1984-03-06

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, again it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in a Budget debate, particularly this one. I say that because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) labelled his Budget "Partnership for Growth". It is my conviction that the Budget we are debating now is entirely appropriate to the times for a number of reasons.
It should be noted that the Budget in fact builds on strength in the country. Throughout the land, while we have difficulties and problems to surmount, essentially we are looking toward the immediate, medium-term and long-term future with a greater feeling of confidence than we have been able to feel collectively for many years due to many factors in the Canadian economy, the North American economy and the world economy.
[DOT]	(mo)
Much will be said about the Budget in the next while both inside and outside this House. Some of it will be positive. Much of it, especially from Members opposite, will be negative. I respect the right and the duty of the Opposition to be critical, but I have a caveat, if I may presume to make a modest suggestion to Members opposite. They might consider legitimate criticism, because it is not a perfect world that we live in. We do not come up with perfect documents and plans. 1 hope that the tone of their opposition and comment will not be so entirely negative that it is counter-productive in the sense that it will take away from this feeling of confidence.
Confidence is not a partisan issue. Partisanship sometimes takes away from the fact that we have a wonderful country, that we believe in it, that because we are the kind of people we are, living in the land that we live in, we can look forward to the future with confidence. Confidence is also a state of mind.
All of us in this House have an obligation to contribute to that state of mind.
One of the first features about this Budget I would like to address, because I believe it is the most significant, is that it was prepared with a great amount of consultation. The word "consultation" is almost a cliche. It is so obvious that one wonders why we do not do it all the time. Each of us in our own sectors finds other priorities that prohibit or inhibit us from being able to speak openly with each other, to take the time to talk with one another and, most important, to listen to one another.
We are still in a very difficult period economically in our country's history. The mood is that we must listen to one another. We must consult with each other in a meaningful fashion. I believe even Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will agree that some very important groups and individuals were consulted regarding this Budget. The common taxpayer was consulted. I see items in the Budget that came about as a result of representations from Members of this House in caucus. I see the changes that have been made. I hope some of this came about as a result of some of the letters and personal interventions that I have made. Opposition Members have expressed some thoughts in this House. They are all there, pointing the way.
It is a leadership direction that the Minister is taking on behalf of the Government of Canada. It says we must take a leadership role. This is something that governments can do. Governments can do some things well and we do some things very badly. One thing we can do, if we work at it properly, with the right attitude and with the right frame of mind, is to promote honest consultations, consultation being in the form of the two-way street that I mentioned earlier where we pass on our ideas, listen in return and come up with something better than either side could come up with individually. Some 30 major groups across this country participated in a most meaningful way in putting this Budget together.
While in political terms one does not want to acknowledge that many sectors of the economy have said that yes, this is a good Budget, that this is the right kind of Budget at this point in time, to my way of thinking one of the right things about the Budget that we are debating at this moment is that it does build confidence. But it did not send shock waves throughout the nation. That happens periodically and it must happen once in a while when we have to find new directions because we have been following one path for too long. All of us know that nothing is forever and that we have to change direction and thoroughly examine issues in the light of prevailing conditions in the world and in Canada.

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Masters
[DOT] (U15)
The Budget indicates that we have put many things in place that are working. We are moving in a forward direction. Perhaps we are not moving forward as fast as some of us would like, and I may address that point a little later. However, we are moving in the proper direction. What we need is a Budget that tells Canadian citizens that they will have an idea as to the direction in which we will be going for the next number of years. They will see refinements and improvements based on their suggestions and on the initiative of the Government, but they will not see anything startling. We will put in place policies and actions that we can trust and that we can move forward.
I think that is one reason the Budget has met with such general approval. I say general approval because sometimes when dealing with any subject in detail there will be many who will argue that we did not go far enough with pension reform or that we are not moving quickly enough. There are those who say that those issues are the important ones now but we need to talk about them a little bit more. The general direction we are going has been set and we think that we are on the right track; but for goodness sake, give us a chance to examine proposals and come back with better ideas so that we have a more refined package to present regarding pension reforms for the average citizen, programs for senior citizens and, above all, programs that will assist the women in our society to have a more equitable future and a more equitable participation in the present. Those are not easy things to accomplish.
The Budget has put on the table some of the results gleaned from the heavy consultations that have been going on across this land and has indicated in general terms where we think we have to make improvements. We have to make sure that there is more portability. We have to make sure that a spouse has more of an opportunity to prepare for his or her future. We have examined these matters but they must still be covered in more detail. The Budget does not indicate exactly what we are going to do but it does indicate the direction we propose, and, after further consultation, we will be in a position to implement these ideas.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, some proposals have been made for the assistance of home owners. While there are those who will ask why we do not implement those proposals right now and who will say that we are just postponing them with further consultations, I sense from my colleagues in the House, from members of the Cabinet in particular and from the country as a whole, a sense of urgency about these matters. We are going to implement these policies with the co-operation of the Opposition. The Opposition can certainly slow down the implementation of these policies, but we are going to be in a position quickly to conclude the consultation process, put the finishing touches on what I believe are some very creative ideas that have been born out of much discussion across the land and then implement those ideas.
Another item in the Budget that has not been receiving sufficient attention as far as I can see is the suggestion of employee profit participation. I have always believed in profitsharing plans. I have spent much time working on that kind of thing during my tenure as President of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce and in my work in general with the Chamber of Commerce. I have worked for firms that have had profit-sharing plans and I know how well those plans can work. However, the beauty of this plan is that it does another thing-it indicates that to implement an employee profit participation plan, there has to be a labour-management committee. Think of the genius of that simplistic idea. Most good ideas end up in very succinct terms.
Another thing that is beginning to happen more and more in this country, and must happen, is that labour and management no longer think of each other as adversaries-that management has all the right ideas or that labour has all the right ideas. They are in the same ball game and must have devices to enable them to meet in mutual trust and understanding.
I believe that if labour and management allow the proposed Employee Profit Participation Plan to bear fruit it will lead to better conditions. Both must have a stronger recognition of their vested interests in the profitability and progress of their endeavours. They must also recognize that the labour-management committee is the means of making the plan work. Not only will they be in the position to deal with the profit sharing aspect, but out of necessity they will begin to move toward improved consultation and the exchange of information. I think the federal Government has given the leadership to encourage movement in this direction. It is only common sense but it is very necessary.
We have heard a lot about Revenue Canada in recent times, Mr. Speaker, and not all has been complimentary. 1 do not mean to digress from the discussion of the Budget but not all the statements made about Revenue Canada have even been fair. Who defends the taxman? Who defends the man who is in charge of accounts receivable, for instance? He is always the bad guy. He is the one who has to bring in the revenue to pay for whatever has to be done, but he is viewed as not a very nice guy. In the case of Revenue Canada the individual is not in a position to defend himself. I do not mean to defend anything that has gone wrong, or bad administration. Those things will happen; they happen in the private sector as well as in government and they must be examined from time to time.
To return to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a start toward simplification of the tax system. As one who is not an accountant, I have always been bothered by the fact that even accountants cannot agree on the interpretation of taxation laws. However, something has been done in the Budget to simplify taxes for small businesses. I can assure you that is one of the major thrusts we are giving to that generator of jobs in our economy, the small businessman.
We must all stand back from Revenue Canada and our taxation laws, however, and ask how we can make them better. I do not believe we can do that by castigating a whole Department of what essentially are very capable and able civil servants who are doing their job as directed by the House of
March 6, 1984

Commons. I believe that case has been overstated. If you will excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker, I am just bootlegging a few thoughts on some of the outlandish and unfair statements that have been directed at the Department.
Nonetheless, the Budget is also addressing the goal of more fairness in tax administration. Through the consultation process we are learning how that might come about and I think we will see great improvements through new legislation, through new directions and in new examinations of the system. The consultation process is vital, particularly if it is carried out with the positive view of making the system better. That is what we were elected to do.
I do not even object to the fact that the Opposition has a task force going across Canada to test the views of Canadians on the tax system. My only hope is that this task force will do good and not simply conduct a witch hunt; that it will not just reinforce a bias or just be a vehicle to allow the malcontents in the taxpaying sector of the economy to use that platform to receive all kinds of publicity which really would be used to attack the Department, serving no end and giving a voice to a group of people who have not always played fair with the tax system.
The Budget talks about more fairness in the tax administration system. I believe the Opposition, in what it is doing, has a chance to do either great good or great harm. We are going into an election year and, Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us, while we will fight our partisan political battles, must not do so at the expense of the good of the country by overstatement and by overzealousness in the wrong areas. While the Budget has pointed out that we are experiencing an upturn in the economy, that we have a feeling of confidence, we also know that there is a certain fragility to it. I believe this is a time for yeoman service on the part of all of us in this House to make the system work better.
I would like to speak now about the plan put forth in the Budget to aid home owners. We have all been looking for some way to be of help to something which is near and dear to all of us as Canadians, home ownership. We found as we went through that period of very drastic fluctuation in interest rates that there were a lot of people with great problems and in dire circumstances regarding their most precious possession, their home. While the Budget has made some suggestions as to how one might insure against rising interest rates if they should go beyond a certain point, which will give some stability, I believe, it should be noted that the Budget also takes a look at how the investment sector might be encouraged to go for the longer term mortgage. I feel that is probably one of the more important features of the Budget, although it does not seem so sensational to many of us until the prospect is really examined. When we as home owners had mortgages with terms of 20 years, 25 years and 30 years, it gave us a great feeling of stability. We knew where we were at. I do not believe you can ever turn the clock back, but I do believe there is a way we can
The Budget-Mr. Masters
move toward longer term mortgages, and that would be to everyone's good.
I support the Budget because I feel its theme "partnership of growth", is well named and accurate. I believe the Budget does help encourage the feeling of confidence which I view to be fairly dominant in the country.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman who just spoke is the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters). I would like to ask the Hon. Member, with regard to his comment on labour-management committees and profit sharing, whether he is aware of what initiatives the Government may now be taking in order to implement some of the measures proposed in the recent Throne Speech of the Government? Is the Hon. Member aware of whether or not those crown corporations, in which the Government has a total interest are living up to the commitments in that Throne Speech to give their employees some share and some voice in the management of those corporations?
If the Hon. Member is not aware of any such progress-I certainly am not and I have been asking regularly-how does he believe that because employee-employer profit sharing is introduced into the private sector, there is going to be any voice for those employees in the management of that operation, including how the moneys which they invest will be used, whether or not they will be allocated to dividends, spread among the employees, used for the build-up of the company, or used in any other way? Our experience in B.C. shows that that sort of operation can be a total con job and I would like to know just where he gets his faith from.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. Member has suggested. I think it is far easier, because of the money factor, to get into a profit-sharing plan in the private sector. But I think, too, that because the Budget furthers the idea of labour-management relations, and if the Government is going to be true to its own code so to speak, we must in parallel, as I believe we are doing, as imperfect as the system might be, begin to look for that same kind of labour-management investigation within the Public Service. If we are not, we should be.
Perhaps this will explain one of the reasons I took off a little bit on those who are critical of Revenue Canada, not that any function of Government is beyond criticism. However, it does nothing to enhance the feeling of co-operation; it puts it back into an adversarial position because we as parliamentarians have a role to play in labour-management relations involving the Government of Canada and the Public Service. If our attitude is the cliche that the Public Service is overpaid and underworked, and all of these wrong, wrong impressions, then we have not done any good.
The bottom line is, how do we improve upon labour-management relations between the Government and the Public Service? I think the point is well taken and the Hon. Member has shown an initiative in encouraging Government to look at

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Masters
that issue. If we have a happy, contented, effective and productive private sector, then surely we must have the same situation in the Public Service sector. We have an awful lot of people in the Public Service who are just dying to be able to show more intiative. They have management skills, so I for one will be encouraging the Government to pursue the thought the Hon. Member expressed more fully.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for both the Hon. Member and the Government he supports to realize that such mechanisms, whether they be a share in decision making, profit sharing, or whatever, are not a substitute for the adversary system. If they are regarded as such, they will be treated with a great deal of animosity. They may be complementary to it, and by taking those initiatives they may alter the mood in the industrial world. But if anyone suggests, particularly the Government, that these are a substitute for an adversary system which, particularly in North America, has done more to ensure that not just the collective body but individual workers have rights in the workplace, then he is treading on very dangerous ground and it is going to blow up in the Government's face.
There were initiatives a few years ago with the so-called labour-management consultative committee under the aegis of the federal Department of Labour. Many of the meetings became a talk shop in which issues were talked out to the point where grievances were lost due to being "out of time". They were misused by many corporations so as to bring the whole idea of co-operation into disrepute. I ask the Hon. Member to impress upon the Government he supports, that these systems are simply an adjunct to, or possibly supplementary to, the adversary system, not a substitute. There is a real danger if the Government pursues the substitution course.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would say in response is that the adversary system is terminology I want to disappear from our vocabulary. I would hope that through consultation we can solve the problems mutually. If you work on something in a mutual way, then I respectfully suggest you are no longer in an adversarial position; you are having an honest discussion.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: But who is in the driver's seat?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I understand what the Hon. Member is getting at, that the rights of the workers have to be protected and so on. However, we have now reached a point where we can do it in a better way and it does not always have to be by throwing rocks at each other from across the table. The basic thought of labour-management relations in the Public Service is a valid one but it should not be maintained in the adversarial role as we have known in the past.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Parliaments and the courts work on the adversarial system, too.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) regarding the labour-management profits system.
When the Government initiated the six and five program, the request was made that mediation officers be brought before the committee so the method of dealing with this topic could be discussed. This really relates to labour-management within the Public Service which he is talking about, and we were denied that. It was strictly a confrontation.
Until this Government sets up some sort of system as in Sweden where a labour-management program is put in place, I think the Government is grasping at straws. Until it can lay out some sort of program to accomplish this, with Government assistance, then we are not going to meet that goal. We have had confrontation up until this point. If the Government is trying to change this direction, then I hope there is a structure in place. Does the Hon. Member see a structure in place to assist these groups in doing that?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I think the six and five program, which worked, was undertaken because of extraordinary times.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: For whom?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: The Hon. Member asks for whom. It has worked for the country as a whole because inflation came down. Unfortunately it is up to Government to set a tone and use whatever weapons it has in its arsenal to combat things such as inflation. What I hope will happen now is that we will have found the middle ground where we can meet with our Public Service employees. I would hope the NDP, because they seem to have their followers, will encourage our renewed attempt at honest dialogue to be fair to all concerned.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how often you stand to speak having prepared in your mind exactly what you want to say and interventions from our colleagues to the left change your mind. It seems unfortunate that the NDP has such a terrible hang-up that, first, anyone should ever, heaven forbid, make a profit, and second, that any group of employees would want to work with a group of employers and thus remove the possibility of confrontation between the two.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to debate. But somebody deliberately miscontrues what is said and suggests that I, as a representative of the NDP, said there was something wrong with profit per se. He knows that his is a misleading statement. He knows that absolutely. I never said any such thing and neither has my Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Differences of opinion are debate and do not constitute a point of order.


John Raymond Ellis: Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but they do not know the difference between debate and points of order.
I intended to start my remarks, Mr. Speaker, which I will do now, with a quote from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on February 15. He said:
March 6, 1984

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.
He went on to say:
My objective as Minister of Finance has been and remains straightforward: to keep the economy growing, so that Canadians who want to work can find productive and meaningful jobs.
I had intended to deal with a number of items emanating from the Budget Speech dealing with taxes, with the items mentioned by my friend across the way for Thunder Bay-Nipi-gon (Mr. Masters), and with the delay in implementation of many items. Frankly, there is no general thrust to the Budget. The Budget does little to spur ecnomic recovery. It is a white paper Budget. Proposals are presented on mortgage protection and other items which are to be studied rather than implemented. The fact is we will have an election long before the Government gets around to dealing with any of those items. Perhaps that is a good thing as they will be dealt with expeditiously, properly and fairly when that time comes.
How can anyone say that the goal of economic recovery is met while 1.5 million Canadians are out of work? How can anyone say there is economic recovery when the unemployment rate is going to average 10 per cent this year, with our industrial capacity being used at only 70 per cent, and when real wages will not go up one cent? The concern of the Government was said to be jobs, Mr. Speaker. That, too, is an illusion.
Two days after the Budget was tabled The Globe and Mail carried this comment:
What bothers us, too, is the small return on the money the Government has allocated to finding jobs for the unemployed. Projects appear from nowhere and quickly return there. Often they're sabotaged by politics, as in the controversial handling of the Special Employment Initiatives Program-
For that, Mr. Speaker, you read "Liberal slush fund".
-which seemed little more than an excuse for Liberal MPs to pose beside constituents with cheque in hand.
The editorial went on to speak about the need for the Government to have a cohesive plan. It spoke about "a gaggle of programs which sound dandy when described in costly brochures". The article went on to estimate that it will cost $2,333 for every unemployed person in Canada. The point is made that by the time that has cleared the bureaucracy very little actually gets spent. That would mean about $12 million for the unemployed coming into my constituency of Prince Edward-Hastings. There is no way that has happened or will happen.
I would like to quote from that mouthpiece of the Liberal Party in Ontario, the Toronto Star. The day after the Budget was tabled an editorial in the Star said:
Finance Minister Marc Lalonde has effectively told Canada's 1.4 million unemployed that they're out of luck. He isn't prepared to undertake a single major new initiative to ease their plight, or to address our most pressing economic and social problem.
The Budget-Mr. Ellis
It concluded by saying:
-the crucial test of this budget was what it would do to reduce unemployment. And, by that test, Lalonde has not provided what Canadians were entitled to expect and demand.
I will tell you what the situation is in Prince Edward-Hastings, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday morning at about 7.30, at the height of what was the second worst storm this winter, between 3,000 and 4,000 men and women stood huddled in a line a kilometre long outside the Canada employment office waiting for it to open. A major company in Belleville had said it would release to the Canada employment centre some 500 job application forms. This employer is one of the larger employers in Belleville and is a very sensitive and good employer. From time to time it asks the employment office to hand out forms for job applications. The last time this was done was in 1980-81. Through this procedure their lists are upgraded. As they need to hire more employees they refer to that list of applicants who have previously been screened. They then call people to come in for final interviews before hiring. They did not have 500 jobs; they were only handing out employment application forms. They had perhaps two or three dozen jobs over the next few days.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that between 3,000 and 4,000 people, some of whom slept outside of the Canada employment office overnight, wanted a job. When people are prepared to do that it gives us some idea of the need for employment and the lack of consideration for employment which is evident in my part of Ontario.
I would like to make a very simple and small point which illustrates the lack of concern by the Government. Yesterday I received a letter from the President of Northern Telecom, a gentleman I know very well. In his letter he indicates that the Department of Communications has put in place a standard for telephones known as CS-03. Because Canadian manufacturers are meeting the costs of complying with the standards they are paying a penalty. They are at a competitive disadvantage in their home market against foreign suppliers who cannot or do not bother to comply. This has the undesirable effect, in terms of the Canadian economy, of tipping the scales in favour of imports. This in turn means that jobs go out of Canada. This is evidenced in the following reference:
Offshore manufacturers whose products are allowed to sell in Canada without complying with the CS-03 are putting Canadian consumers at risk and Canadian jobs in jeopardy. Some 800 jobs have been lost since 1981 in Northern Telecom's plant in London, Ontario, because sales of the telephones it makes have been declining in the Canadian market.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is not interested in enforcing its own regulations. Thereby we have foreign products coming in which do not meet Canadian standards and are taking away Canadian jobs.
About one year ago I spent a good deal of time speaking in the House about the problems of Stephens-Adamson. There was a great deal of debate as to the quality of the product needed to move the coal in western Canada and about a $20 million contract. A Canadian firm was the only company in the world capable of building that particular piece of equipment at that time. Its bid was low and it was on time. It

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Ellis
became very obvious that Mr. Franche, who was the head of the National Harbours Board at that time, was going to give that contract to a Japanese manufacturer whatever the cost. The Canadian competitor never had an opportunity to bid that job fairly.
It seems to me that is another piece of evidence of the disregard for Canadian jobs shown by this Government. One step further, the gentleman I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Franche, went on to become the President of VIA Rail. Now we know how badly VIA Rail has screwed up. Its trains do not even run 20 per cent on time.
In Belleville there are a wide variety of industries. We have a good selection of good employers. They attempt in every way possible to improve their working standards. They attempt in every way possible to improve their working standards. They attempt to improve their portion of the work in the community. They would like to improve their portion of work in the market. In each of the cases I mention, Mr. Speaker, I am not giving names simply because it would not do to bring the names of these employers in the House of Commons. They are embarrassed, I am sure, to seek help or to seek redress from the Government by virtue of the fact that the regulations imposed upon them are so ridiculous as to make it impossible for them to show a profit without having to seek a change.
One of those employers produces a product from a plastic made in Canada. Its competition comes from Brazil, Tanzania and Portugal. Twice this company has been before the AntiDumping Tribunal and twice it has been proved that foreign countries dump their product into Canada at a level that is jeopardizing the Canadian company and taking away Canadian jobs.
The Government of Canada does not recognize that currency values in those countries drop so rapidly that their worth becomes almost zero against the Canadian dollar. It does not matter at what level you put the import duties. Companies can ship into Canada because the value of their particular currency is so much lower than ours. That gives you some idea of the problem, Mr. Speaker. It does not matter at what cost we produce a product. We are certainly producing product at much lower cost than the United States, but no protection is given by the Canadian Government such as U.S. firms have.
Another company entertaining an expansion in Canada required a customs duty remission for the period of time that it was designing and establishing its new facilities. That is standard procedure. It allows a Canadian company to import from a parent company, usually in the United States, until such time as facilities are completed here. In this instance the Canadian company asked for and got a duty remission. In the course of its negotiations with the parent company, the company was able to increase its involvement in the community of Belleville four times. This company went from a $2 million addition to an $8 million addition to its plant. However, negotiations covering that increased involvement in the community took the company beyond the deadline arbitrarily set by the Department of National Revenue, which meant the company was cut
off from its customs duty remission even though it was increasing its participation in the community.
Need I spend a lot of time talking about the distillers in Canada? One of the largest and best run distilleries in Canada is in my constituency, I am happy to say. It is in the position of laying people off because the taxation levels of this Government are so heavy. We have heard my colleagues pointing out that these heavy taxation levels endanger the tourist industry and tourist operators. Jobs are taken away from constituents in my riding simply because of the rapacious greed of this Government in its taxation policy which has now turned the whole situation around. Products are not being purchased simply because taxes are too high.
Need I talk again about the Maislin company? In this case a United States company was allowed to come to Canada and buy up a Canadian company. Had the federal Government not been so anxious to climb in and dump $34 million to help out its friends, that company might well have gone into bankruptcy a few months earlier. But if that had happened, the company would have been bought up by Canadian companies making money. Certainly more of Maislin's people would have been working now than is the case under a U.S. company.
I could tell you about a large lumbering operation in the north end of my constituency, Mr. Speaker. It had planned with a German manufacturer to establish a brand-new plant. All of the details were ready when the federal Government stepped in and promised all kinds of money, many, many millions of dollars, if the company were to establish the plant in the Gaspe section of Quebec. Never mind that a Hastings County entrepreneur had started a deal. Never mind that a Hastings County entrepreneur was capable of putting the deal together. The federal Government stepped in and with taxpayers' money asked the company to go to Quebec. Of course, the company did so. Now we have a consumer starting a new plant in my constituency and he needs that particular product. But what does he have to do? He has to import it all the way from the Gaspe instead of having it right at hand where it should have been.
Textiles are another major problem concerning jobs in Prince Edward-Hastings. Major textile producers, names that have been in business for nearly a century, are now turning into importers simply because they cannot possibly compete with the regulations put in place by the federal Government. The allowance of imports is well beyond what is normally called for.
A large part of Prince Edward-Hastings is obviously agricultural. Prince Edward County particularly has had a couple of bankruptcies recently of major farm operations simply because the Farm Credit Corporation will not consider a pari passu situation where the Farm Credit Corporation and the banks equally share the risks and equally share the lending. It seems to me it is just that straightforward. Section 16 of the Unemployment Insurance Act means that farmers in Prince Edward County now have to put in unemployment insurance benefits for literally tens of thousands of students who work part time during the summer and have absolutely no
March 6, 1984

opportunity of ever collecting unemployment insurance under those benefits. This is just another aggravation in the way of putting jobs in place in Prince Edward County.
There are those situations in the two-county area that I represent where we have been successful. I have probably dealt with every Minister of the Crown who has the least bit to do with employment. I have to say, having pleaded the case with these many Ministers, that in some situations I have had success. If those Ministers were here this morning, I would be the first to recognize them. It is not always the fact that Ministers are at fault, but certainly the policies of this Government are at fault; certainly the policies of this Government are causing us a great deal of grief in the employment sector in Prince Edward-Hastings.
To conclude, let me say that jobs were said to be the thrust of this Budget. Jobs should have been the thrust of this Budget. Jobs were clearly not seriously considered in this Budget. Once again, this crowd has failed. Leaderless for the next three months, things can only get worse. The country, especially those who need jobs, will benefit by the Liberals going.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). He bemoaned at some length the problem of low-value foreign currencies in comparison to Canada's currency. In view of some of these problems, would the Hon. Member not agree that both the Liberal Government and his own Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, should reverse their past and present major policies and let the Canadian dollar float rather than propping it up as is the case, now? Would he not agree that we should peg interest rates instead of letting them float as is the case now? Interest rates are now floating upwards. Would he not agree that we should be going along the lines suggested by many economists and, most recently, by columnist Don McGillivray, who wrote an article to this effect about a week ago in the Ottawa Citizen and other papers across the land?
I am suggesting that that kind of reversal in policy on behalf of both his Party and the Government would provide stability and confidence internally for many Canadians in business and in labour. It would give us a better competitive edge and provide some real incentive to manufacturers to manufacture more durable goods and machinery in Canada instead of relying heavily upon imports. The current policy of pegging the dollar and letting interest rates float is one of the major causes of the trouble in this country, and that is the policy of both his Party and the Liberal Government.
Would he not agree that there has to be a drastic reversal of both these areas of policy on the part of the Conservatives and the Liberals if we are to have any hope of placing our economy in a competitive position and getting on with the job of creating jobs and goods for Canadians?
The Budget-Mr. Ellis


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, just four years ago that Party put the Liberal Government in place. Methinks they do protest too much. In all the rhetoric of the Hon. Member one thing was very clear. He kept saying that the dollar was pegged. Of course, the dollar is not pegged, it floats. As a matter of fact, there are changes in the interest rate every Thursday which usually affect the value of the dollar.
I know they are sorry that they put the Liberals back in, but I am not at all sure they know which way they will go, come the next election. Come the next election, we will set the economic policies of the country in a way which will give jobs to all Canadians.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings went off on a tangent once again. Instead of dealing with the issue, he rhetorically asked why we defeated the Conservative Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). Of course, it was the people of Canada who later decided to put the Liberal Party back into power. The reason for our action was obvious in my question to him a few moments ago. It is because their basic policies are the same. They are doing immeasurable harm to the country. We would vote against the Party opposite, and we have done so more than twice as often as has his own Party, for the same reasons we defeated his Party when it formed the Government: it had exactly the same disastrous approach to the problems of the people of Canada.
I would ask him to realize and admit the real problems with this Budget and perhaps take some corrective action within his own ranks. We now have Liberal politics and a Conservative Budget, and that is the worst of both worlds.


John Raymond Ellis: That is not really worth answering. However, I will just say that those comments come from people who are opposed to everything and anything. As I said earlier in my remarks, they are opposed to employers making a profit. They are opposed to employees and employers getting together to try to make a profit jointly.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Not true.


John Raymond Ellis: They were opposed to the excellent Budget which was brought down by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) four years ago.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: True.


John Raymond Ellis: They do not have any choice but to oppose this- well, I cannot use the language in the House I would like to use-to oppose this Budget. They are now prepared to oppose us again, even before we come into power. I am delighted. We look forward to meeting them on the campaign trail, and we will see what their opposition gets them.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Your answer was no.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I tell the Hon. Member opposite that we, too, look forward to the next election.


John Raymond Ellis: Then let's have it; the sooner the better.

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey


Gilbert Parent: I am sure the Elon. Member would want to correct an idea which he put forth. I do not think he meant it so I am asking him for clarification. He mentioned that Government funds were made available to a company to re-establish in Quebec. From the tone of what he was saying, it sounded as if he was more upset with the fact that this company, which could have been established in his own riding, was established in Quebec, as opposed to simply being established in any other part of Canada. Would the Hon. Member set the record straight?


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I was and am disturbed that that company was moved to Quebec. Certainly I would have been as disturbed if it had been moved anywhere else. The federal Government had absolutely no bloody business getting involved. The entrepreneur from Ontario and the entrepreneur from Germany had their deal put together. When they went for approval, the Government stepped in and moved the company to Quebec. I would have been just as opposed to its being moved anywhere else. I am not against Quebec, but the federal Government had absolutely no right to become involved. It was a good, viable deal. They might well have supported it, but they did not need to move it.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a great deal of attention to the Hon. Member from Belleville because many years ago I made the decision to centralize and to move out of Toronto and Ottawa the total operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Hon. Member will recall that after very detailed study 1 placed it in the City of Belleville. I do not recall the good Member of Parliament complaining that I had betrayed my trust in moving the Unemployment Insurance Commission out of the cities where it was situated, principally Toronto, into Belleville. Nevertheless, I am not interested in becoming involved in that type of partisan debate at the moment.
I frankly look upon this Budget in a very selfish way. I look at it from the perspective of what it means to the people of my community. I am very fortunate, in my declining years as a Member of Parliament, to have had the privilege of representing the riding of Lincoln which is situated, as most people know, essentially along Lake Ontario between Niagara Falls and Hamilton. Its characteristics are for the most part rural, with at the same time a very heavy urban end closer to Hamilton.
The response to the Budget-and I say this as effectively as possible-has been very positive, to the point that it surprised me. For instance, the farm community is particularly pleased with the Budget in that it meets the problems of capital gains, of retirement years and farmers' inability to pass their farms on to their families without paying severe financial penalties. Of course, I credit this Party with this move, and I commend the Hon. Member sitting on my right who is helping the House Leader today because he was the strongest voice in caucus among many in ensuring that the Budget brought in the required changes for the farm community.
Unlike the Hon. Member from Belleville, the NDP has the tendency not to change its mind but to raise false issues or, if the issue is not false, to treat it so superficially that it is unfair to the issue and to the people listening.


John Raymond Ellis: He has gone to lunch.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He has always gone to lunch. There is nothing new about that.


John Raymond Ellis: They are out to lunch.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to speak to the size of our deficit and about whether or not we can afford it. I know that in 1980 the deficit was also an issue. At that time I was able to conduct a little study on it. In fact, I recall that practically the same debate occurred in 1976. One of the strongest proponents of the sizeable deficit at that time was the Conference Board spokesman. I am not for a moment suggesting that a deficit is a good thing, either individually or collectively, or as a company or a country. However, I think that at times deficits are imperative and necessary. The only country of which I can think that balanced its budget was Portugal under Salazar. Because of the policy of balanced budgets annually, Portugal was never able to amass sufficient funds in those days to provide schooling, compulsory education, hospitalization and decent roads. Now the Government of Portugal has to work very hard to catch up.
I remember asking members of the farm community who were complaining about the size of our deficit how many people in the hall did not have a greater deficit now than 20 years ago when they entered farming. They all agreed that they owed more money today they owed 20 years ago. In the next breath they reminded me that they were quite capable of handling that debt. Their assets had grown because of their periodical borrowing over the 20, 30 or 40 years when they bought a new section of land, a tractor or more modern equipment. The real issue is not the size of the deficit but our ability to finance it.
In his Budget the Minister has virtually frozen the deficit. He has not reduced it. He knows that to reduce it dramatically at the moment means cutting back on social programs. The Liberal Party will never cut back on our social programs, at least the basic, fundamental ones.
I remind Members opposite that we differ from the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who two weeks ago suggested that we introduce a means test to decide who gets the old age pension, a fundamental characteristic of this country which all Canadians pay for through their sweat, toil and contribution to our economy.


John Raymond Ellis: He didn't say that and you know better.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I heard it over the radio. I did not interrupt the Hon. Member when he was speaking. I must be hurting him where I do not like to hurt him because he is one of my favourite Members. However, I heard the Hon. Member for
March 6, 1984

St. John's West on a Saturday morning, on a CBC radio program, say that when he comes back to power and is Minister of Finance he will have to give it serious consideration. Why is he considering? When asked how he would cut the Budget and cut spending rather than the deficit, he turned immediately Pavlovian in his concept to say: "We will have to give serious consideration to introducing a means test", not for family allowances, although he mentioned that, not for many of the other fringe expenditures and social policies, but for the old age pension.
I have to give the Hon. Member credit. At least he is clearing the road. He is clearing the debris. He is bringing back, helping to clarify and sharpen the policies of the Conservative Party as opposed to the policies of the Liberal Party. He is making it quite clear for the electorate in six or eight months, or whenever the time may be for an election, to say let's get away from personalities; let's get back to issues, let's get back to policies.
What are the clear distinctions between the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats? Every time they come under that scrutiny the New Democrats simply disappear. The 12, 13 or 14 per cent of the population, appealing mostly to intellectuals who can afford those socialist tendencies and those who are indoctrinated in the policy and their own basic philosophy, cannot realize the extent to which the world is changing.
We are now understanding the Conservative policy. It is now emerging, slow but sure, day by day. When you strip the front pages of the personalities, the leadership, who will be this, who will be that, policy differentiation is emerging. That is good for Canada. It is good for the Tory Party. If the majority of Canadians want a government that is dedicated to bringing in means tests for old age pensions, one which thinks President Reagan is the greatest invention since sliced bread, that our policies must be a reflection of neo-conservatism in this country, they can at least see that the issues are not blurred, that they are distinct. They will see the Liberal Party remains faithful to the concept that the government has a role to play in protecting the less fortunate, the helpless, those with no organized union, the 66 per cent of the workers in this country who through no fault of their own, and perhaps through their own fault, are unable to cope and meet the day to day expenses that people incur.
Is that a legitimate role for a government to play? I have to say it is. If I did not think so, I would be over knocking on the door of my good friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). Whenever the industrialized world is under pressure for money, as it has been for the last few years, these strains are bound to emerge. Liberalism has been the marriage of an economic policy that does not differ all that much from the Conservative Party with social reform. Where we do differ from the Conservative Party is in our social concepts, our conscience, our concern, our compassion, our care for people. We are not a cold, efficient organization. We are not the disciples of Adam Smith. We believe in compassion and concern. That is why we favour transfer payments to extremes in this country, unlike the Americans. That is why we are
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
dedicated to seeing that everybody has equal opportunity by funding universities and other schools of education, and making medicare possible so that everybody has a chance to be healthy and to be educated. Without health, you can be nothing. These are the fundamental things that distinguish us from the Conservatives.
The Budget also points out certain ways that we differ from the New Democrats. We believe that social policies can only come from increased productivity. Money does not come from Heaven, it comes from private enterprise. We believe in free enterprise. The NDP have an open invitation. Any time they want me to join their Party, they can tell me one single society in this world that I would trade for the Canadian way of life. Name it. They can't. They are silent. I have been issuing that challenge for 20 years. Will it be Sweden where you wait eight years, not to buy a home but to rent a home? Would it be Poland? Would it be Russia? Would it be Cuba? Where is it? They may have the right political doctrine for a country at a certain stage of its emergence, but we are well beyond that. This country is well beyond the doctrine of the New Democratic Party.
How do we increase productivity? I share with my friend in the corner his concern for the labour movement. I do not believe that the adversarial concept can ever be legislated out of existence. There is no country that can export its labour-management concepts, be it Japan or wherever. We have a system that has worked remarkably well.
What the NDP do not realize, or perhaps they do, is the tremendous change in the composition of the work force. Not too long ago four workers out of five were so-called blue collar workers. Today three out of five are white collar workers. They are educated. They are intelligent. They do not want to be dominated by a union leader who says you have to walk down Main Street on May Day. They do not even understand the connotation. They want to be amply compensated. They do not even need a toolbox any more. They are "knowledge workers" rather than skilled workers.
This is the computer generation. It has been going on for a long time, certainly as long as I can recall. These changes are subtle and bring about a change in attitude. These workers know the need to co-operate. They know the need to sit down with management. They know the advantages to management, to labour and to the free entreprise system of increased productivity. They ask only that they get their fair share of that increased productivity. An enlightened and realistic management understands that as well. I am quite optimistic about the growth of labour, management and government co-operation in the future which will create jobs and increase our productivity.
We will never destroy or eliminate the adversarial role of labour and management. However, it will become the exception, just like strikes of any serious nature will become the exception rather than the rule in the future. This will not be because government has determined that by a piece of legisla-

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey
tion but because technology has changed the workplace. It has changed the workers, their concerns and their characteristics. I repeat that when the majority of the work force consists of what we call knowledge workers or white collar workers who go to the workplace with their knowledge rather than with their screwdrivers, there is a change in attitude, a change in approach, and a change in understanding.
I can remember the election of 1962 when the then Right Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, was unfairly castigated for a 92-cent dollar. It was a big factor in the election. Today we talk knowledgeably about this subject. I do not mean only Members of Parliament but people in general talk knowledgeably about floating dollars, about fixed dollars, about 80-cent dollars, about 79-cent dollars. It is not a political problem. People understand that it is only a relative measurement of value as compared to the United States dollar. It is no longer an issue, just like the deficit is no longer an issue if explained properly.
It is significant that when Hon. Members speak about measuring the deficit on a per capita basis, they are using the wrong measurement and the wrong criteria. The deficit must be measured in comparison to our ability to repay it at an appropriate moment, to finance it and to carry the debt charges. That is why it must be compared to the GNP.
The Minister of Finance's Budget pointed out that although he is freezing the amount of the deficit to $31 billion, the increase in GNP in two years' time will make the relationship between the GNP and the deficit half of what it is today. I may remind the House that after the war in the early 1950s, the deficit in the country was running at 23 per cent of GNP. The deficit is not a problem unless, of course, it is unbridled or represents waste, and nobody wants that. That is why the Auditor General and a committee of public accountants look assiduously to see where there is waste.
I believe that at this point in our history people are entitled to a little more intelligent input from the New Democratic Party. There are exceptions, of course. I know that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to say that yes, there are distinctions between the Parties, and they exist not only in debate. There are clear distinctions between the three Parties. One of the good and useful things that has occurred in recent months and now leading up to our leadership campaign is that those distinctions are becoming more pronounced. People are entitled to know what we stand for.
I do not particularly appreciate that some Members from my own Party's front-benches are unaware of the fact that federal legislation provides that the negative impact of technological change must be negotiated on the federal scene. We brought that legislation in 13 years ago. Three weeks ago, I heard members of the New Democratic Party saying that what we need is legislation that will provide that the Government must negotiate the impact of technological change. That has been a main feature of the changes of the Labour Code. I think I had something to do with introducing that change in 1971. Thirteen years have gone by and members of the New Democratic Party still fail to understand and appreciate that
every collective agreement under federal jurisdiction must make provision to negotiate technological change.
What did that legislation flow from? The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) could tell us that it came about because of a change in the technology of the railways in the 1960s. At that time, the railways converted to diesel which made the picking up of coal to create steam redundant. Of course, the railways, being the unenlightened employers they were, thought that they could just disrupt the whole work force and never negotiate. Of course, Judge Freedman told us the opposite.
This Party will stand on its record in the next election. It will stand on the universality of its programs, including the old age pension, unlike the former Minister of Finance who, just three weeks ago, said that we must bring in a needs test and apply it, if necessary, to old age pensioners. I hope he repeats that statement in the election campaign. I hope he comes to my riding and tells that to the senior citizens who live there. There are many senior citizens who live in my community because they love the community; they are well represented, the climate is nice, there are many senior citizens' homes and we look after senior citizens in Lincoln.
I would like to see the former Minister of Finance come to the Riding of Lincoln and say: "Vote for me, but remember that if we are elected, the first thing we will have to do is take a good, hard look at old age pensions and see if there is not some way we can save a little money by introducing a needs test". I shall not go on to fight an election campaign on the basis of this Budget, but that statement has bothered me ever since I heard it.
All Parties work collectively at times to ensure that the quality of life in the country is as high as possible, even for those who for reasons beyond their control can contribute very little to the economy. It would do a disservice to the Canadian public if at this late stage, because of the influence of the President of the United States, we bowed to the temptation to become politically expedient and get votes by destroying the things that people have been working for many, many decades to achieve.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has made quite an issue of means tests and has clearly implied that he is opposed to them in their entirety. I would ask him if he supports the Government policy of having a means test before the granting of the guaranteed income supplement to about 50 per cent of old age pensioners in the country. Does he also support the Government policy of having a very rigorously applied means test before a veteran aged 55 can receive the war veterans allowance?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not in the habit of putting words into my mouth and he has no right to imply that I said that. I know what I said. I spoke specifically about Old Age Security, not the guaranteed income supplement. I understand the difference between the income supplement and OAS. I understand that in order to preserve the basic principles of OAS, we must bring in some
March 6, 1984

form of means test before we hand out the supplement. That at best is a compromise, but one that is necessary in order to retain the OAS. It has worked remarkably well.
The former Minister of Finance did not talk about the GIS, he talked about OAS. There is a fundamental difference between the two, as the Hon. Member knows. I do not mind having him ask me that question, but yes, I do support the principle of a means test in determining the guaranteed income supplement.
If I am not mistaken, it is significant that the Minister increased the GIS substantially in this Budget. One could question how substantial $50 a month is. To some people it is not very substantial but others have expressed satisfaction, pleasure and relief that some help has come. I just hope that the provincial Tory governments which have a great deal of control over senior citizens' homes and those kinds of things make certain that that money is not siphoned off from the senior citizens and swallowed up in the form of rent or charges against these individuals who live in senior citizens' complexes.
I apologize for not having mentioned the veterans. I share the hon. gentleman's concern. The Minister is in the House and I suggest that we need an approach on the part of the bureaucrats who deal with the veterans that is a little more enlightened. There seems to be a pattern developing in that Department of which the Minister is aware. I have talked to him about the practice of automatically refusing and delaying veterans' pensions. As a Member of Parliament, I too have come across cases that have dragged on for years before they are settled, and they are inevitably settled properly on behalf of the individual.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) with regard to his comments about the New Democratic Party. Yes, Canada is a wonderful place to live and we all want to enjoy Canada's benefits. I wish to reaffirm to the Hon. Member that there are over two million people unemployed and on social assistance at this time and they too are looking for some of the benefits of the country.
I would like to take up the challenge presented by the Hon. Member and tell him about the proposal we have put forward with regard to the sale of western Canada coal, a clean coal that would clean up our environment, would create jobs right across Canada and help alleviate the cause of acid rain right from the source rather than after the fact. We are importing coal with a sulphur content 800 per cent higher than the coal of western Canada.
We proposed that a study be done that would create thousands of jobs, alleviate a lot of the causes of acid rain and keep $1 billion from leaving this country for the United States. That proposal could do something for all parts of Canada but the Government has refused to consider a study. I should like to hear what the Hon. Member thinks of that proposal. I invite him to take up the challenge.
The Budget-Mr. Mackasey


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, one thing the New Democratic Party is noted for is extravagance of expression. The Hon. Member spoke of two million people out of work; a little while ago someone mentioned 1.5 million people out of work and another person mentioned one million people out of work. As one who had charge of that Department at one time, I will not talk about what can be done with statistics. It is unfortunate that so many people are out of work, but the sheer reality is that we have come out of this recession second only to the United States. Our dollar is the second strongest currency in the world. Our recovery has been the fastest in the industrialized world, faster even than that of the United States.
As far back as I can recall, the level of unemployment in this country has reflected three things and they have not changed in the 10 years since I made a study of the matter. First of all, it reflects the advent of women in the work force. This is an overdue phenomenon, if you like, compared to Europe where that movement was accelerated, if you like, by the last war more so than it was here. Women came into the work force, discrimination against them was eliminated to a great degree, barriers to certain disciplines such as engineering, dentistry, law, were lowered. They add to the numbers, Mr. Speaker. They add to the quality of the work force, they add to the GNP, they add to our ability to look after the unemployed. But they also add to the numbers.
The second thing that still adds to our numbers is the rather civilized and open approach we have to new Canadians from other parts of the world. As a former Minister of Immigration I can remember the anger of some Members, particularly some from Toronto, when I brought in 7,000 Ugandans. I am sure that today each and every one of them is working and contributing, but they add to the numbers. Hardly a day goes by when someone does not ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to open the door even further. But that also adds to the numbers, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, we still have the fastest growing work force because of the remarkably high number of young people just coming into it. This reflects the generation that came back from overseas, married late and whose children are now coming into the work force.
Those are three reasons why unemployment figures are high, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. gentleman did not point out is that we have created jobs at a faster rate than any other country in recent years. It is no great secret how to go about creating jobs. We can overheat the economy and have inflation back, then another deep recession six or nine months from now. That is the trouble with socialist policies, Mr. Speaker; they are not balanced. It is hard to argue with members of that Party. They are well intentioned and they are concerned about people; they have that human touch, secure in the knowledge that they will never have to be realistic about the cost of implementing a program.
Coming back to the question of coal, Mr. Speaker, I agree that pollution of the environment is a problem. We have been buying coal offshore but it is not so long ago since Japan was buying coal from British Columbia. Apart from the devastat-

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Bradley
ing harm the acid content does to the environment, I think the Elon. Member should understand, and does understand, that the marriage of convenience between social policy and free enterprise which is characteristic of this country, which works well when there is lots of money, does not work so well when there is not lots of money.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Is that not free enterprise?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The other gentleman is getting into it. Don't spoil your lunch. Go back to sleep.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for questions has expired. We now resume debate.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on February 15. It is an interesting Budget-a few things here and a few things there-but I do not see any general thrust in it at all. It does little to spur further recovery and does nothing to put the Government's financial house in order. Relative to the projections outlined in the 1983 Budget, spending, the deficit and interest costs are all up. This is a white paper Budget. Proposals are presented on mortgage protection, small business tax relief, profit sharing and pensions. These proposals are to be studied. They may or may not become reality but for the time being they give the appearance of action.
I looked at the Budget, Mr. Speaker, mainly to see what was in it for my constituents, the people of Haldimand-Norfolk, and I looked at youth. We know that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed youth in the country. There are thousands in my own riding. The Budget says that creating jobs for Canada's youth is a priority, that the strength and vitality of our nation's youth depends on our young people. It also states that $150 million will be added to the $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund announced in the Speech from the Throne.
I have two questions about that, Mr. Speaker. What is $150 million going to do? It is less than the amount the Minister used to cover up the leak in his last Budget when an opportunist TV cameraman took an opportune shot of it. The Minister casually added $200 million with a stroke of the pen in order to save his Budget and his neck. Does that mean we can assume that as far as the Minister is concerned the youth of the country mean less than his Budget or his neck? Let us be realistic, Mr. Speaker. Let us provide some permanent, longterm assistance and programs for the youth of the country.
We see that the Minister is going to continue his wage and price restraints. In his Budget Speech he said that the federal Government is firmly committed to continued wage and price restraint and that the existing policy of limiting increases in the prices that the federal Government sets and regulates will be continued for another year. He said as well that the guidelines will be reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per cent for this period and that mandatory wage controls in the public sector
will not be extended. The Government is not firmly committed to continued wage and price controls, Mr. Speaker, but only to price restraint-and only price restraint that it sets and regulates.
The liquor and tobacco industries would be glad to have had their increases for the past year set at 4 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The 15.8 per cent tax increase on cigarettes imposed in September was a price that in my estimation the federal Government sets and regulates. What we have is a government that already breaks its promises before they are implemented. We have a government that is attempting to tax the liquor industry and the tobacco industry out of existence in this country without being concerned about the consequences to the people involved in those industries.
With respect to the question of tax increases, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the hidden agenda. The Budget of February 15 contained no major tax increase. It did not have to. From the Budget of April, 1983, Mr. Speaker, we have the following increases which are now taking effect for the 1984-1985 year: the special recovery tax, adding an additional $300 million; changes to the federal tax reduction, adding an additional $445 million; elimination of the standard $100 deduction, adding $180 million; deindexing of the child tax credit income threshold, adding $155 million; deindexing of the child exemption, adding $40 million; making the Canadian Ownership Special Charge permanent, adding $965 million, and the Unemployment Insurance Commission increase this year, Mr. Speaker, will add $45 million. If we were to carry that same hidden program to 1986-1987, we would come to a total for that year of an additional $5,654 billion. No, this Budget did not have to bring in tax increases; they are already there.
I come now to Revenue Canada, Mr. Speaker. We all know what Revenue Canada is; it is the Department that finds you guilty until proven innocent. Apparently it is going to change that. We are not going to be quite so guilty any more. That is the Department, you might recall, which has $800 an hour auditors; the Department which provides free meals for the auditors who bring in the biggest increases in a month; the Department which provides the day off for the financial collectors who collect the most money in a month. That Department is going to be kind to us now, Mr. Speaker. Individuals and corporations with federal taxes of $1,000 or less will no longer have to make quarterly tax instalments. This is a good step. This will assist those senior citizens who have wrongly been required to make quarterly instalments on earnings which, in most cases, do not arrive until the end of the year.
Second, that Department is going to pay up to $1,000 for the cost of a successful appeal by someone who is appealing his tax assessment. This is a start, Mr. Speaker, but anyone out there in the country who has had to appeal their assessment knows that $1,000 is not going to go very far. It will not even scratch the backs of their lawyers and accountants.
March 6, 1984

Third, taxpayers will be given the right to provide security rather than pay cash for taxes in dispute. What is the security? Who decides what that security is? Is it the same person who assesses your taxes or the person who is going to come out and collect your money? We need further details on that.
Steps have been taken toward cleaning up Revenue Canada, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister has a long way to go before it is clean enough for the taxpayers of this country.
There are provisions in the Budget for the senior citizens of this country. There is an increase of $50 in their guaranteed income supplement. That is a very positive step for those single female senior citizens who are living so far below the poverty line. However, the two $25 instalments, Mr. Speaker, instead of bringing them up to the level of luxury at which they should be, actually amounts to two increases over a year of 83 cents each per day. I question whether that will even buy those senior citizens a quart of milk.
I come now to an area, Mr. Speaker, which is close to the heart of a lot of us in Haldimand-Norfolk, and that is agriculture. I quote from the Minister's little book, Budget in brief, the section on agriculture:
Farmers will now be able to invest up to $120,000 of taxable capital gains from the sale of a farm in an RRSP. The amount eligible will be $10,000 for every year they have farmed the land from 1972 to 1983. This will assist farmers to build better pensions for retirement.
Will it really, Mr. Speaker? On the surface it is quite a step, but what does it really mean when you get down to it? The $120,000 of capital gains rolled into an RRSP will, in reality, increase the cost of the farm. Before this measure, Mr. Speaker, if a farmer were to sell his farm in my area, he might take a $100,000 down payment on that farm. He would leave the remainder of the value of that farm in a mortgage, would take his $100,000, move into town, buy himself a home and establish himself. He is now told that he is allowed an additional $120,000 tax exemption on capital gains in an RRSP.
What that will do, Mr. Speaker, is force that farmer to save that $120,000. It will force him to up his ante for the down payment on his farm to something like $220,000 because he will still need that $100,000 to set up his new home in town, and he will need that additional $120,000 to put into an RRSP so he can avoid the taxes. What that will create, Mr. Speaker, is a problem for the young people who are trying to get into agriculture because it doubles the ante for a down payment.
There is a further spin-off to this, Mr. Speaker. We are talking in this Budget about stimulating the economy. We are talking about getting money into flow and yet at the same time we are telling farmers to save an additional $120,000 in an RRSP. We would be better off, Mr. Speaker, if we took out this capital gains on agriculture completely for bona fide farmers and allow them to have their money to spend in the economy, therefore helping to stimulate the economy of this country.
I note there will be something for part-time farmers or so-called "hobby farmers". The $5,000 loss provision will not be replaced by the realistic $20,000 provision, so what is the Government doing to assist part-time or so-called hobby farm-
The Budget-Mr. Bradley
ers? We are told that a consultative working group will be established to assess the impact that such changes might have on the agriculture sector before any specific action is taken. I think that describes what this Budget is, Mr. Speaker-gone today, here tomorrow, if tomorrow ever comes. The riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, Mr. Speaker, is 75 per cent agricultural.
I do not see anything in this Budget which is of any significant help to the people in that area. All I have seen this Government do in the past is hinder agriculture.
One of the major agricultural sectors in my riding, Mr. Speaker, is the tobacco industry. There are some 2,600 or 2,700 tobacco farmers in Canada. Probably 60 per cent of them are in Haldimand-Norfolk. It is an industry which provides some 18,000 full-time jobs and some 35,000 to 40,000 part-time seasonal jobs. It is an industry whose spin-offs are far-reaching to all parts of this country. It is an industry which provides tremendous export and has great potential for further export.
What has this Government done for that sector of agriculture? It has increased the tax on cigarettes so it now takes $1.14 billion per year in tax from that industry. That is an industry which only brings in, in comparison, $285 million to the growers. It appears to be then using that same money to turn around and wage its anti-smoking campaign in the country. The Government increased the taxation on cigarettes in this past year-a six and five year-by 15.8 per cent, thus pushing the price of a package of cigarettes in some areas, Mr. Speaker, to $2 or more. What does the grower receive for the tobacco which goes into that package of cigarettes? The grower gets six cents out of a $2-plus package of cigarettes. That is a good return?
The Government hopes that through its anti-smoking campaign it will reduce the number of cigarette smokers in Canada by 10 per cent. That means a reduction of 10 per cent in tobacco grown, a reduction of 10 per cent in tobacco growers, the loss of livelihood for some 260 to 300 farmers and the loss of some 2,000 permanent and 4,000 part-time jobs in Canada this year alone. If we are going to kill this golden goose, Mr. Speaker, why do we not at the same time take steps to help increase the export of this commodity to countries who do want it? When we take in $1.14 billion in tax from this commodity, why do we spend only $2 million at a research station to find crops for farmers who are forced out of tobacco? Why do we not put some $10 million into the research station at Delhi and find crops these people can move into when they are forced out of tobacco by this irresponsible Government?
I looked for something for the fisheries, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget. I have a lot of fishermen in my riding and over 50 boats go out of one port. Perch, smelt and yellow pickerel are a major industry. We have an $8 million a year market in Japan which went sour last year because of the dioxin scare and which has only recovered about 30 per cent now. We have fishermen and fish processing operations on the verge of

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Bradley
bankruptcy. We have a potentially tremendous unemployment problem in southern Ontario because of this. What did I find in the Budget for the fishery, Mr. Speaker? I could not even find the word "fishery". There was nothing in the Budget for the fishing industry in my area which is in such serious difficulties.
I could go on and refer to the mortgage insurance program we have all been waiting so long to hear about. One critic had this to say about the program:
Hours after Finance Minister Marc Lalonde proposed a mortgage insurance plan in his February 15 Budget speech, industry spokesmen hailed it as a pioneering attempt to protect homeowners against rising interest rates. But a sober second look has convinced many the plan is not quite the sweetheart deal it first appeared. Experts say the insurance costs too much, the pricing scheme makes no sense, and the plan encourages home owners to lock into longer term mortgages at higher rates which could cost them a bundle in the long run. Many say home owners would be better off to use the money to decrease the size of their mortgages and take advantage of lower interest rates available for one and three year mortgages.
Many examples are given, Mr. Speaker, of how this is actually costing us more money.
There are some good breaks for small business, but overall I think they are too little, too late. We need further incentives for small business to get this country going again.
What I do not see in the Budget is anything to help the 3.5 million Canadians under the age of 65 who live in poverty. There is nothing to help the handicapped or disabled, and no incentives for the voluntary sector. There are a lot of promises in a lot of areas and a lot of things that could happen in the future, which reinforces the fact that this Budget is nothing more than a white paper: Gone today and here tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what the Hon. Member had to say. I agree he has had some serious problems in his community, and I commend him for supporting the idea of more money for research into alternate crops for tobacco growers. However, I will leave that and ask him a question about the collection of taxes which he mentioned at one point. In my community, as I think in most communities across Canada, 70 per cent or 80 per cent of taxpayers pay tax at the source. They are wage earners and their concern is that taxes are a zero sum game. In other words, their taxes are collected at the source and they pay the full shot. They are very concerned that the Hon. Member and his Party are going to undermine the system. I agree with the Hon. Member that there are some bad cases which have to be looked into and changes made, but is he not concerned that we are undermining the Department and the way it functions. Therefore people who pay their full taxes at source, the wage earners, will be forced to pay more.
My second question deals with the tax commission of the Hon. Member's Party which is travelling around hearing complaints. Is that commission asking people making complaints if they will sign a document to allow the tax department also to say something about those complaints? It seems to me one gets only one side of the issue unless you get the tax department people into it. They are not able to comment
simply because of the requirement for confidentiality which is very important. However, if individuals appearing before the commission are willing to sign a document allowing the tax department to give its side of the story, then I think it becomes fair. Otherwise it has a tendency to undermine the tax department.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, I know the Hon. Member's concern about taxes paid at source. I have not seen any policy in our Party which will undermine that. Mind you, I do not write that policy. I am concerned with social development, women's issues and defence. However, if the Hon. Member wishes, I will have our finance spokesman search that out for him.
Pertaining to our being fair to the tax department, I do not find it fair when a restaurant owner in my riding is charged $1,500 in a tax reassessment. This is a person who did not oppose it, who felt he must have made an error and gave three cheques, one for immediate payment, one for payment two weeks later and one for the end of the following month. The first cheque was cashed, the second was cashed two weeks later and the next day, Saturday at noon, the collector came into his restaurant with the local sheriff, pushed the girl from the till and took the money because they did not want to wait the extra month. I do not call that fair to the people of this country. Until the tax department is fair to my constituents and Canadians in general, I do not think we have to be fair in our dealings with them. I feel we can be tough in our dealings with the department to correct these actions. Some of those actions have been corrected in this Budget and I thank the Minister for that, but there are many more corrections to come.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, you can kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The tourist industry was going to be, and still could be, the shot in our economic arm
March 6, 1984

which many of our communities need. However, heavy taxation in such areas as gasoline, wines, and spirits makes Canada too expensive a place to spend a vacation.
Grape and wine production were part of our growth industry. First, there was the harassment of grape producers in the taxation of hybrid grape production. Were they capital expenses or were they part of the deductions? This caused confusion, irritation, and delay. Then came the decline in wine sales attributed to increased federal and provincial taxes, a poor economic climate, and mostly low-priced imports.
The St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce has called for a curb on what they call "exorbitant and inflationary" taxes. Its policy statements say these increased taxes can only have a damaging effect on the tourist industry. The Government is, in effect, driving the prices of dining, drinking, and entertainment beyond the reach of local residents and visitors alike. Even worse, the current situation has led to the very first lay-off in a local winery. Is this the way the Government proposes to build the economy of the country?



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has accustomed Canadians to the most incredible inconsistencies in his statements. Last year, on June 13, he said in the newspaper Le Droit that he, as Leader, would speak for the Party and that he would tolerate no dissent on the major issues facing Canadians. Subsequently, last fall, the Leader of the Opposition supported the position taken by the Liberal Party on bilingualism in Manitoba, and then in February of this year, two Progressive Conservative Members created the McKenzie-Stewart Fund to show their opposition to bilingualism in Canada. The Leader of the Opposition then tried to have us believe he had made them see reason and that the Progressive Conservative Caucus was now unanimous on this issue. Then, still in February, the Leader of the Opposition supported a second motion on safeguarding the rights of Franco-Manitobans, this time without the support of the Progressive Conservative Members from that Province. Now the Opposition Leader has stated that in the name of freedom of opinion, he is prepared to tolerate dissent but that his Party is unanimous on the issue. Moreover, and the gesture reeks of hypocrisy, the Progressive Conservative Leader is supporting the nomination of Bob Sherman as the Progressive Conservative candidate in next federal election in Winnipeg, the same Mr. Sherman who was one of the fiercest opponents of the legislation to safeguard the rights of Franco-Manitobans. The Progressive Conservative Leader has a long way to go before he puts his money where his mouth is. Former Leader Robert Stanfield must be very unhappy to see that the present
Leader has succeeded but not replaced him. Francophones and Canadians in general will remember the Leader of the Opposition. They will remember his pretty speeches, but also the inaction of the hon. gentleman who was the subject of a caricature not long ago in the newspaper Le Soleil-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, over the past five years I have been working closely with the City of Port Colborne, regarding improvements to facilities connected with the Welland Canal which passes through the heart of that city. This waterway is not only a key component of the St. Lawrence Seaway, but is a scenic tourist attraction.
Specifically, I am referring to the proposed weir crossing which would help to provide flood protection to the downtown for a cost of roughly $6 million, or one-thirtieth the cost of a budget leak. In my most recent attempt to assist with this project I contacted the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) on June 20, 1983.1 received a quick reply on October 24 of the same year. I was told that no federal money was available for the project.
Lately there has been quite a bit of talk regarding the Special Employment Initiatives Program which has been of great benefit to selected ridings. Perhaps the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) would give some thought to diverting some of this funding into my riding to fund the above project, which I feel to be worthwhile and necessary. I believe the time has come for Erie and other Niagara ridings to benefit from the Special Employment Initiatives Program.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, nearly 40 per cent of Canadian first marriages now end in divorce. Many people live in a single parent situation, either separated, widowed, or never married. These conscientious single parents are endeavouring to bring their children to healthy maturity with the same prospects for normal adulthood as children who mature within a two-parent family unit.
The single parent in our society is isolated to some degree and must contend with the difficulties of providing, both for themselves and their children, a reasonable equivalent of normal family life. I suggest that Members of the House establish March 21 as National Single Parents Day in Canada

March 6, 1984
in honour of all the single parents who are doing such a difficult task single handedly.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, times are tough these days on the small family farm. High interest rates have severely weakened the agricultural sector. Grain prices are declining and Statistics Canada is projecting a 26 per cent drop in realized income this year over 1983 for my home Province of Manitoba.
Farming is not like most other businesses. The whole family pitches in, often on a daily basis, to do the work on the farm. Women on the farm have not received the financial recognition due to them because incomes on the farm have been so low. This has made it almost impossible for them to take advantage of the recent changes which have been allowed for a salary for spouses on a farm and the opportunity to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
We must address this depressed income situation on two fronts, a reduction in cost through elimination of the tax on farm fuel and more low-cost money for FCC, and improved incomes with measures such as changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan.
Women who are partners in most farm operations have a right to compensation. During International Women's Week we should pay tribute to their work and consider ways to improve farm incomes for all of the farm family.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to inform the House of the Danny Edwards case. In 1981 this young man from my area of Ontario was shot in the spine by two robbers while he was working as a variety store clerk. Evidence has shown that he offered no resistance, and was brutally kicked following the shooting. He is apparently paralysed for life. The assailants, who both had criminal records and were free on parole at the time of the shooting, were subsequently captured, convicted, and each sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment. About three months ago the sentences were reduced to 14 years, which means they could be eligible for parole by late 1986.
This 18 year old, Danny Edwards, was gunned down by hardened criminals, their crime leaving him a prisoner of his own paralysed body, confined to a wheel chair for the rest of his life. How much time will his assailants serve? At the most 14 years, and if paroled, probably less than five years. Just consider the difference-probably 60 years of paralysis for the
victim, and possibly only five years of imprisonment for the criminals who savagely caused that handicap. Obviously, justice has not been served.
I feel that this case candidly illustrates the urgent need to enact legislation that will allow the courts to award compensation to the victims of crime, and to impose tougher sentences. I therefore urge all Members to strive for rapid passage of Bill C-19 to allow compensation for crime victims and stiffer sentences for offenders.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in his recent Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that "pensions are the principal lifeline Canadians have to economic security in their retirement years". Judging by his proposals for pension reform it would appear that the Minister is unwilling to extend this lifeline to the tens of thousands of women presently sentenced to a life of poverty. I speak of those women in the lost age bracket between 60 and 65, who have little or no personal incomes and have lost their husbands, yet are ineligible for pensions.
Rather than spend the SI50 million necessary to extend the spouse's allowance to assist those most in need, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary task force on pension reform, the Government has chosen to direct $300 million through a revised system of registered retirement savings plans to those presently earning over $55,000 a year. As a result, twice the amount of money is being spent, yet those people who really need help will not benefit by one penny.
The facts confirming the desperate plight of widowed women between the ages of 60 and 64 were made public by the task force, yet the Minister of Finance did not turn his attention to these people, and neither did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
Like so many other provisions in the Budget, the pension reform proposals show that the Liberal Government has got its priorities all wrong.


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



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of Ukrainian descent wish to bring to the attention of this House the plight of Mykola Horbal, Ukrainian poet,
March 6, 1984

composer, and musician, who is currently serving a five-year prison sentence in the Soviet Union.
In 1971 Mr. Horbal was arrested on charges of "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda". The sole evidence brought against him was a poem Duma, written by Horbal, in condemnation of the absence of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the Ukraine. For this poem he was officially sentenced to five years of imprisonment in hard labour camps, and two years in exile.
After his release from prison, Horbal was continually harassed, to the point where he applied for an exit visa to the United States, where he has relatives who are willing to support him. The application for an exit visa led to a fabricated criminal offence, and to a further five years of imprisonment in hard labour camps.
The latest information Ukrainian Canadians have concerning Mykola Horbal is that in 1982 he was transferred to Novodanylivtsi prison camp in the Mykolaiv region of the Ukraine. Nothing has been heard of him since.
Canadians of Ukrainian descent are deeply concerned about the state of Mykola Horbal. His story illustrates yet again the open violation of basic human rights by the U.S.S.R. which is, ironically, a signatory to the human rights declaration of the United Nations.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), on behalf of the Ukrainian Church community, to voice our Government's protest to the Government of the U.S.S.R. and to use all possible diplomatic channels to ensure the observance of the Declaration of Human Rights.


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with an urgent plea to put a stop to the killing and the crippling of this nation's youth who staff all-night convenience stores.
We need tough laws to shut down these operations between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, we need regulations to ensure the presence of two persons, one being an adult, in all 24-hour stores across Canada.
Something must be done to prevent 17 and 18 years old kids from being left alone and exposed to terrorizing experiences at the hands of the sick and ruthless criminal element in our society.
I realize that convenience stores are subject to municipal by-laws, and that their employees are administered by provincial Departments of Labour. And so, this may not be the
proper forum to raise this issue in that there is nothing that we, as federal Members of Parliament, can do directly to correct this worsening situation.
What I can do is commend the proprietors of Mississauga's Mac's and Becker's milk stores for shutting down their 24-hour operations in the wake of two recent horrible incidents of killing and maiming lone teenaged employees.
What we can do is urge all provincial Ministers of Labour to amend their laws to make it mandatory for employers to double-staff all convenience stores, with appropriate security measures.
The bottom line is that there cannot be, there must not be any more teenage tragedies like Nizam Ali or Barbara Turnbull through the neglect of legislators.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, over the past years, the federal Government has done a great deal for the North Shore through its designated areas program. However, designation of the areas in question was terminated a year ago. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Canadian Government could once more designate the Sept-Iles-Port-Cartier and Schefferville regions, because I believe the Labrador City-Wabush area is to be designated shortly. Because of the Iron Ore Company, there have been more lay-offs in the last six months than during the two years when the Sept-lles-Port-Cartier-Schefferville area was designated.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I saw Father Mongeau who was in Schefferville for a long time and is now here in our Gallery. We discussed this point, and once more, I think it would be important to have not only the Canadian Government but also the Quebec Government involved in the designated area program. During the last few years, the Quebec Government has never been involved together with the Canadian Government in helping to resolve the problems being experienced by the people in Canada's North.
Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, I think it would be important to designate again the entire area that is suffering as a result of the present iron ore situation.

March 6, 1984
Oral Questions



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Government in British Columbia has declared war on women in its last two Budgets.
Women of all ages are the target. The 23 Seniors Day Centres had their funding eliminated, student aid has been chopped, and the Vancouver Transition House, which has been a haven for ten years for battered women, is up for tenders. The Social Credit-Conservative style Budgets also cut community clinics by 27 per cent, eliminated the Vancouver Women's Health Collective; will probably cut funding completely to the Vancouver Status of Women, has cut funding to planned parenthood groups, has cut funding to daycare, and to disabled persons.
The B.C. Budget did not even mention the word unemployment yet it penalizes singles, and childless couples under 25 who are getting $25 cut from their welfare cheques. There will be a surtax of 8 per cent on personal income tax, called the health care maintenance tax, as well as a health care levy, and user fees. The war against women has just begun in British Columbia.
By cutting social service programs, cutting unionized women in the public sector, cutting programs for legal aid, cutting programs for the disabled, and for daycare, the Social Credit Government is demonstrating the true contempt for women which underlines modern conservatism. If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, just ask Maureen McTeer.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of Mr. John Turner, is for the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Yesterday the Minister of State for Finance indicated that he was satisfied with the state of the economy. The Minister will know that capacity utilization rates in manufacturing are still 10 percentage points less than the level they were before the recession. He will know that business fixed investment fell by 4.3 per cent in the last quarter of 1983. He knows from Statistics Canada that there is no revival in machinery and equipment outlays.
In view of these and other alarming facts that I related yesterday, will the Minister tell the House whether he is now
revising his forecasts for economic activity for this year? Will the Minister also tell the House when he will take some new steps that might affect the economy positively, as is now most certainly required?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question as was asked yesterday. The same answer applies. As far as the last point raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, those steps were taken in the Budget of February 15.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is just as useless in his answers as the Minister was yesterday if he is going to give the same answer as yesterday.


STATISTICS CANADA PROJECTIONS-REQUEST THAT SALES TAX INCREASE BE CANCELLED
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want to know whether the Minister is going to bring in a Budget that will have a positive effect on the Canadian economic scene, not a Budget that has no effect, as the Minister did.
In view of the fact that on March 2 Statistics Canada reported that consumer demand appears likely to slow in the first quarter of this year, and that work put in place will remain weak in the first quarter of 1984, is the Minister prepared to take steps to bring in some measures that will affect positively these weaknesses? Will the Minister at least remove the sales tax increase which is supposed to come into effect in October?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Hon. Member that the Budget that was introduced contained a number of positive measures which were taken, bearing in mind the background figures which have been referred to by the Hon. Member. Those figures have not been published yet, but the forecasts that we have produced are the forecasts upon which we worked in the Department of Finance and which have guided us in the decisions that we came to in the Budget.
As far as the other points raised by the Hon. Member are concerned, they were answered yesterday.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can understand that the Minister has nothing to say about the miserable state of the economy or what he is going to do.


AMOUNT OF CAPITAL OUTFLOWS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is reported that Canada lost $6.6 billion in unrecorded capital flows last year. It is speculated by Statistics Canada officials that these errors and omissions seem to have gone to finance illegal drugs, U.S. real estate, and stocks. In other words, the Government is driving Canadians to the cocaine trade, Florida real estate, or shady offshore tax havens.
March 6, 1984

Would the Minister tell the House what is his analysis of this $6.6 billion in unrecorded capital cash flows last year? Why is this occurring? What steps does he plan to take to stop these flows, certainly for the purposes indicated by Statistics Canada officials?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will not speculate on speculations by officials. The only thing I can say is that the mean means tester is still at work.


EXCHANGE RATE ON DOLLAR
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, now that our dollar is at 79.5 cents, the chickens are coming home to roost. The international market has made a judgment as to the management of the economy by the Government. Is the Government going to increase interest rates to attract hot money into Canada and so make our dollar appear good, or is it going to allow the dollar to continue to depreciate and take the brunt of the criticism for a falling dollar?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had better make up his mind whether he wants the dollar to go up or down. I have indicated what the policy is and has been. It is to let the market decide the value of the Canadian dollar. This is the policy which has been followed by the Government for over ten years.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the Bank of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: And the Bank of Canada. It has been a policy which has served our country well. I suggest that we maintain that policy.
There may be some people like the Hon. Member who are concerned about some depreciation of the dollar. I know many other Canadians, particularly in the forest and mining industries, who have claimed quite vociferously recently that the Canadian dollar had been over-valued as a matter of fact compared with the yen, the Japanese currency, and with European currencies. As the Hon. Member knows, over the last year, for instance, the Canadian dollar increased by about 10 per cent in value over European currencies. Many sectors in the Canadian economy have argued that the Canadian dollars could do better, that the Canadian economy could do well in many sectors by being able to compete better against European and Japanese products. There are pros and cons on both sides of the issue. I can understand my friend being unable to make up his mind, except that he appears to be negative on both sides.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have no problem making up my mind. When the Hon. Member for St. John's West was Minister of Finance, our dollar went up to 87.5 cents. We know where we stand; we would have a strong economy.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INTEREST RATES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the last time the dollar went out of reach and down into the 79-cent area, the Government came to the rescue, propped up interest rates, drove all sorts of people into bankruptcy, and put all sorts of people out of work. Will the Government give us an undertaking that it will not do that kind of thing again, that it will not use cosmetic increases of interest rates in order to make the country look good, the Government look good, and the Minister look good at the forthcoming convention? Will the Government give us that undertaking?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how jacking up interest rates would make us look good at the convention. This may be a Tory policy. My friend referred to when the Hon. Member for St. John's West was Minister of Finance. At that time he was asked about high interest rates and he said, as reported on page 1380 of Hansard for November 15, 1979:
-it is a condition that the government cannot do anything about at the moment. It is not through choice.
This is what that Member had to say when he was Minister of Finance. I have indicated the attitude and the policy of this Government. We will pursue our consistent policy in that regard.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther said long ago: "If Adam had seen in a vision the horrible instruments his children were to invent, he would have died of grief." My question is directed to the Prime Minister on this dark day of Canadian history, a day that in recent hours of Cruise missile testing has seen the death of any claim that Canada is not involved in the nuclear arms race.
There is one ray of hope. Will the Prime Minister, now that the Pentagon has had its way on this occasion, begin negotiations immediately to end the Cruise missile testing agreement with the United States?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is addressing herself to the future, my understanding is that this is the only test that will take place this year. I sincerely hope that before another test is necessary or is made in Canada, immense progress will be made in the direction that I believe both she and I wish; in other words, that there would be real steps taken toward control and reduction of nuclear arms.


Pauline Jewett: I share the Prime Minister's hope. We would all be reassured, however, if he would now enter into negotiations with the United States to take Canada out of its nuclear role.

March 6, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER NEGOTIATE ENDING OF AGREEMENT
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think that testing is an integral part or link in the chain-testing, production, deployment of nuclear weapons? If he agrees with that, will he not therefore seek to end the Cruise missile testing agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking for an answer now. I just indicated in my first reply that there is a considerable amount of time available to see if further progress is made between the superpowers and the other nuclear powers. I note that the Hon. Member says she would be reassured if, and so on. I would want to point out to her that the purpose of the operation is not to reassure her. I really ask the question, if she believes the Government's credibility is impinged by the decision we took, who it is impinged with? After all, it does not make us more credible with our NATO allies if we decide to test the Cruise. They are not only part of the double-track decision, but the majority of them will be involved in the possession and deployment of nuclear arms themselves, which Canada will not as of July 1. It will not increase our credibility with them to stop testing the Cruise. It may reduce our credibility if they think we are falling back on a NATO commitment.
As far as our credibility with Warsaw Pact countries is concerned, I know from experience-because I have visited three of them in recent weeks, as the hon. lady knows-that they find we are credible and I am credible because Canada is a member of NATO, and a member in good standing. If we were neutral, non-aligned, non-members of NATO, not in good standing with NATO, I can assure her that they would have been less inclined to listen seriously to my message.


CANADA'S ROLE IN NATO
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I preface my final supplementary question by reminding the Prime Minister that on numerous occasions he has said that Cruise testing has nothing to do with a NATO request, nothing to do with the two-track decision, nothing to do with any NATO commitments-nothing whatsoever. He has said that himself.
Canada's honour is at stake. Will the Prime Minister admit as well that the majority of NATO members, Norway for example-indeed all NATO members-are free to choose the nature of their role in the alliance, nuclear or non-nuclear, and that Canada in the past, will he not agree, had decided on a non-nuclear role at least as far as our forces in Europe are concerned? Will he not therefore see that by testing the Cruise we are going against that non-nuclear role? Therefore I ask him again: will he not bring Canada back to its traditions, to its honour, and not play a nuclear role in this world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are perhaps more elements in the question than I can deal with, but I would want to point out that the short answer is no. The testing of the Cruise does not make Canada a nuclear country, or does not make its army, navy, or air force armed with nuclear forces, any more than the fact that we will in certain circumstances let United States aircraft overfly Canada with nuclear arms. We do permit our allies, notably Germany and Britain, to test aircraft in Canada that are nuclear-capable. This does not make us a nuclear power. Therefore, I am answering that part of the Hon. Member's question.
In so far as the two-track decision which she is referring to is concerned, you can argue one of two things. Either this guidance system is to test cruises which will be part of the two-track decision, the GLCM, the ground-launched Cruise missiles, either you argue that the guidance system is for those and therefore is part of the two-track decision, or you argue, and I think incorrectly, that the guidance system is only for the air launched, the ALCM's, in which case it would seem that the Hon. Member would have to agree that this is probably the safest form of the triad.
The Hon. Member shakes her head. She has not heard my argument, but I think she should reflect on it. The ALCM's, if those are the ones she is saying we are testing for, are the only ones of the nuclear deterrents that can be recalled. You cannot recall a submarine-launched ICBM, and you cannot recall an ICBM which is ground-launched, but you can recall the B-52s which will be travelling several hours before launching the air-launched Cruise missiles. Therefore, they are the best possible and safest possible of the whole array of dangerous weapons. They are the ones that will not permit an error because they can be recalled if they have been launched in error.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. It refers to the colossal porkbarrel known as the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. Will the Minister confirm that the secretariat administering that program does not operate out of his own Department but, indeed, reports directly to Cabinet through Senator Keith Davey, and that the key employees engaged in determining priorities under that program are former government employees presently operating under contract? If so, will he table for the examination of all Members an indication of which of these employees have long distance telephone credit cards, car rental cards, government codes, expense accounts, and the like? In other words, will the Minister indicate the
March 6, 1984

extent to which government employees are being paid massive contract amounts to administer this program if they are trusted political friends of the Government?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin with reference to the porkbarrel. It is curious that the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta would raise that since there is a very significant project in his own riding at the Vancouver airport. I look to the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre. I see she is not with us today. There is something like $41.9 million in that porkbarrel for Vancouver Centre. Looking on from there, I see Vancouver Quadra, and I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra might be here, $15 million in Vancouver Quadra. I go over to the Island to Esquimalt-Saanich. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich is here. He is not blushing, I hope, about receiving $8.5 million for the graving dock improvements in Esquimalt. I see the Hon. Member for Hillsborough sitting here, to go to the other end of the country, $14.5 million for the veterinary college in Charlottetown. I do not hear him saying that he would not like the project there. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is not present. It is interesting that we have a $25.9 million project in Central Nova, Ferguson Industries Ltd. of Pictou. Just so this will be completely non-partisan, I see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North Centre is here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


EMPLOYMENT
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, we can see that one particular potential leadership candidate is dumb to the questions that are asked in this House. I would like to try another, if I might. Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration confirm that a Mr. Zarry, who was formerly a government employee, No. 1 in the telephone directory, is also being paid under a substantial contract to prepare a $20 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, this kind of questions should be placed on the Order Paper, asking whether or not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: A Minister cannot be expected to confirm whether one individual is or is not under term.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Does he know?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich please observe order?
It is a well established practice of this House that questions relating to an individual in that level of detail should go on the
Oral Questions
Order Paper. The Hon. Member may want to rephrase his supplementary.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, just to be concise, in this case the Minister well knows of the individual involved, because in government circles this advertising campaign is called the "Roberts Campaign". I wonder if he would confirm that he is spending $20 million of taxpayers' money in order to promote himself for the leadership of the Liberal Party.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am very concerned about the growing number of Canadians who have to resort to discounting of their income tax refunds. Tax officials say there will be some 300,000 this year as against 150,000 last year. The majority of these people who have to forfeit some part of their income tax refund are really the working poor, single parent mothers, people who need that money urgently and who know that their refunds are going to be held up. What steps is the Minister of National Revenue taking to ensure that these people get their income tax refunds just as quickly as possible so that they do not have to resort to the discriminatory practice of tax discounting?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for her question. First of all, I can inform the House that this year, all our audit programs are proceeding according to schedule, and that we have already made improvements in the processing of income tax returns. I can also inform the Hon. Member that simplified return forms are processed on a priority basis, and that in most cases, these are from single persons who often are entitled to a tax credit. If these people complete their tax returns early and send them in as soon as possible, it is very likely their returns will be processed quickly and they will receive their tax refunds quickly as well.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate affairs who was here just a moment ago. Possibly she could come back into the House. My supplementary question dealing with income tax discounting is
1814

March 6, 1984
Oral Questions
directed to that Minister. From all reports I am getting, the matter is hitting hardest, may I say, at single-parent mothers who are seeking their child tax credits. Perhaps I could just describe to the Minister the situation in this regard.
A single-parent mother with three children who may be living on welfare could be getting a child tax credit of $1,000, but an income tax discounter will take $150 of that away. However, she is the last person in the world who should lose that amount of money. Because the Minister sets the regulations in this regard, I would like to ask her if she is concerned about this practice and to ask about what steps she is trying to take to see that these injustices are not allowed to be perpetrated.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about and aware of this matter. In fact I have had a rather lengthy meeting with the anti-poverty organization on this very issue, and I think the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is quite right. There is something wrong with a system that allows for this kind of a practice. Therefore, I am actively considering ways we can overcome the problem.
In the meantime, I have been advised that the project which I suggested with some of the credit unions which are providing this service is actually under way and these credit unions are not taking advantage of the interest as are the tax discount rebaters. There are ways of getting around this problem and I am very pleased that the credit unions have decided to take some constructive action. As well, I am looking at other ways to find some solutions to this particular problem. It is, I feel, quite wrong.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The special committee on Indian self-government recommended that the federal Government commit itself to constitutional entrenchment of self-government as soon as possible.
Yesterday, in the Government's official response to the report, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dodged this issue and said that it was one which only the Prime Minster could deal with. If the federal Government does stand by, it will not be an innocent bystander. It cannot be neutral on this issue.
Will the federal Government be an active and out front advocate of constitutional entrenchment of self-government in this week's constitutional talks? If not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the final position of the Government will be
because we are discussing that currently in Cabinet and in cabinet committee. Obviously, I will have to have those discussions finished by Thursday morning, and I can assure the Hon. Member that I will state the government position at that point as clearly as I can.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementry question is also directed to the Prime Minister and relates to a similar matter. In spite of continuous government promises to end Indian Act discrimination against Indian women, yesterday's response indicated only that the Government is giving consideration to this matter. When will the Government stop considering and start acting? When will it table legislation that will end this discrimination? Will this legislation, when tabled, have an adequate timetable so that it can be considered properly, both in the House and in committee, or does the Government intend to leave this issue to be settled by the courts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would know that the Government has taken the position that this discrimination was ended by the Charter of Rights that, under the leadership of this Government, was adopted by Parliament and made part of the Constitution. He will also know that last year, at the constitutional conference on aboriginal rights, we took a further amendment on the subject.
The Government is prepared to do as it said it would in the first Speech from the Throne of this Parliament, which is to abolish that discrimination. I believe it has been abolished by the Charter of Rights, but I am open to persuasion to take further steps, and these will be discussed at the First Ministers' and Aboriginal Conference taking place on Thursday and Friday.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Considering the political defeat suffered by the Manitoba Bill to provide a minimum of protection of minority rights for Franco-Manitobans, and also considering the constitutional deadlock caused by the refusal of certain groups, including the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party, to enshrine, in the Constitution of that Province, rights that derive from the most elementary justice; considering that in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the number of dissenters on the language issue is increasing daily and that these dissenters have even been absolved of their sins by the Leader, could the
March 6, 1984

Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government intends to introduce a resolution in Parliament, in accordance with Section 43(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, concerning amendments with respect to the use of French and English in certain provinces?
Finally, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he intends to go to court, to the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine the exact implications of Section 23 of the Manitoba Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member accurately pointed out the two avenues that are open to the Government, the first being a constitutional resolution, anticipating one by Manitoba. The Hon. Member will recall that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) stated that this was an option we would consider seriously. The Hon. Member is, of course, aware that such a resolution would also have to be adopted by Manitoba. In any event it is an option we are considering. The other alternative is to go before the Supreme Court. In any case, this option will probably be taken because the Bilodeau case is now before the Supreme Court, and the federal Government will want to take part in the discussion. We may therefore decide to opt for one or the other or perhaps for both. This is a matter I intend to put before Cabinet in a week or two, as soon as possible, and I will be happy to give the Hon. Member further details should he so request at a later date.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is aware that 1,250 Quebec municipalities are very anxious to hear the federal Government's decision on this agreement which has been pending for well over a year, and I am referring to an agreement under which municipalities would be able to receive federal grants, a federal-provincial agreement, of course. Could the Minister inform the House today, and I have discussed the matter with him before, whether officials on both sides are now agreed on the principle and whether the Canadian Government will be able to announce very shortly that an agreement will be signed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are very close to an agreement. Talks among senior officials took place last week, and there is still a slight difference of opinion. I am writing to the Quebec Minister to prepare our final policy, but, as the Hon. Member is aware, there is a new Minister in the Provincial Cabinet, namely, Mr. Marcoux, and I intend to write to
Oral Questions
him today or tomorrow. I expect to receive an answer as soon as possible.


REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF DATE OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and a number of Quebec Members are aware of the importance of this question. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that he will do everything in his power to have this agreement signed before the opening of the Quebec National Assembly's session, considering the fact that the municipalities are very concerned about Bill 38 which has been tabled in the National Assembly? In the circumstances, could the Minister confirm, and I am sure millions of Quebecers will be overjoyed, that he will do what he can to have this agreement signed before the provincial session resumes?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to take action as soon as possible, as soon as next week, if the Government of Quebec agrees with the latest proposals I intend to send them tomorrow. It is up to the Province of Quebec to say it agrees! However, with a new Minister, I am not sure they will be as keen as we are. However, I will personally do my best. From tomorrow on, it will be up to the Government of Quebec.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention, and to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that major oil company refineries, including Petro-Canada, are collectively setting prices at the refinery gates by signing 15 year reciprocal contracts with each other. As well, the refineries are signing agreements with retailers which will allow the refineries to set the retail price of gas at the pumps in return for a guaranteed profit.
I wonder if the Minister would confirm today's story on Broadcast News which quotes a national automotive trade association report as stating that Canadian motorists are paying 6 cents per litre, or 27 cents per gallon, too much, because of monopoly in the retail of gasoline, which is getting worse as the days go on.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the broadcast so I cannot confirm or deny the statement. I will take every opportunity to examine the truth of the statement, however. In the meantime I would advise the Hon. Member that an inquiry

March 6, 1984
Oral Questions
is under way and all of this information is being fed into that inquiry.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it is as a result of this inquiry that 1 raised the question today. In January this year I asked the Minister the same question, and at that time she said she would respond to me or the House within two months. It is two months since January. Her exact words were, as reported at page 918 of Hansard: "We expect a report from the Commission within a couple of months."


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Now that she knows that the prices are set at the refinery gates she should know that they are also set at the pumps by the refineries, and now that she knows that Petro-Canada is part of that combine that is fixing the prices and gouging the Canadian consumer, will she do something and not spend another $70 million of taxpayers' dollars in order to fund a commission when she knows, as the Minister responsible, from her own officials, exactly what is going on in price fixing in the oil industry today?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking his usual simplistic approach to matters. He knows very well that this is an extremely complicated issue and that is why the oil inquiry is taking such a long time. I can assure him that I am as impatient as he is. He also knows that this is a quasi-judicial body which I must observe at arm's length, as he must. We will all have to be patient. I can assure him, however, that from all the reports that I have received thus far this is going to be a very comprehensive report that will come into our hands.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What about Petro-Canada?


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the friendly Minister of National Health and Welfare. As of January 1984, the Government of what was formerly the "Belle Province" amended its pension plan to allow individuals who have reached the age of sixty and are no longer on the labour market to receive benefits under the Quebec plan, subject to a penalty, which is not the case for the Canada Pension Plan. It means that an Ontario resident, after working for the Government in Hull or Quebec throughout his life, will be able to take advantage of the benefits of the Quebec Pension Plan, while another Government employee who resides in Quebec or Hull but works in Ottawa will not be
able to take advantage of the same privileges, even if he has lived in Quebec all his life.
Could the Minister inform the House whether this is part of a federal-provincial agreement, and if so, does the Minister intend to conclude another agreement to correct this discrepancy and prevent the kind of injustice that is inflicted every day on residents in the Outaouais area who have been held hostage for some time by a Quebec government that is now complicating their lives, with some malevolence?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Complicate is perhaps the word, Mr. Speaker, because I have just found out that it takes two Quebec ministers to deal with me on health issues alone, and I say this without arrogance, of course. To answer the question about Ontario residents working in Quebec who benefit from advantages that Quebecers working here have yet to receive, I would say yes, but by a different route, because this summer the Minister of Finance and myself are going to propose to the Provinces that we amend the Canada Pension Plan to allow people to retire at an earlier age, for instance, sixty, it being understood that pension plan benefits would be prorated over five years more, which is exactly what is being done right now in Quebec.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. While technological change promises wealth, it also threatens job security for many Canadians, particularly women. One of the ways to meet the challenge of technological change is through training. Women are under represented in training programs, however; 24 per cent of training spaces are available to women, while they constitute 42 per cent of the labour force.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to apply affirmative action principles to training in order to assure equal access for women to training and a fair chance at benefits from the technological change process.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we already do that, and we take a variety of steps to try to ensure that affirmative action in our training programs is extended to women.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What a failure!


John (Moody) Roberts: This is particularly so in areas of training which have not been traditionally been available. The recommendation which the Hon. Member is making is one on which we are already active.
March 6, 1984


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is acting pretty ineffectively. I pointed out to him that women fill only 24 per cent of the training spaces in the country. Surely that is not equality. There are predictions that, as a result of technological change, unemployment for women will be as high as 35 per cent by 1990, yet we know that a paid educational leave system in the country could reduce unemployment.


CONCEPT OF PAID EDUCATIONAL LEAVE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, when the report "Learning for Life" was released yesterday, the Minister appeared to endorse the concept of paid educational leave. Was he only paying lip service to the objectives of paid educational leave and equality for women, or is he preparing legislation to introduce a system of paid educational leave?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the report which I received on skill development leave training yesterday is an extraordinarily important one, and deals with an extraordinarily urgent question. Yesterday I endorsed the over-all recommendations in the report. I will be raising the subject matter of the report with provincial Ministers when I meet with them in Saint John on Thursday.
I also intend to ensure that the report is forwarded to the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre for consideration. Some of the recommendations in the report can be acted upon within my Department immediately, and others will be discussed promptly with other government Departments.
I also expect to receive very shortly the report of the task force headed by Judge Abella, on actions which can be taken within the Government and Crown corporations to respond more aggressively and more positively to the provision of special employment for women in Crown corporations and in government.
There are reports on their way to us. There is the one that we have just received which contains many useful suggestions. As a Government we are determined to act to implement those suggestions as quickly and as practically as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on Lebruary 21 I asked the Minister of Justice if he would report back to the House on any possible statutory breaches with respect to the disclosure of certain confidential information under the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act, or any other Act, given to people not entitled to it in the Peterborough and Durham-Northumberland areas. He undertook to report back to the House. I know there is at least one
Oral Questions
government report on the matter, and I wonder if the Minister has come to a conclusion and what action he has taken.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the information that was disclosed apparently falls into two categories. One was the category of information which was provided by the person concerned, and the other was information provided by the Department. In the case of the disclosure of the first category, that is information provided by the individual-such things as his name, age, SIN and so on-the disclosure is regulated by Section 114 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This creates a defence for the disclosure of information obtained by CEIC from any person. As a result, there would appear to be a technical breach of the Act in the case at hand. However, it appears that the official concerned acted in good faith and made an honest mistake.
Disclosure of information in the second category is covered by Section 8 of the Privacy Act. Disclosure does not appear to have been authorized under this Section, and thus there has likely been a breach of the Privacy Act. However, no offence is created in the Privacy Act for breach. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed by CEIC that the disclosure was contrary to its policy and that corrective action has been taken.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I have made the decision not to prosecute in either case.


TAX PROPOSAL TO ENCOURAGE OIL SANDS PROJECT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the Government agreed to remove the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax and set a floor price on production, as recommended by William Hopper, to encourage the construction of an oil sands mining operation north of Fort McMurray?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the Hon. Member's question to the attention of the Minister of Energy, and I will ask him to bring the answer to the House as soon as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, who is under a statutory duty to make sure that the laws of Canada are carried out, now talks about a technical breach, or an unauthorized breach by a civil servant. Intent may not really be a relevant factor in

March 6, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Siddon
respect of these statutes. We have a Privacy Commissioner now, even though the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member ask his question, please?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. Under Section 8(1) of the Privacy Act, has the Minister of Justice informed Mr. John Grace, the Privacy Commissioner, of the breach of the Privacy Act? And if not, why not?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, it is of the essence of the prosecutory decision-making that the Attorney General and his prosecutors should have the kind of discretion which my hon. friend is questioning. We have exercised that discretion, and we have decided not to prosecute.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) on Monday, March 5, 1984 and finds that the petition does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I will be very brief. During his reply to my question relating to the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston), the Minister responsible, made reference to a list, a detailed breakdown of projects under that program individual Members' ridings. I have asked the Minister to table this list on previous occasions. He is under an obligation to do so. I watched very closely; he was referring to that list and to specific Hon. Members and projects on a riding by riding basis. I happen to know that within the Department such a list has been prepared and I would ask the Minister now to table it, as in his obligation.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with what the Hon. Member says. I was responding to the porkbarrel charge and I had drawn from the list certain very significant projects from coast to coast which are in ridings of Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. I suppose this is a representative list. I do not even know if it is complete. It certainly does not have all of the projects, by any means, but it has a very substantial number.
I am only sorry I did not have the opportunity in answering the question to complete my recitation of the projects with which, 1 am sure, most Hon. Members would be quite impressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister undertaking to table the list, such as it is?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to extend a clean copy because I wrote a few comments on it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You mean a laundered copy.


Mr. Speaker:: According to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 327:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
In the circumstances I invite the Hon. Minister to table the list to which he referred.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is the custom, I believe, in answering questions in the House, to refer to material, which is what I did. I have a briefing book. I never laid it upon the Table. In any event, I have no objection to laying this list upon the Table. I see that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would like to see it because he knows there is a $35 million project in here for him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister contending that he views this as reference material and that there is not a list in existence such as described? Is that the Minister's contention?


Mr. Ouellet:: Yes.


Donald James Johnston: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister contending that he does not have a specific list but is using reference material only? Is that the Minister's contention?


An Hon. Member:: Table the list and be done with it.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I cannot deny this is in list form. I have no objection to tabling it, Mr. Speaker. I would just like, if I may, to have a photocopy of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister has agreed to table it and that disposes of the matter as far as the Chair is concerned.


An Hon. Member:: Well, he is not tabling it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister has agreed to have it photostated and tabled.
March 6, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding of the Minister's comments is that a photostat copy of the list in his hand will be tabled with the Chair. Is that correct?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to table my reference material as is, provided I receive a photocopy of it.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has referred to a project in my riding which I approved in 1979 when I was Minister of Public Works-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot speculate beyond this point. The Minister has undertaken to table a document to which reference was made. That disposes of the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Porkbarrel!


Mr. Dubois:: Slush fund!


Erik Nielsen: -which is the first air terminal building ever in Whitehorse, would he now table-which seems to be the logical extension-the complete list so that we will have before us a complete picture of the entire list of projects in all ridings?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Hon. Members are taking offence when I am simply reminding my learned friend from the Yukon that, as he is well aware, the Minister has said that he would be willing to table a two-page document from which he read in the House. There is no question of the Minister tabling other documents which were in front of him but which were not quoted and which are not relevant, and there is no question of this because the public interest could be involved.
Indeed, the Minister will be doing this on his own. He is under no obligation to do so. He was quoting from personal notes jotted down on two sheets of paper which he is willing to table provided he gets a photocopy. As far as other documents are concerned, the Minister is under no obligation to table anything else.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, might I just add that I have furnished the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) with all of the material, every scrap, every piece of paper respecting press releases, lists of projects. It is not a very big challenge for someone who has any wit, Mr. Speaker, to take that list and divide it up geographically around the country. All the locations are there. Therefore, I believe this exercise is somewhat academic. However, as I said, I am quite prepared to table this particular piece of paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister has undertaken to table the document to which reference is made and that appears to dispose of the matter.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I suspect it is only a partial list because it only includes members of this Party-


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, today the organization known as "Families Against Cruise Testing" presented a petition to the Progressive Conservative Party in which a protest is made with respect to continued testing of Cruise missiles. I would like to submit this petition to the Chair at this point.
*
* *



CRIMINAL CODE


Donald W. Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (humane traps).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the use of leg-hold snares and other inhumane types of traps where a practical alternative is now available or becomes available in the future, to promote the eventual phasing out of leg-hold traps, and to encourage the correct setting of traps so as to cause instantaneous death.


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

Donald W. Munro: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an Act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to restore the death penalty for first-degree murder and high treason, while substituting a more humane mode of execution than that of hanging. The punishment for serious narcotics offences would also be stiffened, to the point of the death sentence for persistent repeaters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 6, 1984
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(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. 108, 374, 438, 465, 470, 582, 590, 617, 618, 619, 620, 622 and 624.



MR. MICHAEL MANLEY

Mr. Stewart: Did Mr. Michael Manley, former Prime Minister of Jamaica, receive any direct or indirect financial assistance from the Government and if so (a) how much (b) from which departments or agencies (c) for what reason?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The International Development Research Centre informs the Government that it provided the following financial assistance to Mr. Michael Manley, former Prime Minister of Jamaica: (a) $948, (b) IDRC, (c) For air fare and living expenses to permit Mr. Manley to visit IDRC headquarters in Ottawa during November 23-25, 1980 for discussions with IDRC staff on a possible research fellowship.



NON-BUDGETARY FUNDS TO CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Huntington: In the fiscal years 1979-80 through 1982-83 inclusive, what was the total amount, if any, of non-budgetary funds provided to Crown corporations and other entities in which the Crown has a financial interest and what is a list of all such entities?


John Leslie Evans: Loans, investments and advances made to Crown corporations and agencies are presented in Section 7, Volume 1 of the public accounts.
Payments, grants and contributions made to Crown corporations and agencies under general programs are not readily available. To provide that information would entail a costly examination of all disbursements made under each government program.



CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Howie: On January 1, 1984 were any Department of the Environment construction or development projects under way in New Brunswick and, if so, what were they?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Yes; the Maritime Forest Research Centre in Fredericton. Currently the project is in the design stage with construction scheduled to start by mid-November, 1984.



UI BENEFICIARIES IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Howie: On March 31, 1983, and December 31, 1983, how many persons were receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits in each of the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in the Province of New Brunswick?


Jean-Guy Dubois: The number of persons in receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefit payments as of December 31, 1983, for each Canada Employment Center is not yet available. The most recent figures are for October 31, 1983. The following table lists the Canada Employment Centers in New Brunswick, and the number of UI beneficiaries at each of these offices as of March and October, 1983.
Beneficiaries
Local Office	March/83	Oct./83604	Tracadie	3,311	2,325617	Saint John	7,518	6,195618	Richibucto	5,259	3,000620	Sussex	1,221	931640	Moncton	8,110	5,590642	Newcastle	6,847	4,399643	Shedia	4,030	2,888644	Edmundston	5,113	2,999646	St. Stephen	3,505	1,386647	Campbellton	4,521	3,016687	Fredericton	5,900	4,273688	Woodstock	3,056	1,615699	Bathurst Centre	3,989	2,852721	Bathurst East	8,558	6,133Total	70,938	47,602



PURCHASE OF SEATS AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Howie: 1.	In 1983 did the Department of Employment and Immigration purchase any seats in New Brunswick community colleges to train carpenters, upholsterers and pipe fitters and, if so, how many?
2.	Did the Department decide the number of seats, in each of the above categories, which will be purchased in 1984 and, if so, in each case, what is the number?


Jean-Guy Dubois: 1. Yes, seats were purchased during 1983-84 fiscal year in New Brunswick as follows: carpenters, 50 seats; upholsterers, nine seats; pipe fitters, 58 seats.
2. No, a decision has so far not been taken about what number of seats will be purchased in 1984-85 in the above categories.



CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr. Howie: Are figures available relating to the current average period of time taken by the Canada Labour Relations Board to process complaints, and (a) if so, are such figures available to the general public (b) if not, are such figures being compiled?


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Figures are compiled quarterly and annually each fiscal year, for the average period of time taken to
March 6, 1984

Order Paper Questions
process all cases, including complaints. The figures are broken down by type of case, and by case requiring a public hearing by the Board as well as by case disposed of without a hearing.
Although the Canada Labour Relations Board does not release these figures to the general public nor does it publish them in its annual report, they are made available, upon request, to other government agencies such as provincial labour relations boards, Labour Canada, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, et cetera, as well as to university researchers and students of industrial relations. We have no record of any request by the members of the general public for such information, but it is the Board's policy in the event of such requests, to exercise discretion in the release of this type of information since it could easily be misinterpreted, as the averages would reflect delays not necessarily attributable to the Board, such as cases kept in abeyance at the request of the parties, et cetera. The figures would also have to be interpreted in the light of priorities and of difficulties in scheduling public hearings on a nation-wide basis.



SAINT JOHN HARBOUR BRIDGE AUTHORITY

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


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority was incorporated under provincial law and is not a federal Crown corporation. The federal Government is merely a creditor of the Authority and has no ownership rights.
The information the Hon. Member is seeking should thus be requested from the Authority whose address is P.O. Box 6176, Station 'A', King Street, West Saint John, N.B. E2L 4R6.
6,286,224	7.50
5,433,757	7.75
7,562,730	8.00
4,041,625	8.25
12,759,172	8.50
4,544,030	8.75
2,016,117	9.00
5,832,538	9.25
292,184	9.50
3,110,142	9.75
1,883,302	10.00
213,639	10.75
188,874	12.75
20,824	13.00
8,017	13.25
12,097	13.50
135,529	14.00
13,129	15.75
$222,816,120



DVA-ADVERTISING PROGRAMS AND BENEFITS

Mr. Towers: In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 did the Department of Veterans Affairs spend any amount in informing veterans of programs and benefits available to them and, if so, in each case, what amount?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes. (a) $100,162, (b) $104,923, (c) $149,887.



VETERANS EMPLOYED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Towers: Are any veterans currently employed by Crown corporations and, if so, by corporation, what number?


John Leslie Evans: The information requested is not available. The personnel record of an employee may or may not indicate if the employee is a veteran.



VETERANS' LAND ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Towers: 1.	Are any files still active under the Veterans' Land Administration and, if so, how many?
2.	What average amount is owing to the Administration?
3.	What interest rate is paid on unpaid balances under the Administration?


W. Bennett Campbell: 1. There are 30,676 files still active.
2. An average of $7,263.50 per loan.



VETERANS EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Towers: Are any veterans currently employed by the Government and, if so, by department, what number?


John Leslie Evans: The information requested is not available. The personnel record of an employee may or may not indicate if the employee is a veteran.
3. Unmatured Balance

Interest per cent on Unmatured Balance



VETERANS' PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
3.50
3.75
4.00 4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00 6.375
6.50
6.75
7.00
Mr. Towers: Are any veterans currently receiving burnt-out pensions and, if so, by province, what number?


W. Bennett Campbell: The number of individuals receiving War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Allowances is as follows:

March 6, 1984
Order Paper Questions
WVA Active Accounts	Veterans	Widows	Orphans	TotalNewfoundland	1,353	856	29	2,238Prince Edward Island	969	471	10	1,450Nova Scotia	4,893	3,044	66	8,003New Brunswick	3,846	2,208	39	6,093Quebec	6,795	4,423	96	11,314Ontario	16,419	12,769	237	29,425Manitoba	2,289	1,721	21	4,031Saskatchewan	2,136	1,278	14	3,428Alberta	3,069	1,837	15	4,921British Columbia	7,417	4,484	53	11,954Outside of Canada	886	429	2	1,317Total	50,072	33,520	582	84,174CWA Active Accounts	Veterans	Widows	Orphans	TotalNewfoundland	2,014	986	5	3,005Prince Edward Island	23	13	1	37Nova Scotia	294	190	1	485New Brunswick	66	20	0	86Quebec	138	68	0	206Ontario	150	97	2	249Manitoba	11	1	0	12Saskatchewan	7	2	0	9Alberta	16	4	0	20British Columbia	183	37	1	221Outside of Canada	31	6	0	37Total	2,933	1,424	10	4,367



RETIRED VETERANS

Mr. Towers: 1.	Since 1980, did any veterans retire and, if so, by province, what number?
2.	What amount of pension benefits, on average, did such veterans receive?


W. Bennett Campbell: Veterans Affairs Canada has no means of determining the number of veterans in Canada who have retired since 1980.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 399 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 399 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GRANTS APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Howie: In the current fiscal year to date, what persons or organizations in New Brunswick have received, or have had approval of their applications for, grants or contributions from the Secretary of State and, in each case, what amount was granted?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) has some time remaining in the question and answer period. If there are no questions or comments, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts).


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto I received and welcomed a very interesting report prepared by the national advisory panel on skill development leave. I established this group last autumn to advise me on steps which could be taken to help educationally disadvantaged Canadians. I would like once again to thank the panel for its efforts to draw attention to the need for society to change its attitude about training and education. While time today does not permit a detailed review of the panel's recommendations, I can assure the House that I am giving them top priority and will be discussing them in two days' time when 1 meet with my provincial counterparts in Saint John, New Brunswick.
I am deeply concerned that all of us who have responsibility for preparing Canadians for the world of work have not always co-operated in a way which ensured all Canadians had access to opportunity to improve their skills. To be blunt, our system of education has failed many Canadians, especially those who have been near or at the poverty level. About 250,000 students annually drop out of high school before they complete their education. Between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of young people in native reserves in western Canada leave school before completing grade eight. Without a trade or marketable skill of any description, they move to the cities for dead end jobs or welfare rolls. Now more than ever before in our history, skill obsolescence underlines the need for a new pattern of working and learning spread over a lifetime.
I said in Toronto yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that it was an extraordinary thing that in a country as rich as Canada, with a history of a century of free access to education, there are
March 6, 1984

adults who are not literate or adequately prepared for work. According to the last study done by UNESCO, something close to one Canadian adult in four has less than grade nine functional skills. Thus I share the national advisory Panel's sense of the importance and urgency of tackling literacy problems in Canada.
I accept the conclusion of the panel that we should focus on the problems of those who require skill development because of industrial obsolescence. I also believe that the report underlines the need to rethink the compartmentalization which bedevils the discussion of these problems. Education, training, skills development, paid leave, work and meaningful activity are not terms to be rigidly defined and pigeon-holed away from each other. They are, rather, themes that intermingle and require co-operation and flexibility among government, educational institutions, the private sector and labour if they are to be properly managed.
The fact that the Government of Canada will be spending $1.3 billion in job training and employment programs for young people in 1984-85 shows how seriously we are committed to helping them become established in meaningful careers. It is a personal social and economic disaster that young people today make up almost half of the unemployed, with an unemployment rate double that of the adult population. We cannot ignore the needs and aspirations of young people seeking work as the cost to society of doing that would be enormous.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the Government is quite concerned about unemployment among young people, which continues to be tragically high. That segment of our labour force has always experienced more difficulty in finding jobs than has been the case for older people. It is precisely to give young people better opportunities on the labour market that we have improved our training programs. Indeed, our last two budgets featured increased financial incentives to enable private enterprise to create jobs. For a number of young Canadians, it is often the first worthwhile job which will eventually provide them with the necessary work experience they could not have gained in any other way.
We are going through difficult times, even though the economic recovery is well under way, but unfortunately some employers are still reluctant to hire additional staff, with the result that young people are often forced to go back to school.
In the next few years we will have to create job opportunities for those young Canadians who having attended institutions of higher learning will be joining the labour market in increasing numbers. Again they will be in direct competition with older workers who already have practical experience. With a view to making it easier for our youths, the Canadian Government has created programs such as Career Access.
Compounding this problem is the fact that the majority of young adults entering the labour force lack marketable work
The Budget-Mr. Roberts
experience; thus their transition between school and work becomes even more difficult. Many young people leaving school find their skills are out of step with the needs of the labour market. In a tight economic climate these people are among the most vulnerable to changing economic conditions in which the last hired becomes the first fired. This in turn leads to unstable employment patterns which makes subsequent job search even more difficult. It is therefore imperative that, in order to facilitate their future entry into the labour market, young people still in school be provided with an opportunity to obtain the kind of experience that will make them more acceptable to employers.
The summer jobs created for students through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission have been highly successful in providing young people with the kind of work experience they need to prepare for their eventual entry into the full-time work force. Summer Canada has also had a significant impact on summer youth employment each year. In fact, last summer's program created more than 73,000 jobs and no doubt contributed significantly to lowering the unemployment rate for students returning to school. In recognition of the serious employment situation students will continue to face this summer, funding for student summer employment initiatives in 1984 has been increased by $70 million over its base level, bringing the total funding for this year's program to $170 million. This money is being used to create career-oriented jobs for more than 69,000 students and to place hundreds of thousands more in employment in both the public and private sectors.
Summer Canada emphasizes the creation of qualitative, career-oriented jobs that will prepare students for future labour market participation. The bulk of the jobs will be created through the summer components of two of our year-round job-creation programs, Canada Works and Career Access. This summer Summer Canada Works will create experience-giving jobs for more than 41,000 students in projects sponsored by community and volunteer groups, professional associations, local governments and private sector employers. I understand that the quality of sponsorship proposals received for this year's program is better than ever. Those proposals are now being reviewed and my colleague, the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), will soon be announcing which ones have been approved for funding.
Student internships in the private, public and non-profit sectors will be created this year through Summer Career Access. Funded at over $30 million, this wage subsidy program will create jobs for more than 12,000 students.
The concept of summer internships was introduced three years ago in jobs with federal Government Departments and has been expanded to include non-profit organizations, and last year for the first time, the private sector. Assessment of

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Roberts
last year's experimental private sector internships indicated the program was a tremendous success, both for the students involved and for the employers who hired them. Jobs have been created in a range of professional and highly skilled fields providing quality career-enhancing experience for students in activities such as medical and scientific research, program development in social, health and recreational services, and provision of technical services in fields ranging from computer applications to archeology, speech pathology and fashion design.
Also included in Summer Canada are the Department of National Defence cadet and reserve training programs and the RCMP special supernumerary constables program. These programs will create jobs for about 14,000 more students who are interested in jobs in the military, law, or law enforcement.
Another important aspect of the Government's summer employment initiatives are the Canada Employment Centres for students. More than 450 of these centres will begin opening across Canada next month. Operating through the summer, the centres serve as a key link in the community between the federal effort in student summer employment, other levels of government and the private sector.
In 1983 the Canada Employment Centres for students accounted for some 333,000 placements in both the public and private sectors. In all, over 550,000 registrations were taken and 374,000 job vacancies were listed with these student centres. Approximately 160,000 post-secondary placements were made while the remaining 172,000 placements were secondary students. This summer the centres expect to place more than 333,000 students in employment.

The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission also provides a series of permanent programs especially designed for young people. These include the International Exchange Program for Students and Young Workers, the services offered by On-Campus Canada Employment Centres and our special youth units.
These special units, which exist in every province, are designed to meet the specific needs of disadvantaged young people who are seeking employment. The units help young people prepare realistic career plans, in addition to acquiring practical job experience. This is done in co-operation with local private businesses and unions, and with the help of other agencies and individuals who are anxious to increase job opportunities for the young people in their communities.
Mr. Speaker, there is more, for in addition to the programs I just mentioned that are intended specifically for young people, there is also a large number of federal job creation programs for all Canadians, which also benefit young people.
These programs focus mainly on areas where the unemployment rate is particularly high. In addition to an opportunity to earn wages instead of drawing unemployment insurance benefits or being on welfare, individuals taking part in these programs can acquire skills that will be useful in future jobs.

Young people aged 25 and under are a major target of all of these programs. It is estimated that they represent close to half of all participants. In 1984-85 we estimate that some 70,000 young people will take part in the Canada Works Program. Another 78,000 will benefit from Career Access while youth participation in LEAD and the Job Corps will amount to 4,300 and 2,200 young people respectively. As well, young people are major participants in the federal training programs and represent 45 per cent of the clients of Canada Employment Centres and 50 per cent of the clients of the federally funded Outreach projects.
All of these efforts are designed to assist severely unemployed youth in establishing positive employment patterns and in easing the transition from school to work for youth in general. While they have been provided and are successful, we are not stopping there. Intensive efforts are currently being made to identify the best methods for assisting young people in becoming productive members of our work force. I will soon be going to Cabinet to discuss with my colleagues how the $150 million of additional funds allocated in the recent Budget can best be allocated so that we can continue to provide young people with relevant employment-related assistance.
Our commitment to the young people of Canada of $1.3 billion in Government of Canada programs is a heavy one. We owe it to them as a means of fulfilling the promise of opportunity in our society, and we owe it to ourselves as a means of investment in the future of our country.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to say. As are most of my colleagues, in terms of constituency case work I am making sure that employment programs are a number one priority.
Could the Minister indicate whether he has had the opportunity to examine what his predecessor had done in terms of local advisory boards and their participation with regard to summer youth employment programs and so forth? This has given a more democratic element to the things we were faced with in our constituency. I am especially concerned about very large ridings such as mine, where people who participate on local advisory boards may have to travel 120 miles just in one direction to participate in meetings. Has the Minister had an opportunity to examine the way the local advisory boards function, and whether there has been any sort of evaluation done? Would the Minister consider reconstituting them for the upcoming programs? I would be very interested in the Minister's response to that.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are assessing those boards. Since the assessment is not complete, I cannot give the Hon. Member a definitive response. I can say to him that I am partial myself to that kind of community involvement and the engagement of people in the private and voluntary sectors, and so on, in these issues. I do believe it is not by the federal
March 6, 1984

Government acting alone but through co-operative action in our communities that we are best able to respond to the problems of youth employment. I am very much aware of what has been done.
As I indicated in my speech, we are now considering the possible allocation of the $150 million of new funds which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has allotted to us in the Budget. In the process of reflecting on the ways in which that funding can be used most effectively, we are reviewing the community-oriented programs and making the kind of reassessment he has asked of us.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister about the local advisory boards. I found that in my riding they were incredibly effective. I took the attitude, after 1979 when I was elected and again after 1980, what I was elected to represent all the constituents, whether they had voted Liberal, NDP, Conservative, or otherwise. When the money was allocated to the riding by setting up a local advisory board which drew on all sectors of the community, the old, the young and the handicapped, we found that the decisions they made were very wise and with no sense of partisanship at all. More recently, decisions are made by officials. I think there is an increasing worry about that, and I want to put in a word to the Minister to ask him to consider reinstating the local advisory boards for those of us who feel we do represent Liberals, New Democrats and others after an election is over.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal I can add to my previous answer. I think the attitude which the Hon. Member has shown is exactly the one that I would hope would characterize moving back in that direction. I think indeed most Members would express and share the kinds of opinions that he has voiced. I think I would be reluctant to impose it as a mechanism. But I think the Hon. Member was suggesting it should be optional, at the discretion of the Member. I cannot give the Hon. Member a definitive answer today because the review is taking place. I have already indicated my sympathy for this approach. It is indeed the kind that I myself supported when I was not the Minister in this portfolio but had responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the last two questions posed by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). I want to endorse what they have said about local advisory boards.
The Minister has said he would like to provide for some discretion for local advisory boards. That exists now, except that in my own case it is now up to the individual M.P. to cover the cost of travelling and meals. This I do quite gladly. I would rather do that than make unilateral decisions which can end up being either unproductive or cause division rather than unification within a community.
Aside from that, there is a directive which my constituency office was advised of today. This directive requires the constituencies' or the Members' final answer, to go along with the
The Budget-Mr. Roberts
Minister's approval, by March 20. We got that information on the telephone today. Apparently this is a departmental directive that really does not allow much time or notice. Members of Parliament and people in our communities who may be involved in advisory boards have busy schedules too. I understand the necessity for speed because Summer Canada project employment has to start April 30 or shortly following. I hope the Minister will allow us a little more discretion, at least a week or so beyond this arbitrary deadline of March 20. Within a matter of two weeks we must have an answer and check out all the various groups within our community and see about the proper allocation of funds so that we can make rational decisions with some community input.
Could I have some assurance from the Minister that we may have a little bit of flexibility that accords us our due as well?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make the first point myself which the Hon. Member made. There are many Members, at least I know there are many on this side of the House, such as my colleague from Thunder Bay, who do avail themselves now of an advisory group in an informal way. I think many Members do. I assume that the question was whether that informal process could be converted into a formal process with some degree of support. To be entirely frank with the Hon. Member, I did not realize the calls and gone out today establishing March 20 as a deadline. That does still give two weeks for the forwarding of the recommendations to me. I would not want to vary that date without seeing if there is not some very good reason for having brought it forward that quickly. Clearly, as the Hon. Member indicated in his remarks, we have to take decisions fairly promptly if projects are to go into place for the time when they are needed, that is, moving from April on for the summer employment period. I cannot give him quite as strong a response as he would like such as to guarantee him more flexibility, but I will guarantee to the Hon. Member that I will look into the matter in the interest of trying to find more flexibility.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I used the advisory committee for two or three years. I found the travel in a constituency as big as Bow River was very expensive. Also there was the diversity of industry to consider. For instance, Banff and Lake Louise have tourism. Right down the boundary there is ranching, coal mining, grain-growing, manufacturing, and hog-raising, etc. I found it was difficult to find people who had any knowledge of the other end, or the other side, of the constituency. I did, however, manage to resolve the matter. Civil servants have been very co-operative. I arranged for my executive assistant to sit in on meetings once or twice a year, and together go over all items. My executive assistant has a good knowledge of the entire constituency. I have been most impressed by the fairness with which the civil servants try to administer these funds. I like that very much.
One thing, however, does bother me, particularly as it concerns the Canada Works funds. We have so much advertising and, as a result, we get 15 or 25 applications, all worth-

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
while. This year with $100,000 there was sufficient money only for three or four projects, which causes a lot of frustration and anger. I do not know what the Minister can do about this. It is not a good program when we build up peoples' hopes and they go to all the trouble of getting worthwhile projects only to find them dashed to the ground because of insufficient money.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for recognizing the work done by the civil servants in my Department. Quite often brickbats are thrown at us and it is very nice to have a bouquet when it is deserved, and I will pass along the Hon. Member's comments to the relevant officers.
Second, we did increase very substantially the funding for the Summer Canada programs last year. My recollection is that it was increased by $70 million. The amount of funding provided this year so far is equal to that funding. I know there are always more expectations than can be fulfilled. Indeed, as I noted in my remarks, another $150 million has been added for youth employment programs generally. There is clearly the possibility that we could consider using some of that funding to expand once more the summer employment program. I am not guaranteeing Hon. Members of the House that that will happen, but I note that it is a possibility. I hope he will not find himself overwhelmed by the expectations. We have tried to make people aware of the programs. The funding has been substantially increased in previous years. The quality of projects being suggested is even higher. That may reflect the fact that we have made people more aware of the programs than perhaps has been the case in the past.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the Budget debate because I believe the Budget itself gives us as clear a picture as we could possibly expect of why we need a change in government and why we have to move in different directions. I say this not just because of the matters we have raised in the House in the last few months about the way Revenue Canada has been run or is totally out of control or about the way the Government has manipulated taxpayers' funds to favour those ridings that have happened to elect Liberals. I do not say this because of the action taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in making public a confidential discussion between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and one of his public servants. I do not say this just because Canadians have been turned off by the Liberal Party. I say it because the Government today is totally avoiding the major issues.
Let us look at some of them. In the medicare issue, they have focused on two narrow parts of the overall issue. They have done so entirely for political reasons-to raise the level of fear on the part of elderly Canadians and Canadians with health problems. In terms of the peace issue, the matter has been dealt with primarily by raising the whole issue of the fear Canadians have about the possibility of nuclear war. They have not dealt with some of the more substantive elements of
the issue. Now we have in the Budget a clear example of how the Minister is dealing with the peripheral issues while avoiding some of the major substantive issues which are causing the very serious problems we face in the country.
I do not think any of us would disagree that in the Budget the peripheral issues have been brought forward, such as the question of pension reform particularly, and the treatment of single elderly women and the adequacy of their pensions. We have been in favour of tax simplification for a number of years now. We are pleased that the Government is starting to unwind the very serious damage it has inflicted upon the economy, particularly upon individuals and small-businessmen, in the 1981 and 1983 Budgets which added, between them, 600 pages of legislative amendments to a tax Act which prior to that consisted of some 875 pages. There is a slight change for the better in the Budget, but we still have a long way to go. There are some initiatives to address the problems we have been raising about the administration of Revenue Canada and the initiation of a study on profit sharing of which we on this side of the House have been in favour. We are supportive of these initiatives, but we have to recognize that most of them are not law. They are initiating the consultative process. We must take into account the past practices of the Government as it approached an election. "Let us put some of these on the table", they say. "Let us put them on the table and ask for some comments", they say, because it allows the Government to avoid addressing the problem and making decisions which will bring into effect changes Canadians would like to see. We do not have any confidence whatsoever that there will be substantive changes made in these areas prior to the election.
I would like to address one of the peripheral changes, that is the proposal for mortgage interest insurance. This addresses the symptom of the problem, not the cause. It is very expensive for the taxpayer or the home owner to purchase this mortgage interest insurance. However, I underline the fact that the problem is not addressed by this particular proposal. The problem is high interest rates and the lack of control which the Government has demonstrated over its monetary policy. We have seen more than a few instances where interest rates in Canada have risen far higher than they should have. I will address one element of this later in my remarks.
The problem is that the Government has addressed these peripheral issues in the Budget and has ignored the very major issues of the federal Government deficit and the declining international competitive position of our industry. Lip service merely is given to these problems. It is the same lip service we have seen in budget after budget, but no action is taken on the problems which lead directly to the most serious economic and social problems facing us in Canada. I am referring to the level of unemployment-the 1.5 million Canadians including the 500,000 younger Canadians who do not have jobs today. This Budget is words, words, words. There is no action. There are no policy initiatives.
I want to take this opportunity to set out some of the priorities and objectives which the Progressive Conservative
March 6, 1984

Party has clearly established in addressing these problems. My first point is that we identify these as real problems, problems which must be addressed if we are to have a health economy in Canada. Let us look at the Budget deficit. Any time I have raised the question of the Budget deficit, I hear Members from the other side of the House braying, "What would you cut, what would you cut?" That is the wrong question. The question is: Do you regard the deficit problem as being a serious problem and, if you do, would you do something about it? The clear answer on the Conservative side of the House is that we view that as being probably the most serious economic problem today. We would do something about it. Then the question is: How would you cut; would you cut by raising taxes or by cutting government spending? Again the answer is very clear. We would cut spending. We would not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high. Spending cuts are important for another reason. If we raise taxes, we provide more funds for politicians and bureaucrats to spend. A discipline has to be applied to the Government and to the bureaucracy. That discipline is not applied if we provide more funds for the politicians and the bureaucrats to spend.
Government today overall represents close to 50 per cent of our national economy. We have talked for years about the problems in England and in Sweden when they got close to 50 per cent. We are there now. I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) shaking his head. I suggest that he should take out his sliderule or little pocket calculator and find out where we stand. Overall in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal Governments spend just short of 50 per cent of the national income. If we are to have spending cuts, clearly they have to be broad and affect all segments of government. They have to be sensitive and they have to be equitable. Also we have to address waste and inefficiency in government. Every time we receive the report of the Auditor General, there are examples of how we could cut waste and inefficiency. Also there are some programs which clearly could be cut or even eliminated today. They are low priority programs. Some have been in place for many years. Very few people in the country would even know they had been eliminated.
The key question that we must address here is why we cut spending. First, it is very clear that reduced deficits mean less government borrowing. Less government borrowing means less pressure on interest rates. We would therefore have lower interest rates in this country. Less government borrowing also means that the limited resources for investment would not be spent by governments but would be spent in the private sector for investment in new technology, new types of equipment, more productive equipment. That results in a better competitive position for Canada. The improved competitive position would automatically lead to an improvement of job performance, economic performance and a healthier economy.
The other point, on which is somewhat harder to put your finger, is that it would lead to better confidence in our economy, better confidence in the long-term performance in
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
the economy. There is continued debate among economists as to whether high Government deficits lead to high interest rates. I say, with respect to the economists in this place and outside the House, that that is an academic argument. It has been a discussion between academics. The real world has made the decision. The real world has clearly demonstrated by the rates in the market today that high deficits lead to high interest rates. High interest rates are slowing down the economic activity in Canada. That is the clear reason why we have to spend some time in addressing that problem.
While talking high deficits, I want to draw attention to what deficits are doing to our younger generation. We are worried today about young Canadians who do not have jobs. Let us consider what the deficits today mean to those same young Canadians. I ask Members of the House whether they would go to the bank today, take out a $10,000 or $15,000 loan on behalf of their children, leave it to their children to pay the interest and repay the loan, and take that money to buy a new suit or a trip to Florida, spending it on themselves and not for the benefit of their children. That is what deficits are today. We are literally robbing the next generation of something that is rightfully theirs. As participants in that robbery in the House, we are doing something to undermine the basis of security and stability of the next generation.
Let us look at the impact of the deficit on the economy. I want to draw the attention of the House to a number of statistics released recently by Statistics Canada. The growth of our national economy in the fourth quarter of 1983 was only .9 per cent, after being adjusted for inflation. That expressed on an annual basis is 3.6 per cent, sharply down from the previous quarter of 8.1 per cent.
Another notable indicator in the slowdown is the decline in real personal disposable income in 1983. Nominal income rose by 5.1 per cent, but with a 5.8 per cent increase in prices, it means we have suffered a decline of .7 per cent in real disposable income. That cuts back from the ability of the economy to grow.
Business investment is down by substantial amounts, 12.2 per cent in real terms after a decline of 11.2 per cent in 1982. The outlook this year is for business investment to increase, after adjustment for inflation, practically not at all. Therefore, we are in a static period after two years of substantial decline. That means that money is not being spent on new equipment and new technologies. We are going to slip further in our international competitive position.
Let us move on to the international competitive position. How are we going to address that problem? First, obviously, we have to do something about the deficit. I discussed some of what we would do there. Let us look at the other elements here. Inflation control is a very important part of it. We have had a drop in the level of inflation in Canada from the 12 to 13 per cent to which the Government had taken us some two years ago down to a 5 to 6 per cent level now. It is still 1 per cent to 2 per cent higher than that of our competitor countries. We should be striving to get it 1 per cent or 2 per cent lower so that we improve our competitive position. I will say it again:

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
An improved competitive position is the best, surest, most permanent way of creating jobs in this country, far more permanent, far more successful than all the alphabet-soup job-creation programs which the previous speaker talked about. That is the way that we improve our economy.
Let us look at some other means of improving the competitive position. These represent the four pillars we established in the Conservative Party industrial policy as being the key objectives, the objectives against which all our specific policies would be measured. The first is improving research and development. The second is a greater degree of expenditure and emphasis on improving our human resources through training, retraining and other means by which individuals can become more productive. The third is improving the entrepreneurial investment climate in Canada so that we have more money invested in startups of new businesses and new types of equipment and technology. Fourth, if we are going to have a healthy economy, we must have the outlet to the international community. We need to have solid international trade promotional activities. The key that I want to stress here is that we recognize the seriousness of the problems. We understand that they have to be addressed with clear sets of policies and clear objectives that demonstrate very much that identity the problems that we are facing here and lead clearly to the solutions.
1 want to put some numbers on the record that relate to comments I made earlier. The Government, this Minister and the previous Minister have always talked about this being a Budget of restraint, something that would lead to a reduction in the deficit, a lesser degree of Government involvement. If we make some assumptions here, that Government expenditures would increase annually at the rate of growth of the national income, and we have heard many Ministers of Finance say that that was what they were going to do, if that had happened for the period of time of the current Government, dating back to 1968, the cumulative savings would be $131.1 billion. That is equivalent, almost, to the net debt of this country. Let us look at a more recent period. If we did that since 1979, the savings would be $36.4 billion. That demonstrates the order of magnitude that we are talking about here.
In closing I want to emphasize that we have picked these areas of deficit reduction, inflation control and building international productivity for one key reason, that is, to improve the economic independence of Canada by giving us a better performance relative to the United States. When the United States makes some policy mistakes, as it will from time to time, or if it acts in ways that are quite appropriate for the United States economy but not for our economy, then we have that flexibility to move away from the direction taken by the United States for whatever period of time necessary.
I just came back from spending last week in Europe and I talked to a number of international economists, investors and bankers. The one thing that struck me very clearly in Great Britain was that it has, as the people there call it, unhooked
itself from the U.S. economy. Interest rates in the U.K. are now lower than they are in the United States, and the underlying reason for this is that in 1981 the U.K. made the decision to get its deficit down to a reasonable level. That deficit is now at about 6 per cent of overall spending. In Canada we are at 30 per cent.
There is a clear lesson to be learned there, Mr. Speaker. If we were to follow the policies that a Conservative Government would follow, we would have a healthier environment, better job performance and a degree of independence from United States policy and from the performance of the United States economy when it is appropriate for Canada to have that independence.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to a speech made by my neighbour from Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), partly because he offers some interesting ideas and partly because it is stimulating to me. I disagree with much of what he says, but he forces me to think about it.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member directly what he thinks he would cut in a federal budget. He says that this question is irrelevant, but then he goes on to say that government spending cuts are the key to a reduction in the deficit. First of all I would like to ask him what he would cut, and second, whether he agrees with his colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who has said that we should introduce means tests for our social service programs as one way of controlling expenditures.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the fact that my hon. neighbour from Mississauga North asked that question in the way he did tells me that while he may think my speech stimulating, it did not stimulate whatever brains he has in his head. The key question that the House has to address is whether the problem of high deficits is the overwhelming problem in Canada today. I take it from his question that he does not yet understand that. Until he gets that through his head, the question that he has asked is irrelevant.
I responded to that question in my remarks by saying that there must be broad spending cuts, and whether it is in this Department or that Department is irrelevant. It must be across the board. Yes, there will be some differences in application depending upon where a government will apply its priorities, but the overall result is that spending must be reduced in the broadest possible way.
The Hon. Member was in business as I was in business. When he found that he was spending more than he could afford, I am sure that he addressed the problem the same way I did, which was by cutting right across the board so that everybody would feel they had some involvement in the reductions that were being applied through an overall discipline. That is the key answer to that question. If we in the House do not accept that that is the number one problem, then we are not going to achieve the performance that the country deserves and is certainly capable of achieving yet has certainly fallen far short of achieving at this point.
March 6, 1984


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Hon. Member from Etobicoke, I think that we now clearly know where he and his Party stand on the matter of debt and deficits. That basically is that Canada should not borrow from the Bank of Canada at relatively low cost in the same way that Japan has done but rather that Crown corporations, the provinces and municipalities should be forced to borrow abroad from foreign markets at high costs in the same way that Mexico, Poland and some other countries which are going bankrupt have done. That seems to be the policy of the Conservative Party and is increasingly becoming the policy of the Government, because it has echoed that theme throughout its entire Budget. It is a Conservative economic statement.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) a question. Now that we clearly know his stand on economic policy is to lead us on the road to bankruptcy, what is his position and that of his Party on matters of social policy? Does he subscribe to the means test as does the Leader of the Conservative Party or does he subscribe rather to the "mean, nasty and terrible things" test of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who is the finance critic for the Conservative Party?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member has just said has totally distorted and totally misrepresented what I said in my remarks a few minutes ago. I made abolutely no reference to the fact that the policy of this Party is to force the provinces, the municipalities or the corporations to borrow externally.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is the result.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he says that that is the result, his understanding of economics is smaller than I thought it was, because the result of cutting back on federal government borrowing in Canada would be to free up the market for the provinces, the municipalities and the corporations so that they would not have to borrow abroad. That is the direction in which we are trying to go. We want to have less of an external exposure and put more of our domestic savings not into paying the day-today bills of the Government but into financing the development of new technologies and startups of new small businesses, which would result, as I hope the Hon. Member would understand, in more job creation. Admittedly, it is job creation by the private sector and he would not enjoy that, but it would result in more jobs being created by the private sector, and surely that is something that he can accept.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the risk of being berated by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). He might consider me just a small town boy who does not know too much about economics. My question is quite straightforward. In view of the fact that the Hon. Member has stated that the number one problem in the country is the deficit, would he please put into perspective for me what his feelings are on unemployment?
Second, I wonder if he would address himself specifically to the problem of cutbacks with regard to the social programs. By
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
that I mean, would he cut back on medicare? He said that he would cut back across the board, but I simply want to get it into perspective here. Would he indeed cut back on medicare and on pensions? If the answer to that is yes, then I believe that he will be at loggerheads with what his Party stands for. Could he please clarify that for me?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member should in any way belittle his knowledge of economics by saying: "I am just a small town boy, I don't know too much about economics". In many cases, it is the small town boys who use good, sound common sense in addressing the economic problems and who have a far better and clearer understanding of the directions we should be taking. I hope that he will not move away from his small town traditions when addressing the economic problems that we are facing.
He asked me to address the question of cutting expenditures for social programs. We made it quite clear that we will not cut spending on medicare. In fact, my colleagues have said that we would increase the commitment that we have made to medicare. Referring to education, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, upgrading of our human resources, education, training and retraining are key priorities, so no, there would be no cuts there. I can answer the question that he has asked quite clearly.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could continue the theme that was started by the previous speaker. It is interesting to note the fixation on the deficit and the determination to cut spending in Canada that the previous speaker and many people in his Party have. In my eyes it is a given that one of the largest blocks of spending that is the responsibility of any Party which forms a government is in the area of health programs, social programs and education. It is a given that if we are to maintain the quality of life in the country, there is a desperate need to maintain those programs. The Armed Forces account for a very large portion of the spending in the country, and the Conservative Party is obviously committed to that. Just exactly where are those cuts going to take place?
The Canadian people do not want the kind of double talk in which the previous speaker and his Party are indulging. How about some hard figures? Let him stand up and show some guts. Where are they going to cut spending? What can women in Canada expect who are having some difficulty with equality? What can native people expect from the proposals the Hon. Member put forward? What can young people expect who are having a terrible time and who are extremely dependent on education, social and health care programs? Exactly where would the previous speaker and his Party make cuts in the Budget? Who would he harm?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really understand the direction of these questions. The Hon. Member did not listen to what I was saying and he does not accept that the most important economic problem we are facing is the size of the deficit and the fact that 22 per cent of government spending

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Fisher
goes to servicing the debt. That increases every year. Surely he understands that we have gone far enough.
He says that we have to continue spending in this and that area. Taking that to its logical conclusion, we must ask why we tax anybody. Why do we not just spend money and make everybody happy. That is really what the Hon. Member is saying.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but we are running overtime. Perhaps he would be allowed to complete his answer by unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher).


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak in the Budget debate. I think this is a good Budget and a timely one. I believe it reflects the good progress we have made on economic recovery and it provides us with major advances on key social problems, especially on pensions, mortgages, and women's financial rights. It continues to strive for a simpler tax system, particularly for small business, and it provides extra relief for unemployed young people. It also creates more tax incentives for increased industrial productivity. Those are important themes and all are reflected in the Budget.
We achieved this kind of timely impact because of the wide consultation that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) undertook for the second time in preparing and presenting his material. The Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacFaren), and all his other colleagues in various Departments of Government, crisscrossed the country in the months before the Budget, talking to interested groups in order to make sure that people in all regions had input into this document. In fact, Mr. Bernie Beckett from the St. John's Board of Trade was quoted on February 17, two days after the Budget, as saying "It is nice to see the consultative process with business". I agree with Mr. Beckett. It is an important reform that makes it possible for us to bring out a budget that is in tune with the expectations and capacities of the private sector.
It is important to note that this consultative process will not end when the Budget is finished. Each of the major proposals asked for better input before implementation. I think, for example, of the proposals for private pensions. They will affect not only the pensioner but also the employer. So we need to have feedback from the private sector before final implementation. The same is true in the home building industry with our proposals for the mortgage insurance plan, and it is also true of our recommendations for an employee profit-sharing plan.
We do not intend to make an idea into law the day after the Budget. We intend to repeat the consultative process and invite interested voices and informed voices back for further input into the final documents.
I should like to give a plug to the consultative process that the Finance Committee of the House of Commons has employed in the past two Budgets, the six and five Budget and the special recovery Budget. It has worked on tax concessions involved in those Budgets. Before the legislation was introduced, the Finance Committee examined the documents, heard witnesses, talked to experts from various Departments, and then made recommendations to the Minister. I should like to see this process continue because I think it is an intelligent use of abilities of Members of Parliament. We have seen some dramatic improvements in the actual legislation as a result of it. I hope that the present Chairman of the Finance Committee, the outstanding Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), and the Minister will continue this process with the current Budget.
I must say that this is the fourth Budget on which I have worked as Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker. If I may be allowed a personal reflection, I should like to say that it is one of my most satisfying experiences as a parliamentarian. I have had the opportunity to work with the Minister of Finance since September, 1982, and have enjoyed my affiliation with him. His energy is boundless. I especially appreciate the way he is willing to go across Canada to listen to other Canadians and bring their ideas to the House of Commons. This is one of his outstanding strengths and it has been reflected in two very good Budgets, that of April, 1983 and that of February, 1984.
Of the four Budgets I have seen, each has had a special characteristic. The November, 1981 Budget created enormous controversy with its tax reform. After that controversy died down and after all the dust had settled, we were left with some of the very significant benefits in our tax system that were introduced by the then Minister of Finance. As people look back on that Budget they usually overlook those benefits. They forget that the tax rate was significantly lowered in that Budget, that we not only cleaned up some of the problem areas but we passed the savings back to the taxpayer in the form of a lower rate. From the bottom of the tax scale to the top, the rates dropped. Today Canadians pay less tax because of that reform, and as the controversy dies the benefit will remain.
I had the opportunity to work on the six and five Budget. That was an imaginative effort that unified Canadians and brought them together in the fight against inflation. The six and five program provided Canadians with a management target that they could use in their personal lives to measure whether they were helping the fight against inflation or hurting it. Canadians took up the six and five program as their personal standard. They were able to identify with the elements of the program. As it ends in this Budget we can look back at it with great pride and realize that it has gone a long way toward unifying the economy and helping the fight against inflation.
Last April we saw the special recovery Budget. This was an effort to attack the weakest sectors of the economy and bring strength to them. It was a time to give the economy some kind of immediate stimulus until the private sector had the confidence and strength to take over. I think the present Budget
March 6, 1984

follows dramatically in the steps of the special recovery Budget and the two should be seen as going hand in hand.
A few moments ago I mentioned that job creation and unemployment are major priorities for the Government. Let us take a look at what has been done in the Budget of April, 1983 and the Budget of February, 1984. There is a smooth flow of policy and economic thrust between those two periods. Over $3.5 billion has been committed for job creation and retraining in 1984-1985. The bulk of that money was committed back in April. Additions were made to those commitments in the Speech from the Throne last fall. Then in this Budget an extra $150 million was added to the Youth Opportunity Fund. The total package for this year alone is $3.5 billion. That stimulus is working as a result of the commitments made last April, last fall and again in February. There is a smooth flow of policy throughout all of this period.
In my riding, for example, at the Pearson Airport, a Special Recovery Project involves the expenditure of almost $14 million. There is also a railroad grade underpass where another $2.5 million is committed. In Mississauga South there is a third Special Recovery Project involving the expenditure of $2.5 million. That total expenditure of almost $20 million is a result of the April Budget and its impact is evident today. Workers in the construction industry in Mississauga are benefiting from the commitments made in 1983.
Additional work will be created as a result of the new commitments made last fall and again in the new Budget from Environment 2000. For example, in my riding again the Credit Valley Conservation Authority has asked for a grant of $250,000 under the environment 2000 Program. That stimulus will come into our riding in addition to all the extra stimuli provided by the Special Recovery Program.


Jack Wendele Shields: The slush fund.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Special Recovery Program, Mr. Speaker, was instituted last April and it is still working.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Liberal slush fund.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It started the recovery and now we are waiting to help, in addition, the private sector. The Special Recovery Program was aimed at the weakest sectors, the construction industry, for example, and it was aimed at the new productive technological sectors like shipbuilding, high technology and aerospace.
I heard the Hon. Member opposite say it was a Liberal slush fund. I invite him to come into my riding and talk to the people who received work as a result of that, and he will learn that that kind of contempt is not acceptable to ordinary people. In fact, he should know that at the meeting of the Canadian construction industry in Toronto, where I spoke last fall, many of the people there were from Alberta and each of them said that the Special Recovery Program was a major incentive for the construction industry. The kind of contempt demonstrated by the attacks by Hon. Members, such as the
The Budget-Mr. Fisher
one who interjected just now, is not being accepted by the Canadian people. People want to see some action and some compassion on behalf of unemployed workers, and this Government is providing that.
All of this special recovery activity, Mr. Speaker, is having a good impact. Let us take a look at what the Minister said in his Budget, and I quote from page 1423 of Hansard. He said:
In my April budget, my goal was to secure the recovery. That goal has also been met. Growth has been stronger, inflation lower, and our employment higher than forecast last April. When we compare our economic recovery to that of other countries, Canada is faring better than most. Our economy, growing steadily and surely, is expected to be among the leaders in the industrial nations this year.
That is a direct quote from the Budget. There are some facts in the background documents which reinforce that claim. It is not a hollow claim. I will quote from a document entitled "The Canadian Economy in Recovery". On page 5, under the title "Economic Developments in Canada", and I will just skip over some of the quotations, the following is pointed out:
Real output is estimated to have increased 6.3 per cent from the fourth quarter of 1982 to the fourth quarter of 1983, almost recovering the 6.5 per-cent decline experienced during the recession. The growth in output was accompanied by a 3.4 per-cent increase in employment-357,000 jobs-in the four quarters to the end of 1983. The decline in the rate of inflation since the introduction of the 6 & 5 program in June 1982 gained momentum in 1983. By the fourth quarter of 1983, consumer price inflation was running below 5 per cent.
There are other statistics in here. For example, and I quote:
-real GNE is estimated to have increased 2.9 per cent in 1983.
-real consumption expenditures rose an estimated 2.9 per cent, in part due to a decline in the savings rate from a high of 15.1 per cent in 1982 to an estimated 12.3 per cent in 1983.
A little further on in this report, Mr. Speaker, it says, and I quote:
On balance, however, the over-all current account should achieve a moderate surplus in 1983 with net transfers continuing to move in Canada's favour.
Which is an observation which reflects very well on our trade performance.
I quote from page 7 where the report speaks about the Canadian dollar:
On balance, the Canadian dollar strengthened against the currencies of Canada's non-U.S. major trading partners, rising about 7 per cent from the end of 1982 to the end of 1983 on a trade-weighted basis.
The strength of the Canadian dollar and the continuing success on the inflation front allowed Canada more latitude than most other OECD countries in responding to international interest rate pressures in 1983.
That is contrary to the claims of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).
Finally, it states:
The lower levels and the relative stability of interest rates in 1983 after several years of substantial volatility were positive developments for the financial position of the corporate sector.
All of those statistics-and there are many more-reflect the confidence which people can have in our economy today. They reflect the advances which we have made in our recovery. We can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the ordinary Canadian agrees with the statement made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget when he said, and I quote from page 1423 of Hansard'.

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Fisher
In my consultations with Canadians in all walks of life and in all regions, I have been encouraged by the sense of realism they bring to our economic and human challenges. There has been a renewal of confidence throughout the country-confidence in our economic potential and confidence in our ability to achieve that potential.
That is good news for Canadians who are looking forward to additional prosperity through the 1980s. Of course, we have a continuing problem with unemployment, and that is why I observed a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that we have dedicated over $3.5 billion to work in the economy in 1984-1985 alone. Of that amount, an extra $150 million has been allocated to the Youth Opportunity Fund, bringing that fund up well over $1 billion in its commitment and activity in the Canadian economy.
All of this, Sir, is a good Liberal Government's approach. As an illustration, let me say we have immediately allocated increases of $50 a month in the guaranteed income supplement, $25 now and $25 in December. By December, recipients of the guaranteed income supplement will be receiving $85 a month more in GIS payments than they were receiving in 1980. That extra money is indexed so that the benefit is a permanent one for them. At the same time we improved private pensions. We made recommendations for reform on portability and vesting, for flexibility provided by a registered pension account, and for higher RRSP limits. The two measures combined represent the approach we as Liberals have followed. There is immediate help for those with the greatest need as represented by the GIS increase. There is a proposal for long-term reform for everyone in our country.
All of this comes out of extensive consultation. We saw a conference on pensions, federal-provincial discussions, a green paper and a parliamentary task force on pensions, all of it culminating in these measures in the Budget. We went to the Canadian people, examined the situation carefully, and then made some proposals which interested Canadians will help to shape into their ultimate form. That is a Liberal approach to this kind of problem.
We have seen similar approaches with the mortgage insurance plan, mortgage investment instruments which will bring back the ten-year market, and clearer rules. Again it is a balanced Liberal approach. We provide immediate help for those in need under the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, and we offer long-term reform through the ideas contained in this Budget.
There is plenty of benefit in my riding. People in Mississauga like to see the kind of changes we brought about in the sales tax reforms, and here I would like to pay particular credit to Mr. Richard Bennetts at Mary Kay Cosmetics whose advice to me personally on this issue has been informed and intelligent. We saw a lot of benefit derived in my riding from the sales tax reforms on domestic and foreign automobiles. My riding has over 5,000 small businesses, and those people will like the simplification offered in the tax rules. In my riding we have lots of senior citizens, many of whom have expressed to me their need for a simpler tax reporting system. The new
method of reporting investment income will help hundreds of people in hundreds of families in my riding.
This Budget, Mr. Speaker, continues the smooth thrust developed previously, a thrust toward economic recovery. It is based on open consultation, both before and after the Budget, with large numbers of Canadians. It uses a Liberal approach which helps those most in need, offers reform in major social areas, and does so in partnership between Government and the private sector. I am proud to have worked on this Budget and I am proud to have been associated with the Minister of Finance in his recommendations.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very fitting that the Hon. Member got his best advice from a cosmetics company, because the Government spends most of its time on cosmetic solutions.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Another contemptuous comment; that is all you have. There are thousands of people who work for that company.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity later to respond.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if his consultations were on how to use the blush brush?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, that is a remarkably contemptuous comment. I do not understand why the Hon. Member would say that. Let me expand on the ideas I heard from Mr. Bennetts. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that Mr. Bennetts has thousands of women and men who work for him not only in their location in Mississauga but also as sales agents going from door to door right across the country. I am sure they will not think this is a laughing matter.
It was Mr. Bennetts who pointed out to me originally that the work of the task force was very positive. He indicated that it was not necessary for us to change the federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level on all items. He indicated the problems with the administration of the tax, appeals and assessments, and the problems in specific industries like the car industry where we give unfair advantage to foreign competition. All of that was explained to me by this individual, and the result, not just because of his input but owing to similar input from hundreds of other businesses across the country, is the reforms we see in this Budget. We see the sales tax system being continued the way it is with much better rules, much fairer assessments, and with an attack on problem areas such as the car industry, and with a general sense that we should reform slowly because we have learned to live with this system over a period of some 50 years. I do not think that kind of benefit deserves the sort of contempt we just heard from the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I want to say that loudly so the Mary Kay ladies out there will vote against him.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of time spent in the Budget indicating how much the Government was concerned about small business. However, small businesses in my riding,
March 6, 1984

and I am sure in the rest of the country, are suffering because of the inflexibility of the Federal Business Development Bank. Businesses are unable to refinance the 19 per cent to 22 per cent interest rates they are paying to that organization. Other businesses in the community which were lucky enough not to have to finance through that bank were able to bring their interest burden down to a much lower level, and in some cases they are now thriving. The businesses which were forced to work with the federal Government through the FBDB are suffering seriously and cannot refinance without heavy penalties. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell me why that was left out of the Budget and why the Government is not doing anything about it.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in single industry communities in the sort of mid-Canada corridor where many of us represent communities, small businesses are suffering heavily from transportation costs which are a tremendous burden. The federal Government had the opportunity to remove, or at least ameliorate, the 9 per cent excise tax on fuel. It would have helped fishermen, brought into equality inshore and offshore fleets, and would have been of tremendous assistance in solving the transportation problem of high costs. Could the Hon. Member enlighten us as to what really could be done for small business to help them out with those problems?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my comments that this Budget should also be read in connection with the April Budget. I would encourage the Hon. Member to do several things, which I do with small businessmen in my riding. First I tell them to check out the possibility of getting equity investment instead of debt financing. That possibility results from the tax changes introduced last April and is a real incentive for small businesses to have cash put in on an equity basis and get them off the inflexibility and high interest penalties they face with debt. I might add that the experience we have had in Vancouver, I believe, with the FBDB pooling ideas and investors, has proven to be very useful. The second thing I do is to refer my small businesses to the FBDB to see if they can find an investor to come into their business instead of their having to borrow the money. So there is a positive tax measure, and the FBDB has set up a group to try to pool investors to take advantage of investment opportunities and tax breaks.
I have to remind the Hon. Member that the FBDB is the lending institution of last resort. It is not a question of being lucky when you go there; it is a question of being risky. If you have a risky business and you cannot get a loan or investment elsewhere, the FBDB will look at you. But it is a high risk area. The financing comes from commercial banks, the loans are backed up by FBDB and the federal Government, and as a result the interest rates are higher. Business people do not like that, but they are practical and they know that if they have a risky business and need a lender of last resort, then they are going to pay a little bit extra. The FBDB's charges are not exorbitant in light of those conditions.
The Budget-Mr. Fisher


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member why there was no provision made for small farmers who have come before the Cabinet with problems with regard to income tax. They have had to leave their small farms to go to work in small businesses and other places. They are now being attacked for three and four years of back taxes. Yet in the Budget there was a provision for the incremental oil revenue tax to be deferred for an additional year to June 1, 1985. Provision was made for the oil companies but not for the small farmer who must face high interest rates. In order to pay those rates he must obtain employment off the farm. Then the Department of Revenue taxes him and disallows expenditures on his small farm. Why was there no provision made for that? Is it because they were not able to come to Ottawa and lobby individually for their rights?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It was expressed very emotionally and, I regret, very irrationally. First of all, the Hon. Member would be well advised to do his homework. He gets paid a good fat salary and should at least earn it by reading the Budget. The Budget says that a consultative committee will be set up to get rid of these problems. However, it is a very thin balancing act. The Hon. Member knows, or should know, that we could move in this area and make situations worse for farmers very much more easily than we could make them better.
The Hon. Member laughs, but all he has to do is to go to Surrey-White Rock-North Delta where farmland is at a premium and see what would happen there when hobby farmers flood into the area, raise land prices and take away legitimate producers because they want the tax benefit.


Sidney James Parker: I will send that answer to my constituents.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Hon. Member has not taken that into consideration. The Hon. Member has also not taken into consideration the very special relief given to farmers to help them with RRSPs and capital gain problems upon retirement.


Sidney James Parker: They want to save their farms.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Again I see him rolling his eyes back and again obviously he has not listened to retiring farmers who will very much welcome the opportunity to spread out or remove altogether their capital gains burdens. Those are important problems. I suggest, after he has taken a look at all these things and-


Sidney James Parker: After they lose their farms.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -studied the issue in a little depth, that he might want to make a submission to the consultative committee. Hopefully, it will reflect a lot of thoughtfulness.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments has now elapsed. We will proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Skelly


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from Mississauga, wherever it is, reminds me so much of the other Member, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), that I can never keep the two constituencies or their lines of thought straight.
I really enjoy the Hon. Member's presentations in this House. Anyone who can maintain such humour and enthusiasm in the face of such a dismal performance as the Government has displayed throughout this Parliament really deserves the praise and support of the entire Parliament. There certainly is not another Member who can produce such enthusiasm, humour and vigour in the face of absolutely no content. There must be a medal that we as Members of Parliament could collectively conjure up to give such an individual.
There was one aspect, Mr. Speaker, that was very important. The Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) enjoys haranguing other Members of the House to do their homework. Unfortunately, the lack of background of the Member led him to misunderstand the question which I put to him concerning the Federal Business Development Bank. I would like to review that one more time for him. The point is that we are not talking about new investors in a business. The Hon. Member knows very well that in order to refinance the existing debt or cancel the debt due to repayment there is an enormous and unreasonable penalty imposed by the Federal Business Development Bank against those small businesses to bring in equity capital to attempt to pay back that debt.
The Member also knows that the problem is not one of risk. During the time of the Liberal Government's high interest period all businesses were at risk. During this period of time the Federal Business Development Bank was charging an usurious rate of interest. It is unfortunate that neither the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, (Mr. Smith) nor the former Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance will seriously consider talking to the Federal Business Development Bank to encourage it to allow refinancing without the exorbitant penalties and incredible amount of red tape with which it involves itself. Hopefully that Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will seriously consider the concerns of small businesses and their very negative relationship with the Federal Business Development Bank.
During the Budget speech debate today I would like to call the attention of the House, and particularly of the Government, to three problems which the Budget completely ignores. The first problem is that of the fishing industry on the West Coast of the country, the second one is that of native communities, and the third one is that of single industry towns in general.
The most important one would be the problem of single industry towns. These spread from one end of the country to the other throughout the north. Much of the wealth generated in the country comes from single industry communities. There are 32 communities in the riding I represent. Many of them are in fact single industry communities. The ones which do not
fit the classical definition resemble it very closely. A single industry town generally has one major employer. It may be a logging outfit, a pulp mill, a saw mill or a mine. That one employer is generally the only source of employment in the community. Therefore, one-half of the community is generally without any means of gainful employment. It is interesting to go into towns such as Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos and find that only one spouse in a family can work. The other spouse, regardless of his or her level of talent, is unemployed with generally no hope of employment.
There seems to be a great trend of providing federal Government grants, federal Government initiatives and federal Government services to the larger communities in the southern Canadian belt. However, in those communities there is nothing for young people. The Government does not reach there with its programs. The Government does not reach there with its concern. In fact, it takes a look at the single industry town and notes that the average income of most wage earners there is medium to high. Yet for more than half of the community, for women and young people generally, those communities offer absolutely no opportunities.
The second serious problem which the Government's Budget fails to address, and which it fails to address generally, is the problem of Government services in those communities. Those communities are generally 100 miles or more from any source of Government services, whether it be postal service, unemployment insurance, National Health and Welfare programs, education programs, recreation programs or sports programs. Instead of providing mechanisms to service those communities the Government generally moves, in the restraint mode, to try to cut back the travel time of civil servants. As a result, no one ever gets into those communities to talk about summer employment programs, Canada Works Programs or the Environment 2000 Program. In fact, many of those communities are left out of the mainstream of opportunities through federal Government grants.
Unemployment insurance is a beautiful case in point. I will use the town of Tahsis as an example. There are two large sawmills there. Because the pulp industry is having difficulty and the same employer owns the pulp mill, saw mills and logging operations, they say that if they are shutting down the pulp mill they are going to shut down the sawmills. The Unemployment Insurance Commission used to send a person in there to collect the applications for unemployment insurance and the separation slips from the employer. They would put it all in a package and process it very quickly in the main centre 100 miles away in Campbell River. But they chose not to do this. In providing for restraint, by cutting back and being responsible, they decided it was well to be responsible in the community of Campbell River and in the southern communities. But it was not, I guess propitious to be responsible to the residents of Tahsis who pay a very large proportion of their wages in income tax. Consequently, they have to depend on the mail service, which from Tahsis and many other similar type communities is very poor. You can look at ten days one way. If
March 6, 1984

an application is on its way, it takes ten days to come, then ten days to go back, and if there is a mistake, another ten days goes by before it is returned. You then correct the mistake, send it back, taking ten days more. By the time you have managed to establish your claim, a month to six weeks has gone by. The postal services are not good. The unemployment insurance services are not good. The employment services are nonexistent. Small businesses in single industry communities are in difficult situations. They deal with a small market. Prices, because of small volumes, are extremely high. The cost of transportation in many areas is absolutely outrageous. The ability of small businesses to attract financing and generally develop a range of goods and services for people in those communities is extremely limited. Not only does that hurt the entrepreneur in the small community, but it detracts from the quality of life in those communities. The small business assistance program that took special cognizance of the plight of small businesses in single-industry towns would be worthy of this Government since a great deal of the wealth here is generated in those communities, but they receive a very small share of the return on the investment they make.
Let me point out one other factor in single-industry towns. I am thinking of the cost of living, which is outrageous. There is usually a very limited supply of goods and services, whether we are talking about food, clothing or appliances. That small selection is generally extremely expensive when you can have the same things in the southern Canada belt. Again, there could be some concern that this Government provide some sort of relief for transportation costs. That in turn would provide a substantial benefit to those communities. It would improve the quality of life. It would improve the range of goods and services, and it would certainly bring down the prices. I mention that again to the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), who unfortunately with his rather convoluted explanations of the Federal Business Development Bank did not get around to the matter of reducing the federal excise tax on transportation fuels, or to the matter of allowing some form of rebate to designated single-industry communities that are beyond, say, a certain distance. Small businesses that bring goods into those communities could then apply for a rebate and reduce the cost of transportation. Should we be looking at another budget before the next election, which seems to be coming upon us at a rather rapid rate, I would hope that by raising these concerns the Government could pay closer attention in the next Budget to the plight of singleindustry communities.
The next area I want to speak about concerns the native communities. Of the 32 communities in my riding, I have a rather large number of native communities. I am sure many other Members of Parliament have the same type of situation and are very concerned that this Budget does nothing for native communities. It does absolutely nothing. One of the greatest continuing failures of the Canadian Government is its failure to work with diligence to solve the problems of native
The Budget-Mr. Skelly
communities or to help native communities solve their problems. Unemployment in most native communities within my riding ranges from 75 per cent to 90 per cent. The indicators of the quality of life in those communities are very different from the general indicators of the quality of life in Canadian society as a whole. Life expectancy is lower in native communities, a completely unjustified state of affairs. Infant mortality is higher and suicide rates are higher in those communities. Housing is abysmally poor. Medical and health care standards are much lower than they are generally in the Canadian society. Economic opportunities exist in many cases, but the access to capital, which would provide them with the ability to capture those opportunities, is extremely limited, if not non-existent. Training in native communities, because of the Government's failure to provide adequate resources to bring the development of human resources forward, is almost nonexistent; it does not appear in the Budget, Mr. Speaker. There is no mention in the Budget or any indication which could bring hope to those native communities. There is no doubt those communities are in serious difficulty. We have heard from Members who represent them time after time.
There are four general principles that I think would go a long way to help resolve the plight of native Canadians. The first one is the rapid settlement of aboriginal land claims. Access to land, water, forests and mineral resources is access to the wealth, a share of the wealth, of this country. This Government could make moves in some areas to provide perhaps downpayments on that access, which would bring a direct link to wealth in the native community.
Second, the Government has to provide access to capital. Without some form of developing resources readily available in some communities, native people will continue the cycle of welfare, unemployment insurance, limited seasonal work, back to unemployment insurance and then welfare. That access to capital is imperative. Many mechanisms have been suggested, but these suggestions have largely fallen on deaf ears. Given the choice of providing income maintenance in the form of welfare and unemployment insurance, the Government has failed to take advantage of many of the recommendations that have been put forward.
Third, the movement to Indian self-government is imperative. The entrenchment of the principles of native self-government in the Constitution must go forward, as well as the phasing out of the Department of Indian Affairs. Working diligently to support the development of the self-government concept for native people is imperative.
Fourth, a massive commitment to improve the quality of life in Indian communities is very important. There has to be a substantial investment in housing, health care, education, community services, and in income support systems for those native people who are, because of dislocation, age or some handicap, not able to participate in growing opportunities.
The Budget does not speak of native people. The Canadian Government has a special responsibility to the aboriginal peoples of this nation. Those people and that special responsibility have been completely ignored in this Budget. It is my

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Skelly
opinion, and I think this opinion is shared by many Members of the House, that the Government will fail to act until after the next election on many of the important principles on which the House could act now to put native people at least on an improved footing to share more meaningfully in the wealth and the benefits of this country.
It is an absolute tragedy that the Government failed to put forward its special responsibility in a prominent way in the Budget.
The last item I would like to raise, because of its prominence and importance, is the fishing industry on the West Coast of Canada. That industry is in a serious and difficult situation. There is the potential for massive dislocation of both fishermen and coastal communities which depend upon the fishing industry. There are some very serious problems which the Government is compounding, in my view. The failure of the Government to listen and to consult in an effective and meaningful way with the various participants in this industry has led to a very divisive situation in which a variety of user groups are now in conflict not only with the Government but with each other as well. This will never lead to a solution to the problem. Effective consultation is extremely important. It would be almost as important for the Minister to go back to square one to try to pull the groups together and find a common approach so as to resolve this problem.
The Budget failed to address the non-controversial aspects of strengthening and improving the West Coast fishing industry. Also no resources are allocated in the Budget for enhancement of habitat protection. We are facing the Kemano completion project, the Quinsom coal project and logging out of our river valleys. The Government could have acted on these things with the unanimous agreement of all user groups. A pittance is being put forward under the Salmonid Enhancement Program, whereas a massive amount of funding is required. We need enforcement in that industry. Additional resources should be put into enforcement in that industry, especially now that things are so difficult. Catch allocations are almost cut in half. There will be more and more pressure. We need more enforcement.
My last point concerns high seas interception. Why are we enhancing salmon stock if they are simply being picked up by Japanese and Asian fishing fleets in the mid-Pacific? There is serious concern about American interception of our resources. At this point in time, one non-controversial aspect for which the Government could provide funding is a very detailed research program into the effect of the high seas fishing effort of Asian fleets on Canadian salmonid resources.
It is unfortunate that the Government-and certainly it was in tune with solving problems on the East Coast-largely ignored in this Budget many of the important non-controversial aspects of the West Coast fishing industry. By and large, with the comments I have heard in the House and the observations I have made of the province in which I live and the riding
which I represent, I certainly do not share the enthusiasm of the previous speaker for the document we find before us today.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) a couple of questions. One concerns the subjects of unemployment and job creation which he mentioned in his remarks. Some of us have viewed with some consternation and puzzlement the continuing claims of the Government that it has created more jobs in a shorter period of time-I believe that is the claim-than almost any other government in the western industrialized world.
Perhaps his assessment or judgment is similar to mine. We are seeing something similar to a recycled old western movie where the cavalry continually goes by the gap in the canyon. There are many short-term jobs, so they are continually recycled and regurgitated. Actually they are not jobs in the normal sense of the word. That is my impression of many of these programs. As desirable as many of them may be, they have a short-term impact. Is the Hon. Member's assessment similar to that of my own? What is his experience with those programs in his constituency?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the question of job-creation programs points to several things. First, there is a great deal of political patronage involved in the business of job creation. That certainly has not given an opportunity for communities to put forward suggestions that would use those job-creation dollars to the best effect or give the biggest bang for the dollar. There have been some tragic examples of how political patronage has distorted the fair efforts of the Government to try to create meaningful jobs and economic opportunities in communities. Political patronage is a very serious flaw in the job-creation program.
Second, there is no effective mechanism for community consultation. Unfortunately there has been a cut-back of public servants who do the evaluation. There has been a failure to put forward a small amount of resources to make effective the consultation process. Sometimes a little seed money in a community through a job-creation program can create an enormous effect in terms of the community bringing forward a long-standing, solid economic program. I could point to the communities of Powell River and Alert Bay. In these areas small amounts of money have in fact helped. Certainly the Government does not go nearly far enough. 1 could point to another very successful program where we used Canada Works money in my riding. I was very pleased that the Government was able to assist us with this money to hire employment enhancement workers. The jobs of each one of those people were worth about $5,000 in Canada Employment funds. They created, along with the committees with which they worked, about $1 million per person worth of economic activity. I have tremendous praise for those three people. The cost was $15,000 and they generated roughly $3 million worth of activity.
The third factor is the single-industry town problem in which the focus of employment activity for Canada Works
March 6, 1984

Government grants tends to be in larger communities. Larger communities have economic opportunities which the smaller ones do not have. Unfortunately there is tremendous resistance. The Public Service establishes a set of priorities based upon blanket population and upon arbitrary allocation of resources. It is tremendously difficult to change those arbitrary plans and those arbitrary allocations so that the dollars are spent in communities where the need is greatest.
I am very pleased that the Hon. Member asked me his questions. I hope some of my answers might be taken as suggestions for improving job-creation programs.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question which concerns the new job-creation programs mentioned in the last Speech from the Throne. In my constituency of Kootenay West we have now been frustrated on three occasions by a provincial ministry, the parks branch of the Conservative Government of British Columbia. It has blocked three different Environment 2000 projects in that community alone. The branch has given as an excuse, although informally, "union problems". The unions concerned are unaware of such "problems". In fact, that provincial Conservative Government is using prisoners to do some of the work in those parks. This is why it does not want Environment 2000 involved. I wonder how widespread that experience is. We have one from the Nakusp Legion, another from the Kootenay Mountaineering Club and another from further down on the Arrow Lakes. We are facing that kind of problem throughout British Columbia.
Has the Hon. Member faced those situations in his riding? If so, what action would he suggest in order to try to turn them around and ensure that the provincial Conservative Government is not frustrating the few things which the Government opposite does?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are neck deep in good things.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the only thing in which the Hon. Member will be neck deep at the next federal election is a rope. That brings great joy to my heart. The question raised by my colleague is certainly a very valid one. Unfortunately, the people of British Columbia, more than those in any other Canadian province, are being deprived of federal funding or their share of the return of tax dollars for programs by one of the most vicious, anti-people governments which has been seen in this country to date.
I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mul-roney) at some point might want to retract his statement that the provincial Government in British Columbia might be doing some things wrong. He is on the right track. It has probably deprived British Columbians of more in a shorter period of time than any other government in Canada.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today to participate in the debate on the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). This Budget is really a program of action designed to lead Canada from recovery to expansion. I believe it is a very timely Budget in that it shows
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson
business and the various economic sectors in Canada the direction in which we are heading in terms of our economy and our economic plan so that businessmen can plan ahead with confidence and the knowledge that the programs are in place and that they can build upon these programs in the years ahead as they make long-term investments.
I am alarmed that during this Budget debate various Members of the Official Opposition have been making comments that are somewhat difficult to substantiate. They have made comments about the National Energy Program. One referred to it as an odorous program. They have failed to follow what has been happening with the National Energy Program. I pointed out in a question yesterday that over 4,000 oil wells had been drilled and completed in Canada in 1983. I am talking about oil wells, not gas wells. One province alone has over 11,000 gas wells that are capped because of lack of markets. Why would any driller want to drill more gas wells when there is such a surplus? I repeat, over 4,000 oil wells were drilled and completed in Canada in 1983. Compare that with the previous best year, 1980, when 2,600 were drilled and completed in Canada. There was an increase of 53 per cent. Something must be working, or we would not have had that increase. I further point out that in 1984 the number of wells drilled and completed as of February 4, 1984 was 11 per cent over 1983. The number of rigs drilling is up dramatically. Something must be working in the National Energy Program with the expansion that is taking place. It is irresponsible to cast such a cloud of doom and gloom over the energy industry in Canada when there has been a dramatic turnaround. The small oil companies and the companies providing allied services are contributing to our economic recovery.
I want to comment on some other matters mentioned this morning by Members of the Official Opposition. They complained about the lack of assistance in the Budget for farmers wishing to export, in this case the export of tobacco. It is mystifying, to say the least, how members of the Official Opposition can make such a complaint when it is they who opposed the legislation going through the House last year. With the makeup of the board of Canagrex, including the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as chairman of the board, a director of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, a former chairman of the board, as well as other producers, I had hoped that members of the Official Opposition would have accepted this. I find it difficult to accept their comments which question the competence of those people in responsible positions, working in partnership with producers and processors to obtain a larger share of the export markets. This organization was put in place to exploit our export potential. It is not only for the benefit of farmers, but also for farmers working in unison with others in the food chain.
I find it somewhat difficult to accept the suggestion that adjustments in capital gains tax will not be of much value. One Member who spoke this morning indicated that if someone wanted to take back a mortgage he would not have the money

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson
to put into an RRSP. Even though there may have been accumulative capital gain of $240,000 since 1972 that really is non-taxable under the new provisions, surely we must remember that there must have been a value there before V-day in 1972. As these farmers are retiring and selling their operations, they will have such funding and, if necessary, be able to take back a mortgage. There are other ways of taking advantage of RRSPs that will benefit any farmer who has had his investment tied up in his operation over the years and who wants to retire with the dignity and respect which he worked so hard to achieve.
I am very pleased to be associated with the Minister of Finance. I look forward to working closely with him in the months ahead. I respect him for the many bold initiatives he has taken in this recent Budget in consultation with Canadians across this country. I was amazed to see the number of national organizations that he consulted so that Canadians from one coast to the other can point out from prior Budget consultations what the effect will be of various changes that are required as we attempt to ensure that the recovery is maintained.
I want to dwell for a few moments on the commitment of this Government to the family farm operation. I am a farmer professionally. Well over half my riding is rural. I want to underline the provisions which will have a direct and extremely beneficial impact all across Canada. We worked hard on these special measures over the last many months to ensure that retirement funds in the farm sector are not subjected to attacks from inflation. I remind Hon. Members that the capital gains tax was originally brought in in the early 1970s to replace the estate tax, which created such a burden over the years. Little did those who advocated the capital gains tax system, even farm organizations, realize the inflationary spiral we would have during the seventies. That inflationary spiral was checked only when this Government brought in the six and five program that has been so effective in protecting retirement earnings in all sectors of our economy.
The Minister of Finance has taken pains to make the Government's intention clear with Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. As well, he emphasized that farm losses are not in any way restricted only to those farmers whose principal occupation is farming. I would like to examine some of these provisions in these areas in detail, the areas of capital gains, second several technical amendments providing for the transfer of family farms and, third, Section 31 of the Income Tax Act.
The tax-free rollover of capital gains for farmers building pensions demonstrates how well this Government understands the special position of farmers. Often a farmer does not have cash to put into an RRSP. The income which the farmer makes is usually put right back into the farm in the form of buildings, equipment and the acquisition of more land as he builds up his base to form an economic unit. This continual upgrading and expansion is the secret to his success as a farmer. Indeed, it is the key to this country's success as a leading and progressive agricultural nation.
The productivity of Canadian farmers is higher than that of any other nation on a one-to-one basis. This capital investment that is built up over the years has to be looked upon by the individual as a retirement pension when the proceeds of a sale of property are used to finance his retirement. However, it has meant that the farmers' retirement savings were vulnerable because of these large capital gains that have resulted from an inflationary spiral. The Budget proposal makes changes so that the farmers would be better able to provide for their retirement.
To qualify for the maximum benefit, the farmer must have owned the property as of December 31, 1983, dating back to 1972. It covers farm land, buildings and equipment used by the taxpayer, spouse or children, and includes shares in family farm corporations or in a family partnership.
We all realize that only one-half of any capital gain is taxable. We can look at how we would calculate the amount of the capital gains that qualify for special deduction. The taxpayer simply multiplies by $10,000 the number of years between 1972 and 1983 inclusive that he or she has been a full-time farmer. Let us say that an individual started up an active operation in 1976 and sold the land in 1985. This would mean that the individual was a full-time farmer for eight years during the 1972 to 1983 period. Given a deduction of $10,000 for each of these eight years, he could contribute a maximum of $80,000 of taxable capital gains to an RRSP. This would be $80,000 less any other contributions made to an RRSP or registered pension plan for 1984-85 in this example. Thus, he would be able to reap a tax-free capital gain of $240,000 from sale of the farm. This new measure permits savings of federal income tax of an estimated $70 million in a full year with savings on provincial income tax of about half that amount.
We note as well that a special provision will extend the benefit to those who would otherwise qualify but have passed the 71-year age limit for contributions to an RRSP. When the broad pension reform measures set out in the Budget paper, Building Better Pensions for Canadians: "Improved Tax Assistance for Retirement Savings", are fully implemented, and stage two which is planned for January of 1988 is in place, farmers and small business owners will be able to carry forward their unused RRSP deduction entitlements from one year to the next. This will enable them to transfer funds from the sale of a farm business into retirement savings plans when they retire, using tax deduction entitlements built up during their working years. This special tax-free rollover measure for capital gains built pensions that I have described will provide significant relief in the period prior to the full implementation of the broad pension reform measures contained in stage two which I have just mentioned.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this Budget proposal is made in recognition of the unusually large proportion of lifetime farm income that is accrued in the form of capital gains rather than annual income. This proposal will therefore allow farmers in particular more flexibility in planning their retirement
March 6, 1984

income in circumstances where their annual income may have been insufficient to allow for the adequate funding of an RRSP. Eventually, 1 personally would like to see this measure extended to other sectors of the economy in those cases where, like farmers, there is a disproportionately large portion of income in the form of capital gain and where that annual income is not adequate for the funding of retirement savings plans.
The second important innovation contained in the Budget is a provision which will facilitate the transfer of family farms from one generation to another. We must recognize that in the long term, it may take several generations to build up a viable farm unit. Consequently, as an operation expands and everything is invested back into it and the second or third generation comes along having accumulated these various blocks of land and property which make a viable unit, there must be some form of protection to ensure continuity so that the farm does not have to be disposed of at death. This pricing arrangement is not allowed under the present legislation if the transfer is made after the death of a parent as the family farm bequest or inheritance. The Budget proposes to make a change so that on the death of a farm owner after 1983, the transfer of farm property will be allowed to be made at any amount between the property's cost and its fair market value. In other words, it would put family farm bequests and inheritances on the same basis as transfers made prior to the death of the owner of the farm.
As the Budget papers point out, an additional change will expand the types of properties eligible for inter-generational farm transfers to include farm properties leased by a taxpayer to his or her family farm corporation or to a family farm corporation or partnership of his or her spouse or child. This change is applicable to transfers made after December 31, 1983, and will address those circumstances where the farming activity is carried on within the context of the family farm corporation but the farm property is owned personally and is leased or rented to the corporation. Tax-free rollover treatment will also be provided in a special case where a child who received a farm from a parent dies while the parent is still living. In this situation, the farm could be passed back to the parent without immediate tax liability. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Government is doing all it can to ensure that the family farm as an important economic unit will continue, not only as a way of life but as a viable business entity.
Back about 29 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I well remember taking part in a series of debates over a winter. The topic of one of those debates was: "Resolved that farming is no longer a way of life but in fact is a business". We have seen that come about very emphatically in the last few years. I remember another debate which resolved that "The present practice of unplanned urban expansion is detrimental to agriculture in Ontario". That occurred back in 1955 and the problem still exists.
I would like to bring us up to date from that time by touching on Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. It must be made clear that the original intent of that section was to make
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson
sure that the wealthy, professional people who were looking for a place to invest their money did not take advantage of their hobby farm operation as an income tax writeoff. This Budget addresses that situation and the Minister very clearly pointed out that it is not to be used and was never intended to be used for those individuals who make farming their full-time business but, in order to become established, have to use the money earned from off-farm work to in fact subsidize their operation and get it started.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this Budget is one that is intended to ensure that Canadians realize the level of stability that has been brought to Canada over the last two years of recovery and to point out that we intend to maintain that recovery. As we look at the various comparisons in the Budget papers, we note that the GNP will increase dramatically over the next few years and as that increases, the amount of indebtedness that we have been hearing so much about will decrease. As the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) pointed out this morning, we must look at the total value of our economy as a whole, including the GNP.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a short question to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I will be brief. I hope he will be brief as well because there are other Hon. Members who wish to participate.
The Budget provides that there will be $25 in additional funds paid to those old age pensioners who are drawing the guaranteed income supplement and who are single and that those additional funds will begin to be paid on July 1 with a second equal payment on December 1 making $50 extra a month. The war veterans allowance has for many years been based upon a certain figure and when a veteran who is entitled to war veterans allowance draws a guaranteed income supplement and an old age pension, those are deducted from his war veterans allowance, leaving a top-up that is paid by Veterans Affairs. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ferguson) assure the House that that top-up will remain at least at its present point, over and above the OAS plus the GIS?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that. The Budget deals specifically with the guaranteed income supplement but, as the Hon. Member pointed out, there is no reference at this time to the war veterans' allowance, but I hope we will be able to make the appropriate adjustments.
When I looked at the amount of the OAS and the GIS paid out in my constituency last fall, I was quite surprised that in a community of 9,000 people, the Government was giving senior citizens something like $4.7 million per year. This is made up of the old age pension and GIS payments. Normally the rule of thumb is that one-third of the amount paid out in old age pensions is paid in guaranteed income supplements. The amount of money the Government had paid out to senior citizens and pensioners is staggering. I hope that, as we look at the GIS increases and as we examine the war veterans' allow-

March 6, 1984
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson
ance in more detail, no means test will be associated with it.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary talked about recovery and dwelt on the situation of farmers. The only problem I find with his presentation was that he dealt strictly with retiring farmers-it is almost pie in the sky by and by. What about those farmers who need a few crumbs on the table immediately?
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the Speech from the Throne promised changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, but there was nothing in the Budget to indicate funds will be available to assist farmers in this area. There is nothing about energy costs either. The Hon. Member spoke about the energy program. I know he is a farmer and has been involved with agriculture in all regions of Canada. Is he aware that among the small farmers, especially in western Canada, energy has become the number one cost? If he has farmers coming into his constituency office, as I do, their books will show that in 1981 and 1982 interest was the number one cost. Would he not agree that today energy costs are the problem that farmers are facing? There was nothing in the Budget about that.
The excise tax rebate of 1.5 cents per litre is not adequate. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that today more and more farmers are using diesel fuel instead of gasoline and they need some kind of help. Would he not agree that the Budget should contain measures that will assist farmers immediately, not just when they retire? Pie in the sky by and by is not going to help those who are on the verge of bankruptcy at the moment. I am sure the Hon. Member has been in his riding during the past week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. There is a certain repetition in the Hon. Member's question. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ferguson).


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the question. I should draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that one of the reasons there was nothing in the Budget about this was that as of February 1, 1984 the tax on natural gas and natural gas liquids was removed. Of course, the Hon. Member realizes that natural gas is the base for the manufacture of anhydrous ammonia. The federal Government feels that it has gone as far as it can in that context.
The costs associated with the production of natural gas will not be the same in Ontario as in Manitoba, I am sure, but on the equivalent of 1,000 cubic feet or one million British thermal units, about 22 per cent of the cost of natural gas goes to the producing provinces-that may vary from region to region. In Ontario there is a $1.01 transportation charge and one 15-cent ownership charge goes to the federal Government. The utility company that sells the gas makes a profit of over $2 per 1,000 cubic feet. There is not much that the federal Government can do about these costs.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the Farm Credit Corporation has provided a tremendous amount of funding for farmers over the last three years. The funding has gone from roughly $500 million in 1981 to $635 million in 1982. In the 1983 fiscal year we expect the fund will be well over $700 million, and perhaps as high as $730 million. We have put a tremendous amount of effort into this. I would also ask that farmers look at the legislation available to them so that they can make an income that will give them a return on their investment commensurate with that in the rest of society.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question, I have a comment. I should like to take a minute to wish my successor in this job of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance all the best. I know him from other work in the House. I know he has a tough job, but he has a lot of ability and he has a very good boss. I am sure he will be successful.
I should also like to take the opportunity to extend my thanks to representatives of the other Parties whom I have found to be very co-operative during the past two years.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. In his closing remarks to me a few moments ago he said that he thought a staggering amount was paid out in his constituency to old age pensioners. I doubt very much if that opinion is shared by the old age pensioners.
In his closing remark he also said that the war veterans' allowance top-up would be paid without a means test. He either does not know what he is talking about or he has just announced a radical change in government policy over the years. If that is so, would he reassure us that he is serious and knows what he is talking about and that we are now going to have the war veterans' allowance without a means test?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my remark was taken out of context. I was referring to the means test referred to by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). This referred only to old age pensions in the past. It was only old age pensions and has nothing to do with the war veterans' allowance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions has expired. For debate I recognize the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, when farmers, fishermen and foresters have to deal with a Minister of Finance from an urban area and a Parliamentary Secretary who has been absorbed in the urban sprawl-I do not mean the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson)- we find that there is not much understanding of the primary industries in the Government's taxing policies.
In the few minutes that I have I want to dwell on the tax changes which must be made in fairness to those farmers. They do not live on the delta or in the area the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex has referred to with respect to hobby
March 6, 1984

farmers and professionals coming from the city and absorbing their land. The general farmer does not live in those areas nor does he have the opportunity to sell his land to either group. Therefore, 1 want to give some quotations from "Tax Topics" in respect of some decisions that have been made, some of which are judicial.
First of all, I would like to quote the following sample case:
The taxpayer grew up on a farm and purchased a quarter section of farmland in 1969 when he got married. He also purchased eight head of cattle and a horse. During the next few years he worked several months of each year off the farm as an electrician but, at the same time, he continued to build up his herd and to engage in other farming activities. In 1981, the taxpayer began working on a deal, which was completed in 1982, to purchase six quarter sections of land and certain farm equipment.
If anyone needed proof that this man had engaged in farming in a serious way, his final purchase certainly provided that proof to any intelligent individual in Canada.
The report continues:
The taxpayer claimed farm losses for 1976 and 1977 taxation years. During each of these years, the taxpayer earned employment income in excess of $20,000. The Minister restricted the farm losses to $5,000 for each of these taxation years and the taxpayer appealed to the Tax Court of Canada. The Court found that the taxpayer was a gentleman farmer until 1981 when he made the first steps to acquire the appropriate assets for land and machinery. The Minister therefore properly restricted the farm losses in the taxation years in issue. The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed accordingly.
This is not, Mr. Speaker, an intelligent application of the meaning of the Income Tax Act by the Department of National Revenue. However, it does reflect the remarks made by both the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) and the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex who tried to defend the Government's attack on farmers who did not deserve the insult of the Department of National Revenue's interpretation of their principal occupation. I appeal to two urbanites, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), and the former Parliamentary Secretary to that Minister, to consider the text of a release dated December 19, 1983 from the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which I will quote. It reads:
A submission of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Canadian Bar Association to Revenue Canada suggests that limits on the deduction for farm losses should be repealed.
This quotation is not from a farmer. It is from the legal and accounting experts of Canada who offer this advice to the Government. The quote continues:
The limits now penalize a person who expects to make a profit through farming but who also has other income, the brief notes. Since the Income Tax Act does not restrict deduction of losses from any other business except farming, the committee does not see the justification for such a restriction in the case of farm losses. If the farm has a reasonable expectation of profit, it is a business, the losses of which should be deductible.
And after a man purchases six sections of land and is still not considered to be a serious farmer, there has to be a check made by the Minister of Finance as to why. Another recommendation reads as follows:
The Budget-Mr. McCain
A fisherman making a voluntary disposition and replacement of his vessel should be entitled to the same protection as another taxpayer who disposes of and replaces "former business property". That is, any gain on the disposition should be netted against the cost of the replacement vessel rather than being taxed immediately.
The difficulty is that the "urbanites" do not understand the primary industries and their problems. I would just like to refer to one other problem in the fishing industry. When a lobster fisherman files his income tax return, it is recognized by the Department of Fisheries-and the Taxation Department has been so informed-that the minimum bait expense for a lobster fisherman is $15 a trap. Now, Mr. Speaker, when a fisherman presents his return to the present Government with its capability to interpret, he is not allowed the $15 and is often taxed retroactively, in spite of the obvious expense.
I appeal to these "urbanites" who have prepared this Budget to take a look at the country boy and give him a little proper consideration. Take the interpretation capability out of the hands of Revenue Canada and amend these sections which allow hoodlums with a quota to penalize our primary industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 64.(8), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question now before the House. The question is as follows: Mr. Lalonde, seconded by Mr. Ouellet, moves:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lalonde), which was agreed to on the following division.
	(Division No. 20)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Allmand	Bossy	CollenetteAppolloni (Mrs.)	Breau	ComtoisAxworthy	Bujold	CorbinBachand	Bussieres	CorriveauBaker	Caccia	CosgroveBeauchamp-N iquet	Campbell (Miss)	Cote (Mrs.)(Mrs.)	(South West Nova)	CousineauBegin (Miss)	Campbell	CyrBerger	(LaSalle)	DaudlinBlais	Campbell	DawsonBlaker	(Cardigan)	De BaneBloomfield	Chenier	de CorneilleBockstael	Chretien	Demers
March 6, 1984
	The Budget-Mr. McCain		
	Messrs.		
Deniger	Hervieux-Payette	McRae	de JongDesmarais	(Mrs.)	Munro	DickDingwall	Hopkins	(Hamilton East)	DommDion	Hudecki	Nicholson (Miss)	EllisDionne	Irwin	Olivier	Elzinga(Northumberland-	Isabelle	Ostiguy	EppMiramichi)	Johnston	Ouellet	For restallDubois	Joyal	Parent	FraserDuclos	Kaplan	Pelletier	FretzDupont	Killens (Mrs.)	Penner	FriesenDupras	Lachance	Pepin	GambleDuquet	Lajoie	Peterson	GassErola (Mrs.)	Lalonde	Pinard	GilchristEthier	Landers	Portelance	GurbinEvans	Lang	Prud'homme	GustafsonFerguson	Laniel	Regan	HallidayFisher	Lapointe	Reid	Hawkes
Fleming
Flis
Foster
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
Fox	LeBlanc	(Etobicoke- L;Frith	Leduc	RompkeyGarant	Lefebvre	RooneyGauthier	Loiselle	RossiGendron	Lumley	RoyGimai'el	MacBain	SavardGingras	MacEachen	SchroderGourd	MacGuigan	Simmons(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Mackasey	TardifGourde	MacLaren	Tessier(Levis)	MacLellan	TobinGray	Malepart	TrudeauGuilbault	Maltais	TurnerHarquail	Marceau	VeilletteHenderson	Masse	WeatherheadHerbert	Masters
NAYS Messrs.	Whelan Yanakis-134.Althouse	Carney (Miss)	CoatesAndre	Clark	CookAnguish	(Yellow head)	CrosbieBenjamin	Clark	(St. John's WBlackburn	(Brandon-Souris)	CrouseBlaikic	Clarke	DantzerBlenkarn	(Vancouver Quadra)	Darling
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Ms.)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
Knowles
Messrs.
Korchinski
Kristiansen
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) Malone Manly
Mazankowski
McCain
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skeliy Speyer Stevens Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wilson Wise Wright Young-100.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.17 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
Cardiff
At 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.
without question put,



Wednesday, March 7, 1984