1986-03-04

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. It is a point of order which flows from yesterday's Question Period. As the Chair well knows events of yesterday made it impossible for me to raise this point immediately at the end of the Question Period. This is the earliest opportunity 1 have had to do so.
As Your Honour knows, there is an opportunity provided under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for Members of Parliament and Ministers to make statements on matters they consider to be important. As a result of a recent statement by Your Honour regarding the Question Period, Members are now being restricted in their preambles to their initial question, as the Speaker has quite rightly said, to one carefully drawn sentence.
I want to raise with Your Honour the necessity to require of Ministers that they not abuse the opportunities which are afforded them in answering, as they see fit, since ordinary Members in asking questions are not permitted to put into the preamble of their questions any statement which relates to that which might be reported in newspapers, in other words, in a verbatim sense, to stand up and read into the record testimonials or questions raised through the media which appear in the press. Equally, it should be inappropriate for Ministers to rise during Questions Period and begin to read into the record selective pieces of propaganda.
Therefore, in the spirit of the new rules, given that Members are now being severely restricted, and justifiably so, in the way in which they preface their questions with a preamble, I ask the Chair to consider asking Ministers of the Crown to desist from referring extensively, verbatim, to documents other than those which relate directly to the question being asked.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make a brief contribution to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The matter is one with respect to the length of questions and answers. I have no problem with that. Brevity in questions and answers serves the House well.
However, I draw the line if there is any suggestion-and I do not want to presume something if it is not intended-that
somehow the quality of the question or answer is a matter for the Chair's consideration. 1 think Your Honour has addressed yourself with respect to that matter.


Ian Deans: There is no quality in any of the answers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If an Hon. Member raises a matter in the course of a preamble it is often the case that a particular contention in the preamble has to be addressed in the answer. Therefore, I suggest that the matter of the length of the intervention is something to which Your Honour can give consideration, and 1 am sure you are doing that.
1 subscribe to the statements Your Honour made a week ago yesterday. 1 think all Members of the House are in support of the rules which you have set down. If the Hon. Member is raising a question with respect to the length of questions and answers, then I support him.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to briefly join in the discussion in order to tell the Chair that, indeed, we are all very pleased with the number of questions we are getting in. 1 cannot say that we are always pleased with the quality of the answers we receive. 1 think the point made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is well taken. When a Minister quotes from the Bible, for example, be it the bible he calls The Toronto Star or otherwise, I think he is well advised to use those statements carefully because we can do the same thing on this side. We can quote from all types of papers that condemn-


Ian Deans: We would not be allowed to do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are not allowed to quote, as the Hon. Member says. We are not allowed to do that so why would the Minister be allowed to do it?


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, this job is fun.
I appreciate the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and the interventions which Hon. Members have made. I think I should say this. The key issue has been, and will continue to be, length.
I must say to Ministers that in the context of length it is difficult to imagine that an answer which involves the reading of a long statement from a newspaper is as short an answer as is possible. Perhaps it will be understood by Ministers if I put it that way and they will pursue the course of action which they and the whole House believes is appropriate with regard to length thereby.

March 4, 1986
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) with regard to the sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

[Stage Direction]
referral to standing committee
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a list of Governor in Council appointments, pursuant to Standing Order 103(1). This document is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), in both official languages, Toward Equality, the Government's response to the parliamentary committee report Equality for All.


Some Hon. Members:: Bravo!


John Carnell Crosbie: I could go on, Mr. Speaker. This document outlines the Government's detailed response to all of the 85 diverse recommendations which were presented in Equality for All. On behalf of the Government, I should first like to commend the subcommittee for the fine work which it did in consulting Canadians on a wide range of different issues. The views expressed by Canadians were very helpful to the Government in the preparation of its response, Toward Equality.
Toward Equality is an important part of the Government's commitment to equality and social justice for all Canadians. The equality initiatives taken by the Government mean new opportunities and greater fairness for all Canadians in their efforts to find a job, the build a future, and to play a full and equal role in society.

Mr. Speaker, equality and social justice require that persons be treated on the basis of their own qualities, not on the basis of any stereotypes or other false assumptions.

To translate that, equality and social justice require-


Ian Deans: That is not necessary.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that persons be treated on the basis of their own qualities, not on the basis of any stereotype or other false assumption. I think that is important enough to make the point in both official languages.
Equality and social justice require that individuals be given a fair chance to make their own way in society and that when opportunities are not fairly distributed, positive action must be taken to ensure that they are. This includes eliminating so-called systemic discrimination.
The initiatives proposed in Toward Equality are a reflection of the commitment of the Government to these principles and a recognition of the needs of many Canadians who are still unfairly and unjustly discriminated against. However, meaningful equality cannot be imposed. We have confidence that the people of Canada will make the most of their own opportunities and allow others to do the same on an equal footing, if the Government provides the right leadership. The initiatives contained in the document I have tabled today demonstrate the Government's commitment to providing that leadership.
We have not waited for the courts to make decisions on all difficult issues, nor do we intend to force Canadians to go to court to find fairness and equal treatment under federal laws or in the federally regulated private sector. In fact, in many areas our equality initiatives go beyond a generous interpretation of the charter requirements where we consider this is necessary to achieve full equality and social justice.
I should like to take just a moment to review some of the measures contained in the tabled document. First, the Government agrees that human rights legislation should, in general, have primacy over other laws. Of course the courts have held in that direction as well. Second, the Government has decided to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to incorporate the concept of reasonable accommodation, which was requested by groups representing the disabled among many others. We have agreed, as part of the review of this Act, to consider amending it so that it states expressly that systemic discrimination is prohibited. Again the courts have indicated that this is so. We believe that systemic discrimination is always encompassed within the charter guarantees.
As Minister of Justice, I am currently re-examining the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that it complements the Charter and is an effective instrument to ensure non-discrimination and fairness in the private sector. It is the Act itself which applies to the private sector. The Government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction. The Government believes in
March 4, 1986

equality of opportunity. Our economic policies are putting Canadians back to work by the thousands every month and are creating hope in every region of the country. Our social policies seek to ensure that every Canadian has a full and equal opportunity to be employed and share in Canada's renewed economic prosperity. We propose the abolition of mandatory retirement as an absolute rule.
The Government is fully committed to expanding the role of women in the Armed Forces and will ensure that women will be able to compete for all trades and occupations in a manner consistent with the requirement of the Armed Forces to be operationally effective in the interests of national security.


Ms. Copps:: Oh, yeah!


John Carnell Crosbie: I repeat, to ensure that women will be able to compete for all trades and occupations. Already the Government has proposed an employment equity program to enhance the level of participation of disadvantaged Canadians in the workplace. We have acted and will continue to act to extend benefits to part-time workers to ensure that they are treated fairly. We have made a commitment to resources for the Human Rights Commission so that it can actively pursue the implementation of equal pay. As a matter of fact, it is an amount of $500,000 for the next fiscal year. Reforms will be made to the Canadian Pension Plan to ensure that its provisions fully comply with the charter equality guarantees. Of course, two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the population of Canada have to agree to changes in the Canada pension Plan. We have made progress and will continue to take initiatives to ensure barrier-free access for disabled individuals. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), who is sitting behind me today, announced on December 10 the steps we will take in that connection. The Government will take measures to ensure that the mentally disabled have full voting rights and equal protection and equal benefit under the law.
There are parallel reform processes presently under way. The Department of Justice is engaged in a major review of the Canadian Human Rights Act and in a long-term overhaul of the Criminal Code. Legislation will be arising out of the Badgley and Fraser report shortly. A commission of inquiry is looking at all aspects of unemployment insurance. The National Task Force on Child Care will report in the spring, and a parliamentary task force has been set up. As I mentioned, consultations with the provinces on pension reform announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) continue and agreement has been reached on a number of those proposals. Employment equity is being tackled with the Employment Equity Act which was introduced and passed recently. Women's pensions have been given high priority and attention. Flexible retirement, 1 am announcing today, is our intention in respect of federal jurisdiction. In all these areas, including immigration, parallel progress is being made with initiatives which will demonstrate leadership in promoting equality, fairness and social justice.
I believe our response is a progressive initiative. It demonstrates the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Muironey),
Statements by Ministers
who is very much interested in the promotion of equality, fairness and social justice. I trust that all Canadians will join us in the spirit and the letter of the law and that all people across the country share our commitment to fairness and equality in this society and will be supportive of the principles that are being announced which will guide the Government in its conduct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my dismay at the Minister's cavalier treatment of such fundamental questions as equality and non-discrimination. It is just incredible, especially today, during women's week, when we were expecting a detailed report here in the House so that Canadians who are listening can make sure their legislators have acted responsibly and have taken the legislative, not the judicial route.

The detailed response just presented to us by the Minister, I believe, should have been written by the Minister responsible for sports because it skates around most of the issues. All it has really done is said: "We agree with the Adam Smith equality perception and the free market should determine what should happen to visible minorities, handicapped, women and the native people". It is true that a number of the issues have been covered. For my part, and on the part of the Liberal Party, it is with much regret that I heard the Minister's response and at 10 a.m. this morning received the ministerial document. I have not had time to really review it in detail, but I hope that my detailed review will give me much more hope that the wishes and needs to protect minority rights is more important than majority will. That is what my hope will be as I go through it clause by clause and recommendation by recommendation.
My quick flip of the material from ten o'clock until now has indicated to me more studies, more questions and very few areas of definitive action. I hope I am wrong, Mr. Minister, and if I find I am wrong I will apologize to you personally. Right now all I know is that we spent just under $1 million to do our study and now there are more studies. You had the Katie Cooke report and now you are going out to do more studies on child care. That is totally inadequate and totally unnecessary.
Mandatory retirement is obviously against the law, but have you legislated in that area? No, you have not. Age being a factor of discrimination is now illegal. We must not substitute that retirement policy for a personnel policy, and rights are not an administrative convenience. Decisions must be based on bona fide occupational requirements, not industry standards.


Mr. Speyer:: That's what we said.

March 4, 1986
Statements by Ministers


Sheila Finestone: That is fine, but were is the amendment? All the Government said is that it is considering the amendment. I did not see, nor has it been written that you are going to present it. You are only going to study it.
The Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended and you have not gone through that amendment. You are studying how to amend it. You have had 14, 18, 20 months to amend it.
I would like to suggest that the "normal" age of retirement as an argument is no longer valid as a defence of the rule of thumb for anyone anymore. Hon. Members on this side of the House are ready to fight for the right of older people to contribute to our society and our country for as long as they are able to contribute. One cannot judge a person's worth based on the factor of age, and that sort of equality has no place in Canada's work ethics. Certainly, women and youth are not the ones who are going to ask you to be concerned about discriminating on age.
On maternity and parental benefits, again there are delays, considerations, studies and inquiries. The Liberal Party believes that we have had enough of these things. The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended to ensure that that portion of maternity leave relating to social adjustment or infant care be available to either parent. I really would like to see the Government enforce that recommendation.
As I went through the documents, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that from my reading, what the Minister has said on sexual orientation is absolutely unacceptable. It leaves it totally up to the courts at this particular moment. Referred to our committee was a Private Members' Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I did not see the Minister take action on that Bill. Every brief we heard from people across this land asked for changes on sexual orientation. There is harassment and discrimination whether it be by the RCMP or, the Department of National Defence or industry. Discrimination exists. To deny that reality by talking about security clearance problems for gays is just to avoid the issue and refusing to face your responsibilities.
With respect to women in combat ready roles, the Minister said he is going to look at it in the "interests of national security". All the Minister had to do was to attend the meetings we had with the Deputy Minister who represents the Department of National Defence and listen to the regressive chauvinistic misogyne attitudes to know that that is absolutely ridiculous. In the interests of national security, you are not going to do very much for women in the Armed Forces. It is my Party's belief that sexual discrimination within the Armed Forces is intolerable. Female participation does not have the potential for adverse social and sexual relationships which were alluded to. There is no justification in keeping women out of a paid workforce such as the Armed Forces. Those beliefs were not valid then and they are not valid now. To deny women who wish to serve their country the right to combat ready roles is to deny them the right of valuable training, education and promotion as equal citizens in this land.
The 65 per cent occupation rate open to women which you have talked about, Mr. Minister, leads me to look-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not wanted to interrupt because I know the Hon. Member is a relatively new Member of Parliament, but I must caution her about all these references.


Sheila Finestone: You are right, Mr. Speaker, and 1 thank you. The 65 per cent rate of occupations which are available to women in the Armed Forces resembles the 64 cent to 65 per cent dollar which women are paid in the market place today. I would suggest to you that that inequity needs to be dealt with.
With respect to employment equity, I know quite well that the Government is very proud of Bill C-62, but that Bill will not meet the intended goal of equal opportunities for the handicapped, visible minorities, native people or women. A law which has no mandatory enforcement mechanism is a law with no teeth. For the Minister to come out with a ministerial citation for excellence instead of mandatory operation and enforcement mechanisms is just a laugh, it is a law with no effective force outside of moral suasion.
It is regrettable that the amendments so carefully proposed and considered by my colleagues fell on the deaf ears of our Tory legislators. The grounds really leave me very despondent and upset. I cannot believe that we are looking at a report of this nature which has not dealt with all of the issues in an open and meaningful way. I sincerely hope that the Government will give it some reconsideration as we go through this report and make our observations. I hope that somewhere along the way the difficult task which our committee had to face in reconciling the monumental difficulties which minority people presented to us, the discrimination under which they have to live, will be rectified sooner rather than later. But it is not with this report that we will realize that.
[ Translation]


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my fellow members on the Committee of Equality Rights and emphasize that it was thanks to the efforts of Canadian men and women, of groups and individuals across Canada, that the Committee was able to formulate its unanimous recommendations.

I should like to emphasize as well that it was Tommy Douglas who in 1947 introduced in Canada the first Bill of Rights. Since then, my colleagues in the CCF and in the New Democratic Party, have fought hard for civil liberties and fundamental human rights. Indeed, in reviewing the response of the Government today, headed toward equality, to the unanimous recommendations of the subcommittee on equality rights, it is in that historical tradition and spirit of seeking full equality for all Canadians, in particular those Canadians who have been denied equality, that we approach these recommendations.
March 4, 1986

I must say, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the response 1 felt in a sense that it was a classic response of a Conservative Party. 1 was pleasantly surprised by a number of the very progressive responses and by two important recommendations of the committee. In a number of other key areas I was disappointed that the conservative element of the caucus and, indeed, of the Cabinet was triumphant.
It was progressive and it was conservative in the best traditions, as I say, of that Party, a Party that on the one hand, through the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, brought forward the first Canadian Bill of Rights, and on the other hand, a Party which has in too many areas been afraid to move forward on questions of fundamental social justice. I imagine that the debates within the Cabinet committee room were fierce and bloody on many of these issues of fundamental social justice.
I want to say without hesitation that if my reading of the recommendations is accurate-and like my colleague the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) I received the report about only one hour ago-then certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself deserves considerable credit in the area of social justice for having moved forward on a number of controversial and key recommendations of our committee.
I note it was the Prime Minister who said that because we are children of liberty it is up to us to protect the cause of human rights and minorities wherever they are challenged. Challenge they are, whether it be in the Cabinet room or in caucus rooms, and I know it must have taken considerable effort, strength and determination on the part of a number of individuals, and I suspect the Prime Minister in the area of several of these more controversial recommendations, in getting that kind of consensus that we were looking for. The dinosaurs in the Tory caucus are not dancing today. The dinosaurs in the Tory caucus are deeply concerned about a number of the recommendations that have been made.
All of us in this House deeply hope there will never be combat, but with respect to women and the Armed Forces it is essential that all women have full access to all trades and occupations within the Armed Forces. Despite the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) appeared before the sub-committee and bitterly resisted those recommendations, I am pleased the Government as a whole has overruled him and apparently, at least, is prepared to open all trades and occupations to women. We welcome that, although we certainly express our concern about some of the qualifications that appear to be there.
With respect to the area of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, certainly the statement made in the report appears to be clear and unequivocal. The Government states it will take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibitive ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
Statements by Ministers
I assume the Government means what it says there, and what the Government hopefully will do, and do immediately, is to put an end to the discriminatory policies within the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces which have caused such pain, hardship and oppression to Canadian men and women. If that is the intent of these recommendations, we welcome them.
One of the Conservative dinosaurs says "Don't hold your breath." That is what we are concerned about, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the dinosaurs are still attempting to defeat the will of this Government. "Don't hold your breath", the Member said. There are thousands of Canadians who believe the time has come to put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I hope the Government will take immediate action on the recommendations as it indicates it will.
Equality for all must be a reality. In the economic sphere, the response of the Government falls short. Women continue to be denied equality whether it be in the area of pensions, part-time work, equal pay for work of equal value, employment equity or child care. What about the women in the Armed Forces who continue to be denied adequate maternity benefits as a result of the response of the Government? The disabled, visible minorities and native people still are not adequately protected in the area of employment protection under the employment equity provisions. It is not good enough to suggest, as the Government has done in its response, that the reporting requirements of Bill C-62 are sufficient to ensure compliance. That approach has been rejected over and over again by the groups who have been hit hardest.

Mr. Speaker, while we are happy about a number of recommendations, especially in the social sphere, I find it regrettable that there are still too many studies and not enough action by this Government.
Mr. Speaker, equality must be equality for all, not just for those who can afford it.
Of course, there was a serious confrontation in Cabinet and even in the Caucus. Mr. Speaker, the report fails to grant women equality in the areas I mentioned earlier, and especially with respect to pensions, part-time work and employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, I also may point out that equality rights for visible minorities and the handicapped have yet to be granted. [English]
Our committee worked together and heeded the views, the voices and the concerns of Canadians across this land calling for equality, calling for an end to discrimination on the grounds set out in Section 15 and on the grounds implicit in that section. We said it was essential that Canadians not be forced into the courts to make that equality a reality. While the steps taken by the Government today represent an important first step in a number of key areas, certainly with respect to the fundamental area of economic justice, the Government still has not moved far enough.

March 4, 1986
Committee Reports
We will look forward in the response of the Minister in the coming days to elaboration of some of the key recommendations. Equality for all, while it has certainly been significantly advanced as a result of the response of this Government, will not be a reality until the recommendations and all of the recommendations of the equality rights sub-committee have been implemented.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A copy of this response was delivered to the official critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) at 9 a.m. this morning. If he did not deliver it to the Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party today, that is not our fault. A copy was also delivered at the same time to the official critic for the New Democratic party. The hon. lady's beef is with the official justice critic of her Party and not with the Government which delivered the report at 9 a.m.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the proceeding that took place about 15 minutes ago when a message was submitted not by the Governor General but by the Deputy Governor General. It has always been my understanding that as a matter of courtesy Members of this House would stand when a message was delivered-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct.
I received a message, as the Hon. Member will know, verbally. We were informed that the message was coming from the Governor General. The verbal representation made was that it was from Her Excellency. I am afraid it was not until I got to the bottom of the page that I discovered that it was the Deputy Governor General. It seemed to me that the only honourable thing to do at that time was to carry on. The Hon. Member's point of order is absolutely correct.

[ Translation]


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour and the privilege, on behalf of the Chairman of the delegation, Hon. Steven E. Paproski, to present the report of the official Parliamentary Delegation that went to Mexico from February 17 to 23 of this year.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Two or three petitions were presented yesterday which were not certified. May I remind Hon. Members that all petitions must be certified before they are presented.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 62 residents of the riding of Huron-Bruce protesting the continued operation of the Morgentaler clinic in the City of Toronto in violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of presenting several petitions on behalf of residents of Essex-Kent on the same topic as the previous petition. The petitioners ask the Government to ask the Province of Ontario to abide by the law as stated in Section 251 of the Criminal Code with respect to the operation of the premises known as the Morgentaler clinic.


Mr. Speaker:: Due to the Ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 27 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew):
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, laid upon the Table earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees as follows:

Since there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to various committees and the list is lengthy, if it is agreeable to the House, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 5C, 15C, 20C, 30C, 35C 40C, 45C and 50C
March 4, 1986
[Stage Direction]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Vote 15C
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes 5C, IOC, 30C, 35C and 75c To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 1C and 15C To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources Energy, Mines and Resources, Vote L31C To the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry Agriculture, Vote 45C Environment, Vote 15C
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade External Affairs, Votes 1C, IOC and 30C To the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs Finance, Votes 1C and 16C National Revenue, Vote 1C To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 5C and IOC To the Standing Committee on Government Operations Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Vote 12C Privy Council Vote 1C Supply and Services, Vote IOC Treasury Board, Votes 1C and 2IC To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 1C, 5C, 15C and 40C Solicitor General, Vote 30C
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration Employment and Immigration, Votes 1C, 5C, IOC, 15C, 20C and 25C Labour, Votes 1C and 16C To the Standing Committee on National Defence National Defence, Vote 1C
To the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare National Health and Welfare, Votes 1C, 50C, 55C and 75c To the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion
Regional Industrial Expansion, Votes 2C, 3C, IOC, L26C and 51C To the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology Science and Technology, Votes 25C and 30C To the Standing Committee on Secretary of State
Secretary of State, Votes 1C, IOC, 20C, 25C, 30C and 45C To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transports, Votes 1C, 5C, 25C, 36C, 37C, 38C, 86C, 87C, 95C and 100C To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs, Vote 1C

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 432 and 513.
Order Paper Questions


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Were tenders called for the acquisition of telephone equipment for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation offices in (a) Ottawa (b) Quebec (c) Montreal (d) Toronto (e) Vancouver and, if so (i) on what dates (ii) were the tenders public or by invitation (iii) what are the names and addresses of all those who submitted tenders and, in each case, what was the amount (c) what was the name of the company or individual awarded the contract (d) what was the final cost of the contract?
2.	Was the deadline for tender submissions less than 30 days from the date tenders were called and (a) if so (i) what are all the reasons for a 30 day limit (ii) what is the name and job designation of the highest official who authorized the deadline (iii) did any of the companies or individuals submitting tenders express concern to CBC officials about the 30 day limit (b) if not, what was the deadline for submissions?
3.	Is it CBC policy to issue tenders for major projects, representing an expenditure in excess of $5 million, near the end of the fiscal year and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	Were these tenders part of a four phase program to upgrade existing telephone equipment and, if so (a) were all considerations given to utilizing the most advanced technology available and, if not, for what reason (b) on what date will the entire program be completed (c) will additional tenders be called and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Is this project part of the Federal Capital Recovery Projects Program and, if so (a) on what date was it approved for funding (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest official authorizing the project (r) how many jobs did it create?
6.	Did CBC request information for requirements of telephone equipment for their offices in Ottawa, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver on or about September 21, 1982 and, if so, was any action taken on the submissions received and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) Yes.	(b)	Yes. (c) Yes.	(d)	No.	(e)	Yes. (i)	(a)	(b)	(r)
and (e) January 20, 1984.
(ii)	By invitation. To determine potential suppliers for upgrading its telephone systems, the Corporation consulted with in-house specialists, obtained information from outside consultants, and, to ensure a non-biased selection, it also referred to a publication entitled "The Interconnect Industry in Canada" published by ICA Telemanagement Inc. Two Canadian telephone equipment suppliers and seven Canadian suppliers/installers of telephone equipment were invited to submit tenders.
(iii)	Of the nine potential equipment suppliers invited to tender, five presented submissions. They are:
CTG Telecommunications Systems Inc. (CTG)
144 Front Street, West Toronto, Ontario M2J 2L7
Bell Communications Systems Inc. (BCSI)
240 Catherine Street, Suite 405 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2G8

March 4, 1986
Order Paper Questions
Telecommunications Terminal Systems (TTS)
171 Front Street, West Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E9
Telecom Canada (Bell)
410 Laurier Ave., West 8th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P6H5
Eastern Independent Telecom Ltd. (EIT)
Box 1509 101 Water Street Brockville, Ontario K6V 5V6
With regard to the amounts of their submissions, it has not been customary to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2530 tabled on November 6, 1975. Moreover, most of the bidders, as is normal practice, requested confidentiality of the information contained in their submissions.
(c) Telecommunications Terminal Systems (TTS).
0d) $4,059,000.
2.	(a) Yes.
(i)	An RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued via courier on January 20, 1984 calling for tender submissions at noon on February 13, 1984. However, an earlier warning had been given by telephone to the nine potential suppliers on January 17, 1984, which had the effect of extending the notice period from 23 to 26 days. This length of time was considered sufficient for the purpose.
(ii)	With regard to the name and job designation of the CBC official who authorized the deadline, it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the names and titles of those exercising their delegated authority. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2530 tabled on November 6, 1975. However, senior officials of both the engineering and supply and services departments were involved in making this decision.
(iii)	Yes, one company. This company did not submit a tender although a spokesman had indicated verbally that they intended to do so.
(b) not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. (a) Yes. There were, however, two overriding conditions-the product had to be a proven one and it had to be Canadian. \b) The program was completed by March, 1985. (c) No.
5.	Yes. (a) and (b) Effective project approval for the CBC's SRCPP project was given at a meeting of the Treasury Board
on November 23, 1983. (c) It is estimated that 2117 person weeks of employment were created by this project.
6.	CBC did issue a Request for Information (RFI) for telephone equipment at that time, but the RFI was for Ottawa only. No further action beyond the RFI was taken, however, because of other priorities within available capital funding.
Macdonald hotel, edmonton, alta.


Mr. Rodriguez: Is the Canadian National Railway remodelling and dismantling part of the MacDonald Hotel in Edmonton and, if so was the work tendered and (a) if so (i) on what date did the tendering take place (ii) how many tenders were received (iii) which firm or firms won tenders and for what amount (b) if not, what method was used to select the construction firm or firms?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
(a)	Yes. Remodelling of Hotel MacDonald, (i) The Construction Management contract was tendered in August, 1985.
(ii)	Five, (iii) Stuart Olson Construction Ltd. was selected.
(b)	Not applicable.
Demolition of New Wing of Hotel MacDonald, (i) The demolition of the New Wing was tendered by Stuart Olson as part of the Construction Management Agreement, (ii) Six.
(iii)	Arrow Demolition International Inc., was selected by Stuart Olson.
Canadian National does not disclose financial details of commercial transactions between itself and persons or firms providing services as such would be contrary to our practice and to the rights of those with whom we contract who expect that the commercial confidentiality of their transactions will be respected.
(b) Not applicable.
[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this
March 4, 1986
[Stage Direction]
House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006).
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I enter this debate on yet another Budget of the Conservative Government which, rather than giving the country the change in direction for which so many people voted in September of 1984, is continuing with the same closed, unimaginative approach to our economic problems which will leave many Canadians suffering badly from the economic situation we face. This Budget reminds me of the famous book by Farley Mowat, The Boat that Wouldn't Float, or the book by Jimmy Breslin, The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.
This Budget was meant, above all, to restore international confidence in our dollar. For the first time it is not only the words of the Opposition which must be taken as a measure of the success of the Budget. The Minister, albeit inadvertently 1 am certain, has set up an objective and clear criterion by which his Budget can and will be judged. As I tuned into Canada AM this morning and saw that the dollar was down yet again, I knew that the failure of this Budget and the incompetence of the Government was once again being demonstrated by the standards set by the Government itself, that is, what happens to the Canadian dollar.
It is perhaps a sign of the inexperience of the Minister that he adopted this approach and gave himself this hostage to fortune, this very clear signal which the Canadian people would be able to watch, which he promised would start to rise. Two weeks ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was saying that he was going to introduce a tough Budget for Canadians which would restore confidence, get the dollar back up again and, consequently, get interest rates down again.
The Minister is a good and decent man but, due to the tremendous credibility problem, he will unfortunately not be able to survive. As the dollar falls and the international financial community continues to exert pressure, the Minister will stand in the House, quote editorials, and read letters from the BCNI, but inexorably, like a clock ticking away timebomb fashion, his Budget's credibility is being destroyed. The 69-cent dollar which we now face has been brought upon the Government by itself, not only directly by telling the House that the response to the dollar would be the criterion to watch, but by failing to understand the most basic of economic laws which affect our society.
The Government has accepted the reduction of the deficit as some kind of holy grail to be pursued at the expense of economic common sense, fairness, and the tremendous human costs which Canadians are facing today and will continue to face for the next five years as a consequence of this Budget.
It has been about a year and a half since an action group went across this country to hear from Canadians what they felt should be done to put our economy right. It certainly needed putting right after the disasters of the previous regime. We
The Budget-Mr. Langdon
asked them how they assessed this Government's performance on economic matters in its first year in office. I want to save the souls of the poor, tragic, Government back-benchers here today, so I will not quote extensively some of the nasty comments that people pencilled in, in the margins. However, let me point out quite clearly that 94 per cent of Canadians contacted this past year said quite clearly that the Government had either done very poorly, and those were the charitable ones, or it had done extraordinarily poorly, those were the uncharitable ones, with respect to reducing unemployment, regional disparities, inequality between men and women, and reforming the tax system. There were a few good marks on consultation, but even there the vast majority said this Government pretends to consult but it does not listen. In giving fair opportunities to young people, again there is an abject record of failure.
We asked these people what their priorities were, what would they want the Government to put in this Budget. Some 90 per cent of the people who responded said that the key goal has to be the reduction of unemployment. The Government pats itself on the back because it has created, it says, 580,000 jobs. I say the Canadian people have created those 580,000 jobs. We are left with an unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent. 1 cannot believe there can be a single member of this House who feels that is acceptable. It is better than we were doing but it is just not acceptable. That figure of 9.8 per cent represents lost production, human misery and the virtual destruction of hope for many young people.
However, that was not the objective this Government chose to pursue in its new Budget. Instead, it chose to chase that Holy Grail, the deficit. The responses we got from people said very clearly that, of the six key goals the Government could have gone after, the great majority felt that reducing the deficit was by far the lowest priority. Not because they do not understand that the deficit has to come down. Of course it has to. Not that they do not understand that we have to stop building up massive debts for our children. They understand that. However, they also understand that the way to do that is to get people back to work, get the unemployment rate down to 6 per cent, 5 per cent, or 4 per cent so that we are not wasting billions of dollars to pay people who are not working. That is what we have to do, and we have to do it by a means other than increasing taxes by an average of $400 per family.
I do not know about other Opposition Members, but I know that I spent this past weekend talking to dozens of people in my constituency. 1 talked to them by phone, through community meetings and at social affairs. Their single response to this Budget was: "They have done it to us again. They have hit middle-income people one more time." A small business person told me that the consequences are that the small business community is not going to have the demand for their products. The woman who expected to get a job as the economy started to improve is not going to succeed because of the cut-backs in consumer demand that this tax grab will cause. This Government promised to get Government off the backs of the people. Instead, it has gotten into the pockets of

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Lartgdon
the people right across this country. The economic consequences are going to be sad. I say that with regret. I did not want to see a Budget that would destroy the economic credibility of the Minister of Finance further. Yet that is what is happening.
In my constituency 31 per cent of the people voted Conservative in the election. At this stage there is not a chance that half that number will do that again. People come up to me on the street continually and say: "We voted Conservative last time. Never again. It's clear that Tory times are taxing times. Tories take money from our pockets when we thought they were going to cut taxes and give us a chance to get the economy moving once more."
What we need in this country is a long-run response to our deficit problems, a response that gets people back to work. When that happens we will get rid of the deficit, and do it far faster than this Government is prepared to. This Government, for all its promises in the last election, will, by the year 1990, be paying a higher percentage of Government revenues to service the public debt than did the Liberals who they attacked so strongly out on the hustings. This Government has not been serious in its talk about reducing the deficit. It has the cart before the horse. You have to get the economy moving before you can get the deficit down. Making that basic error will ultimately cost this Government, not just its majority but its chance to govern after the next election. This is not just a Budget that is mistaken in its goals and faulty in its implementation of those goals, it is a Budget which is, above all, unfair to the people of Canada. We find with the tax probe, which is cutting across the country for the New Democratic Party, that above all Canadians in this country want tax fairness. They want tax reform. That is what this Budget is not giving them.
Instead we have very clear statistics, again in the Budget's own documents, that corporate taxes are going up faster, but not nearly as fast as individual taxes. We have clear evidence that the people in this country who are rich will get a tax decrease next year from the present surtax they pay of 5.5 per cent or 10.5 per cent down to 3 per cent, while the ordinary average middle-income family sees its taxes go up by 3 per cent.
It is a Budget which has disappointed farmers, that group across this country which has been particularly hard hit in the past two years and looked for help from this Government which before the election made it very clear that: "We will eliminate completely the taxes that farmers have to pay on fuel". I ask you, has it happened? The answer clearly is no. The Government can engage in as much rhetoric as it wants. It can send its Ministers across the country to propagandize as much as they wish, but the farmer will know when he goes to the pumps and pays tax on his fuel that on this promise, as on so many others, this Party has failed to come through on its commitments.
It is also a Budget which will have a great human cost. I talked to some of our people this weekend who handle our
constituency offices and already the calls are starting to come in from people making do on a family income of 515,000, $16,000 or $17,000. They are saying: "We simply cannot live with increased taxes. It is not a question of being squeezed a little bit, it is a question of just not being able to live". Yet those are the people who will pay the 1 per cent sales tax increase, the 3 per cent income tax increase, the increases on cigarettes and increases on liquor. They are the human beings which this Minister has forgotten. They are the human beings who are our fellow Canadians. We should not, as a House, endorse a Budget which has so badly failed those human beings.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take issue with a number of comments made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He has used words like destruction, time bomb, disaster. I find that quite incredible if one takes the time to really read that Budget and to talk to average Canadians out there, which he said he did. He also implied that the Government should take no credit whatsoever for some 580,000 new jobs. He knows as an economist that that statement is ridiculous. The Government does have a real role in setting a climate in the country. We can look back on the dismantling of the National Energy Program, which was a disaster in this country. We can look upon the steps that were taken to change FIR A-not just the name-to Investment Canada. It changed the climate of that organization to one which really welcomes new investment. I say we have had a very positive effect as a Government on that job-creation program.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Bill Attewell: Just to recount the steps I personally took to be in touch with people, last Thursday morning I had a breakfast organized to discuss the Budget. It was a non-partisan group, I would underscore, comprised of 163 people. We had the President, John Maplesden of the North York Business Association on the panel. We had Maureen Pappin, a tax partner with Deloitte Haskins & Sells, and we had Jim Crysdale from Nesbitt Thomson, investment dealer. It was an excellent meeting. Not everybody is unhappy with a certain amount of tax increase. Those people had no idea what they were going to say ahead of time. I simply invited them as residents of Don Valley East to speak. While they do not totally embrace the Budget they see the gravity of the situation, and we are willing to be part of the process that is essential.
During the day on Friday I met with several individuals. In the evening I had the honour to be at a special celebration for Dr. Ubale, who is the first Race Relations Commissioner in Ontario. There were some 500 people there from the South Asian community. As we mingled, the general comments were that the Conservative Government is doing what is necessary for the good of Canada.
Saturday morning I did a Rogers cable TV show on the Budget. In the afternoon I wrote to newspaper columnists. That evening I attended the Overseas Chinese Women's Asso-
March 4, 1986

ciation. It is a type of fashion show, but there were some 500 people there from the Taiwanese community. While mingling with them there was general support that this Government was on the right track. Sunday morning I attended the B'nai B'rith Covenant Breakfast. Again, 400 or 500 people were there. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario brought greetings. Again, after mingling with dozens and dozens of people I found that they are basically supportive of the proposal put forth by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
We should keep in mind that this Budget is one of three major steps. He announced his economic initiatives in November, 1984. He brought down a Budget in May, 1985, and now we have the Budget of February 26. All three steps are totally consistent with the objective of turning this country around after an abysmal record under the previous Liberal Government.
In closing I would just like to take issue with one other point which I believe the Hon. Member is distorting, and that is in terms of how much of this reduction in the deficit is occuring between expenditure reductions and tax revenues. 1 would like to say that the combination of rising revenue and falling expenditures reduces the deficit as a percentage of GNP, which is the key way to measure this, by 4.2 percentage points; from 9.1 to 4.9 per cent. Contrary to much public opinion, this considerable reduction in the deficit is accounted for mainly by declining expenditures. There is a 3 percentage point decline in expenditure compared to a revenue increase of only 1.1 per cent, roughly a three to one ratio. That is a pretty good balance, and that is one that Canadians expected and will totally support.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have to start by conceding that I did not attend a Taiwanese fashion show in order to get my responses to the Budget. It is quite possible that Don Mills, with its average level of income very far above the national average, could generate people who felt quite differently about the Budget than is true of people in Essex-Windsor. We organized a community meeting where people could talk about all manner of subjects, including the Budget. I certainly found from the systematic phone calls we made to people across my constituency, from meetings with volunteer ambulance drivers in the southern part of my constituency and from trade union leaders with whom we met on Monday morning that the one universal message we heard is that the Government is hitting them once more, hitting the middle income people in this country again.
Personally, I believe there are two consequences to draw from that reality. When one looks at the Budget figures themselves, they demonstrate that fact quite clearly. The Government's own projection documents for 1987 show a total of $1.2 billion in extra income tax from the group of middle income earners in our country. Furthermore, there is a total of $1.05 billion in sales tax from that group. There are increases with respect to taxes on alcohol and tobacco. While that does not loom large when one considers the over-all tax package,
The Budget-Mr. Mayer
the fact is that there are decreases in taxation on corporations coinciding with increased taxation on middle income Canadians.
Any Canadian who is watching these debates can write to the Minister of Finance or any Member to obtain these statistics and booklets which show quite clearly, for instance, that because the income tax rate is being reduced beginning in 1987, the corporate taxes in this country will have declined by $1.6 billion by 1990. The statistics are clear.
The fact is that constituents told me during the weekend that the country is out of balance because the Government has asked ordinary Canadians and average families to carry far too much of the load. The average family is prepared to carry a part of the load but they feel a sense of tremendous imbalance and unfairness. Frankly, I agree with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) made a very interesting speech. I am pleased that some comments from this side of the House may have put some balance into the debate.
One of our causes for despair in this place is the kind of semi-sincere and syrupy tones we hear from the New Democratic Party. It is absolutely incredible.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor talked about experience. I have been in this place for seven years and I see the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who has been a distinguished Member in this House for many years. He has served the House, his province and the country in many distinguished ways and 1 suspect that he could not recall a time when a Finance Minister has been able to present a Budget saying that he has met a deficit goal which he set out to meet the previous year.
We inherited an astounding record of increasing deficits in past years, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has been able to reduce that deficit as a result of a financial statement in November, 1984, a Budget in May, 1985 and another Budget in February, 1986. The Minister should be saluted for the work he has done in successfully meeting the targets which he set out in that statement and those Budgets. Members opposite should give us some credit in order to at least balance the debate. Many of us despair of this House when we see the opposition simply criticize the Government.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, as his Party's critic for regional industrial expansion, holds a major responsibility, and one would have thought he would suggest alternatives or given reasons for his belief that our Budget is wrong. He made no suggestions, but simply talked about failure, incompetence and missed standards.
Let me refer to what his Party's finance critic said of the November 8 statement. He said: "There will be a loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs in the months ahead". Fortunately, the Minister of Finance avoided that prediction. Rather than a loss of 100,000 jobs as predicted by the NDP we

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Mayer
have a record 580,000 new jobs in the country. The Hon. Member went on to talk about credibility and described the Minister of Finance, in pious terms, as a decent man whom he hopes survives on his record. Let me advise the Hon. Member that the dollar is trading above 70 cents this morning and interest rates are declining.


Steven W. Langdon: It started at 69 cents.


Charles James Mayer: The Member says it is 69 cents.


Steven W. Langdon: That is where it started.


Charles James Mayer: The dollar, as I understand it, is trading at above 70 cents. We are not saying that it is acceptable but it points out that he is wrong. I suggest he should give credit where it is due in order to give balance to the debate.
If I had time I would reread the whole Budget speech to the New Democratic Party because they obviously did not understand the message.
The Minister of Finance began his Budget speech by stating, as reported at page 10979 of Hansard-.
My message today is a serious one, and in many ways not pleasant. But it must be said. And it must be understood.
Let us review the situation. No politician wants to increase taxes because that is not popular. However, we are accepting a responsible course of action on behalf of our country. It would have been suicidal to continue the policy of the previous administration, one that was supported by the New Democratic Party.


Steven W. Langdon: That's not true.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member made pious remarks, like the "Holy Grail" of the deficit. However, he did not talk about job creation or the improved pension system. I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan and the two names we most often heard at the time were Tommy Douglas and John Diefenbaker. I understand the Hon. Member when he talks about pensions. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) grew up in the same area and we understood the concern about pensions and perhaps were more aware about fair treatment for people than others from central Canada. We grew up close to the depression and understood that concern. The Hon. Member should give us credit for taking action to improve the pension system and for introducing a new child tax benefit system to increase assistance to those most in need while reducing overall costs. I suggest the Hon. Member would be much more credible in his criticism of the Budget if he would balance that criticism by mentioning those facts.
He talks about the cost to the average person. This is the cost to the average person of a runaway deficit and sky-rocketing interest rates. Our farmers are now having problems. Why? There are a couple of reasons. We are seeing declining commodity prices, yet everyone talks about the cost-price squeeze. One of the biggest costs farmers face is interest
charges. Who put us in that jackpot? The previous Government. We saw interest rates go as high as 25 per cent and 26 per cent when it was in office. We are still trying to recover from that shemozzle. We should be thanking the Minister of Finance for having the courage to tackle this problem.
In listening to the Hon. Member one would think the situation would correct itself by some type of cosmic coincidence which has nothing to do with reality. What is even more incredible is that the Hon. Member, who has a responsible position in his Party as the official spokesman for a major economic responsibility, that is, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, did not say anything about what he would do as far as the Atlantic region is concerned.


Mr. Orlikow:: You're cutting funds to the Atlantic region.


Charles James Mayer: Unemployment in that region is high. I did not hear him say anything about what he would do for western Canada where there is concern over the farming economy. One would have thought that in his position he would have addressed some of these issues. Had he done so we would be able to look at the NDP and say that this is what it is proposing and this is what the Minister of Finance is saying, let us make a judgment. He has said that we would be defeated at the polls. I assume by saying that, that he thinks the NDP would pick up some support in our being defeated. Anyone going to the people with that type of platform would be laughed out of the room, and justifiably so.


David Orlikow: We'll see what happens two weeks from today in Manitoba.


Charles James Mayer: Let us consider what happens when interest rates go down. Nobody likes to be in debt. With respect to a mortgage of $50,000, every time the interest rate goes down by 1 per cent a $500 a year saving results. Admittedly, interest rates have risen recently-more than anyone would have liked. No one plans for that type of increase. The over-all plan of the Government is to get its spending in order so that less pressure will be placed on capital markets and so that we can see a reduction in interest rates. Small-businesspeople, farmers and people trying to buy their own home will benefit from such measures. We can see the results when we consider the increase in the number of housing starts.
I would now like to deal with the issue of jobs and social programs. The biggest social measure in the world is a job. That is what we have been successful in creating, jobs. We have created 580,000 jobs. I do not think the Hon. Member heard what the Minister of Finance had to say in his budget speech. In fact, he did not want to hear it.


David Orlikow: There's 9.6 per cent unemployment!


Charles James Mayer: I will read a couple of paragraphs from the Minister's speech. The message must be understood. This is the message in terms of what we have been able to accomplish.
Job creation has been vigorous. The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.7 per cent in September 1984 to 9.8 per cent today-the first time it has been below 10 per cent since April 1982.
March 4, 1986

That did not happen by accident. The Minister of Finance was absolutely right when he said that individual Canadians have created jobs. We should be giving credit to them. Let me tell Hon. Members what would have happened if unemployment had gone up. The Government would have been blamed if it had. Again, the Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If he wants to be consistent he should realize that when he makes that type of statement he looks silly in terms of being critical of the Government by not giving us credit when there is some credit due. I am not saying that we are doing everything right. All I am trying to say is let us have a bit of balance in the speeches. In that way we will all be given a great deal more credit in the House. If Hon. Members have some concerns then they should do their homework and lay out some alternatives.
I would like to read more of what the Minister had to say in
his speech.
Canadians should understand how remarkable this achievement is. During the past 18 months our rate of job creation has been more than 50 per cent higher than in the United States. Even more remarkable, Canadians have created more jobs, in absolute terms, than all the Western European countries combined- countries which together have 16 times our population.
That tells Hon. Members something about what we are doing as a Government. We have to be doing a few things right or we would not have that type of record in terms of job
creation.
As Governments become larger and larger, which is what has happened to almost every country in the world in the last number of years, it becomes more important that what they do they do right, because they account for a bigger percentage of the economy. If Governments, including the federal Government, had not been doing a few things right, and if everything had been so wrong, as we are led to believe by the remarks of the Hon. Member, we would not have that type of record in job creation. That is something which needs to be understood. We need to stand up and show some pride in what we are doing in the country. The more we do that the better it will be for all of us. We have an absolutely tremendous country. We have more natural resources per capita than any country in the world. The future should be ours; it can be ours if we would stop mortgaging our future. That has been the problem in the past. It is a problem which has been aided and abetted by the NDP in support of the Liberals in the past.
I would now like to tell Hon. Members what is even more remarkable about the Minister of Finance. We all know how difficult it is to reduce expenditures once they are in place. When we talk to our constituents they tell us that they know that. They say: "We know that you did something for us in the past but what are you doing for us today?" We are all like that. When considering that type of attitude one begins to realize the many things that make it difficult to reduce expenditures.
I would now like to tell Hon. Members about our expenditure record and what has happened in that regard. I will read more of what the Minister had to say in his budget speech. If I had the time I would reread the whole speech to the Hon. Member opposite and members of his Party. They obviously
The Budget-Mr. Mayer
did not listen to the Minister of Finance a week ago when he tabled his Budget.
Over the last decade, program expenditures had more than doubled. Discretionary spending-spending on non-statutory programs-had grown even faster. In the three years prior to this Government taking office, discretionary spending grew by 43 per cent. Operating costs of Government departments increased by 30 per cent. Personnel costs grew by 20 per cent.
Let me tell Hon. Members what has happened in the 18 months since we have been in office. It will show what one can do if one has some responsibility and is determined to do something on behalf of the country. We have a good Minister of Finance. This is what he had to say.
Total program spending, including all statutory programs such as Old Age Security, family allowances and unemployment insurance, will be held to $86.6 billion-lower than last year's spending.
This is the first absolute decline in total program spending in over 20 years.
That tells Hon. Members something about what can be done if one has some determination. We have done that by improving the pension system and by introducing new child tax benefits to increase assistance.
I would now like to deal with the budgetary process. Hon. Members have talked about keeping commitments. That is exactly what we have done. We have done exactly what we said we would do when we came to office. When we came to office we said that we would prepare a financial statement as quickly as we could and give a public accounting on the nation's finances to the people of the country. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance did. He said he would present a Budget as quickly as he could and then consult before a new budget was tabled. That is exactly what happened. In terms of what we have said we would do we have been entirely consistent. That is very important to understand. What this process does is bring back some ordinary common sense management to the finances of the nation. Above all, the largest responsibility which any Government has is to manage responsibly the fiscal affairs of the country. That is what has happened.
I understand that the Hon. Member opposite has some economic training. He can talk about the percentage of the GNP that is appropriate as far as the size of the deficit is concerned. One can enter into all types of arguments in this regard. Not once in the Hon. Member's speech did he say anything about what he thought the appropriate size of the deficit should be. He talked about the "Holy Grail" of the deficit. I assume by that he meant the Holy Grail of trying to reduce the deficit, as if that is the only thing we think about.


David Orlikow: Isn't it?


Charles James Mayer: We did not hear from the Hon. Member in that regard. We did not hear anything from the Hon. Member with respect to what he thought the appropriate size of the deficit should be. Should it be $30 billion, $50 billion or $100 billion? Depending on what the amount is, how do we get there? I am saying that in front of us we have something which we have demonstrated by clear action in the past 18 months. The Government is committed to a regular process as far as

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Mayer
producing Budgets is concerned. We did not hear anybody mention that or give any credit as far as that is concerned.
The Hon. Member talked about the great social cost of the Budget. We will say it and say it again-we need to keep saying it-the best social program anybody in the country can have is a job. Of course 9.8 per cent unemployment is still high. No one finds that figure totally acceptable. But it is a lot better than it was eighteen and a half months ago. We think we should be given a little bit of credit for that.
What 1 would like to do now is speak about some of the agricultural measures in the Budget, and there were several. Overriding all of these measures, of course, is the extent to which we can manage the affairs of this country properly and get interest rates down. That is a major factor as far as farmers are concerned. Farmers are major users of capital, therefore, they are major borrowers of money and interest rates impact very directly on farmers and on their operations. To the extent that the Minister of Finance can continue along these lines in terms of how he manages the financial affairs of the country, and we see a reduction in interest rates, that will be a major factor as far as the whole farm economy is concerned, from one end of the country to the other.
There is in the Budget what 1 believe is a new innovation as far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, that is the provision whereby it will be able to vary the amount of payment the farmer will make on a loan relative to the price of the product or commodity he produces on his farm. 1 certainly think that is a very worth-while innovation. It takes into consideration some of the wide fluctuations with which farmers have to deal in their commodity prices.
I have heard some concern and criticism expressed that it is too complicated and people cannot understand it. It is true that when we take into account the fluctuation of commodity prices with which farmers deal on a day-to-day basis, by definition it becomes a little more involved than a straightforward mortgage which has fixed payments for the life of the mortgage.
Essentially, what the provision will do is allow the farmer to pick two commodities and have his payment relate, on a 10-year average, to the prices of those two commodities. If the prices go up, he will pay a little more. If the prices go down, he will pay a little less.
There is concern that if prices go up dramatically, a farmer could end up paying substantially more than he would pay if in fact he had not participated in this program. That is a legitimate concern. On the other hand, if the prices go down and the farmer ends up paying a smaller amount as a result of a reduction in commodity prices, then that is something which flows through as a benefit directly to the farmer. To lay it out as best I understand it, there is a cap put in place if commodity prices go up dramatically, which we all hope, they do and that our main problem in the years ahead will be paying income tax. Unfortunately, that is not usually the case with farmers. The cap would mean that the farmer would be limited to
paying a maximum of 2 per cent more than he would pay if in fact he had not participated in the program.
There are other things in the Budget which I think are very useful. It extends the fuel tax rebate. There is a system in place which, hopefully, when it is announced, will be widely accepted by the farmers. It will reduce the amount of paper work associated with the farm tax rebate, which is extending the value to farmers and fishermen of something like SI20 million. There will be a setting up of some debt review panels. There is also a provision to assist farmers who, for one reason or another, get forced off the land or decide to go elsewhere. It will help to train them to find jobs in other places in the economy.
There is a lot of concern about the plight of the tobacco farmer in southern Ontario. Those farmers have been there a good number of years and the demand for their product is falling. I have had a chance to visit them a couple of times. It is a very serious situation. There are not a large number of farmers involved but, certainly, it is a major crop in that area of Ontario and is certainly extremely important to the farmers involved. So I am very happy to see that some consideration has been given to the tobacco farmers.
In closing, I would like to say that I am very happy to stand in my place today and support the Minister of Finance on what I think is a very well done Budget. 1 have heard all kinds of words like courageous, predictable, hopeful, reasonable and even-handed from my constituents. I think all of us should congratulate the Minister of Finance for all of the work he has done, and for the proper financial direction in which he is heading this country. Hopefully, we can look forward to at least some grudging support from the Opposition on the Budget, because it certainly deserves the support of every Canadian.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say to the Minister that I appreciate the seriousness with which he entered into this debate. I must also say that of all the Budgets and Economic Statements that have come down, this is the one for which the Minister is least likely to receive from me even grudging support. This is a Budget which has yet again raised the tax burden on the ordinary person and has done so in a particularly unfair way.
Let me ask some specific questions of the Minister which I think will demonstrate just how poor this Budget is. He has talked about how important it is to see this clear and steady direction. But when we have a 10-ton truck riding straight toward the cliffs, the most constructive role is to say: "Hey, stop. You're heading in the wrong direction". If we do not turn it around, the cost for a lot of people are going to be pretty tragic.
If there is such a commitment to get interest rates down, why has the Government been prepared to push rates up so that the spread between us and the United States is over 3 percentage points, higher than it has ever been historically? Second, if job creation has been of such a concern to this Government, why is it that support for the jobs strategy-and
March 4, 1986

on this 1 will give some support to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) who has, I think, done a good job in bringing forward her jobs strategy-has been cut back by $1 million in this Budget?


David Orlikow: One hundred million dollars.


Steven W. Langdon: This Minister speaks of farm issues. Why is it that he is not prepared to apologize to the farmers of Canada for breaking the Conservative promise of cutting all fuel taxes? Why is the Minister so proud of the white flag of surrender represented by this program to help farmers get out of farming when what farmers want to do is farm? What they looked for in this Budget was assistance to help them farm successfully, not just through a cutting of fuel taxes as promised but through a cut-back of interest rates, not just on FCC loans in special cases, but for all farmers facing all the credit crunches they face.
I would like to pose some of these specific questions. If I get answers, that will not increase my admiration for the Minister of Finance, but it might increase it for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I want to give the Hon. Member an answer if it is conditional upon his admiration of me. First, the Hon. Member should know that a reduction in Government expenditures has been achieved. I believe, as the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) correctly pointed out, it is about a three to one split; three in the area of reduction in Government expenditures and one as far as an increase in taxes. If the Hon. Member wants to look at the over-all effect since we have taken office, those are the figures he will come up with.
The Hon. Member talks about a 10-ton truck. He is exactly right. The 10-ton truck which is travelling towards the cliff is travelling at the rate at which the previous federal Government was increasing expenditures when we took over. The Minister of Finance has stopped that increase dead in its tracks. We should be thankful that he was able to do so. If the Hon. Member wants to use analogies, some of us as farmers have driven trucks a lot larger than 10 tons. It is more like a 50-ton truck in terms of expenditures which is heading us toward the cliff and taking us over to disaster.
[DOT] <1240)
The Hon. Member referred to the federal decrease in tax on farm fuels. Essentially we did what we said we would do. I see the Hon. Member shaking his head. If he looks at our agricultural platform in the last election campaign he will see that we talked about reducing the fuel tax by 21 cents per gallon. We have taken off 3 cents plus 1.8 cents per litre which amounts to over 21 cents per gallon. If we compare the tax being paid by ordinary Canadians at the gas pumps with the tax being paid by farmers, we find that we have taken off 4.8 cents per litre. I do not know how that works out, but it is certainly over 20 cents per gallon. Our policy in the election campaign was to reduce the tax on farm fuels by 21 cents. I see the Hon. Member's colleague from Manitoba in the Chamber. He
The Budget-Mr. Mayer
should talk with him. There is an election going on in that province. He should also talk with the provincial Government in that province and ask it to do what was done by the provincial Governments in Saskatchewan and Alberta; that is, take off the provincial tax on fuels to further assist farmers. In terms of fulfilling our campaign commitment in that regard, we have done it. It has now been extended for an additional year. If the Hon. Member would care to read our campaign platform in the last federal election, he will find that we have lived up to our commitment with regard to the tax on farm fuels.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) mentioned the concern which the Government has shown for the tobacco industry. Of course that is important to my riding in Prince Edward Island where roughly 5 per cent of Canada's total tobacco crop is grown. This is one of the first times a Budget .has been specific with regard to a commodity. We certainly appreciate the concern of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for tobacco growers and the involvement of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of those producers. Could the Minister give us any further idea of what the Government might be willing to look at? Will the matter be considered further by a standing committee or a subcommittee? What kind of commitments is the Government willing to consider for the tobacco industry?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's intervention. I have visited the Province of Prince Edward Island and now the grave concern of its tobacco growers. Even though the numbers are small, when one is involved, the concern is very real. I am not in a position to give the Hon. Member any information other than to say that I know there are ongoing consultations between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the tobacco growers of respective provinces. The good news is that it was recognized in the Budget. The Hon. Member can be assured that as a result there has been some impetus to ensure that some of those things happen. I know research has been done into alternate crops. For example, there was some consideration of peanuts in Delhi, but I am not sure that it worked out as they potentially thought it would.
In direct answer to the Hon. Member's question, I am not in a position to elaborate any more than I did in my very brief remarks on the fact that the Minister of Finance included special reference in the Budget to the very serious situation faced by tobacco growers across the country, in addition to the ones in his own riding.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, in recent years the need of farmers for credit has been so great that many of them could not obtain loans from the Farm Credit Corporation and had to go to the commercial banks. The policy announced by the Government indicates that the FCC will be able to lend money to farmers at 6 per cent, and I understand that the program is only available to FCC clients. Many farmers-

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Berger


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am very sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the period allotted for questions and comments has expired.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, much has been said over the course of the past week about the deficit. At times it seems to me, and I am sure to most observers, that this is the only preoccupation of the Government. Also in the past week since the presentation of the Budget, the declining dollar indicates that confidence is lacking in the Government and that it has failed in the one and only area about which it seems to be concerned.
At the turn of the year, Maclean's magazine published a Canadian public opinion poll in which Allan Gregg, the Conservative pollster, talked about the support which the Government had and said that if there was one reason to explain the Conservative Government's drop in the polls, it was that it had failed to provide a goal for Canada and to show Canadians how to reach it. There is not a more startling illustration of that fact than that in the Budget there is not one line about youth.
[ Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the Budget does not contain a single line on the 750,000 young Canadians who are jobless today. There is only this constant concern about the deficit. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was something that concerned the youth of this country, and that was the announcement that Katimavik would be cut, one of the few programs in this country that gave our youth a measure of hope and an opportunity to get some training and have the kind of experience that is practically unique in Canada and the rest of the world.

Perhaps there is no better illustration of the Government's lack of vision and short-sightedness than its record, since coming to office, in the area of education and research. The Government is iucky that Gallup is not running a poll in the universities or in the scientific communities, because the meter would not register anything that far under popularity.
In preparing for my comments today, I had difficulty deciding where to begin to talk about the subjects of education and research. Quite frankly, I am astounded or stupefied by the Government's response to the plans of the three federal research councils which provide funds for research in our universities; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, more commonly known as NSERC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. The meagre funding for research provided in the Budget is nothing less than a total rejection of the plans of those councils. The Government has served notice that it has abandoned the goal of substantially increasing spending on research and development. I am astounded that the Government is less than honest about it. It is trying to camouflage its decision and pretend there is an increase in research funding when what we see is a meagre commitment to funding which will not even allow these councils to keep pace with inflation.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council submitted its five year plan to the Government last June. It calls for increased spending of $1.4 billion over five years. That may seem to some people like a lot of money to spend on research, on universities and on our youth, but $1.4 billion was the amount over five years and is the amount we spend in one year on frontier oil drilling. It is slightly more than the Government decided to spend in a few minutes to bail out the uninsured depositors of the two banks that failed last September. The Government did not waste much time in trying to rescue its pride in that area.
This plan was not picked out of thin air. It was not developed by a group of people in some ivory tower. This plan was proposed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to the Government in response to the Government's stated objective to double spending on research and development.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is made up of a group of respected scientists from all across the country, and is the most widely praised of Government agencies. It developed a plan to respond to the Government's stated objective to double spending on research and development. It told us what we must do to begin to move in that direction. I say begin to move in that direction, because anyone who has looked at the subject of increasing spending on research, on increasing the use of technology in our country will understand that at present we do not have the trained people. We do not have the scientists. We do not have the young people in our schools who are enrolled in science programs to begin to meet that role.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council submitted a plan to the Government and said what it was we must do to begin to move in that direction. The Government's responsed by giving NSERC about 8 per cent of the funds it requested, which will not even allow NSERC to keep pace with inflation. The $126 million it will receive over the next five years is something less than twice the amount that would be necessary to keep pace with inflation. It is only 8 per cent of what would be needed to meet or to begin to meet the Government's objective.
My initial reaction when I saw the Government's response was that this was a joke, that there must be some mistake. Surely this cannot be serious, and the Conservative Government has the gall not to be honest about it. It is trying to pretend that it is coming forward with some major new initiative.
I was at the press conference the other day when the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) announced the Government spending plan. The atmosphere there was funeral for people who were supposedly bringing forward such supposedly good news in jest. But why am I amazed, Mr. Speaker? Because of the Government's promise to double spending on research and development. After the last election it became evident very quickly that we were not going to see anything of
March 4, 1986

the kind. There were cuts at the National Research Council, $70 million from its budget. There was a rationale to it. The Government said we will cut the division of energy. I could not understand the rationale but some people said renewable energy has other sources of funding. That was the Government's argument.
The Science Council had its budget cut in half from $5 million to $2.5 million. We were told that at this time of restraint we cannot afford to have even one single national agency to reflect upon science and its needs or to try to focus the thinking of Canadians and of Canadian Governments in the area of science.
The other shoe dropped this week with the tabling of the Estimates. We see the only department that will increase its spending substantially in the coming year is the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. When it comes to empire building and having public servants in the pay of a Government department to propagate the Government's view of things, there is no shortage of funds.
The funding for the Natural Sciences and Engineering research Council was to be the test of the Government's commitment to increasing spending on research and development. Why do I say the test, Mr. Speaker? The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is an agency of the federal Government which provides funds for university research. It is the largest single source of funding for university research and research training. It has an annual budget of about $300 million which was to double to some $700 million by 1990 under the plan it submitted to the Government. In all, about 17,000 individuals benefit directly from its programs, including over 6,000 professors and more than 6,000 graduate and undergraduate students and post-graduate fellows. This number was to increase to some 30,000 persons who would have received support from NSREC by 1990 if its plan had been approved.
This was the test of the Government's commitment because training young people for a career in science is the starting point of increased scientific activity in Canada which everyone agrees, even the Government, is essential if we want to be competitive, create jobs and maintain our standard of living. It is impossible to double our spending on research expenditures, to be more innovative or to reduce our huge deficit in high technology goods if we do not have the people to do the job.
This past year, since the NSERC five-year plan was submitted to the Government, has been one of great expectations, given the Government's commitment and words. It has also been a year of impending doom. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House on the subject of the "brain drain" which has become a concern in Canada. As an example, an article in the Halifax Mail-Star on January 20 was entitled "Dalhousie University Losing Researchers". It indicated that at least some have gone to the United States because of a lack of federal funding for research, and uncertainty over future financial cut-backs. Several months ago the dean of the faculty
The Budget-Mr. Berger
of mathematics at the University of Waterloo announced that he was going to Tennessee because of the unfavourable research climate in Canada, and because he was frustrated by having to undertake a major battle every time he needed a new piece of equipment.
All Members of Parliament including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), received hundreds, if not thousands, of letters last fall from people all across Canada in support of the plans of the three federal councils which provide funds for university research. One such letter was from the principal of McGill University who argued that adequate, well-planned financing of these research councils is a fully national responsibility which must be met by our federal Government.
In a statement on research and transfer payments, faculty associations from all over western Canada urged the Government to approve the plans of the three councils. The President of the University of Western Ontario wrote that it is critically important that our research capabilities be strengthened with adequate grants. He said that the most effective way is through the research councils.
In addition to having spoken in the House on this subject, I had the opportunity to appear on the CBC show, The Nation's Business, last February 9. At that time I called upon the Government to provide immediately the funding that had been requested by these three councils. I invited viewers to write to me to tell me how they felt about it. I promised to send their letters on to the Prime Minister. I received close to 40 letters, all but one or two of them being supportive. 1 would like to read to you from one of these letters from Mrs. Renee Demmer mother in Ottawa which reads:
My son will complete his post doctorate in physical chemistry in Nov/86, and after that, what? He has been inquiring about a job for November this year and everywhere he applies he gets the same reply: "no vacancy due to lack of funds".
Since he went to the U. of Toronto in Nov/85, three of the young research chemists whom he met there have left Canada for the U.S. If my son cannot get a job here in Ontario or Quebec or in any part of Canada, there is only one other place for him to go, and that would mean both my sons have to live in the U.S. because Canada will not look after her young scientists.
I have a number of other letters of this nature.
To emphasize my point, Mr. Speaker, through this singleminded preoccupation with reducing the deficit the Government has shown that it is not willing to invest in Canada's most precious resource, our people, and particularly our young people. A respected economist, Michael McCracken of Infometrica, stated after the Budget was introduced that some $50 billion to $60 billion is being wasted annually because we are not achieving full employment in the country. Our deficit in high technology today is approximately $12 billion, or the equivalent of 120,000 specialized jobs.
I am waiting for the day when the Government will listen to what the people of the country are saying, understand these elementary facts, and present to the Parliament and the people of Canada a Budget and a policy which has vision and will

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Berger
provide for growth in the country, rather than cutting the guts out of the future of our young people and our economy.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we just heard a very moving appeal by the Member for increased support for scientific research. He has pointed out the results of inadequate funding; the "brain drain" and the loss of potential jobs, with all of which I can agree. However, that is not something which just happened in the past year. For 30 of the last 36 years we had Liberal Governments. In virtually all of those years the scientific community was pointing out to those Liberal Governments that, while other countries in the western world and Japan were spending 2.5 per cent of their GNP or more on scientific research and development, Canada was spending 1.5 per cent or less. The then Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, and my Party, the New Democratic Party, joined in that criticism of the Liberal Government and promised to support the expenditure by Government of 2.5 per cent of GNP for scientific research and development.
We know that because of the present Conservative Government's fixation with reducing the deficit it has not moved toward the expenditure of 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product on scientific research and development. In fact, the $300 million increase which it pledged to the granting councils over the next five years will not even keep up with the increase in inflation.
Where was the Hon. Member when his Party was in Government? What assurances can he give us that if and when we have another Liberal Government it will do any better than it did during the 30 years it was in power when it failed to do that which it is calling upon the Conservatives to do?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and I take his question seriously. I certainly share his concern about the past record. He talks about 30 years ago. Well, 30 years ago I was five years of age, so I have difficulty accepting responsibility for what took place at that time.
However, in NSERC's very detailed five-year plan, which the Member may have read, it is noted that over the course of its first five-year plan from 1979 to 1984 the previous trend of decline in spending on research and development was reversed. There were substantial increases in spending during the course of that first five-year plan which Liberal Governments were responsible for implementing. I know there were delays. On most occasions the spending increases came towards the end of the year and that caused certain problems. Nonetheless, the commitment by the previous Liberal Government was there. I can also say to him that it is probably only in the past five or six years that our society as a whole has become aware of the fact that we are going through a technological revolution and a tremendous investment is required in order to be competitive and keep pace with other countries.
As I said, I think previous Liberal Governments over the last five or six years recognized the necessities and objectives and took steps to start us moving in the right direction.


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the need for more innovation and new job opportunities. He also talked about single-mindedness and doom. So far as doom is concerned, that was in the minds of the electorate by 1984, for sure. Job opportunities had diminished. We had record unemployment. Certainly the Liberal Government of which the Hon. Member was a part was single-minded in creating a deficit.
1 know the Hon. Member is genuinely interested in this subject so I would point out that there are in my riding a lot of businesses concerned with research. There is a very sincere interest on the part of the private sector to participate in this program involving joint funding from the Government and private sector. The Member mentioned waste under previous Liberal Governments. Spending on these programs went from $27.9 billion in 1974-75 to $86.7 billion in 1984-85. Yet, as the NDP Member mentioned, there was still not the kind of funding that the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) says should be there for research and development.
Taking all that into context, and realizing that the people of Canada know we cannot continue this deficit spending which drives interest rates up and the dollar down, my question is this. Why was it not done then when the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part was in such a tremendous deficit spending situation?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the goal of obtaining increased spending by the private sector. This is built into the current plans of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. Some fairly credible people have expressed considerable doubt that we can obtain the commitment from the private sector which the Government has set out. Mr. Douglas Wright, President of the University of Waterloo, says that if the Government expects 50 per cent to come from the private sector, this is extremely unlikely. This does not happen even in the U.S., Japan or some western European countries. His university has a reputation for close links with the private sector, yet it gets only 10 per cent of its research funding from the private sector. We will see how this formula works, but in trying to get matching contributions from the private sector there is a danger of diverting money currently spent on research. A corporation could say that rather than spending a dollar with the Ontario Cancer Research Foundation, it will give a dollar to the Medical Research Council of Canada because it gets the Government to spend an extra dollar. 1 have heard this concern expressed and it has not yet been answered by the Government. We shall see.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak during the budget debate today to try and bring a little perspective to what is happening
March 4, 1986

in Canada. It is assumed that some of this message may get out to the people who are so concerned about this life and death Budget.
To put it in perspective, this Budget is part of a plan to try and face up to a great difficulty which is upsetting financial people around the world. As the House knows, Canada has now moved full centre into the world of financial markets. We are no longer a little ghetto or reservation trying to live on our own. Once you move into this world you have to accept all the economic facts that go with it. One of the economic facts of the last two or three decades has been the rise of a new business in the world, that of gambling on the currency of various countries. Some 25 or 30 years ago this international currency, called Eurodollars, amounted to $200 billion or $300 billion. It is now over $3,000 billion and increasing all the time. There are people who do nothing else but try and figure out what fraction of a cent a given currency is going to move and they gamble on that move. This gambling has turned into a big business. The Chicago Bears played a football game and the gamblers put $2 billion into operation. They gambled that the spread would be at least 10 points and it was. All I am saying is that we are trying to assess a Minister of Finance on his Budget without realizing that he is, willy-nilly, in the middle of the biggest crap game in the world. All Ministers of Finance have to face the reality that they are no longer dealing with just local problems such as those which attract the attention of most MPs.
Keeping that perspective in mind, I think this Budget follows very well from the statement of November, 1984, and the Budget of 1985. These were gentle, neutral Budgets, and we have to keep our elbows up as we go into the question of confidence. Today Governments are in the same position as all big companies such as banks and trust companies are in. We live primarily on one thing, confidence. Because of the economic results which flow from losing confidence in an institution, we all have to learn to stick together. We all have to learn, as Governments, banks and trust companies to stick together. We saw what happened in the United States and Canada last year with the number of banks that went down. All you have to do is start a rumour that a bank is in trouble and there is no bank in the world that can stand up to that. That is why the banks have to learn, as the American banks are beginning to learn, to stick together. We have still to learn that here in Canada.
The danger is that once you go into a credit system all over the world you have to maintain this feeling of confidence regardless of the cost. We witnessed in the House this past week what every Minister of Finance has to do in every country, make public knowledge the Government's Budget plans and try to leave the impression that you are tackling the problems that are facing every country. I would think that the Minister scored fairly well. First all he looks honest. Second, there is a sense that he has a sense of humour. He knows what he has to do. Basically all he did was create a gentle move in the right direction. That is all a Budget is, a sense of direction.
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
That leads me to the next point. No matter what kind of a Budget you bring in the next step is the dangerous one. The Order in Council, the regulations, and the definitions that come out to put those things into effect are the things that win or lose the battle. Some years ago, in 1979, a Budget was delivered in this House, and I will just read to you the opening sentence from the leading intellectual academic magazine called The Public Interest. I have put this on the record before. Listen to this. It reads as follows:
On December 13, 1979, the government of Canada fell. For just six months the Conservatives had governed with a parliamentary minority, and they were defeated on a vote of no confidence. The issue was their first budget-a budget that rejected Keynesian economic policies,-
That is enough to scare the academics out of their wits. The article goes on:
-replacing them with radically different recommendations. Unemployment and slow growth were to be fought not by increasing the federal deficit but by reducing it.
That was the view a year and a half later taken by the leading intellectuals of the English-speaking world. The title of this article, which is a special edition of The Public Interest was "The dissolution of the Keynesian consensus". Keynes was obsolete almost at the end of the War, and in its place nothing has come in the form of a pattern or paradigm to solve all our problems.
The point is that the Conservative Party is different from the opposition Parties, Liberal or NDP. The Opposition Parties can only think of getting out of trouble by spending more money, and they got us into such a tremendous mess in 1979 they were defeated. Then when we tried to reverse that, these boys got a little bit exuberant one night and thought they could beat the Conservative Government because we had one tax increase. That increase was on diesel fuel. The boys got even more exuberant as the night went on and persuaded the NDP to join them, and they defeated that Government. They inherited their own mess. I recall the day in 1981 when the then Prime Minister got up and asked us in the Opposition, "If you have got any ideas that will help us please give them to us. We do not have any ideas of what to do". That was in 1981.
In 1982 the Conservatives, on an Opposition day, brought out a four-point program dealing with interest rates. Every Party in this House supported those four points. Almost every Member, as I recall, on that side of the House had spoken favourably. We amended in 1983 the National Housing Act, the Farm Credit Corporation Act. All Parties agreed that we could provide money for these worth-while productive purposes; the building of homes, the helping of farmers, foresters and the producers by getting interest rates down to a moral level.
For 3,000 years we have known if interest rates go above a certain amount they are criminal; you destroy the individual who borrows, you destroy the farmer, you destroy big business, you destroy small business and you destroy Governments. That was exactly the case. Now we are trying to get out of this mess again. The start has been slow and gentle, trying to pretend it is tough.

March 4, 1986
I have said this, to put it all into perspective and to lead up to the main point of my remarks. It is the job of Parliamentarians to watch the Orders in Council that come out, the regulations and the definitions. That is how these weasels who draft these things put them in front of a busy Minister, slide them through the cabinet committee and then they are published in the Gazette and become law. When that happens, Parliamentarians never see it and we do not know for a year or so what has happened until we begin hearing complaints. Could I call it 1.30?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It now being 1.27 p.m., we will now adjourn until two o'clock p.m. When we resume Orders of the Day after three o'clock, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) will have the floor.
At 1.27 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Enterprise Program announced in last week's Budget is nothing more than a political program. It is not designed to start up a new string of small businesses in Atlantic Canada. It will do nothing but fatten the coffers of banks and big business.
Our friendly Atlantic bankers will soon begin to reject all loan applications unless they are backed by Government guarantees. Why should banks take the risk when the Government is more than willing to do it? How will the marginal business that needs Government assistance be identified? Bankers will simply shift the risk from themselves to the Government. It means that bankers can reduce their losses and increase their profits.
As well, the floor price of the loan guarantee is $250,000. Does the Government need a crash course on the Atlantic region? Small business in my Province of Prince Edward Island does not require that much start-up capital.
If the Government is serious about getting the Atlantic economy back on track, let us see it produce a program that reflects our unique problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



FINANCE


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me quote the following letter:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
We have had enough. We are protesting that gasoline prices and taxes are too high. It is discouraging both Canadian and U.S. tourism and damaging our economy and the high price is unfair to those of us who must use their cars to drive to work.
Your Government gave the oil corporations a $2.5 billion annual tax break; the response has been to increase the prices to consumers. What did the federal Government do for working Canadians? On January 1 and subsequently, the federal tax was again increased.
Petro-Canada should be directed to reduce prices to reflect falling world oil costs. We are opposed to taxing gasoline to raise money to service our national debt. Government gasoline tax policies are unfair, inequitable and inflationary and we are adding our voices to the demand that these policies be changed.
This was sent to me by the president of Local 1005, Ray Silenzi, and signed by the secretary, Ed Sutherland, together with the signatures of hundreds of their members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



THE BUDGET


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, in September, 1984, Canadians wisely decided that they had had enough of Government mismanagement, profligacy with their hard earned tax dollars, and a national debt that was growing three times faster than the economy.
Their faith in the new Conservative Government has not been misplaced. The Budget, without affecting any necessary services, brings spending under control. Efficiency, economy, and wise use are the watch words of a Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who treats the taxpayers' money with the same respect as if it were his own.
With the new measures, by the early 1990s our debt will have stabilized and the budgetary deficit will have been eliminated.
Thanks to the Minister of Finance, our financial house is being put in order.



ATLANTIC ENTERPRISE PROGRAM


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), economic growth in the Atlantic provinces did receive encouragement from the new budget measures announced last Wednesday.
March 4, 1986

A new job creation initiative, the Atlantic Enterprise Program, is a major part of the strategy to relieve regional disparity. Under this new program, the federal Government will provide guarantees to private sector investors of loans totalling up to $1 billion, and interest rate buy-downs of up to 6 percentage points for business start-up or expansion.
The program will be supported by a private sector advisory committee made up of representatives from the region. This program will apply to eligible projects in manufacturing and processing, related service sectors, tourism, and primary industries.
In addition to this new program the 20 per cent investment tax credit in the Atlantic region will not only be maintained but will be extended to communities in the Atlantic offshore. These measures signal continuing Government support for sustained economic growth in Atlantic Canada.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it was unfortunate to hear in the House yesterday the Conservative Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) characterize the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who is of Canadian-Italian extraction, as a mafioso. While this may not have been recorded, it does not condone or diminish the severity of such a racist accusation. This community is getting sick and tired of being continuously labelled in such an unjust manner. As a nation we need to stamp out vigorously these humanly degrading remarks.
It is all the more worrisome that the incident occurred in the very institution which must lead by example. I call upon the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq to show leadership, courage, and integrity, admit that he seriously erred, and to offer an appropriate apology. The Canadian-Italian community needs to hear it. But, more important, Parliament and the country need to hear it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) categorically stated, as reported at page 10889 of Hansard: "No chemical weapons are being produced in Canada-". Three sources from the Department of National Defence have confirmed that, indeed, some chemical weapons listed in the 1985 Government of Canada handbook which deals with chemical and biological weapons are produced in Canada. In fact, late last week the Minister's own staff contacted me to confirm that
Soman, Sarin, Tabun, and VX, all lethal chemical warfare agents which cause death by suffocation, are produced at the Defence Research Establishment at Suffield, Alberta, as well as T-2370 and mustard gas. The first four are listed on page 80 as chemical warfare lethal agents.
It was stressed to me by DND personnel that these chemical weapons are produced in very small quantities. So be it. But they are produced in Canada, and the Minister of National Defence knew it when he made his categorical denial last week.
Let us not forget a bucket of some chemicals, such as dioxin, can kill millions.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach International Women's Day it is appropriate for us to recall the positive measures undertaken by the Government to improve social justice for women in Canadian society.
Divorce law has been reformed to simplify divorce proceedings. A registry of maintenance orders is being established to ensure that single parents receive the full child support payments to which they are entitled. A parliamentary task force is examining ways to improve child care. The Indian Act has been amended to eliminate discrimination against women who were unfairly denied Indian status.
Today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) announced major changes to legislation and programs to ensure conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As we celebrate International Women's Day, it is appropriate that we have also reinforced our commitment to women, to justice, and to equality for all.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23, 1985, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought down his first Budget, only a few seconds later, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), seconded by the Leader of the Socialist Party, declared that this Budget would cost us between 200,000 and 300,000 jobs.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the May Budget helped to create
560,000	new jobs, including 156,000 in the province of Quebec.
Obviously, Opposition Members are not used to this kind of performance.

March 4, 1986
This year, the equation between our estimated and real expenditures has given Canadians confidence. We are in a period of active recovery. Thousands of small businesses, encouraged by the tax measures of our 1986-87 Budget, are hiring more and more Canadian men and women. Our economic recovery is assured and it is continuing.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, just before Christmas the CBC ran a news item on my riding association which was totally false. The reporter never checked with me or with my riding association. Its sister network, Radio Canada, treated the story correctly, both in its newcast and in a public affairs interview with me. TV A, the commercial network, also ran the correct story on its national newscast. So did Le Droit and local radio stations, as did The Citizen of Ottawa in a remake of its first false story based on the CBC item.
In spite of this the false story surfaces in English language newspapers, most recently in The Gazette. In the House, members of the Opposition use it when they cannot cope with the subject of debate and get personal-which is most of the time.
My riding association asked me to correct the record. We have a riding association. We have always had a riding association. Normal annual elections were held in November and most members of the association were re-elected, but the president was changed. Therein lies the tale.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, most of the languages of our country's indigenous peoples are in danger of extinction. Out of 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, only three have good chances for survival. Many of the languages are found only in Canada. If they disappear here, they will be lost to the world forever. This perilous situation has been documented in a report prepared for the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) entitled Aboriginal Languages in Canada. I recommend it to all Hon. Members.
This tragic state of affairs is a result of many factors, such as historic Government policies of assimilation and deliberate suppression of aboriginal languages. In recent years some support has been provided as aboriginal people have taken the lead in trying to preserve their heritage and culture.
Language is critical to cultural survival. Enriched, supportive policies can reverse this alarming trend of language loss among Canada's native peoples.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



EVENTS FOLLOWING ABOLITION OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, anyone in this House who has listened to Conservative Members of Parliament during the last five years knows that to that Party there is a single, universal cause for everything which has gone wrong in Canada. It was all the fault of the National Energy Program. Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have spent several billions of dollars of public revenues to get rid of the national energy policy, we should ask whether we are getting value for our dollars.
Since market forces replaced the NEP, the oil industry has collapsed and another $5 billion in minimum revenues have been lost; three Canadian oil companies, including Sulpetro, need $20 a barrel for oil or debt restructuring or will go bankrupt; two employment generating megaprojects are threatened; and the province of Alberta will suffer a 9 per cent drop in provincial products. I could go on, but 1 wish to conclude with the observation that the so-called "market forces" are doing a far worse job in giving Canadians a rational, coherent energy policy than the National Energy Program, with all its faults, ever did.



INCOME TAX


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, several areas of unfairness and exploitation in our personal and corporate tax rules have been shut down. The abuses of the scientific research tax credit have been stopped. Tax shelters based on investments in yachts and so on, have ended. Income splitting through interest-free loans between family members is no longer possible. Carve-out transactions in the oil and gas sectors have been terminated. The use of trusts to distribute investment income tax free has ended. The use of partnerships in corporate takeovers to increase tax deductions has been shut down. The foreign property investment rules to prevent abuse have been tightened. High income earners will now be required to pay a minimum tax of 25 per cent.
This Government not only talks about tax reform, it takes action to ensure equity and fairness.
March 4, 1986

[ Translation]



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
CONSEQUENCES OF INVESTMENT IN PRATT & WHITNEY PLANT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in an article in La Presse, under the byline of Gilbert Lavoie, we read that once again, Quebecers have been cheated by this Conservative Government. On February 14, the Conservative Government announced with a great deal of fanfare that $575 million was being invested in the Pratt & Whitney plant. Unfortunately, this was not the whole truth. First of all, the project had already been proved under the previous Liberal Government in 1983. Furthermore, yesterday I met with company management, and they emphatically denied any statements to the effect that the Prime Minister intervened personally to have jobs created in Montreal East. Lastly, the Ministers involved forgot to mention that 40 per cent of the jobs to be created will be outside Quebec. Mr. Speaker, this just goes to show you can never trust the Conservatives.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the farmers of the country who are sadly disappointed in the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The bits and pieces given to assist the debt-burdened farmer represent the Government's attitude towards farming. So serious is the Government to assist farmers that it is willing to help farmers with retraining. In other words it is telling farmers to go out of business and not to hope for support from the Government.
During the election campaign Ministers promised all sorts of goodies to the agricultural community. Now it is time to deliver; not tomorrow but today. Farmers are in need of help, and it is the duty and responsibility of the Government to provide it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions
Why is the Minister making this unprecedented effort to try and sell his Budget to businessmen and corporations in the United States? Is it because the Canadian business community and international markets have lost confidence in his Budget and his Government?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No, absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Let me just draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that since the Budget was brought in the stock market has gone up every day-Thursday, Friday, Monday, and again today, it is up 42 points over those four days. That is confidence in the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIALS' MEETINGS WITH AMERICANS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the efforts of the Minister, his Deputy Minister, and his officials to try to persuade the Americans that there is some merit in the Budget are absolutely without precedent. The Minister is on a string. He has become a puppet of Wall Street.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: He is being coached by the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the coach ought to send the signals into the quarterback; I do not think it will improve it at all.


Mr. Mulroney:: Your quarterback is gone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question, please.


John Napier Turner: Would the Minister of Finance tell us what his officials are telling Americans in private meetings which he is not telling Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that sort of question is ridiculous. The officials are in the United States, the same as they have been in meetings here with different interested parties, to explain the various elements of the Budget. There is nothing unprecedented about it. It is the same type of information which is being provided to people in Canada and the United States. I am sure the High Commission in London is doing the same thing.


EFFECT ON EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there has never been an effort like this for a Department of Finance and a Minister to sell a Budget abroad. Usually a Minister is content with trying to explain it to Canadians, but the Minister has to sell it around the world in order to maintain strength in our currency. He told us to wait for the Budget to see whether the dollar would be stabilized.

March 4, 1986
Oral Questions
What is he doing for the dollar now that he has presented the Budget? What efforts is he making to sustain the dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Budget is selling itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I could give the Leader of the Opposition a long list of people who have issued ringing endorsement of the Budget, saying that it is a move to solve the problems of the past.
The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he has spoken with all his friends down on Wall Street and he is saying that we should be fair here. He knows full well, if he has read any of the editorials over the past few days, that it is very clear the Budget was written for Canadians, and it is being well received by Canadians.


CAUSES OF DECLINE IN EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Canadian dollar continues to decline, if the Budget is so well received outside Canada. This week, an influential magazine, Business Week, commented that in the last twelve months there was a net outflow of five billion dollars, in addition to a drop of 2.5 billion in foreign investment in Canada. My question to the Minister of Finance is as follows: How can he blame the drop in value of the Canadian dollar on just a couple of speculators in Chicago, while the facts indicate that since early 1985, there has been a net outflow of capital from Canada to other countries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have gone over this one before. I just want to draw to the Hon. Member's attention again, for about the fourteenth time, that it is important to understand what is happening in the broad economy. Investment activity in 1985 picked up after four years in the doldrums when investment activity was going down or staying level.
Once investors in the country realized the directions of the Government, and once they saw the policies that we brought in, both in November, 1984, and again in May, 1985, in the Budget, they turned up the jets and increased investment activity. That is why we created 580,000 jobs, and that is going to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LOSS OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not read the same statistics as the rest of the people in this country. We lost $2.5 billion worth of foreign investment in Canada in 1985, while Canadians have taken nearly $5 billion in capital out of this country.
How can the Minister of Finance maintain today that the international community still has confidence in his Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, investment intentions over-all are the important measure of what is going on in the economy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Facts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 am giving the facts to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who probably does not understand a fact when he sees one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Investment activity last year was up considerably over previous years. I want to draw to the Hon. Member's attention that it is incorrect to pick out one specific figure from the national accounts figures because it ignores the broad effects of the good policies which this Government has brought in over the past 18 months.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In announcing the Government's response to the parliamentary committee on equality rights today, the Minister of Justice said that Bill C-62 was an adequate response to the claim for equality in the workplace of women, the disabled, visible minorities, and native Canadians.
The Prime Minister is responsible for over-all Government policy in this area. Considering that every spokesperson for each group who appeared before the parliamentary committee when it was assessing Bill C-62 said that the Bill was totally inadequate, why, after one year, has the Government not made one iota of progress in terms of improving the Bill and in moving toward equality?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have made progress. We have brought in Bill C-62. It is the first time employment equity has ever been addressed by the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 4, 1986


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In this case there were a number of discussions and consultations. I can tell the Hon. Member, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that with this Bill there will be employment equity through the federally regulated private sector and in Crown corporations. It will be enforced through the mechanisms of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as was recommended as one of the models by Judge Rosalie Abella.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Since every group that appeared before the committee and responded to Bill C-62, whether on behalf of the disabled, women, native people or visible minorities, said the Bill was inadequate, and since the Prime Minister said in a debate before the women of Canada in the election campaign of 1984 that he was earnestly committed to implementing equality, why does the Government not deliver on its promises now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure the Hon. Member has been following all the committee hearings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He might take a look at the number of people who have endorsed what the Government is doing. This will show we have an interest in providing equality in Canada. It is a one thing to sit and criticize but it is much better, I can tell the Hon. Member, to be able to do something about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the Prime Minister asked for a majority. We want him to do something about it now that he has the power.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my last supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I hope he will answer the women of Canada and others. When asked during the election campaign why he should be trusted, he responded by saying that he was earnestly committed to implementing the equality principle. All of the groups which appeared before the committee and discussed Bill C-62 said it was inadequate. Therefore, will the Prime Minister now act on his promise, change Bill C-62, and deliver the equality which he promised in the election campaign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the past 17 months both Budgets have substantially
Oral Questions
addressed fairness and equity for the disabled and new benefits have been provided. The Government has taken a number of initiatives with regard to women, including Bill C-62. The majority of the 580,000 new jobs which have been created have gone to women. That is an indication of fairness and equity. Job creation is now being helped by small business. Women are now becoming proprietors of the largest number of small businesses, thereby creating jobs. We want women to share in the growth and equality of opportunity in the country.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance confirm reports that at the eleventh hour he redesigned his Budget in order to get the deficit under $30 billion in order to reduce interest rates, on the one hand, and stabilize the dollar, on the other?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is probably referring to the article in The Toronto Star today. I suggest he look past the headline. In that article I said that, as we saw interest rates rising, we felt it was very important to maintain the objective of getting the deficit below $30 billion. We are very much committed to that. To reach that objective we introduced the $500 million across-the-board spending cut.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. He goofed, Mr. Speaker. This Budget has created a real mess. Can he assure us that, within a week, he will table supplementary estimates to repair the damage done by his Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is necessary to take the Hon. Member through the Budget process, step by step. We increased the interest rate assumption to 9.5 per cent. Because we did that, we increased the spending cuts to offset the increase in the interest rates which we were expecting. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that I stand by that 9.5 per cent interest rate assumption because we expect that interest rates will come down over time.


Donald James Johnston: How above the $22.50?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I stand by the $22.50 as well. The Member is referring to oil prices. This is a third question, Mr. Speaker, and I should be allowed to answer a third question.

March 4, 1986
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The $22.50 stands because as the oil prices-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 do want to answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I know you do, but this is becoming long.

[ Translation]


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A year ago the Government promised that a so-called contract compliance program would be implemented by last fall. Now the Minister of Justice has just made the same promise. What criteria, what policies, what specific measures does the Government have in mind? Or will this be an annual promise, without any action?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the issue of contract compliance and the implementation go hand in hand with the passage of Bill C-62. I urge members of the Opposition to co-operate with the Government to ensure that that legislation passes quickly so that we will be able to implement contract compliance at the same time.


John Edward Broadbent: It's not in the Bill.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE AMENDED
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, contract compliance is not now in Bill C-62. The groups and organizations concerned have asked that this be done. Will the Minister put contract compliance in the Bill, and with real teeth?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Hon. Member does not understand the process. The question of compliance is under contract which itself has the force of law. She should understand that contracts have the force of law. What she should also understand is that the principles of employment equity apply to businesses coming under federal jurisdiction as well as those which do business with the federal Government. The two go hand in hand. We want to introduce implementation at one and the same time. Therefore we are anxious to get the Bill through the House.


WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is satisfied with the report Toward Equality, why did he not have the courage to direct the Minister of Justice to amend the Human Rights Act to guarantee that discrimination against women in the Armed Forces and on the basis of sexual orientation be truly prohibited rather than giving us the double-speak we got this morning? Did he not hear the cries for equal opportunity?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That is equality.


John Carnell Crosbie: You can see I have no prejudice, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right, baby.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Hon. Member is this. Her Party was in power for 20 years. Twenty years! What steps did they take in all that time to do anything about the status of women in the Armed Forces?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have now announced the Government's policy that all trades and occupations in the Canadian Armed Forces be open to women. At the present time it is only 65 per cent. There is just one caveat. The policy is to be pursued in a manner consistent with the requirement of the Armed Forces to be operationally effective in the interests of national security. That, of course, has to be observed, and this is a giant step forward for the women of Canada.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Minister did not understand the implications of Section 15 of the Constitution which we brought home. However, why has he ignored the need to bring in legislative change and, instead, left the whole matter to the courts? We just spent millions of dollars hearing over 1,000 Canadians testify that they need protection through a change in the law. Why can the Minister not understand what this group is requesting?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member continues the confusion she has exhibited ever since eleven o'clock this morning. We have done the exact opposite. She was a member of the committee to whose report we are responding. We have agreed in principle with 46 of the recommendations. We partially agreed with 15. We disagreed with only 10. We deferred 14 because they are under study in other areas or because of the Financial shambles left to us we do not have the financial resources with which to act. We have agreed with 61 of the 85 recommendations, and never before has such a
March 4, 1986

committee had such a positive response from a Government in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Current Government policy prohibits the Canadian Armed Forces from hiring gays and lesbians and orders that they be immediately fired. Will the Minister confirm that these policies, which have caused such pain to and oppression of so many Canadians, will immediately be rescinded as unanimously recommended by the subcommittee on equality rights?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: The hon. gentleman has heard the reply of the Minister of Justice. In case he has not read the report thoroughly as yet, he will find the response set out in detail on page 25.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this very specific supplementary question. In the event that a Canadian who happens to be gay or lesbian applies tomorrow to join the Canadian Armed Forces, will this Minister tell them they are not qualified? Or will he say that an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation means that the Armed Forces and the RCMP should be open to all Canadians and there should be no further discrimination against gays and lesbians?


Erik Nielsen: The Government's response is fully set forth on page 13.


John Edward Broadbent: Read it, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: Sure. The Leader of the NDP obviously has not read it yet, so let me read it to him:
The Government believes that one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether one can perform a job or use a service or facility.
The Government will take its responsibilities and do whatever is necessary to achieve that principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR DIRECTIVE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This is an opportunity for him to respond to charges that this report is nothing more than double-speak. Will he announce today that Cabinet
Oral Questions
Directive 35, which is still in force and which describes homosexual behaviour as a character defect, will be revoked?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government's response to the report is before the House. The Hon. Member must have seen the response to recommendation 10 which was just read to the House by the Minister of National Defence. Other responses were to mandatory retirement, common law spouses, women in the Armed Forces, and the like. She has seen all of those so she will see that the matter is more than adequately dealt with, including the response to the section dealing with security matters in the area she has raised.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Government is saying it is not prepared-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to take its responsibilities under the Charter. It is going to leave it up to the courts.


REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF DIRECTIVE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask the Prime Minister very directly whether he will or will not revoke Cabinet Directive 35, which refers to illicit sexual behaviour as a character defect, when it concerns admission into the Armed Forces, the RCMP, and other equal employment opportunity employers in the Civil Service? Will the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Justice, answer the question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hate to ignore the hon. lady's advice but I really must answer this question because it is too confusing for anyone else to answer who has not been intimately involved with the report. Now, could I-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Now we know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: I think the Prime Minister understands.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. ladies and gentlemen opposite may have nothing but illicit sexual activity on their minds, but the Prime Minister does not. He has other things to think about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Explain.

March 4, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is more than enough of all of that. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East, order, please. Government Members, order, please. The Minister will please answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is-


John Napier Turner: What is on your mind, Brian?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister will answer the question now, briefly, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is on page 14:
Sexual orientation is not a ground for denial of a security clearance. Rather, the criteria applied are loyalty to Canada and reliability.
Those are the criteria applied.


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning the Minister of Justice tabled this report, the Toward Equality report, which rejected any changes in Bill C-62, the Bill on employment equity, as called for by women and the three minority groups mentioned in that legislation. Are we to take from this report that the Minister has now closed the door to any possible changes to Bill C-62 as demanded by women's groups in this country, native Canadians, the disabled, and visible minorities? Does this report close the door to any changes?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would not pre-empt what the House of Commons can do. As the Hon. Member knows, Bill C-62 is before the House for report stage, and I will wait to see what the House does with that Bill.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that she and the Conservative Party are not willing to listen to the women of this country, the native Canadians, visible minorities, and the disabled? Is that what she is saying?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had said exactly the opposite. I had told the Hon. Member that I am awaiting report stage and third reading stage. As a seasoned parliamentarian he will know that at that time there will be plenty of opportunity to debate whatever he and other Members would like to raise.


Mr. Benjamin:: You're getting too well seasoned.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to the estimates contained in the Minister's Budget, by 1990-91 Government borrowings will fall to $11 billion based on a growth of only 2.75 per cent. I was wondering, inasmuch as every major economic forecaster from the Royal Bank through to Data Resources and Informetrica have all indicated-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member's preamble is too long. Just a question, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was in my question. Why did the Minister use-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ANALYSIS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Does the Minister agree with the analysis in the Senate youth report that there are more than 700,000 unemployed youth in Canada who require specially designed employment and apprenticeship programs? Does the Minister agree with that analysis?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I told the Hon. Member yesterday, we agree with the fact that the young people of this country need to have greater job opportunities, need to have more training opportunities. It is for that reason we have introduced the programs which benefit some 218,000 young people in this fiscal year. That will involve some $700 million of expenditure by the federal Government, almost 40 per cent of the total budget of the Department.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister agrees with the findings of the Senate youth report how can she be content with a Budget that has no provisions whatsoever for youth unemployment? 1 must tell her that under the Jobs Strategy Program not one job is under way in my constituency, and the program was announced last June. Does she realize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has asked one supplementary now. Was it a preamble, or was it a question? The question has been put.
March 4, 1986


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member does not fall into the youth category, but I would be-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Neither do you.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -pleased to extend the training programs in the Department to allow him a training course in how Estimates and programs are handled.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since November, 1984, the Government has been chipping away our social programs while at the same time increasing taxes to the average Canadian family by over $1,300. What does the Minister mean on page 12 of the Budget when he says that he intends to introduce measures which will provide universal access to social programs? What does he mean exactly, specifically, precisely, and concisely?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, exactly, precisely, and concisely, since November, 1984, we have created something close to 580,000 jobs.


Ian Deans: Oh, no. Sit down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have introduced so many changes in social programs that have been widely approved by Canadians from coast to coast-the acceleration of the child tax credit, the increase in the child tax credit, pension reform, and a wide variety-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary for the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister intend to eliminate universality for social programs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, precisely and concisely it says on that page in the Budget that we will maintain universal access-very simple and very concise.


EMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As a result of the Minister's May 23, 1985 Budget, 580,000 jobs have been created, including 156,000 in Quebec. Can the Minister say whether
Oral Questions
the February 26, 1986 Budget will have such a spectacular impact in Quebec?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A very good question, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that my Budget contains a number of measures designed to encourage small- and medium-sized businesses. I think that small- and mediumsized businesses should be aware of the fact that 20 pages of the Income Tax Act have been deleted to simplify the legislation. This is a positive factor which will encourage small businesses.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
PRATT & WHITNEY-GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT-EMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On February 14, you were in Montreal with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to announce with Pratt & Whitney an investment of $575 million. Could the Minister confirm to the House that at the time he neglected to inform members of the press, Montrealers and Quebecers, that 40 per cent of the jobs created by those projects would be outside Quebec?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on February 14 we announced that 2,500 new jobs would be created in Montreal. I think the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should stand up and applaud our initiative and be glad about the new jobs being created throughout the Montreal metropolitan area.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF JOBS TO BE CREATED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we want to know the truth, and they all seem to be suffering from the same disease as the Prime Minister. Could the President of the Treasury Board confirm to the House that 40 per cent of the jobs created by these three projects will be outside Quebec? Perhaps the Minister could stop going off on a tangent and tell us what good this is going to do!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie would care to hear about the history of Montreal, the history of the past twelve months during which we created
60,000	new jobs, when jobs were being created in Quebec thirteen times as fast as they were under the previous Liberal government. We are creating 2,500 jobs in the aerospace and aeronautics industry, and if there are spin-off jobs that go to other provinces, that is a bonus. But we have created 2,500 jobs in Montreal, in addition to what has already been done.

March 4, 1986
Oral Questions YOUTH


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF NEW PROGRAMS ANNOUNCED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Katima-vik, Challenge '86 and the Canadian Jobs Strategy have all been affected by budget cuts. Furthermore, Canada's youth and its department have been left out of the Budget. Could the Secretary of State describe the new programs the Prime Minister has promised us, which are supposed to prove that our young people will not be treated in as cavalier a fashion as their Minister?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of programs that create jobs for young people. In fact, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has created 5,000 jobs per month more than the average achieved by our hon. friends opposite, who lost 5,000 jobs per year. Canadian young people want jobs and they want training, and that is what we are giving them, and I think you should congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the programs she is introducing.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: In giving the boot to the Ministry of State for Youth, is the Government also giving the boot to the National Youth Forum, the Youth Advisory Committee, and any prospect for a coherent youth policy?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, last year, the Ministry of State (Youth) co-ordinated an exemplary International Youth Year.
In my opinion, the Minister did a tremendous job across this country. She met with thousands of young people. She did what a Minister of State (Youth) who has a co-ordinating role within a Government does, since all our departments have earmarked very substantial funds for young people. That is basically what she is asked to do, and once again, she has done a marvelous job.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It was inferred on Friday by one of the national papers that low-level air defence may not now be going ahead
because it had not appeared as a separate line item in the Main Estimates. Could the Minister clarify this, and if the program is to proceed could he give an indication when a contract may be let?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why it did not appear in the Estimates is because as the Hon. Member knows, there are deadlines within which decisions must be made in order to be included in the Estimates and in the Supplementary Estimates.
The direct answer to his question is that a decision with respect to the winning contender on the short list has not yet been made.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is in its worst economic slump in 40 years. 1 appeal to his sense of fairness and ask if he believes it is fair that communities in British Columbia, Atlantic Canada and Quebec must see the subsidy to this sector of the economy reduced by 17.4 per cent as a result of his Budget, when other countries are increasing their subsidies to their shipbuilding industries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that is a question that should most appropriately be directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is responsible for that area. I believe the Minister will be back either tomorrow or the next day.


PURCHASE OF VESSELS BY CN MARINE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will he give an undertaking to the House that CN Marine, in its subsequent purchases of vessels, will ensure that Canadians will build those ships in Canadian shipyards and that it will not go offshore for those vessels?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that probably more than 90 per cent of the activity of the Canadian shipbuilding industry is the result of activity generated by the Department of Transport under CN Marine and the Coastguard Acquisition Program.
I know that the Hon. Member's interest in this matter is very genuine and sincere, and I will certainly take his representations into account when a decision is being made.
March 4, 1986


EXPO 86 REPORTED EXPULSION OF VANCOUVER TENANTS TO ACCOMMODATE TOURISTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, who is responsible for Expo. Canada is hosting the world in Vancouver, while Expo is forcing the eviction of hundreds of poor people in downtown Vancouver and hotel rents are escalating by up to 400 per cent. Since the province will not act, what action will the Minister take to alleviate this disgraceful situation and restore our reputation as a country that really cares about its poorest citizens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question might be more appropriately addressed in the provincial Legislature since this question involves the administration of Expo 86.
I am responsible for the Canada Harbour place Corporation. I am not sure whether I am in a position to do anything precise, but I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration and get back to her later.


HOUSING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC. Will he reconsider his decision to transfer responsibility for non-profit housing to the uncaring British Columbia Government and immediately increase the allocation of social housing units for downtown Vancouver residents?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the negotiations with all provincial and territorial jurisdictions on the new and improved social housing program will allow the requirements of those Canadians who are in core need to be addressed twice as fast as they had been under the old program. 1 am sure the Hon. Member would not want the people of British Columbia not to benefit from increased social housing units through co-operation between the federal Government and the provincial Government.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business. Does he believe it is fair or right that the Native Economic Development Program should be slashed so dramatically, by 47 per cent, as a cost-cutting measure? Why did he withhold $90 million last year, and why has he refused
Oral Questions
to respond to the application from the Yukon Indian Development Corporation?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Government is firmly committed to development for native people, and I can assure you that in the past few months, we have approved more than 90 projects representing a budget of over $30 million, and we have created more than 2,000 permanent jobs for native people. So I don't think I have any regrets today about the job I did.


PROSPECTS FOR PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit to the House that if the Native Economic Development Program is not yet dead, it is certainly terminally ill?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I think the program is still alive and will continue.


COMPLAINTS BY NATIVE GROUPS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since several native groups have complained of lengthy delays and even complete stalling of applications to the Native Economic Development Program, and at least one has now publicly advertised that it has no confidence in the Minister, what steps will he take to make sure that this program is put on an effective and business-like footing?


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member is aware, the Minister is not here. I will take note of his question and get back to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West.


John Edmund Parry: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That is a falsehood. The Minister is here.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the practice of her departmental officials at the international airport in Toronto using computer terminals to trick immigrants into believing they are lie detector tests.
Given that two officials have said at least six officials are using this type of intimidating practice, will she stop the delay

March 4, 1986
OraI Questions
and get on with an investigation so that this repugnant practice can be put to an end?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Hon. Member yesterday, Immigration management has not been apprised of any of the details. If he has details of these practices which we have said are abhorrent, I wish he or anyone else would provide them to me. We will see that action is taken.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL GUARANTEES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, since her own Ontario Regional Director has refused to deny the reports, will she categorically tell the House that this repugnant practice is not happening? Can she give us that guarantee?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that directions have been placed everywhere not to allow in any way practices such as that to exist. If I find evidence to the contrary, we will certainly take steps to stop them. However, I need to have definite information in order to do that.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why did he project his Budget consideration to 1991 on the basis of 2.75 per cent growth in the GNP when most economic forecasters are projecting a 3 per cent growth? You see, Don, that is how you ask a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a familiar ring to that question. In fact I think most people will find that the economic assumptions that are used in the Budget are quite conservative.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You are right.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: With the result, I think, that the confidence and the credibility which people have in the numbers are well founded because we have based these assumptions looking at-


John Napier Turner: Come on!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is three o'clock.


POINTS OF ORDER
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of the Question Period. I raise my point of order not to impugn the integrity of the person who rose to respond to my question, because 1 have every confidence in him, but because of the statement that the Minister was not in the House. My question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It concerned the responsibility of the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bisson-nette) and was with regard to the Native Economic Development Program. I would like Your Honour's ruling with respect to whether or not I was legitimately entitled to a supplementary question since an answer was given by someone who bore no responsibility for the matter raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member may not realize this. When he puts a question he puts it to the Ministry.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members may not realize it but questions are actually put to the Government. The Government decides who will answer. If the Chair is faced with a Parliamentary Secretary indicating that the Minister who should answer the question is not present, then the Chair has no choice but to take the Hon. Member's word. Questions are directed to the Ministry, which I think is a point the Hon. Member may not realize.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am sure Your Honour can visualize the problem which will arise if the practice pursued today were to be allowed to continue. It would then be possible for other than the Minister in charge to rise and say that the Minister is not here, even though he or she is sitting in his or her place. That is exactly what happened today. The Minister in charge of the program was sitting in his place when we were informed that he was not present. Surely to God that cannot be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will check that if the Hon. Member likes.


Ian Deans: That was the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer from the Government was that the Minister in charge of responding to the question was not here. That was the answer from the Government.


Ian Deans: It was wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot be suggesting, surely, that the Chair has any obligation with regard to whether or not a question or answer is relevant or irrelevant, or right or wrong. It is simply not possible for the Chair to be involved in such a discussion. I suggest that Hon. Members know that when a question is taken on notice the Chair's practice, which I think is reasonable, is to say that if that is
March 4, 1986

what is being done then it does not make much sense to allow Supplementary questions. That is all the Chair did in that circumstance.


LANGUAGE USED IN THE HOUSE
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, 1 realize French is not your first language, and I also realize that occasionally you may not understand exactly what the other French-speaking Members are saying.
This afternoon, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) proved that his language was both unparliamentary and unworthy of all Canadian Francophones.
I wish that from now on you would be particularly careful about the kind of comments the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie makes in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have a problem here, because the Hon. Member seems to have a complaint about a speech, but not about a specific word or comment made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). We have no rules on how something is said, but if the Hon. Member has a complaint concerning .. . Does he mean that something unparliamentary was said?


Jean-Claude Malépart: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Jean-Claude Malépart: That is cowardly.


Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, once again, you were saying whether a word was . .. Well, there you have one! 1 do not think calling people cowards in the House is very parliamentary and I insist it is not only insulting to the person concerned but also to all Francophones in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Which word?


Gilbert Chartrand: The word "lache".


Mr. Speaker:: "Lache"? What does that mean? It must be a "joual" term or something I am not familiar with. What does it mean?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has tried to bring to your attention a complaint which has been made to me with respect to certain terminology used in the House in a language which is neither your mother tongue nor mine. I believe my colleague has very properly tried to caution the Chair and suggest to Your Honour that there may be language and terminology being inappropriately used by Members opposite. For that reason his point is general. However, I think it is up to all of us to try to upgrade our language in this Chamber.
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
My colleague has quite rightly brought up this point. No one is suggesting that the Chair is missing it.


Mr. Speaker:: He is missing it.


Philip Derek Lewis: If the Chair agrees that he is missing it, then I will go along with that.
However, I think it is a liberty that may be being taken, and my colleague has quite properly brought it to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the point the Hon. Member is making. However, he should also know that it is one thing for me to hear a representation on a point of order, if that was what was meant. However, the Member rose, I took it- [Translation]
I thought he was raising a point of order about the specific language used by a Member.

If that is what he wants to do, then I have to hear it in terms of specific language and not in terms of a general complaint. I think the Hon. Member knows that that is the case.
Need I say that if a Member believes another Hon. Member's language is inappropriate, that does not correct it? It does not correct it by responding in a way which the Hon. Member himself thinks is improper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am just trying to be of help.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1:27 p.m., the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) had the floor. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for the luncheon recess 1 was at the point in my remarks where I was giving a general perspective of the Budget Speech of this session as compared to the two previous budget statements. I went on to mention that it was the responsibility of Members of this House to

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
realize that when a budget statement has been made in the form of a ways and means motion, or in any other form, that is only the start. All that that indicates to Hon. Members is the direction which the Government is taking. It takes about a year or so before we fully understand what the announcement means because, in the meantime, there will have been an Order in Council which will have set up the power to make regulations and definitions and place it in the hands of the Department.
It is at this point in time that the greatest danger to Government policy exists. I think there are over 1,000 examples of this before a committee which has been in existence for a good many years. I refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. If Parliament thinks it has done something, then all Parties may agree and it is accepted by the Government and put into practice. We can then find out years later that it has been ignored.
A classic example of this in recent decades goes back to the fact that after 10 years of discussion the House agreed that universality should be maintained with respect to family allowances. This was concluded by the simple reasoning that it would cost us more to put a means test in place than what we would be able to collect, if we were to take back something from those who did not need it. Ever since that legislation came in, orphans have been barred from receiving family allowances. As a Member of Parliament, when I finally found about it, I took it up with the then Minister. He was shocked and referred me to his Department, which told me it could not be done for various thechnical, logical but silly reasons. I have been interested in this subject for nearly 13 years, but not one Government has ever tackled the critical problem of how we control the regulations and definitions which are made after we have done our duty in Parliament. I suggest that Members of Parliament, instead of looking at the centre of attraction, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), spend a little time looking at the regulations on something they are interested in as soon as they come out so they can see where things stand.
I can quote many examples but I will just give one. The Government is very proud of the fact that it gave to the farmers, the foresters, the miners and all of the people in the production industry a 21.6 cents a gallon rebate on fuel used in production. Why is it not then being used by the farmers and those people in various types of industry? The answer is that when they finally see the regulations and the application forms they have to fill out, most of them do not have the time or the will to try to understand them. The regulations state that you should list every vehicle you put on a public highway. If we consider all of the farmers, foresters, miners, fishermen and all of the other people affected by this regulation, we can understand why they do not want to fill out the applications. Instead of the Government receiving credit for having fulfilled its promise in giving the rebate, all we catch is "hail Columbia". It is always blamed on the Minister of Finance. But I blame it on myself, and I can say with some seriousness to the farmers, fishermen, foresters and miners who receive all of these rights,
that they have to do some work for themselves. They must let their Member of Parliament know what the problem is.
According to these detailed regulations, if someone has three trucks, three tractors, combines, this, that and the other thing, it must be stated how much each of them was on a public highway. They have five years sometimes to make out these applications, but no farmer is going to remember things like that. A lot of them do not even keep their receipts, and if they do not, they are dead ducks. I am simply suggesting that if we simply watch the regulations and definitions as they come in, we can stop a lot of these things by making some practical suggestions.
This Budget is aimed at getting interest rates down, which is the number one factor in our cost-push inflation of today which is breaking banks, small businesses and everyone else. Once we pay over 6 per cent, we are dead ducks as far as the credit system is concerned. We have a Government that is pledged to address this problem. It announced the small business development bonds in 1985 and has renewed this program in this Budget, but not a loan will go through under this program because they forgot to take out a few little words, and we all know what they are, "only for those in financial difficulty". No right-minded person is going to ask a bank, trust company or other lender to lend money to people in financial difficulties, which means there are no loans at all going out. But who gets all the blame? The Minister of Finance does. I am simply saying that we have a responsibility as Members of Parliament to watch for these things.
We do not have to change the law. All we have to do is to change the definition and I am sure we can all come up with the right words to correct that problem. All we have to do is to define it as "any person who is paying too much interest". That would get around everything. We can then give the loans to farmers, to the homeowners and to the small businessmen, those who are almost guaranteed the right under the legislation of 1983. The legislation is in place. Let us make certain that we back up our Minister of Finance by taking some action on these things, not on the monetary side, not on the gambling side, which goes on all over the world, but on the fiscal side, about which those gamblers do not care.
We care at home. So let us get this Budget through, and get our interest rates down. I would think there would not be a farmer, a small businessman or a big businessman who does not know that once we get interest rates down, we keep the economy moving and we receive the extra revenue in our coffers. I am simply saying that as Members of Parliament we have to help, regardless of our politics, because when it comes to interest rates, we are killing off our enterprising businesses.
We have the legislation in place. Let us clean up the words in the regulations and their forms. That can be done by a simple matter of changing the definitions. If we do these things, if we take advantage of the amendments to the Farm Credit Act in 1983 and the National Housing Act in 1983- which all Parties supported-if we get to where the trouble is, we can force the banks and lending agencies to compete with every other agency we can provide. That means that the banks
March 4, 1986

can sell the agribonds and so can trust companies and government agencies at both federal and provincial levels. Any responsible person can sell them. Then we will get all the money we want to pay these debts and get this country back on a solid basis. If we get this country moving, the taxpayers will not begrudge-and they are not begrudging it now-a $300 or $400 increase in taxes a year. We will get the deficit cleaned up and we will get this country working and going ahead.
Let us watch these gamblers operating around the world, but let us just watch them. We should leave it to the pros. Let the pros win or lose. Let us not get into it because we are not big enough. That is my pitch.
This is a good Budget. It is as good as we can expect. I am only saying that for, gosh sakes, let us not slip back because we are not paying attention to the small print. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for having the patience to take what he has to take day after day. Life and death Budget! Good Lord, it is simply a slow step towards cleaning up a heck of a mess. We are slowly getting out of it. Let us take it step by step and, as Tommy Douglas would say: "We will find our Jerusalem sooner than we think".


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the Hon. Member. When he spoke earlier this morning, he quoted approvingly from what he called the most prestigious journal in the United States, "The Public Interest". I would agree with him in the sense that it is the most prestigious journal of neo-conservatism in the United States. The Hon. Member quoted its words of approval of the attempts of the Conservative Government to cut the Budget. Is the Hon. Member not aware of the fact that the idol of that magazine, President Reagan, in the eight years he will be in office will double the public debt? In the 200 years until President Reagan became the President of the United States, the public debt created was $1 trillion. Eight years later in 1988, when President Reagan leaves office, the public debt will be $2 trillion. Was that magazine not saying to us: "Do as we say but don't do as we do"?
The Hon. Member talked about how business and Governments have to gamble in this world of ours. Does the Hon. Member not agree that the biggest gamblers in the country are farmers? They plant their crops, protect them from insects, watch the weather, add fertilizer and eventually harvest the crops and hope for a price which will at least let them break even. How are our farmers supposed to compete with those so-called good friends with whom we are supposed to have free trade when the United States Government is subsidizing the sale of wheat for export? Every bushel sold for export will be subsidized by $3.50. How can Canadian farmers compete with our so-called friends in the United States?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked me two questions. One dealt with what the Hon. Member called Reaganomics. That is the wrong name for that type of economics. The economics which he quoted, supported by neo-Conservatives, are Canadian economics. They are support-
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
ed by men like the present Minister of Finance and that is why this neo-conservative group supported them. Who started this concept?
The way one decides what to do is to look at the quantitative analysis of the figures. Let us take a look at the Kennedy Budget of 1963 and at the Reagan Budget of 1983 and then take a look at the amount of money which was brought in by reducing taxes. No one ever mentions this in Canadian newspapers. It is not considered news in Canada. It is a policy different from the one to which we are accustomed, the Keynesian concept that spending money is the only thing that is God's truth. The hon. gentleman is widely read. 1 suggest that he should take a look at all Canadian newspapers and name one newspaper or magazine that has ever printed how much more money was brought in as a result of the Kennedy Budget of 1963. I have not seen reference to that in a single newspaper, and yet I read as much as the Hon. Member. I am simply pointing out that the philosophy of quantitative analysis was started in Canada by a man named Mundell. He went to Chicago and he tried to get into the White House. I am sure that every Party in the House has talked with this gentleman. We all know about it but we do not dare mention it because we would be crossing the type of opinion expressed by the Hon. member, that all we have to do is to look at the quantitative analysis and pour money into the problems to make us all better off.
The Hon. Member's second question concerned farmers. Farmers are gamblers. They gamble on the weather, price and other things. However, I want to make clear that farmers know they are gamblers and they insure themselves against the weather. We are insuring them now on the stabilization of their income, for which they pay. They are bothered by the question of pricing. They hear the stories in the press about the great target price of the Americans. Farmers know that the inducements are sending American Farmers into a trap into which they were sent years ago, that is, taking them out of production and, as a return for going out of production, being given the target price. If the American farmer wants to have his throat cut from ear to ear with the same philosophy of 25 years ago, that is his business. However, as far as Canada is concerned, our job with grain farmers in the United States is not to humiliate them, but to go down there and offer to sell their grain for them too. If there is a policy in Washington that leaves it to private enterprise and the markets of Kansas City and Chicago to sell their grain, it will not be sold. They have also come out with great inducement policies under public law 480, and every other country asked for them. We have found out, as have American farmers, the results of this type of Government interference with world markets and not paying attention to the job of getting out and selling grain.
I should like to take a little time on this because it is a key point. When I first began to negotiate with the Chinese in 1961, and I knew there was a big sale coming up, I went to the American President here in Ottawa and then in Washington and said that we would give half our sales to the Americans if they would not send troops into Vietnam and instead talked

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton
with the Chinese. I also said that they should realize that the Americans and the Chinese had a great deal in common and had one common enemy, and Kennedy agreed. All this is on the Congressional record of the United States.
My point is that the farmers and producers of Canada have a tremendous opportunity to market all over the world. If we market all the products which we can produce in the United States and Canada, we do not have to worry much about the Keynesian types who try to run any type of industry. That is my answer. We will survive this. If the Americans do not give the Russians the same deal as they give the Third World countries, the Russians buy from us. We signed an agreement approximately two months ago for up to 350 million bushels per year to one country, and the Americans would have liked to obtain that market. It is the same situation with China and all other countries with which we deal. We deal with them on the basis of mutual advantage to both sides. We live up to our word and have expanded into all sorts of markets by using that principle. We are getting into South America now. There is good co-operation. For any farmer who has hope for the future, it will not be based upon what the Americans do price-wise. It will be based upon whether we can sell all the grain we produce and help Americans to sell all the grain they produce, and the world needs it. Then we are both better off. That is the only way to go ahead.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member not aware that Canada's customers for grain, which it had for probably close to 100 years in western Europe, are now no longer our customers and are in fact our competitors for the sale of wheat because the countries in the European Common Market have established very substantial subsidies for their farmers? If the United States Government, in its new agricultural policy, is to subsidize the export of grain by $3.50 per bushel, as was indicated in its new program, how will the Canadian farmer be able to compete? Surely that is not fair market competition.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be harsh but that type of nonsense is really beneath the dignity of this place. The French subsidize their farmers by $9 per bushel and they are exporting; the British do not subsidize their farmers and they are exporting. I simply point out that we are just as smart as the British. If they can raise their productivity up to 148 bushels per acre, so can we.


David Orlikow: By subsidy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We can take on the British, the French and the Americans any day of the week and we can whip them any time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We cannot, and you know it, Alvin.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not talking to the labour man over there. I am talking about the facts of life. We object very strenuously to the fact that we tie ourselves up to the American price. We do not deal with these other countries purely on price. In the case of grain to China, the Chinese buy our grain because they know that they make more money from buying
our grain than they do buying from anybody else. Why is that? It is because we help them sell their products around the world. If the Hon. Member wants to look at this from the Chinese point of view, I would be glad to provide it to him. the Chinese calculate that for every dollar which we made out of the sale of wheat to China over the last 25 years, they have made double as much my selling their food products in world markets. The Hon. Member asks how we can compete against these subsidies. We do it by showing how we sell grain. We sell around 1,200 million bushels per year. When I first started, it was 300 million. The point I am trying to make is that all this nonsense is unworthy of a literate person in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I am willing to take part in the budget debate, but perhaps depressed about it. I want to say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), that I will have a word or two to say about what he has just finished saying in a few minutes. I also want to say that I am glad I did not send a memo around telling Hon. Members on all sides that I was speaking today, otherwise there would be nobody here but you and me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This Budget and the previous one reminded me of some of the Liberal ones I have had to suffer through since 1968. I have concluded that what the French philosopher had to say is sort of reinforced, believed in and supported by these last two Tory Budgets, that is that a rich man has as much right to beg on the streets and sleep under a bridge as a poor man.
I have looked under a few bridges and looked in the line-ups at food banks and at those who panhandle for loose change outside of stores on the streets of Ottawa and I could not find a single rich man. I have looked at the Government's attempts to deindex old age pensions and at its successful attempt to deindex family allowances and whatnot. It reminded me of another old adage of the Conservative bent, "that old age pension just destroys the incentive to work".
I listened carefully today to my friend, the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). He asked us to give him, his Party and his Government some credit for what is in the Budget and for some of the things they have done. He even cried and pleaded for some credit.
I am a magnanimous fellow. I will give the Government some credit. For instance, that drop in unemployment is nice. 1 will give the Government credit for that drop, although there has not really been a net increase of 580,000 jobs. There might have been an increase of 580,000 jobs in certain areas of the economy but when you substract that from the over-all figures there may have been a net increase in jobs of maybe 150,000-let us say 200,000. That is good. I will give the Government credit for that.
I agree with the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board that if unemployment had gone up, his Government would
March 4, 1986

have got all the blame. We will give the Government credit, all the credit in the world for the drop in unemployment.
I am sure my good friends on the Government side will agree that whether unemployment is 9.8 per cent, 10.8 per cent or 11.8 per cent of the workforce, even if it is down to 9.8 per cent, that percentage is still a bloody national disgrace. I hope there is no disagreement on that score.
The child tax credit refund measure is nice. A starving man will take half of loaf of bread or half a slice any time. I will give the Government credit, but I do not know why the Minister would plead for thanks on something that was so obviously and desperately needed that even the Tories had to recognize and make some modest moves about it. If that is what the Government wants thanks for, we will give it thanks for crumbs.
The hysteria of the Conservatives and the business community, both national and international, about the deficit has hypnotized them. I would have liked to have seen more measures in the Budget not only to create more jobs but to save jobs.
I received a telex today addressed to myself and my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and four colleagues from the Conservative Party: the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy). It is a modest request, Mr. Speaker, which has been made of this Government for the last two years and the previous Government for Lord knows how many years. It has to do with the tariff on steel and steel products from South Korea. They are asking for a measure that deprives South Korea of reduced tariffs on steel afforded that country under the general preferential tariff. Incidentally, this telex shows management and labour co-operation. The telex is from Mr. Phillips, President of the Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Company, and Mr. Stevens, Director, District 3 United Steelworkers. They point out:
No other major industrial country gives Korea such special treatment on steel because they recognize that Korea has the most modern steel industry in the world.
I do not blame Korea for that. Following the Korean war many countries, including Canada, helped Korea rebuild its entire economy, including the steel industry. The Koreans deserved preferential treatment then, but they certainly do not anymore.
Without the preferential treatment we could save jobs as well as create jobs in Port Moody, Red Deer, Edmonton, Calgary and Regina. There are only 1,400 people working now in the steel industry there and there could be at least 2,400.
This telex is asking, and I am asking on behalf of my colleagues from Regina East and my colleagues from the four Conservative ridings, Conservative for the time being, the Hon. Members for Mission-Port Moody, Edmonton-Strathcona, Red Deer and Calgary East, that the Minister or some other appropriate member of the Government amend the ways and means motion on customs and tariffs to withdraw the
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
general preferential tariff privileges on Korean steel and steel products and revert those items to normal tariff treatment. Because of all the talk we have heard about free trade in this place and outside from the business and corporate community as well as from the Government, the question is not whether it is free trade but whether it is fair trade. That and many other items are not fair trade. I include in that trade with our friends to the south of us.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was questioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), about the United States Government and the European Economic Community and its respective Governments subsidizing grain, dairy and livestock producers. In this instance grain was the question. The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain missed the point entirely, and so did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) when speaking at meetings of farmers in Western Canada just last weekend.
What the Government of Canada and what this Budget are saying to western grain producers is, in effect, produce more, according to the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Increase our efficiency and produce more. He knows better than I do that our grain producers have produced more. They have produced themselves into losses. They have become so efficient they have put themselves out of business. There are no grain producers and farmers anywhere in the world who have become more efficient and productive than Canadian farmers. The thanks they got for it was the response of the Minister of Agriculture to grain producers in western Canada last weekend. He said that they do not understand the international market. Our grain producers damn well understand the international market and they are sick and tired of having this Government and the previous Liberal Government telling them that they, on their own, either through the Canadian Wheat Board or by themselves, are expected to compete with the Treasuries of the United States, the European Economic Community, Argentina, and Australia.
It is not proper for a Government of any political stripe to subject our grain producers to the will of the so-called market forces when the Treasuries of other nations subsidize their farmers to the tune of $9, $20, and $24 a tonne. We cannot ask our grain producers to deal with that on their own. That is patently unfair and is patent discrimination against our grain producers. Regardless of free trade and free market forces, the national Treasury must support our primary producers by making the competition equal.
The present Government is hypnotized by the deficit, as was the previous Government. At the end of World War II, in 1985-86 dollars the deficit in Canada was twice as high as it is now, regardless of how you measure it. I was reading an article the other day which indicated that the national deficit in 1933, translated into 1986 dollars, was three times as high as it is now, whether measured on a per capita basis or as a percentage of the Gross National Product.

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
There are two kinds of deficits, Mr. Speaker. Right now we have a dead weight deficit. It is a continual vicious circle of borrowing money to pay interest on previous borrowings. There is also what is called a constructive deficit, which is self-liquidating. Such a deficit provides for public investment coupled with private and co-operative investment which creates employment. The Government forgets, as did the previous administration, that if you reduce unemployment to 6 per cent, which is not asking a lot, the increased taxes paid by the people who have been put to work and by the companies which hired them would pay off our present deficit within three years.
I would like to quote from a column written by Ruben Bellen, a professor of economics at St. John's College at the University of Manitoba. This article was in The Toronto Star on May 21 last year. He points out that in 1984 the federal Government paid $21 billion in interest on the national debt. Financial experts emphasized the enormity of the amount by a number of additional measurements. It constituted 5 per cent of the Gross National Product. It required nearly one-third of the Government's revenue which amounted to $2,500 per taxpayer.
That is a shocking figure at first blush, but, as he says, the people who so dramatically present that figure forget something. Ninety per cent of the $21 billion which had to be borrowed by the Government of Canada to pay the interest charges on the current debt was paid out to Canadians, as that is the portion of federal Government bonds that are held in Canada by individuals, by corporate and institutional investors and, most important, by the Bank of Canada itself. The Canadian investor who took up borrowings by the Government of Canada got back nearly all of his $2,500 share of the $21 billion worth of borrowings in interest.
There is another slight oversight in the hysteria about the deficit. Our central bank, the Bank of Canada, which is responsible for regulating the national money supply, is the largest single buyer of federal Government bonds. In 1984, of the $21 billion borrowed by the federal Government, $17 billion, which is about 10 per cent of the total outstanding federal government debt, was held by the Bank of Canada.
The Bank of Canada is wholly owned by the federal Government and at the end of each calendar year turns over its net revenue to the Department of National Revenue. It received $1,981 billion in interest payments from the Government of Canada on the bonds that it held. Its operating costs were $129 million. Therefore, of the nearly $2 billion which the Bank of Canada charged the federal Government, it got back $1,852 billion. Therefore, the Government got back about 93 per cent of the money it paid out as bond interest to the Bank of Canada in 1984. That is like buying a $100 suit, getting a $90 rebate, and insisting that it cost you $100. The deficit- baloney!
At the end of World War II the country overcame a deficit twice as high as the one we have now. We had low unemployment, high investment, and consumer spending. We probably had as many taxpayers in the late 1940s and early 1950s as we
have now, because many people have now dropped off the tax rolls since they have insufficient income even to pay taxes. This Government plans to do some things over the next four years as indicated in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. In the five most important areas having to do with reducing unemployment, increasing food production, making agricultural producers and farmers more self-sufficient and making them all tax-paying members of our society again, in health and welfare and transportation, the Government plans to reduce investment in our economy through reduced Government spending by $12 billion.
When the Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain wants to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) he should remember that there is $500 million less for the farmers of Canada. If he wants to applaud that, he is welcome to do so, but he should go to the folks in Saskatchewan and tell them that. There will be $500 million less over the next four years. We are spending $3.61 billion less on transportation when we are 20 years behind in the modernization of our transportation system, whether it be urban mass transit, railroads, airports, airlines, shipping or whatever. Spending that money is what I call contributing to a constructive deficit. You put people to work, they pay taxes, you reduce unemployment to 6 per cent and wipe out not only the current deficit but the national debt. We did it before. I am thinking of relatively recent history during World War II, or the Korean War when Mr. St. Laurent was Prime Minister.
In 1969-70, as the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain well knows-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I have one minute to conclude?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) says "yes", so I presume there will be unanimous consent for one more minute.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What we did on the three occasions I mentioned was to slap on foreign exchange controls. That way speculators could not run hundreds of millions of dollars back and forth across the border overnight in order to make one-tenth of 1 per cent more interest. If this country is good enough to make a profit in, it is damn well good enough to invest in. They should not be able to flee from here to tax havens in order to make a fast buck somewhere else when this country desperately needs more investment.
During World War II and the Korean War the Canadian dollar was pegged at 90 cents U.S. When Mr. Diefenbaker pegged it at 87.5 cents the Liberals ran around with what they called the Diefenbuck. He also pegged interest rates. On those three occasions I referred to we did not give a darn what the American dollar or Russian rouble or anything else was worth.
March 4, 1986

The Budget-Mr. Benjamin



[Stage Direction]
We did our own thing. In spite of some mistakes, in spite of maybe taking longer that we should have, it worked. I am not reciting Party policy but it seems to me that my Party and the other two Parties in this place had better start thinking about that all over again. 1 hope that this is the kind of constructive attitude we will take about deficits. We should borrow money to put this country back to work and challenge the nation with a declaration of peace as we did with a declaration of war.

['I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:



[Stage Direction]
Government House Ottawa
March 4, 1986 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that The Right Honourable Brian Dickson, the Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of March, 1986, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely.
A.P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins)-The Constitution-Entrenchment of property rights; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Niagara River-Dioxin discovered in United States chemical dump; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)- Social Security-Child care services-Government aid-Government's position, b) Groups' request for funds.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (p. 11006).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member indicated he was going to take a shot at my views because it gives me a chance to remind him that what he has said is exactly the same thing they said here 30 years ago.
I recall when all 10 farm organizations on the Prairies forgot their tribal differences and got a petition going. Out of 150,000 farmers they got 300,000 names on that petition. That is close to 100 per cent. The petition asked for a subsidy. All the leading people in the West were saying exactly what the Hon. Member was saying here today just now. I happen to have been the poor devil who went out to oppose that. The Prime Minister asked me to go out and speak on this all over the place. 1 made some 225 speeches in nine weeks. 1 took the position that any time you had to subsidize farmers when there were hungry people in the world someone needed a boot in the hind end. I said that I would like to see no get out and sell the stuff and then prices would go up. We should not take a subsidy from a hard-pressed Government in a desperate situation as we thought at that time.
As we all know, the election finally rolled around. I think it is fair to say that when all the dust was settled, out of the 45 or so seats in the West at that time, about 40 of them went with the Conservatives on this policy of getting out and selling our products. I am simply pointing out to the Hon. Member that once you learn a lesson like that, you should not repeat the same mistake of trying to scare the living daylights out of people by saying they cannot exist when all these great things are happening.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague has said, but with all due respect, the petition in the 1940s, and also the one in 1959, two years after Mr. Diefen-baker was first elected, did not ask for a subsidy. They asked for an increase in the price of grain. All they wanted in 1940 was $1 wheat. They thought that would be reasonable. They got 10 cents a bushel more and $1 wheat. In 1959 I was part of that petition when my hon. friend was the Minister. They did not ask for a subsidy. They asked for an increase in the price of grain. They also asked for protection from the Treasuries of other countries in the international market.
That is the point I think my hon. friend is missing. You cannot expect one sector of the Canadian economy, whether it be grain producers or steelmakers, to compete against the Treasuries of other nations by themselves. That is impossible.

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Benjamin
It is economic stupidity. Our grain producers are damn efficient and grow the best quality grain of any country in the world. They do not mind competition on a fair and equitable basis. However, when they are asked to compete against the Treasuries of the U.S. and the EEC countries, then that is the time for the Government to step in. That is the point we are making. If everything is equal, they will not ask for anything.
It is not just I who am frightened. I reflect a heck of a lot of frightened grain producers, as the Hon. Minister of Agriculture found out just a few days ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. They asked for 10 cents or 20 cents more a bushel, but who is going to put it up? It was the Government, and that is a subsidy. As well, there is no change in the situation at all today. There are so many people out there who need grain and all sorts of other things that there is no need for us to back into a circle in order to protect ourselves. You have living proof of that in Europe where they subsidize their farmers to the degree that they are the most unhappy farmers in the world. You think we have trouble in western Canada? Go to France and see trucks lining the road with $12-a-bushel wheat. Why are they so unhappy? It is not hard to find out why when you talk to them. You start spending money like mad and your costs go up. Cost input is the biggest problem we have today with farmers. The point that I was trying to make in my main remarks was that our main job is to get at the first element of those costs, which is the interest rates. The interest rates are 10, 20 times more important when you are talking about giving a subsidy to farmers. If you put this fairly to the farmers, who are pretty fair people, I know what the answer will be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my hon. friend that input costs have been a major problem, whether it is interest rates, fertilizers, sprays or farm fuels. If the Government wants to be really helpful in this Budget it will abolish all excise and direct and indirect taxes on farm fuels; it will abolish any and all federal taxes on other input costs, whether it is fertilizers or sprays; it will allow the immediate implementation of the sale and dispensing of generic farm chemicals and will cut the price at least in half. If my good friend wants to move some amendments to that effect in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or in this House in Committee of the Whole, my colleagues and I will be most happy to support him, and, I suspect, so would a lot of other Members on all sides of this House. If he can persuade the Minister of Finance to do the very things he has just been complaining about, boy, you will hear me applauding him and the Minister of Finance-I will be first in line.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, since the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) starts, I think I should have recognized first the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff), if the Hon. Member has no objections. By unanimous consent may we revert back to the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce and then go on to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker calls the shots.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: With unanimous consent from the House, I now give the floor to the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you and my colleague in the Opposition for allowing me to speak at this time. This is a Budget that I am very pleased to speak about. I know that Canadian farmers, indeed all Canadians, have waited anxiously for this Budget. I do not feel we have let them down in any way. It would be most difficult to have a Budget that pleases everyone. We have come a long way to meeting some of the needs and we are endeavouring to meet all of the needs in the future.
I would like to read into the record an article in the London Free Press written about Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon. The article reads as follows:
Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon said he supports the aims and objectives outlined in the federal budget but will have to wait and see whether Finance Minister Michael Wilson's various financial moves will achieve the desired results.
"1 want to join with him, frankly, in hoping that his announcements are going to achieve what he said they would-that is, bringing down interest rates, reducing unemployment and giving us real growth," Nixon told reporters after listening to Wilson's budget announcements.
He resisted pressure from reporters to describe the budget as good or bad for Ontario, but his initial reaction to Wilson's initiatives was generally supportive.
He was critical of federal Government policies which in recent months allowed interest rates to rise to the 13-per-cent level. He said this had been a "wet blanket" on the provincial economy.
"We're hoping those interest rates will fall in the next few days to the 10-per-cent level," Nixon told reporters.
Despite tax increases year after year both federally and provincially, Nixon said he could make no commitment that his next provincial budget in early May will not also reach deeper into the taxpayers' pockets.
He went on further to say as follows:
Although he shared some of Wilson's objectives, Nixon saw a danger of Ottawa and Ontario developing overlapping programs and duplicating bureaucracies. For example, a new federal program to help tobacco farmers diversify into other crops was "well intentioned" but similar to provincial assistance.
That is an area where we have to be cautious. We do not want to duplicate services already provided by a provincial Government. A situation such as we have in the tobacco industry in Ontario makes it somewhat easier to help them through those problems.
The Budget asked Canadians to understand the need for restraint and deficit reduction. The Budget still goes an extra mile for Canada's farmers. Canada's farmers had some bid setbacks in the last few years. I think what really started a lot of it was high interest costs. Not only farmers but all Canadians have suffered some hardship because of high interest rates.
March 4, 1986

Unlike others such as homeowners who are caught with a major borrowing, floating interest rates, and no control over their interest costs, farmers owed an acceptable amount of money at a set rate and they knew that they had some cash flow. We all know what happened a few years ago when interest rates started to climb. As a result, it was not very long before farmers could not pay their interest costs. The next thing they had to do was to capitalize those interest costs. They were paying interest on accumulated interest and it just expanded very rapidly. Today many of those producers are unable to meet their interest costs. Some of them still have equity left, but are unable to generate enough cash flow.
We have many, many small communities across Ontario and throughout Canada that depend on agriculture. Because of the hardships and the lack of money in the farming community we have seen a real depressed agri-business sector. We know that in the Province of Ontario many of the farming machinery dealerships have been unable to keep doing business because some farmers would go into receivership of bankruptcy. Next thing you know many of our machine dealers were doing the same thing. Part of the reason for that has been the cost of machinery. As interest rates rose, we saw the price of machinery rise very rapidly. You had to have a pretty good 100-acres farm to pay for a combine or something like that.
What we have found as well is that many farmers have been repairing and rebuilding machinery that would ordinarily have been taken out of service a number of years ago. Because of lack of capital they have had to repair them and make do with what they had. It is not all bad to do those things. It is one way to cut costs. Then when we are out buying new equipment, whether it is a tractor or machinery or whatever it might be, that means employment. It is very important to have a viable agricultural sector because we are going to have job creation as well.
As I said before, all of our small towns and communities which depend on agriculture or agri-business have suffered greatly. I know that in the village of Brussels where I live we have had many of the small businesses close. It is not a manufacturing town. A lot of the towns in my riding do not manufacture goods, they are retirement communities for senior citizens or people who have left the farm to spend their lives in those small towns. The tax burden has been much greater for those people as well because of the lack of business opportunities.
As well as seeing all those costs and problems on that side of it we have also seen falling commodity prices. We experienced declining net farm income last year, and all predictions for this year do not look that much better. Without doubt this is the most difficult time farmers have had in 50 years. No question about that.
I want to talk to you about the special measures for farmers contained in the Budget. Let us put these initiatives within the context of the over-all economy. Beginning with our Economic Statement in November, 1984, this Government set a clear course for economic recovery in Canada. We have every indication that we are on the right track. Inflation has held
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
steady at around 4 per cent since the 1984 election and we have had the most stable price environment since 1971. Economic growth during the past months has been outstanding. We saw the creation of 580,000 jobs.
Business investment finally began to grow in 1985 and consumer spending has been a driving force for economic growth as well. We accomplished this by striking a balance between the need for firm action to reduce the deficit and our goal to create a good climate for development.
Every Canadian has a stake in deficit reduction. Let me give a few reasons why. The cost of paying the interest on our debt has become so great that there is little room for undertaking costly new programs. Lowering the deficit also means lower interest rates, and if we can reduce the Government's demands for borrowed money by bringing down the deficit, interest rates for farmers and all Canadians are bound to come down. Finally, as the Minister put it, cutting the deficit is not an end in itself, it is a means to achieve lower interest rates, higher growth and more jobs.
Let us not kid ourselves about the deficit. It is large and it will not go away overnight. However, the Government has the courage to act. We have trimmed Government expenditures over the past 18 months and we have announced further reductions in this Budget.
For the first time in years, the deficit is declining. By taking firm measures now we are breathing life and hope into Canada's economy.
We know that Canadian farmers have not shared fully in the recovery enjoyed by other sectors of the economy. It always seems in agriculture that whenever the economy declines agricultural commodities are the first to go down and the last to recover. I have farmed all of my life and that has been the story. My father always told me that agriculture was the first to suffer and the last to recover.
The Budget reflects this situation with new measures that build on the initiatives we have taken already to assist the farm community. Furthermore, we have taken initiatives not only with the United States but with other countries in the world to develop more export opportunities.
My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), mentioned China. 1 also believe there are opportunities for us in China. For example, as a result of negotiations with China for an animal health agreement and quarantine agreement, we have been able to export live animals and seeds and many other Canadian agricultural products to that country.
The Budget contains a farm financial package worth $195 million over the next two years. This includes the cost of a $700 million commodity-based loan program with interest rates as low as 6 per cent. The program has two components; a full indexing option for Farm Credit Corporation clients with 40 per cent or less equity; and a partial indexing option for clients with up to 55 per cent equity. Under the program, loan

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
payments will be indexed to changes in a particular farmer's commodity prices.
This accomplishes two important goals. It targets our resources where the money is needed most, that is, to farmers in low equity positions who can still be viable if they are given a chance. The program also allows farmers to spend less on financing in years when their cash flow is lower as a result of commodity price declines.
The commodity-based loan program is just part of the farm financing package. The Budget also provides additional funding to the FCC for other purposes.
First, there will be a new injection of capital financing so that the corporation does not have to borrow as much money in order to meet the demand for loans. In this way, the Farm Credit Corporation can continue to hold down interest rates to the lowest level possible.
Second, the Budget provides the Farm Credit Corporation with the money necessary to participate in a new debt review process. With this new funding, the FCC will be able to negotiate debt restructuring or even debt reductions with farmers, through a review process, without asking other Farm Credit Corporation borrowers to absorb the losses through higher interest rates. Previously, when the Farm Credit Corporation made loans and incurred losses, increased interest rates were necessary to reflect those losses.
We also know that the Farm Credit Corporation has primarily dealt with producers who have been unable to raise capital from other regular sources. I am encouraged that the Farm Credit Corporation will have a balanced loan portfolio so that in the future more farmers will be able to avail themselves of the Farm Credit Corporation financing and, therefore, give a balance to its loan portfolio.
That brings me to the next component of the farm finance package, legislation to create debt review panels. This legislation will give farmers facing insolvency a stay of proceedings. During this time they will be fully protected against action by their creditors. At the same time, they have the option of going before an impartial panel in order to work out alternative arrangements with their creditors.
In regard to the debt review panels, Jack Wilkinson, second Vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said: "All we want is a fair third party review of foreclosure actions".
The intent of all these measures is to keep farmers in the business of farming. However, as we all know, some farmers are simply unable to do so. That is why the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is working on a Canadian Rural Transition Program. The Budget contains funding for this program and details will be forthcoming. The aim of the program is to ease the pain of transition by providing counselling services, job retraining and financial assistance.
Another announcement in the Budget of special interest to farmers was the extension of the Farm Tax Rebate Program
for an additional year to the beginning of 1988. This will save primary producers about $120 million on input costs.
In addition, we have heard and responded to farmers' complaints about too much red tape in this program. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) will soon be announcing details of a new method of filing for the rebate, particularly in relation to the accounting procedure for on-highway fuel use.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will also be announcing measures to assist tobacco farmers to diversify their production to alternative crops.
These many actions on behalf of Canada's farmers stand as proof of the Government's commitment to agriculture. Our record on agriculture takes a back seat to no one.
When drought took its toll on prairie farmers, we responded with a $150 million drought assistance program. During the last federal election, we made 16 commitments to Canada's farmers and we have taken action on those programs. We promised to abolish capital gains tax on the sale of farm property and we delivered with a $500,000 exemption.
We promised new financing initiatives. They have been delivered in this Budget. We now have an $80 million interest rate conversion program, a shared risk mortgage program, lower FCC interest rates, and the new initiatives included in this Budget.
We promised to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act in order to trigger earlier pay-outs and we delivered to the tune of $522 million, most of it in the spring, prior to seeding.
We have a long-term dairy policy. It is the first time we have had such a policy since 1980 when, I believe, the former dairy policy expired. The dairy farmers of this country have been working on a year-by-year basis until very recently and we are pleased that the Government was able to introduce a five-year dairy policy that offers security and a future for the dairy industry.
I believe it is an industry in which we can take much pride in this country, not only for the quality of the product but for the development of the Holsteins that are renowned throughout the world. We have been able to provide excellent stock to other countries and that is also opening many doors for us.
We have provided dual labelling on all farm chemicals. The list goes on.
The Government has acted on behalf of Canada's farmers with more than 180 initiatives worth more than $3.8 billion. The Government will continue to act. We will continue to work with the farm community toward achieving better and more prosperous times. I believe the food producers are ready to take up the challenge. We know that food producers supply the most basic of commodities. They produce something which we all need to have and use. I am very proud of our food producers because of the quality of their products and the excellence of production which they have achieved. They do not take the back seat to food producers of other countries in terms of the quality and devotion they put into the production of food. In achieving this end they have also initiated and put
March 4, 1986

into place programs to conserve and preserve their soils for the future. 1 believe all food producers should be congratulated for the faith and vision which they have. I know that without such a vision we would all perish. I congratulate our farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Binns):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig).


Mr. Gottselig:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff), on his excellent presentation dealing with the Budget and the agricultural policies which are in existence today. He highlighted some of the problems faced by food producers. I think we would all agree that the biggest single factor affecting agricultural producers is high interest costs. That problem is followed closely by issues concerning chemicals, fuel and parts. All input costs have escalated while commodity prices have declined. I was happy to hear the Hon. Member deal with the fuel tax rebate provision which is to be extended for another year. In Saskatchewan we have a similar type of program which became effective on January 1, 1986. In Saskatchewan the rebate is 4.6 cents per litre of fuel used by primary producers. I am told that it was just a coincidence that on the same day the rebate was to take effect all fuel companies, including the small local co-ops, increased their prices by about the same amount or even a little bit more. They increased the price to about five cents a litre. I think this is an area which should be investigated.
The Hon. Member also mentioned in his remarks the simplification of the forms for off-on highway use. The real meat of his remarks dealt with the Farm Credit Corporation commodity mortgage. The Government has taken the lead in dealing with this farm financing problem. The setting up of review boards is the next step in the process. There is a provincial review board in existence in Saskatchewan. I was happy to see that in the Budget special mention was made of measures which would be taken to ease the transition of farmers who must seek alternative forms of employment. I think it is responsible of the Minister to recognize the fact that although we would like to save all agricultural producers we simply cannot do it. We already know that.
What role does the Hon. Member see other financial institutions playing in this scenario? The Farm Credit Corporation is really a small player in the game of farm financing. There is far more involved in farm financing by banks, credit unions and trust companies. What does the Hon. Member see as their role in the process?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The major lending institutions hold a tremendous amount of capital in agriculture at the present time. We must ask them for their co-operation in terms of helping us through the stressful times in which we are at present.
It is my understanding that in discussions which the Minister of Agriculture is having with the major lending institutions
The Budget-Mr. Cardiff
he is asking them for their co-operation in this regard. 1 know that in many cases the financial institutions have given their co-operation. In some cases it has not been to the extent which the borrower would like to have seen. However, I know that in my riding there have been times when co-operation has been given. I know that it really is a matter which must be resolved between the borrower and the lender. We know what happens when there are personality conflicts between the borrower and the lender and communication breaks down. I feel that the review boards will play a meaningful role in bringing everyone back to the bargaining table. They will provide the climate and opportunity for everyone to get together to try to restructure an individual's debt. It does not matter from whom the money is borrowed, each one has to be dealt with on an individual basis. I see us as having good co-operation from the lending institutions. I know they want to work through this program and they will help and assist us in that way. As a Member of Parliament I am often called upon to help facilitate bringing borrowers and lenders together in order to work out programs.
I believe Hon. Members know that the first debt review board was established as a pilot project in the Bruce-Grey area which is part of my riding. It was a successful program. We can build on parts of what happened through that process in order to put a new review board in place.
The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) mentioned the transition of farmers. That is a difficult situation with which to deal. I have never really been in favour of a program which assists someone out of a business. However, sometimes we have to face facts and look at the circumstances as they exist. We must realize that some of these people may wish to leave farming because of what has happened in the past. We should be thankful that there is something in place which can be set aside for this transition program. The Province of Ontario has a transition-type program in place. I would like to see more money targeted to keep people in agriculture rather than help them out of it because of the circumstances.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) a question arising out of a point brought up by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig). We have had some bitter experiences over the years both at the federal and the provincial Government levels. When Governments have removed an excise or sales tax there has never been a legislative requirement put in place which would require a manufacturer, processor, wholesaler or retailer to pass the reduction on to the consumer. Would the Hon. Member support a requirement in law to the effect that any reduction in sales or excise tax on farm fuels, or anything else, be passed on to the consumer? Would he support such a measure even if it were necessary to amend the ways and means motion? If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) were to present another Bill to the House in this regard, would he support it?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, if it would be within the legal limits of the House for the Minister to do so and if it could be

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Penner
passed on to the consumer, then I would support such a measure.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) on his presentation. We have heard a great deal about the problems associated with having a low Canadian dollar. I knowing that the Hon. Member has been involved for many years with the export of white beans in his riding. Has the lower dollar been an advantage in the export market? Would these markets be better with a higher or a lower dollar?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. I think we have learned how to live with the 70 cent dollar extremely well. One of the major commodities which is produced in my riding is white beans. We have been successfully exporting that commodity to the European markets. It is one of our main exports to Europe. Certainly, the value of our dollar has assisted us there. Mind you, there is not as there was much difference between our Canadian dollar and the Eurodollar as in the past, but even with the closing of that gap, we are still doing extremely well in exporting to Europe.
I think that with any export markets to China or to any place in the world, our dollar has been on advantage to us and has allowed us to compete probably better and more fairly with the United States. It has certainly helped us in our dealings with the United States, which is one of our major markets for agricultural products.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, since the Budget Speech of last week, I have tried to spend as much time as I can in carefully going over the written text and looking at the accompanying documents, and I have come to three inescapable conclusions about the Budget. I certainly do not want to sound like a crabby, cranky, negative opposition Member because I heard that for long enough in this House of Commons. However, my conclusion is that the Budget we received is, first, a pretentious Budget. I understand there has been a very elaborate communications strategy constructed to help government Members sell the Budget. I would have to say that this is a Budget which needs to be sold. It is certainly not one which can very ably stand on its own merits. The Budget is pretentious and false in many respects.
Second, I have concluded that the Budget is unfair. It places the obvious burden of deficit reduction on the backs of those who are struggling now to make ends meet in their personal and family lives. I am talking about the lower and middle income Canadians.
Third, I have concluded that this is a Budget which is counterproductive in terms of the effect it will have on economic growth. Rather than serving to fortify our economic recovery which is now under way, it applies the brakes to that growth. Instead of surging ahead, as it appeared we were going to do last year, it seems we are now limping along. The Minister himself predicts that we are going to have a decline in our rate of growth, and I will come back to that in a moment.
I want to elaborate on those three points. I have described the Budget as being pretentious because in introducing it, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) laid claim to its considerable merit and great importance. For a good part of his speech, we had to listen to the Minister patting himself on the back for all of his past endeavours. He heaped praise on the Government for its performance during the past 18 months. In a good part of the speech there was considerable political rhetoric and not very convincing Party propaganda. I think there are very few Canadians who are all that impressed with the way in which the Government so far has conducted our national affairs or tried to deal with the economy. I believe this pretentious Budget was designed to try to impress the currency traders in Chicago, London and New York, but it certainly failed to impress them. All we have to do for an indication of that is to look at our poor, sad dollar.
The Budget pretends to come down on Government expenditures. It is true that there are some decreases, some that hurt very badly, but there are also some increases. Over all, this Government plans to spend more than $116 billion, closer to $117 billion. That is a much larger amount of money than any Liberal administration ever dreamed of spending. And we were never pretentious about it. When Government spending increased, Canada was suffering from a world-wide recession.
The previous administration did spend money in order to ward off the worst effects of that economic downturn and, by and large, I believe it succeeded in doing that. Now we are into a moderate recovery, but the Government is still unable to control its spending. There was a last-minute decision to cut $500 million from a spending program which is going to total nearly $117 billion. Would you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that that is rather pretentious?
The Government has discovered just how difficult it is to make deep, deep cuts in spending. Politically, it is just not very acceptable. Here in Ottawa there are many powers and forces always at work to prevent any special advantages from being taken away or any significant decreases in spending from occurring. They are called lobbies, pressure groups or influential individuals. They have a way of affecting the decisionmaking which goes on in those areas. But not the average Canadian, the person who earns a lower or middle income, the person who comes from the less developed regions of this country, not some of our more disadvantaged citizens. They lack influence in Ottawa. They are the ones who, generally speaking, work the hardest. They have precious few benefits, certainly, from the tax system, and they carry most of the tax burden, municipally, provincially and federally.
That leads me to my second point. The stated aim of this Budget is to reduce the deficit. I think there is hardly an Hon. Member who would not say that this is a worthwhile goal. We do have to reduce the deficit. However, the Budget proposes to do so, first, by spending more than has ever been spent before and by taxing much more heavily those citizens who, as 1 indicated earlier, are not in a position to pay that additional money.
March 4, 1986

If we take this Budget in conjunction with the Budget of May of last year and combine the two, we have one of the heftiest tax increases of any time in our history since the Second World War. Corporate rates are going to be reduced and at the same time personal taxes are going to go up. That is not fair. This Budget is not fair. The capital gains tax exemption remains in effect but working men and women are going to be hit with a 3 per cent surtax, plus another 1 per cent hike on the federal sales tax. That is the third increase in the sales tax since the election of 1984. When the Liberals left office, the federal sales tax was 9 per cent. It now stands at 12 per cent. This is an unfair Budget.
As a result of this Budget, and the previous Budget, personal taxes, that is, income, sales and excise, will increase by a whopping 61 per cent. That is five times as much as the increase in the corporate taxes. The percentage of revenue which comes to the Government from individual Canadians will go up by an unbelievable 164 per cent while the percentage of revenue which comes in from corporations will actually decline by 22 per cent. Does that not indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an unfair Budget?
I would like to illustrate to the House just how this Budget is going to affect some of my constituents because I do not want my comments to be just theoretical.
In Cochrane, Ontario, there is a single parent, a woman with two children, who earns a $20,000 income per year. She is not finding life all that easy, financially. Last May the Budget took from her $350. She could not afford it. She did not have it to give. She had no option; it was taken at source. This year the Minister of Finance came back to that same woman and took from her another $70, for a total in less than a year of $420. Is that fair?
In Kapuskasing, Ontario, there is a mill worker, a tradesman, who has four children. His wife does not work outside the home in an income earning capacity. The man earns $40,000 per year and has a take-home pay of just over $2,000 per month. With very careful budgeting-for example, he walks to work rather than using his automobile-at the end of the month this family has somewhere between $175 and $180 in discretionary income which it can do with as it pleases, provided there are no emergencies such as unexpected dental work or provided the refrigerator does not go on the blink and needs to be repaired. Last May the Minister of Finance took $566 out of this man's pocket. That was taken away from him and his family. This year he came back and took another $177, for a grand total or a grand grab of $743. That is about four months of this man's discretionary income. It is not fair. It is too bad the man does not earn $50,000. If he earned that amount, and if we take into account the increased RRSP limits and the capital gains exemption a $50,000 earner may have, he could get away with only paying out an additional $575. That is not fair.
In the same mill there is a general employee, not a tradesman, who is married and has two children. He earns $28,000
The Budget-Mr. Penner
per year. Each month, after all his commitments are met, he has left in his pocket $95. Last May the Government came to him and took away from him $505 of his hard-earned dollars. This year it came back and took another $125, for a total of $630. That is more than six months of his discretionary income.
In Geraldton, Ontario, there is an elderly single gentleman with an annual income of $18,500. Last May the Government came to that man and took from him $243 of his spending dollars. It came back again in February, in less than a year, and took away another $57, for a total of $300. He wrote a letter to me in which he said that that was not fair.
In Marathon, Ontario, there is an elderly couple living in a senior citizens' complex. The combined income of these two people is $17,366. Last May the Minister of Finance told them to give up $352. He came back again in the dead of winter and took another $36. It is not fair.
The Budget is also not fair because it savagely attacks the spending envelope for regional development. This affects the regions in which the people I have just described live. The regions have looked to the federal Government for regional development programs, and the envelope has been savegely attacked. The Minister of Finance bragged about the Atlantic Enterprise Program, and I will leave that to my colleagues from Atlantic Canada to judge. I gather that it is somewhat overblown and pretentious, but I will await judgment on it. Do we really want a nation where we have regions which must look continually to a grim future? Do we not really believe, all of us in all political Parties, in regional economic development? We come from all regions of the country. Are we to allow this to happen? It is not fair. One of the reasons I came to the House of Commons was that 1 saw in the sixties, living in northern Ontario, a need for regional economic development, and there was a promise that there would be new programs. When I got here, they did not come easily. We had to fight for them, but we finally got them. That is a story I will tell another day. Is it fair to try to tackle the deficit by reneging on programs like the Native Economic Development Program which was designed to help people get off social assistance and into entrepreneurial activity to create jobs? Last year there were $90 million in that program, approved by Parliament, which were not spent. This year the program will be slashed by 47 per cent, and it is a program to help native people become self-sufficient. Is that fair?
Finally, the Budget is not only pretentious and unfair; it is also counter-productive in terms of serving as an engine for economic growth. One year ago on CTV Question Period, the Minister of Finance said something with which I agreed. He said; "A general tax increase puts a dampening effect on the economy, and I don't want to see us do that". I watched that program and I cheered. I said; "Good for you, Mr. Wilson". He was right a year ago but he was dead wrong last May in what he did to taxpayers and was dead wrong again in this February Budget.
Many analysts have pointed out that when taxes are raised, consumer spending is reduced and economic growth is slowed

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Penner
down. In his speech the Minister admitted that that would happen. We are to go from 4.5 per cent in 1985, down to 3.7 per cent in 1986 and down to 3 per cent in 1987. It is difficult to deny that the economic recovery we are starting to enjoy is fragile. This is not a time to discourage consumer spending; that is a threat to economic growth. We must remember that a one-half of one per cent reduction in economic growth means the loss of 50,000 jobs. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance really believes that he can reduce the deficit by raising taxes. The so-called new economics about which we hear so much make clear that lower taxes can spur economic growth and thereby generate more, not less, Government revenue. Why do we not see that kind of economics being practised in the country? Tax cuts are one of the most effective ways of creating new jobs and reducing the rate of unemployment. The Budget will retard economic growth. It also recognizes high unemployment rates which are still around 9 per cent. I know they are getting better, but they are still unacceptably high and will stay with us for a very long time. That is discouraging for young people whose rate of unemployment is not 9 per cent but some 15 per cent or 18 per cent depending upon whether one is talking about young men or young women.
I conclude simply by saying that I am sorry, but representing a region and constituents who will be hard hit, I am unable to support the Budget. It is a pretentious, false Budget. It is unfair and will result in slower growth, not better growth. Therefore, I have to oppose it and say that it is not the right Budget for these times.


Mr. Harvey:: Mr. Speaker, we have clearly the impression that we are hearing exactly the same speeches and getting exactly the same reaction from the Official Opposition as last year.
Following our first Budget, we heard exactly the same prophecies of gloom and doom, and got the same negative reaction; yet, one year after our first Budget, hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created, which means that the Official Opposition has certainly not demonstrated much originality in its reaction. They keep making the same comments. My impression is that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party are the only two groups which still insist on talking about the Budget. For the first time in 25 years, Canadians generally realize that they can trust a Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who creates the impression, based on facts, that he definitely knows where he is going.
The previous Government would have us believe that an increased deficit would create jobs. If we check the figures since 1970, we realize that there was 300,000 unemployed, and in the 1974-1985 period, the deficit increased from 0 to $38 billion. This did not create one single job, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, the number of unemployed increased fivefold.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition is very careful not to tell Canadian taxpayers where in fact our Government will find the money to create jobs and support
small businesses. It will not take it from the poor; it will find it in part in the nearly $900 million which it will collect by eliminating tax shelters. It will get it also from a minimum tax on the affluent. Ours is the first Government which has decided to levy income tax on same people who had never paid any before. That's a fairly progressive measure.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the people who need help most will realize over the next few months that our Government has done something for them. I refer for instance to the $300 per child in tax credit advance payments for families whose income is $15,000 or less. I am sure they will realize that the Government has done something for them.
Mr. Speaker, I think also of the various programs. No other Government has ever invested so much money in them: $4 billion over a two-year period. And this Budget has confirmed our direction by investing an additional $800 million in job creation, and the results are positive, because the 600,000 new jobs created in this country over the First eighteen months is a record.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the negative effects foreseen by the official Opposition will continue to be felt and that we will end up creating between 500,000 and 600,000 new jobs over the forthcoming year.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) rightly mentioned the subject of regional development, which is extremely important in eastern and northern Ontario. People take a look at Ontario and think that every part of it is rich. We happen to be 250 miles from that golden horseshoe. Like the people in the northern part of this province, we know what it is to be in real need of a regional development program.
The Hon. Member knows that that development program was reduced by 38 per cent. Could he give us some examples of how this will affect some of the resource based industries in northern Ontario, for example?
Second, how does he feel about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and all members of the Tory Government going around the country putting the blame for the national debt on the Liberal Party? Since September, 1984 when the Tory Government took office, to the present time, the cost of servicing the national debt of Canada has increased by $8 billion under a Government that was to be so dynamic and take everything under control.
At the same time, would the Hon. Member comment on the fact that the Government has allowed the national debt to increase by 23 per cent since it took office, 23 per cent of the entire total that it increased from Confederation to September 1984?
Here we have the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all members of the Government running around Canada
March 4, 1986

blaming everything on everybody else but themselves. The Government does not have its act together. The Government is bringing in heavy taxation on middle and lower income earners who cannot afford the burden.
Would the Hon. Member explain how the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Tory Party can rationalize what they are saying at a time when the facts do not prove it?


An Hon. Member:: The facts prove it.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is well recognized that the economics of recession are different from the economics of recovery. The last administration, a Liberal administration, had to face a world-wide recession. We did not cause it in Canada. We suffered from it.
Since the advent of 1985, we have moved into a period of economic recovery. Again, it was not caused by the Government in Ottawa. It is a recovery that is going on around the world. It is propaganda either way to say the last administration caused the recession, built up the deficit and increased the national debt. It is equally propaganda and pretentious to say that since the election of 1984 we have had leadership at the federal level that has brought recovery. We know that this is simply not the case. We know these are world-wide effects.
I argued in my speech that the Government and the Minister of Finance are not in tune with the economics of recovery. The Minister is missing the boat by putting the heavy, heavy tax burden on lower and middle-income Canadians.
In terms of regional economic development, I will say very briefly that northern Ontario would be a much poorer region, much less self-sustaining than it is today if it had not been for those regional development programs. It meant that small industries in the forest product sector were able to remain competitive. Small communities like Hearst and Dubreuilville and many others that had encouragement in their main industry or in a subsidiary industry using forest products to make a manufactured product were able to keep going.
I was shocked when I asked a question of the Minister of Finance about regional development and I heard my friend, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) refer to those programs as hand-outs. We are going to end the handouts, he said. Northern Ontario never received a hand-out under any regional development program. What we received was an advance payment to get our economy moving and then we paid back many, many times. What we received in tens, we gave back in hundreds. That is what economic development does. It is not a drain on the national treasury or the national economy, it is a way of adding to it. Regional development spurs the economy in that region and generates new wealth, which contributes to national prosperity. It does not detract from it.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity this afternoon to speak in the Budget debate. I
The Budget-Mr. Blais
agree with my hon. friend from Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) that even after eighteen months experience, it is hard to have to listen to the same redundancies on the part of the official Opposition, which is using the same images of gloom and doom and the same scare tactics as last year.
Mr. Speaker, after last year's predictions when they tried to scare us, today they are still unable to see the very definite advantages and the incredible and unique results of last May's Budget and the economic message of November 1984. They cannot get used to good news. They just cannot get used to it. I wonder why. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you they will have to get used to good news, because we are going to be in power for a long time. Canadians realize that this Government is working very hard, and has been since it came to power, to bring concrete measures before Parliament that will enhance the well-being of the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, as far as agriculture is concerned, this Government has taken some very concrete measures in the past year and a half to deal with certain problems confronting the agricultural industry. We have taken a pragmatic approach, which is quite different from what I was hearing earlier from the Hon. Member for Regina-West (Mr. Benjamin) who managed to use the term: positive deficit. A new expression is born. Deficits can now be bad or good. The Canadian people and Government Members all agree that there is no way a deficit, and the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi said as much a while ago, there is no way that a deficit could have been positive in the past.
For months we have been hearing: Increase Government spending. We know we are spending billions across this country. We know where we are now: we have to pay our debts. If I were in their shoes, I would be ashamed, but they have no shame. They do not know the meaning of the word. They do not like good news, and they are not ashamed of the state in which they left our public finances. Well, we are just going to keep on working and reminding you of what happened and how it happened. We are going to straighten out our public finances, in spite of the mess you made. Don't worry. We will take care of it.
Concrete measures, well the Budget is full of them. Twenty minutes is not enough to talk about all of them, so I will limit my remarks to agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I met with western agricultural producers, and again yesterday I was talking to a number of producers in various localities in my riding, and I can say that theirs is a very positive reaction. They know we have delivered the goods. What have we been doing for the past year? We helped farmers who had sustained crop losses in the east, in Quebec. We also helped western agricultural producers who had experienced difficulties as a result of the severe draught. We helped Ontario grape producers.
The Official Opposition had five years to come up with a long-term dairy policy, but they failed to do anything at all in those five years. It took us only a few months to get all

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Blais
Canadian milk producers around the table and propose a long-term dairy policy under which we will inject $1.5 billion in the agricultural dairy sector. All those people were quite satisfied, Mr. Speaker.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, and the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
[ Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Right Hon. Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-74, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census-Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 9.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount) (p. 11009).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When we left, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) had the floor.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I shall resume immediately. A while ago, several of my colleagues told me how impatient they were to hear the rest of my comments. In fact, I am sure that
some of the Members opposite are also dying to hear what I have to say.
The initiative announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in January not only allowed us to stabilize dairy production in Canada since, in Quebec alone, this sector accounts for about half of all farm income, but the injection of $1.5 billion to stabilize this sector is also very important for the rest of the country.
It also shows exactly what you can achieve in a few months if there is agreement among the provinces, the producer federations and the various groups involved, including the Canadian Dairy Commission and the processing industry.
This is what our Government does, Mr. Speaker: we consult, we set objectives and we meet them. That is what it takes. People had forgotten that public affairs could be managed in this way. After 20 years of haphazard management, the people were no longer used to this type of administration, but they are now getting used to it again thanks to things like the Western Accord, the agreement with the Maritime provinces and Newfoundland and agreements providing $1.5 billion for regional development in Quebec. These are practical achievements.
As concerns agriculture, the Government took another initiative last year, and I think that it is important to mention it, Mr. Speaker. All Canadians have been asked to do their share, and especially the agriculture industry, under a cost recovery policy which has impacted on expenditures in all sectors of Government activity. It was an important aspect, perhaps the most important one, that all sectors of the farm industry agreed on how those costs should be recovered, on how the increases in the cost of Government services should be paid by those who used them. That is another aspect, not just cost recovery but agreement by those concerned and consultation to achieve that. That is something again we were not used to, Mr. Speaker.
In November 1985, at the First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister and the Premiers of all the Provinces agreed to call as early as possible in January a conference of Ministers of Agriculture, because agriculture was identified as a national priority. Immediately, task forces were established and the conference was indeed held at the end of January, at which time the committees reported on their respective areas. That consultation with provincial Ministers of Agriculture is now an almost ongoing process in Canada. Every day there is a federal-provincial conference, and if you remember those years under the previous Government, people always looked forward to a federal-provincial conference with excitement, for even on the day before it opened and the minute the Ministers put down their briefcases, both federal and provincial, the fight would start. People were looking forward to it as if it were a boxing match or a great hockey game, an exciting event at any rate because we knew there would be people in the penalty box all through the game. Such were to some extent their federal-provincial conferences. Now there have been more of them
March 4, 1986

over the past year and half than during the five previous years, and they were productive. Perhaps they arouse less interest generally because there are fewer brawls, but the results are there.


Mr. Robichaud:: The Provinces have never lost that much.
Mir. Blais: The Provinces say they are satisfied, and there is no way they would like to go back to what they experienced during those 20 years of darkness, as you should remember. Besides, Mr. Speaker, consultations have also been held by Members of our party, and I had the privilege of chairing a committee of our party on farming matters that furthered those consultations with hundreds and thousands of farmers all through the year. We made recommendations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), and we are pleased to note that in last week's Budget, Mr. Speaker, concrete proposals were made by the Minister of Finance that very soon will have tangible results. The mortgage introduced by the Farm Credit Corporation, which is based on the price of farm commodities, will have a 6 per cent basic rate. This is what had been advocated by farm producers and by Members of this House, and this is what the Minister proposed in the Budget. This is a very progressive initiative which will allow 5,000 Canadian farmers to get back on their feet and to go on.
Without going into too much detail, these mortgages will be offered to farmers who, while having debt problems, also have satisfactory potential in the long term, which is what we need not only in agriculture, but in all sectors of the Canadian economy. There is also an initiative which was welcomed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), namely the creation of farm debt review panels. This was also requested urgently and unanimously by the provincial Ministers of Agriculture. These panels will make an in-depth and objective review of the financial position of farmers threatened by insolvency. We shall try to facilitate if possible agreements between the farmer and his creditors. We shall be able to provide advisory services to the farmers. These initiatives will allow us to save many Canadian farmers from bankruptcy and keep them in farming.


Mr. Tardif:: Especially in the West.


Pierre Blais: Not only in the West, but everywhere in Canada. There is no doubt about it. This is how the previous Government tried to govern the country, by always creating divisions between the West and the East. That time is past. This will no longer take place. We have achieved reconciliation among Canadians. In spite of your attempts, we represent all Canadians, which is something that you were unable to do as a Government and as a political party for 20 years. As for us, we represent all Canadian provinces and we are going to represent them well. I am not worried. Not western Canada more than eastern Canada or central Canada. All parties are now repre-
The Budget-Mr. Blais
sented at the table and can have their say. We are in a position to meet their expectations, something you were never able to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Blais: With respect to other measures, Mr. Speaker, through the Rural Transition Program we will try to implement measures to retrain farmers who are in trouble and cannot make a go of it. That is important as well. Often times we come across farm producers over 40, 50 and even 60 who need retraining to be able to earn a decent living.
Other measures have been announced in the Budget to retrain other middle-aged people, but 1 will not comment on them. These are all important measures which prove that we are concerned about the future of Canadian society. We simply do not accept your description of this Party as the Party of large corporations, of businessmen. That is not true. We are the Party of everybody and the Government of everybody, which is more than you could ever do. You have been sticking labels on our Party for years. That is over. You can rest assured that those labels will not stick.
We have maintained the fuel tax rebate of three cents a litre and it will be extended until January 1, 1988. This is another measure which will make it possible to save between $100 and $120 million, 1 believe. Another progressive measure, because we are fully aware that people find it difficult to pay their oil bills. Considering the oil mess in which the previous Government left us it is quite amazing that we were able to manage to come up with concrete measures to enable people to catch their breath. If they had fully assumed their responsibility when they had both the time and resources to do so, a few years ago, we would not be faced now with the need to reduce their deficits.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a last budgetary item in the agriculture area, namely, the Tobacco Growers Assistance Program. It is of course a delicate issue. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has actively consulted tobacco growers and his provincial counterparts concerning a Tobacco Growers Assistance Program. The Standing Committee on Agriculture will continue to look into this over the next few weeks. Tobacco consumption in Canada has markedly decreased, mostly because Canadians are increasingly aware of the health hazards associated with it.
As the Government, Mr. Speaker, we are constantly faced with a major ethic and social problem. We are aware on the one hand of the health hazards of cigarette smoking and, on the other hand of the importance of the farming community involved in tobacco growing. This is a very difficult dilemma indeed.
The Minister of Agriculture will continue his consultations with the tobacco growers and, together, we will look for ways

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Blais
for tobacco growers to get involved gradually in other areas of agriculture. We will seek various ways to keep these people in agriculture and to diversify our production without any negative effect on tobacco growers.
These are concrete and specific measures to show the Government is determined to help farm producers. I would even go so far as to say that the Government, in the past year and a half, has shown a particular concern for farm producers, because if we look at the Budget, the amount of money invested in the agricultural industry has been increased. We had to cut Government spending, and I think it is fortunate, and I imagine farm producers were very happy to see, that there were no substantial cuts in the agricultural sector in the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance a few days ago. I imagine farm producers-1 have more than 1,200 in my riding, and I met several on the weekend-realize this and are thankful, and 1 do not think the kind of twisted comments we have been hearing in the last few days in the House and across Canada from representatives of the official Opposition are going to change their attitude. People have told us: We are sensible enough to realize what can be done and what cannot. They understand about the legacy we were left by the previous Government, and they also understand that we as a Government have acted responsibly. That is what people want.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will be the judge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I have the following question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. He is no doubt aware, and if he is not, he should be, that the Farm Credit Corporation has a number of operations, and that proportionally, not many of them are in Quebec. In other words, the Farm Credit Corporation is more popular in the other provinces than in Quebec.
The Budget contains a number of interesting measure, and I think one of the few interesting ones was that additional funds will be injected into the Farm Credit Corporation, thus making it possible to offer preferential interest rates.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some indication of how Quebec farmers can expect to obtain their fair share of these measures?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) ask me this question. When this Government came to power in 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation had only about 75 loans outstanding in the entire province of Quebec. I do not think this Government is responsible for the situation. It is all because you never acted responsibly. As soon as we came to power, we proceeded with a complete review of the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation. The Minister and several Government members travelled
across Canada to meet with farm producers and with the people working in the Farm Credit sector in order to-


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: In Western Canada.


Pierre Blais: You want the answer, or not? Then listen. This is something else you had forgotten during those 20 years: to open your ears, to listen when people are talking. To listen not just here in this House, but when you were in Government. You plugged your ears. You closed the doors and you stopped listening to Canadians. See where you are now. Maybe you should start listening again. That might help you.
Concerning the Farm Credit Corporation, I am not worried about the surveys. Do not worry. You can sleep on both your ears, I am not worried.
We have a constituency that is up for grabs in the Province of Quebec. We are going to get a candidate from our party elected in Saint-Maurice. We will try to recoup Saint-Mau-rice, and then we will be 59. And if you resign in Richmond-Wolfe, then we will be 60. This is the way we will go on. We have no reason for concern, I am not worried.


Mr. Rossi:: In Riviere-des-Prairies, she will not be elected, find something else!


Pierre Blais: You see how the Opposition is reacting, Mr. Speaker? I am asked a question on the Farm Credit Corporation, and that does not even interest him. You know how many people in your constituency have loans with the Farm Credit Corporation? Do you know whether some of your constituents made applications that were either turned down or accepted? Do you know how many farm producers have diffciulty becoming eligible under the existing program? Did you take the trouble to get out of the House of Commons and visit your constituency to see how this initiative could benefit your producers? Did you take the trouble to do so and to find out how many could benefit from the 6 per cent interest rate which farmers have been requesting for years? Did you take the trouble to find out? You should. It is your duty as Members of Parliament. You should start by doing your duty.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Do not worry. I have come through the wave.


Pierre Blais: You are going to see what a wave is. It is your responsibility to go and see your farmers, listen to them and take the trouble to read the press release which gives an outline of the program. I am not going to read it because I think that the time of the House is too precious for that. However, you will see what this program involves and whether people in your constituency will benefit from it. The 5,000 people who will be able to obtain these loans are farm producers, and they will benefit from the progressive policy our Government, and more specifically the Minister of Finance, announced a week ago. This is progress. You are not aware of
March 4, 1986

it. You are even able to quote me a single figure and to answer one of my questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to this debate I would like to report to the House on the spontaneous reaction I received from my constituents in my riding this weekend. People on the street were stopping me to indicate what they thought of the Budget. Individuals calling my office on other matters were asked their opinion of the Budget that was brought down last week.
Frankly, I was somewhat shocked by the language and concern that was expressed.
My comments today are based partially on the reaction of my constituents and partially on my reading of the Budget. My constituents summed up their reaction in two words. Some said quite clearly that the Budget stinks and others went a little further to use a word which my children refer to as the "s" word to describe the actions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In any event, my constituents felt very strongly in voicing their concerns directly to me about the Budget.
Those who elaborated stated that they were disturbed by the lack of fairness and that they as average Canadians with average families were being asked to pay more than their fair share for deficit reduction. They see the corporate sector getting greater breaks in the long term while they are being forced to pay more and more just to stay where they are today.
The greatest concern felt by these average Canadian families was that they would not be any further ahead as a result of the actions of the Minister of Finance. While they may make some gains in terms of income and greater savings to buy consumer goods, the Minister was taking it away through the imposition of additional sales and income taxes. This action reawakened past memories among my older constituents who reminded me, as they did during the 1984 election, that Tory times are tough times. They wonder why the Conservative Party has not realized that when they impose tough measures on the Canadian people whenever they are elected they are gone from power as quickly as they arrived.
This Budget is an indication of that concern. Let us consider the impact of the Budget on the average Canadian family. The 3 per cent surtax will take another $170 from their pockets. The sales tax increase will amount to another $150, while cigarette and alcohol taxes will increase by $20. The total increase is $340.
The cost to the average family as a result of the previous Budget includes $100 for the elimination of the federal tax reduction; $115 in the modification to indexing; $22.50 for the cut in family allowance payments; the cigarette and alcohol tax increase of $75; $150 for the broadened sales tax base and $50 in the gas tax increase. The total amount taken from the
The Budget-Mr. Angus
pockets of the average Canadian family as a result of the previous Budget is $512.50. Some people are beginning to see the effects of those changes as they fill out their current tax forms.
The increases as a result of the November 8, 1985 Economic Statement include $200 in increases in oil and gas prices; up to $102 in increased unemployment insurance premiums; and $150 in increased sales tax, for a total of $425.
The total increase to the average Canadian family since the Conservative Party came to power in September, 1984 is $1,304.50. That is not the kind of change they voted for. Those Canadians thought they were getting a better deal and some fairness.
They believed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said that the rich would be made to pay. However, not only is that not happening, on January 1 of next year the surtax on the rich will drop from 5 per cent to 3 per cent while a surtax of up to 3 per cent is applied on all other Canadians. That is not fairness.
Let us look at other cuts contained in the Budget. Not only are Canadians facing increased taxes, those taxes are for services that are being reduced.
For example, the Deparmtent of Regional Industrial Expansion faces a cut of $2.05 billion over the next four years. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is important to an area like northern Ontario which has not received its fair share over the years. The Government is cutting the Department back even further.
Employment and Immigration will face a cut of $1.78 billion over the next four years. One must view these cuts on a year-by-year basis. While the Government will spend $800 million on this Department this year, we must consider that it spent $900 million last year. The year before it was more than that. In fact, it has gone from $1.4 billion to $800 million in a very few years. Jobs cannot be created by reducing the amount of money available.
With respect to Agriculture Canada the figure is $502 million. With respect to the Department of National Health and Welfare some $4.82 billion will be reduced. In terms of the Department of Transportation the figure is $3.61 billion.
One thing Canadians were looking for in the Budget, some in terms of a worry that the Government just might do it and others in the hope that it would provide some type of relief, was with respect to the issue of gasoline prices at the pump. Unfortunately, the fears of a great many Canadians were confirmed when the Minister of Finance added a 0.5 cent a litre increase to the price of gasoline. He did not do this in an upfront way by changing the specific taxes on gasoline but he did it by an across-the-board increase in terms of the sales tax. This at a time when Canadians had been patiently waiting for gasoline prices to fall. The week before the Budget we saw a drop in the price of a litre of gasoline at the pumps of one cent or two cents. What did the Minister of Finance do? He turned

March 4, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Angus
around and grabbed some more. He pulled another 0.5 cents out of the pockets of Canadians. Canadians are becoming aware of the realities of the gas industry in Canada. For instance, they know that Canadian companies are selling gasoline to American companies at seven cents to nine cents a litre less than what they are selling it to Canadian gasoline stations. Thus we have a situation in which gasoline stations a quarter of a mile apart, but on different sides of the border, are selling gasoline at seven cents to nine cents a litre less than what it is being sold for in Canada. This gasoline being sold in American gas stations close to the Canadian border is gasoline which is coming from the same Canadian supplier. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are driving across the border to fill up their tanks. That hurts Canadian gasoline retailers through the loss of business.
Last weekend members of my riding association and myself distributed a number of letters to shopping malls in the community of Thunder Bay. Another quantity of letters was mailed to the community of Atikokan. They call upon concerned Canadians to respond in writing in the form of a petition. The letters went out on Friday night and Saturday morning and were designed as a mail-back. Today, which is the first day on which we could expect to receive mail back after a weekend pick-up, we had over 85 replies. That type of volume received that quickly indicates the concerns which Canadians have with respect to this matter, particularly Canadians in the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
I now wish to turn for a moment to a system which ensures the viability of the community of Thunder Bay, the Port of Thunder Bay and communities throughout eastern Canada. I refer to the St. Lawrence Seaway. At a time when the Welland Canal was involved in an unfortunate accident, which may or may not relate to the quality of maintenance and the structural integrity of the facility, we find that the Government of Canada is reducing the amount of money available to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for the ongoing maintenance of that facility. In 1984-85, the Authority spent $13.5 million. In 1985-86, it spent $13.15 million. What is the Government's plan in terms of spending for 1986-87? It plans to spend $10,657 million-a reduction of over $2 million. When we are so concerned about viability I would have thought that there would have been assurances that the money would be there to ensure that the facility, whether it be for the Welland Canal or other components of it, would remain in a structurally sound condition in order to continue operations. However, the Government does not seem to care about that at all.
One area which I had hoped the Minister of Finance would address was with respect to the need for a major municipal rebuild program. This is a matter I have raised in the House a number of times, as did representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in meetings which they had with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). The federation conducted a study about two years ago, the results of which showed that Canadian municipalities are deteroriating at a rapid rate.
The study also showed that in order to protect what exists today $14 billion would have to be invested in our roads, bridges, sewers and waterlines just to protect our investment. The study was conducted in terms of the impact of that type of expenditure. It was found that anywhere from 222,000 to
285,000	jobs would be created as a result of such an investment. It was also found that anywhere from 84,000 to 91,000 jobs would be created in terms of the actual construction of projects and that 42,000 to 73,000 jobs would be created in the manufacturing sector if such an investment were undertaken. These are figures which I feel show quite clearly how one can invest money to create employment and services to protect an investment which is already in place. I suppose the Government was scared off by the $14 billion figure.
The federation conducted a further study. I would ask Hon. Members to keep in mind that such an investment program would be a tri-level program involving federal, provincial and municipal Governments. It would be a program in which everyone would pay their fair share. The federation estimated that of this $14 billion $8 billion would be recovered from the initial expenditures through improved economic activity. Thus the net cost to be shared between the three levels of Government would be $6 billion. An important fact to consider is that the facilities would be in place for years.
We often hear in the House a great concern with respect to the deficit. Conservative Members would like us to believe that their attempts of reducing the deficit are made so that our children do not have to pay for it. The reality is that if we do not move quickly enough to rebuild our cities now, our children will have to pay for that rebuilding. They will have to pay 10 times what it would cost today to provide replacement facilities.
The other topic I wish to touch upon is the area of cost recovery. Following in the footsteps of the previous administration the Government is moving more and more into the area of cost recovery and user-pay. In this respect I refer Hon. Members to page 4 of the Budget Papers where Table 1 is set out. It is entitled "Gross Impact of Expenditure Reduction Measures Undertaken Since the Fall of 1984". The table sets out some interesting figures. For example, between the 1985-86 and 1986-87 budget years cost recovery will increase by 3 per cent. Between the 1986-87 and 1987-88 budget years it will increase by 41 per cent. Between 1987-88 and 1990-91 it will rise by 26 per cent. That is a 245 per cent increase in the amount of money to be collected from users. Some people will say that if they use it then perhaps they should pay for it.
In committee we have been dealing with Bill C-75, which is a Bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act. One of the chief components of the Bill is a cost-recovery scheme for the Coast Guard. In discussions with the marine industry, we found that of the fees paid to the Government by that industry, the net return is 48 cents on the dollar. In other words, its effective tax rate is 52 per cent or 53 per cent. Of every $10 million it pays in fees, $5.2 million is deducted from income tax owing. The net gain to the Government of Canada is $4.8 million, less whatever it costs to collect it. It is going to look great in the
March 4, 1986

books of the Coast guard because it will show up as $10 million, but when it comes to the books of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), it will be a lot less. I would strongly suggest that the Government reconsider this kind of approach because areas like the Seaway are of importance to all of Canada. Whether it is coal moving from British Columbia, grain and potash from the prairies, iron ore from the Great Lakes and Quebec or products moving through Atlantic Canada, everyone benefits from having a viable Seaway. Everyone benefits from low cost for the Coast Guard and for the Seaway.
In conclusion, I will say that the Government had a number of alternatives, but it chose the ones which will hurt the majority of people. For that reason, I suggest, ultimately it will
lose.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time this afternoon to outline to the House, to my constituents and to the people of Canada why this Budget is easily as bad as the previous efforts of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I would like to place emphasis on three areas which are of particular concern to my constituents and which relate directly to my duties as opposition critic for National Defence. These areas include the support this Government is providing for science and technology, agriculture and national defence.
The Budget attacks those people in our society who are least able to bear the burden of extra taxes and makes virtually no effort to try to ease their plight. The Minister of Finance in the last 18 months has raised the tax burden of the average family in this country by more than $1,300. That may not seem like a lot of money to Hon. Members opposite who support the boys from Bay Street, but to the average family which is struggling to make ends meet, this extra tax bite means very tight planning. My friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), pointed out something which I believe, and that is the fact that the national debt must be curbed and brought under control. However the Conservative Government has chosen to use a lot of rhetoric in that regard instead of producing results. The fact is that the national debt has increased this present fiscal year alone by one sixth of the amount the debt has increased in total from Confederation to 1984, and this was done in a period of 18 months of Conservative Government. That is not a very proud record.
During that 18 month period, the national debt has increased by approximately 23 per cent. The cost of servicing the national debt has increased from $18 billion to $26 billion. Government Members opposite say: "Oh, yes, but that is interest on the national debt". The Minister of Finance admitted in the House that the $1 billion the Government used to pay off the banks when they were in trouble was added to the national debt, and that is on the record of this House of Commons. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance, and hordes of Tories with their
The Budget-Mr. Angus
packsacks on, are running around the country telling everyone that everything that is happening today is the fault of the previous Liberal Government. As the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior pointed out, thank God this Tory Government was not in power during the recession years of the early 1980s, which was world-wide and had to be contended with by the Government of the day. If this Government had been in power then, the people would not have been looked after as well as they were. The plan should be to help Canadians during periods of world recession when times are tough, and build up revenues when the economy is good.
There is nothing in the Budget for youth. There is nothing in the Budget for forestry. I mention these because I heard all of those promises which were made day after day during the last election campaign. There is an increase in the tax on gasoline for the trucking industry and, of course, for the average consumer. During our agricultural task force hearings around the province of Ontario and across Canada, we heard demands that taxes be removed from farm implements, fertilizers and so on, but none of these things were addressed. The rebate of 3 cents per litre on gasoline was extended for one year, but why was it not done on a permanent basis if the Government was really interested in helping the farming community?
The Minister of Finance on several occasions has attempted to sell his Budget to Canadians as a tough but fair Budget. Well, it might be a tough Budget, but it certainly is not fair. For example, I and two of my colleagues in the Liberal Party met two weeks ago with some of the victims of the unemployment insurance policies of the Government. After our meeting with the Armed Forces Pensioners' Association, we called upon the Government and the Minister of Finance, in the spirit of fairness, to use the Budget as an opportunity to revoke the Order in Council regulations that changed the way in which unemployment insurance eligibility is calculated and which has resulted in thousands of Canadians being denied benefits to which they were entitled-and to which they were forced to contribute, incidentally.
As a result of this measure, many are forced to live below the poverty line. Some are in danger of losing their homes and some have even lost their homes. They can no longer maintain their homes with their severely reduced incomes. A member of the Armed Forces during his years of service has no choice but to pay unemployment insurance premiums. When I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about this on March 31, 1985, she said she knew enough to be sensitive to people in that position. A member of the Armed Forces must retire at a particular age. He or she has no choice. Unemployment insurance benefits to them must be a bridge from the time they leave their job in the Armed Forces-many of them in their forties-until they get a new job.
However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration included their severance pay and pensions as income. As a result, they were taken off the UIC rolls or their payments were reduced to insignificance. That is what the Minister did
11190

March 4, 1986
Adjournment Debate
first. It is as if she burned down her horse stable and then called in the Kingston Fire Department to investigate what happened. She brought in the changes first and then appointed a commission of inquiry to look into unemployment insurance inequities.
I see you looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker. I will call it sic o'clock and continue next day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is very generous of the Hon. Member to call it six o'clock.