and one was with the Railway Transport Committee where they brought forward the kind of action in which they are presently engaged. As I said, I have met with railroads to discuss their activities,
March 5, 1984

and with other interested parties. I will be meeting with M-Trac itself tomorrow morning.
As far as the report from the Department is concerned, I will ckeck and see. I do not know what the distribution has been. If it has been distributed to Members, I will make sure the Hon. Member receives one, because I think it is a useful document or evidence to put forward. I am trying to achieve, particularly by using the offices of the inspector general, a more independent point of view because each of the major groups involved has its own special interest and perspective. I want to make sure we get one which covers everything and comes out with a series of recommendations on which I can act. Therefore, 1 will keep the Hon. Member informed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, was presented by Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 62(15) and Standing Order 63,1 move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker, since the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the Estimates to the committee, if it is agreeable to the House, 1 ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 5c, 15c and 50c External Affairs Vote 15c
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes 2c, 50c, 80c and 90c Secretary of State Votes lc, 10c, 15c and 25c To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 10c, LI lc, LI2c, 25c, 30c and L38c National Defence Votes lc, 5c, 10c and LI6c To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs External Affairs Vote 17c Finance Vote lc
Petitions
National Revenue Votes lc and 10c Regional Industrial Expansion Vote lc To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 15c and 20c Fisheries and Oceans Votes lc and 10c To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes lc and 5c National Health and Welfare Votes lc, 10c, 25c, 40c, 46c and 47c Social Development Vote lc
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15c, 20c, 30c, 35c, 40c, 45c and L60c
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes lc, 5c, 20c and 45c Solicitor General Votes lc, 5c, 10c and 15c To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes lc, 5c, 15c and 20c Labour Votes lc, 5 c and 10c To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Governor General Vote lc Labour Votes 6c and 7c Privy Council votes lc and 3c Science and Technology Vote 30c Supply and Services Vote lc
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy, Mines and Resources Votes lc, 10c, 20c, 40c and 77c Public Works Votes 5c, 10c, 1 lc, 35c, 40c, 50c, 55c and 60c To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Economic and Regional Development Vote lc To the Standing Committee on Transport Social Development Votes 2c and 3c
Transport Votes 6c, 33c, 37c, 38c, 39c, 55c, 60c, 65c and 100c Motion agreed to.


PETITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from Stella Mission in Winnipeg which is the place in which J. S. Woodsworth started his work. As such, it should serve as a reminder to the House that Canadians expect political decisions to be based upon moral principles.
To the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned board of directors and staff of North End Community Ministry, more commonly known as Stella Mission, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the petitioners formally object to the testing of the Cruise missile over Canadian territory.
Wherefore the signatories, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw Canada totally from the nuclear armament's race between American and the East Bloc

March 5, 1984
countries of which the Cruise missile is but one part. And is in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 30   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE ON CANADIAN SOIL
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), that the house do now adjourn. I am moving the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the testing tomorrow of the U.S. air-launched Cruise missile over Canadian soil.
As 1 have indicated in my notice to you, Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter because Members of the House learned only on Friday last from a source in Washington, D.C., that the test will take place tomorrow. Canadians have again been kept in the dark.
It is an urgent matter too because an application has now gone before the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend any Cruise missile test until the constitutionality of those tests can be considered. A Supreme Court ruling on the suspension of the tests is pending.
Finally, it is urgent that the Prime Minister's recent peace efforts not be undermined or contradicted and that the widespread desire of Canadians to halt Cruise missile testing be fully debated in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member gave the Chair the required notice of her intention to seek leave to move a motion under Standing Order 30. As Hon. Members know, the Chair, in considering a request for an emergency debate, must "have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means".
This matter has regularly been raised during Question Period, even today, and the Government's intention to go ahead with the testing of the Cruise missile has been no secret. No doubt, the intention of the mover of the motion is to try to prevent the test which is to take place tomorrow. However, this issue hardly qualifies as a sudden emergency and there have been and will be various opportunities to debate it in a broader context without setting aside the normal business of the
Type of Assistance	Yukon/N.W.T.	B.C.	Alta.(a) Develop proposals	-	69,812	7,350(b) Identify new products	-	-	_(c) Product development	-	6,317,850	3,716,202(d) Product design	-	23,721	_(e) Productivity improvement	-	101,510	210,423(0 Restructuring	-	-	-(g) Mergers and acquisitions	
House. Three allotted days remain during the present period. The Estimates have been tabled and have been referred to various committees just this afternoon, and of course Question Period takes place every day.
I also refer the Hon. Member to Citation 288 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which clearly states that the subjects excluded by the established rules of debate relating to Standing Order 30 include matters under adjudication by a court of law. The Hon. Member knows, as she states in her notice, that the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to render a decision on an application to suspend the proposed test.
I must therefore rule that the Hon. Member's request does not satisfy the criteria of the Standing Order.




[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 57, 355, 434, 504, 510, 520, 521, 528, 587 and 595.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, media relations or publicity are employed by the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Thirty-six.


Mr. St. Germain: Since January 1, 1981, for each province, what expenditures were made under the Enterprise Development Program by grants (a) to develop proposals for projects eligible for assistance (b) to identify new products (c) for product development (d) for product design (e) to study productivity improvement projects (0 to encourage restructuring of firms in manufacturing industries (g) to facilitate mergers and acquisition of manufacturing and processing firms?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Expenditures from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1983, by province, under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP) are detailed below.
Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.23,866	94,311	84,208	-	-	36,189	-	16,493-	2,506	-	34,844	-	-	-	1,462,984	4,695,751	38,638,997	19,503,180	345,669	853,490	574,008	511,660238,430	177,638	450,235	3,095,413	15,632	-	15,525	--	54,387	461,508	6,364,139	38,392	48,105	35,024	15,750-	61,520	24,400	327,147	-	-	_	
March 5, 1984


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	Are any products listed on the Import Control List and, if so, how many?
2.	In (a) 1982 (b) 1983, how many import permits were issued in Canada?
3.	How many people are employed in the Office of Special Trade Relations and what was its annual budget in (a) 1982 (b) 1983?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: 1.
Yes, 54 products are listed on the Import Control List.
2.	(a) In 1982, 126,184 import permits were issued, (b) In 1983, 179,129 import permits were issued.
3.	(a) An average of 53 people were employed in the Office of Special Trade Relations in 1982. The 1982/83 fiscal year budget was $1,806,000. (b) An average of 52 people were employed in the Special Trade Relations Bureau in 1983. The 1983/84 fiscal year budget was $2,335,000.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Department of National Revenue and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Pierre Bussières: The
Minister of National Revenue employs the following staff under Section 37 of the Public Service employment Act.
Permanent Employees
Louis Alberti Georges Chouinard Madeleine Gagnon Janine Harris Monique Parr	Executive Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Private Secretary
Term Employees	
Marie-France Jacques Rene Cote	Micom Operator Researcher
Part-Time Employees	
Daniel Mercier Alain Denis	Researcher Researcher
2. No.


Mr. Howie: For each fiscal year since 1980-81, based on the accounting practices currently used by the Government on each of a public accounts and a national accounts basis what was the government's (a) spending (b) revenue (c) interest cost and what was its gross debt and its net debt?
Order Paper Questions


Roy MacLaren: 1980-81	1981-82	1982-83
		($ Million)		
Public Accounts Basis				
1.	Spending (total outlays)	58,589	68,913	79,7972.	Revenue (budgetary revenue)	45,398	54,068	55,1233.	Interest cost (interest on the public debt)	10,501	14,948	16,7564.	Gross debt	118,461	134,107	159,4705.	Net debt	81,263	94,869	119,522National Accounts Basis	1.	Spending (total expenditures)	62,903	75,762	89,5862.	Revenue (total revenues)	53,909	66,388	66,7463.	Interest cost (interest on the public debt)	10,544	14,855	16,8214.	Gross debt	95,857	108,153	132,9195.	Net debt	51,956	62,260	85,907


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1983, did the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion announce any grants, contributions or assistance for the Chatham-Newcastle area in New Brunswick and, if so, what grants, contributions or assistance was announced?


Edward C. Lumley: Yes.
1. Under the Industrial and Regional Development Program (IRDP):
Amount of DRIE
Client	Location	AssistanceTown of Chatham	Chatham	$ 10,0002. Under the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA):	Gulf Peat	Hardwicke	$104,9383. Under the Sulphation Roast Subsidiary Agreement:	Leach	(SRL) Pilot PlantClient	Location	Amount of DRIE AssistanceSRL Pilot Plant	Chatham	$15 million Special Capital Recovery Project4. Under the Developing Regions Subsidiary Agreement:	Project $ Total Cost	$ Federal ShareDry Kiln Acadia Forest Products Ltd.	175,000	114,000Nelson-Miramichi Water and Sewer	3,435,959	1,030,788Loggieville Water and Sewer	1,794,111	538,233Doaktown Water & Sewer	2,250,000	675,000
March 5, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information was available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of Agriculture were women?


Eugene Whelan: As of January 7, 1984, there were 2,851 women employed in Agriculture Canada as compared to 7,712 men.


Mr. Mayer: 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund on December 31, 1983 and what amount was contributed by the (a) Government (b) producers during the calendar year 1983?
2.	How much did the accumulated surplus earn in interest in 1983?


Eugene Whelan: 1.	Fund Balance (December 31, 1983) October-December federal contribution* October-December interest
Total
Credited to the fund in January, 1984
(a)	Federal contribution (1983)
(b)	Producer contribution (1983)
2.	I merest earned (1983)


Mr. Howie: Are any persons employed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and, if so, how many and what is the estimated salary expenditure in the current fiscal year and, in each of the two preceding fiscal years, what was the salary expenditure?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as follows: Yes, 421.
In current fiscal year-$15,173,000; $14,371,00-1982-83 fiscal year; $12,501,000-1981-82 fiscal year.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the National Research Council of Canada and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows:
1. Pursuant to the National Research Council Act (Section 5(1)) the Council consists of a President and not more than 21 other members to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
Members of the National Research Council of Canada March 31, 1984
Dr. L. Kerwin President
National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0R6
Dr. R. E. Bell Director
Arts, Sciences, and Technology Centre
600 Granville Street
Vancouver, British Columbia. V6C 1Y9
Dr. A. Benedek President
Zenon Environmental Inc.
845 Harrington Court Burlington, Ontario. L7N 3P3
Dr. A. Cabana Dean
Faculty of Science Sherbrooke University Sherbrooke, Quebec. J1 K 2R1
Miss J. Clark Ogilvy & Renault 1981 McGill College Avenue Montreal, Quebec. H3A 3C1
Dr. B. M. Craig Director
Prairie Regional Laboratory National Research Council of Canada 110 Gymnasium Road, University Campus Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7N 0W9
Mr. W. A. Cumming Executive Vice-President National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0R6
Mr. R. De Coster President
Societe d'assurance-depots du Canada 2172 Parc Bourbonniere Sillery, Quebec. GIT 1 B4
Dr. D. J. Doyle
President
Doyle Tech Corp.
Suite 202
4019 Carling Avenue Kanata, Ontario. K2K 2A3
Dr. F. E. F. Dunford Associate Professor Faculty of Administrative Studies University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba. R3T 2N2
Mr. D. A. Eisenhauer President
Atlantic Bridge Co. Limited 81 Tannery Road P.O. Box 1120
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. B0J 2C0
Dr. U. M. Franklin Professor
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1A4
March 5, 1984

Mr. J. G. Fredette V ice- President-Quebec Monenco P.O. Box 6088
Montreal, Quebec. H3C 3Z8
Dr. J. D. Keys Philip A. Lapp Limited 14A Hazelton Avenue Toronto, Ontario. M5R 2E2
Dr. P. A. Larkin Professor
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology University of British Columbia 2204 Main Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia. V6T 1W5
Dr. G. LeBlanc Associate Professor Department of Chemistry University of Moncton Moncton, New Brunswick. El A 3E9
2. Chairperson: The President is the Chairperson for the Council and does not receive compensation or benefits for this role.
Directors: Section 12 of the National Research Council states:
"12. (1) The members of the Council, other than the President, shall serve without remuneration, but each such member is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties under this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a member of the Council other than the President may, for any period during which he performs with the approval of the Council any duties on behalf of the Council in addition to his ordinary duties as a member thereof, be paid such remuneration therefor as may be authorized by the Council. R.S., c. N-14, s. 12; 1976-77, c. 24, s. 58."
The current rate of remuneration under this clause is $200 per day.
President: Order in Council appointee in a salary range equivalent to DM-1, effective July 1, 1982-$75,360 to $88,610.
Vice-Presidents: Salary range July 1, 1982-$58,724 to $74,200.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questi-uons be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Budget-Mr. Baker
Dr. E. J. LeRoux Assistant Deputy Minister Research Branch Agriculture Canada Sir John Carling Building 930 Carling Avenue, Room 761 Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0C5
Dr. J. C. Madden President
Microtel Pacific Research Limited 8999 Nelson Way
Burnaby, British Columbia. V5A 4B5
Dr. P. M. Maher Dean
Faculty of Management University of Calgary 2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4
Mr. M. P. Smith
Regional Vice-President and General Manager The Bank of Nova Scotia Saskatchewan Region 111-2nd Avenue South P.O. Box 2008
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7K 1 K6



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.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, before being interrupted at one o'clock, I was outlining the basic economic situation in Newfoundland. I was referring to the way the Newfoundland Government was not attending to the affairs of state in that province.
As I was saying, it gave people a dream-in this case an offshore hope-and it let the people wither in despair on shore. There was no long-term planning, no long-term employment measures and no immediate solutions.
What great mind ever thought of the principle that one can always and forever export raw material? What great Rhodes Scholar decided that processor licenses can be granted to every Tom, Dick and Harry, so long as it is some corporate conglomerate, so that he can continue to export fish in a raw state to a foreign country so that our people can buy it back later as a finished product? What an economy we have in that province! What foresight! What economic genius! The great crisis, in the fishing industry-and this House should realize it-was really limited in Canada to fish plants that concentrated mainly on frozen cod blocks to be exported to the United States, giving employment to thousands of people there.
I suppose it takes some thinking, some planning, some philosophy, some feeling for people to do something about it. I would venture to say that there is not another provincial

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Baker
government here that could dish out these so-called processor licences as the Newfoundland Government does, not to process one single thing with it. That same philosophy, or lack of philosophy, has permeated the Newfoundland government in every other natural resource in the province.
I should like to say a few words now about a specific section in the Budget that deals with job creation. Unfortunately, there appears to be in this Chamber an attitude held by a small "c" conservative community, pontificated by the Progressive Conservative Party of this country, that direct job creation should be done away with, in other words, outlawed. I could never understand that rationale. I could never understand how people can be so isolated, so parochial, so unknowing or uncaring as to advocate such a drastic action. The P.C. Party has that philosophy. In its last government the Progressive Conservatives wiped that out, hook, line and sinker. It went straight out of the window. It was said of the infamous P.C. Minister of Finance who wiped out direct job creation that if brains were dynamite, he could not blow his own hat off. There is a reality in non-industrialized areas in the poor provinces, in rural areas, that private enterprise cannot provide jobs. There is no private enterprise, so how can it provide jobs?
There is also very little provincial government money spent. There is no program, no source of funding available to small rural areas that have a right to exist. They have a right to the basic services that people have in other areas of Canada. They have a right to a community building. Take, for example, high unemployment areas where work is seasonal. That is a great section of our country, particularly as it affects the fisheries. Suppose the fishery has been a failure, as it was this past year in Newfoundland? Even if it were not a failure, the philosophy of doing away with direct job creation programs says there will be no jobs in these areas, none at all. It means that no community will get a wharf, a community hall, a community stage, or a basic water system. What kind of a creature in politics today would be so cruel and so uncaring as to advocate the discontinuance of these funding mechanisms? Yet we see this opinion present in this Chamber continually. It is also present in certain sections of our society. What about the armchair experts sitting back in their comfortable surroundings? They have convinced the P.C. armchair experts that these programs must be discontinued. Lucky for the poor in our rural areas that this Liberal Government held the line on direct job creation.
Instead of holding the line, I believe this Government should embark on a completely new initiative and pump hundreds of millions of dollars more into summer student employment programs and Canada Works Programs. Never mind talking about national recovery programs. A national recovery program for a slipway in a community like Dark Hole would cost $14,000. What about a national recovery program for a water line in Herring Neck in my riding? It would cost $89,000. What about a national recovery program for a water line in Whale's Gulch? It would cost $100,000 so that children can drink non-polluted water for once.
For those who are cruel enough, crude enough, and unchristian enough to advocate an end to direct job creation, let me ask them if they would like to change places with any number of men today who kneel by their beds every night and pray for a job on a Canada Works Program that pays $180 a week so that they can feed their children? Let me ask that same armchair expert if he would like to live off welfare payments in the Province of Newfoundland, the lowest welfare payments in all of Canada. If you have five children over 18 years of age and not working, not one penny goes into the household for them. What about living in the widow's shoes at $278 a month? The same type of armchair expert who advocates the end to these direct job-creation programs which go into the rural and the high unemployment areas where there is normally no employment, that same type of armchair expert also advocates among other things that Newfoundlanders should not be allowed to kill seals! Again, you could put yourself in the position of dozens of my constituents this week who are walking or crawling over the ice with a white sheet, or white underwear, over their heads trying to kill a seal to feed their hungry children. Some of these fellows are making less than $100 a week on unemployment insurance. On and on it goes.
I think we should be charitable enough to repeat the prayer of the Sioux Indians, which goes:
Oh Great Spirit, keep me from ever judging and criticizing a man until 1 have walked in his moccasins for two weeks.
When we pass judgement on direct job-creation programs, let us remember that.
Let me say in conclusion that when the off-shore Newfoundland government members have some free time from taking trips down south, I wish they would put themselves in the moccasins of the unemployed on the northeast coast of Newfoundland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: We have a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to enter into the debate on the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) of February 15, 1984. I am pleased to represent the views of my constituents of Simcoe North. During the course of my remarks I shall bring to the attention of the Chair those parts of the Budget which address the concerns of my constituents, those parts which missed the mark, and I hope I can make some positive suggestions.
The interesting thing about the economy of Simcoe North at the present time is the sense of confidence which I feel in the small business community. The Canadian resilience is evident. The small business community has bounced back and it is cautiously optimistic. Small business in Simcoe North weathered the Liberal recession, which brought high interest rates, bankruptcies in the farming and small-business communities and record high unemployment. Self-confidence is returning, but I suggest to government Members that the self-confidence of which I speak is internal to the small-business community. It does not translate into any sense of confidence in the
March 5, 1984

Government. Universally in Simcoe North I am asked when the federal election will be called, when they can throw out the Liberals and get on with building Canada. Unfortunately, I would also point out that the payrolls of the larger employers in Simcoe North are not rebounding to pre-Liberal recession levels. That will only come when the energy, forest and other manufacturing industries recover from the Liberal recession and consumer confidence in the Canadian economy is restored.
The Budget is annually the most important address of the Minister of Finance to the House of Commons. It should review the country's economic position, state what steps the Government intends to take to improve the economy and make improvements in the taxation system. In this Budget the Minister of Finance has reviewed the Canadian economy with his usual honesty, that is to say, he took credit for the positive actions of others and ignored the disastrous policies of the Liberal Government. However, I am quick to say that the Budget has some admirable qualities which I applaud. First, it does not seek radical change in the taxation system. In the past four years the Liberal Party has brought forward the national energy policy in the guise of a budget. That Budget resulted in the rape of the energy industry in Canada for the sake of confiscation and higher energy taxes. As a result, the Canadian energy industry has collapsed, leaving a Liberal legacy of unemployment and bankruptcy in Simcoe North as well as across the country. Also I would like to refer to the disaster Budget of November 1981 introduced by the late departed, but not lamented, Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). That was the Liberal Budget which caused a greater recession in Canada than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Coupled with the Liberal high interest rate policy, the insular attitude of the bureaucracy in Ottawa and an arrogance beyond belief in today's democracy, Canada catapulted into the great Liberal recession.
The second admirable quality of the Budget is that it comes in the first quarter of the year. Frankly I am tired of the "here a budget, there a budget, everywhere a disastrous budget" policy which has characterized the Liberal Government. I suggest that we should adopt the policy that the Budget be brought forward by March 31 each year, that it be debated and voted upon through six days of nearly continuous debate, that the Budget legislation be introduced and passed by June 30 every year, and that any Budget measures which are not introduced or passed by June 30 lapse. In other words, if the Government and the bureaucracy cannot get their act together, introduce legislation and pass it forthwith, then tough luck, do not confuse taxpayers any longer.
Also I point out that the Minister of Finance and the Liberal Party appear to have discovered what the rest of us have known all along, that the private sector must be the main creator of jobs. After decades of grinding the private sector, shackling its efforts to create, the bureaucrats and the Liberal Party admit the unthinkable, that is, that the private sector must be the main creator of jobs. We are fortunate to have a
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
strong private sector in Canada. It had to be strong or it would not have withstood the assaults of the Liberal Party over the years. I find those things to be commendable about the Budget, and I would like to deal now with specifics.
The glaring omission in the Budget is the lack of a comprehensive plan to reduce unemployment to a level acceptable to Canadians. Under the Liberal Government, unemployment has reached heights which it has not seen since the great Great Depression. Young and old are crying out for jobs, yet the Liberal Government, with all the research and consultants at its disposal, does nothing to tackle realistically high unemployment today. Unemployment in January 1984 was at 11.2 per cent. The predictions indicate that it will remain in double digits for two years or three years to come.
While denying responsibility for the highest unemployment figure since the Great Depression, the Finance Minister is attempting to take credit for bringing down inflation. He does not seem to realize that it is difficult for people to bid up the costs of goods and services, which are after all the cause of inflation, if they do not have jobs. Canadians know who let inflation get out of hand and did nothing about it-the Liberal Party. Canadians know who tackled and beat inflation with precious little help from the federal Government-the Canadian people.
I am amused at the declaration of four principles under which the Government will now bargain. On page 4 of the "Budget in brief', it reads:
The government will bargain according to four principles:
-settlements should contribute to reducing inflation and be fiscally responsible
-compensation should be comparable to the private sector, on the basis of total
working conditions and benefits, not just wages
-compensation should not exceed that in the private sector
-settlements should encourage increased productivity and improved performance
and recognize relative job responsibilities.
Why has the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government not been bargaining on that basis all along? Why are they stating to Canadians that they have not been doing it until now? Why in fact did they allow things to get out of control?
I will leave the area of inflation with one comment. I note with amusement that Mr. Ian Sinclair, that great independent capitalist, has proven, like many other Liberal Senators, that he can be bought. He trumpeted across the land for a year or more preaching six and five while his companies gave out 22 per cent. He then went to his just reward-a seat in the Senate, an appointment for services rendered. He takes his rightful place with Senators Cools, Barrow and Giguere. It looks good on him!
During the past four years Canadian home owners have been brought under severe pressure by the Liberal high interest rate policy. Homes were lost, families broken up and dreams gone forever as Canadian home owners were forced to

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
renew mortgages at crippling interest rates. While the Government played at protecting Canadians from the spectre of foreclosure as set forth in the 1980 Speech from the Throne, the very real threat, not of foreclosure but of power of sale proceedings, was forced upon thousands of Canadian families. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government did nothing to help. The housing industry, a major employer in Canada, went into a slump throwing thousands of Canadians out of work. That is a very bipartisan introduction to some non-partisan remarks.
In reviewing this section of the Budget, I would like to do it on a non-partisan basis and draw upon my experience as a real estate lawyer. I suggest very sincerely that I am not trying to score political points but rather to examine the Government's three suggestions on a practical basis. The Government proposed a Mortgage Rate Protection Program designed to enable home owners to insure themselves against sharp increases in mortgage rates. I have examined the proposal. While I see at what the Government is aiming, I am not sure it will work either mathematically or practically. For example, the plan will only be economical to the home owner if mortgage rates increase 3.75 percentage points from the time the mortgage is taken out until its renewal five years later.
Second, home owners will have to find that premium up front when closing the real estate purchase. I know from my experience that this can be a real crunch for home buyers. I wonder whether it will place an unreasonable burden on them at the time of purchase.
Third, I suggest that mathematically they may be better off to borrow less and thus pay less interest during the term of the mortgage rather than insuring against an eventuality which will not take place.
Fourth, the plan lacks portability. It may not be possible to put portability into this plan. When a purchaser buys a house and assumes an existing mortage, the protection is only there if the vendor also took out this mortgage insurance. This is nevertheless a start. I hope there will be extensive consultation with the various sectors of the housing industry before the legislation is brought in so that the proposal can be properly studied and improved.
The second proposal is that the Government amend the Interest Act so that borrowers can prepay their mortgage at any time with a penalty equal to the loss which the lenders would suffer as a result of that prepayment. I suggest that is a fair proposal for both the borrower and the lender and that that legislation should be brought in quickly.
The third proposal that the Government makes is to take measures to encourage the return of the long-term mortgage market. What has bothered me the most over the past four years is not so much the instability of mortgage interest rates but the instability of the mortgage market. In the 1950s and 1960s, life insurance companies loaned on a 25-year basis. In the 1970s, the term came down to five years and the life insurance companies got out of the business. In the 1980s we
have one and two-year mortgages and even six-month mortgages. I suggest that that alone has created a social stress for Canadians. They are not only worried about mortgage payments, but they are worried about whether or not a mortgage will in fact renew even if they keep up the payments. I suggest that the Government give immediate attention to this initiative which will provide real security for the average Canadian home owner.
With respect to the sales tax changes, my constituents in Simcoe North welcome the changes in the sales tax system which shifts the manufacturers' sales tax on imported motor vehicles to the wholesale level. In Simcoe North we supply the Canadian automotive industry. Workers at industries such as Decor Metal Products have wondered for a long time why the Liberal Government has allowed foreign auto workers an unfair advantage.
One section of the Budget which was forced upon the Liberal Party and an unwilling bureaucracy was the section which is entitled "Improving the fairness of tax administration". For the past four months, the Progressive Conservative Party has exposed the scandalous manner in which officials of National Revenue, acting with the encouragement and blessing of the Liberal Party, have been harassing the Canadian taxpayer. Daily the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres) has denied it, only to be refuted by his own officials. One day there was no bonus system. The next day the bonus system was only in Kitchener. The day after offices across Canada had been advised to discontinue the bonus system. Surely no Minister in any Government has been made to look as foolish by his bureaucrats as has the present Minister of National Revenue.
In any event, we now have the Minister of Finance riding to the rescue. What is he going to do? Let us examine some of the proposals. Interest will be paid on overdue sales tax refunds. Big deal! What the Minister of Finance should do is to arrange to have the refunds processed faster.
The next item is that tax paid on sales that become bad debts will be refunded. That corrects an inequity that has been in the tax system since time immemorial. For decades the Government said: "You levy the sales tax, you pay it to us and we run for cover if the sale goes bad."
I pose the question that every sales tax collector will be asking: "Does the Minister mean that the tax collector will be able to deduct the sales tax previously paid on a sale that went bad, or does the Minister mean the collector must apply for a refund? The business community would much prefer to apply legitimate bad-debt losses of sales tax against current taxes collected. I suggest that would eliminate administrative costs. The Tax Court of Canada will be allowed to order Revenue Canada to pay up to $1,000 of the costs of a taxpayer's successful appeal. That begs the question, why just up to $1,000? If a taxpayer is challenged by the Department, goes to the expense of proving his or her case, why does he not get all of his costs?
Revenue Canada will do a lot of things for these taxpayers. It is going to refund an overpayment of income tax to a
March 5, 1984

Canadian resident resulting from a successful appeal to the Tax Court of Canada or the Federal Court, even if the Minister decides to appeal that decision. That oozes with sincerity. Let us examine it closely. What is left unsaid is that when the Department issues a notice of assessment, the amount demanded must be either paid or secured. The Liberal Party still considers the taxpayer guilty until proven innocent. The Minister of Finance does not realize the real cause of the problem. It used to be that tax assessors tried to settle a problem with the taxpayer in an honourable way. Assessment notices were only issued when an impasse was reached, or a legitimate issue had to be tried. Now, driven by the requirement to meet inequitable and unrealistic bonuses, assessors are forced to reassess in favour of the Department with little or no attempt to settle legitimate disagreements. That is why the system has broken down.
In conclusion I want to say a little bit about trust. I suggest that the Minister of Finance and the Liberal Party have completely lost the trust of the Canadian people. A trust is the same as a reputation. A reputation takes years to build, but it can be lost in minutes. Trust takes years to build, and it too can be lost quickly. The Liberal Party has spent the last four years losing the trust of the Canadian people.
That is not to say that the Liberal Party will not win the final vote in the Budget as it did the vote on the subamendment and the amendment. Liberal back-benchers, anxious to protect their jobs, will file in like the nobodies the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has called them and dutifully support the Government. The Government will have the numbers, but it governs by numbers alone; it does not govern by trust. The entire Liberal Party has lost the trust of the Canadian people.
The change of leadership will mean nothing. It is amusing to note that the leading contender for the Liberal leadership is a Bay Street lawyer who quit nine years ago. It is a sad commentary on a political Party when the best it has is someone who quit. Those of us who have watched this motley crew operate for the past four years are not surprised. Many of them should have quit a long time ago.
In closing my remarks on the Budget I would like to say that when the vote comes tomorrow, we will vote against the Budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is a ten-minute period of questions, comments and commentaries. There is no one wishing to put questions.
The Budget-Mr. Maltais



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 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 Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Veterans Affairs-Rejection of exceptional incapacity allowance applications, b) Delay in processing pension applications; the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)- Canada Post Corporation-Delivery testing systems; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-National Defence-Inquest into deaths of militia members-Request for transcript, b) Driver's licence.



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.
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this Debate on the Budget brought down by the Canadian Government. Earlier, I was surprised to hear that the Progressive Conservative Party would once again be voting against the Budget. I was surprised, since about two weeks ago there was a debate on the Special Recovery Projects and the Progressive Conservative Party was very upset at the thought that many Government members had taken advantage of special funds to create jobs in their own ridings.
As soon as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought down the Budget a few weeks ago, the financial critic got up to condemn the Budget. The Minister of Finance had hardly finished reading the measures he was proposing! What really surprises me in all this, is that every time a Budget is brought down by a Minister, according to custom, that same Budget is condemned before anyone has had time to examine the exact contents of the measures being proposed. On the Government side, however, as soon as the Budget is brought down, we ask the Minister and officials of the Department of Finance to explain the workings of the Budget to us, so that we can be sure of getting maximum benefits for Canadians out of the Budget proposals. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to follow tradition, to be against something, to be constantly negative, but if we take

Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to look for short term ways of helping people out of the dire straits they are in, through no fault of their own, rather than blaming the various mining companies in my area. But what answer do I get? Each time I call for extra funds to help people, either through additional mobility grants, mortgage compensation for house depreciation or total loss in real estate value, what answer do I get from officials, and often from ministers? That there is a financial problem, that there is not enough money. Mr. Speaker, the member for Manicouagan has a duty to press the ministers to find funds, even if it means increasing the deficit, to help people out of their trouble. But it is very easy for the other side to suggest that money is wasted. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is very well aware, since we worked together for solutions to help workers, that the government has a responsibility to the people who are hurting in those areas. What I often dislike in the speeches of Official Opposition members is that they always go along these lines: any operation showing a deficit must be left to the government and all profitable concerns are for the private sector only. That is just not good enough, Mr. Speaker! It is ironic that businessmen we meet have the tendency to continually ask for help from the government when the going gets rough; they keep asking for all sorts of grants. However, as soon as the situation improves, they readily claim they are overburdened with taxes. Mr. Speaker, one must face the facts, and take good care of the various elements in the Canadian society. The government's role is to ensure that the private sector can function within a free market ruled by the supply and demand law. But the government has also a responsibility to distribute the wealth amongst citizens of this country. The role of the State is not to substitute for private business, but to create a favourable climate for trade and business. That is the role of government: to create a healthy state of affairs in the economy, in order to generate wealth and, in turn, to ensure a wise distribution of this wealth amongst all citizens. And the budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance exactly meets these expectations, Mr. Speaker. One must have daily contacts with citizens to understand what individual needs really are. Mr. Speaker, senior citizens have also been adversely hit by the economic crisis, and they need support from the government; and moneys provided in this regard through all kinds of indexed benefits within the pension system are certainly not excessive, considering the hard work these people have invested over the years to build this country.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot deny that it is important and indeed essential to address the problems of youth, to provide jobs to our young. However, it is equally important to provide for the well being of our elders who have enabled us to enjoy the standard of living we have achieved. It is normal to have special consideration for those people and to take specific measures in favour of that group of citizens.
The Budget-Mr. Maltais
Mr. Speaker, a visit to any home for the elderly is all one needs to realize just how important an additional $10, $15 or $25 a week can be to enable them to make ends meet, particularly keeping in mind the extent of rising costs in the past three of five years.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we are not motivated only by compassion when we adjust old age pensions, we are simply assuming our social responsibilities and ensuring that those people get a fair share of our wealth.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a remote area and we could use additional airports. For five years now, I have been trying to bring English television service to a small village such as Tekaska, and invariably I have been met with near indifference, allegedly because there are not even 500 residents in that small village. CRTC regulations deny cable television to those people, so that a typically English-speaking community is serviced only by French television. That is an injustice! Yes, an injustice!
Mr. Speaker, I think that I will have to bring more pressure to bear on the Minister of Communications to have the Department of Communications or the CRTC change those regulations, so that the small community of Tekaska can have English television.
Between Sept-Iles and Blanc-Sablon, Mr. Speaker, there are about fifteen small communities which are anxiously awaiting development, and young people return to their place of origin in increasing numbers to regain control over the administration and the economy of those communities. I think that, in all fairness, we must support and help them become the economic fulcrum of the Middle and Lower North Shore. There are not only empty words, Mr. Speaker. I have been their Member for four or five years and I know that over $30 million have been spent in that region which perhaps are not producing quite as much as they can. However, I am convinced that it will be a resource-producing region for Quebec and the rest of Canada within a few years. That is why I have accepted the Canadian Challenge, I want to help those people. The same thing can be said about other cities in the North, Mr. Speaker, their outlook is promising indeed!	.
We could have accomplished a lot more had we been more logical in the past by carrying out worthwhile research projects and processing programs, and if mining companies, governments and universities had combined their efforts.
Before my allotted time expires, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say simply that I will vote in favour of this Budget. There are still many things that I would have liked to say about Manicouagan, which I regard as a Canadian microcosm on account of its ethnic and economic make-up. However, in spite of all our present economic woes, I believe that we must not entertain a negative attitude vis-a-vis the budgetary proposals but rather that it is time to be positive and ensure a true economic recovery in such areas. Here, in Toronto and in Montreal, an economic recovery is certainly underway. We are

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Maltais
still waiting for it in my area, but, thanks to Government support, we shall now be able to achieve our purposes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There will now be a 10 minute period for questions, answers and comments.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on the basis of the Bank of Canada rates, interest rates are higher now than at any time since December, 1982 and are rising. There is every indication that, with the squeeze on the availability of money, interest rates will rise dramatically for the balance of this year and into next year.
Could the Hon. Member tell me how he thinks that deficit financing, which will have to be financed by borrowing at higher and higher rates, will be helpful? How was that helpful to his constituents who perhaps want to finance a home or a business? Does he not perhaps believe, when he talks of the free enterprise mode, that if Government got out of some of the things it is doing, perhaps there might be more money so that his constituents can expand and do things on their own?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe that this is hypothetical since interest rates could go back to what they were in 1981-82. On the other hand, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that, concerning mortgage rates, in Mr. Lalonde's Budget a ceiling is proposed that will give us a mortgage guarantee, which means that we shall not be faced in the future with the same mortgage rates as were experienced during the last two or three years. That is my first point.
Second, when the Hon. Member asks which Government programs we could scrap in order to support smaller busineses, I would like him to tell me which program he would personally like to see removed. Would it be the Federal Business Development Bank? Many businesses regularly use the services of the FBDB because, while it admittedly has a relatively high lending rate, that is somewhat higher than the average rate of other banks, it may be the bank which incurs the largest risks. It should be said that when the FBDB loans money to a small business, it is because most of the time such a business was refused a loan by regular banking institutions. Then there are other programs. Does the Hon. Member mean the programs administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
Mr. Speaker, Quebec and also Ontario have greatly benefited from these programs these last few years. To my knowledge, very few small businesses have asked us to scrap DREE programs, now called IRDP's or Industrial Regional Development Programs. These programs should perhaps be strengthened, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps have a single dispensing agency. I would be in favour of having a single service through which businessmen could deal directly with the various Government programs. This is a first point.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to suggest that certain programs should be abolished, he can say so and perhaps make the suggestion to the appropriate committees of the House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is clearly familiar with the Budget and the spending Estimates of the Government and will appreciate that as a result of Supplementary Estimates (C) the Government will be putting $550 million into Canadair in this fiscal year alone and $300 million de Havilland in this fiscal year alone, to build airplanes. There is no provision in this Budget for money to these corporations for next year. I was wondering if the Hon. Member feels then that the Budget was a fair presentation of what is anticipated as being the costs of running the Government when this year it is necessary to put into those two rather defunct corporations over $850 million, yet no provision is made for them in this Budget? On that basis, how can the Hon. Member support this Budget as it does not clearly indicate all the liabilities of the Government?
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can certainly refer to de Havilland or Canadair when he speaks about deficits. However, I would like to remind him that the difference between the Canadian Government and the American Government in the area of research is that we often act through Crown corporations while, in the United States, research is carried out through the Defence Department. If the Hon. Member is well informed, he will know that, in Canada, we have often used Crown corporations to carry out technological research. Certainly, Canadair is having problems and so is de Havilland. However, how many people work for these companies? Second, the research activities they carry out will be used to reinvest in products which could become profitable in years to come. Every company will experience problems sooner or later, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has referred to de Havilland and Canadair. In my area, I could mention mining companies which are exclusively of the private sector. The difference is that, when they have a deficit, they lay off workers. This may be one way of solving many problems, but the role of Government is two-fold: first, it must make sure that private companies, and yes, I did say private companies can operate in Canada within the free market system, and, second, it must allow Crown corporations to be set up to carry out research. We are now facing hard economic times and the Hon. Member will have to admit that. Even during the nine months when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, abolishing these corporations was out of the question. And even during the Progressive Conservative Party Leadership Campaign, the most serious candidates had to agree that selling or closing down these corporations was out of the question. I suggest that this is like saying that de Havilland and Canadair do not have the means to operate and that the budget does not provide anything in this respect . . . That is not
March 5, 1984

the whole truth, for in the budget tabled in 1983 as well as in the budget tabled in 1984, the Minister of Finance had allocated funds, so that de Havilland and Canadair have sufficient funding to operate. And if they are ever faced with financial problems, they know they can come to the Government or Parliament for additional funding.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am happy to hear, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member thinks they might come to the Government for funding, but he will appreciate that the contingency allowance set out in the Budget is only $800 million, having been reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 million. With respect to de Havilland and Canadair alone, the amount of money spent this year on those corporations is $850 million-that is on those two expenditure items alone-and there is no provision in the Budget for those expenditures which are undoubtedly going to take place with those corporations, as they both, as the Hon. Member knows, have funded debt well in excess of $1.8 billion, and they are both losing money at the rate of $20 million, $30 million and $40 million a month.
Surely the Hon. Member must understand that there has to be an allowance somewhere in the Budget for this contingency expense, but the contingency expense is only $800 million. How does the Hon. Member then wish to support a budget which does not have a proper contingency allowance, clearly does not foresee expenditures which he knows, and I know, will have to be met? What does he propose to do, sell Canadair, close it down, fire the workers? Is that the Hon. Member's proposal? Is that why there is no contingency allowance for Canadair and de Havilland?


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when I hear remarks such as those the Hon. Member has just made, blaming the government on the one hand because the deficit is supposedly too high, and blaming it on the other hand because the contingency allowance for Canadair and de Havilland is supposedly not high enough. This is definitely a contradictory statement. The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that both de Havilland and Canadair have the funds they need for the time being. So far, these corporations have not come directly to Parliament for more funding, but if they ever do, I would simply ask the Hon. Member opposite and his colleagues to grant these corporations additional funds. I think, however, that the minister responsible for Crown corporations sought budgetary adjustments a few months ago. Some changes have even taken place within the various Crown corporations to improve administrative performance as well as to recoup our losses, while maintaining the greatest number of people on the work force and making de Havilland and Canadair products more cost efficient and exportable. I think we should be reasonable, and should, at some point in time de Havilland request more funds, I would mention to the Hon. Member that we might have to vote supplementary estimates.
The Budget-Mr. Kristiansen


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing with my remarks on the Budget today, I would first of all like to add a few words to some of the exchanges which went on earlier regarding the retirement of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Many Hon. Members will recall that some time ago he suggested to some of us in western Canada that we should climb our own mountains. Coming from the constituency of Kootenay West, which has some of the most spectacular mountains and mountain scenery in the country, I had already done so. However, since his remark I have done so again and what I have seen from the tops of mountains in my own constituency and what can be seen from mountain tops in many areas of Canada is not particularly attractive as regards the state of our forest industry. That is the subject which I would like to discuss today.
If you stand on a mountain top, fly by helicopter or light plane, particularly over many of the once forested areas of Canada, you will see many areas which have been cut and laid to waste and not replanted. They have been ignored both by federal Government and by provincial Governments across this land for generations. It is, Sir, a national scandal.
It is sometimes difficult for people in metropolitan areas to appreciate that we are facing large-scale shortages of commercially viable forests in Canada. It has been a deliberate policy of many of our Governments to keep green belts around the highways and keep the scarred areas out of sight beyond the mountain tops. The public generally has thus not been aware of the lasting devastation created. And we have done virtually nothing to redeem it.
In my own province, the unsatisfactorily restocked areas make up some 640,000 hectares. They have been ignored and not replanted. Above and beyond that we have huge areas which have not been effectively managed. We do not thin or fertilize. Any farmer would be absolutely insane to farm in the same way that we handle our forestry resource.
I would just like to run down a short list of headlines which we have seen lately. Some people in Canada have begun to wake up. People in the forest industry, whether they be loggers, mill workers, company spokesmen or foresters, have begun to speak up. Indeed, the public has begun to speak up more and more in the last few years, and the media and some politicians are finally catching on. None of us are without sin in this matter because the claims to priority by many segments of the public often get more attention from many of us than do the long-term demands of our nation and its number one industry-having regard to its contribution to the Canadian economy. There was a headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail on February 11, 1984, which said "Massive lay-offs seen in B.C. forestry study", and "B.C. lay-offs foreseen". The Vancouver Sun of February 11, 1984 carried the headline, "Forests being written off'. The article said:
Ottawa and Victoria have "written off' B.C.s forests jeopardizing more than 60,000 jobs-

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Kristiansen
Again from The Vancouver Sun of February 10, 1984, we have "Ottawa predicts disaster in woods", and "Tree planting cuts can mean disaster". The Vancouver Sun of November 19,
1983,	carried the headline, "Forest renewal aid called abysmal". The suggestion here is that Canada spends more abroad assisting other countries with reforestation than we spend on our own resources. The January 1984 newsletter of the Western Sylvicultural Contractors Association headlined, "Federal forest funds fade". The article said:
For all intents and purposes B.C. has lost out on a $60 million cost sharing program with the federal Government. The money would have been spent on backlog reforestation-rehabilitating and planting 600,000 hectares of the Province's better N.S.R. sites.
The Vancouver Sun of February 18 this year said, "B.C. forests being raped, prof charges". Again The Vancouver Sun of February 8, 1984, said, "Forest renewal plan put on hold for a year". This delay is absolutely devastating for employment and the viability of that province and its people. Another headline, from the Trail Times, reads, "Forestry aid is less likely to continue". In The Vancouver Sun of February 9,
1984,	the headline reads, "Government is gambling with the future of B.C. forests". The government referred to is both the Government in Ottawa and the provincial Government in Victoria. In The Vancouver Sun of February 4, 1984, an article headlined "Axe-wielding Waterland attacked for cutting 500 jobs" says:
Professional foresters and B.C.s biggest forest union laced into Forests Minister Tom Waterland on Friday for axing more than 500 jobs in his ministry.
To quote from the February 3 Canadian Press statement on which this story was based, Mr. Speaker, it said:
The provincial Forests Ministry will cut 506 positions April 1 to reach its target of reducing its work force by 25 per cent to 4,145, Forests Minister Tom Waterland said Friday.
Waterland said employees have been given the options of taking earlier retirement, voluntary retirement and collection of severence benefits or moving to another position in the Forests Ministry or another ministry if jobs are available.
Waterland said 316 jobs will be eliminated in 46 regional offices, 100 positions in the six district offices and 90 positions in the Department's headquarters.
The cutback should not affect any specific branch of the Ministry, Waterland said, because it is a uniform cutback throughout the Department.
That Ministry, which has been criticized continuously for having too few skilled people to do the minimum job of overseeing forest management in my province, not to mention their failure to begin the process of catching up on backlog reforestation, says that a 25 per cent cut across the board in services, including their total destruction of the B.C. forestry school, is not going to have any impact. The Minister has the nerve to suggest that people can move to jobs elsewhere in the Department. It is a tragic picture, Mr. Speaker, absolutely tragic, and the policies of this Government in Ottawa are not helping.
I can understand the frustration of some of the federal Ministers who I believe have had a legitimate and sincere interest in trying to promote the welfare of that industry and the people who depend upon it. But whether they be Ministers in this Liberal Government or Ministers in the former Clark Conservative Government, they are of no help when they cut
programs just because we have an irresponsible Government in British Columbia which is destroying its forest industry. For the federal Government to join in this attack on our forest industry does not help anyone at all.
Another headline from the Nelson Daily News says, "Forests Ministry lay-offs hit city". Some 50 people in my home town of only 9,000 people have just been laid off. This does not simply mean that those 50 families are going to be in trouble, or that this community, Nelson, which already has an unemployment rate of some 30 per cent to 40 per cent, is going to be in trouble; it means that we are not going to take any concrete steps to renew and revitalize one of the most decadent timber areas in British Columbia. We have been logged and logged for almost a century, and virtually nothing has been put back. Then we get complaints from both the federal and provincial Governments that they do not have enough money to do the job that is required. Well, there is more news in the headlines.
This headline, from the Trail Daily Times of February 17, 1984, again from Canada Press, reads, "Taxpayers Cheated. Sloppy Work Costs-Ombudsman". The article says:
British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. has been getting millions of dollars of timber tax free because of sloppy work by the provincial forests Ministry, Ombudsman Karl Freidmann said Thursday.
And slipshod measuring by ministry scalers had cost six small independent firms $4.5 million to $6.3 million, and forced them to the 'brink of financial disaster,'-
Provincial ombudsman Karl Friedmann went on to say:
'Since the timber was not scaled, the company benefiting from the use of Crown timber had never been billed, and millions of dollars have gone uncollected.'
Friedmann said it appears the ministry will not bill the company because B.C. Forest Products had made it clear it does not want to get a bill, and this was contrary to the spirit and intent of the Forests Act.
To quote from him again, he said:
'This position contradicts any proposition that the ministry might be managing the province's forests in the public interest.'
That is from the provincial ombudsman of British Columbia after an extensive investigation.
The headline from The Vancouver Sun of February 29, 1984, reads, "$750 million in fees unpaid over the period of the last five years". That charge, made in the legislature, reported in The Vancouver Sun, is well substantiated. We have seen drastic declines in revenue, not just because of recession but because nobody has been collecting the money that part of the forest industry in that province has been making even in good times. Talk about horses on the payroll!
For governments, whether federal or provincial, to suggest that they do not now have the money and therefore we will have to bail out eventually the entire Province of British Columbia, which produces the lion's share of forest products in this country and the lion's share of employment-the federal Government's own report suggests that-is absolutely scandalous.
March 5, 1984

Here is an editorial from The Vancouver Sun dated February 16, entitled, "The Free Log Scandal". It reads:
Is it true that the government has allowed Crown timber to be delivered to B.C. Forest Products or other large forest companies free of charge? If so, how did it happen? Was there incompetence? Was there criminal activity?
There is one front page headline after another, from Toronto to Vancouver. The same scandalous situations exist in Atlantic Canada. While the stories may not be as nauseating as some of those from British Columbia, equally serious charges have been levied about ignoring the welfare of our forest industry in Atlantic Canada. Finally, an editorial headline from the Globe and Mail of February 21, 1984, reads, "Running out of Trees". That is exactly what we are faced with.
The federal Government's own report entitled, "The need for forest renewal and management in British Columbia", recently issued by the Pacific Forest Research Centre of the federal Department of the Environment, outlines a scenario that ought to alarm every Canadian whether or not he lives in one of the 300 communities dependent upon the forest industry. This report says that British Columbia faces massive unemployment in nearly every major city and town unless a strong push is made to reforest large tracts of land logged during the past few decades. It states that more than 30,000 jobs will disappear in the forest products industry alone and another 30,000 will vanish in related servicing industries. The federal Government's own report added that the impact would be so severe that the provincial Government would be unable to handle the resultant financial crisis and the federal Government will have to intervene.
1 ask the federal Government why it must wait until it needs to embark on a massive emergency bailout of one of the so-called have provinces of Canada? The federal Government is now cutting back, and it should not do so.
The Leader of my Party, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) responsible for the Canadian Forestry Service on February 13, 1984, as reported at page 1315 of Hansard:
Before the weekend his Department released a report which predicted that we will lose 30,000 jobs . . . Would he confirm to the House if these alarming figures are accurate and, if so, what does his Government plan to do about this fundamentally important part of the Canadian economy?
The Minister of the Environment went on with some irrelevancy about a commitment to FORINTEK, and then said:
We have renewed this commitment, and the Hon. Member knows very well that we are very concerned with maintaining the viability of this sector of our economy.
He then went on to say:
In 1983-84 we have done everything possible to maintain jobs in this particular sector, particularly through unemployment insurance funding of jobs, despite lack of co-operation from one province.
There has been a little more than lack of co-operation from one province. However, the Minister was suggesting how much the Government has done to save the industry through employment creation programs. This year alone, the forecasted expenditures of 1983-84 compared to the Estimates for 1984-85
The Budget-Mr. Kristiansen
show that for 1983-84 they were $115 million and for 1984-85 they were $45 million. That is a 61 per cent cut in forestry expenditures under the Department of the Environment. Employment programs went down from $21.5 million to less than $60,000. That is a 99.998 per cent cut in forestry-based employment programs. Is that their measure of concern? It is absolute, asinine stupidity by a Government which says that it is looking after employment programs in the forest industry. It is using band-aids instead of major surgery, and even that commitment is collapsing.
We know that the Government of British Columbia and some other provinces are destroying our forest industry through neglect, but the federal Government should not get even by joining them in that destruction. It does not help, and eventually someone will have to pay.
We are talking about an emergency arising from a scandal on a scale which this country has never seen. At some point the federal Government must take hold of this problem and give serious attention to the needs for a solution.
Finally, let me make some proposals. We must deal with the problems of reforestation, research and development, new market developments, product diversification and new technology before it is too late.
I and my Party, the NDP, make the following suggestions: One, to create a separate federal Ministry of forests. Under the current Government, forestry is primarily handled by the Canadian Forestry Service which operates under the Department of the Environment. But there are some 19 separate branches and departments responsible for forestry. Thus, there is no co-ordination or strong voice that is able to speak in Cabinet. While there is now a Minister responsible, he has a multitude of other responsibilities, some of which are in conflict. Surely an industry which contributes more to the Canadian economy in terms of balance of payments than fishing, mining, energy and a number of other areas put together deserves more responsibility.
Two, to establish a committee to coordinate job training programs as technology changes the nature of employment in the industry.
Three, to increase expenditures on research and development to a level comparable to that in the United States and Scandinavia. If one wants a comparison, the track record of the Government of Sweden is one that simply cries out for some emulation. I plead with the Minister of the Environment and other Members who may be interested in the future of their constituents who depend on this industry to compare that country with Canada. Sweden has insignificant forest resources compared with Canada but is actually increasing its acreage every year as well as its capacity to produce every year. The Swedish industry is also much more modernized than Canada's because it paid attention to the future. That is the kind of action our industry requires.
Four, to tie corporate tax incentives to performance and forest renewal, research and development and resource processing. To establish a fund to help one-industry towns find

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Kristiansen
other industries. We are running out of time. Even if the Government addresses the emergency now and begins to grapple with the problem, many communities will still go under because they will have to pay the price of our neglect in the past.
I urge all Members of Parliament to consider places that have done a better job and not just pass the buck. The buck stops here.


Ralph Ferguson: The Hon. Member suggested that a Ministry of Forestry be established at the Canadian Government level. Recognizing the fact that the forest industry is a provincial jurisdiction, does he feel that the provinces would hand over this jurisdiction to the Government of Canada in view of the fact that they have not done a very good job of handling the forests themselves?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting the federal Government ought to take over total jurisdiction from the provinces. If the Hon. Member recollects, during the constitutional debate in which we were engaged, my own Party was instrumental in strengthening that section which dealt with the prerogatives and jurisdiction of the provinces, especially with regard to renewable resources. Forestry was one of those areas most on our minds.
The problem is that this crisis will be dropped in our lap unless we begin to take some initiatives. I do not think many of the provinces will object to most. In the proposals I mentioned, however, there is one area that may cause some difficulty. It is to tie corporate tax incentives to performance in forest renewal, research and development and resource processing. I can see some provincial objections to that. But as the federal Department of the Environment's own report said, unless we act now we will have to bail out the entire Province of British Columbia a few years down the road. It becomes a matter of choice.
I know that the Minister of the Environment in his negotiations on the renewal of the forestry subsidiary agreement with British Columbia took the position, and I understand it, that federal spending would only be incremental to provincial spending. But, we simply do not have the time to wait. We are falling further and further behind. We must spend additional moneys now. We must use some leverage, use some push, use bait, or even threaten in such a way that provincial Governments may take us to court for interfering with their jurisdiction. This will at least make it a higher profile political issue. Maybe we will gain more allies and smarten up some of those provincial Governments into doing their share. If that is not done, we will get stuck with the bill in time anyway. This is the Hon. Member's own Government's report that says what will happen to us just a few years down the road.
I know the difficulties, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions which the Hon. Member posed. I think the emergency is just too great to waste any more time.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate on the Budget. I am pleased because, having had the opportunity to listen to what has come from the other side, one can only be more convinced that this Budget is adopting the right course and the right perspective. What have we heard from the other side? We have heard the most irresponsible mixture of criticisms and commentaries that it has been my privilege in the four years I have been in this House to hear. What do we hear? First, that the Government has not dealt with the deficit.


Mr. Clarke:: Right.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Right, as Hon. Members opposite say. But in the next breath we hear them say that we have not dealt with unemployment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right, again.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: But you are not going to deal compatibly with those two issues at the same time, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why not?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Pick your priority, I say to Hon. Members over there. There is no way that we can go about in the Reaganist way which the Tories suggest-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is not bad. Americans have growth and more employment.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -of reducing our deficit and increasing our military expenditures while at the same time creating more jobs for Canadians. Canadians are not so stupid that they will buy that type of Mickey Mouse economics.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They won't buy you much longer. Let us go to the country and find out.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Unemployment is a critical issue facing all of us. What are the Tories' solutions for dealing with it? It is to cut the deficit.
I am concerned about the size of our deficit, I must confess. If the Opposition had wanted to argue credibly that perhaps in the halcyon days of the 1970s, when we had real growth in the order of 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent to 7 per cent, we should have been setting aside some of our surplus funds and creating some budget surpluses, putting them away for a rainy day, then I might find some credibility in what they are saying today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You were in power then.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: When we are in the midst of the worst recession since the Dirty Thirties, and when unemployment is at excessive levels, intolerable levels, to try to cut back on that deficit is absolutely irresponsible.
Let us look at our record in job creation. In spite of these totally unacceptable levels of unemployment, we have not done
March 5, 1984

badly. During the previous 12-month period we have created in Canada more than 400,000 new jobs. Since 1970, our record has been the best of all the industrialized nations. We have created in Canada more than a 50 per cent increase in new jobs. Compare that with the so-called dynamic economy like that of-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The United States.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -West Germany, in which case it has had a 2 per cent decline in the number of actual jobs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How about the United States?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If all Members feel that the way we are going to cut the deficit is by cutting back on social spending, I would like to hear them rise and with a unanimous voice tell us which of those programs they would cut back.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How about Canadair and de Havilland?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the clown prince of the Official Opposition, has said that when the Tories are in power they are going to get tough. On whom are they going to get tough? We have listened to them throughout the debates over the past six months on Canada's economic future. When you go through the the debates, Mr. Speaker, and look at what the Official Opposition is proposing, you will come up with more than 150 new expenditure programs. Almost nowhere are the Tories prepared to say, "Let us cut back there". Tories are political opportunists and hypocrites of the worst order. If they feel they merit the confidence of the people of Canada, then it is up to them to come forward with comprehensive, constructive alternatives. But what have they told us they are going to do? Very simply, they have told us that they have no policy. The Hon. Member for St. John's West has said, "Well, I agree with what the Finance Minister has proposed". Or we hear, "Yes, we have policies, but we are afraid that if we tell you what they are, you might implement them for the benefit of Canadians. Therefore, we are going to hold them back". They feel we will pinch these wonderful policies which could be helping the Canadian people at this time-if they have them. Tories are pretending they have them, but they are going to hold them back to try to make political hay with them when it comes to election time. I was not elected to this House to think only of the next election. If the Tories have concrete alternatives to help the unemployed, I say, bring them forward.
Before I leave this point, it is important to mention some figures that were contained in the Globe and Mail of this morning. The article pointed out social spending as a percentage of gross domestic product in seven of our major countries. West Germany spends 31.5 per cent of its gross domestic product on social spending. Canada spends only 21.7 per cent. This is only a percentage point more than the United States spends. At the bottom is Japan which spends 17.5 per cent. The international comparisons with comparable countries do not indicate that we are overspending on our social programs. When I see the unemployed people out there, I am not prepared to advocate that we cut back on our social spending in
The Budget-Mr. Peterson
order to try to come to some Holy Grail, whereas the Tory solution will be increased expenditures, decreased deficits and more jobs than we are presently creating. Canadian people will not buy that.
Let us look at some of the measures in the Budget. I commend what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has done here for small business, particularly in cutting back on the limits where small business tax is available to our small businesses. Small businesses have demonstrated their capacity to create new jobs in Canada. We are putting money into the hands of small business people who have the track record at creating jobs. We will see those efforts come to fruition. They will bear fruit. I also like the thrust of encouraging more worker participation in both stock ownership and profit sharing. Those two measures are an integral part of the measures dealing with business.
Pensioners have been dealt with in a way that is responsible. The most crying and pressing need of any group of Canadians today has been that of senior citizens, particularly single ones, most of whom are women living below the poverty level. By increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $50, we are addressing that group directly in the most concrete way possible. If there is to be any criticism from the Opposition, let that criticism be on the basis that perhaps we have not gone far enough in bringing the incomes of seniors closer to the poverty line. The poverty line should be the minimum target when we are a country of such great resources and means. It is a travesty that persons reach their retirement years, having made their contribution, with their only aspiration being to live below the poverty line.
I appreciate what the Minister has done in trying to bring private pension plans and the Canada Pension Plan more into line with the needs of meeting the vast financial commitments which will exist as our population ages. It is a tough issue with which to deal, but I believe excellent steps have been taken. I commend the task force chaired by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for its recommendations which found their way into the Budget. I am particularly pleased that those provisions will create greater equality of opportunity for women, particularly single women, with survivor benefits and compulsory splitting of pension plans on separation. In the past we have seen in areas such as these that injustice has reigned. I am particularly pleased that we will see a two-year vesting instead of a ten-year vesting. Private pension plans have to become portable. The test will be whether the private sector will grasp the opportunity made available to it in this Budget. If private sector businesses and the insurance industry do not take up those plans and increase the role of private pension plans in our society beyond the paltry 10 per cent they now enjoy, the only alternative for governments in this land will be to increase the size of the public pension sector. We are awaiting anxiously what the private sector will do with this opportunity made available in the Budget.
1782

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Peterson
There are many other areas about which I would like to talk. 1 look forward to the consultative process of the Minister of Finance with respect to part-time farmers and Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. Those consultations will be very, very important. We have to ensure that part-time farmers are not penalized just because they have to work in town to supplement their poor earning capacity on marginal farms. We want to ensure that people who work in towns and are trying to buy into new farming situations can keep their jobs in town and not suffer. We want to see the people in marginal farming areas, which have suffered enormously over the past few years because commodity prices have not kept pace, being given an opportunity through hard work and initiative to stand on their feet, not be besieged by artificial limits imposed in the income tax or by rapacious tax investigators.
I have watched Budgets closely since 1970. I have followed them in great detail. It is my considered opinion that the Budget of April 19, 1983 and the one of February 15, 1984 are the two very best Budgets. They respond to the needs of our nation, our economic needs, the needs of taxpayers and the need for investment better than any other Budget over that period of time.
One area about which I want to talk is unique and provides a new opportunity over the long term to create a better economic future in Canada. I am referring to the provision dealing with aid-trade. The Aid-Trade Fund was announced in the Budget, but first I would like to back up somewhat to look at our position with respect to foreign aid. Hon. Members will recall that back in the early 1960s we set global targets for development assistance to developing countries, to less developed countries, to the Third World. We set a target among rich western nations of about 1 per cent of the Gross National Product. We felt that out of every dollar each of our economies produced, we could devote one cent to developing countries. Then we found that we were falling short of that target. Canada had a sorry record. Our aid amounted to less than .4 per cent, even though we are one of the wealthiest countries. Prime Minister Pearson headed a commission in the late sixties which set a new target of .75 per cent. It cut our overall target for development assistance by 25 per cent. Major western countries fell short of that target. In 1980, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed a task force of the House of Commons headed by the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). It did an excellent job in its report. It set a target of .7 per cent of GNP. We have not yet come close to that target. Where are we?
In 1981, of the 17 development assistance committee members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of the 17 wealthiest industrialized countries in the world, Canada ranked eighth in terms of the proportion of its resources it was prepared to commit to development assi-tance-.54 per cent. At the top was The Netherlands with 1.1 per cent. At the bottom or seventeenth was the United States of America with .24 per cent. It is a great regret that the United States, the economic leader in the western world, has cut back on its once very proud figures exceeding 1 per cent of
GNP. That was in the 1960s. This is a shortsighted policy. It is selfish. It will lead to a worsening of the world economic order, situation and structure over the decades ahead. As Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber has written in his book The World Challenge, Le Defi Mondial, the rich western nations are going to be able to compete among one another over the years ahead, perhaps the decades ahead. In one year we will be up in one product and another nation will be up in another. Basically he said that we are not going to have tremendous leaps forward in the quantitative growth of our economies in the West. We will only gain marginal advantages over one another from time to time. He said that our solution for growth lies in the 160 developing countries in this world, and that there is a necessity for us to work in a co-operative way.
This is what the Aid-Trade Fund is doing. As we increase our expenditure on foreign aid, it will go to helping Canadian exporters. I do not object at all to tying our Third World aid to Canadian exporters. This is good for Canadians. It means that we will be able to spend more. Let us not continue with parsimonious levels of even .7 per cent of gross national product when it comes to building the type of world which will benefit the Third World, when we will have incredible opportunities to benefit and to grow along with them. This is a farsighted policy. This is typical of many of the measures in this Budget. I am proud to speak today in favour of the Budget of February 15, 1984.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, would the Chairman of the Finance Committee comment on a statement made before the Senate Budget Committee in the United States by Paul Volker on February 29 last when he said:
The adverse effect of the imbalance of domestic savings and investment on credit markets has become more apparent as the U.S. economy has grown and those imbalances can only worsen if deficits of the magnitude projected by the Congressional budget office and others, deficits without precedent during a period of economic expansion, are permitted to materialize in coming years.
In view of the fact that our deficit in terms of borrowing requirements will be 92 per cent of domestic savings, in view of the fact that our deficit on a per capita basis is one and a half times greater than the United States and in view of the fact that our deficit is nearly three times as large as that of the Americans on a comparison of gross national product to gross national product, how can the Chairman of the Finance Committee of this House conceivably approve this Budget?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this question is obviously rhetorical. If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) had the slightest suggestion as to where we were going to be able to cut expenditures in order to give Canadians better value for their tax dollars, I believe he would have come forward with that. The simple fact is that that question is typical of what the Opposition Members have been doing throughout this debate. They are not prepared to say on what they were prepared to cut back in terms of expenditures. Is it going to be the senior citizens? Is it going to be transfers to the
March 5, 1984

provinces? Transfer payments are approximately 85 per cent of federal Government expenditures.
The other day in the Finance Committee the Elon. Member voted along with the New Democrats to increase our expenditures to the provinces for post-secondary education. They are not going to cut back on transfers for post-secondary education. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said: "We would not cut back on payments for health care. We would give more money to the provinces for health care". Are they a good advocate of cutting back on payments to senior citizens? No. Where are they going to save the billions of dollars that they want? That is the first part of my response to what was an obviously politically rhetorical question.
On the second aspect, quite frankly I am not prepared to agree with the Hon. Member that at this time, as we are rebuilding a new type of economy, a new base using the new technologies, we can afford to pull back. I am not afraid of a deficit of $31.5 billion in the last Budget. Would the Hon. Member like to put his own figure on what he thinks that deficit should be?
The only honest approach they can take is that in previous years, perhaps during the 1970s, we overspent. We had real growth and at the same time we were running deficits. If that is their approach and if they can honestly say that during those times they were advocating cutting back on expenditures, that they were against indexing personal income taxes in the midseventies and all of those things, then perhaps they would have some credibility when they speak on the issue of deficits today.
I do not apologize for the deficit of $31.5 billion contained in the Budget of February 15, 1984. Anybody who does so has the obligation to come forth and show us where they would make the specific cuts and who would suffer from those cuts.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Petersen) had to say with regard to pensions. It is an issue in which I happen to have a particular and ongoing interest. 1 heard his eloquent remarks about the needs of the elderly, particularly elderly single Canadians. 1 am in agreement with him, except that he also made some complementary remarks about the parliamentary task force on pension reform which recommended an increase of $102 a month to these people who exist on nothing but the GIS and OAS. The Government did not choose to go that route. I want to ask him for his personal opinion. I have had the reaction of the Government. Those people over the age of 65 today, the 600,000 who are living below the poverty line, are primarily women. Most of them are there because most of their lives they have spent working full-time in the home and there was no provision for them in any kind of pension plan. The parliamentary task force came up with a self-financing proposal by which homemakers could be brought into the Canada Pension Plan in their own right so that if they are divorced or separated or if the husband dies, they can carry on as beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. I am looking for recruits, for supporters of that proposal. I say to the Hon. Member that I know the Government does not support it, but does he as an individual who seems to be concerned about that
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall
issue realize that if we do not correct the inequities that presently exist for people who work full-time in the home, there will be even more than 600,000 people in that desperate category who will be over the age of 65 very soon?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments to make in response to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I support enthusiastically the concept and the recommendation of the task force with respect to homemakers' pensions. As the Hon. Member points out, the situation is, I think, absolutely unconscionable. There are so many people who have made their contributions. No one can tell me that being a homemaker is not an important, critical and valuable contribution in terms of social values and in terms of the economic possibilities it often gives the other members of the family. No one may denigrate that contribution, particularly when it comes to the retirement income of these single women who are below the poverty line. It is a national disgrace that so many single women are living below the poverty line.
I would like to know what the position of her Party is on this matter. I support that recommendation completely. Let us all work in a constructive way toward seeing that it is achieved.
My second comment is that the Budget Speech made by the Minister did indicate that discussions are being undertaken and will be undertaken quickly with the provinces in order to obtain provincial support and co-operation in this endeavour. I do not think we can wait very long for those discussions to start and for us to come up with some very practical solutions to the very real problem that the Hon. Member has articulated.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) a couple of questions. He dwelled for a long time on the question of debts and deficits, and I was wondering if he had seen a recent column in The Financial Post of February 18, 1984, written by an economics professor from the University of Manitoba, Mr. Ruben Bellan. The column points out that instead of pursuing in Canada an approach to deficit and debt similar to that pursued by the Government of Japan, we have, because of the policy of the Liberal Government, which is urged on even more strongly by the Progressive Conservative Party, been pursuing a policy of borrowing abroad and forcing our municipalities and corporations, etc., to borrow abroad because the Government does not borrow at a low cost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question period is terminated. We will return to debate.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in starting off I would like to congratulate you on your new position and I wish you well. Before I begin to state my thoughts and comments on the Government's February 15 Budget, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his retirement plans. As a Conservative and a Member who sits on the opposite side from the Prime Minister, I can honestly say that I have not always seen

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall
eye to eye on all matters with him, but I certainly have a great deal of respect for him and I believe his retirement is well earned.
I might also take this opportunity to wish the potential successors to his job the best of luck. I was pleased to see that both the CBC and the CTV networks were able to arrange to have an audience with the Liberal leadership frontrunner who is now in sunny Jamaica. I was also pleased to hear that he agrees with the Tory Party in claiming that unemployment is the most serious problem facing the nation. 1 can tell the House that I can think of approximately 1.5 million reasons why this Party has always considered unemployment to be the most pressing problem to date.
Twenty-one days ago, 1.5 million unemployed Canadians were anxiously awaiting the release of the Minister of Finance's 1984 Budget. A great many of these men and women were waiting to hear some good news about the action the Government was going to take to help find jobs for young people who had just graduated from high school, college or even university. These young people who are coming on to the job scene for the first time are obviously disadvantaged because they lack the experience that potential employers are looking for. In other words, they have been caught in the standard trap of not having enough experience for a job because they have never been given the opportunity to work and gain that experience.
After listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) 20 days ago, the 1.5 million unemployed in this nation have once again been disappointed by a Government that does not seem to care about the citizens who cannot find work. As a Member who represents northern Ontario, I can tell you and the House that thousands of unemployed in my riding and all ridings in northern Ontario and across the region are extremely disappointed with the Finance Minister's efforts at job creation. Members opposite who represent northern Ontario together with the rest of the Liberal caucus have proven once again that government priorities are not reflective of the needs of the people of the country.
In April 1983, the Finance Minister proudly boasted that his Budget was a recovery Budget. He did not mention the fact that Canadians were recovering from the Government's mismanagement of the Canadian economy. He boldly told the House the following:
I am proud to be associated with this Government that has not, despite intense fiscal pressures, forsaken its compassion or its obligation to support those Canadians who most need help. The Government has taken significant actions in the past ten months to contain the rise in unemployment.
He earlier stated:
Madam Speaker, my dominant concern in preparing this Budget has been to help the more than one and a half million Canadians who want to work but cannot find jobs.
Like the repeat performance of a bad film, we have seen what effect the Minister's recovery Budget has had on the Canadian economy.
Ten months ago, the Minister told us that 1.5 million Canadians could not find work. Today, after 10 months of
Liberal recovery, there are still 1.5 million people unemployed. Ten months of recovery-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Chair is trying to find out whether the Hon. Member will get to his speech. He has been reading remarks from the outset. While the quoting of documents is allowed in the House, speeches should be made orally.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 certainly will be coming to the points in my speech. I must apologize to you, Mr. Speaker. I did get carried away.
Several weeks ago, I received a disturbing letter from a constituent of mine from the mining industry, an industry in northern Ontario in which problems are certainly not uncommon. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should not quote from the letter, but I must say to you that there are 1.5 million people unemployed in Canada including people in northern Ontario. I must refer to some of these letters because they are very sincere and relate to the problems in northern Ontario and, of course, in my riding. The letter from my constituent indicated that her husband has been out of work for a year now. He has filled out applications, answered advertisements and checked the UIC boards across northern Ontario. His UIC runs out on February 13. What should he do? I was trying to refer to that type of question, Mr. Speaker. That is what I was referring to in regard to the Minister and his Budget. In his Budget, the Minister did not relate to the problems that existed 10 months ago. The Budget we are discussing today is the same Budget as before and there are still 1.5 million people unemployed.
I tried to find work for that constituent, but unfortunately I was not successful and was unable to find work for this person because I was here the night the Budget Speech was made looking for what I thought would be the answers that would help these people who are unemployed.
Perhaps what is even more frustrating to a new Member of Parliament like myself or to my constituents is the fact that when the Government does in fact produce funds for job creation, the money is not evenly distributed across the country. What we have seen happen in the House in the last few weeks is very, very upsetting to myself and to my colleagues on this side. It is upsetting to see public funds distributed unequally across this land. By using public funds to prop up the Government's sagging popularity, the Liberals have created two classes of unemployed citizens.
On November 29, 1983, I informed the House that Canada Works money was distributed unfairly. In the Liberal held riding on Nickel Belt, the average allocation for an unemployed person was $168 per week, while in the riding of Timiskaming the average amount was $97 per week. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. The people being hurt are those who are unemployed, those who are looking for jobs, those who have lost their unemployment benefits and who have to live on social benefits. That is what I mean when I say that the
March 5, 1984

concerns should be equal for job-creation programs throughout this land.
When I think of societies where different classes of citizens live, 1 can think of the cast society in India or the suppressed people within the communist bloc. That should not happen in Canada. There should not be two classes of people here, one that happens to live in a Conservative or NDP riding and the other that happens to live in a Liberal riding.
To play politics with the unemployed is the sign of a very desperate government that would consider bribing the Canadian people with their own money instead of using the money in a fair and honest fashion. The only money that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) could find for this Budget was $150 million, but just ten months ago when the Minister of Finance was playing the clown in front of the TV cameras, he was able to come up with $200 million to cover his foolish error. When it comes to helping the unemployed, however, all he could come up with was $150 million.
I should like to take this opportunity to quote again a famous Canadian and his opinion of the unemployed. As he entered the 1980 election he said:
As we enter the 1980s, we have to remind ourselves that there's no greater challenge facing this country than that fundamental requirement of creating jobs, especially for Canada's young people.
The famous Canadian was the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and his remark was addressed to the University of New Brunswick on January 10, 1980. Clearly the words and the deeds of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are two drastically separate things.
This country needs a government that can control its spending and once and for all send a signal to private enterprise that it is serious about restraint and recovery.
Last year the Minister of Finance informed us that the deficit would reach $31.5 billion; today, for every $3 that the Government spends, $1 must be borrowed. Year after year the federal auditor tells the House of Commons that government spending is leading us down the road to disaster. I believe the Government has reached that destination, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that not only is the Government morally bankrupt but it is playing politics with the unemployed. The Government is also financially bankrupt because it does not seem capable of controlling its own spending.
I have discussed the plight of the unemployed and I have touched briefly on the subject of the nation's sagging federal deficit. Next I should like to address something that is completely ignored by the Minister of Finance in the Budget. The mining industry in this country is in serious trouble and its problems have not been addressed in the Government's blueprint.
From January, 1982, until November, 1983, over 25,774 miners were laid off either on a permanent or a temporary basis in Canada. On top of that, close to 100 mining operations or projects were suspended on a temporary basis. In the midst of the mining crisis, what did the Government do? In one word-nothing. The word mining or mine is not even men-
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall
tioned in the 20-page Budget Speech that the Minister of Finance read to the House last month.
Mining plays a crucial role in every community in nothern Ontario. I expect to see Members from ridings in that part of the country stand in the House during this debate and voice an objection to the Budget. It provides nothing for the thousands of laid-off miners in our region.
As things stand today, Mr. Speaker, there is one employment program operating in Canada that is tied directly to the mining industry. The Mining Internship Program which is administered under the Career Access Program in co-operation with the Mining Association of Canada is a good program that is intended to help graduating students from the faculties of geology, mining engineering and mining technology. It is an excellent program which opens up opportunities for graduating students. It is fine to have that program, but if the mines are not in operation, then we cannot put the students to work.
I see the Minister from Nickel Belt sitting over there laughing, Mr. Speaker, because I am concerned about the mining industry. The miners in northern Ontario are not laughing, Mr. Speaker, that is for sure.
This program combined with the employment programs operating under Section 38, conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, are clearly not doing enough to help companies that face a very uncertain future.
During a recent mining tour of my riding my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and I were told that increased foreign competition was hurting if not killing the Canadian iron ore industry. We had the opportunity to meet with the mine manager at the Adams Mine in Kirkland Lake, Mr. Bruce Taylor, who told us of the pressure to improve costs to compete with Brazilian ore which can be landed in the Canadian Great Lakes region for up to $10 per ton less than it can be delivered from mines in northern Ontario. The same conditions apply to another mine only 60 miles away. The Brazilian ore coming into the Great Lakes can be shipped in at $10 less than ore from northern Ontario. These are the problems that have to be addressed.
The fact remains that the mining industry which, when operating at full capacity employs over 200,000 men and women, did not receive any help in the Budget. We will probably not hear the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Rompkey) address the subject in this debate because he has nothing to defend. At one point the federal Government left the impression that it actually cared about the mining industry and introduced a mineral policy discussion paper in March, 1982. We are approaching the second anniversary of the release of that paper and have seen no action or statements about what the Government will do. The Canadian mining industry has the right to be upset about this lack of concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Member to address the House orally as provided for in our rules and traditions? This is the second time I have reminded him.

March 5, 1984
The Budget-Mr. MacDougall


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do that. When dealing with such major issues as natural resources or mining and with the unemployed, I must say that I am concerned and I want to be factual in what I say. That is why I have notes in front of me. I must continue and say that the mining industry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I am sorry but the Chair failed to realize exactly what the Hon. Member meant. Does he mean that he is going to carry on reading?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have seen Members of the House read their entire speech. This Hon. Member is simply referring to notes and he should not be interrupted. Surely you have to protect the rights of all Members. 1 have seen Members on the other side read their entire speeches without interruption. This Member is not reading his speech; he is referring to notes and should not be interrupted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: First of all, these are reflections on a decision of the Chair. I will read Citation 309 of Beauchesne which is very clear on this matter: It reads as follows:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a Member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech.
I could read Citation 310 and Citation 311. There are exceptions to this, such as a maiden speech. I do not want to bore the House with this. All I should like is that Members abide by the rules.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But it should apply to everyone, not just to one Member.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I believe I understand the rules not as completely as you do, but I remember an occasion when I was remarking to myself that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was reading from a speech. Why should the rules not apply to the Prime Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I believe we are getting into a reflection on a decision of the Chair. That is exactly what is being done.


Gary Michael Gurbin: No, Sir, I am asking a simple question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Will the Hon. Member resume his seat? I can answer this because there are exceptions. I will quote from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 102: It reads:
Tradition has established exceptions to this principle, and these have been recognized by the Speaker from time to time. Ministers of the Crown, Leaders of Opposition Parties (and those speaking on their behalf), a Member speaking in a language that is not his own, and a Member making his maiden speech-
I could go on, but I feel that is enough to make the point.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, it certainly turned into a lively last ten minutes of debate, I must say.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell him about the mining industry.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I would like to continue, and I will not be going by my notes. Not once in this Budget has there been anything done to help the mining industry in northern Ontario or across this country, Mr. Speaker. Looking back over the years, what has this Government done for the mining industry? What has it done for the secondary industries? What has it done for the diamond drilling industry?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Nothing.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: What has it done for the thousands of unemployed miners across this country?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Nothing.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Nothing at all, Mr. Speaker. What has this Government done in this Budget to help the tourist industry? Can those Hon. Members opposite tell us where in the Budget the Government has helped the tourist industry?


Gordon Edward Taylor: In Liberal ridings only.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: There is nothing in the Budget to help the tourist industry.
Where has it helped small business across this country? Can the Hon. Members opposite tell us where the Government has helped the mining industry and the tourist industry?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is just to tax them.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Tax, tax, tax, that is right. Earlier an Hon. Member opposite talked about the forest industry. What has been done for the forest industry? Where has this Government addressed the problem of the forest industry? I must say to some Hon. Members opposite, yes, we were fortunate a year and a half ago to meet and start to work on the problems of the forest industry, but it has taken too long to get this going, Mr. Speaker. Where is this Government going? It has not helped any of the resource-based industries in Canada which are the backbone of this country. That is where we ought to be looking, Mr. Speaker, at the resource base in this country, what this country is built on, what we have worked on over the years, what has made Canada a natural resource-based country. This Government has neglected it time and time again. What has it done for the fishermen of this country?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Nothing.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Fishermen on the West Coast and on the East Coast have been given nothing at all. I am glad that I have to forget about my notes because I can say plainly now, Sir, that the people across this country know that our natural resources, our tourism industry, our forest industry, our mining industry, our fisheries, have not been addressed in this Budget. This Government feels that, by giving our senior citizens $25 in July and another $25 at the end of the year, it
March 5, 1984

is doing something. But what is it doing with the numbers of individuals who are having a hard time day in and day out? It is doing nothing for the people of Canada. I feel sorry for this Government. There is only one answer which can be given, and that is, if those Hon. Members feel that the Budget which was presented here is that good, why do they not go to the people of Canada?


Gordon Edward Taylor: They will throw them out.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Let the miners in northern Ontario, the fishermen in British Columbia and Newfoundland, the tourist industry and our senior citizens show this Government how they really feel.
In closing, Sir, I urge this Government, if it feels there is that much in the Budget, to go to the people and let them decide.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has a question.


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Temiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) that, since we both represent ridings in northern Ontario, I believe we both recognize as well that we do have a cyclical problem in the mining industry at the present time. It is one which has happened before, and I am hopeful that if we have some long-term commitment with respect to the tax policy of the provincial Government, we might have some opportunity-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, come on.


Royce Herbert Frith: I would just like to remind Hon. Members opposite that there was a Treasurer of Ontario by the name of John White, who represented the provincial riding of London-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There was a Minister of Finance by the name of John Turner who screwed them up, too. Let us talk about Turner's famous budget which screwed the mining industry.


Royce Herbert Frith: -the Hon. Member for Temiskaming, for research purposes, might inquire of Mr. John White about the mining industry and his response to the imposition of the provincial mining tax act changes of 1974-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about Turner's Budget? Did you read Turner's Budget?


Royce Herbert Frith: -and the effect it had, more than anything else, on the downturn in the mining explorations field in northern Ontario.


Gordon Edward Taylor: This is a federal House.


Royce Herbert Frith: The Hon. Member for Temiskaming mentioned in his speech the fact that Brazilian ore-I would assume iron ore-can be imported at some $10 less per tonne. He might be able to enlighten the House as to what position he feels the Conservative Party would take with respect to that so that we can open up the iron ore company in Schefferville.
Adjournment Debate


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has recognized also the mining industry in his own community. He refers to the provincial Government, Mr. Speaker. I have been very fortunate over the last number of years to be able to work closely with the provincial Government and the Minister of Natural Resources, which is much more than I can say for the Hon. Members on the government side. They have a tendency not to work together but to work separately.
With respect to Brazilian ore, all I can say to the Hon. Member for Sudbury is that the problems with which we are faced today are problems which have been built up over the last 20 years under the Liberal Government. That is where the blame lies. Over the last 20 years of the leadership of this government we have had problems with Brazilian ore, with Iron Ore of Canada and with other iron ore mining industries across this country.


Mr. Fisher:: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) would be kind enough to tell us his views on the proposals of his colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in his own eyes the hopefully future Finance Minister? If the Hon. Member for Timiskaming thinks things have been tough for the last few years, they will seem like a picnic in comparison with what the Hon. Member for St. John's West is going to visit on us. The Hon. Member for St. John's West was quoted as saying that the next Minister of Finance has to be "mean, nasty and tough-minded". I am sure in northern Ontario that is a welcome piece of news.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But fair and honest.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Timiskaming would tell us specifically if he agrees with the Hon. Member for St. John's West when that Hon. Member calls for means tests? Does the Hon. Member want to go back to that degrading experience in the same way that the Hon. Member for St. John's West wants? Or is he going to rebuke publicly the Hon. Member for St. John's West for phoney economics and for taking out the problems of the deficit on the backs of the poor?


Gordon Edward Taylor: He has at least been fair and honest.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my short answer would be that the people of Canada already have a mean Minister of Finance. All we need is an election, and we will be glad to let you know what we are going to do.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1984
Adjournment Debate

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on February 21 I asked two questions of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell). The first dealt with the way in which the Canada Pension Commission has been dealing with applications for the exceptional incapacity allowance. Only a relatively small number of Canada's most severely disabled veterans are eligible to apply for this allowance.
My second question dealt with the delays veterans continue to face in applying for disability pensions, up to four years from first application to final appeal in many cases. The Minister's responses were less positive than I had hoped.
Canada's veterans should be given a firm undertaking that their interests are the principal consideration of the Minister, his Department and the various boards and commissions which report to him. Some of the veterans of whom we are speaking are now in their eighties; surely prompt consideration of their needs is the least they deserve.
Exceptional incapacity allowance, the subject of my first question to the Minister, affects a limited number of the most severely disabled veterans. Only those who are classified as 100 per cent disabled, and who have been rendered helpless, suffer pain and are unable to enjoy life and whose life expectancy has been shortened as a result of their disability, are eligible for the allowance. As of March 31, 1983, there were 960 awards in force at an annual cost of just over $3 million. The relatively small number of veterans pensioned at the 100 per cent rate, 3,736 or 3.7 per cent of all veterans' disability pensions, means we are not talking about a program which has the potential to become prohibitively expensive. There is a limit of something under $3,000 per person per year for those who can get the allowance.
My question sought clarification from the Minister as to why so many applications for this allowance are being turned down by the Canadian Pension Commission. We are not discussing frivolous cases. The 17 unsuccessful applications I referred to in my question were those of amputees, many of whom also suffer from arthritis, back problems and heart disease. The CPC refused in most cases to admit a connection among these various disabilities, and would not recognize the exceptional incapacity of these veterans. Fortunately, 16 of them appealed to the Pension Review Board and in each case the ruling was overturned and the award granted.
Therefore the problem here is that the Canadian Pension Commission is taking a very hard line on these cases, necessitating expensive and time consuming appeals. Surely the CPC can take into consideration previous rulings by the Pension Review Board in order to make its own judgments more consistent with those of the Pension Review Board. If the Commission feels it is the Pension Review Board which is in error, granting awards too easily, perhaps closer co-operation in the other direction would be appropriate.
What we come down to here is the inability of these two bodies to interpret the same piece of legislation, Section 57 of
the Pension Act, in a judicially responsible manner. The losers in this struggle over the correct interpretation are the veterans who gave up their health and in some cases their limbs in service to their country.
The time invested in appeal after appeal was the substance of my second question to the Minister. Thousands of veterans are waiting for two, three or even four years for a final ruling on their pension applications. In his answer to my question the Minister stated that he was concerned to see veterans' cases dealt with as quickly as possible while respecting the necessary preparatory work to ensure that a veteran's case has the greatest possibility of success.
In my question to the Minister I made reference to the average 277 days from receipt of an application for hearing by the Pension Review Board until its decision is rendered. This 277 days' delay comes after the veteran's case has been heard and ruled upon by the Canadian Pension Commission, which will in most cases have taken well over a year. Having received an unfavourable ruling, the time taken to apply for a pension review board hearing may be up to 11 months, depending on the case load of the veteran's advocate. By this point the veteran has been involved in the process for something like two years, on average. His case has been before two boards and he will have been working with a representative of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates or a veterans' organization.
[DOT]	(1805)
While one must commend the Minister for his concern that adequate evidence be prepared in support of the veteran's application, 277 days from appeal to the Pension Review Board until a decision is rendered is excessive. The Minister's implication that the interests of the veteran would suffer if the process were speeded up is simply not credible.
There is, of course, a close relationship between the consistency of rulings by the CPC and the Pension Review Board and the interminable delays in the whole application process. If the CPC was ruling fairly and was perceived to be doing so, there would be fewer appeals to the Review Board level.
The veterans who are bringing forward these applications feel justified in asking for disability pensions. Their anger and frustration with the inconsistent rulings and endless delays is very understandable. The Pension Commission and Pension Review Board exist to serve, not to thwart the interests of Canada's veterans. Bearing this in mind, I am sure the Minister will see the necessity of remedying those problems which 1 have mentioned.
[DOT]	(1805)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veteran Affairs (Mr. Leduc).


Mr. Jean-Louis Leduc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veter-
March 5, 1984

ans Affairs has already stated he would discuss the subject raised by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), with Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Chief Executive Officer of The War Amputations of Canada at a meeting to be held as soon as Mr. Chadderton returns from his trip.
Discussions were held between The War Amputations of Canada and the Canada Pension Commission on procedures and the interpretation of facts with respect to the exceptional incapacity allowance applications. As we already know, that allowance is awarded when there is 100 per cent incapacity. Last year, 160 veterans were awarded that allowance for a total $3.26 million.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Victoria raised the matter of the 16 applications that were turned down by the Review Committee and later awarded by the Pension Review Board. This shows in my view that all applications are treated fairly. Numerous unfavourable rulings are appealed, with legal aid granted. The Review Board's favourable ruling on so many appeals shows that the system is efficient.
As 1 said, the Commission is holding discussions with The War Amputations of Canada to try and resolve the differences concerning the allowance. Hopefully, the meeting between the Minister and Mr. Chadderton should solve many problems.
Hon. Members should appreciate that the legislation on exceptional incapacity allowance is quite complex. When a veteran is not satisfied with a Review Committee's decision, it is his privilege to submit new evidence that may enable the Review Board to amend its original ruling.
Concerning the time requirements for processing an application, the Hon. Member for Victoria is certainly aware that improvements have been made by the Commission in the hearing of the first application. All possible efforts have been made to accelerate proceedings at all levels, but it must be recognized that there are delays because applicants or medical experts are slow in submitting necessary material. Mr. Speaker, three Review committees hold hearings each week in various locations across Canada. Each week, some 28 applications are heard by each committee. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) is very much aware of the needs of the War Amputations of Canada and strongly hopes that his meeting with Mr. Chadderton will be fruitful.


CANADA POST CORPORATION-DELIVERY TESTING SYSTEMS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: On February 9 last I raised the question of the honesty of the reporting of Canada Post with respect to its delivery of mail.
Canada Post, you will recall, Sir, issued in December something called "Performance Report-December 1983". It has interesting pictures on the front of postal workers and equipment. It states that monthly combined performance levels
Adjournment Debate
ranged from 85 per cent on time to a high of 92 per cent in October. The average improvement over a full year is 2 per cent over over 1982. This is on average an 11.5 per cent increase over existing performance levels when the post office became a crown corporation. It goes on to state that performance tests were conducted in July iand December of 1983.
I want to speak to those performance tests, Mr. Speaker. Those performance tests were reviewed by Canada Post officials and by Mr. A. M. Davies, special representative to the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Corporation. Mr. Davies in his report to Mr. D. Turner, executive assistant to the executive vice-president and chief operating officer of Canada Post, under date of November 14, 1983, indicated that the procedures for testing were faked, and the tests totally compromised both the NEPS and CPC mailer tests. He also indicated that the results were deliberately "fudged" to indicate improved performance; that test letters were "walked" through the plant in most cases by supervisors, and that quality assurance control personnel guided this walk. He indicated also that incoming first-class mail was deliberately delayed in favour of processing originating mails, that the real service performance for first-class mail has actually deteriorated; that the real productivity performance had dropped by 50 per cent; that morale was at an all-time low and that in the interests of Canada Post the matter had to be corrected.
The whole issue was brought to the attention of Rene J. Marin, Chairman of the Board of the Corporation. Mr. Marin writes in his letter with respect to this testing. I quote only a portion as follows:
We realize that much rests on our ability to improve our performance results; we also realize that nothing useful is gained by conducting tests under unrealistic conditions.
Then Mr. Marin goes on to state:
While we are all interested in developments in this area, it is not our intention to interfere with management's actions at this time.
Why is it not in the interests to interfere with management's actions at this time? The answer is as follows:
I have a great fear, which I expressed to John Bodrug last week; and that is that the Union is in a position to strip Michael Warren of his credibility by revealing the manner in which testing is being compromised. The tests are not worth anything; but what is worse, they cause massive delays to legitimate First Class mail.
He went on to state, "No one is listening, Doug. Seventy-five per cent of the work done by my service improvement group was wasted. The transportation network is still not documented, and it is vital to the critical links. The special delivery service is in a shambles. I mailed a special to Guelph on Thursday morning, and here, on Monday morning, it is still not delivered."
This government, this minister, this Crown corporation, has been deliberately, knowingly, fraudulently and falsely representing to the public of Canada that it is improving its service. Its own employees know that those representations are false and improper, yet the Chairman of the Board does not want to get involved. The Minister of the Crown responsible to this

March 5, 1984
Adjournment Debate
House of Commons does not want to get involved. I ask why. The blue book tells us why. With $450 million going to Canada Post this year and another $550 million next year, with a first-class mail rate of 32 cents compared with an American first-class mail rate of 20 cents, and with a deficit in our post office far in excess of anything forecast or even believed in the United States, something is radically wrong; something is rotten in Denmark. The responsibility lies with this Minister.


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of assessment methods will always give rise to controversy; we all seek a better, more accurate and more effective method. The Canada Post Corporation also seeks to improve its methods, but until new techniques are developed, it will stick to present procedures to test the quality of its delivery system.
Mr. Speaker, members of the House, the media and the general public have requested that efficiency indicators be made public. This would facilitate following the progress of this awesome task we have assigned ourselves, that is to turn a department into a dynamic Crown corporation. The Corporation explained to this House its units of measure, its procedures and parameters before making the results public; since then, it has also appeared before various parliamentary committees to explain these results. So Hon. Members knew what to expect. That is why it seems unfair to me for people to upbraid the Corporation for doing what it had been asked to do, that is publishing the results.
Ever since the beginning of the 1970s, the delivery system has been continually assessed by means of mailing tests made within one or several post offices.
Mr. Speaker, the Corporation continues to use these tests and to publish the results because it enables Canada Post to detect eventual problems and to take appropriate action to correct them. Also, these tests allow the Corporation to determine whether the actual efficiency is improving or worsening. Both the Corporation and the Auditor General are fully aware, when presenting results to the general public, that these tests are not perfect and do have limitations. That is why the Corporation has developed two new test batteries following an Auditor General analysis, almost three years ago. It has implemented a program to assess customer mail service. In co-operation with customers, this program can test the mail delivery system for any given letter, whatever the method of transportation.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have devoted about a year developing and testing this program. The Corporation has also contracted a private firm to conduct an assessment of the mail system. Preliminary findings show that this private firm's results and the Corporation's results are very similar. Any
difference falls within the anticipated margin of error. In order to guarantee the validity of these results, the Corporation has developed a cross-checking procedure. Moreover, the enormous volume of mail tested, approximately 40,000 mailings every two weeks, confirms the value of the tests.
Mail service has been considerably improved in Canada since the creation of the Corporation. The Corporation feels that its indicators are reliable. Nevertheless, it will continue to improve and to refine its testing procedures, seeking the best available advice with a view to obtaining more versatile and effective methods.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-INQUEST INTO DEATHS OF MILITIA MEMBERS-REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT. (B) DRIVER'S LICENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on August 21, 1983 two young members of the Canadian militia, Private Darren Michael Krosney and Private Rodney Lauren-deau were killed on their way home from CFB Dundurn, Saskatchewan. On September 29, after becoming familiar with the many misgivings of the parents about the quality and quantity of the information they were able to get about this tragic accident, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campbell) to express my concern and to seek some answers. The Minister provided me with the description of the incident, which I do not have time to quote in the seven minutes allowed me under this procedure, but he did not provide me with a copy of the transcript of the military inquiry which I had asked for. I asked him for it again in the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on November 24 and expressed my concern about the way the militia was handling things.
I wanted to know why the parents of Darren Krosney were unable to get a copy of Darren's military driver's licence so that they could see for themselves whether he was qualified to drive the jeep which overturned on him. At that time the Minister advised me to seek a copy of the transcript through the Access to Information Act, something which I felt should not be necessary and which I still feel should not be necessary, even though I have now applied for a copy on this basis.
Subsequent to my November 24 question of the Minister in committee, I waited for the arrival of a petition that I knew was coming in the hope that it would cause the Minister to intervene and to provide the transcript for the parents. I presented that petition to Parliament this year on February 13, on behalf of 2,800 Canadians who were asking for the release of the transcript. On February 15 I asked the Minister in the House to release the transcript and, if he could not release a copy of the transcript, to at least provide a copy of the driver's licence.
Subsequent to my question in the House, we have been provided with a copy of the driver's licence which, as I read it, raises several questions. Darren was qualified to drive a quarter-ton jeep, but was he qualified and should he have been
March 5, 1984

driving such a jeep with a gun mounted on it and a trailer on the back of it after only two weeks in a convoy on a public highway, with no co-driver, and when the night before there were some who thought he should be flown home because he was so ill from extensive poison ivy? This is the kind of question yet to be answered by the militia.
Also subsequent to my question in the House, Mr. And Mrs. Krosney have been informed and so have I, that the initial results of the militia inquiry have been found wanting by the senior military authorities who had to review it, and it has been sent back for further and more complete details. Does this mean more delay? Does it mean that what I have applied for under the Access to Information Act is now not there to receive in complete form? If so, I will request that the initial transcript be provided and I will apply for the final one later, when it is ready.
In any event, I will not let up on this incident. The secrecy, the delay and the apparent incompetence of the militia in this matter must be fully scrutinized if tragic accidents like this are to be avoided in the future. There is much in this case that would benefit us all, particularly members of the militia, if the light of day were allowed to shine on this particular event and we could find out what actually went on there. That is exactly what I intend to see happen.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the continued interest that he is showing in the problems of the militia and the circumstances of this particular accident. Many of us have sons and daughters who are members of the militia. We are very anxious that the militia in turn give them the protection and the support that they deserve and need.
I wish on behalf of the Minister to express our condolences and sympathy to the family. Certainly any words that are brought forward in this House will not and cannot repay or take the place of the lives that were lost.
I agree that there has been a considerable amount of delay in getting the information that the Hon. Member is seeking. The last question that he put forward to the Minister on
Adjournment Debate
February 15, 1984 received the response by the Minister who stated that, through the Access to Information Act, appropriate information would be forwarded to him and he in turn could pass it on to members of the family.
The request was received by the Department on February 17 and the prescribed period for the delivery of the answer to the Hon. Member is 30 days. It should be made available to him sometime next week. The only deletions from the document are those which are called for under the Act.
I hasten to indicate that there has been a delay, as the Hon. Member has suggested, and that the delay was the result of the review that had been carried out by the Board of Inquiry. The delay was not a result of the contents of that particular report, but because not enough information was submitted. In the report more complete, thorough and accurate information was requested by a senior officer before a report is approved, and it is approved on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Staff at the National Defence Headquarters.
The inquiry will answer the questions raised regarding the licence given to drivers in the militia. Private Krosney was qualified under the DND 404 driver's licence. Such a licence is given even if a civilian licence is not in the possession of the licensee. He was qualified as far as our Department is concerned as an expert driver and was qualified to drive the vehicle.
In closing, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for raising this matter again. The Minister, as the Hon. Member is no doubt aware, has shown great interest in making sure that the information sought will be made available in the shortest possible time. The Chief of the Defence Staff has directed that this matter be dealt with on a priority basis and that the complete Board of Inquiry information be provided as soon as it has been approved on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
At 6.28 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 6, 1984