1982-10-28

['I wish to welcome our new pages, who have already been instructed in the customs of the House of Commons, and we hope that this experience will be a fruitful one for them.']
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is twofold:
One, to compliment the freshman Minister of Finance for having the wisdom and courage to break with Party and Cabinet solidarity by rolling back the half-baked taxation measures of his predecessor in that portfolio and,
Two, to chide him for his cavalier treatment of the very serious snowballing effect of the budgetary deficit, with a total debt heading for $200 billion.
This is not a matter to be treated lightly or taken in stride. He is mortgaging future generations by his excessive and wasteful spending. Madam Speaker, I so move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga).


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Soccer Association did earlier make application to host the 1986 World Cup Soccer Championships. We are all aware of the phenomenal growth of this sport in Canada and its benefits to the health and physical fitness of all those who participate. The withdrawal of Colombia from hosting these championships gives us the opportunity once more to focus the world spotlight on this nation in a very favourable way. I therefore move, in the anticipation that today it will have the support of all Members of this House, seconded by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Government of Canada assist and co-operate with the Canadian Soccer Association in bringing to Canada the 1986 World Cup Soccer Championship Tournament.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, whereas Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has caused the people on fixed incomes living in the low-cost housing project of Vista Heights Court in Calgary a rent increase of 250 per cent effective January 1, 1983, due to a horrendous bureaucratic bungle, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That the Minister immediately investigate this serious situation and resolve the bureaucratic bungle in the most expedient way to eliminate the unnecessary additional financial burden to these people caused by Canada Mortgage and Housing, and also that the Minister report the outcome of his findings through a letter through me to the constituency.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS THROUGH SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has received a brief from the City of Saint John's waterfront unions requesting that he favourably consider the movement of wheat and flour shipments through that port on a year-round basis rather than just the winter, which would provide badly needed jobs during a depressed time of activity. As this is clearly within the capacity of the Government to arrange, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Government take the necessary steps now to correct an obvious inconsistency, as other ports in eastern Canada are considered favourably, and ensure the workers that they too will receive their fair share of work through an equitable movement of wheat and flour through the Port of Saint John on a year-round basis.

October 28, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that in western Canada McDonald's restaurant chain is refusing to use Canadian hamburger buns, and since the green-felted clown masquerading as Canada's Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has refused to intervene on the grounds that McDonald's does not like the quality of Canadian-made buns, an insult to Canadian farmers and Canadian bakers, and a loss of Canadian jobs, and since Mr. Cohon, the Chairman of McDonald's Canada chaired the Liberal fundraising dinner last night at which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked for trust and co-operation, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Prime Minister remind his Liberal friends at McDonald's of his message last week "Why don't you take a chance on a Canadian?" or, if the Prime Minister feels up to it, that he phone Mr. Cohon and sing him a verse of "Give Canada a break today at McDonald's".


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this House has been graced by the presence of two new ladies.
Now that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken to the nation on the economic malaise facing Canada and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has brought forth an economic statement, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That the Prime Minister call a First Ministers' Conference immediately to evolve a joint federal-provincial national employment program to put people back to work.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, this is the ninth day of the work stoppage in the major ports on the west coast of Canada which is costing the Canadian grain farmers $8 million a day, a total of $72 million to date. For every day that their product is not delivered, grain farmers and the economy of Canada suffer. Innocent third parties have been affected by these strikes in the past. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House instruct the federal government to establish and maintain the right of innocent third parties to have legal recourse against union or management which deprives them of their livelihood.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, natural gas taxes imposed under the National Energy Program are causing major problems for the growth of the petrochemical industry in western Canada. This is because most of its products are exported and the taxes normally cannot be passed on to consumers for competitive reasons. Fully nine petrochemical projects in Alberta alone, which depend on natural gas feed stocks, have been delayed, deferred or cancelled since the new taxes were introduced. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the government consider how much in lost construction jobs, lost permanent jobs, lost income tax revenue and lost exports these heavy new taxes are costing Canada with a view to reducing them at least for export purposes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas thousands of
October 28, 1982

Canadians are going to join in "refuse the Cruise demonstrations" across Canada this Saturday, indicating the rapidly growing opposition of Canadians to the testing of U.S. Cruise missiles in our land, and whereas the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) in a letter to me, dated October 18 of this year, said that the specific negotiations on Cruise testing have not yet begun, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the government heed the wishes of the majority of Canadians by refusing the Cruise and by not going ahead with these negotiations.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra is an important element in the cultural life of east coast Canada and has provided quality musical entertainment to thousands of Atlantic Canadians over the years. But its continuation as a performing symphony is now in jeopardy and the livelihood of over 50 highly qualified musicians is threatened unless new financial aid is provided. Accordingly I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House direct the Secretary of State and the officers of the Canada Council to co-operate with provincial and municipal government authorities and with community leaders to establish a plan for reasonable assistance that will assure the continuance and future viability of the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in his statement yesterday, promised an aptly named NEED Program which undertakes to provide
60,000	new jobs for the bargain basement price of $500 million. By my calculations that works out to a figure of $8,333 per job, surely a bargain in these times. The minister knows the majority of these benefits will find their way into
House of Commons
the hearts of our cities where they will, I am sure, be thankfully received by the electorate who restored him and his party to power two and a half years ago. But in many ways it is in the rural areas of our country where the need is greater, where the un-Liberal tradition of self-reliance is still so strong. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration make certain that a significant portion of these funds be allotted to the rural areas of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Ayerst Company, which has the third largest industrial research laboratory in Quebec, is going to close these facilities and move them to the United States, and whereas Canada is becoming increasingly dependent on patents and inventions developed in other countries, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the government adopt a national science policy in order to protect the jobs of our research scientists in a sector that is so important to our country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


WELCOME TO NEW PAGES
Madam Speaker:: Members of the House will have noticed that we have a new crop of pages at the beginning of this sitting and I think all Members will want to join with me in wishing the pages a very fruitful experience in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 28, 1982
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: I wish to welcome our new pages, who have already been instructed in the customs of the House of Commons, and we hope that this experience will be a fruitful one for them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance whose budget, the more often one looks at it, resembles more and more another trick of smoke and mirrors, and the kind of misleading budgetary projections we have received too often from this Government.
Will the Minister clarify this point. He has announced a program involving the expenditure of $500 million by the federal government to create about 60,000 jobs. Ottawa will give $500 million; Ottawa will take from the private sector $1.7 billion in increased unemployment insurance premiums. Can the Minister confirm our estimates that that taking from the private sector, particularly from small businesses which are on the edge of difficulty now, will cost the creation of at least the 60,000 jobs that the new $500 million program will create? In other words, will he confirm that the Government's increase in unemployment insurance premiums is going to cost Canadians at least as many jobs as his new program is going to create? And if he disputes that figure, will he tell the House of Commons how many Canadian jobs will be lost, how much capacity to create jobs will be denied Canadian small businesses as the result of this increase in unemployment insurance premiums?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is approaching this very serious and very important issue of our economic situation still in a very partisan manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I want to indicate to him that the Government has reallocated $500 million indeed specifically and directly to create jobs to help those unemployed who are in the most difficulty, and we have allocated another $600 million for activities that will also create jobs.
As far as the question that he raised is concerned, indeed the charge that will be taken in the form of premiums is in the range of the figures he has mentioned, but 1 remind him that all that money does not come to the government. It goes back to the unemployed people of this country to help them go through the difficult period we are experiencing at the present time. We, as a Government, are not taking money for our own purposes in this regard.
The unemployment insurance system is an insurance system and what we have done to minimize the impact is we have absorbed, through borrowing, more than half the total cost of the premiums we should have had to charge. We have done this to help small business and large business and the workers of this country. We are not charging the premium increase that we could or should have, according to some, in order to help those workers and businesses in this country who are going through the difficult times they are facing at the present time.
I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that this decision has been taken upon the advice and recommendation of the advisory committee on unemployment insurance which is composed of employer representatives and labour representatives.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S ESTIMATE OF IMPACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me deal first with the suggestion that we should be blaming the advisers. We do not believe, on this side of the House of Commons, that when Governments make mistakes they should fire the Deputy Ministers. We believe they should fire the Ministers when Governments make mistakes as they have done with these budgets.
Let me take the Minister's own words. The Minister has admitted he is taking $1.7 billion from the Canadian private sector through the increase in unemployment insurance premiums. He has admitted that. That money would have been used by Canadian small business in particular, either to keep people working or to create new jobs. When Canadians in business cannot use that money to hire other Canadians or keep them in the jobs they hold, that means Canadians lose jobs. We estimate that 60,000 jobs will be lost. How many Canadians does the Minister estimate that his increase in unemployment insurance premiums is going to put out of work-60,000, 70,000 or 100,000? What is the Minister's figure?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I regret again that the Leader of the Opposition prefers partisan rhetoric to serious consideration of this particular issue. I want to remind him that the contribution of $1.7 billion I was referring to is not going to be contributed mainly by small business but by business generally, employers generally, and the workers. I would also remind him that yesterday I provided over $300 million of breaks to workers and employers in this country in order to give them an opportunity to do what has to be done to help us out of the current recession.
As far as the question the Hon. Member raises is concerned,
I will tell him that I would be able to provide the answer to this figure if he could tell me how many jobs we are going to create by ensuring that those benefits are going to be paid to unemployed people who are going to spend the money and create jobs also in this country.
October 28, 1982


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister needs a sabbatical in Paris to learn a little bit about the private sector, along with Ed Clark.


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister probably does not know that most of the jobs in this country are created by small business. Small business in this country is operating very close to the margins right now-those operations that are still functioning-and there is going to be a massive loss of jobs as a result of this increase in unemployment insurance premiums. The Minister owes the House the honesty to give us the projections he must have of how many new Canadians he is going to put out of work.
Let me ask the Minister a question about his so-called job creation program on which he indicated yesterday he was going to invite the provinces, and I quote, "-wherever possible to supplement the federal contribution." Would the Minister tell us which provinces specifically he consulted about this Program before announcing it to the House of Commons, or will he tell us that there was no consultation in detail with any province? If there was consultation, with which provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I regret again that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition prefers to make funny jokes on this very important issue. I will remind him that I would rather trust the judgment of the spokesmen for the small business organizations who endorsed, very strongly, the statement I made yesterday, than his own judgment in this particular issue.
As for the specific question he raised on the issue of consultation, I understand that the Minister of Employment and Immigration had discussions with the Ontario Government on a preliminary basis. He has also been in touch with the Quebec Government and was going to arrange a meeting which he held yesterday. What we have provided has been funds and a very broad framework for a program. The details of that program are going to be finally worked out as the Minister of Employment and Immigration concludes his discussions. I understand Quebec officials are coming to meet with officials of the Minister this week and that the Minister is going to Ontario again this afternoon and that he will be out West and in the Maritimes in the course of next week. He will have terminated the consultations during the course of next week after which he will be able to announce the details of the Program we have talked about.
I said that as a Government we are ready to take and provide leadership to this country, but we are also ready to consult, and that is what we are doing.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM DETAILS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just so that I am clear on this, the Minister of Finance has now indicated that, in so far as advanced consultation is concerned, the Liberal Government believes that this is a country of two Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and that the other eight Provinces and two Territories are called in after the fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me put the following questions to the Minister of Finance who introduced this Program. Are the details of the Program now established? Is the proposition being put to the Provinces that they can take it or leave it as Ottawa dictates, or is there more flexibility? Can we have the details of that proposal spelled out in the House of Commons now, details which were announced in general terms by the Minister of Finance yesterday?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, perhaps 1 can take the opportunity to respond to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who seems to be preoccupied with the question of consultation. I do not know what he did with his summer vacation, but all summer I talked to the Provinces, business and labour, concerning job creation. I did not see him at any of those meetings or discussions.
The fact of the matter is that the Provinces are approaching this in the spirit of co-operation, unlike the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who is just here apparently to make political points. The fact is that we are developing a program in consultation with them because we recognize that there are people in the country who are suffering severe hardship as a result of unemployment. We want to devote our efforts and our resources as much as possible, in combination with the Provinces, the municipalities and the private sector, to mount a maximum effort on their behalf. Frankly, we invite Members of the Opposition to put their best efforts forward in this regard rather than simply their criticisms.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I ask him to give us a little more detail on the programs announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance. Since the Government last year reduced its transfer payments to the Provinces, forcing them to close hospital beds, fire teachers, and lay off workers, where does the Minister expect the Provinces to get the money to participate? Equally important, will the Provinces be required to contribute matching funds before the federal Government participates?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there was very much a false

October 28, 1982
Oral Questions
premise in the basis of the Hon. Member's question. The Provinces are not closing hospitals because of a lack of transfer payments. In fact transfer payments were increased on the basis of 12 per cent per year, which is a substantially higher contribution than most provincial Governments were making to those very same programs. I think it is important to get those facts on the table. In this area we are going through a very honest and open process of discussion with provincial Governments and others so that we can combine our efforts and our resources to determine how, where their own efforts are devoted and targeted at those particular groups, we can provide a match-up. But we do not go on the basis of saying that there must be requirements; we go on the basis of looking for the best accommodation.


EFFECT ON YOUNG UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last night he said that he could spare funds to employ only
60,000	of the 1.3 million Canadians who are currently unemployed. One of the problems of these programs is that they are not often effective. For instance, in Port Alberni, British Columbia, where there were 4,500 people out of work this summer, there are only 24 employed at planting trees because people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits are not eligible for the Program. What assurances can the Minister give us that these 60,000 jobs will be targeted to those Canadians who need them the most-young Canadians who account for nearly half the unemployed and Canadians who have lost their unemployment insurance benefits? I hope this Minister of Finance can speak to his own budget, unlike his predecessor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I will answer the Hon. Member who wants specific responses concerning this Program. We have made it very clear that this particular job-creation program is targeted at those people in the community who have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. We are providing them with an option to work for an income in order to re-establish their stability and basis.
I should point out that that is not the only job-creation program. We have a number of programs presently in place. For example, the Canada Community Development Project is providing an addition to the 60,000 jobs through the NEED Program and another additional 60,000 jobs to the community development projects as well as a number of programs targeted specifically at young people and others in need. In fact, the budget at this present time for direct employment programs is well over $600 million and we are adding another $500 million to it for this particular group. Therefore, this government is committing well over $ 1 billion at this point in time for direct employment programs to cover a wide variety of people who now have employment problems.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, a new sociological phenomenon is happening in Canada these days and, as a result, a new vocabulary is emerging. The term "exhaustees" is becoming very critical now in discussions and debates in this House. The Department of Employment and Immigration tells us that in the months remaining this year every month 55,000 Canadians will come off UIC benefits. That figure will increase over the whole of 1983. The Minister's mini-budget statement yesterday suggested that 1,200 people a month between now and the end of the year will be serviced in terms of new jobs. What do we do about the short fall of 53,800 Canadians who will find their UIC benefits exhausted.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would read the study thoroughly he would find that, when it comes to people exhausting their benefits, a large percentage of those are able to gain alternative employment within the first six or seven weeks. That is well over 35 per cent of the total.
Another large group in that range of people have other forms of income support.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, welfare.


Lloyd Axworthy: This program is targeted for those who have the greatest need, those who face no other choice but to go on welfare. The program was designed to meet the needs of that group of people which the survey points out represents only 10 per cent of the total number of people who would be exhausting their benefits. It is because of the need to give them the maximum amount of assistance that we have targeted the program particularly for that group.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, that is why I termed it indirectly as a sociological phenomenon which obviously the Minister of Employment and Immigration does not understand. His department has provided statistics that show that a significant number of those people losing their jobs, going onto UIC and now coming off UIC, are the bread winners in those families. They are not sons or daughters or spouses; they are the sole bread winners of their families. That is the phenomenon of the last number of months. However, I would like to try my question again but this time I will address it to the Minister of Finance.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Program of the Minister of Finance indicated that 60,000 jobs would be created in the next 18 months. Using the figures of the Minister of Employment and Immigration we find that
1,155,000	Canadians will be exhaustees. Will the Minister of Finance please have the courage to rise and tell us what do we do with this shortfall of over 1,000,000 exhaustees in the next
October 28, 1982

18 months when all the Minister is going to create is 60,000 new jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 am sorry if it appears that the Hon. Member did not hear my first answer. What I pointed out to him is that out of the people exhausting benefits many of them find alternate employment within a matter of the first six or seven weeks. Certainly we do not want to design a program that would provide a disincentive for them to go to work. Therefore, we want to design a program that is targeted very much at those who face the greatest hardship.
In addition to that, as I pointed out in answer to previous questions, we also have in place other employment programs, for example, the Canada Community Development Program which is presently providing a substantial amount of employment in the Hon. Member's own riding. He knows what is available to provide those kinds of alternative employment. We are trying to cover as broad a base as we can. We have to husband our resources as carefully as possible. That is another reason why we have invited the Provinces, the private sector, other communities and non-profit groups to join us in this effort so that we can share responsibility in providing as much employment as possible to those in need.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister is saying that his programs are trying to provide employment to get people back on UIC. That is not the kind of job-creation programs that we in this Party would like to see the Government implement.


WELFARE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have been asked to rise today on a matter on behalf of one community in western Canada, but the same could be done for communities across Canada. The Mayor of Kamloops has asked me to ask the Minister of Finance for some special consideration. In our city of Kamloops we have hundreds of people each day who are unable to provide food for their families. These are exhaustees. The Department of Welfare encourages these individuals to approach the Church, the Salvation Army, and food banks in our community, because they are not eligible for welfare. Would the Minister of Finance consider giving some special consideration for a special fund to allow municipalities across Canada to provide food for people who fall between the UIC and welfare traps?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is a social assistance program in this country to which the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the cost. There is an Unemployment Insurance Program to which the federal government also contributes quite significantly. There
Oral Questions
are cases quite obviously where there may be a lag between the time when somebody gets off unemployment insurance and gets into welfare.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is no lag.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend says there is no lag. If there is no lag, then these people will get social assistance.


Miss Jewett:: They are not eligible.


Marc Lalonde: 
Pauline Jewett: You do not understand. They are not eligible.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, if I could draw his attention away from his bedmates over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In the Minister's budget speech yesterday, he announced two decisions which will reduce employment in the country. The first is the increase in unemployment insurance premiums by some 40 per cent to 50 per cent. The second is to refuse to withdraw or reverse the reduction in the capital cost allowances that came about as a result of the November budget last year. Both of these he said were because they would cause an increase in the deficit. How does the Minister justify these decisions when there will continue to be unnecessary government spending, such as the 17.1 per cent increase in the administrative costs of the 12 largest departments of government as I pointed out in my speech yesterday?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the question of administrative costs in the Government are constantly being reviewed. The President of the Treasury Board will have an opportunity to address that very issue in the next short while. I will provide to the Hon. Member full explanations as to the reasons for particular increases in particular departments. The Minister, however, will have an opportunity to examine the figures mentioned by the Hon. Member and explain the situation fully. I might add that those costs have been examined by the various parliamentary committees when the estimates were tabled and they have been approved by this Parliament. I invite my friend to reflect on those considerations that have taken place in the various expenditure programs.


MEASURES TO CUT GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why the Minister said that the particular question I raised could be addressed some time in the future.

October 28, 1982
Oral Questions
Before he made that decision, he should have addressed that question. Those costs were not approved by this Parliament, they were approved by the Liberal majority in this Parliament.
In the previous budget, the former Minister of Finance said that he could not cut back unnecessary government spending any further than we had done. Yet in this budget, this Minister has found ways in the areas of energy, foreign aid and defence to cut back further. Is the Minister saying today that there is absolutely no other way to cut government spending other than to cut into important social programs, as the Government has done to date in the case of pensions, health and post-secondary education? Is there no other way of cutting government spending other than in those areas?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, we are constantly reviewing government expenditures and trying to cut any expenditures which do not meet the highest priority compared to the other expenses that we have to incur.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Ed Clark.


Marc Lalonde: We do this consistently and regularly. As I indicated in my speech, the President of the Treasury Board has been asked to look again at areas where additional cuts can be made to try to maintain a much lower rate of growth in our expenditures. This is going on all the time and it will continue.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It touches on his announcement made only two days ago that he is intending to seek the approval of Parliament for an injection of $400 million of equity into two Crown-owned aircraft manufacturers, including $200 million to Canadair alone.
Would the minister indicate to the House what he means by parliamentary approval? Is his Department going to propose the sham that was thrust through this House only a few months ago, a $1 item in estimates, where we were asked at that time to approve the guaranteeing of $1.2 billion of liabilities in favour of Canadair? Is that what he means by parliamentary approval, or will there be a proper opportunity given for this House to examine why he feels such expenditures should be made on behalf of the people of Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as I recall the Hon. Member's discussion with my predecessor, it was the concern of the Opposition with
respect to letters of comfort that had been authorized previously. The former President of the Treasury Board and my predecessor decided at the time that from then on we would go to parliamentary estimates for any funds asked for by the two Crown corporations. This is exactly what we have done.
I also recall that the Member was one of those who insisted that equity injections be given to these particular companies rather than debt capital as before. That is exactly what the Government has done.


TIMING OF FUNDING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce again. I would like him to show evidence to back up either of the statements that he has made touching on what I have asked for in previous Parliaments. I take it then that we will only be given the opportunity to approve an injection of $400 million into these two Crown corporations by approving a $1 item in supplementary estimates yet to be seen.
Would the Minister indicate what he means by having two task forces at work, one to be updated in their report and the other to be constituted in due course? Does he not feel that it is backwards, if you like, to be asking Parliament to approve something before he even hears from the two task forces that he says he has in place to recommend, or otherwise, whether equity should be put in these two companies?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the reason we put the request before the President of the Treasury Board to put this in supplementary estimates was to ensure that the Opposition would have an opportunity to discuss, at the parliamentary committee stage, the activities of both Canadair and de Havilland. I think the Hon. Member has heard the questions from his colleagues yesterday and today with respect to job creation. I can think of no more important a sector in Canada than the aerospace sector. The Hon. Member, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House, will have the opportunity to put questions of this nature to Canadair and de Havilland officials when those estimates come forward.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PROGRAM CUTBACKS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is with regard to cutbacks in the energy program. He said in his speech yesterday that the Petroleum Incentives Program grants would be maintained at their existing levels. What programs, then, is he planning to cut, and how many jobs will be lost by these cuts?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the
October 28, 1982

Hon. Member on her first question in the House of Commons. I would like to say to the House that I will be in a position to report some time in the future on the nature of the cuts in my Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that we have to review some of the programs to make sure that there is no abuse and that they are serving the public, but perhaps cutting some of the costs of these programs. I do think that it is possible in the ministry to find some cuts.
I am very shocked to see the Tories do not appreciate a minister who tries to cut down expenditures in his Department.


CHIP AND OFF-OIL PROGRAMS
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the purpose of a job-creation program-that is by reallocation of funds-is that more jobs be created in the new program than are lost in the programs being cut. I am somewhat disturbed to see that no calculation has been made.
1 wish to inquire about two programs particularly, the CHIP Program and Off-Oil. These are Programs both important for conservation and job creation. Can we have the assurances of the minister, or any minister for that matter, that these two Programs will not be cut?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is my intention to maintain these programs but I will try to use them in a more efficient way. There were some complaints which I received from the private sector that there were a lot of abuses in the system. I would like to make them more efficient so that the consumer would benefit from these programs but at the same time the taxpayer would have equal value for the money invested.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the continuing involvement of Canadian National Railways in the CAST shipping group. The minister knows that Canadian National Railways have already invested $60 million in CAST. They have provided extensive credit for freight rates and credit for onshore facilities. Now the time has come to cut the losses and bail out of CAST.
Will the Minister give the House his personal assurance that no more public funds will be given to this foreign owned shipping group? Will he make Canadian National Railways co-operate so that all the facts related to this unfortunate investment will be disclosed to the Canadian Transport Commission hearing in November? Other Canadian ports and shipping interests have a right to know these facts.
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 1 think that anybody who has read the papers in recent days knows that the Chairman of CN has been quite clear on the subject. CN is remaining in CAST to protect its investment, but he has added that there is no intention on the part of CN to add to the liability it has in CAST presently.
With respect to the facts and fiction on the CN investment in CAST, there will be any number of inquiries. There is one coming soon to the CTC which will be looking into the second CN investment in CAST. I presume that the parliamentary committee on transportation could look at it again. 1 am quite sure that there will be a number of learned essays, books and articles on the subject in the future.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport must know that Canadian National Railways have consistently fought to keep the relationship with the CAST shipping group secret. They have taken cases to the Supreme Court of Canada to prevent disclosure of these facts. He also must know that Canadian National Railways on other occasions have indicated that they would no longer invest further public funds in CAST and went back on this word by becoming involved in other activities with CAST. Would he simply state his position before the House of Commons with respect to the matter of Canadian National Railways' involvement in CAST. He was in favour of it a year ago. Is he still in favour of continuation on this relationship?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, everyone knows that 1 try not to run on a day to day basis these Crown corporations for which I am responsible. When the chairman of one of those corporations states as clearly as Mr. Horner did yesterday that there was no intention on the part of CN to increase its liabilities in the CAST organization, I prefer to quote him than to take responsibility myself for imposing these views on an excellent board, excellent chairman, and an excellent president.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced a $230 million cut in the defence budget. I presume that this cut is in addition to the $200 million cut announced at the time of the June budget. Would the Minister tell the House how much of this cut applies to this fiscal year and how much to 1983-84? Would he also explain the remarks of the Minister of Finance that there will be some adjustments in the nature of the programs we have planned to undertake? What adjustments, and what programs?

October 28, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the reallocation of the defence moneys to the job-creation program was made through the years 1983-84, 1984-85. It does not affect the present budget of 1982-83. This reallocation of money is made possible because of the policy of the Government, of six and five which is very successful. We can effect savings in these two years due to the six and five, because salary increases were projected at 11 per cent or 12 per cent when the estimates were tabled last November. As you know, at the same time we have a special economic model at DND, an economic model which forecasts or predicts rates of inflation. This also was revised too, considering that we have been very successful to the moment in bringing the inflation rate down. This was calculated using the DND model at, let us say, an inflation rate of about 13 per cent or 14 per cent for these years. Considering that the Canadian rate of inflation is going down and that the United States rate of inflation is also going down, we will save money as a result of these factors, and then we re-allocate the money saved for the job creation program.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is interesting to know that the Armed Forces will pay for their own equipment. The Minister should remember what he said on July 12 when he admitted in the House that he was unable to find the S200 million from the imposition of 6 per cent ceiling on servicemen's pay raises, through this year and next year.


LAY-OFFS OF INSTRUCTORS AT ST-JEAN, P.Q.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, 1 want to point out to the Minister that last week, when the Prime Minister was giving his trilogy, he told those Canadian employers thinking of cutting jobs to cut costs to consult with their employees as they might find that the workers would be prepared to participate in work sharing in order to save jobs. In view of that statement, why has the Minister laid off 42 English instructors and 15 French instructors at St-Jean? The military management there has refused to consider work sharing. Could the Minister explain the Department's refusal to comply with the Prime Minister's pleas to employers?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, this is a special circumstance, I know, relating to St-Jean. I think the explanation I gave when I was asked by some of my colleagues why some teachers were laid off at St-Jean was very simple. It was a normal administrative decision. At the moment, as the Hon. Member knows very well, recruiting is at about the lowest level possible. We have fewer enlistees than ever before because people now stay in the Forces. Therefore, we do not have any attrition, and teachers in different schools and different training programs are simply not required any more. Thus, we had to lay off some of these people who were not needed any longer.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Minister, you increased unemployment insurance premiums to deal with the unemployment insurance deficit, created-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Through the Speaker.


Cyril Keeper: Very well. Through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, I would ask a question. Yesterday the Minister increased unemployment insurance premiums in order to deal with an unemployment insurance deficit which has been created, at least in part, by his detrimental economic policies with regard to the economy, which create unemployment. To quote the Prime Minister, he said in June that "it is still possible to scare the hell out of people by creating more unemployment". These unemployment insurance premiums will cost the average working person, earning who is, let us say, $20,000, some $460 in the new year, which is a tax increase of some 53 per cent. Mr. Minister, is it fair to impose a 53 per cent increase in a regressive tax on the average Canadian in these economic times?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in case the Hon. Member does not know that unemployment is more than a strictly Canadian problem, I would remind him that there are 30 million unemployed in the OECD countries today and we expect that there may be even more next year, so it is not a purely Canadian phenomenon.
The Government has made its decision after consultation with both labour and management. We have held meetings with spokesmen for the unions. Some were invited but, like the CLC, decided not to show up. Instead, the CLC sent a letter merely stating, "extend the benefits and do not increase the rates". That was the extent of its contribution. The others, those in a responsible union leadership, said they were ready to consider an increase but that there should be a sharing of the cost of the increase. The same view was taken by management. The advisory council on unemployment insurance, representing both labour and management, recommended that we set increases at $2.30, and this is what the Government has done.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER INCREASE
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, surely the Minister does not deny that his Government has contributed to unemployment. Under the economic policies of the Minister's Government, the average working Canadian earning $20,000 a year will be losing $2,200 as a result of salary restrictions under six and five, some $450 from higher income tax under de-indexation, and some $320 by the unemployment insurance premium increase. Considering the impact of the loss of some $3,000 to an average Canadian who may be earning $20,000, will the Minister at least reconsider his
October 28, 1982

increase in the regressive unemployment insurance premiums and place some of the burden to pay for that Program on the general tax revenues?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, out of the increase that has been announced, if we take into account the deficit this year and next year, the Government will be absorbing about 70 per cent of the additional cost which this will represent. I think that is a fair contribution by the general taxpayer to the system when one realizes that, out of the rest, the employers contribute about 58 per cent and the workers contribute about 42 per cent. I think the Government of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada in general have indeed made their contributions to this particular situation.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. For over a year the Solicitor General has been saying, "At any time now there will be a policy statement with regard to mandatory supervision," that social failure. In the meantime, because of his inaction, the Chairman of the National Parole Board has had to make a test case in British Columbia with regard to the Minister's policy. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect a policy statement from him, or legislation, which will put the security of the public of Canada first?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 am now ready to discuss, with my critics in the Opposition, the amount of time that might be required to deal with the legislation I propose to bring forward to tighten mandatory supervision.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, if the Minister were not so interested in spending $60,000 to train mice to sniff out marijuana, he could perhaps have had this ready a long time ago.


SECURITY OF CITIZENS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is as follows: Will this policy change come as legislation, will it come as an Order in Council, and will it, above all else, put the security of Canadians first?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I cannot assure the House that the Opposition will totally agree with the provisions to tighten the rules of mandatory supervision which I am proposing, but it will be by legislation. I do hope to have the support and co-operation of the Opposition so that the House can deal with it rapidly when it is brought
Oral Questions
forward. The measures have in no way been held up by any considerations with regard to mice.


TERRORISM
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Solicitor General would have some statement or comment to make on the ugly emergence of violent terrorism in this country over the last few months. I am specifically speaking of the destruction of power facilities in British Columbia, the execution of a foreign diplomat on an Ottawa road, and the dangerous blowing up of the front of a Defence plant in Toronto. Are arrests in any or all of these cases near?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the detection-the solving of these crimes, if I can put it that way-is primarily a responsibility of local police forces. I can assure the Hon. Member that my understanding is that local police forces are giving them top priority. However, to the extent that national security and international terrorism are a factor in them, I can again assure him that the Security Service is discharging its responsibility in gathering information about them and in fully co-operating with the local police forces so far as the furnishing of intelligence available to our national Security Force is concerned.


USE OF STOLEN EXPLOSIVES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, just to emphasize the national aspect of this matter, of which I am sure the Solicitor General should be aware, early in this year a large quantity of explosives was stolen in British Columbia. Later, only part of these explosives were used to destroy power facilities in that Province. I ask the Solicitor General whether he can tell us if some of those same explosives stolen in British Columbia were used to blow up the front of Litton Industries in Toronto, and whether he can inform us of the whereabouts, the quantity and the quality of the presumably unused remainder of those explosives, especially in light of threats being made about every second or third day against some other plants in this country. That is a national police matter. It is not a local police matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I am well aware of the substance of the matters that he put forward before the House. I would again like to remind him that in view of the division of constitutional responsibility and policing responsibilities, any progress in solving these cases will be announced by the local police departments concerned.

October 28, 1982
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader the usual Thursday question with respect to the business of the House for next week, whether there have been any changes since our last discussion?
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, until further notice, the business of the House remains unchanged as far as today, tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday are concerned. Yesterday, I asked the House to wait until today for further details about our business for next Wednesday and Thursday. So, today, we will start the debate on second reading of Bill C-128, a measure to provide the government with supplementary borrowing authority. Tomorrow will be the second day of this debate, which should end next Tuesday by 9:45 p.m. Both Monday and Friday next week will be opposition days. As far as Wednesday and Thursday are concerned, there are bills arising from the last budget which we should like to have debated in the House as soon as possible. These bills will be introduced in a few moments by the ministers concerned. The bills we wish to consider on Wednesday and Thursday are the following, in that order-provided, of course, that more than one is passed. The first one will be the bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), entitled "An Act respecting rebates of interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act". The second bill to be considered concerns small business, and is entitled "Small Business Investment Grants Act", and the third bill still arising from the June budget that will be presented to Parliament for consideration is in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) and is entitled "An Act to amend the National Housing Act (No. 2)".
Thus, the order of business for next week is very straightforward and clear-cut, except for Wednesday and Thursday when we will be considering, in order, a number of bills arising from the last budget. These are the bills I have just mentioned and they will be introduced in a few moments.
Now, I shall, if I may, add a few remarks about the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). We expected the minister's statement to take up about one hour, in fact it was a bit longer than that, so that, at the request of the opposition parties, Madam Speaker, we have agreed that when we get to Statements by Ministers, the question and answer period following the statement will continue today for an additional period of not more than twenty minutes, and I may add, as I said yesterday, that we would not want this to be considered a precedent.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, as the Government House Leader has indicated, we have had some discussion on this matter. It relates to a reservation I made last night immediately prior to the adjournment, namely that there was a point of
order that might arise today with respect to the item upon which the House should have commenced proceedings today.
There is a substantive argument that could be made procedurally that we should have started today's proceedings where we left off yesterday, namely under the item on Routine Proceedings entitled "Statements by Ministers". There is an argument that can be made under Standing Order 7 and Standing Order 15 and Bourinot, May and Beauchesne all support that. However, since the Government has agreed to extend the examination of the Minister of Finance for a further 20 minutes, it is not my intention to advance that submission today.
I rise now simply to make certain that the record will show that our acquiescence to this proceeding today, that is, embarking on the question period rather than continuing the item we left off yesterday, is not to be taken in any way, shape or form as any precedent for the future should we find ourselves in a similar position.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I also was involved in this, but I hope it is a precedent in fact in that it shows the goodwill that can be obtained when we try to work together.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which concerns Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, and I wish to request an extension until November 30, a memorable date, since it is Winston Churchill's birthday and mine as well.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, it was my understanding that this question of privilege would arise after "Statements by Ministers", but I am prepared to proceed now. I beg the indulgence of the House on this matter.
October 28, 1982

I rise on a question of privilege relating to the rights of this House and the rights of Members to full and complete disclosure in answer to an order of the House, and also to indicate that the House and its Members are entitled to complete production of all documents to comply with an order of this House.
On April 1, 1982, under Division No. 157, this House by a vote of 160 to 5 agreed to my Private Member's Motion for the Production of Papers. This decision, arrived at after near unanimity, followed the lengthy debate of December 17, 1981 and April 1, 1982.
It is my view that a prima facie case of privilege exists since the return is not complete. In view of the ruling of the Speaker of the House on February 16, 1954, page 2121 of Hansard, which establishes a precedent that there is a prima facie case for this question of privilege, it is my right to raise the question at this time.
The order of the House that we presented on April 1 and on which we voted read as follows:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, memos, telegrams, and communications relating to the order respecting Emergency Planning P.C. 1981-1305, May 21, 1981, Registration SI/81-76 June 10, 1981.
It was in defiance of Citation 213 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, 1958 and Citation 389 of Beauchesne's third edition, 1943 that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) finally did table some of the documents on July 29, 1982, four months after that order of the House was issued and only after I was forced to raise this specific matter of neglect to the House on two separate occasions.
There is no doubt that the Government has not complied with this order. Over the summer months I have collected hundreds of pages of documents which should have been tabled at this time but were not.
The omissions that I have uncovered reveal that there were many and various kinds of correspondence, tabled documents that were not included. I would like to give just one example of this omission. It is a letter tabled in the Alberta legislature, and, therefore, is public property. It is addressed to the "Hon. Yvon Pinard, President of the Privy Council." It says in part, and this is why it is so important that we have in all the documents:
Alberta is seriously concerned, however, that the proposed federal legislation will not necessarily be confined to emergencies of an overriding national concern but that it also contemplates federal authority in what may be very localized situations.
That gives some import to the particular motion which I had voted on in the House. You will note, Madam Speaker, that the Motion for the Production of Papers reads "-all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, memos, telegrams and communications." It does not say "part of the documentation" or "most of the documentation", it says all of the documentation.
Privilege-Mr. Friesen
In addition, Madam Speaker, you will note that there is no date attached to this motion and that the order is quite specific as it relates to any documentation concerning that order, either before its implementation or after.
The government might want to argue that the undisclosed material is privileged information. As I have already indicated, that information is readily available in the legislative assemblies because it has been tabled in the legislature of at least one of the Provinces, and, 1 believe, those of several other provinces. For example, in a letter dated April 28, 1982, to Mr. Marvin E. Moore, the Minister in charge for the Alberta Disaster Services, the President of the Privy Council states that he has certainly-and 1 quote:
-no objections to your tabling in your legislature the exchange of correspondence between us and the subject of legislation on matters relating to Emergency Planning.
In fact, Madam Speaker, that letter, together with five others, was tabled in the Alberta Legislature. Yet the President of the Privy Council refused to do the same in this Chamber even despite the fact that there was a House order to do so.
In addition, memoranda of understanding were reached with the Provinces at a meeting held in Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in January of this year. Subsequent to that meeting, these memoranda of understanding were made public, yet those documents are also missing, despite the fact that they are accessible elsewhere.
To underscore my point, the President of the Privy Council issued a news release just two days ago in which he announced the significance of that memorandum of understanding with one of the Provinces. In that release the minister states that a memorandum of understanding has been signed in the Province of New Brunswick, thus indicating, of course, that the document exists.
I should also point out that under Citation 389 in Beauchesne's third edition it is stated:
-If parties neglect to make returns to orders of either House in reasonable time, they are ordered to make them forthwith; or so much of returns as has not been made. If they continue to withhold them, they are ordered to attend at the bar of the House; and unless they satisfactorily explain the causes of their neglect, and comply with the order of the House, they will be censured or punished according to the circumstances of the case.
That Citation, Madam Speaker, refers to specific cases where information sought has not all been provided or where information having been sought was not given. The wording is taken from May, pages 562 and 563, twelfth edition; and I also refer you to pages 256 and 257 of the fifteenth edition.
I fully understand, Madam Speaker, the general theory which can be found in the fifteenth edition, which is to the effect that if there is a failure to comply, a sufficient cause must be demonstrated for the exercise of that power. If consideration of public policy can be urged against a motion for Papers, it is either withdrawn or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the House. That theory is alluded to by the Speaker of the House of Commons in a decision

October 28, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Friesen
rendered on July 16, 1955, page 6246 of Hansard. In addition, the Speaker goes on to say:
-if the hon. member wishes to complain further about the non-compliance with the order, it is not a point of order or a point of privilege, and he must do so by moving the proper motion if he deems that advisable.
I respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, that in the case affecting my motion, in contrast to that decision rendered almost two decades ago, there is sufficient cause to justify a prima facie case of privilege. In my view, in this case no consideration of public policy can be urged against the motion for these papers since many of these documents are readily available now through the provincial Legislatures.
I also refer to a decision rendered on March 20, 1962, found at page 1967 of Hansard, where the Speaker states:
Perhaps the hon. member who feels the order of the House has not been sufficiently complied with would inform the minister of the specific documents which he says have not been produced. Then if he is not satisfied there is provision under our rules for a debatable motion to produce documents. This procedure gives a remedy for that matter which the hon. member for Laurier now raises.
In contrast to this decision, I have, first of all, already alluded to those documents which have not been produced. Second, I am satisfied that an order of the House was not discharged. In my view, a blatant contempt of that order has been demonstrated by the Government for its failure to produce these documents. How is it possible for a Member to indicate that all of the documents have not been produced before the Government decides to table those documents which it wants to? It is an impossible task.
I might refer to page 3793 of Hansard, May 11, 1956. You will note that in that particular case the Government did indicate its responsibility to table all documents and undertook to look into any oversight which may have occurred. However, in this case no oversight could possibly have occurred by the very magnitude of the number of documents which I have uncovered are missing.
You will note that at the bottom of pages 562 and 563 of May's twelfth edition and at pages 256 and 257 of May's fifteenth edition, there are footnotes which refer to the Journals and Hansard from which these specific cases were extracted. Going back to the Journals of 1834, 1835, 1841, 1876 and 1820, and also Hansard for these periods, you will note that the House has in the past ordered certain officers to produce certain documents. These points are a subject of the Speaker's remarks on Saturday, July 16, 1955, at page 6245 of Hansard, to which I have already alluded.
You will note that the Speaker refers to one case in which the Clerk of the Peace of Caernarvon was involved. The reason the Clerk was not producing the documents was because he felt the expense of producing such documents should be paid by the House, whereas a Member suggested it should be paid for by the Member who moved the motion. In another case, the man involved was a witness who appeared before a committee and refused to produce a book in his possession. The Speaker does not go into the other particular cases involved, but the Speaker ruled, upon looking into the background of these documents, that it would appear that ordinary citizens were involved with neglect rather than direct officers of the Crown.
It is my contention, Madam Speaker, that if an ordinary citizen can be held culpable for neglect, for whatever reason, so too should officers of the Crown, especially when they are Ministers of the Crown and have a direct responsibility in the operations and conduct of democracy in this country.
In other words, Ministers must be held accountable for their actions to an extent even beyond that of the ordinary citizen. Going over all the debates which have taken place on the Emergency Planning Order, the Government and its representatives have consistently adopted the view that there was nothing secret about the Emergency Planning Order. Indeed, it has indicated on almost every occasion that it wanted to make information available to clear up any misapprehension which could have occurred concerning this order.
Once the House order was passed on April 1, 1982, the Government said there was a problem only for the translation of the documents, that as soon as the documents were translated they would be made available to the House. At no time was a question of public policy raised as to the confidentiality of the record.
In addition, I would like to refer you to the ruling of the Speaker on February 21, 1979, page 3460, in a response to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. You will note that the question dealt with the failure of the then Minister of Transport to make available documents to the House which had been made available to an inquest conducted by a coroner on the crash of an aircraft in Saskatchewan. The Speaker clearly indicates that if the Hon. Member had actually said he had made application pursuant to motions for the production of documents and that the Minister subsequently refused to produce them, then it could have been brought forward within the ambit of privilege.
I understand, Madam Speaker, that over 70 people are directly employed by the federal Government to develop the Emergency Planning Order passed by Order in Council. I stress that these people are directly employed and do not include all those others indirectly involved. I find it impossible to believe that such a large contingent could produce such a small quantity of papers as were tabled here in the House. I think it is a byword across the country that the main industry here is to produce paper.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to Citation 395 of Beauchesne's third edition, which tells us that once papers and files are entrusted to the Clerk of the House and recorded in the Journals, they become the property of the House. I suggest that, given the fact that many of the items to which I have referred earlier, and which I will not go over again, are already a matter of public record in the provincial legislatures, the President of the Privy Council must be obliged to table the missing documents in order to ensure that the rights of the Members of the federal legislature are respected. As a matter of fact I would state, Madam Speaker,
October 28, 1982

that the documents are now already public property here and that the President of the Privy Council is withholding public property.
In addition, Madam Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that a prima facie case of privilege does exist and that the conduct of the President of the Privy Council and the Minister responsible for emergency planning in Canada in failing to provide documentation which he was to have provided under an order of this House of Commons should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the committee to have the power to call persons, papers and documents and report its findings to the House of Commons.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am not so sure I understand what the Hon. Member means. He is saying there are documents that are now public property and that I am at fault because I am withholding them. Now if they are public property, how can there be any question of my withholding them! He is saying that what is important is not really the content of those documents but the amount. He is saying that this is a country where a lot of paper is produced and that, considering the number of employees we have, we should have been producing a more impressive pile of documents. I think the Hon. Member has a rather superficial attitude, and I am trying to understand what he really means, although frankly, I am at a loss.
The Hon. Member ought to know that the documents we produced were tabled with the consent of members on both sides of the House. We accepted this motion for production of documents in good faith, and I asked my officials to do the necessary research and obtain the appropriate material so as to respond in a full and adequate manner to the request and the order of the House. My parliamentary secretary tabled the documents himself in the course of his duties, and he tells me that the pile was about as high as the pile of documents he has here which he is going to table today in answer to another request. Perhaps the Hon. Member wanted a bigger pile and that is why he is now accusing me of withholding documents which are already in the public domain. I really cannot follow his reasoning.
In any case, Madam Speaker, perhaps I could draw your attention to a citation in Beauchesne which says quite clearly that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in this House, and that the definition of privilege where members' rights are concerned is very limited and applies primarily to a breach of members' rights to freedom of speech. In the circumstances, I say that we acted in good faith, with the unanimous consent of the House, that we tabled all the documents we believed to be relevant and that if the Hon. Member were to indicate a document or documents in which he is interested and which could be tabled, I assure you I would do so without hesitation. However, I am sure that the Hon. Member never intended to question my good faith, because otherwise I would have a thing or two to say about that.
Privilege-Mr. Friesen


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has raised a number of questions. For the benefit of the ruling I will have to make on the question which has just been raised, I would like the minister to tell me, first of all, whether he is invoking the restrictions indicated by Beauchesne, in Citation 387 I believe, with respect to these documents? As far as I know, the government never invoked any of those restrictions and had always given the House to understand that it was prepared to produce the documents. The member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) was very clear as to the documents he would like to consult if they were laid on the table of the House. He mentioned a number of documents he has as yet been unable to consult because, for some reason, the government has not yet tabled them. I do not know whether it is because they have not been translated or because the government does not have them at this time. In any case, to help me in making my ruling, I would appreciate it if the minister would tell me whether he is invoking Beauchesne's restrictions or whether he has another reason for not tabling the documents.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, while the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is thinking about that, I might intervene and submit to you, with respect, that it does not make any difference at this stage whether the Government wishes to invoke the discretion of privilege. The fact is that the House passed an order. That order called for the production of all papers and documents relevant to the subject matter of the motion which was on the Order Paper. That motion was accepted by the House. Normally, if any conditions or restrictions are going to be placed upon the agreement by the Government for the production of those papers, that is the point at which those conditions or restrictions are invoked. Now, that period of time has gone by so my submission to you, Madam Speaker, is that it is too late for the Government to attempt to impose restrictions on an order of this House which requires the Government to produce all documents and papers with respect to the motion.
The President of the Privy Council used the words "production of relevant documents." I submit that that discretion is now beyond him. The order of the House did not call for the production of all relevant documents, it called for the production of all documents, and it is a little late now for the government to invoke the doctrine of irrelevancy, the doctrine of privilege, or indeed any other doctrine that might have been available to it under the rules at the time the House adopted unanimously the motion of the Hon. Member.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, from what I have been listening to, that the Hon. Member who raises the point has very succinctly and clearly made out a prima facie case of privilege and any doubt-and I submit that there can be none in your mind, but if there might be a lingering doubt-has to

October 28, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Friesen
be resolved in favour of the Hon. Member who raises the question. There is only one instrument for resolving it and that is the Standing Committee to which the Hon. Member wishes the whole matter to be referred so he might produce there, in that forum, the documents which are public in other legislatures of the country but which for some reason or other the Government will not make public here, notwithstanding the existence of an order of this House that those documents be produced.
Never has there been a clearer case of privilege, Madam Speaker, and I would suggest in this instance that it is a most appropriate case for allowing the motion to be put that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee, so that apparently the hundreds or dozens, or whatever, of other documents that the Member could not reach in the limited time available to him for making the point which he has very ably done might be also produced.
The main point, Madam Speaker, is that it is too late now for the Government to invoke these restrictions and qualifications which, if it wanted to do so, should have been done at the time the House passed an unqualified, unrestricted, unconditional order for production.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, you asked me a question. You referred to a list of documents mentioned by the Hon. Member. You said that it would have been repetitive to table documents in the House that were already public property. You said that we acted in good faith when we tabled a large quantity of documents. Today, the Hon. Member is mentioning other documents he would like to examine. I said earlier that I would like to have time to check what documents he is talking about. I did not receive prior notice of this question. I am aware that according to parliamentary procedure, the Hon. Member is not obliged to give notice, but since we were acting in good faith in tabling a very large quantity of documents and the Hon. Member would like to have more of these, I would like to have time to check whether we have the documents and whether they can be tabled, and then answer your question later on, if you will give me enough time. However, 1 still think, and this was my reaction straight away, that as far as documents that are already in the public domain are concerned, it would be repetitive to table them in the House. Furthermore, the agreement with New Brunswick referred to by the Hon. Member was signed only a few days ago. I signed it last week while Parliament was still in recess. In the circumstances, I do not think a complaint is justified.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has made his case quite completely. Hon. Members will notice that I have let him go on for a considerable time to give him a chance to give his complete submission in this case, especially since I believe this is the second time he feels he has had to raise this question
before the House. I needed to have his complete submission in order to make a finding in this particular case. There is still some doubt in my mind as to the way my decision should go. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I am sure, is not suggesting that when I am in doubt I should automatically decide in favour of the Member who has raised a question.


Erik Nielsen: Let the House decide.


Madam Speaker:: When I am in doubt I try to find out more information about the case so that I can give a ruling which is not doubtful. That is precisely what I want to do.
There is no question in my mind that if there is a disobedience to an order of the House then this is a prima facie question of privilege. It is not as clear as I would want it to be to decide that the Government has refused to obey an order of the House. I agree with the Hon. Member that it is taking some time, and maybe his patience is coming to an end. Perhaps there are reasons for that.
I should like also to look into the point raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon about whether the time has passed at which a Member can invoke some other restrictions. As I understand it now, the Government has not invoked any restrictions, so that point is clear.
If Hon. Members would allow me to look at the order that has been made-I looked through my documents and I do not have it with me-I will rule on it later.


Erik Nielsen: That is eminently reasonable, Madam Speaker. I do not want to be misunderstood on the question of doubt. I was not suggesting that if any doubt resided in the mind of the Chair it should be resolved in favour of the question. What I was suggesting to the Chair has been common practice in the past and it has been followed by at least two of your predecessors, and that is that where a doubt exists-and they are on record as saying this several times-it is resolved by allowing the motion suggested by the Member to be put to the House. I suggest that is the proper course here if there is any doubt.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, you are giving me time to argue my case further and to invoke restrictions if necessary. I think I understand you are not closing the door on any arguments I may bring forward, but as I said earlier, the request is so complex and the pile of documents tabled is so substantial that I would like to know whether anything was really left out and whether we had any reason to leave it out. Meanwhile, I would remind the House that as far as the time factor is concerned, since you mentioned the time involved when you were discussing the Hon. Member's question of privilege, the Hon. Member himself is well aware of the problem. On this side of the House we like to table documents in both official languages, and because of the number of documents involved, it took some time to have them translated, which explains the delay. So I hope the Hon. Member is not going to complain that we took the time that was necessary to observe the Official Languages Act.
October 28, 1982


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: 1 have heard the Hon. Member on his question of privilege. Perhaps we should end the debate there and 1 will look at the different submissions and rule later.


HON. J. REID-ENTRANCE TO HOUSE IMPEDED
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice of my question of privilege yesterday. It is based on the fact that since my return to Ottawa after the summer I have been stopped three times from entering the House of Commons. I must admit I have not been absolutely prevented from entering the House of Commons, but I have found my entrance into the House of Commons impeded. I understand as well that Your Honour has had discussions with the Members of the Management and Members' Services Committee and I understand that the Whips have gone to all the parties to seek some general consensus in terms of imposing upon ourselves new restrictions in respect of the security of Members of the House of Commons. In general 1 have no problem with that and in general I am sympathetic to the position Your Honour found yourself in when you were informed of the dangers that apparently were involved.
My question of privilege is on the basis that while a general consensus has emerged and while there has been some specific discussion with the Management and Members' Services Committee, the stories going around are that there are to be far more restrictions placed upon the ability of Members of the House and their staffs to move around the building.
I understand the dilemma that Your Honour has since the House Leader has not seen fit to set up the Committee on Procedure and Organization which has traditionally looked into this kind of matter. I was a member of that committee in 1971 when we looked into the Chartier case. For Members who do not remember, that individual wired himself up as a bomb and blew himself up in one of the washrooms near the Prime Minister's office. The second time, of course, was in 1975 when the Procedure and Organization Committee looked into the question of security again.
I do not want to proceed with a formal motion on my question of privilege for two reasons. First of all, the people affected would be the constables who were trying to follow the directions of their superiors. I think it would be unfortunate, when they were simply trying to obey instructions from their superiors, if they were to go through the kind of process we would have to put them through.
If we are going to impose restrictions upon ourselves as Members of Parliament, I think the Speaker should have the advice and assistance of a standing committee of some sort. As Hon. Members know, and as I am sure you will understand, Madam Speaker, what is going to happen is going to be fairly controversial.
I make an appeal to the House Leader and to the Leaders of the other parties to make some arrangement to provide this kind of help and assistance to the Speaker. I know that not many of us wear the pins and the identification that we have
Privilege-Hon. J. Reid
been given. In my own case 1 wear no wedding ring and no other kind of jewellery. I have no identification that proves I am a Member of Parliament. I have never required any identification to prove that I was a Member of Parliament until this September. If we are going through this process, then I think there ought to be a wide-ranging set of discussions within the House of Commons.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I understand the difficulty you are in. I am fully in sympathy with the decisions you felt you had to take and I am prepared to support them. I would make an appeal to the House itself and to Members to take much more interest in what is going on.


Madam Speaker:: I was just going to interrupt the Hon. Member. Of course, I cannot be asked to rule on a hypothetical situation where the Hon. Member is saying that in the future some more stringent security measures might be imposed upon Members. I can assure him that there has been no discussion at the present time of any more stringent measures being imposed upon Members. I can assure him that there has been no discussion at the present time of any more stringent measures being imposed upon Members except the ones that have been agreed to by the different caucuses. The Hon. Member is raising a question of privilege based on some rumour that has circulated around the Hill. He has been here long enough to know that there are a lot of rumours circulated around the Hill and that it is not always a good idea to give credence to those rumours.
Security measures have now been put in place. There is one more that will be put in place later which has been agreed upon by all caucuses after intensive consultation with the Whips, the Whips having brought the problem to the caucuses which have discussed it. This is, of course, an administrative matter that I could probably have decided upon myself but I would not have wanted to deprive myself of the wisdom of all Members in the House in this very delicate matter.
Members should understand that I get informed of certain incidents which, in the time that I have been here, have given me and others cause to worry. We have had to come to the conclusion that certain of these measures were necessary. They are as repugnant to me as they are to many Hon. Members, but I ask the House to co-operate in the implementation of these measures.
I would like the Hon. Member to wear his pin if he could, but it is not necessary for Members of Parliament who do not like to wear jewellery. The guards have been trained to recognize all Members. If the Hon. Member has been stopped at the door, I am sorry for that, but it must be one of the exceptions. That it should happen to him three times in a row is very unlucky for the Hon. Member, but I think we all realize that Parliament must be open to everyone. That remains a very, very important principle, but some kind of security measure had to be put in place in order to protect us from people who,

October 28, 1982
Petitions
for some reason, want to do harm to us. I do not understand why, but some do.
I appreciate the Hon. Member raising this question, but it could have been raised more properly with me privately since it is a matter of the administration of the House of Commons.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some 116 Canadians who are residing in the Province of British Columbia, largely in the riding of Comox-Powell River. Ballots were printed by Proctor Publications Ltd. in The Press newspaper of Sechelt, British Columbia. The petition requests that capital punishment be reinstated for premeditated crimes of first degree murder and for the murder of children. A growing percentage of the population of adults in Canada want capital punishment reinstated, and this petition is representative of the thinking of more than 80 per cent of Canadians.
The Government has a responsibility to reflect the thinking of its people in its legislation. The petitioners pray that the Government will bring a Bill to the House of Commons reinstating the death sentence for anyone found guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of deliberately taking the life of another human being, particularly anyone murdering a child.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to submit a petition on behalf of a large number of Canadian citizens interested in participating with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Government in this new age of co-operation.
The clerical and technical employees of Nordair have been on strike since June 24, 1982. This company is 86 per cent owned by Air Canada, and Nordair refuses to bargain. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) refuses to answer a request from Nordair employees to appoint a mediator to attempt to resolve this nasty and prolonged dispute. The petition asks the Government to practise what it preaches and begin some cooperation by appointing a mediator.


Madam Speaker:: I caution Hon. Members that these two petitions have been presented in an argumentative way. I think Members are going beyond the rule and making a habit of presenting petitions in this manner. The titles of petitions should be presented to the House, and that is it. That is the way in which petitions should be presented to the House.
Statements by Ministers. I understand that by unanimous consent we will continue for a period of 20 minutes with
questioning which follows the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I was not consulted on this new type of procedure in terms of questioning the Minister on a statement. I agreed with the unanimous consent yesterday to move forward on that basis or with that type of procedure, but I do not agree today to extend it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when the Government House Leader made his submission with respect to the results of the meetings between House Leaders at the opening of the House, he disclosed the fact that there was unanimous consent. Madam Speaker will recall that I rose afterwards and I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did likewise. I submit that it was at that point that unanimous consent was sought and achieved, and it is too late now for the Hon. Member to rise in an attempt to refuse unanimous consent.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I am amazed at how the House Leader of the Official Opposition can distort the facts. You asked for unanimous consent to extend this unusual procedure just a few minutes ago. There was no attempt to ask for it before then.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, there is an interesting point which should be considered in this matter. I agree with the House Leader of the Official Opposition that we in fact commented upon the request of the Government House Leader some time ago with regard to extending the period into today. There was no evidence at that point that anyone objected to it. I would point out, however, that all that is being done is that the length of time in total to be afforded to questions to and responses of the Minister will not exceed the length of time taken by the Minister yesterday. I suggest that with that in mind, and also with the previous consultation which took place, perhaps unanimous consent is not required.


Erik Nielsen: And with the previous consent of yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: I remind the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) that earlier in the proceedings of the House the matter of continuing the questioning of the Minister on his statement of yesterday was raised. Both Party Leaders agreed that that was the conclusion which all Parties had reached. No one at that time posed any objection, and I assumed that the consent of the House had been given to proceed to the period of questioning.
Furthermore, Standing Order 15(3) indicates that the Speaker has some leeway in determining the period of time for these question. It reads:
Mr. Speaker shall limit the time for such proceedings as he deems fit.
If I read the sentiments of the House, it seems to me that a period of 20 minutes for questions is quite appropriate.
October 28, 1982


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I wish to put a serious complaint before the House with respect to my privileges on the basis that it was not-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled on the matter. The Hon. Member has had a chance to express his views, but regardless of his views, which I appreciated, I have ruled that we will have a period of 20 minutes to question the Minister.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would inform the House and the Chair that it is my intention to raise a point of privilege at the earliest opportunity in connection with your ruling just now, because you did not seek unanimous consent earlier.


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member feels he has a question of privilege, he may raise it. He does not need to give notice to the House but only to the Speaker in writing. If he consults the rules he will remember that any question of privilege may be raised after a written statement has been given to the Speaker. However, I warn the Hon. Member that a ruling has been made and that he may not discuss it.



THE ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 27, consideration of the statement of Mr. Lalonde.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) proposed a $500 million program to provide jobs for some
60,000	individuals over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, his Government's own projections show that there could be as many as 790,000 individuals who will run out of unemployment benefits during the next nine months. Many of these people will have to go on welfare, which is causing an enormous amount of concern in the country. Where does the Minister expect municipalities such as Toronto, Kingston or Sudbury suddenly to find their share of the money which they will have to pay to support these people through the winter, people who are without jobs not because of anything the municipalities have done but because of the economic policies of the Government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) answered this question in good part earlier this afternoon when he revealed from his scientific study released this summer that between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of those who exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits find jobs. Then there is another group of people who either have savings or have managed to rearrange their affairs, and only 10 per cent of the total actually end up on social assistance programs.
The program we have put forward will significantly contribute toward dealing with the particular difficulty raised by the
The Economy
Hon. Member. I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that in addition to the $500 million, there is an amount of $1.4 billion in direct job-creation programs and other programs that we have announced over the course of this year which are either in effect at the present time or will come into effect in the next few months. Literally there will be hundreds of thousands more jobs created, a lot more than the
60,000	jobs to which the Hon. Member was referring. For instance, there is a particular program for November, December, January and February, which will encompass expenditures of $300 million to help those who are unfortunately no longer receiving insurance benefits. 1 think the Hon. Member has to bear in mind the totality of the programs that are in operation at the present time, not only the ones that I announced yesterday.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Minister's answer only underlines the fact that he has not taken into consideration the tremendous problem arising for a great number of people who will have to go on welfare this winter. They have no other way out.
How are municipalities expected to prepare for this massive assault on their very limited resources? The Minister may very well know that the municipalities cannot even get reliable estimates outlining how many people are going to go off UIC benefits and on to welfare for weeks ahead, let alone for the whole of the coming winter.
Could the Minister at least undertake to make this information available to individual municipalities throughout the country? If the Minister of Finance does not have the information, will he order the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to get that information and provide it to the municipalities?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again the Hon. Member has referred to 790,000 people. Assuming the same percentage, 10 per cent, would apply or 79,000 people, for the program I have announced and the programs that we already have in operation will be more than able to cope with the particular problem which the Hon. Member has raised.
Second, I would remind the Hon. Member that there are some Provinces where the provincial government is paying the full 50 per cent of the social assistance.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, not in Ontario, Manitoba or Nova Scotia.


Marc Lalonde: I know this is not the case in Ontario. It has been the decision of the Ontario Government to divide the responsibilities for social assistance that way. We are still paying 50 per cent of whatever social assistance is required.
Finally, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as I have indicated, is in Toronto this afternoon proceeding with those consultations to which she has referred. When the program and the details of it are finalized after the Minister's consultations, we

October 28, 1982
The Economy
will certainly make sure that the municipalities are aware of the program so they can make the necessary arrangements to accommodate themselves within the guidelines to be issued.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, could I ask the Minister to give us a clear idea right now when the municipalities can get that information? I cannot underscore enough how necessary it is to have this advance information as quickly as possible in order to prepare for the difficulties that are going to face so many people in the months ahead. That is all 1 am asking for. The municipalities need that information now.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is referring to the program I announced yesterday.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Madam Speaker, what I am asking for is for the Minister to supply the municipalities with an estimate of the number of people who will be coming off UIC benefits and going on to welfare week by week and month by month for, say, the next six months so they will know what revenues they will have to raise for their share of the payments.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly raise the matter with the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is administering the UIC program.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The municipalities have nothing.


Marc Lalonde: I suggest the Hon. Member could raise this matter directly with the Minister, but I will pass her suggestion on to the Minister. As a matter of fact, I know of municipalities that have arranged to get that information already.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They cannot. The Minister will not give it to them.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. lady says that they have not. I am telling her that to my knowledge there are municipalities who have similar arrangements. Nevertheless, I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) yesterday he said:
Our productivity performance continues to lag. New production techniques must be developed and implemented. This requires development of our technological base, increased investment-
The Minister knows that in the November 12 budget the most antiproductive productivity measures were measures that cut back on capital cost allowance and affected soft costs, particularly soft costs in connection with money expended to extend productive plants, factories, office buildings, and so on, by existing businesses. Why did the Minister in his budget not make some changes in the capital cost allowance structure to take into account particularly that soft cost issue that affects the extension of existing industrial plants? Why did the Minister not also at the same time take into account, by some change in the capital cost structure, capital cost allowance arrangements with respect to the purchase of production
machinery and that type of thing that would increase productivity?
On the basis of representations made very eloquently by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, this would not have completely upset the Minister's capital cost structure or his soft problem, but it certainly would have gone a long way to increasing productivity, and also adding some credibility to the Minister's statement. Could the Minister explain his attitude?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in my statement yesterday I left out a number of issues that are still to be considered in terms of the amendments to the Income Tax Act arising out of the previous budget. I have not gone through all the details of that particular amendment. The issue of soft costs is one that I am addressing. When the bill is introduced I hope that the clauses in the Bill will be to the satisfaction of the Hon. Member. I thank him for drawing my attention to it.


Mr. McDermid:: Why don't you scrap it and start again?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: More changes.


Marc Lalonde: As far as capital cost allowance is concerned, I answered a question in the House yesterday posed by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the method of dealing with capital cost allowance was a brutal one, whereby capital cost allowance in the first year was treated at 50 per cent of the regular rate. There have been some amendments to the capital cost allowance already. I believe it is contained in Schedule 29. Why could the Minister not also change some of the features with respect to that across-the-board sweeping measure to make sure that there is really something in his speech yesterday with respect to productivity? I thank the Minister for the soft cost matter. But on this question, it should not be too difficult to come up with something that would make it possible for people to buy new productive machinery, new technological equipment, so that we can compete as a nation with the Japanese and others in the automobile industry particularly and perhaps in the electronics industry. Sure there must be a method by which the Minister can create another schedule of capital cost allowances, change the system slightly and ameliorate the effect of the rather blunt method that the former Minister had in his November 12 budget.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in my statement in the House yesterday, and in answer to a question, I indicated that I had studied this question of capital cost allowance. I found that the measures put forward by my predecessor were fair and adequate and that I did not intend to make any changes to them. The Hon. Member is making representations in that regard. If he wishes to put them in writing and send them to me I will promise to examine his point of view again. However, I must tell him at the present time that my conclusion is to the
October 28, 1982

effect that we should not make changes to the capital cost allowance rules that have been put into effect.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, 1 carefully listened to the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) yesterday and his concern about fairness and equity. Soon the limit on earnings of contributors to unemployment insurance will be at the $20,200 level. Those earning incomes beyond $20,200 will not contribute to the fund. In the essence of pursuing a fair system which could be called progressive as opposed to regressive, would the Minister give some consideration to raising funds to assist building the base of that very important fund these days by making the system more progressive, asking those people who earn incomes $40,000, $60,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per year to pay a little larger share to the UIC fund?


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member is making a suggestion that concerns budgetary matters and also fundamental reform of the UI program. As he knows, there have been discussions about revisions to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will pass the representations of the Hon. Member on to the Minister of Employment and Immigration for consideration in the review that he may want to make of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As far as the other aspect is concerned, I will consider it as a representation for the forthcoming budget and I will bear the Hon. Member's representations in mind.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: My question to the Minister is with regard to the $400 million that has been allotted to the railway system in western Canada. Will the minister ensure, if this program comes about, that the railways will not be laying off workers to the extent that they have? They have given notifications in Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal of 3,500 lay-offs in their shops.
I would like to have the assurance from the Minister because these railways have received many benefits from the six and five program, saving literally billions of dollars. If we are now going to put $400 million into a railway fund, will we have the assurance that there will not be any future lay-offs and that they will upgrade their equipment, bring about those things which are needed and available at this time to get our people back to work? Will they ensure that their equipment is ready when the economy does pick up?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, our intention is to try to speed up the railways' operation, rehabilitation and modernization in the west. If we can succeed in getting the railways to spend the $11 billion that is talked about in terms of capital investment for railway improvement over the next nine years in the west, that will obviously have a significant impact on jobs.
However, I am sure that the Hon. Member recognizes that I cannot give him a guarantee that there will not be lay-offs of certain types of employees while other types of employees are being hired. This is a matter for the railways to decide.
The Economy
I would also like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that while he says that the railways have benefited significantly from the six and five program, he must also realize that the railways are incurring very large deficits at the present time, like many private companies, because of the recession. They are not laying off people because they like to do it, but because there is no work for them.


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I know that time is running short and other Members want to ask questions of the Minister, so I will try to be as brief as possible. The Minister concluded his financial statement yesterday with some reference to the agricultural community. I believe he was speaking sincerely and with some compassion, but what was disappointing was that there was actually nothing in the budget for the agricultural community, a sector which is extremely important. It is the largest single employer and it is going through one of the worst financial situations since confederation. We talked about the six and five program. I am sure that my farming friends in the House would be happy if all segments of the agricultural community could even achieve that six and five goal. In fact, farm income will be down by some 17 per cent this year.
Referring to his statement, the Minister indicates that he is accepting the recommendation of his blue chip committee and the fact that the agribond concept will not be implemented. That will be very sad news to the agricultural community. I would like him to comment about that.
Second, he indicated that the Small Business Bond provision would be extended, which is fine. However, the real problem with the Small Business Bond is the same problem which existed with the Farm Improvement Loans Act, that is, that the banks will not participate. What does he plan to do with respect to that?
The other problem which the agricultural committee was looking at was for some easement or relaxation in the capital gains legislation. I say to the Minister through you, Madam Speaker, that it was his Government who promised to update evaluation day values from 1970 to 1974 during the last election. The Government has four opportunities to do so and has not taken advantage of any of those occasions.
I have other questions but I will yield the floor to the Minister so he may respond.


Marc Lalonde: I would first like to tell the Hon. Member that I indicated in my statement yesterday that I intended to present a budget in early 1983. I did not intend to cover the whole taxation sector in my statement. I did not perceive my statement as a budget.
Second, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the $400 million which we have allocated for railway improvement and the settlement of the Crow issue in the west is in addition to the $3.2 billion that my predecessor, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) have already announced. We hope that these measures will significantly benefit the western farmers.

October 28, 1982
The Economy
I have also indicated that the Government is giving the west coast entrepreneurs and longshoremen until Monday to settle their strike and lock-outs. Otherwise, the Government would take the necessary steps to ensure at least grain movement very soon.
Finally, there is a Bill before the House that will be considered in the next few days, I hope, which concerns helping the farmers in terms of credit, in terms of the advantages given to farmers. These are matters addressed to the farming community particularly. I think all around what I am doing and what I will try to do as Minister of Finance is not so much to attempt to sprinkle small benefits here and there like dew all over the ground, but to try to get the economy moving for everyone and lower interest rates for everyone. Interest rates are now around 14 and one-quarter per cent on mortgages and 13 and three-quarters per cent on the prime rate. If we can get them down further for everyone in the next few weeks and months, the farmers will benefit significantly from that as well. I am trying to act on a global basis as well as trying to face the special situations which we must face.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: I would like to pursue what the Minister talked about concerning the $400 million for western rail expansion. Would the Minister be more specific and indicate whether that is a one-time fund to be added to the $3.2 billion that he just referred to? Is that to be thrown into the so-called pot as part of the Gilson recommendations? Is it to be used for one-time capital expenditure by the railways for some specific project? Would he comment on whether or not any of that money will be used to offset some of the concerns that the Ontario and Quebec farmers have over what may happen to their economic advantage if, in fact, the Gilson Report is implemented?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 have not divided the specific allocation of funds between direct allocation for railway improvement and settlement of the Crow issue. I have allocated $400 million to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to deal with this particular issue.


Charles James Mayer: Over what period of time?


Marc Lalonde: It will greatly depend on how quickly the Minister of Transport can get a resolution of the Crow issue. However, spending the money could begin right away. The particular allocation will depend on negotiation with the railways and the Crow negotiations. We would like the railways to immediately start in the west with some of the operating and improvement provisions and the Minister of Transport will meet very shortly with the railways with regard to that matter.
As far as the Crow negotiations are concerned, the Hon. Member knows the point at which they are as well as I. The money will be available without delay, but I cannot guarantee at what time the payments will occur because it will depend on two sets of negotiations.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, when a Minister stands to speak about the distribution or redistribution of revenues, he gets dangerously close to making a budget speech. Therefore, if the Minister does not wish to call it "a budget", I will settle for "a budgetary statement".
On page 4 of his budgetary statement, I am glad to see that he did mention the abundance of Canada's resources and their present waning state. He mentioned the need for our forests to be replenished and our fisheries to be husbanded. I was very carefully listening for that second shoe to drop, if you like. Within that statement, have I somewhere missed a provision that our forests be replenished and our fisheries be husbanded?
I will ask the Minister a second question as well. On page 12 he spoke of the reduction of some $245 million in official development assistance which will not prevent us from achieving our aid goal, "our aid commitment level of 0.5 per cent GNP by 1985-86". The Minister went on to mention the adjustments of the programs. Could the Minister tell us where that $245 million will come from in the ODA, the official development assistance, and what programs will have to be adjusted in order to provide for that $245 million saving?


Marc Lalonde: My colleague has raised several points in his intervention. I will try to deal with them individually and, as I recall, the last one had to do with CIDA.
First of all, with respect to the forest industry, I should like to remind the Hon. Member that my colleague, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Roberts) announced in early September an agreement with the provinces and the industry under which expenditures in that field would increase from $300 million to $650 million between now and 1985. If my memory serves me well, my colleague has increased the federal share by up to an additional $170 million for the forest industry, precisely to make sure that forest resources will be fully protected in the future and that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure, among other things, reforestation and a better administration of our forest resources. So I did not refer to any specific measures since my colleague had already dealt with that issue barely two months ago. I would refer the Hon. Member to the statement by the Minister of Environment.
With regard to fisheries, I am pleased to inform my colleague that cabinet is now examining the whole question. As he knows, we have received a report concerning the west coast, the Pearse report, as well as another one concerning the east coast, the Kirby report, which is now under close scrutiny by cabinet. I hope to have something to announce in that respect in the near future. Concerning the CIDA cutbacks, I am not in a position to be more explicit as to where those cutbacks will be implemented because, as the Hon. Member knows, they stem from a lower inflation rate and a decline in the growth of the gross national product. Our targeted contribution to CIDA programs based on our GNP have remained unchanged. Our objectives are the same, but lower inflation and a declining
October 28, 1982

gross national product have made it possible for us to reduce our over-all contribution. As a result of this, in certain cases CIDA will have to reconsider some of its financial commitments with respect to foreign countries, either over a somewhat longer period of years or by decreasing certain contributions in some cases. CIDA is now actively engaged in that reconsideration and the details are not available to me. However, I am advised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) that he would see to it that the information is available as soon as he gets it.



BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-129, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act.


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

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions.


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


Hon. Jim Fleming (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Introduction of Bills FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT, 1973

James Sydney Clark Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973.


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


James Sydney Clark Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2).


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

James Sydney Clark Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill C-134, an Act respecting rebates of interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act.


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


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-135, an Act to amend the National Housing Act (No. 2).


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


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (for the Minister of State (Small Businesses)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-136, the Small Business Investment Grants Act.
20126

October 28, 1982


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

Madam Speaker:: I have a notice under Standing Order 26 from the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).



LABOUR CONDITIONS


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26, seconded by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), to debate a specific and important matter requiring immediate consideration, namely the work stoppage at the Port of Vancouver and at other major ports on the west coast. This is the first opportunity that we have had since Parliament resumed to present this motion, arising because of a national emergency.
Since October 19, this work stoppage has had and continues to have a serious and negative impact on the economy of Canada. Yesterday and again today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said that the Government wished to wait until Monday before taking action on this national emergency. The cost is $8 million a day to the grain producers alone in western Canada. This situation has now gone on for nine days. If on Monday the grain is not moving and the workers are not at work on the west coast, under our rules and procedures it will take another four to five days to act, at an additional cost of some $75 million to $80 million to the people of Canada.
Over 3,000 lay-offs have occurred to date in the railway, grain handling and other industrial sectors. Commodities such as coal, lumber, potash and sulphur are sitting idle on western Canada sidings. Lay-offs are occurring daily in these and other industries. Canada's $6.4 billion grain export trade and our reputation as a reliable supplier is at stake. This matter is particularly urgent in light of the concern of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over Canada's declining productivity and our failure to compete in foreign markets.
If you find this application acceptable for debate, Madam Speaker, I would so move the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: The problem is obviously an important one. The impact on the country, as the Hon. Member just stated, is very considerable. However, the Hon. Member knows, of course, that in allowing a debate under Standing
Order 26 the Speaker has to consider whether the matter might be brought into the House within a reasonable time.
I will tell the Hon. Member that this afternoon after Routine Proceedings a Bill will be called under which the Hon. Member may discuss this matter if he so wishes. Another Bill has been announced in the House relating to Canagrex which also would allow the Hon. Member to debate this question. Further, we all know that negotiations have been reopened. These negotiations could lead to a settlement. At any rate, I believe the Hon. Member does have opportunity to discuss this question under different proceedings. For that reason, I feel I cannot allow an emergency debate.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1, 561, 775, 776, 777, 1,057, 1,248, 2,277, 2,444, 2,445, 2,542, 2,596, 2,624, 2,644, 2,719, 2,873, 3,735, 3,770, 3,773 to 3,796 inclusive. 3,798 to 3,808 inclusive, 3,810 to 3,828 inclusive, 4,150, 4,151, 4,187, 4,197, 4,257, 4,265, 4,266, 4,302, 4,304, 4,324, 4,326, 4,328, 4,352, 4,361, 4,363, 4,371, 4,373, 4,378, 4,380, 4,383, 4,389, 4,391, 4,392, 4,393, 4,395, 4,398, 4,400, 4,408, 4,409, 4,412, 4,418, 4,420, 4,424, 4,427, 4,434, 4,437 to 4,454 inclusive, 4,459, 4,460 and 4,466.

CBC- MISS SUSAN REISLER Question No. 1


Mr. Cossitt:: 1.	Is Miss Susan Reisler an employee of CBC and, if so, does she assist Mr. Mark Starowicz in producing the programme "Sunday Morning"?
2.	Has she visited Cuba on one or more occasions to assist in the cutting of sugar cane and has she ever expressed admiration for Fidel Castro publicly?
3.	Did she cover for the CBC the "Non-Alligned" Conference in Havana and, if so, who made the decision to send her including the names and job designations of any persons involved?


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Ms. Susan Reisler is a CBC employee and assigned as Washington correspondent for CBC Radio News.
2.	The CBC does not monitor or interfere with employees' opinions or off-duty activities if they do not conflict with the Corporation's established policies.
3.	Ms. Reisler covered the conference of non-aligned nations in Cuba for the CBC. The details of her assignment are among those areas of internal management and administration which Parliament has not, as a matter of custom, required the CBC to provide. The background of this custom was explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
October 28, 1982


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is the complete employment history with the CBC of Mr. Lionel Martin and is he presently stationed in Cuba (b) what were his qualifications that led to him being considered suitable for employment with the CBC?
2.	Did Mr. Martin, on Sunday, April 13, 1980, take part in the program "Sunday Morning" on CBC radio and, if so, did he present views corresponding with those of Premier Fidel CASTro of Cuba and, if so, in such a case, what steps does the government intend to take?
3.	Is it government policy to allow the management of the news to be governed by the political views of those working in CBC radio or television?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Lionel Martin is not a CBC employee. He is a freelance journalist living in Cuba who reports for CBC from time to time.
2.	He did take part in "Sunday Morning" on April 13, 1980, in a segment about Cuban refugees. He reported conditions at the Peruvian Embassy and the Cuban government's actions and statements in relation to the refugees.
3.	The CBC was established as a Crown corporation for the purpose of producing and broadcasting, independently of political or commercial influence, programs for a national broadcasting service. Successive Governments have not sought to direct the CBC in the discharge of its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act.


Mr. Cossitt: Was Mr. Lionel Martin, when broadcasting from Havana, representing the CBC, and did he praise the CASTro regime for digging a latrine across the road for fugitives in the Peruvian Embassy grounds and not shooting these people when they dared to use such a latrine and, if so, does the CBC and the Government consider this balanced news broadcasting?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: As a freelance broadcaster, Lionel Martin is not a representative of the CBC. In a report broadcast on April 8, Mr. Martin described the conditions inside the Peruvian Embassy grounds and then stated that the Cubans had "built a row of outhouse-type toilets outside the fence of the embassy" and refugees "could go to the toilet and return without being molested". Mr. Martin was reporting facts and there was no praise spoken or implied of the Cuban action.


Mr. Cossitt: Is Mr. Lionel Martin an American who served as an advisor to Prime Minister CASTro and was he a correspondent for a Communist newspaper either before or after he was used by the CBC and, specifically, what are the names and job designations of all CBC personnel authorizing the use of his broadcasts?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Freelance reporters are chosen for use by the CBC on the basis of their previous work as
Order Paper Questions
reporters. The Corporation, in using Mr. Martin's services as a freelancer, does not have knowledge of his full career history.
The names of CBC staff members involved in individual program projects are among those details of internal management and administration which Parliament has not, as a matter of custom, required the CBC to provide. The background to this custom was explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Lionel Martin broadcasting for the CBC from Havana when he made the statement, that the thousands who jammed the Peruvian Embassy grounds in Havana are criminals, thieves, prostitutes and particularly "delinquents or anti-social elements" and, if so, how did he investigate the background of these 10,000 people in a matter of a few hours in order to reach such conclusions?
2.	Is it CBC policy to require its reporting staff to authenticate news statements before they are made and, if so, in what way does this apply to Mr. Martin?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Examination of tapes of the contributions by Lionel Martin has failed to disclose the characterizations of refugees in the Peruvian Embassy with the exception of describing some of them as "delinquent". In a report broadcast on April 20, Mr. Martin describes the refugees as "the disaffected, the alienated, the ideological dissidents and even a good number of delinquents". In the light of subsequent general knowledge, these would seem to have been accurate journalistic assessments.
2.	Yes. CBC expects those reporting for its news service to authenticate their statements, and this policy applied to Mr. Martin.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has Mr. Lionel Martin been broadcasting for the CBC from Havana, Cuba, recently and, if so, is the CBC or the government aware that Mr. Martin was employed on or about 1961 by the Ministry of Education in the Cuban Government of Fidel CASTro?
2.	To the knowledge of the government or the CBC, was Mr. Martin for some time the Cuban correspondent for the American newspaper The Guardian and has this paper been clearly labelled by many as a Communist publication?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1 and 2. As of the date of the question, the CBC had not used a broadcast by Lionel Martin since April, 1980. The Corporation is aware of Mr. Martin's professional experience as a freelance broadcaster but has no knowledge of his employment in other capacities.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Lise Cohen of the Canada Council Art Bank state that the estimated cost of the items constructed of mostly steel and aluminum placed in Rockcliffe Park by the Canada Council cost "somewhat less" than the $100,000 mentioned

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did an official of the Canada Council inform the Hon. Member's office on June 12, 1980, that the exact cost was $99,900?
3.	Does the Canada Council define "somewhat less" as the sum of $100?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	(a) From 1979 to date, by year, what amount was spent by the Government and/or its agencies on gun control (b) for what purpose (c) what was the total expenditure per capita?
2.	For the same period, by year and by province, how many offences under the gun control legislation were recorded in Canada and in how many cases were charges laid by the Government and/or its agencies?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Ministry
Secretariat (Firearms Policy Centre)
Type of Expenditure	1978/79	1979/80	1980/81$	$	$Salaries	187,955.47	110,165.03	69,636.00Operating costs	78,127.62	45,762.94	41,170.57Production of film	34,272.67	-	-Personal service contract	5,128.65	10,313.72	12,835.00Advertising and/or information material	725,033.74	7,077.71	16,615.43Evaluation study	-	292,440.00	-Total costs	1,030,518.15	465,759.40	140,257.00Per capita cost	.042	.019	.005
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. See table below.
2. Please see the Annual Firearms Report to the Solicitor General of Canada by the Commissioner of the RCMP for the number of offences under the gun control legislation recorded in Canada for the same period and the number of cases in which charges were laid by the Government. The 1979 annual report was tabled in the House of Commons on April 23, 1980, the 1980 annual report was tabled on March 25, 1981 and the 1981 annual report was tabled on April 7, 1982.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1978/79	1979/80	1980/81Type of Expenditure	Firearm Registration Unit Costs	FAC & Business System Administrative Costs	Firearm Registration Unit Costs	FAC & Business Systems Administrative trative CostsS	S	$	$Salaries	306,710.00	114,277.00	380,156.00	89,624.00Travel (training and Chief Provincial Firearms Officers' Conference)	3,022.82	149,008.53	3,163.58	11,361.26Stationery	11,175.00	427,266.00	17,529.34	134,147.00Transportation costs (shipment of firearms acquisition certificates, permits, etc.)	672.00	83.66	Legal fees	564.00	1,637.65	Provincial deficits	523,014.26	357,069.27Audit costs (Supply & Services Canada)	10,308.00	43,731.00Storage of FAC's	Miscellaneous	3,141.00	274.80	325,284.82	1,223,873.79	402,845.03	635,932.53Total costs-gun control program	1,549,158.61	1,038,777.56	FAC &BusinessFirearm	SystemsRegistration	AdministrativeUnit Costs	trative Costs$	$300,130.00	136,684.001,549.00	748.0023,881.00	9,792.0079.00	1,280.002,042.00	713,773.0047,005.005,374.00393.00	328,074.00	914,656.00
1,242,730.00
Per capita cost
.0649
.0430
.0515
October 28, 1982


Mr. Flis: What is the number of countries that have their companies manufacture products for export in (a) "metric" (b) "imperial"?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Restrictions as to whether goods traded are in metric or imperial units are imposed by the importing not the exporting country. Currently, there are 154 United Nations countries of which 152 are metric or are converting to metric usage.


Mr. Domm: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General receive over 5,000 individual letters of protest from citizens objecting to the Order in Council gazetted on February 28, 1981 that makes Canadian units of measure illegal in the retail trade of a commodity and, if not, how many did he receive?
2.	Did the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) receive letters of protest from citizens objecting to the Order in Council gazetted on February 28, 1981 that makes Canadian units of measure illegal in the retail trade of a commodity and, if so, how many?
3.	Did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce receive letters of protest from citizens objecting to the Order in Council gazetted on February 28, 1981 that makes Canadian units of measure illegal in the retail trade of a commodity and, if so, how many?
4.	Was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General or the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advised that the retail food industry members of the Working Group on Scale Conversion wished to recommend strongly to the Government that the scheduling of retail food scale conversion to metric units in Canada, which appeared in the Canada Gazette Part I of February 28, 1981, be delayed so that conversion would take place at a time close to when retail food scales will be converted in the United States?


David Berger: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
1.	No, from Feruary 24, 1981 to May 12, 1981, the Minister of CCAC received a total of 1,845 letters on the subject of metric conversion.
2.	See below reply from Metric Commission Canada.
3.	See below reply from Metric Commission Canada.
4.	Yes.
Metric Commission Canada
1.	See above reply from Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
2.	Yes, 79 letters of protest and 892 machine-printed post cards.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Yes, 6 letters of protest and 984 machine-printed post cards.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	At what locations are the federal service bureaux set up by the Department of Supply and Services and, in each case, on what date was the bureau opened?
2.	Is a bureau planned for the Province of Ontario and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Did the Minister of Supply and Services make a statement on May 25, 1981 to the effect that the only step being taken in Ontario was the establishment of a partial facility in Toronto rather than a full facility at a future date?
4.	Is the Province of Ontario, with the largest population of any of the provinces, being treated in a lesser fashion than other areas of the country and, if so, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: On the
date this question was asked, a significant answer was not available. This information has now been compiled as of December 15, 1981.
Canada Service Bureau Openings	Operational on:
Edmonton	December 9, 1980
Vancouver	March 9, 1981
Halifax	April 1, 1981
Quebec	May 7, 1981
Montreal	June 22, 1981
Winnipeg	July 27, 1981
Regina	May 1, 1981
Calgary	August 15, 1981
Charlottetown	August 6, 1981
Victoria	September 1, 1981
Saskatoon	August 10, 1981
Toronto	September 10, 1981
Moncton	July 29, 1981
St. John's	August 14, 1981
Itinerant Services	
Operating from:	Operational on:
Kelowna	September 28, 1981
Gimli	August 17, 1981
North Bay	August 24, 1981
Sherbrooke	July 29, 1981
Matane	August 11, 1981
Bathurst	September 28, 1981
Sydney	July 6, 1981
Windsor	August 24, 1981
2.	Yes, see 1 above.
3.	The Service Bureau project is to some extent experimental in that through it the government is going to measure the need for this type of service as well as the best methods of providing it. To meet this objective the Task Force on Service to the Public has 14 offices in major cities across Canada, plus mobile services covering an additional 75 communities. The Service Bureaux are therefore both providing a service to Canadian citizens on a broad scale and providing the knowledge needed to evaluate success in meeting this particular demand. In Ontario, there is a Service Bureau at 50 Bloor St., West in the shopping concourse and a mobile service covering

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
northeast Ontario from a base in North Bay. The results of the first year of Service Bureau operation will be available by the middle of 1983 at which time a decision will be made on the future of the operation.
4.	See part 3 above.


Mr. McKinnon: As of February 1, 1981 what was the active and available strength, excluding those personnel on retirement leave, in hospital, on courses longer than six months, or seconded to other units or duties, of the (a) East Coast Ships (i) Fleet Replenishment Ships (ii) 1st Canadian Destroyer Sqn. (iii) 5th Canadian Destroyer Sqn. (iv) 1st Canadian Submarine Sqn. (v) Training Vessels (vi) Diving Support Vessel (b) West Coast Ships (i) Fleet Replenishment Ships (ii) 2nd Canadian Destroyer Sqn. (iii) Training Group Pacific (c) 1 Canadian Brigade Group (d) 5e Groupe-Brigade du Canada (e) Special Service Force (0 Air Defence Group (i) 414 Electronic Warfare Sqn. (ii) 409 All-Weather Fighter Sqn. (iii) 416 All-Weather Fighter Sqn. (iv) 425 All-Weather Fighter Sqn. (v) 410 All-Weather Operational Training Sqn. (vi) 24 Pinetree Line Radar Sites (vii) 21 Dew Line Sites (viii) Space Sensor Units, Cold Lake and Chatham (ix) Air Weapons Control Countermeasures School (g) Air Transport Group (h) 10 Tactical Air Group (i) 408 Sqn. (ii) 427 Sqn. (iii) 430e Escadrille tactique d'helicopteres (iv) 403 Sqn. (v) 447 Sqn. (vi) 450 Sqn. (vii) 434 Sqn. (viii) 430* Escadrille (ix) 401 Air Reserve Sqn. (x) 438 Air Reserve Sqn. (xi) 400 Air Reserve Sqn. (xii) 411 Air Reserve Sqn. (/') Maritime Air Group (i) 32 Utility Sqn. (ii) 443 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Sqn. (iii) 423 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Sqn. (iv) 880 Maritime Reconnaissance Sqn. (v) 405 Maritime Patrol Sqn. (vi) 415 Maritime Patrol Sqn. (vii) 413 Transport and Rescue Sqn. (viii) 33 Utility Sqn. (ix) 442 Transport and Rescue Sqn. (x) 407 Maritime Patrol Sqn. (xi) 406 Maritime Operational Training Sqn. (xii) 404 Maritime Training Sqn. (xiii) Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit (xiv) 420 Air Reserve Sqn. (j) 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (k) 1 Canadian Air Group?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Figures for "active and available" strength can only be provided through detailed analysis of each unit's personnel status on a given day, in this case February 1, 1981. The department does not have the resources to carry out such an analysis. Furthermore, the aggregation of the detailed information requested would reveal classified operational capabilities the release of which could be injurious to national security.
However, the functional strength of the major formations as of March 31, 1982 is as noted below.
Formation		Functional Strength
(a)	East Coast Ships	3,288(b)	West Coast Ships	1,656(c)	1 Canadian Brigade Group	4,139(d)	5e Groupe-Brigade du Canada	3,733(e)	Special Service Force	3,269(0	Air Defence Group	3,126(g)	Air Transport Group	5,358(h)	10 Tactical Air Group	1,548(i)	Maritime Air Group	1,319(j)	4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group	3,280(k)	1 Canadian Air Group	783


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Bank of Canada own and is it adding to an art collection and, if so, what is (a) the total cost of all items in the collection to date (b) a list of all items, including the name of the artist and the amount paid in each case?
2.	(a) Is Mrs. Simon Reisman in any way connected with the acquisition of the paintings and, if so (i) in what capacity (ii) what is her salary or commission, including the details of any contract she may have (b) what are the names and details of employment of other persons connected with the acquisitions?
3.	For what reasons does the Bank of Canada require an art collection?


Paul James Cosgrove: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Bank of Canada as follows.
1.	The Bank of Canada does not now have, nor is it planning to acquire, what it thinks can appropriately be called an art collection. It owns some paintings, some acquired recently and some in earlier years, which it uses to decorate the lobbies, meeting rooms and offices in its buildings. Since its establishment the Bank has purchased some 141 portraits, paintings and prints by Canadian artists at a cost of $170,000. Most of the paintings in use in the Bank are rented from the Canada Council Art Bank.
2.	Mrs. C. Carin Reisman is employed by the Bank on contract as a consultant to advise Bank officers on interior furniture and furnishings in the Bank's buildings and in the course of doing so has provided some assistance with paintings. She is paid for her work for the Bank on the basis of an hourly fee.
3.	See 1.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, will independent member countries of the Commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Fiji, The Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, New Zealand, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Vanuatu and the Solomons, be issuing stamps to commemorate the Royal Wedding?
2.	Did the Government issue a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the marriage of then Princess Elizabeth and, if so (a) what was the denomination (b) what number were printed?
3.	Is the Government issuing a commemorative stamp for the marriage of the present heir to the Throne and, if not, for what reason?


David Berger: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows:
1.	At the time the question was asked, the Government was not aware which independent Commonwealth countries, other than the ones mentioned, would be issuing stamps to commemorate the Royal Wedding.
2.	(a) and (b) Canada Post commemorated the marriage of Princess Elizabeth with a 4 cent stamp issued on February 16, 1948. The number of stamps printed was 50,010,000.
3.	No. This is because the "Policy Guidelines for the Selection of Subjects for Canadian Postage Stamps" effective
October 28, 1982

March 1981, state that "postage should not be issued to honour living persons other than the sovereign."


Mr. Beatty: Since March 1, 1980, did (a) Statistics Canada (b) the Department of National Revenue receive requests from third parties (i) within (ii) outside the Government for personally identifiable information about individuals which was collected from those individuals under the threat of penalties for failure to disclose the information to the Government and, in each case, what was the response of Statistics Canada or the Department of National Revenue?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue and Statistics Canada as follows:
(a)	Since March 1, 1980, Statistics Canada has received requests from third parties both from within and outside the Government for personally identifiable information.
The disclosure of identifiable information about individuals collected under the Statistics Act is forbidden by the Act except when such disclosure is explicitly consented to by the individual in question. For example, individuals request that their census records be disclosed to pension authorities for proof-of-age purposes. Some 13,000 requests of this nature are serviced by Statistics Canada each year.
(b)	Since March 1, 1980, the Department of National Revenue has received requests from third parties, within and outside the Government, for personally identifiable information about individuals as extracted from income tax returns. While no record is kept of all requests received, the Department accedes when the requester has a legal entitlement to such information under subsection 241 (4) of the Income Tax Act. See also question 2,681, answered October 21, 1981.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State under the Arts and Culture Program at page 32.32, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to Hospitality Services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts of a value more than $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) are guidelines used to determine when the Department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $62,159 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Communications and the Secretary of State as follows:
(a)	Breakfast, luncheon, dinner, reception, refreshments.
Order Paper Questions
(b)	Hospitality costs incurred by the portion of the Arts and Culture program transferred to the Department of Communications amounted to $16,872 during 1979-80:
Cannes Film Festival (May 6-21, 1979) Carlton Hotel,	$ 9,006
Cannes, $2,222
Various functions not over $2,000 (see part a)	$ 7,866


[Stage Direction]
Hospitality costs incurred by the portion of the Arts and Culture program remaining with the Department of Secretary of State (State Protocol and Special Events) amounted to $45,287 during 1979-80.
(i)	Visit of H.R.H. The Princess Anne, $4,011; Hilton Harbour Castle Hotel, Toronto, Ontario, $2,222.
(ii)	State Funeral of the Rt. Honourable J. G. Diefenbaker, $4,421; Parliamentary Restaurant, Ottawa, Ontario, $4,333.
(iii)	Festival Canada celebrations, $15,954; National Arts Centre Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario; Reception, $2,419; Ges-tion Michel Senecal Incorporee, Outremont, Quebec; Reception for press conferences, $3,177; Market Development Services, Toronto, Ontario; Reception for press conferences, $3,624.
(iv)	Visit of H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, $17,580; Explorer Hotel, Yellowknife, N.W.T., $11,654.
(v)	Various functions not over $2,000 (see part a), $3,321.
(c)	The guidelines on hospitality contained in the Treasury Board directive Chapter 360 were followed.
(d)	Information not readily available, see parts (a) and (b).
Mr. Aithouse: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs order a cutback of student allowance payments on January 1, 1982 to off-reserve Indian students and, if so, prior to that date, by province, what amount was expended on the program?
2.	By province, how many Indian students are attending school off reserve as opposed to on reserve?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Under the 1971 revision of the Department's Educational Assistance policy Indian students attending provincial or private high schools are provided with educational allowances to cover miscellaneous and personal supplies and to enable students to take part in community affairs and social activities. The rates are $10 monthly for students aged between 14 and 17 inclusive in grades 9 and over and $20 monthly for students aged 18 and over. The student allowance was being paid to registered Indian students in grade nine and above, irrespective of place of residence.
Following legal advice that the Department's authority under the Indian Act did not extend to providing educational services to elementary and secondary students normally resident off reserve, regions of the Department took steps to phase out programs of educational assistance to off-reserve students. Since 1980-81 was a transitional year, disparities between

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
regions were at a maximum as the allowance had been phased out in some regions but continued in others. The Saskatchewan region discontinued the payment of allowances to off-reserve elementary and secondary students on January 1, 1982.
The record of payments to off-reserve elementary and secondary students combines student allowances and expenditures for books and school supplies. The breakdown by Province for 1980-81 is as follows:	
Atlantic	$ 11,000
Quebec	nil
Ontario	nil
Manitoba	13,000
Saskatchewan	225,400
Alberta	51,000
British Columbia	34,000
Yukon	3,100
Total	$ 337,500
2. The number of Indian students for whose education this Department is responsible and in respect of whom the Depart-	
ment and Indian education authorities	entered into tuition
agreements with provincial and private school boards in 1980-	
81 is as follows:	
Atlantic	1,760
Quebec	7,610
Ontario	6,425
Manitoba	5,864
Saskatchewan	8,088
Alberta	7,680
British Columbia	10,895
Yukon	22
Total	48,344
The number of Indian elementary and secondary students	
who attended federal and band-operated 1980-81 is as follows:	on-reserve schools in
Atlantic	1,701
Quebec	3,196
Ontario	7,189
Manitoba	9,059
Saskatchewan	6,461
Alberta	4,095
British Columbia	2,751
Yukon	5
Total	34,457
The 48,344 students in respect of whom the Department entered into tuition agreements were all resident on reserves as were the 34,457 attending federal and band-operated on-reserve schools. All of the 48,344 reserve residents attending provincial schools and meeting the grade nine, 14 years of age and above criteria continue to be eligible for student allowances.
The number of students who were off-reserve residents in 1980-81 and who received student allowances and/or books and school supplies was approximately 6,189 distributed as follows:
Atlantic	200
Quebec	nil
Ontario	nil
Manitoba	811
Saskatchewan	3,005
Alberta	849
British Columbia	1,286
Yukon	38
Total	6,189
1NTELPOST


Mr. Beatty: On what date did Canada first participate in Intelpost and, since that date, by month (a) how many prepaid letters originating in Canada were carried by Intelpost and to which foreign Intelpost offices were they sent (b) how many prepaid letters directed to Canada were carried by Intelpost and from which foreign Intelpost offices were they sent (c) what was the cost to the Post Office of participation in Intelpost (d) what revenues to the Post Office resulted from its participation in Intelpost (e) what amount was spent on publicity to promote Intelpost?


David Berger: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows:
The Intelpost service began operation on June 17, 1980. As to the remaining portions of the question, public disclosure of the internal operating information would provide commercial and financial information which would be of substantial value to competitors.
In addition, as Intelpost is being offered in conjunction with Teleglobe Canada, CNCP Telecommunications and a number of other postal and telecommunication administrations, disclosure of the operating information requested would release data which are proprietary to these other organizations.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychiatrists employed through the federal public service at Dorchester Penitentiary. Psychiatric services were provided by a psychiatrist under contract. Hospitalization for psychiatric purposes took place in the institutional health care centre, a provincial mental health facility or the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC), depending on the severity of the illness.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Pie IX Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what
October 28, 1982

was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,775-Mr, Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Benoit XV Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Pie IX Centre, Benoit XV Centre.
(a)	and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Prior to 1978 inmates who required psychiatric services were referred to either the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre or to Cowansville Institution. Since 1978, however, all psychiatric services to the inmates of the Quebec region are provided by the provincially-operated Institut Philippe Pinel in accordance with a federal-provincial agreement signed by both governments.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Cowansville Institution, Cowansville and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychiatrists employed through the federal public service at Cowansville Institution. Psychiatric services for the years 1976 and 1977 were provided by a psychiatrist under contract with the CSC. For 1978 and subsequent years, psychiatric services in the Quebec region were provided by the provincially operated Institut Philippe Pinel.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,778-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Martineau Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,779-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ogilvie Centre, Montreal and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,780-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Federal Training Centre, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 3,781-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Leclerc Institution, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,782-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Archambault Institution, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,783-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Correctional Development Centre, Laval and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,784-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Sherbrooke Centre, Martineau Centre, Ogilvie Centre, Federal Training Centre, Leclerc Institution, Archambault Institution, Correctional Development Centre, Laval, Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines.
(a)	and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Prior to 1978 inmates who required psychiatric services were referred to either the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre or to Cowansville Institution. Since 1978, however, all psychiatric services to the inmates of the Quebec region are provided by the provincially-operated Institut Philippe Pinel in accordance with a federal-provincial agreement signed by both governments.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Portsmouth Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,786-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Keele Street Centre, Toronto and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,787-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Montgomery Centre, Toronto and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,788-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Beaver Creek camp, Gravenhurst and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 3,789-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Bath Institution, Bath and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,790-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Pittsburg Institution farm, Joyceville and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,791-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Frontenac Institution farm, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,792-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Warkworth Institution, Campbellford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,793-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Joyceville Institution, Joyceville and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,794-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Collins Bay Institution, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,795-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Millhaven Institution, Bath and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,796-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Prison For Women, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Portsmouth Centre, Keele Street Centre, Montgomery Centre, Beaver Creek Camp, Bath Institution, Pittsburgh Institution Farm, Frontenac Institution Farm, Warkworth Institution, Joyceville Institution, Collins Bay Institution, Millhaven Institution, Prison for Women, Regional Reception Centre, Kingston.
(a)	and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above mentioned institutions. Psychiatric services were either provided by or co-ordinated through the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC). Limited use of provincial psychiatric facilities took place where RPC hospitalization was inappropriate.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Regional Reception Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Portsmouth Centre, Keele Street Centre, Montgomery Centre, Beaver Creek Camp, Bath Institution, Pittsburgh Institution Farm, Frontenac Institution Farm. Warkworth Institution, Joyceville Institution, Collins Bay Institution, Millhaven Institution, Prison of Women, Regional Reception Centre, Kingston.
(a)	and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Psychiatric services were either provided by or co-ordinated through the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC). Limited use of provincial psychiatric facilities took place where RPC hospitalization was inappropriate.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Robson Centre, Vancouver and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,800-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Pandora Centre, Victoria and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,801-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Elbow Lake forestry camp, Harrison Mills and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,802-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Ferndale Institution, Mission and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,803-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Matsqui Trailer Unit and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,804-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Mission Institution, Mission and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,805-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the William Head Institution, Victoria and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
October 28, 1982


Question No. 3,806-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Mountain Institution, Agassiz and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,807-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,808-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Kent Institution, Agassiz and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Robson Centre, Pandora Centre, Elbow Lake Forestry Camp, Ferndale Institution, Matsqui Trailer Unit, Mission Institution, William Head Institution, Mountain Institution, Matsqui Institution, Kent Institution.
(a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Psychiatric services were provided at the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC).
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Carlton Centre, Halifax and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,811-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Shulie Lake camp, Parrsboro and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Carlton Centre, Shulie Lake Camp.
(a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Inmates requiring psychiatric assessment for case management purposes were either referred to provincial mental health facilities or visited by psychiatrists under contract to Dorchester or Springhill Institutions.
If hospitalization was required, it would take place in the institutional health care centre, a provincial mental health facility or the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre, depending upon the severity of the illness.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not Applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Springhill Institution, Springhill and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychiatrists employed through the federal public service at Springhill Institution. Psychiatric services were provided by a psychiatrist under contract. Hospitalization for psychiatric purposes took place in the institutional health care centre, a provincial mental health facility or the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC), depending on the severity of the illness.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Parrtown Centre, Saint John and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,814-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Westmorland Institution farm, Dorchester and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Parrtown Centre, Westmorland Institution Farm.
(a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Inmates requiring psychiatric assessment for case management purposes were either referred to provincial mental health facilities or visited by psychiatrists under contract to Dorchester or Springhill Institutions.
If hospitalization was required, it would take place in the institutional health care centre, a provincial mental health facility or the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre, depending upon the severity of the illness.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Osborne Centre, Winnipeg and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,816-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Rockwood Institution farm, Stony Mountain and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Osborne Centre, Rockwood Institution.
(a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities, the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre which opened in 1978.

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Stony Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) There is one full-time psychiatrist employed at Stony Mountain. The same psychiatrist has been employed at this institution since 1976. His previous work experience with CSC dates back to January, 1967. He has no previous work experience in the federal public service.
(b)	Nil. (i) The minimum educational qualifications for psychiatrists working in the correctional Service of Canada require graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body.
(ii)	Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal public service. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal public service is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.
(iii)	Salary ranges for the years 1976 to 1980 for psychiatrists are as follows:
Year	Salary Range
1976	31,700 - 44,900
1977	33,200 - 44,900
1978	35,300-47,000
1979	37,249 - 49,400
1980	39,510-52,100


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Oskana Centre, Regina and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at Oskana Centre. Psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities, the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre which opened in 1978.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Saskatchewan Institution farm, Prince Albert and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institution.
Psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities, the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre which opened in 1978.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychiatrists employed through the federal public service at Saskatchewan Penitentiary-
Psychiatric services for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 were provided by psychiatrists under contract with the CSC. If hospitalization was required, it took place at the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre, the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre or a provincial mental health facility.
Prior to 1978 psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities and the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre. Hospitalization, when required, also took place at these facilities.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) The R.P.C. opened in 1978. For the years 1978 to 1980 see table below.
(i)	The minimum educational qualifications for psychiatrists working in the Correctional Service of Canada require graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body. Additional information regarding educational qualifications of individuals is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.
(ii)	See table. Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal public service. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal public service is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.
(iii)	Salary ranges for the years 1978 to 1980 for psychiatrists are as follows:
October 28, 1982

Year
1979
Year: As of December 31, 1978
(a) Number of fulltime psychiatrists: 2
(b) Number of parttime psychiatrists: Nil
Year: As of December 31, 1978
(a) Number of fulltime psychiatrists: 3
(b) Number of parttime psychiatrists: Nil
Year: As of December 31, 1980
(a) Number of fulltime psychiatrists: 3
(b) Number of parttime psychiatrists: Nil
Salary Range $35,300 to $47,000 $37,249 to $49,400 $39,510 to $52,100
Previous work experience in the federal public service
With other With CSC departments
Case 1	A psychiatrist	Nil
with no previous work experience with the CSC, was hired in Jan. of 1978.
Case 2	A psychiatrist	Nil
with no previous work experience with the CSC, was hired in Sept, of 1978.
N/A	N/A
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Altadore Centre, Calgary and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,823-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Portal House, Calgary and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,824-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Grierson Centre, Edmonton and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,825-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Drumheller Trailer Unit and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?

Question No. 3,826-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Bowden Institution, Innisfail and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Previous work experience in the federal public service
	With CSC	With other departments
Case 1	Since Jan. 1978	NilCase 2	Since Sept. 1978	NilCase 3	A psychiatrist, with no previous work experience with CSC, was hired in Dec. of 1979 to fill a vacant position.	NilN/A	N/A


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: Altadore Centre, Bowden Institution, Drumheller Trailer Unit, Portal House, Grierson Centre.
(a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institutions. Psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities, the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre which opened in 1978.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at the Drumheller Institution, Drumheller and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Previous work experience in the federal public service
	With CSC	With other departments
Case 1	Since Jan. 1978	NilCase 2	A new pyschia-trist, with no previous work experience with the CSC, was hired in Jan. of 1980 to fill the position which became vacant.	NilCase 3	Since Dec. 1979	NilN/A	N/A


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no full-time or part-time psychiatrists employed through the federal public service at Drumheller Institution.
Psychiatric services for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980 were provided by psychiatrists under contract with the CSC. If hospitalization was required, it took place at the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre, the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre or a provincial mental health facility.
Prior to 1978, psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities and the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre. Hospitalization, when required, also took place at these facilities.

Order Paper Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Lawrence: For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Edmonton Institution, Edmonton and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) and (b) There were no psychiatrists at the above-mentioned institution. Psychiatric services were provided by provincial mental health facilities, the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Prairie Regional Psychiatric Centre which opened in 1978.
(i), (ii) and (iii) Not applicable.


Mr. Corbett: 1.	How many jobs are expected to be created in Canada as a result of the purchase of the Savin Corporation by the Canada Development Corporation?
2.	How many Canadian scientists will be hired by the Savin Corporation?
3.	Does the CDC intend to open any Savin branch plants in Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) how many (c) at what locations?
4.	Does the CDC intend to open a Savin Corporation research and development facility in Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) at what location?


John Carr Munro: 1 to 4. The Canada Development Corporation (CDC) is a private business corporation. More than 50 per cent of its equity is held by private investors. The federal government is an investor in the shares of the company under the CDC Act. It is currently holding approximately 46.5 per cent of the equity shares.
The federal Government cannot participate in any way in the day to day business activities of the CDC. It has never sought to influence the business decisions of the CDC which are the responsibility of the Board of Directors and its managers. As CDC is not in any way an agency of Her Majesty, information in reference to CDC must be sought from that company.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	During the recent Ontario Liberal leadership convention, did CBLT employ anyone on a temporary basis and, if so, what were their names and duties?
2.	Who is Lurch Pringle and what is his profession?
3.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive any complaints about any of its temporary or full-time staff working at the convention and, if so, what was the nature of the complaints and what did the CBC do to investigate them?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	CBLT employed 15 people on a temporary basis as pollsters, technical personnel, a director and cable watchers. Additionally, there were six on-air guest commentators.
With regard to the names of other personnel, it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its
October 28, 1982
internal management and administration as the names of personnel involved in individual program projects. The background to this custom is explained in the reply to question No. 2,530, answered November 6, 1975.
2.	Howard Pringle is a freelance security man widely experienced in such work in the Toronto entertainment industry.
3.	CBC received no complaints. It was informed that a complaint was made to the Ontario Liberal Party on behalf of television station CFTO-TV regarding CBC's engagement of four cable watchers. CBC was not informed of the wording of the complaint but understands that officials of the party investigated and concluded that it was not a valid complaint. It should be noted that the hiring of cable watchers is normal practice in the television industry whenever crowded convention floor situations arise.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Is the Minister and the Department of Transport aware of any problems encountered with the Lockheed LI011 Tristar aircraft?
2.	Shortly after the takeoff of an Air Canada Tristar from Miami on March 14, 1982, did one engine overheat because of a lack of oil and partially disintegrate, forcing the aircraft to return to Miami?
3.	Were other complaints of this nature made to the Department and, if so, how many?
4.	Were investigations undertaken by the Department with regard to this problem and, if so, what were they?
5.	Is the Department taking precautions to prevent future dangerous incidents of this sort and, if so, what are they?
6.	Were directives issued by the Department, Air Canada or any other public authority on this matter and, if so, what were they?
7.	Were consultations made with the FAA and other American agencies and departments with reference to this problem and, if so, what were they?
8.	Was related correspondence received by the Department and, if so (a) what was it (b) would the Minister table all such correspondence as well as any reports or studies the Department initiated or received with regard to the safety of the Lockheed LI011 Tristar?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The Department of Transport is not aware of any problems with the Lockheed LI011 that compromise safety.
2.	No. The aircraft in question suffered a mechanical failure in one of its wing mounted engines. Following the failure, prompted by increased vibration and rising gas temperatures within the engine, the crew followed mandatory procedures and shut down the engine concerned. The engine was at no time in imminent danger of disintegration. Following the engine shut down, the crew landed the aircraft using standard emergency procedures.
3.	No complaints of Rolls Royce RB 211 engine failures have been received by the Department.
4.	The Department received a telephone report from Air Canada and Rolls Royce which indicated that reports will be
October 28, 1982

submitted when the metallurgical studies of the broken components are completed.
5.	No special precautions are being taken by the Department because of the mechanical failure which occurred on March 14, 1982. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of this answer.
6.	No. See part 5 above.
7.	Rolls Royce indicated there was no indication of design or manufacturing discrepancy and until metallurgical studies are completed no action is recommended.
8.	No correspondence has been received and the failure does not warrant at this time the initiation of a Transport Canada independent investigation. This is standard procedure for engine failures.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of the Export Development Corporation or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Export Development Corporation states that: No loan has been made to any employee of the Corporation since March, 1980. The Corporation has no subsidiary.
IT & C-CODE OF CONDUCT 
Question No. 4,257-Mr. Crosby:
1.	Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	The Department has no written rules governing standards of conduct for its employees. There are, however, departmental guidelines on conflict of interest which are made available to all employees. Copies of the guidelines on conflict of interest are available to the public.
2.	Employees have been disciplined through written reprimand as well as suspensions without pay of various lengths for breaches of generally accepted standards of conduct. Since April 1, 1977, a total of 35 written reprimands have been issued to 27 different employees. During the same period a total of 17 suspensions without pay varying in duration from one to 30 days have been levied against 10 different employees. (See table below). To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.
Order Paper Questions Disciplinary Actions-I.T.C.
Year	Written Reprimands	Suspensions	Discharges1977	5	1	01978	5	3	01979	2	2	01980	9	3	01981	10	6	01982	4	2	0Total	35	17	0


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	The Department maintains written rules governing the conduct of employees and establishing standards of behavior. These have been made available to all employees in a booklet entitled "Standards of Conduct". This document is available to the public.
2.	Employees of DREE are subject to disciplinary action in the form of written reprimands, suspensions without pay and discharge after breaching the departmental code of conduct. Since April 1, 1977, a total of 19 written reprimands have been issued to 17 different employees. A total of 9 suspensions without pay ranging from one to 20 days were levied against six different employees during the same period. As well, two employees were discharged from the Department. In one case the employee was reinstated as a result of Public Service Staff Relations Board adjudicator's decision which imposed a six month suspension without pay in place of the discharge action. (See table below). To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.
Disciplinary Actions-DREE
Year	Written Reprimands	Suspensions	Discharges1977	5	1	01978	3	1	21979	2	5	01980	4	0	01981	5	1	01982	0	1	0Total	19	9	2
October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: 1. New employees are informed of the existence of the standards of conduct, discipline, which are contained in a chapter of the Personnel Manual which is available to the public upon request.
2. The list below indicates cases of disciplinary action from April, 1977 to March, 1982. To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.
Discipline cases April 1977 to March 1982
1979	February	9	V2 day	X1979	August	16	1 day	X1980	March	18	1 day	X18	19	2 days	X1980	May	14	
1980 June
1980 August
Year Month 1977 May
1977	November
1978	March
Date Suspension
Letter of reprimand
Discharge
1978 May
1978 June
1978 July
20 21
25
1981 August
16 20 21
23
27
20
18
20 21 22
26
28 29
5 days
10 days
2 days
10 days
11	I day	X	1980	September	2	10	xh day	X	3 4	6	5	7	7	8	8	9	9	7 days10	5 days	X	11	1 day28	26	1 day29 30	3 days	X	1980	October	15	16	2 days11 12	1981	January	5	15	6	16	7	3 days17	1981	February	9	18	10	19 23	11	3 days24	1981	March	2	25	3	26	4	3 days29	9	30	10	31	14 days	X	11	31	1 day	X	12	1	1 day	X	13	5 days1	1981	July	27	2	2 days	X	28	2	29	5	30	6	3 days	X	31	5 days
5 days



October 28, 1982

1981	September	23
25 28
30	6 days	X198!	October	1
5
6	4 days	X


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Since January 1, 1979, by year, what amount did Government Departments and agencies spend on the enforcement of gun control regulations?
2.	For the same period, by year, what amount did the Government collect through the sale of firearms acquisition certificates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Since the enforcement of gun control regulations is a provincial responsibility under the purview of the provincial Attorneys General, no reply can be provided to part 1.
2.	Moneys collected by the Government through the sale of firearms acquisition certificates since January 1, 1979 are as follows: 1979-80-$2,262,827; 1980-81-$1,526,025; 1981-82-$1,081,941.


Mr. Herbert: By province, what amount was contributed in each of the past five years for the development of family planning services and what amount was paid directly to the treasuries of the various provincial governments?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The following amounts have been contributed in each of the past five years, to the provincial and territorial governments which requested them, for the development of family planning services:
1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	1981-82$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	-	-	-	9,000Prince Edward Island	-	37,700	37,000	18,000	40,300Nova Scotia	-	30,630	-	40,000	-New Brunswick	-	-	-	13,000	24,383Quebec	357,429	380,000	81,566	90,000	91,498Ontario	-	-	-	-	-Manitoba	-	-	-	-	-Saskatchewan	-	-	-	40,000	54,867Alberta	-	-	-	-	-British Columbia	-	-	25,000	30,000	38,344Northwest Territories	-	-	-	50,000	56,043Yukon	-	-	-	31,537	55,007357,429	448,330	143,566	312,537	369,442
Order Paper Questions
These grants have served to fund various demonstration projects, training projects, as well as the development of family planning services in Quebec's local centres for community services.
Funds for the development of family planning services were not paid directly to the treasuries of provincial or territorial governments, but to the relevant departments administering the funds. As well, some of the funds provided to the provinces through the Established Programs Financing Act and the Canada Assistance Plan may have been directed towards the development of family planning services, however, no specific amounts can be determined from these fiscal arrangements.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of (a) Armed Forces annuitants (b) widows of Armed Forces annuitants (c) widows in receipt of an annuity due to the death of a spouse?
2.	What is the total number of Armed Forces annuitants who died in each of the past 10 years, including the fiscal year 1980-81 ?
3.	Did the Department of National Defence issue a directive number 4983-1B?
4.	Did the Department issue an Order respecting Promotion Policy-Officers-Regular Force, OAFC 11-6 and, if so, does the Order carry out the provisions set in directive 4983-1B?
5.	With respect to paragraph 10 of the Policy, how many officers were in the "protected" category for 1981 and how many are projected to be in the "protected" category for 1982?
6.	Of the total number of "protected" officers in 1981, how many were promoted when a new promotion quota was authorized for each particular rank and officer classification?
7.	What are the Department's projected figures for promoting "protected" officers in 1982?
8.	If a "protected" officer is not promoted, what is his/her employment status?
9.	By priority, what are the elements of the merit system used by the Department in its hiring and promotion procedure?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.	(a) The total number of Armed Forces annuitants as of March 31, 1982-60,462. (b) and (c) Total number of widows of Armed Forces annuitants in receipt of an annuity as at March 31, 1982-8,095.
Note: Records are not available of widows of Armed Forces annuitants not in receipt of an annuity.
2.	The information regarding the number of Armed Forces annuitants who died in each of the past ten years is not readily available and would require a great deal of manual checking of records for which the Department does not have the necessary resources. However, broader data pertaining to discontinued annuities per fiscal year which includes deceased, re-enrolled and transfers to public service superannuation and RCMP is listed below:

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal	No. of Discontinued
Year	Annuities
1971-72	331
1972-73	437
1973-74	549
1974-75	478
1975-76	566
1976-77	555
1977-78	592
1978-79	791
1979-80	740
1980-81	945
3.	The Department of National Defence twice yearly issues a document file No. 4983-18 entitled "In-service Five Year Training Plan". The document identifies quantitive requirements for individual training over a five-year period.
4.	Yes. Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 11-6 is concerned with promotion policy of regular force officers. However, there is no relationship between CFAO 11-6 and document 4983-18. The CFAO deals with officers promotion policy whereas the document is concerned with other ranks initial trades training as well as with Anglophone/ Francophone proportions in certain trades training plans.
5.	For 1981 there were 14 officers in the protected category. For 1982 there are 15 officers in the protected category.
6.	All 14 "protected" officers were promoted during 1981.
7.	Thirteen of the 15 "protected" officers have had their promotions authorized although the effective date for some promotions has not yet arrived. The other two "protected" officers will be promoted in 1983.
8.	All "protected" officers have been or will be promoted. There are two possible circumstances when a "protected" officer would not be promoted: (a) a deterioration of performance or conduct by the officer where his supervisor no longer recommends promotion, (b) a deterioration of health where the officer is no longer fit for promotion.
The career status of officers in these situations would be subject to review.
9.	The main elements of the merit system used by the Canadian Forces in selecting members for promotion are performance and potential. Each member of a merit board scores candidates out of a total of ten points: eight for performance and two for potential. Performance is evaluated by examination of past performance as described in annual Personnel Evaluation Reports. Potential is evaluated from a consideration of the member's professional attributes, depth and breadth of experience, qualifications including education, bilingual ability, special courses, etc., and any other factor considered to be important by the merit board. The rating for potential is not structured; no one aspect of potential is assigned a particular portion of the score.
The merit system used in recruiting consists of five elements, the most important being military potential. This is a numerical rating assigned to the applicant as a result of an interview by an experienced military career counsellor. The rating is based upon what the candidate does, has experienced,
or has done, together with an estimate of both the candidate's ability to cope with military life in general and the likelihood of success in recruit training. The second element used is the candidate's score on the general entrance test. The third is the aptitude of the candidate, as determined by a series of tests, for the particular vacancy. The fourth element taken into consideration is the length of time the candidate has spent waiting for a vacancy. The final factor is the candidate's trade preference, i.e. whether the candidate indicated that the vacancy that exists was his or her first, second or third preference of trade.


Mr. Gurbin: L Did departments give financial support to the Electric Vehicle Association (EVA) of Canada and, if so, what amount?
2.	Which departments have corporate memberships in the Association?
3.	Is research and development funding being allotted for the electric vehicle industry for independent research into electric vehicles, batteries and their components and, if so, which departments are doing so and what were the exact amounts for the past fiscal year?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Transport and the National Research Council as follows:
1.	No financial support was given to the Association. In the early days the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce supported the Association by preparing and distributing its newsletter until it could finalize its own arrangements.
2.	Industry, Trade and Commerce; the Road Safety Branch of the Surface Administration of DOT; the Medical Services Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
3.	Yes. In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, the Department has authorized through its Enterprise Development Programs a contribution of 190,000 to R and D projects.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
EV Contracts including Batteries and other Components Total	1981/82
Sponsor	Contractor	Contract	Payments	
	(a) Vehicles			
Transport Canada	DSMA-Atcon Toronto	E.V. Development & Evaluation	SI 46,389DSMA-Atcon Toronto	Evaluation Hybrid Vehicle	S1,400,000	$129,578Marathon Electric Vehicles Inc. Montreal	Manufacture of Experimental Hybrid Vehicle	$ 75,000	$ 48,071Marathon Electric Vehicles Inc. Montreal	Series Hybrid Vehicle	$ 34,000	$ 10,658
October 28, 1982

Order Paper Questions
Marathon	Hybrid Research	$	341,700	$	0
Electric
Vehicles
Inc.
Montreal (b) Batteries
Cominco	Lower Cost Ni-Zn	$	140,000	$	29,837
Inc.	Batteries
Research
Centre
Sheridan
Park
R. G. Webb Corp. Ltd. Ottawa	Battery R&D in Canada	$	15,000	$ 15,000
(c) Components				
AC Statpower Inc. Vancouver	Advanced Charger For EV Batteries	$	49,915	$ 16,909Transport Marathon	Modifications for	$	45,692	$ 45,492Canada	Electric	SLSA	VansSt. Lawrence	VehiclesSeaway	Inc.Authority	Montreal
(SLSA)


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The average market returns for the 1981 marketing period were $75.08 per cwt., basis A1 /A2 steers and heifers.
2.	The previous five-year average market price was $58.16 per cwt.
3.	Ninety per cent of the previous five-year average market returns, adjusted for the cost of production factor, is $74.98 per cwt.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982, what was the total budget for the Air Pollution Control Directorate of the Department of the Environment and what portion of that budget was devoted to (i) operating expenditures (ii) research into the control of sulphurous emissions and acid rain (iii) the development of new techniques and devices for the control of acid rain emissions?
2.	How many research contracts were awarded for acid rain research by the Directorate in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982?
3.	How many research proposals for acid rain control technology were received and rejected by the Directorate in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned:
In the fiscal year 1981-82 there was no R and D funding allotted for the electrical vehicle industry from the Hydrogen and Energy Storage Program of NRC. Electric vehicle related research is a new responsibility to this Program as of 1982.
Hydrogen and Energy Storage Program activities for 198182 which are of potential interest to the electric vehicle industry are those concerned with advanced battery research as follows:
(a)		$(000) 4,246.4
(b)		4,511.0
(c)		6,076.9
(d)		5,642.2
([DOT])	(a)	3,996.9
	(b)	4,350.2
	(c)	5,713.0
	(d)	5,256.7
(ii)	(a)	NoneContract	Contractor	Funding	(b)	NoneHigh temperature lithium cell	Institute of Research Hydro Que-	(c)	27.0development phase V	bec	$ 120,000	(d)	NoneHigh temperature lithium cell	Institute of Research Hydro Que-	testing	bec/Defence Research Establish-	(iii)	(a)	Nonement, Ottawa	$ 40,000	(b)	NoneNon-aqueous lithium ion	New Brunswick Productivity &	(c)	10.0deposition	Research Council	$ 84,000	(d)	NoneSodium beta-alumina type	Almax/Ontario Research Foun-	electrolytes	dation	S 47,000	2. (a)	NoneLithium ion conductors	Ontario Research Foundation	$ 25,000	(b)	NoneCeramic ion conductor testing	McMaster University	$ 16,000	(c)	2
In 1982 a contract is planned for a pilot plant production of the high temperature lithium bicells which were developed under the above-mentioned Institute of Research Hydro Quebec contract.
3.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
None to date.
None
3
None to date.


Mr. Hargrave: 1.	What was the average live fed cattle (steers and heifers) market price for 1981 as required by the Agricultural Stabilization Act?
2.	What was the previous average five-year fed cattle market price immediately prior to 1981 ?
3.	What was the previous average five year fed cattle market price prior to 1981 adjusted for the cost of production factor?


Mr. Heap: Does the Government have agreements governing the entry of migrant workers to Canada and, if so (a) with which countries (b) are copies of the agreements available for public scrutiny (c) under the agreements, what responsibilities does Canada undertake for the protection of the workers' occupational health and safety?

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, in respect of temporary workers admitted to Canada under the Foreign Seasonal Agricultural Worker Programs.
(a)	Memoranda of Understanding respecting the entry of seasonal agricultural workers exist between Canada and the following countries: Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of Mexico.
(b)	The Canadian Government has no objection to releasing the documents, however, in accordance with normal diplomatic practice the consent of the other signatory governments would have to be obtained.
(c)	Canada, through the employment agreement between the employer, the worker and the foreign government representative, as provided for in the Memoranda of Understanding, requires the employer, among other conditions:
(i)	to provide such adequate living accommodations to the worker, without cost to the worker, as meet the approval of the appropriate government authority responsible for health and living conditions in the province where the worker is employed and, in the absence of such authority, the approval of the foreign government's representative; and,
(ii)	to comply with all laws, regulations and by-laws respecting conditions set by competent authority and, in addition, in the absence of any laws providing for payment of compensation to workers for personal injuries received or disease contracted as a result of the employment, shall obtain insurance accepted by the foreign government's representative providing necessary compensation to the worker.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Advisory Committee on the Storage and Utilization of Human Sperm connected with the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, who are the members of the Committee and what are their titles?
2.	Do the members of the Committee receive any remuneration such as salary or travel expenses and, if so, what amount did each member receive in (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82?
3.	Were there any other costs associated with the Committee in (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 and, if so, for what amount and for what reason?
4.	What are the terms of reference and what is the rationale for the establishment of such a Committee?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 2.	Yes. (a) Expenses 1980-81: A. Gombay-Travel $184.67, Honorarium $150; J. Collins-Travel $82.80, Honorarium $150; (b) Expenses 1981-82: Nil.
3.	Expenses 1980-81: Total: $4500 (Translation costs); Expenses 1981-82: Total: $9753.33 (Printing costs).
4.	Terms of Reference: To advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare in relation to the storage and utilization of human sperm, having considered: (1) the extent of storage and utilization, actual and projected, of human sperm in Canada; (2) methods of collection, preservation and reconstitution of human sperm; (3) methods of assessment of donors and recipients, the counselling of prospective parents and the effects on the child and the family; (4) the need for the control of the importation of human sperm from other countries; (5) the biological, legal, medical, philosophical, religious and social implications of the use of stored human sperm; (6) the scientific evidence concerning the effect of storage on the genetic integrity of human sperm, the course of the resulting pregnancies, and the health of the resulting offspring.
Rationale for establishment of Committee: At the Annual Conference of Provincial Ministers of Health in the autumn of 1974, concern was expressed about the potential hazards of commercial exploitation of the technique of preserving human sperm by freezing. Accordingly, the following recommendation was forwarded to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for comments by the Chairman of the group:
"Ministers of Health to request the Federal Government to prohibit the storage of human sperm on a commercial basis until further evaluation has taken place. Research and control studies to be carried out".
The Minister responded by suggesting that in view of the wide range of issues raised by the storage and use of stored sperm, consideration would be given to establishing a committee to give advice as to possible courses of action.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Is Teleglobe Canada's Quarter Century Club sponsored with moneys from public funds by Teleglobe Canada?
2.	Is a weekend party to be held on Saturday, October 23 and Sunday, October 24 at 1'Esterel and are members of the Club invited to bring an escort and, if so
(a)	is Teleglobe in any way paying any of the cost towards the party from public funds (b) was the President of Teleglobe Canada, Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme, given the necessary funds by Teleglobe Canada through the Department of Communications to pay for a lavish dinner, entertainment and one night's lodging for those invited together with their accommodation?
3.	What is the anticipated cost of this party and what are the names and addresses of all persons who had a letter delivered to them inviting them to this party?
4.	Does Mr. Delorme guarantee that those who come early can enjoy the indoor pool, whirlpool and sauna?
5.	(a) What is the anticipated cost of liquor at the cocktail party at 6.30 p.m.
(b)	what is the cost of the dinner and the dance and what orchestra is playing at the dance?
Order Paper Questions


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed by Teleglobe Canada as follows:
1.	The Teleglobe Quarter Century Club is composed entirely of persons having 25 years of service or more with Teleglobe or its predecessor companies and independently organizes and funds its own activities. Each year for the past 15 years or so, Teleglobe has supported the cost of a dinner for these employees and their spouses.
2.	For its forthcoming annual dinner, the Quarter Century Club has sought an expression of interest from its members as to whether they wished to hold their dinner this year at l'Esterel, instead of Montreal.
(a) If and when Teleglobe management is approached for support towards this annual event for 1982, it intends to provide the club with support similar to that which it has given it in the past, namely the cost of the dinner (including cocktails); (b) No.
3.	The anticipated cost of the dinner has not as yet been communicated to the Corporation by the club and as the Corporation takes no part in the invitations or arrangements for the dinner, it is not in a position to answer this question.
4.	See 1 above.
5.	(a) See 3 above, (b) See 3 above.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many Argus aircraft has the Government sold thus far and, in each case, to whom was the aircraft sold and at what price?
2.	How many such aircraft remain to be sold?
3.	Did the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation ever receive a letter from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum Inc. of Brandon, Manitoba requesting that the Museum be notified of all retired aircraft which the department had for sale?
4.	Did the Corporation ever notify the Museum of any aircraft which they had for sale?
5.	Was the Museum ever notified about the sale of the Argus aircraft and, if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. No
Argus aircraft were sold in their whole state. Twenty-three aircraft were classified as scrap metal, declared surplus by DND and sold to Bristol Metals, Toronto for $71,936 on December 3, 1981. For other information, please refer to question No. 3,893 answered April 1, 1982.
2.	None.
3.	CADC has no record of ever receiving a letter addressed directly to them from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum, however carbon copies of correspondence between the Museum and the office of the Minister, Employment and Immigration was received by CADC on April 21, 1982. The Museum had already been placed on the aircraft mailing list on May 7, 1981. This mailing list is used by CADC to solicit bids from interested parties when aircraft, in their whole state, are declared surplus by the Crown.

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
4.	It is presumed that the Museum was notified of any aircraft sold in their whole state after May 7, 1981.
5.	The Museum was not notified about the sale of the Argus. The Argus was sold as scrap metal and not in their whole state because of DND policy prohibiting the sale of combatant type aircraft, including the Argus, to private individuals or organizations.


Mr. Blenkarn: Is the cost of running passenger service by VIA Quebec four times as expensive per passenger carried as the cost of carrying passengers in that area of the VIA service run by VIA Ontario and, if so, for what reason?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc., advises as follows: No.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was Bailey and Rose, a computer consulting firm, given public funds to hire computer consultants on the Mortgage Portfolio Management System project and, if so (a) for what reason (b) for what reason did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation not manage the project and do the hiring?
2.	What amount has been spent on this project to date and over what period of time was it spent?
3.	Is the project about to be started up once more and, if so (a) what amount is going to be committed this time (b) who will be responsible for managing the project?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	No. (a) and (b) N/A
2.	Over the past four years $18 million has been expended on this initiative.
3.	CMHC's systems development initiatives are under review in order to ensure that the Corporation's systems objectives are attained in the most cost-effective manner. Decisions on 3 (a) and (b) will be taken subsequent to this review.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice advise the Attorney General of Nova Scotia by telex and confirmed by letter respecting the course of conduct he intended to follow in the case of Mr. Donald Marshall on June 8, 9 or 10, 1982 or thereabouts as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and, if so, what was the content of the telex and letter?
2.	Was there correspondence or other communications between the Minister and the Attorney General concerning the case of Mr. Marshall between June 1 and June 16, 1982 and, if so, what was the purpose of that correspondence?
3.	Did the Minister at any time in 1982 meet with and discuss with the Attorney General the case of Mr. Marshall and, if so, what was the result of the discussion?
4.	Did the Minister telephone or otherwise contact the Attorney General between 3.00 p.m. EDT on June 15, 1982 and 2.00 p.m. EDT on June 16, 1982, concerning the case of Mr. Marshall and, if so, what was the result of the contact?
5.	(a) At what exact time was the document dated June 16, 1982 referring the case of Mr. Marshall to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (i) prepared (ii) signed by the Minister (b) who witnessed the signing and who prepared the document?
6.	(a) At what exact time was the letter dated June 16, 1982 to the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia respecting the case of Mr. Marshall (i) prepared (ii) signed (b) who witnessed the signing and who prepared the letter?
7.	Did the Minister know on June 15, 1982 at approximately 2.30 p.m. that he was referring the case of Mr. Marshall to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and, if not, for what reason did he take this action immediately thereafter?
8.	Did the Minister inform the Member of Parliament for Cape Breton-The Sydneys that he was referring the case of Mr. Marshall to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and, if so, exactly when did he inform him?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No.
2.	Yes. The purpose of this correspondence was to determine the best means of dealing with Mr. Marshall's petition for the exercise of Executive Clemency or the Mercy of the Crown.
3.	No.
4.	Late in the afternoon of June 15, 1982, D. Rutherford, Q.C., Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law), of the Department of Justice attempted without success to reach Gordon Gale, Q.C., Director of Criminal Law in the Department of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. He communicated with Mr. Gale's office the next morning, leaving a detailed message outlining a proposal to be put before the Minister of Justice later that morning, for a reference of the Marshall case to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
5.	(a) The document dated June 16, 1982, referring the case of Mr. Marshall to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, was prepared in the late afternoon of June 15, 1982 and presented to the Minister for signature on the morning of June 16, 1982.
(b)	Mr. Rutherford prepared the document which was submitted to the Minister on June 16, 1982 by Mr. Jacques Demers, a special adviser to the Minister. The Minister's signature was not witnessed.
6.	(a) The letter dated June 16, 1982 to the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, respecting the case of Mr. Marshall, was prepared and signed during the morning of June 16, 1982.
(b)	Mr. Rutherford prepared the letter which was submitted to the Minister by Mr. Demers. The Minister's signature was not witnessed.
7.	At approximately 2.30 p.m. on June 15, 1982, the Minister was still considering the matter and was awaiting further advice from his officials. The Minister explained these reasons in the House on June 22, 1982.
8.	The Minister discussed the Marshall case in a very general fashion with the Member of Parliament for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on June 15, 1982 but did not inform him of the decision to refer the case to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia prior to announcing this decision in the House of Commons on June 16, 1982.
October 28, 1982


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Did the Department of the Environment consult existing forest sector employers to see how they could best provide more jobs before announcing the Forestry Employment Program?
2.	Did the Department consult the wood processors to see whether there is a market for additional wood?
3.	Did the Department do an analysis on the market to see how additional wood will affect the present prices paid to producers by processors?
4.	How does the Department estimate this Program will affect existing forest sector employers?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Yes, the Department of the Environment did consult with several industry groups prior to announcing the Federal Employment Stimulation Program Forestry Component.
2.	No, the Department did not consult the wood processors because the Program expressly avoids creating additional wood except as a limited by-product of stand improvement work.
3.	No; since additional wood would be minimal and in no case would the volume of wood produced through stand improvement work be sufficient to affect market prices, no analysis was necessary.
4.	The program will benefit existing forest sector employers by keeping laid-off woodworkers in the local community so that they will be available when economic conditions return to normal. In addition, the work done on the forests will help to ensure a long-term supply of wood, securing a future for these employers.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Calgary branch of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation refuse funding for the Inter Faith Housing, a group who requested that senior citizens apartments be built, and, if so, for what reason was the funding refused?
2.	Were other groups refused such funding and, if so (a) how many (b) what were the names of all such groups?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1 am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	CMHC has been unable to approve an application from Inter Faith Housing for assistance under the Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program due to lack of budget funds.
2.	Yes, (a) Three other non-profit groups developing senior citizens housing were advised that 1982 budget funds were not available for their projects; (b) Chinese United Church, Calvin Hungarian Church and Orthodox Brotherhood of Calgary.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation finance costs last year for senior citizens apartments in Calgary and, if so (a) how many units were built (b) what was the cost of the project?
2.	Is the Minister responsible for the Corporation aware that a request was made for further funding for senior citizens apartments to be built this year and,
Order Paper Questions
if so (a) how many units were requested (b) what was the cost of such a project and how many persons would it have accommodated?
3.	Can the Minister advise why such funding was refused when there is a great need for subsidized housing in Calgary for elderly senior citizens over 65?
4.	Is it government policy to deny funding of this sort in order to finance other projects which they feel are more worthwhile?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Senior citizens housing-142 units; Private non-profit and co-operative housing projects (some units would likely be occupied by senior citizens)-261 units. In addition in 1981 CMHC committed to share in the operating losses of 421 senior citizens housing units under Section 44.1(a) of the National Housing Act in the Calgary region, (b) Senior citizens housing-$8,916,000; Private non-profit and co-operative housing projects-$18,401,000.
2.	Yes. (a) Two projects totalling 142 units, (b) The costs of the projects have not been established and it is not known how many persons would be accommodated.
3.	Budgetary constraints do not permit the funding of all social housing projects requesting subsidy assistance under the Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Programs.
4.	No.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, receive a letter from the Inter Faith Housing appealing a cutback in funding?
2.	Did the Minister respond to the letter and, if not (a) for what reason (b) can the Minister advise how long it will be before a response is prepared?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. (a) and (b) N/A.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	On April 1, 1982 or thereabouts, did the Department of Employment and Immigration erect or cause to be erected a number of unilingual French-language billboards in Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, how many such billboards were erected by or on behalf of the Department in the Province of Ontario during and after April 1, 1982?
2.	For the same period, how many unilingual English-language billboards were erected in the Province of Quebec?
3.	Did officers of the Department responsible for the erection of the billboards in the Province of Ontario state that no unilingual English-language billboards were erected in the Province of Quebec and, if so, how does the Department justify the preferential treatment accorded to French-speaking Canadians in the Province of Ontario, while denying similar treatment to English-speaking Canadians in the Province of Quebec?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. (a) Yes, unilingual French billboards were erected in Metropolitan Toronto starting March 17 and ending May 4. (Due to the fact that billboard postings do not all take place on the same day, some were erected later than March 17 and

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
some were removed earlier than May 4, but all were displayed for the standard 28-day period.) (b) A total of 18 unilingual French boards were posted in Ontario.
2.	Neither unilingual-English nor unilingual-French nor bilingual boards were posted in Quebec due to insufficient billboard space availability at the intended time of posting.
3.	(a) Yes, Department officials so stated, (b) There was no preferential treatment in as much as English (and French) radio was utilized in Quebec (and in no other province) to offset the lack of billboard advertising availability as outlined in No. 2 above.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What are the Department of National Defence's projected capital requirements for 1982 to 1997 broken down into (a) major equipment (b) other equipment (c) recurring replacement (d) construction (e) research and development?
2.	What is the Department's actual capital budget expected to be for the fiscal years 1983-84 to 1985-86?
3.	What has been the increase in real terms in the Department's annual capital budget for the fiscal years 1980-81 through 1982-83?
4.	What is the projected real growth in the Department's annual capital budget for the fiscal years 1983-84 to 1985-86?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1. Projected capital requirements are subject to Cabinet decisions on the over-all defence envelope. Figures shown below are totals for the 15-year period expressed in 1982-83
dollars.	Item	Dollar Requirements (millions of dollars)(a)	Major equipment	$ 20,300(b)	Other equipment	2,100(c)	Recurring replacement	3,800(d)	Construction	1,600(e)	Research and development	1,400
2. Capital budget estimates for fiscal years 1983-84 to 1985-86 are not finalized, however, based on the envelope levels announced in the November 12, 1981 budget and departmental plans for the period, the capital budget levels are expected to be as follows: (expressed in budget year dollars)
Forecasl Capital Budget
Fiscal Year	(millions of dollars)
1983- 84	$ 1,900
1984- 85	2,200
1985- 86	2,500
3.	1980-81 to 1981-82, 9.3 per cent actual; 1981-82 to
1982-	83, 12.2 per cent forecast.
The envelope levels announced in the November 12, 1981 federal budget should provide for 15 per cent growth in
1983-	84. At this point there is no provision for real growth from 1983-84 to 1985-86. Real growth may be achieved
through internal budget adjustments during each fiscal year but specific amounts could not be forecast at this time.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Was a package containing a photograph of the Minister of State (Mines) and the Governor General of Canada, maps of Canada 1867 and a news release from the Minister's office for use in conjunction with Dominion Day distributed by Prestige Mailing Systems Ltd., 2249 Gladwin Street, Ottawa and sent by courier service and, if so, how many of the packages were sent by courier?
2.	Were any packages mailed through the Canada Post Corporation and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Did all the newspapers throughout Canada receive the package?
4.	What was the cost of producing the package and what was the total cost of delivery (a) by courier (b) by the Canada Post Corporation?
5.	Was a package sent by courier to the Bridge-River Lillooet News marked June 30, 1982 and, if so, for what reason, when there was virtually no chance of it arriving on July 1, 1982?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: The Minister of State (Mines) reports as follows:
1.	Yes, a package containing a photograph of the Minister of State (Mines) and the Governor General of Canada, a Canada Then and Now map package, and a news release from the Minister's office for use in conjunction with Dominion Day was distributed by Prestige Mailing Systems Ltd. and sent by courier service to 576 members of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association.
2.	No. Technical problems with printing and packing the maps resulted in an unforeseen delay of the availability date for mailing the package. Therefore, courier service was utilized in order for the package to reach recipients as close to Dominion Day as possible.
3.	No. (See part 1 above).
4.	Production cost-$1,783.08. (a) Delivery cost by courier-$5,935. (b) Nil. See reply to part 2.
5.	Yes. The reason is given in Part 2.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Who operates the Government telephone service in the city of Halifax for metropolitan Halifax?
2.	Was the operator changed within the last three months and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What are the terms of the contract under which the operator is employed?
4.	What is the level of service required to be provided in terms of (a) numbers of persons employed (b) facilities?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1. The Government switchboards are now operated by Air Page Communications Ltd. of 2760 Robie Street, Halifax, under contract to the Government Telecommunications Agency for a 12-month period.
October 28, 1982

2.	The changeover to the new contractor, selected through a tender process, commenced on June 21, 1982 and was completed on July 14, 1982. The purpose of the tender was to contain costs while ensuring that the services provided meet the requirements of the federal Government.
3.	The contractor is required to provide competent bilingual attendants to operate the Government switchboards in accordance with standard service objectives from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Monday through Friday except for federal statutory holidays.
4.	There are five switchboards available for service. At any given time, the contractor is required to maintain attendant service to ensure that 90 per cent of calls are answered within 20 seconds which is the standard service objective.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the Government or any official of the government, purchase a porcelain sculpture called "Sacajawea", created by Cybis Studio of Trenton, New Jersey and, if so (a) from whom (b) at what cost?
2.	Was the sculpture given to the Prince and Princess of Wales as Canada's official gift commemorating the birth of their child?
3.	What is the connection between the sculpture and Canada or any person or place within Canada?
4.	Did the Government not provide a gift that had some real connection with Canada and that would benefit Canadian artists or craftsmen and the Canadian arts and crafts industry and, if not, for what reason?


Serge Joyal: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	The sculpture in question was given to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales by the Province of Manitoba to commemorate the birth of their son.
4.	The Government of Canada did not provide an official gift on behalf of the Canadian people to commorate the birth of the son of the Prince and Princess of Wales because it is Canadian custom that official gifts are not given on behalf of the Canadian people to mark such events.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	In the past three years, was the National Harbours Board involved in any lawsuits with respect to its operations in Nova Scotia and, if so, what were the names of the litigants?
2.	Were any outside lawyers employed by the Board and, if so, what were their names and what was the total amount paid to them to date?


Jesse Philip Flis: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Halterm Limited; (b) George E. Richards.
2.	The Board has not engaged the services of lawyers from outside of the Department of Justice to represent the Board in these cases.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: With reference to the answer to question No. 4,342, what were the names of the New Brunswick lawyers to whom the National Harbours Board paid $143,541.92 for legal fees over the past three years and what amount was paid to each lawyer?


Jesse Philip Flis: National Harbours Board advises as follows:
Clark Drummie; re Brunswick Petroleum Transport;	$ 266.00
Mockler, Allen and Dixon, formerly Hoyt, Mockler,
Allen and Dixon; re Peter Kiewit Sons Co. Ltd., Maritime Testing Ltd. and Jos. A. Likely Limited;	$ 135,950.57
Teed and Teed; re Furcan Marine and Empire Stevedoring Co. Ltd;	$ 1,874.20
Gilbert McGloan; re Vessel Astra; and	$ 635.94
Purnell & Brien; re Salt Sales Co.	$ 4,815.21


Mr. Ellis: 1.	Were grants given by the Canada Council to a Mr. Bill Bissett and, if so, what were such grants?
2.	For what amount and for what purpose was each grant given?
3.	Were any publications or items printed and, if so, in each case, how many copies?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I am informed bu the Canada Council as follows:
1.	Yes. Grants to work on creative projects.
1981-82	Short term grant	$ 3,400	3 months-to write poetry1979-80	Arts grant "A"	17,000	12 months-to write poetry1979	Short term grant	2,300	3 months-to write poetry1977-78	Travel grant	934	to accept invitation of the Glasgow Sound Poetry Festival1977-78	Short term grant	2,050	3 months-to write poetry1976-77	Short term grant	2,140	3 months-to write poetry1975-76	Arts grant "A"	10,000	12 months-to write poetry1974	Short term grant	1,350	3 months-to write poetry1972-73	Arts grant "B"	4,000	12 months-to write poetry1971	Short term grant	750	3 months-to write poetry1970	Short term grant	750	3 months-to write poetry1969-70	Renewal of arts grant	3,500	12 months-to write poetry1968-69	Renewal of arts grant	3,500	12 months-to write poetry1967-68	Arts grant "B"	2,500	12 months-to write poetry3.	Mr. Bissett has reported to the Canada Council that with the grants he received, he produced the following books. The Canada Council has no information on the number of copies printed. Beyond Even Faithful Legends (published by Talon-books); Northern Birds in Color (published by Talonbooks); Sa and the Monkey (published by Talonbooks); Soul Arrow (published by blewointment press); The First Snow (published
October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
by blewointment press); Nobody Owns the Earth (published by House of Anansi); Poems for Yoshi (published by blewointment press); Sailor (published by Talonbooks); The Windup Tongue (published by blewointment press); Plutonium Missing (published by Intermedia); Lebanon Voices (published by Weed/Flower Press); Killer Whale (published by Talonbooks); Awake in the Red Desert (published by Talonbooks); Gossamer Bed Pan (published by blewointment press); Planet Wheel (published by Bob Cobbing, England).


Mr. Gurbin: Did the Government, through the Academic Relations Division of the Department of External Affairs, give financial support (a) to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (b) for the production of a textbook entitled "Understanding Canada" and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Academic Relations Division has given financial support to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States within the conduct of its mandate to develop an informed, well disposed and sustained interest in Canada as a whole among members of foreign leadership groups in support of foreign policy objectives. No grant was given to the Association as such for the production of the textbook entitled "Understanding Canada". Over the last twelve years the Department has granted $100,000 (U.S.A.) and $100,000 (Canadian) to the Association to enable it to promote teaching and research about Canada in a widening circle of institutions of higher learning in the United States.
See also the replies to question No. 4,318 answered June 17, 1982 and 4,390 answered July 30, 1982.


Mr. Malone: 1.	Did the Government receive a request from Mr. Leo J. Vos of Strome, Alberta for a record of his earnings and future entitlement to a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension and, if so, was this confidential information mailed to Mr. Richard C. Perrott of Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia?
2.	Did the Government receive a request from Mr. Richard C. Perrott of Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia for a record of his earnings and future entitlement to a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension and, if so, was this confidential information mailed to Mr. Leo J. Vos of Strome, Alberta?
3.	Are precautions taken to ensure that the confidential record of earnings and retirement benefit information of one Canadian citizen is not mistakenly disclosed to another Canadian and, if so, what are such precautions?
4.	Were any such precautions followed in the cases of Messrs. Vos and Perrott and, if not, for what reason?
5.	On how many occasions have errors occurred and how frequently do errors occur with respect to such confidential information, such that one or more Canadians are being informed of anoiher citizen's record of earnings and retirement benefit status?
6.	Is any recourse available to a citizen who has had confidential information shared with others by intention or in error and, if so, what is such recourse?


Monique Bégin: 1. The Canada Pension Plan Administration
received a request from Mr. Leo J. Vos of Strome, Alberta for a record of his earnings and information concerning future entitlement to a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension. A reply was prepared May 28, 1982 and apparently mailed in error to Mr. Richard C. Perrott of Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia.
2.	The Canada Pension Plan Administration received a request from Mr. Richard C. Perrott of Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia for a record of his earnings and information concerning future entitlement to a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension. This reply was also prepared May 28, 1982 and apparently mailed in error to Mr. Leo J. Vos of Strome, Alberta.
3.	Precautions are taken to ensure that the confidential record of earnings and retirement benefit information of one Canadian citizen is not mistakenly disclosed to another Canadian. In cases where a record of earnings only is requested it is automatically sent in a window type envelope which ensures that it is mailed to the intended recipients. Where additional information is required the request must be processed manually. All of the staff involved in this process are aware of the confidentiality of the information and the need for extra care in handling such information.
4.	In the cases of Messrs. Vos and Perrott the precautions were followed in processing the information however, in the enveloping of the information the material for Mr. Vos was placed in the typed envelope addressed to Mr. Perrott and the information to Mr. Perrott was placed in the typed envelope addressed to Mr. Vos. Our procedures stipulate that a check is to be made to ensure the correct letter is enveloped but in this case an error was made.
5.	The Canada Pension Plan Administration is aware of only two other incidents in mailing information to contributors and as a matter of record some one million records have been mailed since the beginning of 1982 alone. In addition, the procedure of sending all requests for information in window type envelopes has recently been adopted. This will provide a further measure of safety against errors in mailing information to contributors.
6.	Section 107 of the Canada Pension Plan Act provides that any employee who "knowingly" contravenes the confidentiality of information on the record of earnings of a contributor is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction. There is of course no such recourse for human error.


Mr. Gass: 1.	What is the advertising budget for the Canada Post Corporation for the fiscal year 1982-83?
2.	What was the advertising budget for the Post Office Department for the fiscal year 1971-72?


David Berger: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows: 1. $2,435,000; 2. $362,600.
October 28, 1982


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuchatlaht Indian Band by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 74985, Certification Date June 5, 1981 in the amount of $2,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuchatlaht Indian Band and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) carpentry skills training course; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. (a), (b) and (c) This information is not available as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not yet received the March 31, 1982, audited statements of the Nuchatlaht Band.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 74988, Certification Date August 12, 1981 in the amount of $6,556 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) on-the-job training; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 76001, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $24,572 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) consultation; (b) contribution arrangement.
Order Paper Questions
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78005, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $25,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) community planner; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 78006, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $30,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) education employment office; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 78007, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $31,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) local Government advisor; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1. With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78008, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $5,000 (a) for what specific program.

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2. Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) administration; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78009, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $30,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: I. (a) Band financial advisor; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 78010, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $37,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) forester; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 78011, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $36,500 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) economic development officer; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78012, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $37,650 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) engineer; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 78013, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $30,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) social worker; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78015, Certification Date August 26, 1981 in the amount of $52,809 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Band operations; (b) contribution arrangements.
October 28, 1982

2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system. Commitment Number 79700, Certification Date June 24, 1981 in the amount of $20,000 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the Nuuchahnulth Tribal Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) forest management; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. No; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the South Island District Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78001, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $19,836.48 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the South Island District Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Executive Director; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. (a), (b) and (c) This information is not available as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not yet received the March 31, 1982, audited statements of the South Island District Council.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the South Island District Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78002, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $28,487.84 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the South Island District Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) local Government adivsor: (b) contribution arrangement.
2. (a), (b) and (c) This information is not available as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not yet received the March 31, 1982, audited statements of the South Island District Council.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the South Island District Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78003, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $28,487.84 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the South Island District Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Economic Development Officer; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. (a), (b) and (c) This information is not available as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not yet received the March 31,1982, audited statements of the South Island District Council.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	With respect to arrangements entered into with the South Island District Council by the British Columbia Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year 1981-82, as described in the Department's budgetary control system, Commitment Number 78004, Certification Date May 6, 1981 in the amount of $28,487.84 (a) for what specific program, project or purpose was the money allocated (b) through what instrument was the request for funding made?
2.	Were any of the funds, once disbursed by the Department, reassigned for uses beyond the direct authority or control of the South Island District Council and, if so (a) for what purpose were they reassigned (b) to whom were they reassigned (c) were they reassigned with the approval or at the direction of the Department?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Construction Supervisor; (b) contribution arrangement.
2. (a), (b) and (c) This information is not available as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not yet received the March 31, 1982, audited statements of the South Island District Council.


Mr. Mazankowski: Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources authorize a "study of Canadian response to national energy issues" and, if so (a) who will be conducting the study and at what cost (b) what are the terms of reference for the study (c) on what date will it be completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows;
EM&R, in consultation with Statistics Canada, initiated a research program in late 1980 to assess public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour patterns, over time, towards the energy situation in Canada. The "study of Canadian response to national energy issues" was part of this ongoing research.

October 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(a)	International Surveys Ltd., 20 Eglinton Avenue E., Toronto, Ontario; Cost-$36,000.
(b)	A national telephone tracking study to monitor Canadian attitudes, knowledge and opinion with respect to general energy issues and the National Energy Program.
(c)	August 1982. Final analysis of the studies is expected to be completed by Statistics Canada by mid-October.


Mr. Mazankowski: Is there a Canadian Environmental Advisory Council and, if so (a) what are its terms of reference (b) who are the members of the Council (c) what, if any, funding is provided by the Government (d) what matters did the Council consider in the fiscal year 1981-82 (e) what was the total cost to the Government of the Council in the fiscal year 1981-82?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, there is a Canadian Environmental Advisory Council.
(a)	Its terms of reference are:
1.	To offer advice to the Minister on environmental problems referred to it by him.
2.	To review the Programs and Projects of the Department of the Environment in the field of environmental protection and to criticize them to the Minister where he feels this is necessary; and
3.	After consultation with the Minister, to conduct investigations and/or public hearings and to release factual reports of its findings on environmental matters of great public concern, in order to inform the public of the issues at stake.
(b)	The membership of Council is as follows:
Chairman	Mr. T. Beck
Vice-Chairman	Dr. R. Bergeron
Members
Ms. S. Holtz Mr. M. Hummel Mr. T. G. Jeanes Professor A. R. Lucas
Ms. N. MacPherson Mr. H. D. McRorie Dr. P. F. M. McLoughlin Dr. P. Meincke
(c)	The Government provides an annual budget to cover operating costs of the Council.


Mr. Wilson: 1.	Was Econalysis Consulting Services of Toronto given a contract for $47,500 by the Department of Communications in May 1982 "to conduct a study analysing refinements and possible alternatives to the capital cost allowances" and, if so (a) for what reason (b) was the proposal for the study initiated by the Department or by the company?
2.	Does the Department have responsibility for changes in capital cost allowances or is this matter under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance?
3.	Could the study have been undertaken by the Tax Policy Branch of the Department of Finance and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason was it necessary to engage outside advice?
4.	Does the Department of Communications intend to make the study public?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Econalysis Consulting Services was given a contract for $47,500 (later amended to $62,325) by the Department of Communications.
(a)	The study was commissioned in order to describe the current impediments to the operation of a successful Canadian film industry and to develop and analyse a package or proposals to deal with these problems. The film industry is in the midst of a very difficult period since traditional sources of financing have dried up and the level of production of films has decreased. A study was necessary in order to evaluate alternative policy strategies, so that aid to the industry can be directed most efficiently.
(b)	The proposal for the study was initiated by the Department.
2.	The Minister of Communications is responsible for the development of initiatives to stimulate Canada's cultural industries. However, changes to the Capital Cost Allowance must be approved by the Minister of Finance and the Policy Committee of Cabinet. The Minister of Finance has paramount responsibility for the management of the tax system and for short-term stabilization policy. However, as part of the Minister of Communications' over-all cultural responsibilities, he can put forward tax and tariff changes (including remission of tax under the Financial Administration Act).
3.	The study could not have been undertaken by the Tax Policy Branch of the Department of Finance because the scope of the study goes beyond tax policy, dealing with other possible incentives to the production of films and videotape in Canada.
4.	The Department will be making the study public.
(d)	Matters which the Council considered during the fiscal year 1981-82 included: environmental toxicology, pesticides and the environment, environmental issues in northern Canada, environmental assessment and review process, public participation in environmental issues and management and protection of ecological sites.
(e)	$240,000.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 2,725, 3,518, 3,797, 3,809, 4,058 and 4,399 could be made orders for
October 28, 1982

returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. We might need two people to carry them as they weigh about ten pounds.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 2,725, 3,518, 3,797, 3,809, 4,058 and 4,399 be made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since March 1, 1980, were any lawyers in Ontario given work by the (a) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) Department of Justice (c) Farm Credit Corporation and, if so, in each case, what was (i) the name and address (ii) the total amount paid (iii) the number of cases handled on behalf of the Department and each Corporation?
2.	What are the names of the federal drug prosecutors for (a) Guelph (b) London (c) Windsor and, in each case (i) how many cases were prosecuted on behalf of the government and at what cost to the taxpayer (ii) which groups or individuals were asked to submit lists of recommended lawyers prior to the appointment being made and, for each individual or group consulted, what were the names of the other lawyers recommended?
3.	What criteria were employed in selecting lawyers to prosecute drug cases on behalf of the government?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1. For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit officers, in the (a) British Columbia Region at the (i) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford (ii) Kent Institution, Agassiz (iii) Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford (iv) Mountain Institution, Agassiz (v) William Head Institution, Victoria (vi) Mission Institution, Mission (vii) Matsqui Trailer Unit (viii) Ferndale Institution, Mission (ix) Elbow Lake, Harrison Mills (x) Pandora Centre, Victoria (xi) Robson Centre, Vancouver (b) Alberta Region at the (i) Edmonton Institution, Edmonton (ii) Drumheller Institution, Drumheller (iii) Bowden Institution, Innisfail (iv) Drumheller Trailer Unit (v) Grierson Centre, Edmonton (vi) Portal House, Calgary (vii) Altadore Centre, Calgary (c) Saskatchewan Region at the (i) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon (ii) Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert (iii) Saskatchewan Institution, Prince Albert (iv) Oskana Centre, Regina (d) Manitoba Region at the (i) Stony Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain (ii) Rockwood Institution, Stony Mountain (iii) Osborne Centre, Winnipeg (e) Ontario Region at the (i) Regional Reception Centre, Kingston (ii) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston (iii) Prison for Women, Kingston (iv) Millhaven Institution, Bath (v) Collins Bay Institution, Kingston (vi) Joyceville Institution, Joyceville (vii) Warkworth Institution, Campbellford (viii) Frontenac Institution, Kingston (ix) Pittsburgh Institution, Joyceville (x) Bath Institution, Bath (xi) Beaver Creek, Gravenhurst (xii) Montgomery Centre, Toronto (xiii) Keele Street Centre, Toronto (xiv) Portsmouth Centre, Kingston (f) Quebec region at the (i) Regional Reception Centre, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (ii) Correctional Development Centre, Laval (iii) Laval Institution, Laval (iv) Archambault Institution, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (v) Leclerc Institution, Laval (vi) Federal Training Centre, Laval (vii) Cowansville Institution, Cowansville (viii) La Macaza Institution, L'Annonciation (ix) Montee St-Fran9ois Institution, Laval (x) Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Institution, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (xi) Ogilvie Centre, Montreal (xii) Martineau Centre, Montreal (xiii) Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal (xiv) Benoit XV Centre, Quebec
Order Paper Questions
City (xv) Pie IX Centre, Montreal (g) New Brunswick Region at the (i) Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester (ii) Westmorland Institution, Dorchester (iii) Parrtown Centre, Saint John (h) Nova Scotia Region at the (i) Springhill Institution, Springhill (ii) Shulie Lake, Parrsboro (iii) Carlton Centre, Halifax?
2.	How many of the guards had a formal education of (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to 12 (c) some post-secondary training (d) a university degree?
3.	For the same years, for each institution in Part I (a) what was the number of living unit officers and how many had a formal education of (i) less than grade 10 (ii) grade 10 to 12 (iii) some post-secondary training (iv) a university degree (b) what was the number of inmates (c) what was the total number of staff and (i) how many staff were in each job classification (ii) what were the salaries by classification level?
4.	For the same years, for each institution in Part I, how many individuals admitted were (a) discharged to another institution (b) discharged to a residential centre (c) released on parole?
5.	For the same years, which federal penal institutions (a) provided protective custody facilities and, in each case, how many inmates were held in protective custody (b) had Special Handling Units and, in each case, how many inmates were held in such Units?
Return tabled.

Question No. 3,797-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Return tabled.

Question No. 3,809-Mr. Lawrence:
For the years 1976 to 1980, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) parttime psychiatrists at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford and, in each case, what was his/her (i) educational qualification (ii) previous work experience (iii) salary?
Return tabled.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): What is the complete list of all private and public sector superannuation plans under federal jurisdiction?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government contemplating the closure of the regional office of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and, if so, on what date?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 4,102.

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Mr. Nystrom: Did the Government undertake studies on the impact of the contemplated changes to the Crowsnest Pass rates on trade, on the balance of payments and on the value of the Canadian dollar and, if so (a) what were the studies and on what date were they completed (b) are there studies or proposed studies now under way (c) does the government intend to make the studies public?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question 4,102 is as follows:
A consultant's study, recently completed for the Department of Agriculture, included an assessment of Canada's agricultural trade balance as part of its analysis of the impact of a change in the Crowsnest Pass freight rates.
(a)	This study, "An Economic Analysis of the Crow Rates", by Dr. D. R. Harvey was completed on January 18, 1982. It shows that revising the Crow could improve Canada's agricultural trade balance by as much as $220 million in 1990, measured in 1981 dollars.
(b)	No further studies are proposed or underway at this time. Export grain prices are established on the basis of world markets, and are not affected by changes in the cost of transportation within Canada. Canada's ability to export grain, however, is dependent on an adequate transportation system. It is this issue that the government's proposals to change the Crow rates are meant to address.
(c)	Dr. Harvey's study is now available to the public. [English]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-128, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, the Financial Administration Act stipulates that statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament in order for the Government to increase its outstanding debt. Consequently, in order for the Government to borrow money to meet its financial requirements, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament. Bill C-128 currently before the House seeks additional borrowing authority of $4 billion for the current 1982-83 fiscal year.
As Hon. Members will recall, so far this fiscal year the Government has obtained parliamentary approval for a total of $17.1 billion of borrowing authority. This amount is equal to the financial requirements forecast for 1982-83 in the budget presented by the Government in June. It is made up of $3.5 billion of unused borrowing authority carried forward from earlier years, $6.6 billion of authority for 1982-83 provided by Bill C-111, and $7 billion supplementary authority provided by Bill C-125.
Hon. Members will recall that the original Bill seeking supplementary borrowing authority for 1982-83 included a non-lapsing contingency reserve of $4 billion over and above the $7 billion needed to meet the financial requirements of the Government. However, during its passage through the House earlier this year the Bill was amended, the contingency reserve was dropped, and in lieu of the reserve the House moved that the Standing Orders be amended so that, if at any time prior to March 31, 1983 the Government introduced a Bill requesting new borrowing authority of not more than $4 billion, debate on all stages of that Bill in the House would be limited to a period not exceeding three days. Bill C-128 to obtain this amount is the one before the House today.
I mentioned earlier that the $17.1 billion of borrowing authority already granted was equivalent to the financial requirements for 1982-83 projected in the June budget. As Members of the House are aware, the financial requirements for 1982-83 have increased to $22.2 billion. These developments were explained to the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The Minister pointed out that the major share of the increase in the financial requirements was due to the increase in the budgetary deficit resulting from the weakness of the economy which had become more severe since the earlier forecasts were presented in the June budget.
As a result of this unanticipated weakness, revenue estimates have fallen almost $3 billion since June while outlays have increased by slightly more than $1 billion. Most of the remainder of the increase in Financial requirements is due to the increase in the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund.
In view of the $5 billion increase in the financial requirements for 1982-83 since last June, the Government is required to enter into a larger debt program. This is the reason we are seeking additional borrowing authority at this time. However, the additional $4 billion sought in the present Bill will provide
October 28, 1982

the Government with total borrowing authority for this fiscal year of $21.1 billion, less than the $22.2 billion which 1 referred to. Furthermore, foreign borrowing, excluding the use of the standby lines of credit, has, on balance, used some $0.9 billion of the borrowing authority provided for this fiscal year.
In his statement to the House the Minister of Finance made it clear that, from the estimates he had presented, further borrowing authority would be required before the end of the fiscal year. The Minister stated that he intended to present a budget to the House early in 1983 and at that time would review the fiscal situation and seek additional borrowing authority as required.
I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that projections of financial requirements are made exclusive of future foreign exchange transactions. Recently the dollar has been firm; the Canadian dollar cash balances have been used to accumulate foreign exchange reserves. Foreign exchange markets can be extremely volatile and can have a major impact on the Government's operations. If the Canadian dollar were to continue firm, foreign exchange operations would result in further acquisitions of foreign exchange and cash balances would be depleted. This would necessitate a larger debt program to replenish the cash balances and would speed up the use of available borrowing authority. On the other hand, if the Canadian dollar is weak, exchange operations would run down official holdings. This would create the possible need to draw on standby credit. This too would accelerate the use of borrowing authority.
As a matter of interest to Hon. Members, I would like to set out the Government's debt program so far in the current fiscal year and the amount of borrowing authority that has been used to date. Before doing so I would like to reiterate and remind Hon. Members of the view the Minister expressed Wednesday, that he did not anticipate any problem for the Government in carrying out its debt program or that it would create difficulties for other borrowers. In fact, private borrowing has been very weak through the first half of the year while savings rates have been at very high levels by traditional standards. As a consequence, there is clearly no shortage of funds to satisfy the borrowing requirements of both the private sector and the various levels of Government. Indeed, given the current circumstances, it is appropriate that the Government provide the support to economic activity through its deficit, and the Minister in his speech dealt with that at length.
Up to November 1 the Government will have used a total of around $8 billion in borrowing authority, leaving $9.1 billion of the original $17.1 billion unused. The use of the borrowing authority is made up of $0.9 billion as a result of foreign borrowing and $7.1 billion as a result of the domestic debt program. The foreign borrowing represents U.S. $750 million borrowed in the Eurobond market last June and a partial redemption of a Deutschemark maturity earlier in the year. The domestic debt program comprises approximately $5.2 billion raised through the issue of treasury bills, $3 billion through the issue of marketable bonds, while Canada Savings
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Bond redemptions have reduced the amount borrowed by an approximate $1 billion.
The 1982-83 Canada Savings Bonds campaign is now underway and we expect that this will use up a major proportion of the remaining unused borrowing authority. However, even though we expect that the amount of unused borrowing authority now available will cover expected net sales of Canada Savings Bonds, it is nonetheless exceptionally difficult to fine-tune Canada Savings Bonds sales results. There are about
13,000	branches of financial institutions across the country acting as CSB sales and issuing agents and it is not possible to determine the exact aggregate amount of bonds they have sold at any point during the two-week campaign period. Up-to-date sales results have to be projected using sampling techniques which contain an element of error. In view of this uncertainty, Mr. Speaker, Section 3 of the Bill states that the new borrowing powers will be enforced on November 1, 1982. This provision has been used in the past to ensure that all Canada Savings Bonds sales are covered by unused borrowing authority.
Putting the request, Mr. Speaker, in the context of the present economic situation and the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance, the economic situation that our country is facing has been outlined recently by the Prime Minister in his remarks on national television. He outlined how Canadians are facing this problem together, as witnessed by the support for the six and five program contained in the budget in June. This program, as we know, is designed to achieve recovery and reintroduce strength into the economy.
The choices that the Federal Government faces are clear. We could, as the Prime Minister said, wring out inflation by brute force, cut billions from Government spending. We believe, of course, that such a course would be disastrous. We reject it immediately. We do not believe that it would improve the economy and certainly, Mr. Speaker, such a course of action, as has been indicated, would deprive Canadians of the help that they need desperately at this time.

We will not let down the unemployed, the aged nor the young people who are desperately looking for their first job. These people need unemployment insurance benefits, old age security pensions as well as training programs.
The industry needs grants for research and development as well as financial incentives. Farmers need loans at reduced interest rates. The building contractor will be tremendously helped by grants provided to home buyers.

The Minister of Finance's announcement will bolster business confidence. The many changes the statement made concerning the tax aspects of the other Bills before the House will bolster that confidence. That will result in improved investor confidence and, of course, Mr. Speaker, all of that is
20158

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
directed towards the creation of jobs, a singularly high priority for the Government.
In summary and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, approval of the borrowing authority in Bill No. C-128 is sought to support the needs of Canadians and to support Government programs at this time, all of which, as has been indicated, are directed toward the objective of economic recovery.
Mliss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of numbers from the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove), and I would like to give him two numbers. The first is that the average family income in this country is $29,900. The second is that in my home province of British Columbia the average family's share of the federal public debt, thanks to the Finance Minister's new budget, is $20,800. If you add in the provincial debt of around $9,900 per family, the fact is that the debt load faced by my constituents amounts to about $30,700 which exceeds the average annual family income in this country. That is the reality behind Bill No. C-128. That is the appalling and unpleasant truth which Canadians face today, and it is the shameful result of this Government's mismanagement of a rich and vibrant Canadian economy over the last decade. That is Bill C-128.
1 would like to give the House some more numbers. In the economic statement last night the Government projected spending of $79.2 billion this year and a deficit of $23.6 billion. The gross national debt last March was $134 billion. Interest on the debt will cost Canadian taxpayers $16.7 billion this year.
These numbers are so large, Mr. Speaker, that they do not make a lot of sense to Canadians so we have broken them down in a more personal way. Government spending this year will be equal to $8,400 per taxpayer. This compares to only $1,700 per taxpayer in the year before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. On a per capita basis Government spending this year will amount to $3,200 per man, woman and child in Canada, compared to only $500 per capita in the year before the Prime Minister first took office. Government spending is now more than six times greater than it was when the Prime Minister first took office and 15 times greater than any spending in any of the war years. One result is that one tax dollar in three is used to service the debt, compared to one tax dollar in nine only nine years ago.
We are now in a position, Mr. Speaker, where the increase in federal spending between the return of the Liberals in 1980 and the end of the current fiscal year will be 65 per cent, which is nearly double the increase in the nominal GNP of 35 per cent. Our party, of course, is pledged to keeping expenditure growth equal to, or less than, growth in GNP.
We need to review the reasons for this in order to understand the significance of this bill. One reason that the deficit has grown so rapidly is that the Government's financial forecasts contained in the infamous November 12, 1981 budget were wildly inaccurate. In order to correct its errors the Government asked Parliament last June to grant it authority to borrow another $6.6 billion, and in July the Government
came back to us for another $11 billion. This, of course, was in addition to the carry-over of $3.6 billion in borrowing authority from the previous year.
My colleagues in the Official Opposition realized that this had to stop, that we could not keep writing a blank cheque for the Government to spend as it saw fit. We therefore forced the Government to reduce its last request for borrowing authority to $7 billion. The Government requested the additional $4 billion as an emergency fund, a slush fund, but we forced it to agree to return to Parliament if it needed to spend this additional money. We call that accountability, making the Government recognize that it is accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people for the money it spends. We do not think that accountability is an unreasonable request. We expect the Government to explain to taxpayers what is being done with their money. We are not suggesting that the Government stop spending on important social programs. We do seek to force the Government to explain why it needs the money.
When the $4 billion we are currently debating is added to other requests for borrowing authority, as the Minister has explained, the total amount which the Government is requesting in this fiscal year is $21.2 billion, and the Government's financial requirements as set out in the Minister's statement last night now exceed $22 billion. In that statement the Minister of Finance made it clear he will be forced to seek even further borrowing authority before the end of the fiscal year, and in fact he intends to do so in his spring budget.
It is important to examine the reasons for this huge increase in borrowing authority. In his "fire side chats" the Prime Minister led us to believe the huge deficit we are accumulating is all due to the recession, and both he and the Minister of Finance have pointed out with some justification that revenue has dropped and expenditures on some safety net social programs have soared since the economy was allowed to free-fall. This is a seductive argument but it ignores an important point. Parliament will recall that the deficit for this fiscal year alone of $10 billion was projected in the November 12 budget on the premise of a third quarter recovery. In fact, when I asked the former Minister of Finance to explain why he expected the recovery since there was clear evidence that we had not bottomed out, he was unable to answer. The Minister in his own mini-budget now admits he expects the deficit to exceed $23.5 billion.
This huge and indefensible error in forecasting meant that Government spending was well out of control even before the economy began its drastic slide. Our current deficit is not so much the product of spending public money in bad times to protect the public interest; it is a direct result of spending too much money in good times and thus undermining the public interest.
The Minister maintains that the deficit will be reduced when the economy recovers. He is optimistic about gradual recovery in 1983, he says, when he expects real growth of
October 28, 1982

about 3 per cent next year. However, other independent observers do not paint such a rosy picture. The Conference Board of Canada cites consumer spending and business investment as major factors in determining the timing of the recovery, seeing some recovery of consumer spending but no reversal of the decline in the rate of business investment in Canada. I think we can understand that, considering the losses that business has incurred during this recession.
Regardless of the hoped for recovery and its timing, today Canadians live in a besieged economy. It is an economy hammered by two destructive budgets and a punitive National Energy Program, at a time when the key international markets have collapsed.
Many people in my home Province of B.C. are struggling simply to survive. I meet them on the streets and in my constituency office. There was the fisherman whose bank called his loan at the height of the salmon fishing season. There was the importer who told me in a state of near hysteria that the proposed retail sales tax changes would quite simply put him out of business. I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is reviewing that provision. There was the young businessman in a state of hysteria who slammed a government form down on my desk and said: "It will take me two weeks to fill out this form and I am already losing money." There was the man in desperate need of his income tax refund who was calmly told by the government clerk that because there was a change of address his refund would be another twelve weeks in arriving. There was the single woman who had been unemployed for more than a year and who was alarmingly suicidal. There was a former employee of mine, an extremely competent secretary, who told me that in the absence of work she was having to apply for welfare. In some communities people are bartering deer, which they hunt, for such staple foods as potatoes.
On a Province-wide basis the statistics define the body count. In B.C. total bankruptcies soared 90 per cent in the first seven months of 1982. That is triple the Canadian increase. In the forest industry, which accounts for 50 per cent of our provincial output, at mid-summer the IWA, our largest forestry union, estimated that 50 per cent of union members were off work and in the logging sector the number of workers laid off rose to nearly 65 per cent.
In our second biggest industry, mining, the Mining Association of B.C. estimates that 54 per cent of B.C. mine workers are laid off or unemployed. Some of the mine closures are permanent. About 3,500 mining jobs have been lost in the last year alone, some permanently; others are lost for a year or more. There are mining towns in B.C. which are in danger of becoming ghost towns. In Yukon, where the work force is laid off through the closure of Cyprus-Anvil Mining Corporation, people are staying in Faro because they have no place else to go. They will go through a cold winter with cold comfort from this Government. The construction industry, which has suffered through a strike, is reflecting the 49 per cent drop in building permits in the First six months of this year compared
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
to the same period last year and the 80 per cent drop in housing starts since August, 1981.
This summer the B.C. unemployment rate was more than 13 per cent, which is more than double the unemployment rate of the previous year. To put that in terms of people, it means that there were 80,000 unemployed workers in August last year and that number rose to 180,000 unemployed people in August this year.
B.C. employers have projected a net hiring decrease of 25 per cent this fall. The rate at which people are applying for UIC has jumped by 80 per cent from September, 1981, to June, 1982, over the same period the year before. That is an 80 per cent increase for claims in unemployment insurance in the summer months, which are high employment months. In September this year 7,600 B.C. residents had exhausted their UIC benefits and will have to turn to welfare. That is almost double the rate for September, 1981.
The people of Canada do not need fireside chats by the Prime Minister to tell them to help each other or to work together. In Port Alberni, B.C., where, as I told the House this afternoon, 4,500 people were out of work at one point this summer-nearly one-quarter of the entire population-the unemployed have organized to form a volunteer organization which distributes food and clothing to the needy. Similarly, in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, out of work people have organized themselves into a group which gives counselling to those who are losing their jobs. Indeed, one of my constituents, a student who cannot find work, is employing his skills and earning money by designing and producing antiGovernment buttons and stickers. He tells me there is a good demand for his product and that he anticipates an expanding market.
This economic climate is inflicting special injuries on two groups. The first group includes the people who may never return to their jobs. It is a fact that many companies are forecasting reduced payrolls and a reduced work force when the recovery does resume in the future. Some of these people have worked at their jobs for 20 years. They are finding the outlook for the rest of their working lives to be very grim. They are obsolete in their forties.
The second group which is being especially hard hit is young people. In terms of jobs, they are in danger of becoming the lost generation. Almost one-half of the 1.3 million unemployed in this country are between the ages of 15 and 24. These Canadians are the first to be fired usually, and the last to be rehired-if, in fact, they have ever worked at all. Many of them are seeking their first jobs. In B.C. unemployment among this age group has tripled over the last year to 22.1 per cent. The national average is still around 21 per cent.
In B.C. 25 per cent of young men are out of work and two-thirds of this age group will probably be laid off over the next year. As one frustrated young man said, describing his quest to find a job, "I have as much chance of Finding a job as of becoming a Girl Guide."

October 28, 1982
Adjournment Motion
In addition to cold statistics, there are thousands of other young people who have simply given up seeking a job. They are among the hidden unemployed. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has estimated that one out of every six Canadians gives up looking for work after a month of job search, after they have run out of unemployment benefits. Many young Canadians who have invested years of effort in seeking a professional education are finding that their hard won knowledge and hard won skills are not wanted.
In B.C. at my university, UBC, of the 60 foresters in the graduating class, only 26 found work and all but three of those jobs were in the public sector. Almost 40 per cent of UBC civil engineering graduates failed to find jobs since their most likely prospects were in the resource and construction fields, both of them in a severe recession.
Only one in three teachers graduated from Simon Fraser University have found jobs. These young Canadians are being denied the opportunity to explore and to achieve their potential and to provide for themselves and their families. They are the unwilling and unhappy victims of this Government's economic policies and they are the Canadians who are expected to pay off the enormous debt load which has been accumulating in the name of the public good.
What has been the Government's response to these difficulties? The Prime Minister has asked us to have faith in him, to trust him and to believe him. We are asked to accept the word of a man who implemented wage and price controls one year after promising not to and who campaigned in the last election on a promise of keeping oil prices low.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance rose in the House to present a budget masquerading as a financial statement. He also told us of his Government's new principles of economic management.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to end this debate at five o'clock, in which case I could resume at eight o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: We shall now see the clock as reading five o'clock and the Hon. Member can continue at 8.00 p.m. tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Labour Conditions-West Coast work stoppage-Minister's position, (b) Request that Minister order resumption of work; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier
(Mr. Gauthier)-the Constitution-Government help for minorities involved in court actions; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Foreign Investment Review Agency-Request for investigation on sale of Crown Zellerbach Company.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
All items preceding No. 75 are allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the Province of New Brunswick under the Canada Assistance Plan.

He said: Mr. Speaker, before I get directly into the subject matter of today's motion, I should like to make a couple of remarks concerning the use of Private Members' hour. I am a Member of the committee which is looking at the regulations of the House, and obviously the subject of the use of the time devoted to Members is one of our points of discussion. I hope we will be able to have a system in the future which will be a little more constructive, constructive in the sense that we know this afternoon we will be discussing an interesting subject and will talk through to six o'clock, at which time the debate will end. That is all that will happen.
The proposal I made as an individual Member of the committee-and of course I have no way of telling what the eventual recommendation will be-was that all representations made by Members in the form of bills, motions and motions for papers should be referred to a special committee established for the purpose of studying Private Members' business. That committee would then report as it saw fit on such items back to the House, at which point the House would bebate the report of the committee and the House would have an opportunity to express an opinion via a vote. Since the vote would be on the report of the committee-and the report might be quite
October 28, 1982

different from the representation originally made by the Member-there could be a fairly free expression of opinion on the part of Members. It would not have the effect of law, but nevertheless it would be a clear expression of opinion and would be about the nearest thing we will ever come to in a free expression of the opinions of Members of the House.
The reason I want that procedure or something similar to it to be put into effect in the House is that at the present time we have no way, as far as papers are concerned, of obtaining, except by request, the documents we desire. This motion calls for the document which was signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of New Brunswick. Because of the moneys that were spent I believe that it should be made public.
The argument against making some of these documents public is that there would be comparisons made between Provinces which could lead to pressure on the part of the public for better services or more assistance. In other words, it would become more costly for individual Provinces. I consider this a specious argument. I believe it should be possible for individuals in various Provinces to make comparisons to see whether in their particular case their own Government was spending more or less than another Province on one particular service.
Another matter which I have tried to promote is that in the case of the Canada Assistance Plan, where the Federal Government contributes 50 per cent of the costs that are decided by the Provinces, the two distinct parts of the Plan-moneys which are paid for social assistance and moneys which are paid for social services-be separated. At the present time right across the country the proportion is approximately $2 for social assistance for $1 for social services. In my latest mailer to my constituents I showed, for example, that in the Province of Quebec for the last fiscal year, 1981-82, just under $1 billion was transferred by the federal Government under the Canada Assistance Plan to the Government of that Province. Approximately two-thirds or some $652 million was for social assistance and approximately one-third or some $346 million was for social services.
Just to put on the record the totals for the whole of Canada last year, the amount sent to all Provinces was $2,664 million. Again the proportion between social assistance and social services was approximately two to one-social assistance, $1.8 billion and social services, $864 million. The breakdown in the Province of Quebec for the last year, of course, I do not have, but the proportion has remained fairly constant from year to year. It might be just as well if I indicated that in 1977-78, for example, when the amount transferred to the Provinces was only $1.5 billion-and I have just read that it went up last year to almost $2.7 billion-the social services side of the payments was split, most of it going to homes for special care; the next largest sum for various welfare services; and smaller amounts for child welfare and health care.
The point I made in previous remarks in the House was that it was entirely the decision of the Province as to which social services they will support and the extent to which they will support them. Therefore I suggested that we change our
Canada Assistance Plan
system of support. Since the Federal Government has a tremendous impact on the amount of moneys paid out by the Provinces for social assistance-and of course that impact comes in the form of all its social programs such as unemployment insurance, pension plans, child tax credits, family allowances, and so on-I believe the Federal Government should pick up a bigger proportion of the cost. Initially I propose that we increase the contribution from the federal treasury for social assistance from its present 50 per cent to two-thirds of the amount spent by the Provinces. I suggested, on the other hand, that the federal contribution to social services be reduced and, just for the sake of argument, I suggested that they be reduced from 50 per cent to one-third.
Because the social assistance payment is approximately twice the size of that for social services, the effect would be to increase the federal contribution. Why do I want to do this? There are two reasons. First, it should be abundantly apparent that social assistance payments are much greater in Provinces where there is greater need. This is why I chose this afternoon to use New Brunswick as an example. Where there is increased unemployment or where a Province, because of its lower taxes, does not have the same revenue as wealthier provinces, then obviously there is a much greater cost to the taxpayer and possibly lesser benefit for those in need.
If we were to increase our contribution to social assistance we would be directly assisting those Provinces with the greatest need. Specifically, that would be the Maritimes, the Atlantic Provinces, the Province of Quebec, and to some lesser extent the Province of Manitoba. I have discussed this before, but this federal Government is going to have to consider some basis of payment across the board, some standard, some minimum income plan. This will be the first step toward federal intervention in the field of social assistance. In other words, by increasing the amount from 50 per cent to say, two-thirds, it can go on increasing until it picks up the lion's share. Ultimately, I would hope this might be as much as 85 per cent or even 90 per cent. The plan would continue to be administered, as it is at the present time, by the Provinces, but obviously as the contribution from the federal treasury to social assistance increases, so too will the Provinces be in a better position to give roughly equivalent service or assistance across the country. Because the amount spent on social services is somewhat smaller, there would not be the same financing difficulty for the Provinces.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I hoped there would be some revision of the method in which we use these Private Members' hours. In the past, as we know, Mr. Speaker, we have been allowed to speak for 20 minutes. However, if I use my allotted 20 minutes, the spokesperson for the Official Opposition uses his or her 20 minutes and the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party does likewise, then there is no time for Government response. I would like to hear from the Government today if possible before this hour expires at six o'clock whether the Government has any ideas at all regarding a change to the format of the Canada Assistance Plan. With

October 28, 1982
Canada Assistance Plan
the increased social assistance payments this year, I have no doubt that last year's total of $2.7 billion will be considerably exceeded. I imagine that in the current year we are probably looking at a figure considerably in excess of $3 billion, $3 billion being the federal contribution, which means that the total money spent must be in the order of some $6 billion or more.
I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary who will be speaking on behalf of the Government whether the Government is giving any serious consideration to revising the Canada Assistance Plan so as to make it somewhat easier for the less wealthy Provinces to provide the social assistance payments necessary in these difficult times in those areas of the country where there is increased unemployment and where, as a result, more people are having to turn to welfare to put bread on the table.
I find it unfortunate that we have to go through a motion to request documents which, I believe, should already be in the public domain. I hope that with this continuing pressure one of these days the Provinces will agree that, in instances where the public purse is spending such large sums of money, all the material necessary for scrutiny will be available to the public.
1 must put this on the record. I understand that it is not a refusal on the part of the federal Government to produce but that the federal Government must have the approval of the Provinces before it can produce the document I am requesting today. I would be happy if the Parliamentary Secretary would also comment on that point.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). His Notice of Motion No. 75 requests a copy of the latest agreement between the federal Government and the Province of New Brunswick under the Canada Assistance Plan.
As I know you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick relies quite considerably on its co-operation with the federal Government, particularly in its dealings with the federal Government in assisting it to meet its obligations to those citizens of New Brunswick who are perhaps not as fortunate as their colleagues and who do require assistance from time to time either through the Department of Social Services or in a more universal way through the health care programs which the Province of New Brunswick has instituted. I am pleased to say that these are second to none in the nation.
I would also like to say a portion of these funds are channelled through to our educational requirements in the Province of New Brunswick which also are second to none in the Dominion of Canada.
As the Hon. Member has pointed out, New Brunswick does perhaps suffer more from a climate of difficult and poor economic times than the more industrialized parts of the nation, despite the efforts of the provincial government to attract new and exciting venture capital, which it has done quite successfully. The fact is that New Brunswick, along with Atlantic Canada, has suffered depressing times because of extenuating circumstances beyond its control over the last number of years.
I think it is also appropriate to point out that most likely New Brunswick, as well as its sister Provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the maritime Provinces, provides a greater proportion per capita of its provincial income to these social programs, areas of social assistance, education and health programs than a number of its counterparts throughout the rest of the nation. So it is extremely important that New Brunswick continue to maintain a level of compensation from the federal Government that will ensure New Brunswickers are given as fair an opportunity as the rest of the citizens of this nation who live in other Provinces.
In that regard New Brunswick, I think, has probably experienced, over the last several months in particular, some devastating blows to its economy, blows which will, over the next few weeks or months, create a tremendous economic burden on the provincial government, the treasury and ultimately on its citizens. We have some very obvious examples, examples that unfortunately would not have had to come about if it were not for some of the policies that were instigated and undertaken by the present Government.
I would like to point out in particular the Federal Government's decision to close down CFB Chatham and to move the facility of that air base to Quebec. This move will put approximately 3,500 jobs out of existence in the Chatham-Newcastle area. Despite the assurances of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) during the recent election campaign, which was successfully contested by the New Brunswick Conservative Government for an unprecedented fourth consecutive term, that the Government would relocate a department of its pay division to the Chatham area which would create 350 jobs-apparently 250 new ones since I understand that pay division only has 100 paying jobs in its department at the present time-this is a long way from replacing jobs which will be sorely missed by the Chatham and Newcastle region as a result of the Government's decision to move that air base from Chatham to the Province of Quebec. Those 350 jobs will barely represent 10 per cent of the total jobs which will be lost by the movement of that air base.
I would like to point out as well that the Province of New Brunswick has done much to alleviate the unemployment situation at a time when the Federal Government should perhaps have been taking a more active role in living up to its responsibilities and commitments to Provinces such as New Brunswick by ensuring that the citizens of that Province could live in an atmosphere and climate where they would be able to continue working and provide a decent living for their families.
During recent months we have seen negotiations successfully completed between Heath-Steele Mines, again in the northern region of New Brunswick, and the provincial government. Due to poor markets and a poor economic climate it was about to close down and throw a number of other people out of work. However, the provincial government succesfully concluded
October 28, 1982

negotiations with that company to have those jobs reinstated during a time when the picture might have been much more bleak than it currently is. I think these successful negotiations are to the detriment of the federal Government because it did not take its responsibility seriously.
We have also seen the Government of New Brunswick take the responsibility upon itself to ensure that the plywood mill in the Newcastle region was able to keep its doors open for another few weeks or months so that the workers in the industry in that region-at a time when Christmas is just around the corner-would have the opportunity to put at least a few dollars aside so their families may have a somewhat more pleasant Christmas than might have otherwise been the case.
Last year we were treated to the spectacle of the Government proposing to decrease equalization payments to the Provinces over a period of three or five years. Eastern Canada was to receive approximately $5 billion less in equalization payments. Obviously, this will make it much more difficult for Provinces like New Brunswick since it will adversely affect its health care program, increase the financial burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers in the Provinces, particularly the poorer provinces such as New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec. It will affect the educational programs which we are so rightly proud of in New Brunswick. It will mean less funding to the universities and as a result will cost the students more money if, indeed, they are able to obtain the money to continue their education. I dare say that some students will now be denied the opportunity to acquire an education because the Government has determined that it will decrease equalization payments substantially in the next few years to those provinces which so desperately require the additional assistance.
We have seen various programs introduced. We have seen the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tell the nation and the House of Commons yesterday that a job creation program will be set in place that will create untold numbers of jobs. This will be done with $1.2 billion which will be saved and gathered from other Departments which would have spent the money in other areas. We were told that there will in fact be a tax increase which will be paid by the employers and the workers of this nation which will amount to something in the vicinity of $3 billion plus.
There are more logical, reasonable and responsible ways that this Government could carry out its responsibilities. Let me give one or two examples of how this could be accomplished particularly in New Brunswick, since the Hon. Member's motion deals with that Province. In recent days the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board has been asked by a committee of concerned workers in the Port of Saint John to arrange for a few additional shipments of wheat and flour through the Port of Saint John during the off season. This is not something that the Minister has not heard before because I raised this matter in the House last May. I know that the Minister has been contacted previously by various officials of the Port Development Authority, the City of Saint John, other unions and officials from the city as well. All they were asking
Canada Assistance Plan
was that a few additional shipments of wheat and flour be shipped through the port facilities, which are fine facilities that have been developed over a number of years. The port has a good reputation and its workers are hard working and industrious people who have a good work history. They were only asking that a few additional shipments of wheat be sent through during the slack season so that the port may be utilized on a year-round basis. This would assist the workers in that area substantially. It is not an unrealistic request. Indeed, it is very acceptable. It is certainly within the Government's purview to arrange it.
For some reason the Government has determined that it will not treat the Port of Saint John as it treats other ports in eastern Canada. The Minister informed me that this would be inconsistent with present policy. It would not be in the best interests of the wheat and flour suppliers of the country. I question that reason because it is a fact that it is apparently acceptable for other ports in eastern Canada. If it is good for other ports, why can it not be done in the Port of Saint John?
I suspect that rather than a problem of economics it is a political problem. I believe if one were to examine the shipments going to the other ports it would be determined that with a proper attitude in the Government benches shipments of wheat and flour could indeed be diverted to some extent to the Port of Saint John during the off season instead of only during the winter months when that port, along with other ports in eastern Canada, are already busy. Of course, the Port of Montreal is an exception since it is frozen during winter. But no, we are told that that cannot happen.
The workers of that port city are not taking that as an answer. The workers have banded together and have formed a committee called the Port of St. John Committee of Concern. Indeed, they have a great deal to be concerned about when they see the utter rejection and lack of response from the Government with regard to their plight. In the City of St. John we have a shipbuilding industry which works out of a shipyard which is an excellent facility. If the Government were to take an attitude that is a little more objective toward the reestablishment of a merchant marine in this country, that shipbuilding facility in St. John and the shipbuilding facilities in Quebec and Halifax would find that currently they are providing very few jobs in comparison with those which would be created as a spin-off of a positive attitude toward the reestablishment of a merchant marine in Canada.
Daily I receive letters and petitions from workers facing layoffs in the shipbuilding industry in my region and others throughout New Brunswick. Those who have been laid off or who are facing lay-offs are saying, "Where do we turn? For whom do we look?"
The Canada Development Community Projects will certainly not assist to any degree those people who have skills in the shipbuilding industry. However, their needs must be addressed. The Government should take a positive attitude, one which

October 28, 1982
Canada Assistance Plan
would ultimately result in the creation of thousands of jobs across this nation in port cities such as St. John, Halifax, Vancouver and Quebec. It would mean a tremendous boost to the economy of the more depressed areas of this nation, such as those in New Brunswick and others in Atlantic Canada. It would mean a great deal to the citizens of those areas. It would mean that they could walk the streets with their heads held up high, knowing that they had jobs and did not have to go to the welfare or social assistance office, knowing that they did not have to come to Ottawa to petition their Members of Parliament to go to the Government and encourage an increase in welfare payments to the provinces.
We could be substantially more self-sufficient if the Government were to take a positive approach to encourage investment in this country, but it seems to take just the opposite point of view. What a pity, what a shame, that rather than standing up here today and discussing how we will make this country more vibrant through the establishment of a new shipbuilding facility, a new steel facility or a new ancillary facility for some industry which could be meaningful in terms of creation of jobs, we must speak about providing more social assistance so that people can go to the welfare offices and perhaps not be turned down as often as they are today.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have some brief remarks to make with regard to this motion. We will obviously allow time for the Government to respond, so we will not take up all the time that is available for this motion. First, I would just say that I think it is a good motion because it calls for the production of papers, papers which should be public. They should be readily available to people. I understand that one of the problems under this Canada Assistance Plan is that ordinary citizens, people interested in these programs falling under the Plan, have difficulty in finding out the full information with regard to the programs.
The Canada Assistance Plan is really a cost-sharing arrang-ment between the Provinces and the federal Government on a 50 per cent basis in order to provide social assistance across this country so that people can have their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met. There are some good arguments why certain Provinces, such as New Brunswick, which are mentioned in this motion should have a more generous cost-sharing relationship than richer Provinces. For example, the Federal Task Force on Fiscal Federalism in Canada, a task force which was manned by a number of Members of this Parliament and which made recommendations in this area, recommended that in the case of have-not provinces, there should be a costsharing relationship which would require the Federal Government to pay 75 per cent of the cost and the have-not Provinces to pay 25 per cent. I think that is a good idea and would improve the Canada Assistance Plan.
However, I want to refer to the sort of central notion behind the Plan, which is that every citizen in Canada, every human being, has a right to have his basic human needs met, needs of food, clothing, shelter and recreation. These needs are normally met by the economy, by employment. In other words, if one
has a job, not only does one receive the pleasure and satisfaction of doing one' work and the fulfillment that comes from being active, but one also receives a paycheque and can therefore meet the basic needs of one's family. The problem today, of course, is that a great number of Canadians, well over 2 million in real terms, do not have employment.
We hear many predictions from respected agencies, such as the Economic Council of Canada, that very high levels of unemployment will continue for a long period of time to come, perhaps four or five years, and that even after the so-called recovery arrives, we will have 10-plus per cent unemployment. That was really quite unheard of in Canada. We will have to do some very hard thinking should these predictions actually come to pass. Obviously, the first thing we should do is to take a look at how we manage the economy in this country. How do we create wealth? How do we create employment? It is evident today that we are not doing a very good job of that.
The fundamental change in policy and direction that we must make is not to rely upon monetary and fiscal policies alone as instruments of managing the economy because that is no longer sufficient. We must move beyond that point. We must adopt an approach today which allows the Federal Government, in consultation with provincial governments, labour, business and the financial community, to set some national economic goals for this country. Other countries have done this, countries such as Japan, Sweden and Germany, countries which have a lower level of unemployment than we have today. Our unemployment rate is at 12.2 per cent. Their rates are at much more modest levels. It is important to take note of the unemployment rate in the context of the Canada Assistance Plan because, as I said earlier, it is normally through employment and the income derived from employment that our basic human needs are met. It is only because some people cannot have employment that we must create something like the Canada Assistance Plan. I would therefore hope that in the not too distant future this country would make a very clear decision to move beyond treating the economy through the use of the traditional instruments of economic management which I have mentioned, fiscal and monetary policies, and begin to set some national economic goals, to take economic management, direction and development seriously.
I must again refer to the predictions I referred to earlier. The prediction is that even after the recovery, we will have unemployment in this country in the 10 per cent range. There will be many more people in this country without income to meet their human needs. They will not receive it through the normal accepted way of distributing income in our society.
In order to face up to that question, we will have to do some serious thinking as to how income is distributed in this country, for example, whether the Canada Assistance Plan is adequate. When we have the recovery and begin to face the real question of long-term unemployment, it will be time for us to look at an idea which is perhaps considered passe today, that is, guaranteed annual income.
October 28, 1982

A number of experiments respecting the guaranteed annual income have been carried out in this country. One was in Manitoba. The advantage of a guaranteed annual income over social welfare programs is that it provides incentives for those on welfare and our working poor to seek employment because the level of assistance received is graduated. If someone earns money, he does not necessarily lose the financial assistance being provided by the community as a whole.
The guaranteed annual income program has that advantage. It has other economic advantages in the sense that it will continue to ensure that people have money in their hands in order to purchase the necessities of life. That provides a demand for goods and keeps other people working.
It is very clear that we have to come to grips with the notion of providing sufficient employment so that there will be sufficient wealth to meet the needs of all of us. I suggest we again examine the idea of a guaranteed annual income in terms of its impact on demand and, in turn, keeping the economic engines of this country moving.
The Canada Assistance Plan has served this country well. If the Government moves to the point where it is going to reexamine this, I hope it does not make the mistake it has made in other social areas it has touched on to date, that is, withdraw its commitment, withdraw its money and retard advances we have made in terms of human need in the past.
Even though we are in an economic crisis, we must first consider the needs of the individual in this country. It is only on the basis of considering the basic human needs of all Canadians that we can ever hope to build a sane and rational economy, one that can function and provide employment and income for all and allow us to provide assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this motion concerning the Canada Assistance Plan. The Canada Assistance Plan Agreement between Canada and all Provinces and Territories as well as the amendments to schedules under the Agreement are public documents and, further to his request, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has received a copy of all agreements.
The Canada Assistance Plan, which was established in 1966, is still one of the Government's major vehicles for responding to the need of Canadians for income and social services in times of difficulty. These programs, which are of such importance to a great number of Canadians, are cost-shared by the federal Government through the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
In an effort to help Canadians increase their understanding of an important social welfare program, an information pamphlet describing the Plan has been distributed to all recipients of federal pensions and family allowances. The pamphlet is available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Canada Assistance Plan
The social service area of the Plan is perhaps the lesser known provision of the Plan, and I would like to make some remarks on this from a Canadian social context. This will enlarge somewhat on the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil.
Generally we may say that personal social services are those professional and voluntary services which complement, supplement or are in place of services and care rendered by families or friends on an individual basis to relatives, friends or other individuals, but it may also be recognized that many of the ills that beset us in life are unsought. We do not voluntarily lose families and friends, become old or handicapped. The personal social services have been created to meet and mitigate some of these personal needs we may all experience.
As soon as we begin to think holistically about this set of services, we may also begin to recognize that these services are far from comprehensive and far from meeting all recognized needs, let alone those unrecognized or likely to emerge as our society changes.
It is one of life's ironies that personal social services have come to be recognized as a definite sector of services at the very moment when economic prosperity has itself come under challenge in North America.
Modern personal social services have evolved from institutional forms for care provided in the past for the more indigent, elderly and handicapped of the general public. It is perhaps because there was really no satisfactory place for children in Poor Law institutions that a variety of special institutions were created for young people who were beyond or without the care and control of their families or were delinquent. But industrial schools and reformatories did not stem the tide of children and young people who were needing some form of care. The creation of juvenile courts and the child welfare services was a response to the perceived needs of these children.
Personal social services still consist in large measure of institutional, that is residential, provisions and provisions which seek either to provide a substitute family or to support people in their own home.
It may be appropriate at this stage to recognize the interrelationship between the early child welfare services and the first measures of financial support, which was mother's allowances, given to families, especially widows who have children. What was recognized in the early years of this century is that children in single parent families are likely to be economically, if not socially, disadvantaged.
In the early days of the child welfare services, it was recognized that in the absence of some financial support being provided to vulnerable families, many more children were likely to be brought into care. Viewed in this way, mother's allowances were thus seen to be a preventive measure and they were the ancestor of most of our modern income assistance programs.
Notwithstanding this financial provision, the child welfare services have been called on to care for many thousands of

October 28, 1982
Canada Assistance Plan
children, and it is not always obvious that the care thus provided has necessarily been beneficial, and that without the provision of more generous financial assistance, especially childrens' or family allowance, many children might not have been able to stay with their families.
I believe too that we must be aware that Canada has been much influenced by the American war on poverty. In the first place, this external influence was important in the mid-1960s when the federal Government sought to consolidate and expand the few existing cost-shared categorical income programs. The Canada Assistance Plan provided fifty-fifty costsharing of income assistance programs provided by the provinces to people in financial need. It also incorporated the new element of sharing the cost of personal social services provided to people in need or likely to be so.
So far as the social services are concerned, the Canada Assistance Plan has led to a grouping or re-grouping of services usually under the provincial departments of social services. While not exactly like the British model of freestanding social service departments, there are many similarities. This model has proved attractive in both Canada and the United States. Separation of income assistance and personal social service programs in the United States, imitated to some extent in Canada, has made it more possible to see the personal social services as a distinct sector. In both countries there has been a substantial growth in public expenditures on the personal social services since the early 1960s. In fact, so much was this the case that by the early 1970s in the United States the official view was these expenditures were uncontrollable. As a consequence, in October 1972, the United States Congress placed a ceiling on the total amount of such expenditures to be shared with the states.
One of the problems of two or more levels of government in the federal system of government is the equitable and predictable provision and distribution of public goods and services throughout the country. Personal social services have traditionally been provided by a heterogeneous set of public and private agencies in both the United States and Canada. As I indicated, the Canada Assistance Plan brought about some greater semblance of order. In the United States the 1974 Social Service Amendments, Title XX of the Social Securities Act also sought to bring greater order and equity by requiring all states to engage in a public planning process for the personal social services and, on the basis of such planning, to submit claims for revenue sharing to the federal government.
There was indeed a growth of expenditures in the social services under the CAP. Part of the growth simply represented the program maturing and being implemented. Until the early 1970s there were more children in care, and the child welfare service was growing, both in terms of staff and facilities. As in the United States the growth of expenditures did not all represent new services. It represented, rather, existing services becoming eligible for cost sharing.
There was also creation of some new sectors of provision. Child care services expanded until the mid-1970s, but the rate of growth then decreased. The growing number of old people in the general population, especially the proportion requiring institutional care brought about something of a crisis in the early 1970s. Most provinces recognized that they could not continue building and supporting more and more residential institutions. A number of comparative studies revealed that European countries in particular give much greater emphasis to community support services for the elderly and the handicapped. There was some hope that community care might be cheaper than institutional care. Not for the first time in the personal social services area, cheaper services may also be preferable from the point of view of the consumer. Many provincial governments are now providing quite extensive home care services.
The Canada Assistance Plan has itself operated with a somewhat restricted mandate. The test of financial, or potential financial, need has meant that the federal Government has not been able to encourage and assist the establishment in providing services for all income groups. Yet, what has become obvious is that child care services, home care services, homes for the aged, and so on, are needed by Canadians from all walks of life. In the early 1970s concerns about the terms of reference of the Canada Assistance Plan and public interest in the problem of poverty led the federal and provincial Governments to review their existing programs.
I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that personal social services in Canada, in both the public and private sectors, have grown significantly in the past 15 years. Their funding base is still linked in the main, however, to the financial mechanism for providing income assistance to poor people. There have not, to date, been sufficient funds available in the non-government sector to provide a wholly viable voluntary system of services. These are some of the problems.
Personally, what 1 believe needs to happen is a movement of personal social services from residential to a more respected and institutionalized role in our country. It is important that we, as representatives of all people in this country, ensure that social services become available to persons at all levels. I recognize that we are in a time of restraint and that scarce resources must be distributed in such a way that those who have the greatest need are cared for. At the same time, we must look to the future and recognize that each one of us, at some time in his or her life, will have a need for a social service for ourselves or for a member of our family. Who can tell when a difficult birth may result in a child being born with a handicap? Who has not had an emergency, financial, emotional or physical, when their marriage was threatened? Who will not grow older? Do we know how healthy we will be? What kind of support will we need to continue living the kind of satisfying, useful and independent life we all want to lead? We are all vulnerable. We all need social services. I believe it is imperative that our legislation and programs support these needs.
October 28, 1982

Supplementary Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is really the third budget debate in this House in less than a year, smuggled in under the guise of a statement on the economic and financial outlook of the Government of Canada, along with Bill C-128.\nBill C-128 as introduced by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) provides authority for the Government to borrow an additional $4 billion in new money in the current fiscal year. When combined with the $7 billion in borrowing authority granted in Bill C-125, plus the $6.6 billion granted in Bill C-l 11, plus $6.3 billion left over from previous years, the Government, according to my estimation, will have a total borrowing authority of something like $21.2 billion in the coming fiscal year. I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tremendous amount of money. In my opinion, it represents an excessive demand upon the savings and energies of some 24 million Canadians, while placing tremendous power in the hands of a few people.\nI listened very carefully to the Minister of finance (Mr. Lalonde) yesterday when he addressed the House. I could not help but notice at least one difference between him and his predecessor. At least he smiles while he is driving the knife directly into the pocket book of the Canadian taxpayer. He is also the master of what I call double-speak. In one sentence he says that he is announcing arrangements designed to relieve the workers and employers of this country from the full burden of mounting unemployment insurance costs. Then, on page 13, he announces an increase in workers\' contributions from $1.65 per 100 to $2.30, while employers will pay $3.22. I ask him, whatever happened while he was doing these computations? Whatever happened with six and five?\nThis is, of course, not the total amount. On the next page we read that these increases are so low that they will require the Government to advance another billion dollars to the unemployment insurance account in the year 1983 over and above the normal contribution. Why not simply say that it is necessary to increase taxes of the workers and the industrialists of this nation, those who are left to pay the bills, that the Hon. Minister is raising the taxes by another $2 billion just to take care of the unemployed?\nAnother example, among many, of the doublespeak of the Minister of Finance can be found on page 3. There he states:\nFirst, we must continue to practice Fiscal responsibility. We must persist in restraining government spending. We must strive to contain the rise of the deficit\nSupplementary Borrowing Authority\neven while the recession cuts into government revenues and raises public expenditures.\nIt is not only the recession that has raised public expenditures. It is the foolish, extravagant expenditures and actions of this particular Government. How can the Minister say that he will persist in restraining Government spending, and then say in the same speech on page 7 that the $10 billion deficit predicted by his predecessor last November, which was upgraded in June to something like $19.6 billion, is now predicted in October to be $23.6 billion? I suppose that he realizes this is an increase of some one and one-third times more than the November estimate.\nUsing that yardstick, a final deficit in this budget may well be in the $26 billion or $27 billion area. We are a nation of 24 million people. A deficit of $24 billion is really $1 billion for every million Canadians. How can this government have the gall to say that it is practising fiscal responsibility? I submit that it does not have a clue as to the actual meaning of the word.\nThe United States is a nation of approximately 240 million people. The deficit for that nation, comparable to our own, would be $240 million. Yet their deficit is listed in yesterday\'s press at $110.7 billion for 1982, and they are calling it the year of the greatest red ink in that nation\'s history. On a percentage basis, the United States deficit is less than half of the deficit in Canada. A comparable figure for Canada\'s deficit would be in the $11 billion to $12 billion bracket. If the United States administration, with all the demands that are made upon it nationally and internationally, can come up with these figures, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why can we not manage to do the same in Canada?\nI have seen flip-flops in my day but never was it so apparent in the House as in the two budgets introduced by the "laird" of Cape Breton which showed his complete lack of business experience and complete lack of compassion for the people of Canada.\nYesterday\'s budget speech by the present Minister of Finance reminded me of an old Laurel and Hardy comedy. Stanley and Ollie were trying to build a house. Every time that Stanley would put a plank in place, Oliver, when reaching for a second plank, would knock the first one down. This operation continued for some time until Stanley noticed that no progress was being made. He then reached into his lunch bucket, brought out a plate, and the scene ended with Ollie being smashed in the face with a cream pie. Somewhat disturbed and unhappy, he left the scene of destruction, which is exactly what happened Wednesday in this House.\nWe have gone through almost an entire year of uncertainty, indecision and a lack of business development throughout this country simply because of the stubborn arrogance on the part of the Government which failed to realize its mistakes and take the necessary action to mend its ways. This, of course, is what always happens when one puts round pegs into square holes.\nIn my opinion, this third budget in less than a year will still not stimulate the economic recovery of which we are capable', 'October 28, 1982\nSupplementary Borrowing Authority\nbecause it does not address the fundamental question, which is the curtailment of extravagant and unnecessary Government expenditures. Bill C-128 simply buttresses that assertion. Obviously this Government is now aware of the problem, for the Minister of Finance stated that the world recession has cut our economy to the bone. We have lost half a million jobs during the past year, and almost a million and one-half among us are looking for work. Many others have temporarily given up the search for gainful employment. Virtually no Canadians have been untouched by the recession. In every region of the country those who have been spared the worst have relatives, friends or neighbours who are struggling to cope with hardship and insecurity, be they unemployed textile workers in Quebec, ground fishermen in the Atlantic, idle lumbermen in B.C. or laid-off miners or autoworkers in Ontario.\nThere will be a few more unemployed after the next election, and they all will be on that side of the House. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that never in my 25 years in the House have I listened to such a sordid admission by a Cabinet Minister of his government\'s neglect and mismanagement of our economy, and little that he did will restore the confidence of Canadians in this country during this period of crisis.\nI do not agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that no solution exists to resolve our special present extraordinary economic situation. This is somewhat like the poison that is being mixed in some drugs today by some crank who obviously hates humanity. It is the kiss of death. We are still a great country, the second largest land mass on this globe. We have untold natural resources in every Province of Canada as well as in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and only 24 million people to share the wealth. We have more fish than we can fry, more wheat than we can eat and vast reserves of coal, gold, silver, nickle, copper, uranium, oil and timber. You name it and we have it.\nAsk yourself, "What would the Almighty have had to give us Canadians as a nation to make us all wealthy?" We as Canadians are the envy of practically every other nation on the earth. No one will ever convince me that we could not do better as a nation if we had proper leadership and started to concentrate on developing our economy and working together on those things that unite us rather than concentrating on those things that divide us.\nThere has been too much divisive, non-productive legislation introduced to date by this administration. The backlash from some of these policies have brought us to the brink of economic disaster. This is not Government planning, this is a Government drifting inexorably into a whirlpool of depression. Its ineptitude is bringing us all down into the depths of despair. Amid all of this gloom and doom, however, the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) did try, without success, to cheer us up a bit with his three TV spectaculars. It was Mork, in my view, without Mindy. If it was a tryout for him in the role of a newscaster after leaving office, I do not believe it was very successful. Our Prime Minister asked Canadians to trust him, but he is the man who campaigned against wage and price controls in 1974 and then imposed\nthem in 1975. He campaigned along with his entire Party against our program to raise the gasoline tax by 18 cents in 1980. Since that time he has imposed a much higher tax, not only on gasoline but also on home-heating oil, which we believe should be accepted.\nMr. Speaker, my I call it ten o\'clock?']
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow, just for a minute, the sterling comments made by my friend and just point out to my colleague from Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that if he would take note of the number of private members' bills that have been tabled in the House and talked out by the Government, rather than the Opposition, then he would not be so concerned about the issue. And if, as he suggests, it will be talked out by the Government, then maybe there is a signal going out across the country today that Government backbenchers find even greater barriers in talking to their colleagues on the Liberal side, and if the Government has difficulty talking to people across the country, that same phenomenon is happening within the Liberal caucus. If he wants to get the bill passed, all he has to do is talk to his Minister and get it negotiated before it is tabled in the House.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to participate in this debate this afternoon. As you well know, when the Canada Assistance Plan was passed in 1966, it replaced four federal-provincial programs which had been directed toward special target groups, the elderly, the blind, the disabled and the unemployed. At the time of its introduction, CAP was progressive legislation because it was based on the premise of providing assistance to all persons in financial need, regardless of the cause of that need.
Under CAP, a federal government shares in the cost of provincial and municipal social assistance payments as well as certain social service programs which are referred to in the act as welfare services. To be eligible for cost sharing, social assistance programs must meet, as you all know, three conditions. They must utilize needs testing, they must have an appeal system, and they must not impose residence requirements. The beneficiaries of the social assistance programs funded under CAP are those who have insufficient income to meet their basic needs. A large proportion of beneficiaries are disabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hour provided for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-128, to provide supplementary borrowing authority (No. 2) be read the second time and be referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) had the floor.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, when I began this speech this afternoon I discussed the shocking rise in government expenditures and in the deficit which has more than doubled in the last 11 months to $23.6 billion, according to the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I spoke about the size of the public debt which, at $134 billion in my province, exceeds the average family income on an annual basis.
I discussed how we had forced the Government to reduce its original borrowing bill from $11 billion to $7 billion and why we are having this debate on the additional $4 billion, in order to establish accountability to the taxpayers who put up the money. At five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the Prime Minister's reaction.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance rose in the House to present a budget masquerading as a financial statement. He told us of his Government's new principles of economic management. His Government has discovered the benefits of fiscal responsibility on the eve of asking Parliament for an additional $4 billion borrowing authority. His Government has also concluded, he says, that our economic dynamism stems from the health of the private sector. To encourage growth in the private sector, the Ministre intends to consult with business and labour and to provide an atmosphere of certainty and stability. This comment, Mr. Speaker, comes from the Minister who was responsible for the National Energy Program which was so destructive of trust, so destructive of the private sector, and certainly was destructive of stability.
Last night in his statement, the Minister made it clear that he could find no ways of financing his job-creation programs other than by increasing unemployment insurance premiums and in some re-allocation of existing funds. He has repeatedly rejected our Party's suggestion of an all-party committee which would review programs and suggest possible reductions in expenditures.
Let me identify some areas of spending in the past. These are drawn from the annual reports of the Auditor General, Order Paper Questions and estimates.
One is the area of cost over-runs. Shortly after becoming President of the Treasury Board in the Clark Government in

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
1979, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) requested a list of current capital projects that were experiencing cost overruns. Treasury Board compiled a list of overruns of $1.1 billion. All of the overruns had occurred under the Liberals. In addition, he identified a further $920 million in overruns before the year was out.
Another area is employee efficiency. A study conducted by the Auditor General found that work performed by 50,000 clerical and regulatory employees could have been done by
38,000	employees.
Then there are the expensive, inefficient white elephants such as Mirabel Airport. This unnecessary and unwanted airport cost the taxpayers of Canada $500 million to build and has lost over $200 million since operations began in 1975. In the last fiscal year, 1981-82, Mirabel lost $30 million. In contrast, Malton Airport in Toronto had a profit of $39 million.
Then there is the wasteful expenditure on administrative expenses, including the $150,000 sabbatical being enjoyed by Dr. W. Edmund Clark in Paris. Dr. Clark was the head of the energy sector at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and was the bureaucrat responsible for developing the National Energy Program, which resulted in the loss of billions of dollars of drilling activity in Alberta and the loss of thousands of jobs. Documents leaked in September show that Dr. Clark is being paid an overseas adjustment of more than $6,000, relocation expenses of $25,000, education allowances of $5,000, living allowances of $33,000, and $2,000 for travel and research. All this is in addition to his salary, which is in excess of $80,000 per year.
In my own city, just down the block from me, resides a government official who is in charge of Transpo 86, the World Fair on Transportation and Communications. The rent on his apartment is $4,000 per month for five years. His neighbour in the same building pays $1,500 per month. When this was brought to the attention of the then secretary of state for External Affairs, an aide described this wasteful expenditure of $3,500 per month for five years as chickenfeed.
I sense among my own constituents a resolution that in a country of such enormous wealth as Canada, in terms of both its resources and its people, there must be better ways to reach our potential.
Our Party has developed a ten-point program which was described last night by our finance critic. It is our contribution to a national recovery program. In brief summary, because it was well described last night by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), we suggest a control of the deficit and that the Government spending policy be contained. We would simplify the Income Tax Act and encourage risk taking. We would create a positive investment climate by reforming FIRA in order to support the dollar. We would amend the National Energy Program to reduce red tape and remove the retroactive confiscation feature which is considered such an
unpleasant part of it. We would reduce red tape and unnecessary regulations. We would develop new technology through more aggressive research and development policies. We would emphasize training and upgrading of the labour force so that Canadians could take advantage of our new job opportunities and technology.
This may mean that employers would have to train people who would leave them in the future and that unions would have to be more realistic about retraining programs, but I think that is a responsibility which they are now prepared to share.
We would implement mini-projects as well as megaprojects and identify small business opportunities. We would continue to reduce interest rates and, in particular, moderate increases in regulated prices. Finally, we would expand Canada's trade potential, particularly in the Pacific Rim which is our front door on the fastest growing economic region of the world. This is what we would consider to be a constructive program which in time would, hopefully, eliminate the need for debates such as this one on excessive Government borrowing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the dubious distinction tonight of rising to speak on Bill C-128, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for $4 billion. It is not unrealistic to ask in what context this request is before us this evening. Of course, the most obvious statistic which jumps to one's attention is the fact that unemployment in the country is now in the 12.2 per cent range, meaning that approximately two million people are out of work in Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is really 17.5 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In real terms it is 17.5 per cent, as my hon. friend suggests. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said that we should not worry too much about this figure because he has a job-creation program which he is introducing. He is saying, "So what if two million people are out of work; we will create jobs in the next year and a half for 60,000 people." That still leaves approximately two million people out of work. The Government seems to think that this is an economic statement of which it can feel proud. It is beyond me, it escapes logic.
Also the Minister of Finance had the courage-and I give him credit where credit is due-to suggest that unemployment will continue in 1982 at the 12 per cent rate. His Department suggested that for the next five years it will be in the doubledigit range, at least. I read with interest the suggestion of the Conference Board that in 1983-84 it will be about 13 per cent. Another prediction agency suggested as high as 14 per cent for the next year or two. Can we listen to the facts and figures which come out of the Department of Finance? Can we have any faith in the figures which come out of Government departments?
I remember very distinctly about a year ago when the then minister of finance rose and said that he was very disappointed
October 28, 1982

in the size of the deficit that year. He suggested that the deficit for the fiscal year 1982-83 would be $10.6 billion. People shuddered at that figure; it was an incredible figure. Not many months later there was an upward revision, a slight upward revision from $10.6 billion to $19.6 billion!


Mr. Anguish:: A small miscalculation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was a sharp shock, a small miscalculation as my hon. colleague says. Then 15 weeks later it was revised upward again to $23.6 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are raising the deficit like they do the gas prices.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are still not at the end of the year. What will the final figure be? It seems as if the game of roulette is being played-spin the marble and see where it comes up, and it goes up higher every time.
The Government asks us to have faith in its ability to manage the finances of the country and to have a sensible fiscal and monetary policy. It must be dreaming.
I should like to refer to one small point which was made by my hon. colleague to the right. She drew attention to the fact that some months ago the Progressive Conservatives took some credit for the fact that they had encouraged the Government to manage its fiscal responsibilities better, that they had stopped the request for a huge borrowing amount and that they had made a deal so that the Government would have to return and explain once again how it would spend $4 billion. Mark my words, those fellows across the aisle will not be explaining how they will spend that $4 billion. They will whistle and waffle and pull figures out of the air. They will try to explain all the jobs they are creating-60,000 out of a need for two million. I ask Progressive Conservative colleagues to my right whether they were successful in encouraging fiscal management across the way. Was their tactic an appropriate one?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We got them back in the House for another shot at it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Indeed. There is no question that the Government of Canada has misread the economy of Canada.
I listened with interest a few nights ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sat down to his three-act play to explain to Canadians the difficulties which they were facing, as if all of us lived in some mystical world, some never-never land, and were unaware of the problems. He laid them out in his very philosophical and articulate way so that everyone would understand how difficult things were today in Canada.
Then the Minister of Finance rose in the House yesterday, backtracked on the two previous budgets and changed a number of taxation policies which the previous minister of Finance had brought in. The previous minister had changed his budget 36 times. The new Minister of Finance changed it another eight times. They do not know what they are doing. They do not know if they are coming or going, it is obvious. What kind of leadership are these people providing for
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Canadians? The Minister of Finance rose in the House and said that resources needed to be developed-a profound statement-that forests needed to be replenished, that fisheries needed careful husbandry, that we needed new production techniques established in Canada, that we must develop a new technological basis in the country, and that we needed increased investment. The people across the way have been living in a fairyland. There is no question that Canadians were not aware of all of these needs many, many years ago. It was not a revelation to hear that we need to manage our forests more adequately and to seek more investment in Canada's growth. Why has it taken these people so long to realize what Canadians have known for a long time?
The New Democratic Party had a task force which toured the country last December. We visited every part of the country. We held open hearings and asked everyone who was interested to come forward.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We had 63 Members out. How many did you have out?


Nelson Andrew Riis: When this man to my right has nothing else to say, he bleats and yells out. I will listen very carefully to his profound words in a moment.


An Hon. Member:: Profound!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did I say, "profound"? I meant preposterous.
In our task force hearings last December the people of Canada made it very clear that they understood the seriousness of the economic situation facing Canada. They understood where the unemployment figures in the country were going, the problems in the fisheries, in the agriculture, mining, service and quaternary sectors. They understood that we were facing unprecedented levels of personal, business and farm bankruptcies. They recognized that the tax proposals of the previous minister of Finance were inappropriate, were thought through in a rather casual and lackadaisical way, and that they were ill-conceived. As a result, week after week we have seen those same tax proposals gutted from the Government's position. For the Government to take a year from last November to come before this House to make a very profound statement on the difficulties facing Canadians is not only disappointing but it is rather irritating as well. The Minister of Finance stood up and said to those in western Canada, "We have good news for you. We are going to set aside $400 million for the western Canadians." Do you not remember, Mr. Speaker, that not long ago we were promised $4 billion in the Western Development Fund?


Mr. Blaikie:: It shrank.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It shrank. As the previous speaker indicated, I think the Government put the zero in the wrong place. It was not $4 billion because we now find out it is only $400 million.

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a great deal to say about the survival of the fittest in these times. The Prime Minister said that the weak must be assisted and helped. What he meant, of course, was that the 2 million people unemployed today are weak. I find that a very painful statement. I find it to be a very thoughtless statement coming from the Prime Minister of this country. To think that 2 million people who are presently out of work because they are weak is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a result of the ill-conceived economic policies of this Government over the last 14 years. That has resulted in the economic environment which has led to these 2 million people being unemployed. I realize that there are other circumstances that must be brought to bear on that explanation as well. There are external factors that influence the picture. However, we would have to admit that to a large extent the Government of Canada brought us into this mess and it is up to the Government of Canada to get us out of it. Work, not welfare, is what the unemployed in this country want.
What did the Minister of Finance say about assistance to the forest industry, an industry which cuts across every province and territory in this country? He said nothing to assist the forest industry. He said nothing to assist the mining industry. He said nothing to ease the energy costs of farmers and fishermen. He said nothing to assist the various service groups in this country and nothing to assist the small business sector. Sorry, that is not true. The Minister did say that he had something to assist the small business sector. He was referring to the small business bond. But try to get a small business bond, Mr. Speaker. Small business bonds are provided through the banks of Canada. The banks of Canada do not issue small business bonds because the banks have already used up that capacity. But the Government takes out full page ads in the newspapers and magazines of Canada stating, "Here we are, we are helping small business. Take out a small business bond." But small business bonds do not exist in this country. There are no small business bonds. Then the Government says, "We have another program as well to assist small business but we have not introduced it into the Commons yet. We will, however, approach the banks of Canada asking them to have faith in us."
Would you have faith in that group over there? Would you have faith in the Government of Canada considering where it has taken this country? The bankers do not have faith. Canadians do not have faith. There is no way on this earth that the banks of Canada will introduce a program until it is signed, sealed and delivered in this House of Commons and the Senate.
Again, where is the assistance to small business, other than in the myths and in the rhetoric that we have become used to in this country? There is nothing for the steel industry. There is nothing for the auto industry? There is nothing for the home owners of this country, except for a couple of minor programs. We have seen how successful they have been in stimulating the construction industry. I look across the way at a person who
understands the housing crisis only too well. Today he must admit that the stimulation we were promised for the housing industry of Canada is yet to come. We are still waiting for it.
There are nearly 2 million people in this country who are unemployed. Canada is known as the basket case of the western industrialized nations. We are the losers. We are the laughing stock of the western industrialized nations. It is with a great deal of concern that I say that. I have just had the good fortune of returning from attending an international congress of small business. There was talk about small business around the world. People from Sweden, West Germany or Britain ask which country you come from. When you say Canada, they have a funny look on their face. People thought that Canada was one of the richest countries in the world. People thought that Canada had more advantages than virtually any other country in the entire world. Why then are we the basket case of the western industrialized nations? Why is Canada falling behind?


Paul James Cosgrove: It is your fault.


Ian Deans: You could not build a house.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This man across the way could not build a house. He is responsible himself for the housing situation in this country. It is at the lowest ebb it has ever been since the 1930s, and he is saying that it is our fault?
We should have three priorities in this country. I was hoping the Minister of Finance in his economic statement yeaterday would identify those three priorities. Those three priorities ought to be jobs, jobs and jobs. Until we start putting people to work in this country, there will be no economic recovery.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Start spending money.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You cannot have an economic recovery in a system like ours, a capitalist system that depends upon continued expansion in terms of goods and services, if people cannot buy them. That is what we are up against today. People cannot purchase goods. People cannot purchase services. The way, presumably, to resolve this is to throw a few more people out of work.
The Minister said that he was going to set aside $500 million to create 60,000 jobs over the next year and a half, jobs essentially to get people back on UIC. What he is saying is that so many people now have been on UIC for a year who are now moving on to welfare and we have to get them back on to UIC. Therefore, we have to give them a temporary job for a few months so they will requalify and so continue on UIC benefits. That is an imaginative way to get Canadians working in a meaningful way. To accomplish this the Minister of Finance is going to take some money out of one pocket in order to put it into another. He is going to take jobs from the energy sector and he is going to take jobs from the foreign aid sector. There are a number of jobs in the foreign aid sector when you start cutting back considering the amount of tied aid that our colleagues across the way have. They are going to be losing
October 28, 1982

jobs in the defence sector, and because we will have UIC premium rates increased for the workers of Canada by 40 per cent it will mean that an average of $135 will be taken out of the pocket of every working Canadian. Those dollars will not be purchasing goods and services and creating jobs. For employers the premium will rise 50 per cent. This will take in excess of $1 billion out of small businesses in Canada. Is that the kind of encouragement, nurturing and support this Government gives small business and the workers of Canada?
I will venture a guess this evening that rather than create
60,000	additional jobs because of the programs introduced by the Minister of Finance in his statement yesterday we will lose more than 60,000 jobs. There will be a net decline in job creation in this country as a result of this imaginative proposal introduced by the Minister of Finance.
We hear a great deal about the six and five program, and yet we increase the UIC premium 40 per cent and 50 per cent. The Government calls for justice, equity, sharing and concern. Where is the justice in increasing those payments 40 per cent for the workers of Canada? Where is the justice? If we want to have a fair system in this country and if we are really trying to raise money for the unemployed, why is it we put a cap on the income you must reach after which you pay no more premiums for the UIC fund? That ceiling will be placed at about $20,200 in the next number of weeks so that those people making $40,000, $50,000 or $100,000 a year pay the same as the person making $20,000 a year. That is a regressive system. I want to emphasize that to my colleagues across the aisle who like to use the terms fairness and equity in their rhetoric. Let them describe the fairness in that approach.
This peculiar situation in which we find ourselves today is becoming a sociological phenomenon. Canadian society, in terms of its economic relationships, has changed fundamentally in the last six to ten months. There are people now numbering in the tens of thousands who find themselves needing welfare but cannot qualify for it. They made the mistake of owning a modest home or car and now they do not qualify for welfare.
What kind of figures are we speaking about? In the remaining part of this year, 1982, 55,000 people will run out of unemployment insurance benefits every month and will essentially be looking at welfare for support. How many jobs a month will the new program of the Minister of Finance create? It will create 1,200. That leaves a shortfall of 53,800 every single month for the rest of the year. In January it will begin to rise to the tune of 90,000 people a month who will fall off UIC. Is there any talk of extending UIC benefits? Of course not.
There is nothing in the Minister's statement regarding interest rates, which still remain unchecked and volatile. We have seen them migrating downwards for ten weeks in a row now. What will happen after the Congressional elections in the United States? Will they stay down? Just watch what happens. I remember very distinctly when Ministers across the aisle indicated not too many months ago that there would be
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
interest rate relief for home owners. I remember the previous minister saying on television, "Mark my words, you will have interest rate relief." We have a program and we will definitely introduce it." I heard the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Rompkey) say that as well. I heard the Minister responsible for Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) promise interest rate relief. Where is it? There is no attention being paid to stabilizing those unstable interest rates.
History was made not long ago when 80 economists met in central Canada and actually agreed on something. They agreed that interest rates must be lower and the money supply must be loosened if we are to have any economic recovery in Canada. We may not need economists to understand and figure that out and make that claim; we have been claiming that for three years. However, it is encouraging to see 80 economists agreeing on anything, let alone something which ought to send a very clear message to the Government.
Was there any discussion by the Minister of Finance about research and development? There was nary a word. Whether it is a stopgap or band-aid-call it what you like-this Government is taking Canada nowhere.
We have a few programs. The ILAP Program was to be the program to save the troubled cities of Canada. It is saving one troubled city which is Windsor. It is not surprising that three Cabinet Ministers come from that city. Perhaps one must find a city where there are three Liberal Cabinet Ministers in order to receive some aid.


Ian Deans: It is not working very well there.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) says, it is not going very well there. It did not work in Uranium City either.
In British Columbia we heard a great deal about the famous bridging program that was going to put all the unemployed IWA workers back to work. Believe me, that has not occurred. The words that come to mind to describe that program are not utterable in the House.


Ian Deans: Fraudulent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Fraudulent is a good word. Again, the hopes of IWA workers in Canada were lifted just like the Government has been lifting the hopes of Canadians from all walks of life, peaking their interest, only to dash their hopes time and time again. We heard an economic statement the other day. Canadians were watching and listening very closely, with their hopes lifted only to be thoroughly disappointed.
The work-sharing program introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) was a joke. Again, it was not thought through in an adequate fashion and will not serve the purpose for which it was intended. Under these catastrophic economic times we are not even able to assemble an adequate bureaucracy to process UIC claims on time. People in various parts of Canada must wait one month, two months and three months simply to have their claim processed. What are they to do in the meantime? They are out

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
of a job through no fault of their own and they do not qualify for welfare. They have paid into that insurance fund for many, many years and are unable to take advantage of something that ought to be there in place for them. That is the least that the Government can do, but even in that case it has faltered and failed to deliver.
One must ask why this Government does not introduce decent long-term job-creation programs which will have results for many decades into the future, such as, for example, a massive reforestation program. What part of Canada has been nurturing and husbanding its forests adequately? What part of Canada has a reasonable and sensible re-forestation silvacul-ture program attached to it? Virtually none. This must be done in order to continue to have a renewable resource in our forests. Again, this is not the kind of program the Government introduces.
Another example is the salmon enhancement program. We can look at mining exploration, site preparation and the placing of marginal farmlands into production. There is a great variety of programs that the Government could be introducing, but it continues with the simplistic make-work, look good programs that have resulted in the type of economic structure in this country which is inappropriate in many cases.
For too long we have looked to others to solve our problems for us. We have looked to the private sector. I frequently hear from my colleagues to the right who suggest that we should leave it to the private sector because they do everything so well. Consider what Dome Petroleum has achieved and how well Massey-Ferguson did. They have done an excellent job. We in this Party are certainly not looking to the open marketplace to solve our problems for us. It is time that we stopped looking to the American, Dutch or French corporations to solve our problems. Let us look to ourselves, let us turn inward for a while and say that we can solve our problems in this country. We can lead the way in solving our problems. We have looked to foreign corporations and others to resolve our economic difficulties for too long.
Let us examine western Europe and Japan to see what they do. Those governments have a goal, a strategy or a master plan that indicates the way their countries should be evolving. They do not do it on their own, it is not a government idea. They consult with labour, management and their various states or provinces to come to a consensus that recognizes the strategic advantages of the country to determine how they will proceed. They send out a very clear signal to the private sector, the local governments, provincial and regional governments, as to the direction in which the country should be proceeding. The western European nations have done this and Japan has done it. To this day they have not experienced the basket-case status of Canada. They have a concept of where they are going and they implement strategies to get there.
We can do the same thing. It is obvious to anyone who examines what our economic advantages are in this country. We have the existing vehicles necessary to accomplish this. We can use the tax system to encourage the strategic economic sectors of this country. In the short term, we can develop job-creation programs that will produce results later on, such as
re-forestation to build a sound economic forest resource base in Canada. We do not need to expand the deficit to accomplish that. We can look at our tax system, discover its faults and ask why it is that every year hundreds of Canadians who earn incomes well over $100,000 pay not a single penny in income tax. Why is that? Should that not be changed? Of course it should. We should be plugging these loopholes so that those who ought to be paying taxes pay their fair taxes. All we ask is that there be a fair tax.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If you don't earn a living, you don't pay taxes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Listen to the bleating person over here who says, "If you do not make a profit, you do not pay taxes". Some things in life are self-evident. A person who makes $100,000 or $200,000 a year should be asked to pay some income tax, but this man does not think he should pay income tax. That is the Tory logic. The Tory base of argument and discussion.
During these very difficult times when we are attempting to raise funds to put people back to work in meaningful ways, is it not reasonable to expect that we would ask those in the upper income brackets to assist a bit more, to ask those folks making $40,000 or $50,000 a year in taxable income to simply add 2 percentage points on to that? If one made over $200,000 a year, we would ask that that person's income tax be increased by 9 per cent. Is that being unrealistic? Yet the hundreds of millions of dollars which would result in a simple tax adjustment like that would put many Canadians back to work under meaningful job-creation projects. Then we should consider some of the waste which could be cut from the Government departments.


An Hon. Member:: Cut the Liberal caucus.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Some people would call the Canada Unity Information Office a propaganda arm of the Government for it simply promotes Government advertising. I wonder how pleased those Canadians who are unemployed, or who are being threatened with the possibility of becoming unemployed, are to see these full-page ads in all the newspapers, costing tens of thousands of dollars, which state, "We are that close to energy-self-sufficiency." How does one feel, when one cannot put food on the table for one's children, to know that the Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to tell how wonderful it is? I will tell Hon. Members the best way to tell the people of Canada how wonderful the Government is: do something for the people of Canada. Do something as opposed to simply talking about some of these simplistic programs. Yes, there is a great deal of waste slush material which could be cut from the Federal budget. I suspect that no one would even know if it was gone. That, again, is what the Government needs to do.
I can say without hesitation that there are answers to our problems. In a recent speech in Hamilton, my leader laid out a recovery program for the country. Unlike our friends in the
October 28, 1982

Progressive Conservative Party, he said, "This is precisely what we would do to get us out of this disastrous situation". He laid out the precise steps: one, two, three, four; he broke it down: A, B, C. The Progressive Conservatives say that we must change the national energy policies, make some airy-fairy comments about improving Government and so on. I hope that when Hon. Members stand up to speak following my speech, they will be precise as to their ideas concerning economic recovery.
We know that this country has a great deal of potential. We know that there are alternatives, choices and opportunities which have not been identified or addressed by the Government. Tonight we are being asked to approve the expenditure of $4 billion. The Prime Minister asks us to pull together. From this side we are asking, what is it that we are pulling together? Why are we pulling it together? Where are we pulling it? These are the questions. What are we doing? The Government needs $4 billion to do what? We would simply like someone to tell us what we are pulling together, why we are pulling it and where we are pulling it.
Until the Government can present an industrial strategy to this House of Commons, an economic statement which will lay out in clear, articulate fashion a program which Canadians can support and embrace, this Party will never approve the borrowing of an additional $4 billion.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I am really most anxious to start my speech. I have seldom seen the members opposite as attentive as they are now to what I am about to say to the House and to the Canadian people this evening. Everyone is here to learn something and 1 fully intend to give them a few lessons here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to be taking part in the debate this evening, because in recent years when we have been discussing borrowing authority bills, the bills were introduced in a context that was often a very difficult one. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we listened to a statement on the economy by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), a statement that according to Quebec's editorial writers, and I am thinking of Marcel Roy and Jean-Louis Roy and a host of others, was very well received. One of the editorials appeared under the heading; A glimmer of hope, while another bore the title: Direction and leadership at last. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that people who are complaining that our government failed to provide long-term policies in yesterday's message by the minister entirely failed to understand what the point of the exercise was, because the minister was, in fact, responding to a situation that is temporary. And as I said this morning, during a debate I had with a member from each opposition party who called it a budget, if they want to call it a budget, they are welcome to do so, but it is an economic statement.
However, Mr. Speaker, in the present situation, in this worldwide economic recession, is there any hope at all, is there a light at the end of the tunnel? The unemployment rate is
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
absolutely devastating. In Canada, for instance, it has reached an average rate of nearly 12 per cent. However, we must not forget it is 10 per cent in the United States and 14 per cent in Great Britain, and nearly 15 per cent in Quebec, as you know, Mr. Speaker. It is a situation that is causing great hardship for those who are being affected at the present time and it also causes a general malaise among those who feel the threat of unemployment hanging over them. One thing is very important and it is something I appreciate in the current debate, namely that the government on which people used to depend for solving all their problems, meeting all their aspirations and satisfying all their claims, is no longer the only one to play a role and this, people have finally understood. For the first time since 1940, we have all had to realize, and this is something new or perhaps not so new, that ailing economies cannot be cured, cannot be treated lightly, with stimulants or tranquilizers. Inflation and unemployment are problems that cannot be treated lightly. The present recession has also taught us that remedies that proved effective in the past are not necessarily effective today. Quite often, the exact opposite may be necessary. Take, for instance, Mr. Reagan in the United States who decided to cut taxes and has now brought them back. So all our economies are now convalescing. My hon. colleague from Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is making some inane remarks. A pity I did not understand what he was saying, but I am sure it was pretty inane. It is a habit he has. So all our economies are convalescing, and although each one is a separate and distinct case, they are all suffering from the same disease: inflation. It is the main affliction of all our economies. Look at Canada. To survive, it must be able to compete on international markets. Being competitive is of primary importance if the Canadian economy is to be successful. However, if we look at wage costs in Canada, for instance, we see that wages have increased at a much faster rate than they have in the United States, Japan or Europe. Our export industries are particularly handicapped by this fact, and they are the ones that are competing with other imports. As you know, our wages are already higher than they are in the United States. In the lumber industry, for instance, we see that in Canada it is functioning at only 70 per cent of capacity, and this may go down to 50 per cent.
The fact is that in today's buyers' market, customers go where the lowest prices are to be had. Our costs are not necessarily the lowest if our inflation level and wages are perhaps too high and if there is no advertising. The average rate of inflation in Canada could reach 11 per cent in 1982, that is 4 to 5 per cent higher than in Germany and Japan. It is quite obvious that inflation distorts corporate balance-sheets. Capital gains will often only represent an artificial increase in the worth of assets which correspond to inflation. Corporate profits are often increased by inflation to the extent that revenues reflect such inflation, while deductions are often based on cost prices so that bookkeeping is often distorted. The

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
federal government does not have many means at its disposal to correct those conditions. We could surely, as it has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, take massive financial and tax measures to stimulate the economy. Some people are advocating-we heard them today and even a while ago-a drastic reduction of expenditures and tax measures meant to drastically reduce the federal deficit. Some people suggest a comprehensive price and salary control, while others would like to see some immediate steps taken to intensify inflation control.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has repeated throughout the summer and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said last week that we have to completely change our economic attitude and show once again a greater willingness to maintain some discipline and enforce necessary restrictions. It is to that basic change of outlook that the government has decided to devote its efforts instead of taking drastic, ill-advised and unwise measures. If voluntarism entails a risk, freedom is also jeopardized but a reduced inflation rate is a prerequisite to a constant improvement of our economic welfare and employment.
Inflation, Mr. Speaker, erodes the vital energy of our economic system. It unsettles the self-confidence we need to provide a new impetus to the economy and reduce unemployment. Inflation is the true cause, the root of high interest rates, because as long as a rise of inflation rate is expected, Mr. Speaker, pressures for higher wages will remain strong, the cost structure will continue to worsen and we will be unable to compete abroad. It is therefore imperative that people should stop thinking in terms of continuing inflation because their expectations do add fuel to the fire. Wages are trying to catch up with prices, prices in turn try to keep up with wages, in an endless spiral. We must break out of that vicious circle and governments ought therefore to set the example forthwith.
The $1.1 billion NEED Program announced yesterday is in addition to the $1.4 billion already earmarked for economic renewal since June. Canadians should be told that these are not new investments, but rather a reallocation of funds. Taking a closer look at it, we see that $500 million have been set aside for a new program to develop public utilities or infrastructures required by municipalities and the private sector. It is to be hoped that the provinces will climb aboard the band wagon, precisely in keeping with the renewed spirit of co-operative federalism advocated yesterday by the Minister of Finance, that there will be co-operation where it may have been lacking in the past. I suggest that it is appropriate to remind the people of Quebec, after God knows how many clashes through the media, and other people, that Quebec's employment minister Pierre Marois, who is one of my constituents, has just signed a draft agreement with our Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the hon. member for Winnipeg, in a climate of full co-operation. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is precious little to be gained by engaging in parochial fisticuffs in an attempt to score a few political points on the backs of the unemployed, of those who are walking the streets
in seach of jobs and who are listening to us today. I have a feeling that Canadians will close ranks during the crisis and that the various levels of government will at last begin to cooperate, and that is what we must keep going. In addition to the $500 million, another $150 million in grants is available to new home owners and others who want to renovate their homes. In a riding such as mine, Laprairie, where the house building market is active, that is very important because it creates jobs and fires up the economy.
Then there are $400 million for rail expansion in western Canada.
I could make a whole speech on western transportation problems. I did make a few in the past and perhaps on another occasion I might explain at length what has to be done to revive the transportation industry. Of course, I cannot skim over the $160 annual increase in unemployment insurance premiums, and the $225 employers will pay per employee. Those revenues will account for nearly $2 billion in the fund to which the government itself will contribute additional billions of dollars. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said earlier today, there are three groups contributing to the unemployment insurance fund-the federal government, employers and employees-and the federal government pays in almost 70 per cent of all contributions, employers about 18 per cent and employees 12 per cent. It is unfortunate that members opposite should argue that higher unemployment insurance premiums will create more unemployment. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the federalist state in which I live and which I want to see, it is quite essential that those who are better off and stand a good chance of surviving in life be even more generous towards others who are not so lucky. Mr. Speaker, that is what I hope will happen in our country.
So those are the job creation programs which will be financed by way of cutbacks in other fields, namely energy, national defence and foreign aid. The Minister of Finance also announced ten changes to the November 1981 and June 1982 budgets. Members opposite are bragging and boasting that they are responsible for those changes. I would suggest that it is quite appropriate to point out that in drafting the economic statement all members of our caucus were just as severe in reminding the former minister and the new Minister of Finance that certain items in his program were hurting badly, particularly with respect to health-related programs. I thought it did not make much sense to levy such a tax, the one which members opposite wanted removed, the one which my colleagues and I wanted removed. The minister did listen to us. Because one thing must be said about the new Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker: he is a good listener. Ever since his appointement 48 days ago, he has been holding a great many meetings and discussions, and instead of isolating himself in an ivory tower, he gave another example of his willingness to hear what people have to say, through his newly created advisory
October 28, 1982

committee which is made up of Canadian experts in fiscal and macroeconomic matters.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is in this context that last July, just before leaving for the Summer recess, we acted to impose 6 and 5 per cent ceilings on civil servants' salaries for the next two years. That is why, as members of the House, we have agreed that our own salaries be not only frozen but cut to show the way to Civil Service employees who are well protected and enjoy benefits unknown to workers in the private sector. We had to be in the forefront. Public servants would not have accepted to be the only ones to bear the brunt and without our own involvement the 5 and 6 program would certainly have failed. In the public sector, there are two ways to fight inflation and other economic woes, one is, monetary restraints and the other tax increases. We are aware that monetary restraints have been in place for several years in Canada, and are most unpopular, although they have succeeded in bringing inflation under control, but the money supply controlled by the Bank of Canada is only one-albeit essential-lever of the government.
My objection is that for too long people seemed to believe that this was the only lever open to control our economy, while there are also monetary or fiscal policies. Fiscal policies have played a major part for quite a long time and the results are not very brilliant, in view of the rising deficit. People are saying that perhaps we are not collecting enough money, but we are currently caught in a strait-jacket and the situation is specially unacceptable. It will cost a lot of money to pay for programs to help needy Canadians who up to now had helped fill up the public coffers with their taxes; but who can no longer afford to pay taxes, and it is in this respect that we are in a straitjacket. Therefore, it is not so much our expenditures other than social expenses to help needy Canadians which are increasing, but rather our revenues that are shrinking because these people are no longer able to pay income tax.
That is why we have to come to the House once more for a few billion dollars. Obviously many will object to it, on the basis of political or economic reasons in an attempt to correct and change a few programs. 1 feel that a politician's duty is often a difficult one. A good politician can be compared to a good car racer. Anybody can press on the accelerator but he who wins the race is the one who knows when to apply the brakes, who knows that under this government, abundance is no longer the key word and that we shall never have as many investments as we had before. What we must ensure and what the Canadian people are entitled to demand are quality investments. This is the important thing. This is what we must be looking for and what must be emphasized-the quality of investments. Therefore, upon consideration of what the Minister of Finance did yesterday and what he intends to do in the coming months, we realize that quality is here. He could easily have spent four or five billion dollars, but this would have been sheer madness.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I think we have developed a healthy economic policy that will be hard to criticize, even for Hon. Members opposite. They will say it is not good enough, or that it comes too late. But no one can say that it is wrong, and this is what really counts. They are a bit upset because they would like to score political points, since it is their job here to find fault with everything. But precisely, in this spirit of support and co-operation which I hope will be thriving in this House, I think we should overcome this tendency, and together attempt to find solutions.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we have no reason to rejoice these days, but here and there, a few comforting lights appear at the end of the tunnel. Mention should be made that since last August, interest rates have decreased 4 or 5 points. It is a significant sign of recovery which means much lower payments for many investors, therefore giving more money, more cash flow to the people. Interest rates should keep on going down. If we look at the inflation rate, we see that it is not going down as fast as it is in the United States, but it is going down nevertheless. This has an important psychological impact on people. And we cannot help but noticing what is happening in the Stock Exchange; things were not looking too good yesterday and the day before, but the Dow Jones indicator has passed the
1,000	level in the United States, and in Toronto and Montreal, the volume of sales is incredibly high. A lot of people are making a lot of money because confidence is coming back. People are now investing in businesses. That is just what we want. Canadians must change their attitude of playing it safe, their attitude of small time investors who put their savings in a nest egg or in a bank account and leave it there forever.
If we want to lower interest rates, and if people want a good return on their money, we must encourage Canadians to invest and to have faith in this country. And in fact, in my view, that is exactly what we are doing now. Given the extent and the duration of the unemployment situation, one should not stir false hopes. The problem is too serious, it will stay with us for a while. And it is precisely for the people concerned that the minister has made an economic statement yesterday, whether you choose to call it a budget or not. In fact, it is an economic statement because the real budget will come in February or March. So, Mr. Speaker, let me say this in conclusion: as long as our labour costs remain high, and our productivity is low, we will have no other choice but to innovate. American unions have understood the important role they play in the economic structure of the United States. The crisis has made them wiser, more responsible. In Canada, it seems to me that the public is entitled to a similar readjustment, a new form of co-operation. This, Mr. Speaker, will not solve all our problems. But I do want to say in conclusion that we are in the process of solving them, and the signs of improvement are quite obvious.

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the fifth Borrowing Authority Act to come before this session of Parliament. Since February 18, 1980, this Government has come to the House and asked for money, and so far in this session they have asked for $47.6 billion. This is an unbelievable sum of money.


Ian Deans: You agreed to it before. You agreed to it in the spring.


An Hon. Member:: You have the socialists going already.


Ian Deans: But you are a bunch of hypocrites.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When they took office, Mr. Speaker, this Government came into power with $5 billion unused borrowing authority. If you take a look at the unused borrowing authority they had, together with the borrowing authority they have taken up because of their-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Order please. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You cannot help these people on my left; they just do not know where they are at. They think they are in a circus. That is why they interfere in Parliament. Their heckling is not worth a damn. If it was any good I would reply to it, but it is not competent so it is not worth replying to.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is now trying, Mr. Speaker, to get up again, but the truth of the matter is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rises on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Member, in his wisdom, would be prepared to accept a question with regard to the opening comments that he has made?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Mississauga South prepared to accept a question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: After I have completed my remarks. 1 would expect from the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) some reasonable discretion in terms of the kind of heckling that is proper in this House, because proper heckling does something to bring on the quality of remarks and improve a debate; but the kind of heckling we have been getting from the New Democratic Party is a disgrace in this House. It indicates the kind of attitude they bring to this House.


Ian Deans: Why don't you tell us how you agreed to this in the spring? Tell us how you agreed to give them this money in the spring?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to go over the various borrowing authority bills that have come before this House in this session of Parliament. The first one, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was after the budget of April 21, 1980. That was supposed to be an economic statement. That, Mr. Speaker, was when the words of the Auditor General and the Lambert Commission were still fresh in our minds. You will recall that both of those statements indicated clearly to the people of Canada that the Government had lost control of its spending. Therefore, it was important that that borrowing authority be looked at closely. At that time we were spending $4 for every $3 we took in taxes. The situation is far worse than that today.
Sir, there is nothing wrong with borrowing money for capital goods. I think even the New Democratic Party would agree with that. But there is certainly something wrong with borrowing money to pay the grocery bill. What we have had is this Government coming to the people of Canada, to this Parliament, and saying: we want more money because we are going to spend more money, because we are going to spend and spend and spend, without any reference to productivity or building the country. Just spend. That was the beginning of the Borrowing Authority Bills we faced in this Parliament.
The second Bill was as the result of the October 28, 1980 budget. That Bill was for $14 billion. At that time all Members of this House were concerned. We made several suggestions to the Government. We said that it had better cut down some of its expenses. I myself said that it perhaps should look at the CBC. At that time the CBC, Sir, if you will recall, was spending $577 million. Now the CBC spends $737 million, and despite the rulings from the CRTC about CBC-2, it wants to carry on with another expansion program.
We said the Government had to look at its files, its archives, look at the National Capital Commission, look at the museums, look at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Look at the various projects you have. Are they still necessary? Are they still fulfilling the original requirements? But it refused to cut. At that time the Government could have cut its borrowing authority to $8 billion and could have easily cut a great deal of program activity, but it wanted to spend and spend and spend.


Mr. Fisher:: What about the revenue guarantee, Don?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Then we went on to the Bill which resulted from that iniquitous budget of November 12, 1981. That is the bill where the Government wanted $6.6 billion. It said that would cover the current fiscal year. One of the reasons for needing $6.6 billion was it had blown $1 billion in overpayment of interest on the 1981 Canada Savings Bond. The Government just wasted $1 billion. And it continues to waste money.
October 28, 1982

Throughout 1981 and 1982 we saw Canada geese flying across our screens, telling us how wonderful Canada is. We have had the ads telling us that energy self-sufficiency is this close. We have had the billboards saying that Canada is working. Where is Canada working? The unemployment insurance lines, that is where Canada is working. Now we have the advertising, the propaganda, the absolute and incredible propaganda where they can take our money and send me a box of goodies this long, full of pamphlets and posters and election stickers telling me all about six and five and Canada working together.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I sent you that, Don.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Sir, that stuff came under the signature of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher).


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 am proud of it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Mississauga North says he is proud of the huge waste of taxpayers' money-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I am proud of the program.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -on pure, unadulterated propaganda.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He ought to be ashamed of himself because he should take a look at last year's Auditor General's Report which shows this Government blew at least $50 million in extra photocopying costs.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 like the program, Don, do you?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He likes extra photocopying costs, that is the kind of costs he likes.
Well then, Sir, we came to the further Borrowing Authority Bill where the Government came to the House and asked for $15 billion. We said, "You cannot show me this $15 billion. Cut your costs down to $11 billion, and with a limited debate we will let it through, but no more. You want that extra $4 billion, you have to come here." They are here tonight, 15 or 16 weeks after that Bill-


Ian Deans: After you promised it to them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And all of a sudden the Government needs more money and there seems to be no end to its appetite, because if you look at these almost unbelievably inaccurate figures set out in what is alleged to be a financial statement given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) yesterday, the $4 billion is not enough and the Government is going to be back here again with another Bill and another Bill and another Bill.
When, Sir, is this overwhelming majority of sheep, which does not want to pay any attention to the realities of economics, going to say to their own leadership: enough is enough? Sir, it used to be said by the Members of the New Democratic Party, I have heard it said by them many times, that borrowing or deficit financing, or whatever you call it, is stimulative. I do not know how you can be stimulative by putting the country in debt. Nobody is ever stimulated by a great big debt hanging
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
over their head. This country is faced with a huge debt over its head. Sir, if you have been in business, you may borrow money to buy a machine or buy a plant or something of that nature, and you buy that asset on the basis of its payback. You buy a machine, you probably want in this market a payback in two or three years. You figure the machine must earn enough for you to pay for itself and on that basis you can afford to borrow money to buy it. Where is the payback in this borrowing? Where is the infrastructure being built with this borrowed money? The answer is, Sir, that there is nothing being built. It is being spent on the groceries.
There is no effort being made to cut back on the administration, no effort to cut back on a whole host of programs. I call them alphabet soup programs. We have a couple mentioned here in the budget papers. I see we have a program called CCDP and LEAP and PED, whatever that is, and then of course we have that wonderful program of nip, dip, and ship, and a rehabilitation program of some kind, I have forgotten the initials for that one. You almost have to be a magician to figure out what programs and what new letters they will put together for another program.
Every one of these programs requires a host of administrators. They require a set of applications, usually in quadruplicate or quintuplicate, filed and submitted and read and crossread and a cheque issued, maybe, if you know the right person.
Sir, there has to be a limit to this. There has to be a reexamination by this Parliament, before this Bill is completed, of where we are going in Government expenditures. Surely to goodness this financial statement, which seems to have found $1.1 billion somewhere for further job-creation programs, could find another $2 billion or $3 billion or $5 billion in additional administration expenses.
Sir, let me point out to you one thing very quickly. The National Accounts tabled in the budget papers indicate that expenditures by the Government for current goods and services in the years 1981-82 were $16,898 billion, which have risen to $19 billion, an increase of somewhere around 18 per cent or 19 per cent. Sir, that is the kind of thing which has gone on in one fiscal year. Talk about six and five! The expenses for goods and services have gone up 19 per cent. Where are we going? I admit, Sir, that this budget does say that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has been instructed to make stringent restrictions in spending, and he will be reporting to this House. I say to the Hon. Members opposite that they have an obligation as Members of the Government to insist that the President of the Treasury Board make that report, and that that report be referred to a special standing committee or special committee of this House, it does not matter which. Then we as Members of Parliament could go over that report and over the other items that are available, such as the spending estimates of the Government, to determine which items of spending are essential, which are perhaps only less desirable and which items of spending are really nonessential.

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What about the $6.5 billion for the oil companies that you voted for?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You have been around here a long time, Mr. Speaker, and you know as well as I do that there are a host of things that are nonessential.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Give us an idea what you are talking about.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my friend asked me to give him an idea of what we are talking about. Perhaps he would like to tell me how really essential the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is. How really essential is that, when we have people who cannot pay the mortgage on their home, who cannot buy food for the table? How imperative is it that a government spend money to entertain people at the Grey Cup Game? Is that the kind of thing we should be spending money on when people cannot pay their bills and in many cases cannot get welfare? Is that the kind of spending we should be directing the Government of Canada to make? I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are a great number of things and he knows them-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let us have some more.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, you want a quick one? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the other day one of the planes owned by Transport Canada was parked illegally at the Ottawa Airport. The people in the Department of Transport did not like that and they were running the airport, so they imposed a fine of $50 for illegal parking. The airport is owned by the Department of Transport and the plane is owned by the Department of Transport, so one part of the Department took another part of the Department to court and spent $2,000 on legal fees to determine which part of the Department should pay a fine!
That is the kind of thing you do. You laugh. You know where the waste is. That is the kind of thing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us get on to some things which are positive. Let us go on to consider what we can do to clean up some of the problems we have.
First of all, I think the Government must be commended for taking note yesterday of the suggestions made in the report of the Finance Committee with respect to the Income Tax Act. A number of changes were made that I think will be helpful. I refer particularly to the health plans, the change in northern benefits, cleaning up to some extent the problem of the 12.5 per cent dividend tax, cleaning up the problem with respect to taxing work in progress for professionals and, particularly, the delay with respect to the ill-thought out sales tax plan. But there are a number of other things that must be done and that were not thought out properly. These positive suggestions must be made to the Government.
First of all, we must completely examine the unemployment insurance situation. Unemployment insurance premiums represent a regressive payroll tax. They are anti-employee. What we are trying to do is to put people back to work, and one thing you do not do when you want to put people back to work is make it more expensive to hire people.
The effect of the budget change yesterday was to increase the tax on hiring people a total of $5.52 for each $100 of insurable earnings. That payroll burden is unrealistic. It is damaging to employment. It is the kind of thing that must be rethought. This Parliament must come to grips with unemployment insurance and with what we really can afford in terms of unemployment insurance. We must have a parliamentary inquiry into that problem and into the proper financing of unemployment insurance, particularly in these difficult times when tax money, or even borrowed money for that matter, from the general revenues will have to be used to make sure that people have enough earning power to pay their ordinary household bills. This matter is serious and essential. It is imperative that the Government come to grips with it and trust Parliament again as, to some extent, it trusted Parliament with respect to the study of the Income Tax Act.
Second, the Government must come to grips with the whole question of bail-out. We have seen the Government invest $125 million in Massey-Ferguson this year. We have seen the Government guarantee loans of $1.3 billion to Canadair and $4.50 billion to de Havilland. We have seen the Government decide, for some strange reason and without rationale at all, to back Maislin Transport. In the last week we have seen the Government seemingly get together-and without parliamentary approval, I might add-to do something for Dome Petroleum. There is a further $400 million in the budget which presumably is to be split between de Havilland and Canadair.
We have to look at these borrowings and seriously consider where these Crown corporations are going and where we as a country are going with this bail-out problem. Are we really saving jobs or are we costing the country jobs? When we take money out of the country, from the productive side where it could increase employment, and use it to bail out people who are obviously incapable of running a business profitably, we are probably costing the country jobs, not saving jobs. If these bail-outs are to continue, what we are really doing is saying to those who are productive and capable that they are going to pay taxes to those who are incapable. That does not improve the productivity of Canada, Mr. Speaker. That does not secure permanent and honest and good employment. That is the kind of thing that is anti-employment and anti-productive.
Before any more money is spent-and that includes the $400 million further bail-out money to Canadair and de Havilland-it is absolutely necessary that this advance of money by the Government to corporations cease, whether they be private corporations or Crown corporations. If those corporations cannot stand on their own feet they must be examined in detail by Parliament. The fact is that what we are
October 28, 1982

doing is taking from the capable, those who can create employment, and giving to those who are going to cost us employment. The cost of these bail-outs is unrealistic in terms of jobs.
Speaking of Canadair, in the Challenger Jet we now have Canada's newest Concorde. And speaking of de Havilland, why we are spending money to build an airplane, the A-320 Airbus, when there is a total lack of demand for commercial airplanes in the world, is beyond my comprehension.
The next thing we have to do, and we have already spoken of this but I will mention it again briefly, is to control seriously the propaganda efforts of the Government. There is no way that public money should be used to propagandize the political efforts of a political Party just because it is in power.
We must look very hard at the National Energy Program. This country has more petroleum resources than probably any country in the world. We certainly have more petroleum resources than the entire Middle East in the heavy oil deposits, the ordinary deposits, the tar sands and the like in western Canada. In addition we have deposits, perhaps not proven out enough, in the Beaufort area and on the east coast. In fact, we should be exporting petroleum. If we want to make ourselves self-sufficient in petroleum, we must allow the industry the incentive to go ahead and export if it has a surplus.
One thing which is holding back exploration right now is that there are all sorts of capped gas wells and 100,000 barrels of petroleum being held back from markets because it cannot be sold. Such an effort at self-sufficiency is wrong. We will not become self-sufficient by keeping our reserves buried in the ground and by preventing people from exploring and developing new reserves. The National Energy Program must be reversed. The whole question of employing bureaucrats to administer PIP grants, to pay one oil company because of its share of ownership more money than another, or to worry about whether a company is 50 per cent or 80 per cent Canadian-owned or foreign-owned, really does not have much to do with finding oil, making jobs and building Canada. We want to become self-sufficient. We want to create employment. If we looked at the world we could probably say to some countries such as Japan, for example, that we could give it an assured supply of petroleum; that if the Japanese wanted to invest in a tar sands plant, we would guarantee them so many barrels of oil per year as long as they put up the money. If that kind of negotiation took place, I suspect we could obtain the money and put people to work.
Also I suspect that we would create perhaps 150,000 to
250,000	new jobs in the energy field if we would just get away from the National Energy Program, reverse it 180 per cent and get on with it. Energy resources buried in the ground are not worth anything to anyone. It reminds me of the situation in a place called Belle Isle, Newfoundland. Iron ore reserves were found in that area in the 1880s. Mines were started in the 1890s and carried on until 1966. If iron ore had been found in Belle Isle today, or even ten years ago, no one would have dug it out because mining methods changed, productivity changed and the way we do things changed. That ore would have stayed
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
bottled up forever. We could well wind up, in an effort to be self-sufficient in petroleum, leaving tar sand deposits buried forever, leaving heavy-oil deposits buried forever. It is time to look at our resources and to take advantage of them. God gave them to us. Let us do something to put our people to work.
I made some complimentary comments with respect to the Minister's efforts in his statement yesterday, but he did not address the issues of capital cost allowance, soft costs, reserves or life insurance and annuities. The changes made in our tax system on November 12, 1981 were anti-entrepreneurial, antigrowth and anti-employment. Those changes must be reversed. We must return to the tax system which we had before November 12, 1981.
The Government has already gone through 45 changes or so to that budget. The budget of November 12 is shot full of holes. No one knows where they are going. I call upon the Minister and the Government right now to get back to realism. Let us abolish the November 12 budget, write if off as a bad job. The Government has already shown that it is a bad job. It is time to get down to realism and to get rid of that budget completely.
Next we must have some tax simplicity. Last summer the chartered accountants, lawyers and specialists in income tax came before the Finance Committee. They made clear to us that there was no way that they could simply fill out their own tax returns. The Chairman of the Committee from Coopers and Lybrand told us, "When you get into that field, I am really not quite sure; I will have to have my colleague answer the problem". In other words, the Income Tax Act has become so complicated that even leading chartered accountants cannot be sure as to what are the tax implications with respect to a transaction. They go one step further and say, with respect to small business taxation, that it is far more complicated than large business taxation. People are not able to calculate their taxes or plan their businesses. The problem, when people are treated that way, is that they wind up avoiding tax, evading tax, just not paying tax or dealing in the black economy. This will cause the country untold problems. Therefore, the first thing we must do immediately is to get another committee of the House to work on the Income Tax Act and come up with solutions to simplify it.
I see the Minister is present now. He almost indicated that he will have to present a budget in January or February. He should give us a White Paper, a thought-out proposal, with respect to simplifying the Income Tax Act. I suggest to him that one of the problems with the 12.5 per cent dividend tax matter is that some people would become small businesses and get advantages which other people are not entitled to have. I say that is not hard to correct. All he has to do is to return to the way small business tax was handled prior to 1971. There could be a low rate of tax for all companies for the first $125,000 and a top rate for everything over that amount. There are only 12,000 companies or corporations in the country paying at the high rate of tax. There are 175,000 paying at the low rate of tax. If we had to give a little benefit to those 12,000 corporations, big deal. The Government could

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
take it out of their hides by changing the measures with respect to investment tax credit, the inventory allowance or something of that nature. It would not be very hard. The Act could be simplified enormously. If the Minister is worried about revenue, equity and so on, he could simplify the Act and do it right. It is not difficult. All it requires is a little imagination. I say to the Minister that this is the kind of thing we expect from him as a Minister of Finance. He should change that Income Tax Act and make it simpler.
I have taken quite a bit of time, but I do want to mention one more thing, Mr. Speaker. I think it is absolutely essential that the Foreign Investment Review Act be altered. It is ridiculous that I have a constituent who is being prosecuted. He is a Canadian. He happens to own 51 per cent of KCR Limited, a company that imports kerosene heaters. My constituent is now before the Federal Court of Canada because he happens to own 51 per cent of the company. He has $8,000 in the company, and the American head office has about $200,000 in the company. The Foreign Investment Review Agency says this is a hidden way for an American to come in and sell kerosene heaters in Canada. There are lots of ways around that problem. I do not see any reason, in the interests of protecting Canadian business and investment, that we should be worried about foreign investment when the amount is less than $10 million. After all, that is not going to change the makeup of Canada one way or the other. We want investment in the country. We want jobs and we want people doing things in the country. We want people paying income tax and doing things in the social and in the voluntary fields building our country. We really do not have to worry about whether a transaction as small as $250,000 is foreign-held or Canadian-held. It really does not matter. The thing is that we want to put people to work to get things done. Surely the Minister must realize that when things occur like those that have occurred under the terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act you turn off Canadians and you turn off people who come to Canada to invest and to create.
I say to you, Sir, that it is very important that the Foreign Investment Review Act be altered, and I say to you that a $10-million threshold limit is appropriate.
I want to say that the budget should be based on a national accounts basis. We are spending in excess of $90 billion. One dollar out of every $3 that we take in taxes goes to pay interest. The share of borrowed money represents in excess of 6 per cent of the Gross National Product of the country. We have got to the point where the amount of money expended is some 25 per cent of the GNP on a national accounts basis. The Minister may say that a national accounts basis is not a fair way of looking at it. But I want to point out to the Minister that the Auditor General, in Volume I of the Public Accounts for this year, clearly pointed out that the method by which this Government has been doing its accounting is all wrong. As well, with respect to the Oil Compensation Fund, the Government must now do its accounting to treat those accounts properly in the Public Accounts. I say that the only kind of accounts that we can ever compare are the national accounts.
If we do not compare national accounts, we wind up with peculiar changes that have taken place in the way the budget is kept so budgetary accounts are not comparable from year to year.
This is a serious matter. We are now in excess of 25 per cent of the Gross National Product being handled by this Government. In addition, we have an enormous amount of the Gross National Product that is handled by provincial Governments. Also we have the handling of the accounts of the country by Crown corporations. Well over 50 per cent of the Gross National Product of this country is handled by governments. When my friend in the New Democartic Party says that the problem is that people cannot purchase the goods, I say he is right. The reason people cannot purchase the goods is because the goods are too expensive. Why are the goods too expensive? Because we use so much of our labour, energy, effort and productivity in governing ourselves, that is the reason. Therefore, the cost of everything we produce has to bear the burden of government. No wonder our goods are too expensive and no wonder we are not too productive. No wonder we have problems. What we must do is to lower, not our expectations, but our cost of production. What we must do is to become more productive in that sense. What we must do is to produce more and use less of our energies in governing ourselves and more in reducing the price of what we produce so that we can be more competitive in the world. Until we do that, we will never have enough money in the hands of the consumer to pay for the goods produced. The goods have to be produced less the tax wedge. The cost of the Government's wedge is to high. When that wedge is so high, as high as it is today, we will continue to have massive unemployment and lack of productivity. That is the challenge we face in this country. We will never solve that problem by borrowing more money and trying to borrow our way to prosperity.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) consider a question concerning the remarks that he has just made?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, earlier in his remarks the Hon. Member referred to the CBC. It seemed to me at least that he was advocating that perhaps the CBC should be done away with. Is the Hon. Member espousing official Conservative policy which advocates the abolition of the CBC? Could the Hon. Member answer yes or no to that question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of famous questions to which you are asked to answer yes or no. The Applebaum Commission took a look at the cost of producing drama by the CBC and found that it could be produced a good deal cheaper elsewhere. There are a whole lot of things that we are doing in entertainment and broadcasting on a national basis that could be done a lot cheaper, and my hon. friend knows that.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.
October 28, 1982


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My hon. friend knows it is a lot cheaper to tender and hire to get something done than to have it done with your own forces and with that organization. I say to the Hon. Member that the organization is not productive in comparison with other organizations in producing television.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due regard to the Hon. Member, I must advise him that the time allotted to him expired.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is really the third budget debate in this House in less than a year, smuggled in under the guise of a statement on the economic and financial outlook of the Government of Canada, along with Bill C-128.
Bill C-128 as introduced by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) provides authority for the Government to borrow an additional $4 billion in new money in the current fiscal year. When combined with the $7 billion in borrowing authority granted in Bill C-125, plus the $6.6 billion granted in Bill C-l 11, plus $6.3 billion left over from previous years, the Government, according to my estimation, will have a total borrowing authority of something like $21.2 billion in the coming fiscal year. I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tremendous amount of money. In my opinion, it represents an excessive demand upon the savings and energies of some 24 million Canadians, while placing tremendous power in the hands of a few people.
I listened very carefully to the Minister of finance (Mr. Lalonde) yesterday when he addressed the House. I could not help but notice at least one difference between him and his predecessor. At least he smiles while he is driving the knife directly into the pocket book of the Canadian taxpayer. He is also the master of what I call double-speak. In one sentence he says that he is announcing arrangements designed to relieve the workers and employers of this country from the full burden of mounting unemployment insurance costs. Then, on page 13, he announces an increase in workers' contributions from $1.65 per 100 to $2.30, while employers will pay $3.22. I ask him, whatever happened while he was doing these computations? Whatever happened with six and five?
This is, of course, not the total amount. On the next page we read that these increases are so low that they will require the Government to advance another billion dollars to the unemployment insurance account in the year 1983 over and above the normal contribution. Why not simply say that it is necessary to increase taxes of the workers and the industrialists of this nation, those who are left to pay the bills, that the Hon. Minister is raising the taxes by another $2 billion just to take care of the unemployed?
Another example, among many, of the doublespeak of the Minister of Finance can be found on page 3. There he states:
First, we must continue to practice Fiscal responsibility. We must persist in restraining government spending. We must strive to contain the rise of the deficit
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
even while the recession cuts into government revenues and raises public expenditures.
It is not only the recession that has raised public expenditures. It is the foolish, extravagant expenditures and actions of this particular Government. How can the Minister say that he will persist in restraining Government spending, and then say in the same speech on page 7 that the $10 billion deficit predicted by his predecessor last November, which was upgraded in June to something like $19.6 billion, is now predicted in October to be $23.6 billion? I suppose that he realizes this is an increase of some one and one-third times more than the November estimate.
Using that yardstick, a final deficit in this budget may well be in the $26 billion or $27 billion area. We are a nation of 24 million people. A deficit of $24 billion is really $1 billion for every million Canadians. How can this government have the gall to say that it is practising fiscal responsibility? I submit that it does not have a clue as to the actual meaning of the word.
The United States is a nation of approximately 240 million people. The deficit for that nation, comparable to our own, would be $240 million. Yet their deficit is listed in yesterday's press at $110.7 billion for 1982, and they are calling it the year of the greatest red ink in that nation's history. On a percentage basis, the United States deficit is less than half of the deficit in Canada. A comparable figure for Canada's deficit would be in the $11 billion to $12 billion bracket. If the United States administration, with all the demands that are made upon it nationally and internationally, can come up with these figures, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why can we not manage to do the same in Canada?
I have seen flip-flops in my day but never was it so apparent in the House as in the two budgets introduced by the "laird" of Cape Breton which showed his complete lack of business experience and complete lack of compassion for the people of Canada.
Yesterday's budget speech by the present Minister of Finance reminded me of an old Laurel and Hardy comedy. Stanley and Ollie were trying to build a house. Every time that Stanley would put a plank in place, Oliver, when reaching for a second plank, would knock the first one down. This operation continued for some time until Stanley noticed that no progress was being made. He then reached into his lunch bucket, brought out a plate, and the scene ended with Ollie being smashed in the face with a cream pie. Somewhat disturbed and unhappy, he left the scene of destruction, which is exactly what happened Wednesday in this House.
We have gone through almost an entire year of uncertainty, indecision and a lack of business development throughout this country simply because of the stubborn arrogance on the part of the Government which failed to realize its mistakes and take the necessary action to mend its ways. This, of course, is what always happens when one puts round pegs into square holes.
In my opinion, this third budget in less than a year will still not stimulate the economic recovery of which we are capable

October 28, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
because it does not address the fundamental question, which is the curtailment of extravagant and unnecessary Government expenditures. Bill C-128 simply buttresses that assertion. Obviously this Government is now aware of the problem, for the Minister of Finance stated that the world recession has cut our economy to the bone. We have lost half a million jobs during the past year, and almost a million and one-half among us are looking for work. Many others have temporarily given up the search for gainful employment. Virtually no Canadians have been untouched by the recession. In every region of the country those who have been spared the worst have relatives, friends or neighbours who are struggling to cope with hardship and insecurity, be they unemployed textile workers in Quebec, ground fishermen in the Atlantic, idle lumbermen in B.C. or laid-off miners or autoworkers in Ontario.
There will be a few more unemployed after the next election, and they all will be on that side of the House. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that never in my 25 years in the House have I listened to such a sordid admission by a Cabinet Minister of his government's neglect and mismanagement of our economy, and little that he did will restore the confidence of Canadians in this country during this period of crisis.
I do not agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that no solution exists to resolve our special present extraordinary economic situation. This is somewhat like the poison that is being mixed in some drugs today by some crank who obviously hates humanity. It is the kiss of death. We are still a great country, the second largest land mass on this globe. We have untold natural resources in every Province of Canada as well as in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and only 24 million people to share the wealth. We have more fish than we can fry, more wheat than we can eat and vast reserves of coal, gold, silver, nickle, copper, uranium, oil and timber. You name it and we have it.
Ask yourself, "What would the Almighty have had to give us Canadians as a nation to make us all wealthy?" We as Canadians are the envy of practically every other nation on the earth. No one will ever convince me that we could not do better as a nation if we had proper leadership and started to concentrate on developing our economy and working together on those things that unite us rather than concentrating on those things that divide us.
There has been too much divisive, non-productive legislation introduced to date by this administration. The backlash from some of these policies have brought us to the brink of economic disaster. This is not Government planning, this is a Government drifting inexorably into a whirlpool of depression. Its ineptitude is bringing us all down into the depths of despair. Amid all of this gloom and doom, however, the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) did try, without success, to cheer us up a bit with his three TV spectaculars. It was Mork, in my view, without Mindy. If it was a tryout for him in the role of a newscaster after leaving office, I do not believe it was very successful. Our Prime Minister asked Canadians to trust him, but he is the man who campaigned against wage and price controls in 1974 and then imposed
them in 1975. He campaigned along with his entire Party against our program to raise the gasoline tax by 18 cents in 1980. Since that time he has imposed a much higher tax, not only on gasoline but also on home-heating oil, which we believe should be accepted.
Mr. Speaker, my I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House deemed to have been moved under Standing Order 40.

Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon in the House I had a chance to pose a very serious question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) regarding a very unfortunate labour stoppage on the west coast. All exports of grain, potash, sulphur and lumber and almost all exports of coal have been stopped. We know that Canada is very much a trading nation and that to be a trading nation, we must export. We also know that for those of us on the Prairies, the ports on the west coast are the only ones we can use on a year-round basis. It therefore becomes very important to us that those ports function at peak capacity on a year-round basis.
The work stoppage has been in effect since a week ago Monday. It now appears from the statement yesterday, not by the Minister of Labour but, rather, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), that the work stoppage will continue for at least two weeks. This causes very serious concern to those of us in western Canada who are directly affected. It should be of major concern to every citizen of this country and should be taken extremely seriously by the Government. It seems absolutely ludicrous to many of us that at a time when, by all accounts, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million people are unemployed, we should allow work stoppages like this to occur.
On assuming his portfolio, the Minister of Labour made a statement which I will paraphrase. He said he thought strikes were outdated and that another form of settling disputes should be in place. I thought that was a bold statement for a new Minister and I congratulate him for it because I certainly think it has some merit. However, with the chance to act and become directly involved, putting some of his apparent beliefs into action, he has fallen much short of them.
October 28, 1982

Yesterday I first tried to find out from him whether he thought the damage to the total economy caused by this dispute between labour and management was of such magnitude that we could allow the dispute to continue. It seems to me, and to most reasonable Canadians, that the dispute between labour and management is not great enough to allow the total number of ports on the west coast to be shut down. I think most people would agree with that.
I also tried to find out what the Minister intended to do, and how long it would take before the Government assumed its responsibility, stepping in and ensuring that these ports export those commodities produced in this country to which the Hon. Member who spoke previously referred. I received no real response from him.
It was interesting to me that less than an hour later the Minister of Finance stated in his speech, which was really a budget speech, whether he wants to admit it or not, that if the parties did not resolve their differences by Monday, the Government would accept its responsibility. By that, I assume he meant that the Government is prepared to step in and consider back to work legislation.
Let me briefly refer to what is being offered to the longshoreman on the west coast. We have gone through the labour-management negotiations. The Allan Hope report recommended that on top of an hourly base-rate of $12.55, there be an additional increase in the first year of $1.60 an hour and $1.55 an hour in the second year. That seems to be extremely generous because it is more than 12 per cent or more than twice the six and five to which the Government is referring in the first year, and the same in the second year. It is in the order of 13 per cent or 14 per cent in the first year and slightly less than that in the second year. I fail to see why, if the Government is serious about its six and five program, it would have any hesitation at all about stepping in and imposing a settlement, if that were the last recourse, on the basis of the conciliation report. There should be no concern there, based on the Government's six and five program.
The other thing that the Government is playing with and playing with very seriously is Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of raw materials. We have a record grain crop on the prairies in terms of quantity. Over the past two or three years we have managed to build up a somewhat tarnished reputation as a reliable supplier of grain. We must look after our customers in terms of things we can do; solving the man-made problems. We know we cannot predict, or do very much about, bad weather, mud slides and snow slides which shut off rail passage to the west coast. We know these are going to cause problems and there is nothing we can do about them. However, we can do something about the manmade problems; and that is what we face.
I see the parliamentary secretary here this evening. He is listening. I hope he will respond in a somewhat positive fashion to the suggestions I am going to make.
Adjournment Debate
The Government should, first, step in and the Minister of Labour should personally become involved and see these are meaningful negotiations. Second, when the negotiations are going on, the people should go back to work. There would be nothing wrong with that. It would indicate goodwill on both sides. We would then be earning the much needed export dollars we so desperately need. The west coast ports would be adding to employment in this country instead of causing additional unemployment at a time when we cannot afford one more Canadian out of work. It is already going to be a long cold out-of-work winter for too many Canadians.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for his very interesting question. I think it would be very useful if I briefly outlined the chronology of events to date in the dispute.
The dispute concerns renewal of a collective agreement which expired on December 31, 1981 covering some 3,500 longshoremen in various ports on the west coast. The parties to the dispute, the British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Canadian Area) met in direct negotiations over a period of some three months without reaching agreement on a new contract.
The Minister subsequently appointed a conciliation officer to assist the parties, but his efforts were unsuccessful. On March 3, 1982 he appointed Mr. Allan Hope, Q.C. of Prince George, B.C. as conciliation commissioner in the dispute.
Mr. Hope was initially successful in bringing the parties back to the bargaining table for direct negotiations, but he too was unsuccessful in assisting the parties in resolving their differences. He subsequently filed his final report with the Minister and it was released to the parties on August 13.
The BCMEA indicated that they were prepared to accept the recommendations of the conciliation commissioner as the basis for a new collective agreement, but the ILMU rejected the total report as an unacceptable package, at the same time indicating a willingness to negotiate further on those items where it was not prepared to accept the conciliation commissioner's recommendations.
The parties acquired the legal right to strike or lockout on August 21, 1982. Since that time, the parties have met several times in direct negotiations with little progress being made towards a final settlement. The union held a series of one-day port closures to conduct informational sessions for their people and in addition, instituted what they termed a "work-monitoring program" which effectively slowed the unloading and loading of ships to the point where several major shipping consortia began diverting their vessels from Vancouver to the Port of Seattle. This situation culminated with the BCMEA locking out the longshoremen on October 19.
On Monday of this week, the Minister sent a telegram to the parties in which he strongly advised them to immediately

October 28, 1982
Adjournment Debate
resume negotiations. He made it clear that, failing an early settlement of the dispute, the Government would accept its responsibility, repugnant though it might be, to bring about resumption of vital shipping operations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


THE CONSTITUTION-GOVERNMENT HELP FOR MINORITIES INVOLVED IN COURT ACTIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) concerning the financial assistance granted by the federal government to official language minorities in cases dealing with clauses 93 to 133 of the British North America Act. Indeed, since February 1978, the federal cabinet has authorized the Department of Justice to give assistance to the plaintiffs in such cases either by providing the services of counsels to help them prepare their legal argument or by granting some funds. I would like to ask the federal government to extend such an assistance to cover clause 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we know, since the Charter has come into effect, constitutional guarantees are given such as the right to education for official language minorities. Before the adoption of the Charter, those constitutional and educational rights and guarantees came under the denominational provisions of clause 93 in the Constitution and were entirely inadequate as far as language protection was concerned. To understand perfectly well that situation, Mr. Speaker, we have to consider the social and historic context in which our Fathers of Confederation lived.
As a matter of fact, in 1867, religion played an essential part. The two cultural communities were separated by the religious issue. Traditionally, Catholics were French-speaking whereas English-speakers were for the most part Protestant. Therefore, when the 1867 Constitution was drawn up, this social reality was the first to be recognized. Language rights were in some way protected through religious differences. This situation remained until 1981, when the Charter of Rights changed all the rules of the game. Education of our children on the basis of religion still remains but in addition, we have a constitutional right to have them educated in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds. Some people might be surprised by my request, however, if you look back through history, Mr. Speaker, you will easily realize that it has always been very difficult for French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec to have their rights to be educated in their own language recognized. French schools that are now available have all been acquired after years of struggling; moreover they are continuously threatened, either by budgetary cuts, by the alarming rate of assimilation or the ever-decreasing birth rate, or simply by administrative problems created by various provincial levels. Therefore, the minority must not only
struggle to get a new school, but they must fight without respite to operate that school which was given to them through some arm-twisting. We must also go back in time to fully understand the situation. The Constitution of 1867 contained some provisions regarding how majorities should treat their minority groups.
Whether the majorities actually complied and whether they acted responsibly in this respect is another story. In some provinces, these provisions were not observed and in others, these rights were categorically denied. For instance, it took seventy years to remedy the situation in Manitoba, where the provincial government had decided to act against the Constitution. And what about Ontario's infamous Regulation 17, which had the effect of banning the teaching of French in this province. Thus, in theory, the 1867 Constitution provided guarantees, but in practice they were not always observed. Why not? Because quite often, francophone minorities were isolated and purposely weakened by provincial governments which left them to their own resources, and so it was a very slow process to obtain the concessions and advantages they did manage to get.
That is how Franco-Ontarians managed to get a few French schools. Let us not forget that as the present government sees it, these concessions to francophones are not rights that have been granted but privileges which could be taken away at any time.
Faced with this situation and observing the reluctance of provincial governments to treat their minorities in a manner that was fair, generous and just, the federal cabinet set up a program for assistance in cases where provincial laws were challenged in relation to Section 93 and 133 of the British North America Act. That decision has already brought results. I am thinking, for instance, of the Forest case in Manitoba and, more recently, of the case heard by Judge Deschenes in which the constitutionality of Bill 101 was challenged. If we look at the court actions, our minorities have indeed made some progress. As such court proceedings are long lasting, involved and expensive, the Government of Canada should, of necessity, provide assistance to individuals and groups who are fighting for their rights. It should be emphasized that when a French-speaking resident of Ontario wishes to oppose a piece of legislation or a regulation established by the government of his own province, he has to Fight against the big machine of the Department of Justice through the Attorney General. Individuals or groups find themselves in a situation where they must face high legal costs while their opponents can use public funds and a team of highly experienced legal advisors.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by saying that the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms has given new rights and hopes to Canadian minorities. Now, we must provide them
October 28, 1982

with the means to have them recognized in their daily lives, because their political representatives here have willingly agreed to transfer part of their powers to Canadian courts, so that people must now have easy and inexpensive access to these courts.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, if this issue had not been raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), 1 should probably have raised it myself outside the House. Not that it is not in my view one of the most important elements of linguistic minorities, rights which have been guaranteed by the Constitutional reform last spring, but because in a just and democratic society, it is only normal and legitimate that the majority should facilitate court access to the individuals and minorities whose basic rights are being jeopardized.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you, if I may, that the request the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier made yesterday and is making again today is not exceptional. There have been several cases in our country where the Canadian government has provided financial assistance to individuals and groups who sought to challenge provincial or even federal legislations in court. I would remind them, for instance, that the Canadian Expropriation Act reimburses a plaintiff if he wins his case. The same applies to the Canada Pension Plan. The legal department does the same for veterans' pensions. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs finances individuals or groups under certain conditions when it is in the interest of the consumer. The Department of Justice and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs financed famous cases in the past, especially within the context of the James Bay project in Quebec, where the plaintiffs were awarded high legal costs. There is therefore nothing new in the request made this evening by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. He is right to point out that we have had since 1978 a program available to all Canadians and which was used effectively in Manitoba and Quebec to help financially those with claims under sections 93 and 133 to go before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I share wholeheartedly the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, and I can tell him that I hope I will be in a position by the end of the year to inform the House that a financial backing in support of Section 23 of the constitutional Act of 1981 will be brought about.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION ON SALE OF CROWN ZELLERBACH COMPANY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to cover a rather complicated subject quickly. It relates to the question I put yesterday in the House to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley).
The Government of Canada sees itself as supporting the forest industry in this country by subsidizing or providing
Adjournment Debate
incentives for house building. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) perhaps overestimated it in his remarks when he said that two sawmills could cut sufficient lumber to provide for the housing needs of Canada. In fact, even then, the forest industry of British Columbia would still be at a complete standstill.
I think the answer given by the Minister yesterday and the program put forward by the Prime Minister indicate a great depth of ignorance about the present situation in the forest industry in Canada.
I should like to point out several factors Mr. Speaker. First of all, there has been an abandonment of Canada by major U.S. forest companies which formerly had operations in this country. Rayonier of Canada has left. It sold its assets to Western Forest Products. International Paper has left. It sold its assets to Canadian Pacific Investments. Before us today is the prospect of Crown Zellerbach of Canada being sold to a New Zealand firm and, in fact, the parent company retrenching in the United States.
The interesting aspect of all those sales is that the firms left with one thing, and undoubtedly Crown Zellerbach will leave with this also; that is, a contract for the parent company, now an international competitor and no longer an operator in Canada. Those companies will have the responsibility for the international marketing of Canadian forest products. This is a disaster, Mr. Speaker, because our foreign competitors in the United States, which will no longer have an interest in Canada, will be responsible for selling Canadian forest products. This involves three major corporations, Mr. Speaker.
Another aspect of the forest industry is the fact that MacMillan Bloedel was recently the subject of a takeover by the Noranda Corporation. There is a persistent rumour that MacMillan Bloedel will be integrated, division by division, into the Noranda Corporation and that the corporate structure of that major forest producer, one of the strongest in the world with a major international marketing capability controlled by Canadians, will be broken. The integrity of that corporate structure will be broken and the efficiency lost to the Canadian international forest marketing effort. The disappearance of those four companies from the Canadian scene, taking with them their international marketing capability, would spell disaster, Mr. Speaker.
There is a question about why this is happening, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put forward three short ideas before the Parliamentary Secretary enlightens us on what the Canadian Government intends to do about this great structural problem other than the incentive.
The first question is why these companies would leave. I suggest it is because the forest industry and the forest resource in Canada has been treated like a mine and high-graded. What we are left with is the remnants in an impaired condition.
Over the years we have seen the alienation of a great deal of forest land and, I would say, the depletion of the capability, in many areas, of the forest soil as a result of poor management. In Canada the regeneration of the forest is an 80-year cycle

October 28, 1982
Adjournment Debate
compared to some sub-tropical regions and the southeastern United States where there is a 40-year regeneration period. In addition, in taking their allowable annual cut the forest companies have taken it out of valley bottoms, easily accessible areas where it has been cheap to log the trees. The trees that remain are up on the mountain slopes, in inaccessible regions, so it is going to be very expensive to get them out. Canadian forest resource material will no longer be competitive, therefore, with those companies that wisely husbanded their resources.
In short, Mr. Speaker, over the years we have seen our forests depleted by fire, by insect and disease-kill and by logging. We have not undertaken reforestation programs to replace the loss. Finally, our forest reserve is no longer what it was. Perhaps the American companies see that it is time to leave this country because the forest base is no longer here.
There is a second very serious aspect. Four of the major corporations which managed the forest and contributed $13 billion in earnings of foreign export credit in the country have left to return to the United States in an attempt to recapture the market there, to retrench there, to invest there and to reorganize its forests. If they obtain the co-operation of the administration in the United States to pace the recovery market and to fight off the intrusion or penetration of foreign competitors through agencies such as the International Trade Commission, and through some very skillful and very tough-minded trade bargaining, we will find that we will not be allowed into that market again. At the same time they have retained the responsibility for marketing the Canadian products that exist in the international market. It is clearly a suicide mission if there ever was one.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he would be prepared to intervene in the Crown Zellerbach sale through the mechanism of FIRA and through the direct intervention of the Canadian Government to ensure that the sale of this corporation was in the interests of Canadian people and in the interests of strengthening the Canadian forest industry rather than its fragmentation and gradual weakening. He did not appear to understand the depth of the problem and the doomsday scenario which face Canadians in this very vital industry.
Of course, the second aspect is the international marketing effort. There is a desperate need for a Canadian-controlled international forest products marketing corporation. I hope the Government wakes up in time basically to save this effort for Canadians.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer briefly the four questions put to me. We are dealing with the sale of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation of Canada Ltd., a subsidiary of the Crown Zellerbach Corporation of San Francisco. It is correct that this company is negotiating the sale of 84 per cent of its shares and right now, some Canadian as well as American companies have indicated their interest as possible buyers. First of all, I want to stress that an article in yesterday's Gazette mentioned the matter. Consequently, it is open for public discussion. In addition, I want to stress first that in the forestry sector as a whole sales have declined by more than 6 per cent in comparison with the same semester last year and second, that wood and paper shipments are down by 9.5 per cent. The fact that the industry is operating at only 80 per cent of capacity accounts for the fact that the American company wants to sell its Vancouver subsidiary. In any case, this very afternoon, the Department of Industry and Commerce received a telegram confirming that a New Zealand Firm, Fletcher Challenge Ltd., is currently negotiating with Crown Zellerbach of San Francisco the take over of the assets of the Canadian subsidiary. The negotiations have not been concluded, but they are being actively pursued, and as soon as an agreement is reached-if it ever is, because negotiations being what they are, a satisfactory outcome is by no means certain-the Hon. Member will so be advised. Obviously, before Fletcher Challenge Ltd., from New Zealand, can take over that company, namely Crown Zellerbach from Vancouver, it will have to abide by all FIRA's criteria and requirements which means, as Hon. Members know, that such a transaction must be beneficial to Canadians. Assuming the take over does take place, I want to assure the Hon. Member that the provinces concerned will be consulted as well on this matter. I realize that time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but there are three other matters I would like to raise. First, about the forest industry, it is a well known fact that DREE and the provinces have come to an agreement on the modernization of pulp and paper facilities; Second, there is an agreement on reforestation between the provinces and the federal government, under which the federal government pays large amounts to insure that Canadian forests be of high quality and protected against unstructured deforestation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 29, 1982