Mr. Ellis:

Mr. Speaker, just four years ago that Party put the Liberal Government in place. Methinks they do protest too much. In all the rhetoric of the Hon. Member one thing was very clear. He kept saying that the dollar was pegged. Of course, the dollar is not pegged, it floats. As a matter of fact, there are changes in the interest rate every Thursday which usually affect the value of the dollar.

I know they are sorry that they put the Liberals back in, but I am not at all sure they know which way they will go, come the next election. Come the next election, we will set the economic policies of the country in a way which will give jobs to all Canadians.

Mr. Kristiansen:

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

I would ask him to realize and admit the real problems with this Budget and perhaps take some corrective action within his own ranks. We now have Liberal politics and a Conservative Budget, and that is the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Ellis:

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

Mr. Kristiansen:

Not true.

Mr. Ellis:

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

Mr. Kristiansen:

True.

Mr. Ellis:

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

Mr. Kristiansen:

Your answer was no.

Mr. Parent:

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

Mr. Ellis:

Then let's have it; the sooner the better.

March 6, 1984

The Budget-Mr. Mackasey

Mr. Parent:

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

Mr. Ellis:

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

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with a great deal of attention to the Hon. Member from Belleville because many years ago I made the decision to centralize and to move out of Toronto and Ottawa the total operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Hon. Member will recall that after very detailed study 1 placed it in the City of Belleville. I do not recall the good Member of Parliament complaining that I had betrayed my trust in moving the Unemployment Insurance Commission out of the cities where it was situated, principally Toronto, into Belleville. Nevertheless, I am not interested in becoming involved in that type of partisan debate at the moment.

I frankly look upon this Budget in a very selfish way. I look at it from the perspective of what it means to the people of my community. I am very fortunate, in my declining years as a Member of Parliament, to have had the privilege of representing the riding of Lincoln which is situated, as most people know, essentially along Lake Ontario between Niagara Falls and Hamilton. Its characteristics are for the most part rural, with at the same time a very heavy urban end closer to Hamilton.

The response to the Budget-and I say this as effectively as possible-has been very positive, to the point that it surprised me. For instance, the farm community is particularly pleased with the Budget in that it meets the problems of capital gains, of retirement years and farmers' inability to pass their farms on to their families without paying severe financial penalties. Of course, I credit this Party with this move, and I commend the Hon. Member sitting on my right who is helping the House Leader today because he was the strongest voice in caucus among many in ensuring that the Budget brought in the required changes for the farm community.

Unlike the Hon. Member from Belleville, the NDP has the tendency not to change its mind but to raise false issues or, if the issue is not false, to treat it so superficially that it is unfair to the issue and to the people listening.

Mr. Ellis:

He has gone to lunch.

Mr. Mackasey:

He has always gone to lunch. There is nothing new about that.

Mr. Ellis:

They are out to lunch.

Mr. Mackasey:

I want to speak to the size of our deficit and about whether or not we can afford it. I know that in 1980 the deficit was also an issue. At that time I was able to conduct a little study on it. In fact, I recall that practically the same debate occurred in 1976. One of the strongest proponents of the sizeable deficit at that time was the Conference Board spokesman. I am not for a moment suggesting that a deficit is a good thing, either individually or collectively, or as a company or a country. However, I think that at times deficits are imperative and necessary. The only country of which I can think that balanced its budget was Portugal under Salazar. Because of the policy of balanced budgets annually, Portugal was never able to amass sufficient funds in those days to provide schooling, compulsory education, hospitalization and decent roads. Now the Government of Portugal has to work very hard to catch up.

I remember asking members of the farm community who were complaining about the size of our deficit how many people in the hall did not have a greater deficit now than 20 years ago when they entered farming. They all agreed that they owed more money today they owed 20 years ago. In the next breath they reminded me that they were quite capable of handling that debt. Their assets had grown because of their periodical borrowing over the 20, 30 or 40 years when they bought a new section of land, a tractor or more modern equipment. The real issue is not the size of the deficit but our ability to finance it.

In his Budget the Minister has virtually frozen the deficit. He has not reduced it. He knows that to reduce it dramatically at the moment means cutting back on social programs. The Liberal Party will never cut back on our social programs, at least the basic, fundamental ones.

I remind Members opposite that we differ from the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who two weeks ago suggested that we introduce a means test to decide who gets the old age pension, a fundamental characteristic of this country which all Canadians pay for through their sweat, toil and contribution to our economy.

Mr. Ellis:

He didn't say that and you know better.

Mr. Mackasey:

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

March 6, 1984

St. John's West on a Saturday morning, on a CBC radio program, say that when he comes back to power and is Minister of Finance he will have to give it serious consideration. Why is he considering? When asked how he would cut the Budget and cut spending rather than the deficit, he turned immediately Pavlovian in his concept to say: "We will have to give serious consideration to introducing a means test", not for family allowances, although he mentioned that, not for many of the other fringe expenditures and social policies, but for the old age pension.

I have to give the Hon. Member credit. At least he is clearing the road. He is clearing the debris. He is bringing back, helping to clarify and sharpen the policies of the Conservative Party as opposed to the policies of the Liberal Party. He is making it quite clear for the electorate in six or eight months, or whenever the time may be for an election, to say let's get away from personalities; let's get back to issues, let's get back to policies.

What are the clear distinctions between the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats? Every time they come under that scrutiny the New Democrats simply disappear. The 12, 13 or 14 per cent of the population, appealing mostly to intellectuals who can afford those socialist tendencies and those who are indoctrinated in the policy and their own basic philosophy, cannot realize the extent to which the world is changing.

We are now understanding the Conservative policy. It is now emerging, slow but sure, day by day. When you strip the front pages of the personalities, the leadership, who will be this, who will be that, policy differentiation is emerging. That is good for Canada. It is good for the Tory Party. If the majority of Canadians want a government that is dedicated to bringing in means tests for old age pensions, one which thinks President Reagan is the greatest invention since sliced bread, that our policies must be a reflection of neo-conservatism in this country, they can at least see that the issues are not blurred, that they are distinct. They will see the Liberal Party remains faithful to the concept that the government has a role to play in protecting the less fortunate, the helpless, those with no organized union, the 66 per cent of the workers in this country who through no fault of their own, and perhaps through their own fault, are unable to cope and meet the day to day expenses that people incur.

Is that a legitimate role for a government to play? I have to say it is. If I did not think so, I would be over knocking on the door of my good friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). Whenever the industrialized world is under pressure for money, as it has been for the last few years, these strains are bound to emerge. Liberalism has been the marriage of an economic policy that does not differ all that much from the Conservative Party with social reform. Where we do differ from the Conservative Party is in our social concepts, our conscience, our concern, our compassion, our care for people. We are not a cold, efficient organization. We are not the disciples of Adam Smith. We believe in compassion and concern. That is why we favour transfer payments to extremes in this country, unlike the Americans. That is why we are

The Budget-Mr. Mackasey

dedicated to seeing that everybody has equal opportunity by funding universities and other schools of education, and making medicare possible so that everybody has a chance to be healthy and to be educated. Without health, you can be nothing. These are the fundamental things that distinguish us from the Conservatives.

The Budget also points out certain ways that we differ from the New Democrats. We believe that social policies can only come from increased productivity. Money does not come from Heaven, it comes from private enterprise. We believe in free enterprise. The NDP have an open invitation. Any time they want me to join their Party, they can tell me one single society in this world that I would trade for the Canadian way of life. Name it. They can't. They are silent. I have been issuing that challenge for 20 years. Will it be Sweden where you wait eight years, not to buy a home but to rent a home? Would it be Poland? Would it be Russia? Would it be Cuba? Where is it? They may have the right political doctrine for a country at a certain stage of its emergence, but we are well beyond that. This country is well beyond the doctrine of the New Democratic Party.

How do we increase productivity? I share with my friend in the corner his concern for the labour movement. I do not believe that the adversarial concept can ever be legislated out of existence. There is no country that can export its labour-management concepts, be it Japan or wherever. We have a system that has worked remarkably well.

What the NDP do not realize, or perhaps they do, is the tremendous change in the composition of the work force. Not too long ago four workers out of five were so-called blue collar workers. Today three out of five are white collar workers. They are educated. They are intelligent. They do not want to be dominated by a union leader who says you have to walk down Main Street on May Day. They do not even understand the connotation. They want to be amply compensated. They do not even need a toolbox any more. They are "knowledge workers" rather than skilled workers.

This is the computer generation. It has been going on for a long time, certainly as long as I can recall. These changes are subtle and bring about a change in attitude. These workers know the need to co-operate. They know the need to sit down with management. They know the advantages to management, to labour and to the free entreprise system of increased productivity. They ask only that they get their fair share of that increased productivity. An enlightened and realistic management understands that as well. I am quite optimistic about the growth of labour, management and government co-operation in the future which will create jobs and increase our productivity.

We will never destroy or eliminate the adversarial role of labour and management. However, it will become the exception, just like strikes of any serious nature will become the exception rather than the rule in the future. This will not be because government has determined that by a piece of legisla-

March 6, 1984

The Budget-Mr. Mackasey

tion but because technology has changed the workplace. It has changed the workers, their concerns and their characteristics. I repeat that when the majority of the work force consists of what we call knowledge workers or white collar workers who go to the workplace with their knowledge rather than with their screwdrivers, there is a change in attitude, a change in approach, and a change in understanding.

I can remember the election of 1962 when the then Right Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, was unfairly castigated for a 92-cent dollar. It was a big factor in the election. Today we talk knowledgeably about this subject. I do not mean only Members of Parliament but people in general talk knowledgeably about floating dollars, about fixed dollars, about 80-cent dollars, about 79-cent dollars. It is not a political problem. People understand that it is only a relative measurement of value as compared to the United States dollar. It is no longer an issue, just like the deficit is no longer an issue if explained properly.

It is significant that when Hon. Members speak about measuring the deficit on a per capita basis, they are using the wrong measurement and the wrong criteria. The deficit must be measured in comparison to our ability to repay it at an appropriate moment, to finance it and to carry the debt charges. That is why it must be compared to the GNP.

The Minister of Finance's Budget pointed out that although he is freezing the amount of the deficit to $31 billion, the increase in GNP in two years' time will make the relationship between the GNP and the deficit half of what it is today. I may remind the House that after the war in the early 1950s, the deficit in the country was running at 23 per cent of GNP. The deficit is not a problem unless, of course, it is unbridled or represents waste, and nobody wants that. That is why the Auditor General and a committee of public accountants look assiduously to see where there is waste.

I believe that at this point in our history people are entitled to a little more intelligent input from the New Democratic Party. There are exceptions, of course. I know that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to say that yes, there are distinctions between the Parties, and they exist not only in debate. There are clear distinctions between the three Parties. One of the good and useful things that has occurred in recent months and now leading up to our leadership campaign is that those distinctions are becoming more pronounced. People are entitled to know what we stand for.

I do not particularly appreciate that some Members from my own Party's front-benches are unaware of the fact that federal legislation provides that the negative impact of technological change must be negotiated on the federal scene. We brought that legislation in 13 years ago. Three weeks ago, I heard members of the New Democratic Party saying that what we need is legislation that will provide that the Government must negotiate the impact of technological change. That has been a main feature of the changes of the Labour Code. I think I had something to do with introducing that change in 1971. Thirteen years have gone by and members of the New Democratic Party still fail to understand and appreciate that

every collective agreement under federal jurisdiction must make provision to negotiate technological change.

What did that legislation flow from? The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) could tell us that it came about because of a change in the technology of the railways in the 1960s. At that time, the railways converted to diesel which made the picking up of coal to create steam redundant. Of course, the railways, being the unenlightened employers they were, thought that they could just disrupt the whole work force and never negotiate. Of course, Judge Freedman told us the opposite.

This Party will stand on its record in the next election. It will stand on the universality of its programs, including the old age pension, unlike the former Minister of Finance who, just three weeks ago, said that we must bring in a needs test and apply it, if necessary, to old age pensioners. I hope he repeats that statement in the election campaign. I hope he comes to my riding and tells that to the senior citizens who live there. There are many senior citizens who live in my community because they love the community; they are well represented, the climate is nice, there are many senior citizens' homes and we look after senior citizens in Lincoln.

I would like to see the former Minister of Finance come to the Riding of Lincoln and say: "Vote for me, but remember that if we are elected, the first thing we will have to do is take a good, hard look at old age pensions and see if there is not some way we can save a little money by introducing a needs test". I shall not go on to fight an election campaign on the basis of this Budget, but that statement has bothered me ever since I heard it.

All Parties work collectively at times to ensure that the quality of life in the country is as high as possible, even for those who for reasons beyond their control can contribute very little to the economy. It would do a disservice to the Canadian public if at this late stage, because of the influence of the President of the United States, we bowed to the temptation to become politically expedient and get votes by destroying the things that people have been working for many, many decades to achieve.

Mr. McKinnon:

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