1982-02-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, Indian people living on reserves in northern Manitoba face exceptionally high costs for basic goods and services, yet increases in the federal social development rates are immediately effective for off-reserve Indians living in urban centres but not effective until much later on reserves, especially in the northern part of the province. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government move immediately to ensure that increases in social development moneys become effective at the same time as corresponding increases in provincial welfare funding, and that these increases be made retroactive to December 18, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, the Western Canada Concept Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party collectively achieved only 9,436 votes in last Wednesday's byelection in the Alberta Olds-Didsbury constituency.
During the past calendar year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spent 36 days in the southern hemisphere and only four days in western Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has bullied resource provinces about their constitutional right to ownership. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) listened to the views of the provinces on the Canadian Constitution only after being directed to do so by the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is attempting to impose beef marketing boards when they are unacceptable in western Canada. The Liberals keep talking about a western development fund which does not exist, and double tracking everything except the railways. In view of these facts I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister make a statement on motions to share with other political parties the secret of his political magic, that after such a dismal record the Liberals were able to double their vote from the last election to an amazing, unbelievable and overwhelming 130 votes in the constituency of Olds-Didsbury last Wednesday.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION CAMPAIGN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, this side of the House would like to offer its sympathies to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) on the movement of six federal cabinet ministers to support not his brother but Sheila Kopps in the leadership race of the Ontario Liberals. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House express its condolences to the hon. member and his family for this obvious lack of faith in the philosophical beliefs of the family, and express our sincere hope that this move in no way predicts the demise of the ambitions of the hon. member for Willowdale, namely, his running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, so his world can unfold as it should.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the consumer price index indicates today that home ownership costs have risen on an annual basis some 16.9 per cent and that rental costs have risen 7.8 per cent, much, if not all of this, attributable to exorbitant interest rates and a slowdown in home and apartment construction. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government immediately bring forward legislation which will reduce mortgage interest rates to an affordable level and embark upon a major

February 19, 1982
post-building program, in order to ensure that the projected need of 220,000 housing units will be met in the current year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that in the last three months more than 6,400 workers lost their jobs in Canadian shoe plants and in related supply companies because of the government's incomprehensive, relaxed quotas on shoe imports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the government take immediate action to change this policy in order to protect this very important Canadian industry from foreign footwear imports, where such companies rely on subsistence wages paid to their employees to produce their products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, today the Canadian housing industry faces an unprecedented crisis as new housing activity grinds to halt, workers are thrown out of jobs, and accommodation of all kinds is becoming increasingly hard to Find. Therefore I move, in keeping with the recent call of ten government members, including two ministers of the Crown, and seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House urge the government to consider a program of short-term stimulative spending to revitalize this essential industry, and suggest that perhaps the $600 million loan at 10 per cent interest to the Soviet Union, which EDC is presently negotiating, might be a good place to find the money.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, over
55,000	ordinary Polish citizens felt the weight of martial law in Poland as a result of a recent crackdown of might and authority. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this House show its displeasure to the continuation of martial law in Poland by following the lead of, first, the United States of America, then that of the United Kingdom and now that of West Germany, by imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions against that country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The new cost of living figures just released show an 11.4 per cent January-to-January over-all price increase in Canada, with the highest in the country being my home province of British Columbia at 13.4 per cent. The energy component of that increase was up an incredible 24 per cent, and we have yet to face the next increase at the gas pumps on March 2. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That, since the Liberal government's economic policy, especially in housing and in energy, stands indicted as bankrupt and since they do not propose to do anything about it, the House today dare the Prime Minister to call a general election and go to the people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] duo)


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Given that two years have passed since the Liberals weaseled their way back into power by promising a recession-free future, cheap energy, low inter-
February 19, 1982

est rates, restraint in government spending, affordable housing and a reduction in unemployment, and further given that every single one of these promises has been shattered, along with the hopes and dreams of millions of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That yesterday, February 18, be known as Disinheritage Day and, further, that Canadians fervently pray for the chance to throw those opposite into the political obscurity they so richly deserve.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As a result of the high interest, tight money restraint policies of the Liberal government, the number of unemployed has now ballooned to more than one million and the number of people applying for and drawing unemployment insurance benefits has increased dramatically. Since there has been little, if any, increase in the staff of the unemployment insurance organization servicing unemployment insurance claims, this has led to complaints from many parts of Canada that the time for processing claims has increased substantially. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration be instructed to take steps to increase the staff of the unemployment insurance organization so that claimants can get the quick processing of their claims to which they are entitled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Ever since the last election the government's policies have been antagonizing the people of Canada. For example, the metric measurement system is being forced on them; the national energy policy is driving millions of investment dollars, vast amounts of equipment and expertise out of the country;
the government's high interest rates are bankrupting businesses and farms; the budget is killing initiative and investment, destroying the hopes of farmers and businessmen to look after themselves and their loved ones in their old age and as well a million people are unemployed, etc., etc. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Liberals change their priorities forthwith because their present policies are leading to the break-up of this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The focus on offshore exploration on the Atlantic coast of Canada resulting from the disaster on the Ocean Ranger exposes the unfairness of the unilateral imposition by the Government of Canada of an arbitrary deadline for settlement of the federal-provincial dispute on jurisdiction, which has caused even greater rancour and friction. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to withdraw his deadline for settlement of the Atlantic offshore resources dispute which has precluded development of good faith and rational compromise in the negotiations to the detriment of all parties involved and at great cost to the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Some members of the New Democratic Party have been creating the illusion that they would not change the Crow rate if they were in government. Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan is quoted in the January, 1982, edition of Business Life as follows:
... it is very important to distinguish between the current level of the Crow rate and the principle of having a statutory rate. Some people take the position that

February 19, 1982
Oral Questions
there ought not to be a rate for the movement of grain set by the Government of Canada ... We believe that a statutory rate absolutely must be retained.
Therefore, since it is clear that the policy of the NDP is not to keep the Crowsnest Pass rate, but some kind of a statutory rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the NDP commit itself immediately to full public support of Liberal attempts to change the Crowsnest Pass rate so its public position reflects its real position, which is to abandon the Crow rate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
U5)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who last year indicated he requested his special assistant, Mr. W. A. B. Anderson, to prepare a report with respect to the government's loss of $125 million in Consolidated Computer Inc. Would the minister indicate if he has received the report, is it in any way critical of the government's handling of this matter, and what action may we expect in future?
Has he, for example, specifically asked the law officers of the Crown if any grounds for prosecution exist, and may we have the report tabled if he has already received it?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I have indeed received the report. It has been reviewed by my colleagues in Treasury Board who commissioned the report in the first instance. I am bringing forward certain recommendations to my cabinet colleagues, I hope within the next several days, with respect to the report and its disposition.


PROPOSAL TO BUY GOVERNMENT'S SHARES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will put my next question to the Minister of Finance. It deals again with the Anderson report which we have a copy of, and which the minister has just confirmed he has received.
As the Minister of Finance undoubtedly knows, Mr. Anderson pointed out that Department of Finance officials spoke glowingly of the Consolidated Computer Company, and in fact about a year and a half ago Mr. John McDonald-Brown, a
known Liberal at all levels in the province of Nova Scotia, became president and chief executive officer of that company at a salary of $110,000 annually. He was also a director and board member of the Enterprise Development Board.
I ask the minister is he aware that Mr. Anderson pointed out in his report that Mr. Brown in turn submitted a formal application, on behalf of himself and some associates, to purchase the government's shares? At that point, therefore, Mr. Brown was simultaneously a member of EDB which controlled the shares being offered for sale, the chairman and president of the company whose shares-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -were up for sale, and an applicant to purchase the shares. Is the minister aware of this and how-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -can he explain that to the House?


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he should not be elaborating at that length and that he should make his question a bit briefer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware of the statement made by Mr. Anderson, and has he any explanation of why there was that possible conflict as revealed by Mr. Anderson?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter raised by the hon. member.


INQUIRY OF PRIME MINISTER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the revelations made in the Anderson report and, in view of the fact that the report makes it very clear that there has been gross incompetence on the part of his ministers, has he asked for a full explanation as to why there was such incompetence, and specifically for the resignation of at least the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet seen the report. I understand it was only tabled in Treasury Board yesterday and it will take a little time for the ministers to analyse it.


TRUST COMPANY SHARES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who will know that in this mess there were two corporations, one called Financeco, and a subsidiary, where one share was held by the National Trust Company as trustee for three Toronto hospitals. I would ask the minister if he would name
February 19, 1982

the hospitals, and will he tell us if there are any other corporations created by the Enterprise Development Board or any other board wherein hospitals are named as nom de plumes for shares, or where trust companies hold the shares. This is done to avoid proper disclosure in financial statements. It is a ruse and a deceitful method of burying losses and guarantees made by the government for business purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think it is unfair and prejudicial to make these kinds of accusations in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: -on the basis of a report which we commissioned with respect to the affairs of Consolidated Computer because we were interested in getting at the facts to try to determine what went wrong with respect to the business corporation and to ensure that steps were taken to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
In response to a question in this House some time ago, I indicated the purpose of the investigation. The investigation has now been completed. A report has been tabled in the Treasury Board, as the Prime Minister has indicated, and recommendations will be made to my colleagues. I spoke in this House at an earlier point in response to a question last year. At that time I said that I had no objection to the results of this report being tabled in the House. However, my colleagues will have to look at the report. I hope to make a statement some time in the course of next week, or certainly in the very near future.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTERIAL ACTIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my supplemental question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is now entering the chamber.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Aha!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister will know that he was fully briefed, upon taking his responsibilities as minister in 1980, concerning the problems of Consolidated Computer and, of course, Financeco and Finecomp Inc. He will know that he was advised that the companies were in very serious difficulty and that there was that clear ruse whereby one company was supposedly separate from the other company when in fact they were both managed and controlled by the Enterprise Development Board. The Enterprise Development Board was banker, guarantor and manager of both corporations.
Will he advise this House why he did not immediately order a consolidated balance sheet? Why did he allow the ruse of two separate companies to continue? Why did he continue the deceit? Why did he not immediately terminate the matter and terminate the employees who created this deceitful situation?
Oral Questions
Why are these employees still working for the Enterprise Development Board despite the advice they have given to the government, and despite the clear conflicts of interest?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, when I became minister I found certain situations in place which had been put there as a result of actions under previous governments. Over the period I was minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -with the assistance of my colleagues I took decisions which have led to the matter being wound up and brought to an end. I think that is the important part.


Mr. Siddon:: $100 million worth!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As the situation evolved, the matter was brought to an end after study by myself and my colleagues. We are certainly learning from that experience in terms of future action and future re-organization.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Oh, $125 million!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Figures which were released today show that home ownership costs are up by 16.9 per cent; transportation costs are up by 16.9 per cent; and energy costs are up by a whopping 24 per cent. Considering these horrific figures, and also the fact that, for each of the past three years, wage and salary increases of workers in Canada have fallen behind the rate of inflation, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state, in clear-cut terms, that the Government of Canada will not impose wage controls in any form on any group of workers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: You put them there!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the figures I have indicate that the 12-month rise from January, 1981, stood at 11.4 per cent, which is down from the 12-month rise from-


John Edward Broadbent: Miscalculation!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the month before. Therefore I do not think this is great news, but it is not the bad news which the hon.

February 19, 1982
Oral Questions
member is putting forth. The cost of living is coming down. The hon. member should preface his question by stating that.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister would read his briefing book a little more carefully he would find out that there was a slight drop in food prices, because the period of survey which was done-


Mr. Lalonde:: For what?


John Edward Broadbent: -for food prices, was very limited. However, I spoke to him about energy prices, transportation prices and housing. Now will he answer the question? The incomes of workers, during each of the past three years, have risen less rapidly than cost increases. Even the Minister of Finance has said in recent weeks that workers have not been causing inflation. Will he take the opportunity to make it clear that the Government of Canada will not impose, on any group of workers, a system of wage controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have no intention of imposing price and wage controls.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I welcome that assurance. Maybe now we can get a commitment from the government to move on prices which are actually affecting Canadians. I refer to housing in particular. Since the cost of home ownership went up almost 17 per cent, and considering that the banks, in spite of a slight decline in interest rates, are still increasing mortgages, and considering there is a great shortage of housing, will the government do two things-force the banks to bring down the level of mortgages, and take steps to increase the supply of housing across Canada, which would put Canadians to work and provide homes for those Canadians who need them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the minister responsible for housing said to the House yesterday-perhaps the hon. member was not listening-one way of increasing the supply of housing would be to put through this House the bill which will increase the supply of housing. I appeal to members opposite to co-operate with us, if they are sincere in saying that this country needs more housing.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with the use of French in air navigation.
Notwithstanding an unfavourable judgment by the Superior Court, yesterday, the Minister of Transport announced that Canada would continue to act as though the Deschenes judgment were still valid. To what extent can the minister give us the assurance that the government will maintain yesterday's commitment, and would he go so far as to ask the President of Air Canada to make a similar statement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 1 find this question somewhat surprising, but I was expecting it and have asked the President of Air Canada to write to me about this. The letter is now under way and as soon as it arrives I shall have a copy of it sent to my honourable colleague.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
Considering that the Minister of State for Quebec affairs has maintained that with this judgment, there were two courses of action open to the government, namely, the Attorney General or the Commissioner of Official Languages could bring the matter before the Supreme Court, or Parliament could decide to amend the Official Languages Act, my question is: could the minister inform us today which course of action his government intends to take?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Minister of State):: Madam Speaker, in the first eventuality, respondents have 30 days to decide whether to appeal, so they must be allowed this time to decide.
In the case of amendments to the Official Languages Act, the hon. member is probably aware that the Commissioner of Official Languages has proposed a number of changes in the commission's annual reports, and the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House which examines the reports would also have an opportunity to make recommendations which would certainly be considered by the cabinet, and the government would advise the House, as appropriate, of any action it intends to take.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
February 19, 1982

Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the progress of Candu sales in Mexico?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my recollection is that the bids were to be put in by February 1, that Canada has put a bid in and, if my recollection is correct, a decision will be made some time in July or August-I hear the minister saying September, We will hope for the best, and perhaps encourage the hon. member to go there and flaunt the advantages of the Candu system which, as the hon. member knows, is the best in the world. We might even arrange for him to ride a horse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROLE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL
Steve Eugene Paproski: I appreciate the Prime Minister's suggestion. Can the Prime Minister advise the House if the "G.G." is now one of his salesmen for Candu reactors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know to whom the hon. member is referring.


Steve Eugene Paproski: His Excellency the Governor General, who will be visiting Romania. Is he now one of the salesmen for the Government of Canada, and will he be selling Candu reactors? Is that his job?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I imagine it would be against the rules of the House to draw the monarchy into this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This past week four more Lloydminster area oil field service companies have gone into receivership, throwing into jeopardy some 150 jobs. Many others are facing bankruptcy unless there are significant changes to the National Energy Program. Would the minister tell the House what he plans to do about this very serious situation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that the forecast expenditures by the oil and gas companies in Canada during 1982 will be significantly higher than they were last year, and even higher than they were in 1980. It is foreseen that the oil and gas companies' expenditures during the course of this year will increase by over 39 per cent-


Mr. Andre:: Would you like to bet on that?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: -while the expenditures for all companies in Canada would be around only 21 per cent. It is again quite clear that the expenditures in the oil and gas field will be leading the industrial sector in this country during 1982.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has refused to answer the question I put to him. That will be noted.


SHUTDOWN OF OIL WELLS IN LLOYDMINSTER AREA
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the House why Husky Oil, which is located in the Lloydminster area, has been forced to take 300 wells out of production since the National Energy Program came into existence, thereby throwing people out of work and jeopardizing our bid to attain oil self-sufficiency? When will the minister realize the harsh impact of the National Energy Program and withdraw it, or change it substantially so we can again move toward achieving self-sufficiency and putting Canadians to work?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that during the course of last year, previous to the agreement which was reached with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the government of Alberta decided to cut back production significantly. The cutbacks went as high as 120,000 barrels a day. Much of the impact of that cutback fell on the wells like the ones referred to by the hon. member because those wells were producing heavier crude, which was mixed with the light crude-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That happens to be in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: You have the wrong province.


Marc Lalonde: -which was mixed with the light crude produced by Alberta.


An hon. Member:: You have the wrong province.


Marc Lalonde: This has resulted in many of those wells not yet being back in production.


Harvie Andre: You know that is not true.


An hon. Member:: You have got the wrong province.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: We expect some of that production to come back as the demand picks up but, as the hon. member also knows, there has been a significant decline in the demand for oil products in the course of the last year, not only in Canada but in all western countries.
Again, I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that expenditures in the oil and gas field during the course of

February 19, 1982
Oral Questions
1982 will be close to 40 per cent higher than they were last year.


Erik Nielsen: In a pig's ear.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has been brought to my attention that a number of life insurance policyholders have received information slips for the 1981 tax year indicating that they must pay tax on interest income earned on their life insurance policies.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: I have one of those also.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: These policyholders have been informed by their life insurance companies that they are required to pay tax on this income because of the tax changes contained in the November 12 budget. Would the minister please indicate if the budget is indeed the cause of these slips being sent to policyholders?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there is no provision in the budget which would necessitate sending out taxation slips affecting the year 1981. If that is happening, it is either as a result of a misunderstanding of the impact of the budget by the insurance industry, or a misunderstanding on the part of policyholders.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On December 1 last year the government removed the import quotas on leather shoes. I think we all know about the lay-offs and tremendous hardship faced by that industry across the country. We also know about the joint appeal by the trade unionists representing the workers and the industry that we need some kind of protection for the Canadian industry, otherwise we will be at the mercy of offshore prices in a few years. Will the minister tell the House whether or not he will accede to the wishes of the workers and the industry that at least half of the Canadian domestic market be protected for the Canadian producers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the policy which we announced last fall reflected the findings of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal which
said that our industry was able to meet competition from developed countries, including state trading countries. These were the sources of most of our imports of leather shoes. Therefore the policy in question indicated that we would not only continue the quota protection we had previously on non-leather footwear, but we would extend that to the kinds of non-leather footwear which had not previously been covered. But as the hon. member pointed out, we would not be continuing the quota system on leather footwear.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: At the same time, we created a $17 million fund to assist in the modernization and increased competitiveness of the total footwear sector to be administered by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. It is certainly our intention to have a modern, stronger footwear sector, with all that means for the workers in that sector.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With respect to representations which were made yesterday, as I said, we certainly will be willing to consider them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I simply wanted to know whether the minister will reconsider the position since we are having trouble meeting competition. We have some real problems in that industry.


LEATHER FOOTWEAR IMPORTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question. Three weeks ago, on January 27, the task force on the footwear industry in Quebec, whose members represent labour, the industry and the government of Quebec, sent a telex to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion requesting restrictions on imports of leather footwear. However, the Minister failed to reply. Why?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, first of all, I should point out that the government wants to help the footwear industry and its workers to compete on international markets, not only through our quota system but also through our modernization program. We intend to meet spokesmen for all areas of the industry and to continue the discussions started last December on the aspects of the situation mentioned in the telegram. Only yesterday, several of my cabinet colleagues had a very useful meeting with senior spokesmen for the industry.
February 19, 1982


EDUCATION
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the various statements made by Quebec with respect to fiscal arrangements and post-secondary education, could the Secretary of State tell us exactly what the government's official policy is with respect to renewal of fiscal arrangements and whether it also concerns post-secondary education, and could the minister inform us whether or not the Canadian government intends to get involved in the activities of the Quebec Department of Education at this level, as was said recently by the Quebec Minister of Education?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is that we are not totally satisfied with the arrangement which has existed since 1977 for block transfers to the provinces in relation to postsecondary education. At the first ministers' meeting the Prime Minister made an offer to the provinces that, despite that dissatisfaction, we would continue block funding transfers for at least two more years and that we would augment the amount by some 12 per cent a year, if the provinces in turn would agree not to lessen their percentage share of the cost of education further. In no way is that, or the desire to talk about national objectives, which was also expressed by the Prime Minister at that time, an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We have no intention and no desire to participate in the actual direction of post-secondary education, and we have totally recognized the traditional primacy of the provinces in that regard.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On July 27 the Surrey RCMP filed a warrant for the arrest of Clifford Olson. On the twenty-eighth Clifford Olson was drinking while driving down King George Highway with another young man in the car and two teenage girls. He did a U-turn on the highway and was apprehended and taken into custody. On the twenty-ninth he was released, even though the original warrant issued two days previously had not been served, and two days later the charges were dropped, even though he had been under surveillance because he had been linked to the murders. Why?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, that question has been asked of the attorney general of British Columbia, and he has given an answer to it which I think
Oral Questions
should stand. I agree with the answer he gave. I asked the Commissioner of the RCMP to review the investigation of Clifford Robert Olson, and he confirmed for me recently, as I indicated to the House, that he was satisfied with the management of the operation, including that particular aspect.


STATEMENT MADE BY PROSECUTOR
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General wants to be the senior officer for the RCMP, but he does not want to be accountable. He either should give up the responsibility and therefore not be accountable, or do the reverse.
When Clifford Olson appeared in court on July 31 the prosecutor claimed that he knew nothing of the 92 convictions of Clifford Olson or of the outstanding warrants for his arrest. Why did he not know about that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of the statement made by the prosecutor. If the hon. member will give me details of his allegation of what the prosecutor said, I will look into them and try to confirm them.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. While it is based on his announcement of February 8 with respect to proposed changes in the Crow rate, my question is not specifically about that, so I am not looking for a prorated Crow-rated answer.
In light of the fact that there is across the prairies a large number of Canadian Transport Commission hearings into the abandonment of railways, at which the railway companies make their cases primarily on the basis of dollar loss, and in view of the fact that if the minister's intentions respecting changes to the Crow rate are realized the principal evidence upon which the railway companies make their applications for abandonment will no longer apply, will the minister cancel or postpone all CTC announcements with respect to branch line abandonment until after the legislation he is intending to introduce has been dealt with?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not think I should do that. The system is a statutory one. There are a number of branch lines coming up for abandonment or otherwise at the moment. The rate to replace the Crowsnest rate has not been determined yet in specific terms, so I think I should let the system operate as it does normally.
By the way, I do not think one should overdramatize what the hon. member is talking about now because 83 per cent of the whole railway branch line system of western Canada is still in the basic network, guaranteed to the year 2000. We are

February 19, 1982
Oral Questions
talking about only 17 per cent. I know this is very important to some individuals, but one should not give the impression of dramatic negative prospects the hon. member has tried to create.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister knows there could be no overdramatizing to the people of those communities who may lose their rail service.


DISMANTLING OF RAILWAY FACILITIES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, if the minister cannot do what I asked in my first question, would he consider, in all those cases in which the CTC does recommend abandonment, issuing instructions to elevator companies and to railway companies not to dismantle any facilities until after the debate on the Crow rate has taken place in Parliament, and will he put in place a right of appeal so that the communities along those lines which were suggested for abandonment can resubmit their cases on the basis of new evidence, where in fact the new arrangement may very well make it such that the railway companies are not losing money? Can that right of appeal be guaranteed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not really think I have to do that because this is part of the system. Every one of these decisions of the CTC is subject to appeal to the minister anyway, but I will look into this because this is a possibility. I am obviously not trying to create drama. I am obviously trying to make people feel as comfortable as possible in these changing circumstances. I will give a lot of attention to the suggestion made by the hon. member this morning.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Some time ago I had occasion to travel in an RCMP aircraft which was going around from settlement to settlement picking up prisoners. As the prisoners were put onto the place, they were handcuffed. In one instance this included a 16-year-old girl who had been convicted of a minor liquor offence and could not be considered dangerous at all.
The minister will recall that I spoke to him privately about this, about a year ago. I wonder if he could tell us now whether those handcuffing regulations are still in force on RCMP aircraft, because with normal commercial carriers the policy is the other way around; prisoners are not handcuffed unless absolutely necessary.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have also travelled on those planes transporting suspects and inmates.


An hon. Member:: Handcuffed?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, I was not handcuffed, and neither were several of the inmates who were on board. I will look into the particular circumstances of the 16-year-old girl. Obviously I have no knowledge of that, but it is not a standard requirement that all suspects be handcuffed or that all inmates be handcuffed on those trips.
 * *


FARM CREDIT ACT
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance should know that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture is presently considering Bill C-88, the amendments to the Farm Credit Act. That is an important bill, and it holds a great deal of potential. However, that potential will not be maximized unless we get certain commitments, not from the Minister of Agriculture but, rather, from the Minister of Finance. In the interest of the agricultural industry, would the Minister of Finance be prepared to make an appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the bill is in the competent hands of the Minister of Agriculture, I see no need for going before the committee.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance does not understand the bill, and I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance does not care enough to give an hour to the agricultural industry.


BUDGET PROVISIONS
John Wise: Madam Speaker, there is a second important reason why the minister should make an appearance. In view of the confusion, I wonder if the minister would reconsider his position and appear before the standing committee in an effort to demonstrate that his new forward-averaging provision in the budget fully replaces the income-averaging annuity contracts and the capital gains reserve which were two important measures that were in place prior to his budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. 1 have argued that the new forward-averaging system is, in some cases, more beneficial to farmers than the replaced income-averaging annuity contract. We have been able to make that case to individual farmers and to various groups. When the tax bills go before the committee, then we will have a full opportunity to discuss these matters and to give hon. members all the information so that they can then argue the point.

February 19, 1982_________________________


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the lay-off of 700 employees of a railway car plant in Nova Scotia next month. The transportation law of Canada requires the railroads to provide suitable accommodation for all traffic offered, yet there are not enough cars to ship potatoes, there are not enough cars to ship livestock, there are not enough cars to ship fresh fruit and vegetables, and there are not enough cars to ship grain. Under the authority that he has in the law, will the minister require the railroads to begin systematically placing orders for the railway rolling stock that is now in short supply so that these lay-offs may be prevented?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend has cases that he wants to bring to my attention, even if they are not terribly well documented, I will take them to the railways immediately and try to obtain justification for the lack of car capacity. Without that, 1 really cannot see what 1 can do.
With regard to the last part of the member's question which I understood to mean that he wanted some more activity in the car construction industry, I can reassure him on that because the commitment the government made for the purchase of 1,280 hopper cars will be implemented very, very soon.


GOVERNMENT ORDER FOR HOPPER CARS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, very very soon is not soon enough. The minister has been telling us about these 1,280 hopper cars for quite some time but they still have have not been ordered. Will the minister assure the House and the workers scheduled for lay-off in Trenton, Nova Scotia, that the orders for them will be placed forthwith and that orders will be staged for the other 4,000 cars required, so that no one is laid off until all the 5,300 grain hopper cars that are needed are built? Will the minister move on this matter immediately, so that lay-offs do not occur?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is a good reason for the short delay. At the moment we are considering whether to lease the cars, or buy and pay for them now. A good discussion is going on about this and there is justification for it. If we pay for them now, the cost will have to be deducted from the $1.35 billion assigned for the purpose by the Minister of Finance, and so there will be less money for other purposes. It is a good point of debate which we will finish with soon and then make a decision.
Oral Questions


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. One of the most crucial issues of concern to the Canadian legal profession is that which deals with the national mobility of lawyers. It has become apparent that a whole new approach is required to allow Canadian lawyers to move with ease from province to province, as is the case with doctors.
Can the Prime Minister advise of any discussions currently under way, or which are planned among the various bar societies, or at the level of law schools, aimed at reciprocity of membership for practising lawyers transferring from one provincial bar to another, or whether a common national examination for graduate law students is under consideration similar to the Canadian Medical Council qualifying examination in medicine, in order to facilitate the mobility of lawyers in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any hard discussions between the various provincial bars or in the Canadian Bar Association itself. 1 shall have to report the hon. member's concern on this matter to the Minister of Justice.
I would remind the hon. member, however, that when we discussed the constitutional problem with the provinces, one of our concerns was precisely that shared by the hon. member. We insisted on the importance of having a mobility clause in the Constitution with a view to permitting Canadians of different occupations in society to have the mobility within the Canadian union. Of course, we were partly successful and partly unsuccessful. 1 share the hon. member's concern in general, and 1 will report the hon. member's question in particular to the Minister of Justice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In order to demonstrate Canada's extreme concern regarding the acceleration of the repression of human rights in Poland, will the minister consider the application of sanctions on the export and transfer of uranium hexafluoride and other elements of the nuclear fuel cycle to east bloc nations?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question of sanctions against Poland with respect to the present situation there is under consideration by the cabinet. I hope to be able to make an announcement in due course.

February 19, 1982
Oral Questions


SAFEGUARDS AGAINST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND ACCIDENTS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's recent condemnation of the Soviet Union I would have expected a simple sanction would be rather obvious.
In view of the implications of last year's United Nations' report on nuclear proliferation and control of the nuclear fuel cycle processes, which suggested that proliferation of potential accidents during transfer was inevitable if strong measures were not implemented immediately, has the minister succeeded in his efforts to ensure that nuclear proliferation or accident in transfer will not occur.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the question of spillage during nuclear transfer is a very serious one and a very technical one to which the appropriate bodies of this government address themselves.
As to the political aspect of non-proliferation, that is a foremost concern of the government. We have been active in this field in the last year in particular, trying to ensure the highest possible standards of non-proliferation. I may say that there is no country in the world that has higher standards than Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In a few days Canada and the United States begin the next series of negotiations toward a bilateral accord on acid rain. There is every indication in Washington that the United States negotiators are not at all interested in bringing those negotiations to an early and successful conclusion. Given the fact that little progress is in sight, will the Prime Minister seek a meeting with the President of the United States to press Canada's case directly with him in this most important area?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that the next phase of negotiations will begin on February 24. The federal government has specific and important proposals to place before the United States administration at that time. I think the next necessary step is to see what reactions those proposals receive.


REASONS FOR MINISTER'S VIEW
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has been giving the House very Pollyanna reports on the state of Canada's negotiations with the United States on acid rain. What is his reason for such
optimism, especially in light of the fact that the United States government has slashed the budget of the environmental protection agency, has signalled its intention to emasculate the clean air act in that country, and has appointed lackeys of industry to all of the most important environmental posts? What is the rationale for the optimistic view that the minister continues to present to the House?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has just confused my cheerful personality with Pollyanna. I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic. These are difficult negotiations. We are certainly not optimistic that they will be concluded successfully, but neither are we pessimistic that they will inevitably fail. There are issues of dispute between the two countries in relation to these matters. So far the United States has maintained and committed itself to the negotiating schedule which was originally presented. The negotiations are on track. There are still questions to be resolved. There is no need for excessive pessimism, and there is no reason for excessive optimism.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-648, respecting access to information on governor in council appointments.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the officers and directors of Crown corporations, boards, commissions and agencies constitute a parallel public service, and the Canadian public has a right to know the salaries and positions these people enjoy. This is especially important when public bodies are established to carry out policies of government, and even more so where the government or a minister is the shareholder. Since there was evidence yesterday before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that it was government policy which was prohibiting the promulgation of that information, I think it is doubly important that the public be provided with the means for easy access to such information which should be within the public domain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
February 19, 1982

[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. 2,096, 3,454, 3,514, 3,568 and 3,613.


Mr. McGrath: Was there an allocation of 17 metric tons of squid made to Japan last year and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what did Canada receive in return?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes. Japan received 2,250 tonnes of squid from the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and 14,750 tonnes from Canada for the 1980 season.
(a)	Pursuant to treaty obligations and the consensus at the Law of the Sea Conference, Canada is obliged to allow other countries to fish in Canadian waters for fish surplus to Canadian requirements. Our general policy in the distribution of squid which Canadians cannot catch has been to allocate it to countries that consume it, as opposed to giving it to countries that simply compete with Canada on the world squid market. The Japanese are the world's chief squid consumers and Japan is far and away the major importer of squid from Canada. This allocation was supported unanimously by provincial and industry representatives.
(b)	In return for the squid allocation to Japan, the Japanese government made undertakings to ensure that a satisfactory trading relationship in squid products would be maintained between the two countries. In 1980, more than 20,000 tonnes of Canadian caught squid was sold to Japanese interests. These sales represented more than 20 per cent of Japan's 1980 squid and cuttlefish imports. Canadian squid sales in 1979 represented only 10 per cent of Japan's imports.


Mr. Cossitt: Was an examination made or will one be made of demand issue vouchers issued in the past several years at Millhaven Institution near Kingston and, if so, is there any evidence indicating purchases were made with funds taken from categories in which the purchases would not ordinarily belong?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Yes, the following audits were carried out:
At Millhaven Institution: October, 1978, by the Audit Services Bureau; November, 1981, by the Inspector General's Branch of the Correctional Service of Canada.
At Regional Headquarters, Kingston, Ontario: December, 1980, by the Inspector General's Branch. As Ontario has a
Order Paper Questions
centralized accounts payable function, the financial records of all institutions in the region were checked at this time, including Millhaven.
Yes, evidence was found of purchases made through normal budget transfer procedures. No irregularities were found in the system or in the processing of demand issue vouchers.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Which penitentiaries have applied for accreditation to the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections and, in each case (a) how many times and on what dates (b) did the Board of Commissioners render a decision and, if so, what was it?
2.	Is it the policy of the Solicitor General to make public the report of the auditors who investigated the penitentiary on behalf of the commission?
3.	What is the cost to the Correctional Service to seek accreditation for each penitentiary?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
Commencement Date	Institution
December 5, 1978	Springhill Institution, Springhill, N.S.
December 5, 1978	Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester, N.B.
January 11, 1980	Westmorland Institution, Dorchester, N.B.
January 11, 1980	Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford, B.C.
January 11, 1980	Mission Institution, Mission, B.C.
January 11, 1980	Kent Institution, Agassiz, B.C.
January 11, 1980	Drumhellcr Institution, Drumhellcr, Alberta
January 11, 1980	Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert, Sask.
January 11, 1980	Millhaven Institution, Bath, Ontario
January 11,1980	Prison for Women, Kingston, Ontario
January 11,1980	Frontenac Institution, Kingston, Ontario
January 11, 1980	Leclcrc Institution, Laval, Quebec
January 11,1980	Cowansvillc Institution, Cowansvillc, Quebec
January 11, 1980	Regional Reception Centre, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec
January 11,1980	Ste-Annc-des-Plaines Institution, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec
April 6, 1981	William Head Institution, Victoria, B.C.

February 19, 1982
April 6, 1981
April 6, 1981
April 6, 1981
April 6, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Stony Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain, Manitoba
Federal Training Centre.
Laval, Quebec
Rockwood Institution,
Stony Mountain, Manitoba
Saskatchewan Farm Institution, Prince Albert, Sask.
The initial activities of three of the above institutions were postponed, and they began the preparation of self-evaluation reports again on April 6, 1981. The institutions are:
Prison for Women,
Kingston, Ontario
Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Institution,
Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec
Westmorland Institution,
Dorchester, N.B.
(b) Yes. Three institutions have thus far reached the final stage of the accreditation process and received accreditation awards. The three facilities are:
Springhill Institution,
Springhill, N.S.
Accredited on September 27, 1979
Dorchester Penitentiary,
Dorchester, N.B.
Accredited on April 18, 1980
1.	Yes, the first conference of ministers of culture of member countries of the Cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency (CTCA) was held at Cotonou, in the People's Republic of Benin between September 14 and 19, 1981. Member countries of the cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency in attendance included: Belgium, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Comoro Islands, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Dominica, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Upper Volta, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mali, Mauritius, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, Vietnam and Zaire.
2.	Ministers of culture of member countries of the CTCA met on September 18 and 19, 1981, following expert working sessions held September 14, 15, 16 and 17. The aim of the ministers' meetings was to discuss major current cultural questions, to approve draft resolutions submitted by the experts, and to adopt the Declaration of Cotonou. In their speeches, ministers also made suggestions for activities that might be included by the Cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency secretariat in its regular program for the next two years. Many of the minister's suggestions, including some of those made by Canada's Minister of Communications, were incorporated in the draft of the regular program, submitted by the agency secretariat to the general conference of the Cultural and Technical Co-operation Agency, which is CTCA's supreme decision-making body. The general conference approved the draft program for 1982-83, at Libreville, Gabon in December, 1981.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Not applicable.
Millhaven Institution,
Bath, Ontario
Accredited on May 21, 1981
2.	No. It is neither the practice nor the policy of the Commission on Accreditation or its clients to release details of reports as they deal with all procedural aspects, including security and crisis response. However, decisions on accreditation, both positive and negative, are disclosed.
3.	The actual cost of auditing an institution is based on $750 (U.S.) per consultant auditor day. To audit an institution, three auditors normally require three days to assess the facility, at a total cost of $6,750 (U.S.). In addition, staff time is required to complete the process in the institution.


Mr. Bosley: 1.	Was a conference of ministers of culture held in Benin from September 14 to 19, 1981 and, if so. which member countries attended?
2.	Was an action program agreed to by the ministers and, if so (a) what was it (b) what commitments did Canada make to it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount is included in the 1981-82 main estimates and supplementary estimates for PEMD grants and is it anticipated that the full amount will be expended?
2.	What was the total amount spent on the grants in each of the past five years?
3.	Are recipients of the grants expected to repay part or all of the amount received and, if so, what is the basis for the repayment and what is the period of time during which the commitment continues?
4.	Do the percentages paid on sales go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, if so, what amount was received by the fund from the repayment of the grants (a) in the current fiscal year to date (b) in each of the past five years?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	The 1981/82 main estimates and supplementary estimates include a sum of $17,593,000 for PEMD and it is anticipated that the full amount will be expended.
2.	Amount spent for the past five years:
1976/77	$	4,963,0001977/78	$	5,664,0001978/79	$	7,139,0001979/80	$10,956,0001980/81	$	8.975,000
February 19, 1982

3.	Recipients are required to repay part or all of the amount received provided the PEMD export marketing activity is successful. Terms of repayment, based on the type of activity supported, are as follows:
(i)	For bidding on specific projects, repayment in two equal instalments of the department's contribution, the first within six months and the second within 12 months following the signing of the foreign contract; and
(ii)	For other sections of the program, repayment of the department's contribution is at the rate of 1 per cent of reported sales resulting from the supported activities for a period of five to seven years from the effective date of the PEMD agreement.
(Note: Effective September, 1981, repayment rate increased to 2 per cent of reported sales and period reduced to three years).
4.	Yes.
(a)	In current year to January 31, 1982, $630,000.
(b)	During the past five years:
1976/77	$ 88,000
1977/78	$255,000
1978/79	$470,000
1979/80	$630,000
1980/81	$456,000


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, yesterday I raised a point of order concerning question No. 30. I think it was the twenty-first point of order I have raised over a period of what was, yesterday, the anniversary of that question being placed on the Order Paper five years, eight months and seven days ago. Today it is eight days, tomorrow it will be nine days and so on, but nothing has happened.
I did not intend to rise again today, except that overnight a person-and I will not identify him for obvious reasons-in the Canadian Transport Commission contacted me and told me the specific reasons the answer is being withheld. Whether or not this is accurate, I cannot say. One reason is that the list would reveal severe conflict of interest between certain people involved in this matter. After all, CTC governs Air Canada, yet Air Canada is distributing passes to the CTC and to some of its associates. Also I was told that another reason the government hesitates to answer is the second part of the question, wherein I asked: Did the wives or personal associates-I am told the words the government does not want to answer are "personal associates"-of any members of the CTC or officials of the CTC hold passes on Air Canada?
Order Paper Questions
1 do not know why the government has been trying to hide something for five years, eight months and eight days; there must be something pretty serious. Yesterday I said in jest, "What is the story about Benson and his boys?" Quite frankly, a senior official of the department told me that 1 might better have said, "What about the girls involved too?"
1 think it is time we had an answer. This is getting to the point where I think it is bloody shocking. If they are using government funds to give passes to people who are not government employees and so on-


An hon. Member:: Girl friends.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Girl friends, yes, I will say that too-then I think it is a pretty serious situation. After five years, eight months and eight days, it is time the parliamentary secretary got off his rump, stood up and told us what the devil is going on or why the government does not answer.
1 see the President of the Privy Council grinning. Maybe behind that grin, being a high official in government, he knows the answer which the parliamentary secretary does not know. What have they been hiding for this period of time? I should like to know; let us have an answer.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I told the hon. member yesterday that 1 would look into it. We have a good record in answering questions on the Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: As of today, we have answered 2,785 questions on the Order Paper during this session alone. A very large number of those came from the hon. member for Leeds-Gren-ville. With regard to the rumours to which he referred, I cannot comment on them. I hope he has the courage to repeat them outside the House; he may well end up in court if he does.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, since it is an allotted day, I do not think hon. members opposite would like it if we take up their time. Therefore, 1 invite the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville to discuss this matter with me outside the House. If he wants, 1 could bring a few reporters.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to take more than 60 seconds, because I know it is an allotted day and I do not want to take up too much time. But in effect the parliamentary secretary threatened me a moment ago. I do not think any member has to take that kind of thing when he rises and asks for legitimate information. In the figures, facts and all the baloney about percentages, they still have not answered why it has been five years, eight months and eight days.
1 will be glad to talk to the President of the Privy Council, but he wants to haul in some of the press, some of the Liberal press who will do what he wants. I will talk with him privately any time he wants, and I defy him to give me the reasons this question has not been answered. He knows the reasons, the parliamentary secretary knows the reasons, Edgar Benson

February 19, 1982
Supply
knows the reasons, and I know the reasons. Why does the House not know the reasons?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I did not threaten the hon. member, but I happen to think it is an abuse of parliamentary immunity to debate comments about people's reputations, unless one is prepared to do it outside the House where one can take the full consequences of the statements.


Harvie Andre: Release the data!


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately implement the recommendations contained in a letter to the Prime Minister, dated February 3, 1982, signed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) and certain Members of Parliament, which urged the government to proceed with the "immediate creation" of two new programs to create employment in key sectors of the economy by stimulating domestic housing construction and by launching a program to enable private enterprise to hire young Canadians, and the House strongly endorses the position of the authors of the said letter when they wrote:
"Mr. Prime Minister, we urge you to adopt these measures as soon as possible,
because we are convinced that they are necessary right now ..
He said: Madam Speaker, everyone in the House knows the nature of this motion. It is based upon a letter written by two Liberal ministers and eight other Liberal Members of Parliament, asking the government to act immediately on measures to let Canadians build homes and to create jobs for Canadians. It asks Liberals to approve what Liberals have proposed and, in so doing, it allows all of us in the House to address the fundamental question as to who holds real political power in Canada. Who decides policy? Is it elected Members of Parliament or anonymous bureaucrats in the Department of Finance? This letter was written by ten elected members of the House of Commons. This budget was written by anonymous civil servants who finally found a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) foolish enough to embrace their theories.


Mr. Nowlan:: Gullible Allan.


Charles Joseph Clark: All of us in this House know the damage that has occurred to this country with the bankruptcies, the jobs lost, the homes lost and indeed the suicides. Those suicides, bankruptcies and job losses have all resulted from this budget.
This letter tries to help; so do the statements and the actions of members from all parties in this House who say, here is the evidence that this budget is bad for Canada: 117,000 full-time jobs were lost last year, another 35,000 jobs are being lost each month; a 109 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies has occurred over the last two years, and in the province of Quebec alone, from January to January, there has been a five-fold increase in farm bankruptcies and as many as 40,000 Canadians are likely to lose their homes.
Every Member of Parliament who talks to his or her constituents knows that people are angry, hurt and fearful. The evidence is all around us. Members have been telling their constituents, members who I intend to name in the House later, that they would help to change the budget. Today is the day that members can stop talking and start acting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Today is the day when ten Liberals from Montreal and others from Kitchener, Scarborough, Guelph, Niagara Falls, Hamilton, Thunder Bay and other communities across the country can show whether they are sincere and honest in what they say, because it comes down to whether they are sincere and honest in what they say. It is easy to talk, Mr. Speaker, but it takes courage to act. Members throughout this House, and I say this very seriously, will be judged for the rest of their political lives on whether they vote in Ottawa the way they talk at home in their constituencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The question is basic. We have all noted the decline of Parliament. We have all seen the growth of the power of the bureaucrats. Today is a moment of truth. We have a budget which taxes health contributions, which stops home building and destroys savings. These are measures that no one can defend on their merits. These measures were proposed not by a Liberal caucus but by anonymous bureaucrats who have never had to stand for office and whose theories have no mandate and no support in this country.


Mr. Masters:: Talk about your caucus.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am asked to talk about my caucus. I am speaking for my caucus and I ask the hon. member opposite to come here and speak for his people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) is rising on a point of order.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I know the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in naming names and ridings, would like to be more accurate. He did refer to Thunder Bay as a riding. I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows that there are two ridings in Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 19, 1982


Erik Nielsen: Look at them scurry!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that precision. He underlined not only that there are two constituencies in Thunder Bay, but there are two deeply different views on the budget there. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) has had the courage to stand up and speak for his constituents on this budget. The other hon. member has not yet had that courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But the hon. member will have that opportunity later today. The point that I underline for Liberals opposite is that this budget was not written by Liberals; this budget was written by anonymous public servants who have no mandate to express their theories in this country, nor any support for their theories here. Yet Liberals who did not propose these measures, many of whom do not support these measures, are being asked to betray their people and to betray their principles and fall meekly into line. If that is allowed to happen, Sir, then Liberal MPs have surrendered all principle and they have wiped any trace of honour from their names.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: I notice the Quebec chairman of the Liberal caucus just applauded the fact that his colleagues abandoned their principles. He just did, in the House!
I will return to this letter, Mr. Speaker, but these ten are not the only Liberals who have spoken. There is a comment, even more eloquent, from the young member for Manicouagan, who last week visited his own constituency, where some workers will have their taxes increased by $2,400 next year, and then said; and I quote:
We, Members of Parliament, are like those poor parish priests who had to cope with the problems of their flock. Having said over and over again that the government's economic policy is unacceptable either morally or socially, the answer we get is that Liberal dogma forbids any dispensation from decrees issued by the supreme authorities. Official policy has taken the place of religion.
Our political leaders are acting as though they were the Pope.
Those are the words of one Liberal member. We shall watch how he votes-like a spokesman for his people, or a poor parish priest.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of federal members for Quebec talking while I am speaking, but they never speak for their own constituents here in the House of Commons. Later today they will have a chance to speak and vote for their constituents and against the Liberal budget.
The member for Manicouagan has identified the problem. When members are silent, the people suffer. And in Quebec- where there are more Liberals than anywhere else-there is more suffering, because of this budget. One out of every five
Supply
young people in Quebec is out of work. Thousands of Quebecers who had jobs have lost them under this Liberal government. At Ste-Therese 3,500 workers have been laid off by General Motors.
Admiral laid off 2,500 workers. Pratt & Whitney laid off 610 workers last November in Quebec, and 550 more this month.
The St-Michel sawmill laid off 131 workers. Three thousand Quebecers have been thrown out of work in the shoe industry. Five hundred more workers will be laid off by the CNR in the weeks to come. The story is the same across Quebec. In January, the Lower Saint Lawrence region and in Gaspesie, there were 14,000 fewer people working than there were two years ago. In the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean area, there were
11,000	fewer people working than two years ago. The situation is appealing. Who is going to take up the cause of these people? This motion would create jobs, unlike the budget which is putting people out of work.
If the Liberal members for Quebec care about their people, they will vote to give their people jobs.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, is not just wrong-headed, it is inept and full of basic errors. The Minister of Finance has tried to bamboozle Canadians with creative accounting methods which, if they were tried by a company listed on any stock exchange, would result in their being delisted immediately.
Let me give a few examples. The minister claimed in this House that 12 million Canadians would pay less tax this year as a result of the budget. That is what he said. The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that fewer than 12 million Canadians will pay taxes this year. The minister was wrong on that basic fact. When he was caught on that he said that he meant to say 12 million would be better off because of his largesse in continuing the long-standing principle of indexation. Well, to reach that number, Mr. Speaker, he claimed more than 16 million Canadians will file 1982 tax returns. He still has not explained how he expects an increase of tax filers despite his forecast of lower growth in the labour force.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since this finance minister does not even know how many people pay taxes, how in the world can any of his budget numbers be believed? The minister himself has admitted in this chamber that his revenue forecasts are wrong, that his deficit forecasts are wrong. Indeed, Sir, he must have been the last person in the country to have seen the recession coming in November.
Those are not the only errors in the budget. The minister claims that moving the sales tax from the manufacturers' level to the wholesale level and cutting it from 9 per cent to 8 per cent will not increase costs or his revenues. Even without talking about the massive paper burden this will impose on wholesalers, no expert outside the Department of Finance believes there will not be at least a 2 per cent increase in costs

February 19, 1982
Supply
to consumers. Again the minister has tried to hide a tax grab. He claims that replacing income-averaging annuity contracts with forward-averaging will not harm taxpayers. Again, no expert outside the tax department believes that. The only way it can be true, and I am quoting the minister's example, is not to earn money. Well, he is certainly making that possible.
That, Mr. Speaker, is also the case in the matter of indexing. The minister claims indexing is a tax cut. It is only a tax cut if income does not increase. The minister will not change his budget just because it is wrong. He says, and I quote his speech in Toronto:
I believe that we must resist the temptation to veer away from restraint- whether to gain a temporary and minimal increase in jobs, or simply to reap the transitory political benefit.
This minister speaks of restraint, yet his government spends $70 million on government advertising. One day in October last year he and his colleagues spent $27,000 to fly three cabinet ministers in three separate JetStars to the city of Winnipeg, a flight which, had they gone commercial-and let them fly first-class-would have cost the taxpayers only $1,770 for the round trip. This government, as we learned today, is prepared to write off $125 million on Consolidated Computer Inc. This government, Sir, was spending $40 a day to have a Quebec City newspaper flown directly to Ottawa when they could walk over to the Chateau Laurier and buy the same paper for 50 cents. That is restraint for this government. The clumsy and stupid way they handled the Petrofina purchase means that Canadians paid $300 million to $400 million more than was necessary to buy the shares.
The list of extravagances goes on. This government can find plenty of money to increase the pay of senior civil servants; it can find plenty of money to jet ministers around the country, because there is no restraint on ministers or senior civil servants. Restraint is for those 40,000 Canadians who will be forced out of their homes. Restraint is for those 35,000 Canadians who lose their jobs each month. Restraint is for the people that this letter and our motion talk about. What is being proposed by the government is not restraint, it is simple and cruel injustice; and any Liberal with a conscience will tell the Minister of Finance to cut his spending on advertising, to cut his spending on Petrofina shares, to cut his spending on $40 newspapers which he can buy for 50 cents, and to start to care about the people who are suffering in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This particular motion speaks of two kinds of changes concerning jobs and homes. There are other changes being sought by other Members of Parliament for equally legitimate reasons, because this is a bad budget which was drawn up with no understanding of the real world. Let it be clear that if the government is able to force Liberal members into line on this issue, they will try to force them into line on every other issue. The minister has said very clearly that he does not intend to make changes in his budget. He is trying to take the heat off here in the House of Commons and shunt the question off to the committee where he hopes it will be
forgotten. He was very clear about that in answering my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), the other day when the minister said:
Quite a number of representations were made following the budget in November and December. As the hon. member knows, on December 18 I made a number of changes which I regarded as necessary and urgent. It is my view that any further changes based upon representations and arguments of hon. members ought to be made when we reach the appropriate stage of the legislative process.
That means, Mr. Speaker, they ought never to be made. This minister has his pride at stake. He made a mistake, he was taken in by his public servants, but he is not man enough to stand up in the House of Commons and admit he made that mistake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He wants the whole country to pay the price. Individual Liberal members opposite will have to decide whether they put their minister's pride ahead of the interests of the people they represent here in the House of Commons.
Just one last thing about committees, Mr. Speaker. Committees take time and most Canadians do not have time. Thirty-five thousand Canadians are losing their jobs each month in this country. By the time the committee starts to sit, another 70,000 Canadians will be out of work. By the time the committee begins to report there will be another 100,000 Canadians out of work. Mr. Speaker, members of this House have an obligation to act now and not wait for another 100,000 or 200,000 Canadians to be forced out of work by the policies of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

The Canadian people cannot wait any longer, they want action and that is what the ten Montreal Liberals have understood. They said so to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and they went on to publish their views as an official statement of their recommendations. I shall now quote from their letter:
The message given by our fellow citizens is clear and easy to understand because it conveys a single central preoccupation: the economy. People are deeply concerned about their economic future, and while recognizing the importance of the fight against inflation, they believe the government should deal more directly with the alarming unemployment situation.
As members of the central-eastern part of Montreal, we realize that a real and lasting improvement (in the long term) of the job situation must necessarily come about through control of the inflation rate. However, we believe that it is possible to create jobs immediately in certain critical sectors without overstimulating the economy.
That was the letter signed by ten members, namely, the members for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin), Laurier (Mr. Berger), Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), Rose-mont (Mr. Lachance), Gamelin (Mr. Portelance), Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal), Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens), Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). We shall see today if they vote the way they talk. If these ten members vote against
February 19, 1982

their own recommendations, they will be revealed forever as members who lack the courage of their beliefs.
Some of them are pretending now they didn't realize what they were doing. The Minister of State for Quebec (Mr. Joyal)-he is in the House today-told Mr. Michel Gratton, and I quote:
So you see, I was more interested in what was going on than in reading the letter.
Mr. Speaker, ministers don't have the luxury of not knowing what they're signing. They hold responsible positions. They have to stand by what they say-and what they sign. That is a rule of cabinet. And it is a rule of simple courage for private members to stand by what they say.
If these members vote against this motion, they betray their own signatures. The question for them is clear and inescapable-do they prefer their people or their party?
Mr. Speaker, it is not only hon. members from Quebec who have spoken against the budget and who will have to prove today whether they will vote in Ottawa the way they speak at home. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weather-head), the chairman of the Ontario Liberal caucus, said that Ontario Liberal members feel just as strongly as the ten Montreal members do, if not more so. The hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has said, "People are saying that the Liberal government must turn the economy around before there is permanent damage." The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), so we believe, the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder), the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin), the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) and the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), and perhaps several others, have spoken words designed to be heard just at home, words which have not yet been carried to the national scene. I tell them that their words will be remembered at home and will be repeated here. The only way they can honour their standing and their identities as individuals of principle will be to vote in Ottawa the way they speak at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Shields:: Now we'll see!


Charles Joseph Clark: Yesterday marked the second anniversary of the election of this government. We all know the promises it broke, the way it earns its reputation as a party whose word cannot be trusted anywhere in this country. I do not want to dwell on that. What I want to underline is that its actions since that election raise even deeper questions about whether Liberal ministers or Liberal members have any respect for democracy in Canada. The ministers have imposed major changes on the
Supply
country, such as abandoning VIA Rail without any public hearings-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not true!


Charles Joseph Clark: -driving away energy investment, dividing Canada on the Constitution, proposing unilaterally to eliminate the Department of Regional Economical Expansion, taxing health and other employee benefits. The Liberal members have gone quietly along, adding their votes to all of these measures. However, none of these questions was discussed by the Liberals in the election campaign.
The message is very clear. The government has no mandate for these changes. Individual Members of Parliament have no mandate to support them. Most Canadians oppose what the government is doing. However, the government ignores them and individual Members of Parliament will have the opportunity, by their vote today, to indicate whether they will help the citizens who elected them to change a budget which the people do not want, and about which the people of Canada were not warned in the last election campaign.
Let me ask some questions of the House. What Liberal member of this House told his voters that he proposed a tax on accrued interest on new whole life insurance policies?


John Horton McDermid: Not one of them!


Charles Joseph Clark: Did the hon. member for Kitchener? Did the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) or the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner)? Did the hon. member for London-Middlesex indicate that when he sought the support of his electors?
What Liberal member told his voters he was proposing to tax employer contributions to Blue Cross or to reduce the payments mothers could receive under the child tax credit? Did the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who is responsible for the status of women, tell anyone that? Did the Minister of State promise that when she stood for election? Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) or did the hon. member for Scarborough West? Did the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) make that promise when she was being elected? Did she tell people the truth about what she and her government intended to do? What Liberal member told his voters-


Mr. Simmons:: How about cutting taxes?


Charles Joseph Clark: -that he was proposing measures-


Erik Nielsen: In your seat!


Charles Joseph Clark: -which would triple the cost-


Some hon. Members:: In your seat!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Get the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw the jackal out! He has to be in his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: Come on, Simmons, shut up!

February 19, 1982
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair and not to hon. members. Therefore, I will allow the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: He cannot stand the heat!


Roger Simmons: Tell us about Jerusalem! Where do you stand on Jerusalem?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sure Your Honour will calculate the amount of time which has been taken from my speech by the various interjections. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-


Roger Simmons: Get it right.


Charles Joseph Clark: -who shouts from someone else's seat, has not been heard to speak about the impact upon fish plants and upon unemployment in the province of Newfoundland. If he believed as much in his duty to his constituents as he believes in his blind loyalty to the Liberal Party, he would be standing and voting against that budget!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Go back home!


Mr. Epp:: Go home!


John Horton McDermid: You're not representing your people. Go back home!


Some hon. Members:: Go, go!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now that that hon. member has run away, let me ask what Liberal member told his voters that he was proposing measures which would triple the cost for salesmen to operate their cars, or measures to shut down the auto parts industry. Did the hon. member for Niagara Falls promise that? Did the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent), or did the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) or did the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey)? What Liberal MP told his voters that he was proposing to cut the amount of money new Canadians can send to their parents or dependent relatives outside of Canada? Did the hon. member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis), or did the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), or did the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher)?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Horton McDermid: Speak in the debates, Simmons! Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is the hon. parliamentary secretary seeking the floor on a point of order?


Walter David Baker: Let him make a fool of himself.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to do that. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is doing that quite adequately by himself. I do not need to help him make a fool of himself.
I have two points on my point of order. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition cannot, even in his enthusiasm, mislead the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: First of all, he indicated that I have done nothing about the fish plant closure. I arranged for 4,000 jobs to be restored.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Hon. members may feel they have points of order, but on this occasion the Chair feels that it would be proper to debate when hon. members are recognized to participate in the debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the hon. member is interested in creating jobs, as he has just said he is, he has an opportunity tonight. He can vote for the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a series of other questions one might want to ask when one looks at the mandate of this government. What Liberal MP ran on a promise to remove the northern benefits? Did the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-key), the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), or the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant)? None of them told their voters-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order, and it will have to be on a point of order.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise to be heard on a question of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition has been in this House for some years. He ought to be aware that as a result of the redistribution which took effect in May, 1979, my riding has since been called Burin-St. George's. I am entitled to have the riding referred to by its correct name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Chair has allowed two extra minutes for the Leader of the Opposition because of the interruptions. There will be one minute left for the Leader of the Opposition.
February 19, 1982


Charles Joseph Clark: Before my minute starts, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to accept the correction from the hon. member. I would certainly want his electors to know who he is. I want them to know what he does when he votes against their interests today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: May I reserve a final moment for the New Democratic Party. This vote would have occurred last week except that the NDP chose to save the government. It was a deliberate decision to act with the Liberals, just as the NDP acts with the Liberals on any basic question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: They were in bed together on the Constitution. They were in bed together against the Crosbie budget. They fled together from the vote last Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Leader of the Opposition may continue only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The minister nods his head to indicate that there was unanimous consent, but I heard
no.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue to discuss. It is unfortunate with an issue that is of such prime importance to so many Canadians that instead of a thoughtful and rational approach, we are treated to high comedy and serious tragedy by the House of Commons best replacement for the "Perils of Pauline" that we have seen in many a year.
It is a sad spectacle when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has to come and appeal to Liberals because he knows he will never get support from his own side of the floor. It is a tragic commentary on the state of disrepute that the Conservative caucus has fallen into, that the only solace the poor Leader of the Opposition can find is to appeal to Liberals to support him on his motion. Theirs is a party that once had a proud tradition of independence, a proud tradition of speaking for itself. What we have now is the Leader of the Opposition on bended knee saying "Liberals, please give us a hand."
It is equally sad that the Leader of the Opposition can find as his only source for his resolution good ideas put forward by Liberal members. It is understandable because we know the paucity of ideas among the Conservative caucus. If there is a danger of bankruptcy in Canada, it is the bankruptcy of ingenuity, imagination and creativity of the Conservative caucus. Therefore, what must they do? They must put a resolution forward that simply endorses the kind of creative imagination put forward by Liberal members, as requested by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).
Supply
Now they say, "let us have a motion of non-confidence." We know it is simply a gimmick on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. He has more gimmicks than a K-Tel advertisement. The whole theory for the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is not deny, keep repeating yourself and maybe someone will believe you. Well, they do not believe him because the record of the Conservative Party shows there is nothing to believe.
A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition, standing up in high dungeon, with all that pomposity of which only he is capable, said that 60,000 mothers are going to be denied their child tax credit. Two days later his staff member whispers sotto voce, "I am sorry, it wasn't that number; we had to sort of make it up."
Then we have the brave spokesman, the finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) saying on one hand, "put the interest rates down," and then going to the Montreal Canadian Club and saying "leave them the way they are." The problem is they do not know what they believe. They have no credibility because they have no policy.
The only kind of posture they can take in this House and across the country is to try to set up a whole world of mythology and imagery about these anonymous bureaucrats who are making policy. It is not anonymous bureaucrats making policy, it is members of this caucus, members of the treasury benches, members of our constituency associations whom we talk to and consult with. The reason we are in power and they are not is that we endorse the principle that we have a party that is united behind us and for which we speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We are not a party that is fragmented into so many pieces we cannot keep count from day to day because we do not know who is going to be in which chair. We do not know who is a member of the Tory caucus and we cannot keep count without a score card.
It really is a remarkable performance, Mr. Speaker, when you think of what the past record of the Conservative Party is. A statement in the Toronto Star in 1979 quotes the then Prime Minister as saying "We must have higher interest rates because in the short term they are going to have to do some good." Now we have him saying "bring them down." 1 guess they were all right in 1979, but somehow they are not good enough in 1982. How does he expect people to believe him when something he was prepared to stand on as a matter of principle in 1979 he all of a sudden discovers is no longer of any use?
We hear the remarkable statement of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, lecturing people on how to be straightforward. If anyone in the House has a record for zigzagging, for repeating his steps and withdrawing statements, it is the Leader of the Opposition. Talk about broken promises, Mr. Speaker!


An hon. Member:: Is he from Yellowhead or yellow fever?

Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am reminded by my colleague who asked, what about the zigzagging and the broken promises on Petro-Canada, Jerusalem or other commitments of which the Conservative Party is so proud?


Thomas Michael McMillan: What about wage and price controls?


Lloyd Axworthy: Here is the Leader of the Opposition, standing there with all his crocodile tears pouring down his face in great gushes, crying about the high unemployment rate, conveniently forgetting that when he was Prime Minister the unemployment rate in this country was 8.5 per cent, which is .2 per cent higher than it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I say this only to point out that if we are going to debate the issue of unemployment, let us debate it on the grounds of serious, thoughtful and creative proposals, not under the mythology or the storm created by the Leader of the Opposition who has offered not one constructive proposal of his own.


An hon. Member:: More Liberal deceit.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did anyone in the House hear the Leader of the Opposition make one constructive proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did we hear the Leader of the Opposition make any proposal that would make any difference?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Throw out the Liberals.


Lloyd Axworthy: All we heard was an appeal to the Liberals to support him, to steal Liberal ideas and talk about broken promises, for which he set a world record which can never be broken.


An hon. Member:: Read the motion.


Mr. Rossi:: This government is going to vote against it. His own caucus does not want him. He is trying to fight for a new convention in January. He will not be there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I understand that today is Friday and it is sometimes customary to get a little out of hand. However, it is very difficult for the Hansard reporters and the translators to hear the member who is recognized. I would invite hon. members to respect those who are recognized to take part in the debate. Right now it is the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration who has been recognized.


Lloyd Axworthy: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that after listening to the Leader of the Opposition, it reminds me of a statement made by Winston Churchill about another leader of the opposition. He said that the leader of the opposition had only one idea in his life and that was a bad one. I am not sure I can
February 19, 1982
even give this Leader of the Opposition that much credit. It would probably be overly generous in the circumstances.
The fact is that if we are going to debate these serious economic issues, we must look at the reality of what is taking place in Canada. We must talk about the measures being taken to help Canadians. If members opposite want to criticize or make comment on these measures, that is fair game. But I think it does a great disservice and is a serious act of irresponsibility for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and paint this picture that there is a total absence of policy, when he knows full well the kind of initiatives we have taken to create employment in Canada.
If he does not know, Mr. Speaker, I will take a moment to remind him. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that our government has created over 100,000 jobs in this fiscal year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We have done this through direct employment measures. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that these were programs which we had to reintroduce because his government cancelled them.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the auto workers in Oshawa.


Lloyd Axworthy: He asked members of the House what was happening in their ridings. I can tell him that what is happening is that people are being put to work in community development projects to fix wharves and fish ladders; people are being put to work in community centres-


Jack Wendele Shields: How much money are you putting into it?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will tell the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) that well over $2 million is going into his riding to create work.
We will be spending close to $400 million this year alone on direct employment which will create over 100,000 jobs, involving over 170,000 Canadians. Furthermore, those programs are targeted to those areas with the most serious needs. There are
7,000	participants under the program for the employment of disadvantaged. There are people working in the crisis and rape centres and day care centres because of community service programs. Students are being employed under the new employment program. This is all part of this government's general commitment to provide direct employment programs.
Furthermore, in December we began to bring in special programs to offer new opportunities for Canadian workers to return to work. As of today we have signed 75 work-sharing agreements which have brought over 4,000 workers who were threatened with lay-offs back to their jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: When the Leader of the Opposition talks about lay-offs, he should also talk about the number of people we are putting back into the work force. We are achieving this with the full co-operation of employers, trade unions and government. This shows that our basic commitment to work
February 19, 1982

together with all Canadians in difficult times is reaping its own
success.
What the Leader of the Opposition dismisses as gimmicks are in fact part of a major commitment being undertaken in all parts of Canada. I would point out that even many of his friends, those provincial premiers who he likes to have bask in his friendship, are also responding to the offers we made two weeks ago respecting job-sharing agreements. His own Conservative allies in the province of Ontario have signed an agreement with us to put several thousand workers back to work in the nothern Ontario forests.
The Premier of British Columbia expressed interest in a similar offer last night and said he was prepared to sign the same agreement to put people back to work in British Columbia. We have had similar discussions in Quebec, Manitoba and other provinces. We can use the various benefits which we have introduced to put workers back to work, keep the skilled workers together and maintain the solidarity of those communities.
It is evident that there is no absence of policies. There are direct and creative initiatives to help Canadians find employment again. We would all be a lot better off, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite would stop trying to create false alarms and a sense of foreboding in our country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -which is what they are doing, and instead go to work in their own constituencies. 1 ask, how many of those members have spoken to employers in their ridings about work-sharing projects? 1 suggest they should go back to their constituencies and help people get back to work, rather than coming here to raise false alarms.


Mr. Lambert:: Come to speak to employers in my riding.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome an invitation to go to the hon. member's riding. I will be there as soon as he rents a hall.
The fact is that what we are facing today is not Canada's problem alone. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to maintain that the Liberal government alone is responsible. If that is the case, we are also responsible for creating more work than any other country over the last 15 years.


An hon. Member:: The jobs only last two weeks.


Lloyd Axworthy: Can we take credit for creating jobs at an average of 4 per cent per year starting from the 1960s up to the 1980s? If we are being blamed for the fall-off, we should be given credit for the 18 solid years of continual job enhancement at a rate of 2 per cent to 3 per cent a year. That is the best record of any industrialized country in the world.


An hon. Member:: How long do they last?


Lloyd Axworthy: We also have the fastest growing labour force at the same time, Mr. Speaker.
Supply
It would be much more honest for the members opposite simply to deal with this debate on the facts. The fact is that every country is facing this kind of downturn.


An hon. Member:: That is not true!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is not true? Look at the United States with its 8.5 per cent unemployment rate. Look at France with close to 9 per cent, and Great Britain. The Tories are following the policies advocated by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, those wonderful Thatcherite Reaganomics, which are resulting in over 12 per cent unemployment in that country.
We admit that we have a problem in Canada. However, we also say that we are proposing answers to those problems. There are answers contained in the budget to decrease inflation. Are we hearing from members of the opposition that they do not want the inflation rate down, that they want to continue a high inflation rate and thereby continue a high interest rates policy? If that is the case, then they are the party of high interest rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Before the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Speaker, we had established that the subject of debate today is of such importance to the country that it should not be the object of charades, playacting or back room manoeuvring and all the other ploys that are being used by the opposition for political advantage. The Canadian people expect more from us than that, Mr. Speaker. They expect and they deserve serious debate about the conditions facing the country and the ways in which we can alleviate the problems of unemployment and, at the same time, stimulate growth in the economy.
I think it is worth talking about the structure of unemployment in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The nature of the problem is often wildly dramatized. Unemployment has some very important characteristics and it is not an experience that is the same for all people. Like most other nations, for a long time we have faced the serious and chronic problem of high unemployment in certain regions of the country and among certain groups of people. Those people are commonly called the structurally unemployed. This means that people in areas of low employ-

February 19, 1982
Supply
ment growth or where there is only seasonal employment do not have the opportunities to develop skills that will enable them to become full participants in the work force. Even in times of very high employment in this country there has always been a group of people for whom special measures must be provided to help them deal with the problems they face.
Above and beyond that, Mr. Speaker, a large number of industries in the country are undergoing adjustments. There have been major changes in technology and in the nature of the product that they provide. It does not help for people to stamp their feet, gnash their teeth or bang shoes on the desk and shout, "Do something; throw money at the problem." That is what we often hear from our friends over in the corner. But we must understand the dynamics of a different industrial society, Mr. Speaker. Changes are taking place in the automobile industry and in the forestry industry which require new skills and a whole new generation of Canadians trained to work in those industries.
In the meantime, however, we must provide support for workers dislocated by those changes. We cannot, and should not, stand in the way of progress, but certainly we must help those affected by it.
Some of the unemployment in Canada occurred because industries cannot sell their products and people cannot sell their goods and services. There has been a great deal of discussion about the trouble in the automobile industry, but the fact is that about 80 per cent of the automobiles we produce are sold overseas. If the North American car industry has not been able to adjust to competition, for technical or other reasons, then that is a major problem and the industry is being reorganized to deal with it.
This is not the fault of the government. No advantage is to be gained by pointing the finger or looking for a scapegoat. The unions, businessmen, employers and government must work together to find solutions. We must get away from this confrontationist, conflict-ridden attitude which is fermented by hon. members for their own political reasons and try to build a society that works to find solutions. These are the problems we face as we begin work to change attitudes.
It is important to address the question of how we are trying to come to grips with these issues. The first major contribution was the November budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fennell:: The Canadian tragedy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Horse laughs usually derive from ignorance and I think that is what we are hearing, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to explain how the budget responded to one of the fundamental economic problems faced by every country, the high rate of inflation. An essential element of the battle is to bring interest rates down and thus create demand. This cannot be done artificially. Hon. members can argue until they are blue in the face but interest rates cannot be brought down by artificial measures. That can only be achieved through the market economy in which we work. The best way to bring
interest rates down is by reducing the demand of government borrowing on the capital markets.
We can see an indication of the improvement that is taking place in the declining rate of inflation. For the three-month period ending January 31, 1982, the inflation rate in this country was 8.25 per cent. In other words, the forces of inflation were beginning to ease and, as a result, interest rates were falling. That is a major contribution to a solution of the problem and it is a way to build demand again, rather than through the kind of gimmickry that is being used by hon. members opposite. Government fiscal and monetary powers can be employed to reduce demand.
We have heard a great deal about providing stimulus for the creative, entrepreneurial energies of Canadians, but there is a curious contradiction in the comments of the Conservative Party on this subject. Members of that party like to see themselves as the paragons of free enterprise in Canada. "Let the free market forces flow," they say. That is what the budget did, Mr. Speaker. The reduction in the marginal tax rate put more money in the hands of the risk-takers and entrepreneurs; as well, there is less direction as to where money shall be invested.
If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he does not believe we should put more cash in the hands of the entrepreneurs, then he had better face his caucus again and have another rendering of conscience. I think a lot of members of his caucus would have to agree with what I have said-that if you give more freedom to the use of cash and capital and let people make their own choices, they will invest in the area that is most productive. That is what the budget sought to attain by bringing the tax rate down and putting more money in people's hands. If hon. members opposite claim that the budget does not stimulate the economy, then they have not read the budget but are relying on their imaginations.
The budget contained several important measures designed to set goals and objectives for economic development. In the budget paper entitled "Economic Strategy for the 80s", the government proposed a number of initiatives to help facilitate the activities of the private sector and the provinces in the creation of jobs. When those reactionaries over in the corner, who love to pretend that they are progressive, rant and rave about the changes in the railway system, they are basically saying that they do not believe in progress. They do not believe in utilizing the rail capacity of western Canada to help sell our goods and create new wealth in the country. They like to put themselves forward as the spokesmen for progressive measures, yet they propose one of the most reactionary, regressive steps that any political party has proposed in the history of this country. They stand in the way of the creative forces in western Canada which would make new products and increase economic growth.
The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is so locked into the past that he cannot see the future. He is so frozen in his stratified attitude that he cannot reach out to new forces. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, that a party whose tradition has been one of looking to the future has now become so stuck in
February 19, 1982

its dwindling constituency of supporters that it now says, "We must fight to the end of the trenches." That party is the Maginot line of Canadian politics, Mr. Speaker, and it will pay the price.
We have gone beyond the major stimulus to the economy that I have mentioned to bring in special measures to help workers who face problems of readjustment. Under the industrial labour adjustment program, $167 million has been allocated to designated communities whose economies are suffering. This program is beginning to work. Under that program close to 17,000 workers in four communities have been assisted. When hon. members opposite ask, "What are you doing?", I say, "Talk to those workers who have gained retraining assistance, new counselling, new jobs and new mobility as a result of government initiatives."
I LAP has been particularly designed to deal with industrial adjustment programs. Also we introduced additional programs to deal with workers in the marketplace who face particular problems in obtaining access or opportunities. A year ago we brought in a new program to help train women in non-traditional work, with the recognition that women had been "ghettoized" in their occupations and that they required opportunity to broaden their scope. In this fiscal year alone we added close to 3,500 training places for women in non-traditional work to the program. We did it in co-operation with the private sector and unions. This goes back to our basic commitment to work with other sectors of the economy to bring about improvement.
When we talk about the problems of young people in the country, I should like to indicate that at the same time we provided a number of special initiatives to meet their needs. It may interest hon. members of the House to know that close to 40 per cent of the people who use our employment programs are young people below the age of 24; they are the people who use our training programs. In this particular fiscal year over
119,000	young people are in our manpower training programs, over 35,000 are in our industrial training programs, and we have provided 50,000 direct employment jobs for young people. Also we have provided counselling services for over one million young people and over 300,000 placements through summer youth employment programs. The total comes to almost two million young people who used the services of the federal government this fiscal year to obtain employment assistance. When hon. members opposite say that we are not paying attention to young people, I say that we are making a major effort. I am not saying that it is adequate or that we should not do more. We are trying to do more, but to totally deny there is opportunity and to deny the fact that anything is happening is simply fabrication.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member can ask his question only if there is unanimous consent, but I distinctly heard a "no".


Lloyd Axworthy: I should like to return to one of the most important initiatives we have taken over the past several months to deal with long-term employment problems in Canada. One essential matter we must face is the need for a much more productive work force with the necessary skills for the new jobs of the future. We recognize that close to $900 million spent on training programs oftentimes resulted in people being trained for jobs that were not there. Industry is changing, the economy is changing, but with the help of the parliamentary task force chaired by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), involving hon. members on both sides of the House, we were able to put together a brand new national training program to revamp and reform totally federal initiatives on training and to provide leadership for the provinces and the private sector.
We have a training program which is appropriate for the 1980s. We have provided new incentives for training women in non-traditional work. We have provided incentives for disadvantaged workers. We have begun to shift into the area of high-skilled work through a substantial enhancement of and additions to the critical trade skills program. We have established a brand new planning system in Canada with the involvement and co-operation of provincial governments, unions and the private sector, to work out on an annual basis proper estimates of shortfalls in skills and how to employ our training resources to meet those shortfalls.
We have proposed a major modernization program for training institutions. We are prepared to put millions of dollars into community colleges across Canada, so that they can purchase new equipment, create new laboratories and hire the necessary faculty to develop a new modernized training system to meet job demands of the 1980s and obtain a more productive work force. This is a major initiative-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether the minister would entertain a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This can be done only with unanimous consent, as the hon. minister has used up all his time, but that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House and the people of Canada have known for a long time that in looking at the policies and the attitude of the Liberal government, no government in the history of Canada has been demonstrated to be more intellectually bankrupt and morally indifferent to the concerns of the ordinary people of the land. If we consider what Liberal members promised in the 1980 election campaign and compared it with what happened since then, the evidence is beyond contention.

February 19, 1982
Supply
I should like to refer to a few facts in that regard. Since the 1980 election, what has happened in terms of inflation with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised to deal? It has risen from 9.4 per cent to 11.4 per cent. At the time of the 1980 election, unemployment was at 13 per cent. Now in real numbers, including all men and women who ought to be included in the official statistics but for technical reasons are excluded, unemployment has risen to 15 per cent. In 1980 mortgage rates were 13.5 per cent. Now they are up to 18.5 per cent and 19 per cent.
I should like to emphasize the need to come to grips with serious structural problems in the Canadian economy. When the Liberals were elected in 1980, there was a deficit in manufactured goods in terms of trade which was $3.6 billion less than the present deficit. In human terms that $3.6 billion increase in the deficit in manufacturing trade represents the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The reality is that the international economic policies which the Liberal Party has been following for years have resulted in a national disaster in economic terms and a tragedy in human terms in the lives of men and women throughout the country. In the context of the situation with which we are now faced and having lost 235,000 manufacturing jobs between August and the end of December of last year, for years we have lived with a Liberal government that depended entirely upon one fundamental policy for the economic growth of the country.
There were two aspects to the policy. On the one hand, it has said that we are a country with virtually unlimited resources from British Columbia in the west right through to Newfoundland in the east, especially but by no means exclusively in the northern areas of our provinces. The Liberal Party has relied on the selling off of those resources for job creation purposes and for balance of payments purposes. Any serious analysis of Liberal policies from C.D. Howe to the present will not deny this contention. The resource hinterland of Canada, as Liberal members perceived it, was to remain precisely that for the rest of the world. We were to provide resources, they were to manufacture goods, and we were to buy them back.
The other aspect of the Liberal economic policy was that we had to have some manufacturing; even Liberals realized this. After the war Liberal members created, through government initiative but not exclusively in the government sector, a very dynamic Canadian manufacturing economy. Instead of building upon the base of this government wartime initiative, what resulted is what I call the second pillar of Liberal economic policy which goes with resource sell-out, that is, the encouragement of branch plants to come here to establish a manufacturing industry. We know the results of that. I do not want to talk about it just in general terms today; I want to talk about the concrete results of that structure, how it is crumbling, how we see its effects and why we should now be responding to it.
What happened as a result of that fundamental decision after the war? Inefficient branch plants were established. Research and development was not done here. World markets
were not sought. No one dominated the domestic market. What has resulted in this our year of economic crisis, the most serious since the great depression? What has resulted in terms of manufacturing? I remind the House that manufacturing is absolutely crucial to jobs. Although the service sector has been growing not only in Canada but in other modern nations disproportionately to the manufacturing sector, the economic reality is that you get growth in service sectors related to the manufacturing sector and if you do not have the manufacturing growth, you do not get the related service sector growth.
Just in this past year we have seen the results of this disastrous economic policy of the Liberals. In the past year we had a $21 billion imbalance in trade in manufactured goods. This means not only hundreds but thousands of dollars per citizen. In human terms it means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing that should be here in Canada. We should be using our own resources, both human and material to produce jobs here. Last year the over-all deficit in the balance of payments was over $9 billion.
What are the results of this? As I have said already, there are 1.8 million people unemployed. Our Canadian dollar has dropped in value because of the persistent and growing imbalance in our balance of payments. The government's policies have also meant high inflation rates. But more important in terms of structural concerns in the economy, this imbalance has given the Government of Canada almost no leeway in being able to act. Because we are so dependent upon imported goods in manufacturing, in order to stimulate the economy you offer massive tax cuts, which in certain circumstances, including the present, would be appropriate in a well developed industrial economy.
What happens in Canada if those tax cuts are of massive proportion is that some 40 per cent of the money put out in general circulation to the taxpayers will go outside of Canada to buy more imported goods to further exacerbate the balance of payments situation. That is the kind of vicious circle in which Liberal mismanagement of the economy has got us.
Faced with this reality, this genuine concern and I think a sense of realism among the people of Canada, the Government of Canada should level with the people instead of backing away from them, as it did when a little heat was applied respecting the National Energy Program, and it should tell them what the real reason is for our difficulty. What we have is an unbalanced economy, unbalanced in the sense that we are living off our resources, selling them off, and depleting them too rapidly. This we have been doing for years. Canada has to import too many manufactured goods. The government should take the people into its confidence and explain the situation to them in the way the Japanese and virtually every western European nation did after the Second World War, when they set a course for long-range development. I am convinced that if the government did that, Canadians would respond positively. We need now slow growth perhaps, but we need real growth to provide durable jobs not only for our unemployed but for our children and our grandchildren.
February 19, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: How have the Liberals responded to this crisis? How have the Liberals responded to being locked into Reaganomics? Have the Liberals met the challenge by honestly saying that now is the time for an industrial strategy, the kind that my party has called for in the last two elections and about which Herb Gray has talked? Not at all. Herb Gray has been replaced by that omniscient senator in the other place, Senator Olson.
Instead of moving in the right direction to get more Canadian control over our manufacturing sector, instead of establishing an economy less reliant for its balance of payments situation on export resources, the Government of Canada is moving in the opposite direction.
To quote Senator Olson-and this is a complete giveaway-he said: "When a country comes to you and they are looking for iron ore, you do not try to sell that country steel." Just a matter of days ago he said: "Canadians should not feel bad about being regarded as hewers of wood and drawers of water." 1 say it is the Liberal Party of Canada that should feel bad about foisting that kind of policy on the people of Canada.
What is the government doing to deal with the present economic crisis? I have just said that the government is not making that shift. I suggested that Senator Olson's direction is different. It certainly is. The Liberals have adopted a new tack. It is no longer merely resources that they are going to sell off; they are promoting megaprojects in the resource sector. That is the new con job. The Liberals are now saying that megaprojects all across our country will get us out of our balance of payments situation and will create jobs. That is the new path to a rich and brighter future.
That is simply wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is a more up-to-date version, a slicker use of terminology, to try to convince the people that megaprojects mean something different from resource sell-offs. But I say to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) that he will not get away with that kind of approach any more than Sterling Lyon got away with that approach in the province of Manitoba.
1 also say to the Prime Minister, who has said that he does not want and does not believe in a quick-fix solution, that that is precisely the Liberals' approach to the megaprojects. The megaprojects are to be the quick-fix solution to our balance of payments problem. The quick-fix solutions to the problems of Canada would be to get rid of the Liberal Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We in this party say that now is the time, instead of doing what the official opposition has done and trot out the problems, which we have done in past debates as well, to move in new directions. Now is the time to speak frankly to the people of our land. Now is the time to begin the serious march to recovery that Canadians want and deserve. Now is the time to get rid of the Liberal Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


John Edward Broadbent: I want to make one point with particular emphasis and add two or three comments. I have talked about some of the latter points before. When we say that the manufacturing approach is the key, we say it is the key because it has been the key for Scandinavia, West Germany, France, for Japan, and indeed has been the key for success for the development of the United States of America. I as a Canadian who came of age after World War II feel ashamed of Canadian governments which have not had the courage and determination to make this country into the first-rate industrial nation that it ought to be in 1982.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that in addition to the tax cut proposals we have made before of $1 billion for middle and low-income earners to provide some stimulus to the economy and produce jobs, and in addition to the proposals we made to stimulate particularly the housing sector by taxing the banks at a reasonable level, we are now saying that the multinationals who have done very well in Canada and, as a 1973 U.S. Senate study clearly demonstrates, they are here as in other countries precisely because we have a lucrative market-they are not here for our good, they are here for theirs-are getting all the benefits out of this arrangement and not the people of Canada, since we have a $23 billion deficit in manufactured goods. It is time to turn those priorities around.
We are saying that a serious move at this time of economic crisis by the Government of Canada would be to embark on an industrial strategy and say to the multinationals that they must enter into letters of agreement with the government, as has been done in other industrialized nations, committing themselves to a dollar-value production commensurate with the level of consumption of their products in this country. That means that companies, whether in the automotive sector, the electronics sector or communications-you name it-which happen to be multinationals located here could still have world-scale production, but it would also mean that they would start now to put Canadians to work in numbers equivalent to their dollar benefit in this country. With 1.8 million Canadians unemployed, we think that kind of step is long overdue.
A related point, Mr. Speaker, is that not only do we have to move in terms of manufacturing goods here and maximize our own production for domestic markets-and two places to begin producing thousands of jobs in the next couple of years are in the machinery goods industry and transportation industry, but I will not elaborate on that today. There are also sectors where we could start now which would have important consequences soon.
In addition we in this party are saying, as social democratic parties have said and demonstrated elsewhere in the world, that it is not sufficient to gain control and dominance in your own domestic market; you have to pursue international markets. I have visited countries in western Europe and the Caribbean recently where I was told horror stories about the failure of Canadians to sell goods. I will not name them, but two products were identified which would have produced
15210

February 19, 1982
Supply
thousands of jobs in Canada. Our product was good, we were price competitive, but because of a lack of imagination in Financing we lost the sales. So we are saying in this party, which believes in the dynamics of a mixed economy, that it is time the Government of Canada in its trade policies put together an aggressive approach which not only takes good Canadian products such as steel and others which do exist, but matches them with imaginative Financing programs so we can sell abroad. That, too, would produce jobs at home.
Because my time is short, Mr. Speaker, 1 want now to move an amendment to the motion and speak briefly to it. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the word "now" the following:
And that this government be condemned for accepting the advice of the finance critic of the official opposition when he recently urged the government to maintain its high interest rate policy as it affects mortgages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to that motion, 1 want to make the following observation. I said earlier that the Liberals by their approach have been proven to be intellectually bankrupt and morally indifferent to the concerns of Canadians. Well, 1 want to say, in listening to the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) today, that if that can be said of the Liberals, then what one can say honestly of the Tories is that they are morally bankrupt and intellectually indifferent. 1 say that because they have the nerve to put into words in their main motion a policy which goes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion has been amended as follows: Moved by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the word "now" the following:
And that this government be condemned for accepting the advice of the finance critic of the official opposition when he recently urged the government to maintain its high interest rate policy as it affects mortgages.
The question is on the amendment. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: I am just going briefly to ask the Chair to rule on the admissibility of that amendment. It goes beyond the motion on the Order Paper, in my submission, and should not be accepted by the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I will take that under advisement at this time and permit the debate to continue. I will make a ruling at a later time after consulting with the
Table. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


An hon. Member:: The minister for housing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair is placed in a difficult situation right now. There was confusion, and I recognized one hon. member. I recognized the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order, and I did not see the minister rise. We do alternate at all times, but now-


An hon. Member:: Don't be foolish.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not think the Chair wants to be foolish at any time. I just thought I would seek the advice and co-operation of hon. members. There is the tradition of alternating speakers. I did recognize the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, and I am now in the hands of the House. If the House does not want to continue the tradition of alternating speakers and go to the minister, I will accept its guidance. The Chair will be then free at any time- and I am warning you-to recognize two or three speakers from the opposition or from the government side. If we break with that tradition, it will be broken often, and that is not being foolish, as I heard some hon. member say. The Chair made a mistake and I will recognize an hon. member from the opposition; but, as I say, this is breaking with tradition.


Mr. Beatty:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to facilitate the afternoon's proceedings, I would like to indicate that I would be quite prepared to allow the minister responsible for housing to go first. I think he is a very important participant in this debate which centres on the question of housing, and I think all Canadians would be very anxious to hear what he has to say. I would be quite prepared to follow him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House did not permit the hon. leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to continue his very interesting, if somewhat hypothetical-


Howard Edward Crosby: You did not let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) continue.


Paul James Cosgrove: -treatise on his interpretation of the economic malaise and his offered suggestions for cure or remedy this afternoon. It was apparent that the Liberal side of the House was quite content to hear the explanation and support for the amendment that he offered. However, we have not had that advantage.
I did have the advantage of hearing the appeals of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he asked for
February 19, 1982

the help of the Liberal members on this side of the House. He should have known that the government's program was supported twice by the whole House in support of the budget of November 12, and that indeed the government has placed before the country and before Parliament its plans for an economic program for the country.
I would like to say at the outset that some people might be interested in knowing what the motion is which is before the House or what subjects of discussion were called for by the opposition, in case they are interested, because this might have been difficult in light of the comments or speeches we have heard thus far. The government is urging that we proceed with the immediate creation of two new programs to create employment in key sectors, one being housing. It is for that reason that I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon.
The government is making a thrust in the area of social programs. It is discharging its social responsibilities. The government has had the responsibility, commencing almost two years ago, the beginning of what we all appreciate as being difficult economic times, to meat its social commitments. It adopted the principle that in difficult economic times we should use our resources in the social area first to help those people who need help the most. I am pleased to have the opportunity to very quickly recount that that is the record of this government, particularly as it affects its responsibility for housing.
As the minister reporting for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to this forum, I invite hon. members to recollect the thrust of the government since it has assumed the new mandate and responsibility. What were those things that we did? What were our first priorities? What is our record in that area? I first draw to mind the fact that we moved to increase the allotment of the government's program, the national program aimed at assisting people of moderate and low income to find housing. These objectives were in our social programs, the co-operative and non-profit programs. We moved to increase those.
Second, we supported those areas of previous government action, such as the assisted housing ownership program and the assisted rental program, past initiatives of the government in assisting people. We moved to bolster these programs. A month after taking on responsibility as minister in this area, the assisted housing ownership program was extended. It was further extended in the budget of November 12, which doubled the amount of subsidy under that program. We have moved to prevent failures in those programs in an attempt to prevent dislocation of many tenants who have found a source of support necessary to them in seeking adequate shelter. Those were movements of this government in its social area.
We expanded the residential rehabilitation assistance program which is directed toward those of modest and low income and toward those people who are handicapped, for example. Referring to the handicapped, in the International Year of the Handicapped we moved to adopt, in a national policy and in all of our social programs, the basic rule that at least 5 per
Supply
cent of all units constructed must be directed toward provision of housing and shelter for the handicapped. I maintain that was the rationale and thrust of the budget provisions pertaining to the housing and shelter needs of Canadians.
Who can forget the submissions, the representations and the many deputations to Parliament on September 15 on behalf of people impacted by high interest rates? The government moved to respond to the various rates. In the budget document, we introduced a plan to support people impacted by higher rates at roll-over time: we proposed a program which would either provide interest deferral with a government guarantee or an outright grant of $3,000.
However, that is not the main import of my comments this afternoon. It is the other aspect of the budget to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. members. I refer hon. members to the budget paper "The Budget in More Detail", and to the provision of $350 million which would provide accommodation to those Canadians who most desperately want assistance and need rental accommodation. It is directed to those Canadians who would be assisted, for example, under programs which have been time-tested in co-operation with the federal government, Canada Mortgage and Housing, and the provinces under rent geared to income. We have allocated $350 million toward a program which would provide a minimum of 15,000 units with potential for an increase, depending on the response to advertisements of that program.
I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the last paragraph on page 14 of the document to which I have referred. It states:
Provision has been made for these housing proposals by special allocations of $150 million in 1982-83 and $200 million in 1983-84 to the social affairs envelope. The latter amount is intended to cover potential future year liabilities associated with these measures and to provide-
This is what I would like to underline:
-within the fiscal framework, a contingent reserve for future measures, should they be required.
We have a commitment to this funding. That commitment was introduced by way of legislation tabled in this House by myself before Christmas. It was supported by legislation introduced in this House by way of a bill. It went through first and second reading, and it awaits the response of this House to a program which could create 70,000 jobs for Canadians looking for work in one of the areas which is most seriously impacted by the downturn in the economy.
What has been the reaction of the House? What has been the response of my critic in the official opposition to my request for speedy passage of that legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Paul James Cosgrove: What has been the support of the New Democratic Party, which is asking for jobs, which comes into this House every day saying that we need more jobs in the construction industry and that we need more affordable housing? What has been the response?


An hon. Member:: Zilch!

February 19, 1982
Supply


Mr. Kelly:: Hypocrites!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Bring in a good bill and we will put it through!


Paul James Cosgrove: Surely this is an important subject. Surely a day has not gone by when we have not been criticized by the opposition, which states that we are doing nothing and requests action!


Ian Deans: And no wonder! You are a disaster, an absolute disaster!


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 say to the official opposition, particularly to the members of the New Democratic Party-


Ian Deans: Will you guarantee to build 70,000 new units this year?


Paul James Cosgrove: -that if affordable housing and jobs are important, where is your support for such a program? I ask-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I would ask the co-operation of all members to listen to the hon. Minister of Public Works.


Ian Deans: He is not saying anything!


Howard Edward Crosby: Let him talk sense!


Yvon Pinard: Three days!


Ian Deans: We will give it to you in five minutes if you will guarantee to build 70,000 units.


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 will take that offer. The Leader of the Government would put the legislation before the House, and if the House would pass it, we would pass it in five minutes!


Ian Deans: Okay, 70,000 housing units, then.


Paul James Cosgrove: We should not be debating a bill which is more concerned with the job opportunity of the official leader of the opposition.


Ian Deans: He is not the "official leader".


Paul James Cosgrove: We should not be dealing with a bill which is more concerned with saving one job in the country than with creating 70,000 jobs.


Ian Deans: Seventy thousand housing units, 150,000 jobs.


Mr. Althouse:: There is a difference.


Paul James Cosgrove: I do have the request of the industry. I do have the support of the industry. At Winnipeg on Sunday, I had the support-


Ian Deans: Nobody that I heard of; they fell asleep when you were speaking.


Paul James Cosgrove: -of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. I have the support of the Urban Development Institute, the UDI. We have the support of the people who are charged with the responsibility of delivering and who have delivered housing in great numbers to a wide variety of Canadians in this country in a successful manner.
I wonder, is Mr. McDermid here today to urge us-


Ian Deans: To listen to you?


Paul James Cosgrove: -to provide the funding and to pass the legislation to give 70,000 jobs to people who want-


Ian Deans: One hundred and fifty thousand jobs.


Paul James Cosgrove: -employment in that area? Is he here? Do you have his support? Is he supporting the government?


Ian Deans: He is watching you on television and laughing.


Paul James Cosgrove: I wonder, Mr. Speaker-


Norman Kelly: He is afraid to come.


Ian Deans: He is watching you on TV and laughing at you. When you spoke at the housing institute, they fell asleep.


Paul James Cosgrove: The new critic for housing for the New Democratic Party has had that responsibility for approximately a couple of weeks. I invite him in all seriousness to take the budget document I referred to, look at the money provided, look at the unit cost, divide the unit cost into money afforded and look at the number of jobs that could be created.


Ian Deans: It is a pittance compared to the need.


Paul James Cosgrove: You call 70,000 jobs a pittance? Well, the case rests there. Canadians have their answer; 70,000 jobs is not enough.


Ian Deans: It is not nearly enough.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, would the House leader of the New Democratic Party let the minister speak?


Ian Deans: Why? Give me one good reason.


Mr. Cullen:: The minister is doing well.


Walter David Baker: No, he is not. I want to hear him.


Paul James Cosgrove: I am disappointed today-


Ian Deans: So are we.


Paul James Cosgrove: -that this day is taken for debate of a motion which it will become obvious to the public is designed in an attempt to play small politics, which I refer to is as parliamentary parlour tricks, with the government. I am
February 19, 1982

extremely disappointed with the debate on this subject which is of such importance to Canadians. Who of the members can doubt that there have been requests by ordinary Canadians that are heartfelt? Since I made my offer to members opposite to assist with individual problems of Canadians, I have received close to 700 requests from members opposite to assist individual Canadians with problems in order to achieve some relief from higher interest rates.
We brought in a program. That program awaits passage. I refer to Bill C-89 which has been in the House for three days for discussion.


Ian Deans: Three whole days. Isn't that awful?


Paul James Cosgrove: Does anyone in the House need three days to understand that Canadians want that relief? Do they need three days? Do they need three days more?


Ian Deans: No.


Paul James Cosgrove: And why can we not bring Bill C-89 to the floor of the House on Monday and give that relief to Canadians?


Ian Deans: When did you last call it?


Paul James Cosgrove: Why can we not start these programs? Why can we not start the construction of affordable rental accommodation for Canadians?


Ian Deans: Why don't you rent out the 7,000 units?


Walter David Baker: Nine thousand.


Ian Deans: Nine thousand.


Paul James Cosgrove: Why can we not employ Canadians in this program? That is the question. That is the issue raised by the motion before us today. That is the issue the public will have to judge.
The Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition said that Liberals will have to vote today the way in which they speak in their ridings. When I speak in my riding and in any other riding across Canada which I have the privilege to visit I bring the same message. From now on it will be focused on what is happening in Parliament, why housing is not being built and why there is no provision for affordable housing, because I want to provide it.


Ian Deans: How about the 9,000 units sitting empty? Why don't you rent them out?


Paul James Cosgrove: I began by saying that the thrust of this government in difficult economic times in this area of social responsibility was to adopt the principle that we direct our resources to those who first have to be helped because they need help more than anyone else. I indicated there was a response which would assist thousands, not only in their housing needs but in their need to find meaningful employment. That legislation is before the House. I talked about the
Supply
mortgage renewal plan, which, by the way, was confirmed by the court in Saskatchewan in a review of legislation by that government. I said that we are on course, that we should be providing inequity assistance to those people most affected. I was very pleased to see that support.
The government has done more than that. We have continued our social commitment. In fact, we have more than continued it. We have increased our commitment to the social needs of Canadians in the housing program. We have undertaken a review of the rural and native program, a program which serves Canadians of modest needs and of particular needs because of geography. These programs are before the government for consideration.
The government has undertaken an extensive study of the shelter allowance issue. It is not an allowance to assist Canadians to find a response to their housing needs through a specific building program, but to give them increased income to make a choice as to where they can find relief with regard to their shelter needs. That program is under study.
There is no simple single response. The response of the government was that, in difficult economic times, we have to respond in an equitable way to those who most demand and who are most deserving of our concerns.
The major point of my intervention in this debate is that Bill C-89 is designed to serve those Canadians who need modest accommodation, accommodation not being provided by any other level of government in this country. The only answer to the needs of Canadians rests squarely with the opposition to this government. That is the point I make. That is the answer I search for. I ask all Canadians in all ridings why this government is being prevented from proceeding with that plan for affordable accommodation and with jobs for Canadians to boot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: After consultation with the legal advisers, I can inform the House that the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is, in fact, acceptable. Therefore, the question is on the amendment which is as follows: Moved by the hon. member for Oshawa, seconded by the hon member for Kamloops-Shuswap:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the words "now" the following:
"And that this government be condemned for accepting the advice of the
finance critic of the official opposition when he recently urged the government
to maintain its high rate interest policy as it affects mortgages."


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, some 20 minutes ago when you first recognized me, I agreed to yield the floor to the minister of housing. I felt it was important that members of the House of Commons and all Canadians have a chance to hear the response of the minister of housing to the very serious allegations which were made by ten Members of Parliament in the open letter they sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the government was not doing enough to stimulate the housing industry in Canada.

February 19, 1982
Supply
That response by the minister was disappointing. All that he did was to fall back on the legislation which he has brought forward which deals with the housing component in the budget. All that he did was to pretend that that legislation would have some substantive effect upon employment in Canada and upon the serious housing crisis in Canada today.
Lest any Member of Parliament be deceived by the minister's comments, I remind the minister and the members of the House that that bill was placed on the Order Paper some weeks ago. The measures contained in the bill were announced by the minister on budget night. When those ten Liberal Members of Parliament, including two cabinet ministers, wrote their letter condemning the government's economic policy and calling upon the Prime Minister to bring in new measures to stimulate the construction industry and reduce unemployment, they knew precisely what the content of that bill was. If the minister is asking us whether or not the measures he is proposing will provide substantive relief for Canadians, I ask him not to listen to us but to listen to his own Liberal backbenchers who have said that it is not enough and it is essential that new measures be taken.
I did not expect that this minister, who is the weakest and most ineffectual housing minister in Canadian history, would have announced a major new initiative today. I do believe, however, that he had a responsibility to remind Canadians of the commitment he made last summer when he talked about what he would be saying to Canadians from coast to coast. He stated that he would be fighting for substantive relief in the budget for Canadian home owners. The strong implication of his statements as well as those of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was that unless they were able to get substantive relief for the people for whom they were concerned, they would be prepared to submit their resignations.
The ten Liberal Members of Parliament who signed that open letter to the Prime Minister clearly indicated their opinion of the worth of those budgetary provisions. Is the minister prepared to keep the commitment he has made? Is he prepared to put his job on the line on behalf of Canadians who are in jeopardy of losing their homes? Is he prepared to stand up for those many Canadian families who may never be able to achieve their dream of affordable housing? How does he explain his conduct as minister responsible for housing to his own constituents, quite apart from the commitments he has made across the country? How does he, as minister of housing, relate to his own constituents who find no relief in the budget in their efforts to renew their mortgages?
What does he say to his constituents, particularly the young Canadians who are looking for jobs? Unemployment among young Canadians is running at roughly twice the rate of unemployment among those over the age of 25. What response does he give those whom he represents in Parliament? What has he done for those who are affected by the government's economic policies? How will he vote today when he is called upon to represent his constituents?
For that matter, what has he done for his constituents on McLure Crescent who have radioactive soil in their backyards, aside from trying to sneak the soil somewhere else? He has done nothing for those constituents. What have he and his colleagues done for those constituents in Scarborough who have urea formaldehyde in their homes? Are they satisfied? How does the minister respond to them as their Member of Parliament when they ask him to represent them and speak to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) because they need help?
This debate concerns two issues. The first issue is clearly the question of the Canadian economy. The figures are evident. There are a million Canadians unemployed, and unemployment is particularly rampant among young Canadians. An increasing number of Canadians are being forced to surrender their homes, their businesses and their farms. The economic facts are very clear.
The second issue which the house is being asked to address today is our system of parliamentary democracy. Will members of the government caucus be free to represent their constituents and speak up when the government makes decisions which adversely affect their constituents, and second, will those Members of Parliament, when forced to decide between their constituents and their Prime Minister, put their country and constituents first? That is the issue which will be decided at five o'clock today.
We know what happened when the minister responsible for housing had to decide to either keep his commitment to resign or swallow his words and pretend that there were substantive measures in the budget. We know what the Minister of Agriculture did. We know as well what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) did. When the minister spoke on television during the last election campaign he said he would resign from the Liberal government if they were elected and the interest rates continued to increase. When he was faced with record high interest rates, what did he do? He chose to swallow his words and compromise his integrity.
What will be the position of the Liberal Members of Parliament, such as the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly)? He has been very silent in Ottawa on the issue of the government's treatment of the budget. This intrigued me when I read the Toronto Star on January 7 when reference was made to the member for Scarborough Centre on this matter. The headline read, "Metro's Liberal MPs still upset with budget". It dealt with the hon. member this way:
MP Norm Kelly (L-Scarborough Centre), who said he got his licks during earlier caucus meetings against some features of the budget, is reserving judgment on whether more changes are needed.
He's meeting with car salesmen in his riding today. The auto sales industry is claiming that increasing taxes paid by employees provided with company cars will hit hard. The Canadian Automotive Leasing Association says the tax changes on parts could chop production of 150,000 cars and trucks annually.
Kelly also dislikes fighting inflation with high interest rates.
When has he said that in the House of Commons? When has he participated in the debate? When Liberal members have been asked to stand up and vote, when have we seen an
February 19, 1982

indication from him that he is prepared to say the same thing in Ottawa as he said to the local press? Well, we will know at five o'clock today whether he is prepared to stand up and be counted.
That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Does he put his constituents first or does he do the bidding of his Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: 1 thought the issue was jobs.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Liberal backbenchers have been put precisely in that position. The Prime Minister has told them, "When I want your opinion, I will give it to you. Do not bother me otherwise." When the Prime Minister was asked in the House whether he was concerned about the breach of cabinet solidarity when two members of his cabinet wrote an open letter calling upon the government to disavow the policies of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister said, as quoted in Hansard on February 9 at page 14800:
Madam Speaker, there is a very simple test of cabinet solidarity, and it is the one which Laurier applied. The right hon. member should look at the circumstances described by Laurier in the case he cites. It is that, when a minister disagrees with the cabinet, he resigns from that cabinet.
There was then an interjection, and the Prime Minister continued:
Or she resigns if she disagrees with the position of the budget or of the government on any particular matter; or if he or she is a member of the caucus, he or she does what members in the caucus of the Leader of the Opposition did. He or she resigns from the caucus and gets out.
That is what cabinet solidarity means. In every other circumstance, the ministers and the caucus are holding together, and they are sticking with the government. This does not mean, as I said-
At this point there was an interjection. He continued:
It is really very interesting to sec the amount of time we will spend in this question period answering questions by the opposition seeking out a division in this caucus. If there is a division, why don't the members sit as independents?
Why indeed, Mr. Speaker? That is the choice being given to the members of the Liberal caucus by the Prime Minister. In other words, toe the line or get out. They either blindly accept the position taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance or they are told to get out. That is the choice which the Liberal caucus will have to make today when they vote on this motion at five o'clock.
Will they put their constituents first or will they swallow their integrity and pride, shirk their responsibility to their constituents and vote complicitly on policies which are inflicting very serious damage on their constituents?
The onus is on Liberal Members of Parliament to put their country first. I believe the constituents of those hon. members opposite are saying the same thing.
I was somewhat concerned when I heard both the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the minister responsible for housing suggest that my leader was calling upon Liberal Members of Parliament to help him today. That is not the case. We do not need their help, nor do we particularly want it. What is being asked is that those Liberal Members of Parliament support their constituents and the people of Canada. That is the issue which they will have to
Supply
resolve at five o'clock. Will they put their constituents first or are they here to do the bidding of the Prime Minister and blindly follow his instructions?
That is the option which faces the member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) who spoke last week in an interview which appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. He said that he had received over 1,000 letters from his constituents complaining about the effects of the budget on them. How will he vote today? Will he be here to stand up and vote on behalf of his constituents? We will see at five o'clock.
What is the position of other Liberal MPs? What did they hear from their constituents over the Christmas recess?
When Parliament resumed after the Christmas recess, Maclean's magazine called a number of members of the Liberal caucus in an attempt to get some response from them. This is what the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) is reported to have said:
The budget is another notch in belt-tightening that they just figure is getting too tight," sighs southern Ontario MP Jim Schroder. "And the tenor of many of my letters is, 'Of course this letter won't do any good-' "
We will see today whether those letters have any effect on the hon. member for Guelph.
What did another Liberal member say? This is the way Maclean's dealt with it:
"The budget is only the last straw," admits northern Ontario MP Ron Irwin.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It goes on to read:
Constituents say, 'Do something'. They feel there's no control. (To get elected today) I'd have to rely on my record and not my party.
That is a quotation from Maclean's. How will that hon. member vote today at five o'clock?
What have other members said? Under the headline "Barometer Bob registers rage" a reference in The Windsor Star of January 25 to an interview with the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) indicated that the hon. member is very concerned about the effect of the budget upon his constituents. He concluded the interview by strongly implying that it is time for the Prime Minister to resign. The Windsor Star said:
Now the 41-year-old MP comes close to conceding Trudeau-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It goes on to read:
-is no longer a saleable commodity and hints he would be doing the party a favour by stepping down soon.
"The decision is going to be made by that man, not me. It would be counterproductive to say he's got to go now."
But Daudlin says it's clear that people no longer feel they can expect new ideas and new approaches under Trudeau's leadership.
"There's a public perception out there as to leadership that can only be altered when somebody new takes the helm."

February 19, 1982
Supply
That is what the Liberal member of caucus for Essex-Kent said. How will he vote today? I think I know how he, the hon. member for Kitchener and the hon. member for Guelph will vote today. I suspect their constituents know as well.
Following that interview, there was a follow-up article in The Windsor Star which dealt with that interview and pointed out the responsibilities the hon. member has to speak out on behalf of his constituents. Under the headline "When you're just a nobody, MPs' platitudes won't keep you warm or fill your stomach" in The Windsor Star of February 9, this is what Georgina Woltz said:
A recent article in The Star by Gord Henderson centred on Essex-Kent Liberal MP Bob Daudlin, who like other Liberal MPs has expressed concern and outrage at what has been happening to their constituents as a result of present economic policies. However, when a recent no confidence vote on the budget was called for in the House of Commons, we heard nothing about any Liberal MP or cabinet minister, including Daudlin, opposing the budget or in any way criticizing Liberal economic policies. Like good little sheep they dutifully voted down the no-confidence motion and its amendment.
To vote against the Liberal hierarchy would be political suicide and it would appear that principles, integrity, the trust given to these elected representatives and the concern of the people they have promised to serve, lead to too high a price to pay for the possibility of losing favour with party leaders. After all, they must look after number one and if they can get by with a few band-aid remedies-a few crumbs to silence the more vocal-well, who knows how long they might survive? Never mind the hurting "nobodies" back home, party loyalty must take precedence.
That is the response of people in the Essex area to the statement made by the hon. member.
What about the hon. member for Guelph? Will he speak out today? Will he vote at five o'clock today to represent his constituents? A very similar article appeared in the Guelph Mercury on January 16, 1982, after the hon. member for Guelph had been receiving representations from his constituents that it was time he spoke up on their behalf. That is what Bruce Laplaunte, a staff writer for the daily Mercury in Guelph said:
If Schroder is the decent man I think he is-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair has been very lenient. The hon. member is quoting from certain newspapers, and he is allowed to do so, but there is a rule we abide by in the House that when hon. members are referred to, they must be referred to by their constituencies and not by their names, and I invite the hon. member to do that.


Erik Nielsen: Not when you are quoting.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I might pursue that at another time, Mr. Speaker, but I will not now. I will be pleased to abide by your ruling, but 1 think it is important all hon. members know which constituency my friend is from. It is the constituency of Guelph. This article says that if the hon. member for Guelph is, and I quote:
-the decent man I think he is, he has to know it's time to stop acting like a party lackey, to stand up in the House and tell (the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance) he can't sell his soul for a backbench seat on the government side.
It is not the Liberals who are ruining this country and dashing the dreams and hard work of most of us. It's that damned silly, pointy-headed academic at the helm-and those who play patsy to him.
Please!
And the article refers to the hon. member for Guelph.
-own up to that. Save your soul. And, in the process, your country.
That was the position taken by a columnist, Mr. Bruce Laplaunte, who is with the Guelph daily Mercury, about the hon. member for Guelph. His constituents will be watching today to see how the hon. member for Guelph votes.


Roger Simmons: They won't be proud of you.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Members of Parliament from other constituencies have also made statements. The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) has called upon the Prime Minister to step aside and has said it is time for a new Liberal leader. He has also attacked the policies of the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Where will he be today at five o'clock? Will he represent his constituents?
What about the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen)? I want to read to hon. members what was said in The Globe and Mail on January 14, 1982. It reads as follows:
Former Liberal cabinet minister-
The article mentions the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
-said there are parts of the federal budget he still does not like.
He said:
-some members of the party who had concerns demanded a meeting with-
The Minister of Finance.
-and 17 changes to the budget have resulted. "It indicates to the public that we are not sheep in there,"-
We will see today whether that is true and whether the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton is a sheep or whether he puts his constituents first.
What about the Minister of Agriculture? What has he said? He has made himself very clear. He gave a speech in London earlier this year. He had written a speech, but ultimately refused to use it. Instead, the hon. member for Lambton-Mid-dlesex (Mr. Ferguson) gave a speech on the minister's behalf in which he was very critical of the budget and said he would press to have it changed. The constituents of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex will be watching today too. However, the text prepared for release by the Minister of Agriculture said this:
While these anti-inflation measures are necessary medicine for the long-term,
I know that some aspects of the budget were unfair and I campaigned to get those things changed. 1 think that some officials in the finance department didn't quite understand how some of the budget items affect people like farmers.
What will happen today when the Minister of Agriculture is called upon? The London Free Press of January 19 dealt with the minister and said:
Even publicly, Whelan's remarks are unusual for a cabinet minister in their blunt criticism of a fellow minister. He says he sent "several letters" to (the Minister of Finance) after the budget was introduced November 12. Did (the Minister of Agriculture) express concern about the budget's plan to drop the income-averaging tax provisions? "You want to believe I did." he says.
February 19, 1982

That is what the Minister of Agriculture was quoted as saying, but will he stand up at five o'clock and put the interests of Canadian farmers First, or will he be silently complicitous in budgetary policies which are driving Canadian farmer after Canadian farmer out of business?
My leader mentioned the fact that the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) also called for the budget to be thrown out. This is what the Montreal Gazette of January 23 said about that Ontario member:
Liberal MP-
The article refers to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
-has called for the rejection of the federal budget after a stormy meeting with his constituents.
"I think we should throw the basic part of this (budget) out and look at applying it to people who pay no tax on very high income,"-
This was after a stormy meeting, so the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan wants the budget thrown out. Will he be here today and vote as he said to his constituents he was prepared to do?
What about other Members of Parliament? Will they speak up on behalf of their constituents? I have already mentioned the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. There are other Toronto Liberals as well who have spoken out. In the article to which I referred previously in the Toronto Star of January 7 the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) was quoted as saying he received hundreds of calls and letters, and he promised he would continue to speak up in caucus and write to the Minister of Finance asking that the budget:
-hit the targeted (high-income) people and not the little people.
That is the issue we will decide today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity, so obligingly provided by the Progressive Conservative Party, to expand on the action taken by the Liberal members from central and eastern Montreal, who certainly did not need the advice of the members opposite to bring to the attention of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the problems existing in their constituencies. As one of the members who signed the letter to the Prime Minister, I feel I should point out that the letter was interpreted in every possible way by the members opposite. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is ample proof in Hansard that I supported the budget in a speech before this very House, and that at the beginning of last week, I also spoke out in favour of Bill C-89 on residential housing, an important area that was stressed in our letter. For the benefit of my constituents in Montreal-Mercier, I may remind our Progressive Conservative friends that my colleagues and myself, are aware of the economic problems
Supply
existing throughout the world, have vigorously supported the proposal in the MacEachen budget.
Only a few months ago, the official opposition and the business world in general agreed that after inflation, the government's main objective should be to bring down the budget deficit. Mr. Speaker, I think the MacEachen budget took a very vigorous approach to this problem, so that within a few years we can expect to restore the balance and reduce the government's debt load. My constituents in Montreal-Mercier, for instance, know perfectly well that if they borrow too much, their budget won't be able to stand the strain, and they will have to cut their expenses. The Canadian government's attempts to reduce the deficit, which was largely caused by oil compensation payments benefiting Quebecers and the rest of eastern Canada have been well received by my constituents. They realize that reducing the deficit will release funds for use as new investments.
The unemployment situation in Canada is not very optimistic. And it gets even worse when we consider the situation in Quebec. According to Statistics Canada, between 1972 and 1976, in other words, during the pre-separation, pre-independence and pre-Levesque government period, the unemployment rate was 6.2 in Canada and 7.5 in Quebec. Since the Parti Quebecois came to power, unemployment in Canada increased by 1.6, that is from 6.2 to 7.8. However, in Quebec, the unemployment rate is now at 10.2, which means an increase of nearly 3 per cent. To a member from Quebec, these figures are alarming, and that is why members from eastern Montreal took their views and their recommendations to the Prime Minister.
Every week young people come to my constituency office, looking for a job, and that is really what convinced me to sign the letter with my colleagues. At the present time, the federal government has a number of job-creation programs, and our purpose was not to throw out the budget but to make suggestions on improving existing programs in various sectors. These programs, Mr. Speaker, include nearly 11 measures aimed at creating jobs which apply to Quebec. In 1981-82, the programs created 50,798 jobs, which represents some $107 million. Mr. Speaker, although 50,000 benefited from these programs, which is quite considerable, these measures have been unable to make a significant dent in the present unemployment rate in Quebec. That is why we believe that the budget envelope administered by the Department of Employment and Immigration, could allow for certain funds to be spent directly on creating jobs for young people in order to help integrate them in the job environment. In the final instance, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis should be on measures to promote this process, because the present labour market situation is very tight, for workers as well as for employers.
It would be impossible to list all the reasons why young people have trouble finding jobs, but there is one that all our colleagues are aware of because of the reports made on the

February 19, 1982
Supply
subject in the House, and I am referring to training. Employers today, faced with problems caused by the economic situation in general, can hardly afford to give any sort of priority to this group of workers. Because of wage agreements which do not always provide for a probationary period for young employees, employers demand a fairly high production rate. This creates feeling of dissatisfaction on both sides when the young employee decides to leave and the employer is disappointed once more after investing time and money in training a young employee who will never give him a return on his investment. Mr. Speaker, the members for central and eastern Montreal are therefore in favour of emphasizing programs that promote the integration of young people in the regular labour market, in other words, the private sector, without making undue demands on the finances of these businesses which are presently experiencing very difficult times. We were not as specific in our letter, but today I felt it was important to specify the kind of measures we had in mind when we wrote to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. We are convinced that the members opposite will make the needs of their constituencies known and that this opposition day will be constructive for Canada as a whole.
In this context, we urge our colleagues opposite to speed up current business, as requested earlier by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), including Bill C-89, which will help create 70,000 jobs that will not only be welcome in our constituencies but will also give the impetus needed by the building industry in Quebec. Let us keep in mind that this bill which is now before Parliament was announced in the November budget and that our constituents want to see it implemented as quickly as possible. It provides, for instance, $150 million for 1982-83 and $200 million for 1983-84. I believe that we can expect this bill to be passed in the near future. Thus, the Canadian government will be able to finance 40,000 more rental units in 1982, including 25,000 units under the nonprofit and co-operative housing programs, which provide housing for low and medium-income renters. This means accessible housing for the people of the eastern Montreal constituencies as a whole.
Moreover, the Canada Rental Supply Plan will finance an additional 15,000 units to prevent an even greater shortage of rental housing. Bill C-89 will play a major role in providing these 15,000 units by enabling, for instance, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to insure more substantial loans for rental housing. This has become a serious problem and our colleagues opposite can help us to solve this problem in the near future by agreeing to expedite House business.
No one on this side can deny that we are going through one of the most difficult periods since the war. However, all economists, whether Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, all agree that inflation must be checked if interest rates are to go down. In fact, Statistics Canada figures for this month are encouraging. The cost of living has dropped and the annual average is improving. This is good news for our constituents who have also done their share in improving our economy.
However, without being overly optimistic, I venture to think that these are the early signs of an upturn and of the impact of the MacEachen budget, and I hope that the unemployment rate will soon decrease with the implementation of Bill C-89. We must recognize that Quebec and the eastern provinces are more affected by unemployment than the others. As Members of Parliament for Quebec, we have an even bigger job than others if we want to regain the confidence of investors.
The Parti Quebecois convention which was held last week can only make matters worse. During that convention, it was decided that the next step for Quebec was independence, and I believe that this period of uncertainty for Quebecers will become more serious, last longer and create problems for investors who have lost confidence in Quebec's future. Moreover, the poor Quebecers are the most heavily taxed in Canada, and even in the world, because if we look at the tax rates in other countries, we can see that Quebec has the sad distinction of holding the record for high taxes, among other records. In my opinion, at this time, instead of creating conflicts by ignoring each other-I believe that it was a good sign this week for the people of the provincial government to come and visit the federal government-we should consolidate our relations with Quebec and initiate a positive dialogue.
As housing comes under provincial jurisdiction, I believe that the role of the Canadian government can only be a regulatory one. It is therefore important to work in harmony with provincial and local agencies. In fact, the hon. members representing the central eastern part of Montreal will meet officials from the various levels of government, including the Urban Community of Montreal, the municipalities and all the economic agents from eastern Montreal, in the near future to discuss the federal programs which are available to them at the present time. We are now at the organizing stage and I am happy to report that my colleagues and I are now taking steps to meet all the people concerned in our area in order to make available to them the funds obtained from the federal government. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that any member of Parliament has the duty to ensure that information, the benefits of government programs have a positive impact in his or her constituency.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat for the benefit of my colleagues opposite that our concept of the role of a Member of Parliament is much more dynamic and positive than theirs. Members of the opposition are repeatedly suggesting that we never say a word about government policies, but a few minutes ago, the same members also suggested that government policy was to muzzle Members of Parliament. This party includes members who will support it. We are also convinced that it will react positively to the proposals we made to the Prime Minister.
I therefore thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) once again for having given us, members of the Liberal Party, an opportunity to discuss a problem that concerns each and everyone of us. And if he is looking for suggestions for his next motion, Mr. Speaker, we are quite ready to co-operate with
February 19, 1982

him in planning of the forthcoming opposition day. However, the opposition should refrain from telling the Canadian people that it is possible at the same time to reduce inflation, bring down interest rates, maintain the value of the Canadian dollar and not to experience an impact on unemployment. Surely they have economists who can make calculations and projections just as good as ours. It is my view that as responsible Members of Parliament, our friends opposite should as soon as possible take positive action on construction and housing and this is why I join the Minister of Public Works in urging them to pass Bill C-89 without further delay.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has never been questioned by any of the government members. We had healthy discussions with the Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary, and the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and 1 think it is the role of Members of Parliament to examine the budget and work for the wellbeing of their constituents. This is why, Mr. Speaker, on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues who also will have an opportunity to express their views, I say that tonight at five o'clock, for the information of the hon. member who spoke before me, I shall vote with the government to allow it to immediately implement the measures provided for in the budget and I hope for a most favourable response within the shortest time to the measures that we have announced.
I want to reiterate my wish that opposition members support Bill C-89 within a short period of time so that construction can start in the riding of Montreal-Mercier and that it will receive all the benefits of the budget.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I would like to say that the motion before the House today is quite relevant and quite challenging for the majority of members who are anxious to defend the interests of their constituents.
First, I would like to remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), whom 1 have always regarded as being basically honest, that when he refers to the statement of our financial critic to the effect that we support higher interest rates, particularly in housing as he pointed out, he cannot be taken seriously. I suggest he is making a serious mistake in light of our comments and the evidence in support of our position. It has long since been demonstrated that the Progressive Conservative Party was and still is prepared to advocate preferential interest rates in such a sensitive field as housing. I simply had to say this because I have the impression that the leader of the New Democratic Party misinterpreted the comments of our spokesman. I have a few words as well for the minister responsible for housing who, for the second consecutive week, has tried to defend the pitiful performance of his department.
Supply
He said that the Canadian people were suffering, so he certainly cannot be accused of falsifying the truth, but of course he failed to add that he has clear-cut responsibilities with respect to such a major industry as housing which is dying. He went on to say that the Canadian people will pass judgment on us. We are quite prepared to let the Canadian people judge the debate and the fight we are having today and which began long ago. For instance, how can we explain why he did not grab this opportunity to endorse openly the recommendations made by the group of ten Liberals? How can we explain that he did not jump at the chance of saying to them: Listen, I do not see how you can possibly support the government today, so in response to a justifiable, urgent and pressing request, we will not hesitate to support you because we readily admit that it is an urgent matter and that a contingency plan is required for the housing sector. He did not say either that yesterday his officials publicly stated that the activities in the housing construction sector will not start before six months and that they will be rather sluggish during the following six months.
His silence about the recommendation made by the group of which I would heartily support can only be interpreted as a categorical refusal. I also heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) tell us a somewhat similar story to that he told us last week and to me it was a sorry spectacle because he was trying once again to make Canadians believe that programs conceived from day to day will help the economy via a similar manner as a fireman is called upon to put out a fire. Therefore he has proven to us that his government has let the situation deteriorate to the point that programs have to be adjusted daily because they can no longer meet the emergency conditions set out in the proposal we are submitting today. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, following the example of his colleagues who first blamed the Americans for the state of our economy and then the Quebec government, as did the previous speaker, the member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), for the economic conditions in that province now accuses unions and management but never the government of being responsible for the situation.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, since 1968 we have witnessed a downturn in economic activity, not to mention other areas, since we are now dealing with the economy. In spite of all the figures quoted today, those to which the Minister of Employment and Immigration referred to, it remains that he omitted to mention the 1,500,000 Canadians unemployed because for every job he creates two are lost. I do not think that this is the way to build a viable country.
Our proposal, Madam Speaker, is nothing more than a minimum requirement to correct on one hand an intolerable situation in view of the problems faced by our young people from 18 to 25 years of age and on the other hand to stimulate the construction industry. That is what we would like to do. Is there anything more noble and more legitimate, than calling

February 19, 1982
Supply
out for an emergency program in both these areas? Government members should stop accusing the province of Quebec, or the American government, but have a good look at themselves, Mr. Speaker, and ask what we are doing for this country. This government which enjoyed the confidence of the people for years does no longer deserve it, Mr. Speaker, and it can be felt in the ridings. It is true that my own province is deeply affected as the result of the deplorable performance of the federal government, but my own province is still more affected by a recession for which the government has to accept responsibility.
Two years ago, the Liberals were returned to power. Let my Liberal colleagues tell me at what point during the election campaign they warned the electorate that they would increase fourfold the 18-cent tax which we had proposed. Let them tell me, Mr. Speaker, at what point during the election campaign they warned the voters in Quebec and elsewhere that they would increase 120 per cent the price of fuel oil. Let them tell me, Mr. Speaker, at what point they warned Canadians that they would let the construction industry die as they are doing now. Let them tell me, Mr. Speaker, at what point they warned Canadians that they would refuse to do anything for renters. Let them tell me, Mr. Speaker, at what point they warned that they would torpedo our tax credit scheme which was intended to help home owners keep their houses. When did they warn the Canadian people that they would fight inflation on the backs of the unemployed? Never, Mr. Speaker, did they tell the workers in the traditional industries, the ailing industries in Quebec, that they would have to accept early retirement plans and job training programs because the federal government has clearly demonstrated its determination to ignore the traditional industries?
We receive representations from the shoe and textile industries. I know that the ridings of many hon. members on the government side are very severely affected by the government's carelessness and nearsightedness. They did not say anything about that two years ago. They did not warn the electorate of the decisions this government is making on a day to day basis. The members of this government, in my opinion, are all party to a national treason. And Quebecers who are watching us today are anxious to see how their elected representatives, some six dozens of them, will behave. They are anxious to see whether the opinion of the ten dissenting members, including two ministers, is shared by the majority of the Quebec Liberal caucus, and in case it is, how they will vote tonight considering the lack of response from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is in charge of the very sensitive area of housing, as well as the lack of response from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to their recommendation? Surely, deeds speak louder than words. To represent our fellow citizens and convey their real hopes and wishes to Parliament, in my opinion, is a noble and respectable occupation. How
could they claim that they respect this occupation and deserve the confidence their constituents have vested in them if these hon. members do not have the guts to stand behind their signatures?


An hon. Member:: Beware of your high blood pressure!


Roch La Salle: My blood pressure is just fine, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that these hon. members should examine their conscience this afternoon, taking into account the fact that they have an obligation to give the Canadian people an opportunity to elect a party which would be concerned with the interests of all parts of Canada.
I have spoken of national treason, Mr. Speaker. After the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) had been brought down, it became clear that in Quebec, as elsewhere, voters had had enough, and could not put up with those measures which are repressive for and condemned by all categories of people and in every field of endeavour in Quebec and everywhere in our Canadian society. My colleagues from Quebec who are fooling around across the way know that perfectly well.
How is it then that only ten of them signed that letter when I know at least 50 felt like doing so? I appeal to their conscience. I appeal to the sense of respect they should have for their signature, and on behalf of millions of Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, I plead with them to meet the expectations and aspirations of their own constituents. How does one explain, Mr. Speaker, that all of a sudden those members should decide to write an open letter to their Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), if not because of the pressures and the helplessness they felt in their ridings?
A while ago, the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier delivered a gracious message and probably spoke on behalf of the ten, trying to justify what they will do this evening, saying she has never condemned the MacEachen budget. What a cop-out, Mr. Speaker! This is not the first time I have seen it either. But what a great disappointment for the Quebecers who thought that surely at some point some group would have the courage to bring the Minister of Finance back to his senses, and also bring the government to be more respectful of the needs of Canada as a whole, and especially Quebec, since there are 74 members sitting opposite whose role is extremely important. It seems increasingly possible, as I speak to you, that Quebecers will once more be disappointed because those members did not have the courage to stick it out to the end, and their last stand will be seen in Quebec as a pitiful performance. And the leader of the rebels, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), I have yet to see in the House today. 1 wonder if she will show up here tonight after the warning the Prime Minister gave her. The hon. member for Montreal-Mercier did not tell us everything when she said she willingly submitted to the invitation of the chairman of the caucus who chided her, and that of the Prime Minister who

February 19, 1982
gave them a backhander, warning them that the next letter he looks at will be one of resignation. Why did the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier not tell us that?
Everyone knows now who the Prime Minister scolded them and warned them he would not put up with such letters being made public. But today, Mr. Speaker, I feel that for the sake of Canada and Quebec, the matter is much more important. Something is more important and vital. The minister responsible for housing said that Canadians are suffering; yes, it is true, Canadians are suffering. But the Canadian people are victims of an economic doctrine which is inconsistent with their needs and their aims. The tremendous failure of this government became apparent lately and it is being confirmed every day. Those members have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker. How can I appeal to their pride? Is it still possible to plead with them? What can be done to convince them that the Canadian people deserve better than the Minister of Finance's proposals, that they deserve better than a prime minister who ignores the suffering of the people and is indifferent to their plight? What can I do to touch the heart of those men and women who will not stop for one moment to defend the Canadian or the Quebec nation instead of supporting the partisan interests of a political party intent on bringing about the country's ruin? That is the issue today. And I am a Quebecer sitting here.
I will always be blamed for supporting the Quebec government, but if the Quebec government introduces measures designed to stop massive plant closedowns, I will not hesitate to support it or any other government that would do that, Mr. Speaker.
But as long as they look for excuses and blame others for the government's dismal performance, I will have no hesitation but to discharge my duty as a Member of Parliament to severely criticize not only those who will not honour their signature but also the others who have no respect for the confidence put in them by their constituents just two years ago. And of all the members from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, 1 am the only one who can condemn the government. There are two or three dozen others on that side who would like to, but who once more today do not have the courage to do it. They are afraid of losing their seats. They deserve it because day in and day out they betray the interests of their constituents. Of course, Mr. Speaker, they believe that truth is on their side, but it is beyond understanding how once more this afternoon they are going to follow blindly the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister who are leading this country to bankruptcy. They are aware of it and they are ill at ease in their constituencies and if they do not have enough courage to proudly put the interests of their constituencies ahead of the interests of a party that is hurting the country to such an extent, I hope that their constituents will make all kinds of representations to them over the weekend.
Maybe those people think we are still preaching in the desert. Well, let them think what they will. However, I will
Supply
waste no opportunity to remind the people of Canada, the people of Quebec that on this side of the House we have people who believe that their first duty is to meet the most cherished aspirations of a nation that wants to survive and that does not want to be driven to ruin and disaster, as has been the case for too long. My view is that Canadians will jump on the first opportunity that arises, hopefully within a short time-frame, to take the country out of this mess and restore pride and the will to live to thousands of people who are now broken-spirited.
There is rising uncertainty in every area right now, Quebec is no exception, and things are even worse there, because of those 74 Liberal members who have been around for the past 15 years. How come Montreal lost its status as the metropolis of Canada with 74 Liberal members for the province and 22 Liberal members out of 22 for the island of Montreal, plus five or six ministers? Because of the poor performance of the people opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier);: Order, please. I now recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the motion introduced by the official opposition. Yesterday, we commemorated in this House the second anniversary of our return to office. This day brings back to me the rout of the Progressive Conservative Party at that time. When I heard those who spoke today, first the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), then his colleague from Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) and, finally, my good friend from Joliette (Mr. La Salle), I said to myself that they were still in a rout. Firstly, their motion is taken directly from a letter written by some Liberal colleagues. Their speeches were almost entirely made up of quotations from Liberal colleagues throughout the country, and everything we heard concerned the Liberal Party. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition should thank the Canadian people for re-electing us two years ago, because they had nothing to say. The members opposite have gone to the trouble of having a motion put on the Order Paper on behalf of the official opposition so they could speak only about the Liberals. Have we heard any valid solutions today? Have we heard any suggestions? None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. In the minutes at my disposal, I would like to ask them why they did not take any action in certain areas since they would like the population to believe that they could have done so. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that our government, and especially the Department of Employment and Immigration, have taken and will take action to respond to the present economic situation.
We shall have to face some very important issues in the next few years and we shall have to do what is needed to meet the demand, as concerns both the economy and manpower. Yesterday I read an article in the Montreal Gazette about a confer-

February 19, 1982
Supply
ence arranged by the Financial Post and dealing with future technologies. This article pointed out how essential it was for Canada to plan a major catch-up operation in this field. In fact, most other industrialized countries do face the same problem. However, in the case of Canada, at a time when our traditional sources of immigration are becoming more and more depleted and we are considering extensive industrial megaprojects, it is obvious that we have to make additional, and especially concentrated efforts on a national scale.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the challenge which we shall be facing during the forthcoming decade in the human resources field has been described in various studies mentioned by the minister this morning, and more specifically in that sponsored by our own department and conducted under the leadership of one of our colleagues and dealing with employment prospects for the eighties. In the past 12 months, Mr. Speaker, the government, the private sector and the trade unions have become very concerned with human resources policies. The consultations which led to the recent federal-provincial conference held in Vancouver early in January to deal with job training are now over and we are about to implement a most effective training program for the whole country. This will be a flexible program which will meet today's needs and provide long-term benefit to all Canadians. We are now witnessing a dramatic decrease in supply throughout the country. The average growth rate of the labour force, which had reached 3.5 per cent in the early sixties and seventies, will have fallen to a mere 1.8 per cent by the end of the eighties. In addition, the make-up of the labour force will have undergone radical changes. The number of newcomers on the labour market will decrease during the next decade and two thirds of them will be women. In western Canada the native people will account for over 20 per cent of the population increase. At least one out of every five newcomers on the labour force will be from the native community in that part of Canada. The average age of the workers will substantially increase. This factor alone will affect the labour market and even our daily life.
Mr. Speaker, all members are well aware of the unprecedented changes that will occur in the economy and the labour market during this decade. However, we are faced with an extraordinary paradox. The unemployment figures are high, but the evolution of our economy is causing serious manpower shortages, especially in the specialized fields. In fact, certain jobs cannot be filled in Canada because of a lack of specialized workers, and this is why we have to call on immigrants to fill certain positions.
No later than this week, the president of a big engineering firm in Montreal pointed out, and rightly so, that the country is very short of engineers at this time, and that this shortage will become crucial in the years to come; that it may even
harm the megaprojects we are planning to get under way. Similarly in private industries, Mr. De Grandpre, chairman of Northern Telecom spoke recently of the shortage of qualifications in his own company. He predicts that Northern Telecom will have to recruit up to 65,000 engineers and experts over the next ten years, if it wants to keep and strengthen its lead in the key technological fields of electronics and telecommunications. A study of those needs in manpower, and especially skilled labour, and the high rate of unemployment, makes action imperative. There is a pressing need to speed up the process of change in the training system across the land. That is precisely why we had that great conference in early January where the topic of vocational training was debated at length.
Like all my colleagues in the House I witnessed the general outcry on the part of certain provinces which were accusing us of trying to interfere in a field of provincial jurisdiction. Of course they did not take into account the fact that our purpose was to train people who are already out of the education system and on the labour market. We also noticed that the province of Quebec was reluctant to participate in this program. Last year we gave the province of Quebec about $65 million for vocational training.
Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised today when I heard the arguments of our colleagues opposite because they did not even say that those programs exist in the province of Quebec. My colleague from Joliette did say that the members from the province of Quebec were not doing anything in the House of Commons. I would like to remind him that during the constitutional debate the Leader of the Opposition and a few of his colleagues tried to bring pressure to bear on the government of Quebec in an attempt to make certain amendments to our constitutional proposal. Mr. Speaker, they knew full well that it was a sheer waste of time to try to convince an openly separatist party to sit at the bargaining table in Ottawa with a view to amending a proposed constitution. They knew beforehand that it was an exercise in futility.
But in concrete cases such as this vocational training project, where do our friends opposite stand? Did they try again to pressure the Quebec government to sit at the same table with us in an effort to renegotiate that constitutional agreement? Did they? I would like to know. I hope that our friend from Joliette who is telling us that he is just- I am looking forward to the reaction of the Quebec government in that respect to see if indeed they will be able to convince the Quebec government.
We on this side of the House have offered to the government of Quebec a program especially designed to train throughout Canada the skilled labour force we will need to meet our needs in the coming years.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has just announced another very important program, a program he successfully negotiated with the government of Ontario to enable roughly 2,000 forest workers to be
February 19, 1982

actively employed during the short period until they go back to their regular jobs this spring. Under this program, the provinces and Ottawa can sign agreements based on the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, Section 38, which makes it possible to set funds aside for keeping the most severely affected workers gainfully employed.
In addition to their regular work, these workers can make a useful contribution to their community while collecting additional unemployment benefits. In Ontario, the provincial government has contributed up to $60 a week to the salary of these workers in addition to implementing and administering the program. 1 hope the Conservative friends will help us convince the provincial government to sign these agreements. I am informed that the Quebec government will submit proposals shortly, and I hope that our friends of the Conservative Party, as well as those to my far right, will support the signing of such agreements with the Quebec government in order to keep those Canadians at work.
Mr. Speaker, before going back to the subject of training, I would like to say a few words about the announcement made on December 22 by the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning a very important program which will provide another $50 million for job creation. A significant part of those $50 million was intended for work sharing. Indeed, under that formula, as of February 16 the Canadian government had earmarked $5 million to help thousands of Canadians workers. Almost 68 agreements have been signed across the land, of which four only in Quebec, and we hope businessmen in my province may take advantage of this program to the same extent as those in other provinces. Under those agreements already reached, 4,144 employees agreed to share the work available with 1,903 others of their colleagues who otherwise would have been laid off. There again, funds are taken from unemployment insurance money as a contribution that almost makes up the money paid for days that are not worked. This keeps more people at work and skilled workers in the industry and certainly helps raise the spirits of those workers.
Mr. Speaker, company presidents told us last week that thanks to that extremely significant program, it had been possible to keep people at work in some industries, so that they can fulfil contracts they may now sign and will be able to sign in one or two months down the road. This program introduced by this government will enable those workers to keep their jobs on a permanent basis, which is quite different from the suggestion heard earlier that we were putting money into temporary jobs exclusively.
I would now like, Mr. Speaker, to come back to what I said earlier and outline the purpose of that famous legislation the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be introducing next spring for manpower training. Since the Adult Vocational Training Act was passed, the federal government has been much involved in institutional training programs which en-
Supply
abled a good number of Canadians to acquire high and medium skilled training. However, that kind of training no longer meets existing market requirements. In the future, adult retraining programs will not be implemented in isolation. Vocational training courses will be more closely related to manpower requirements and the regional and national labour markets. There is no social or economic justice in training Canadians for job opportunities which do not exist.
The government intends to increase its purchase of training units in the specialized trades of national dimension which do not require previous training, such as draftmen and computer programmers, and in the training programs. We intend to focus our efforts on the trades of national dimension and the other labour intensive trades. We intend also to create a professional adaptation and development fund, to provide the necessary sums to build or update training facilities. These facilities, which will be found throughout Canada in the areas where they are needed most, will help people who are compelled to leave their jobs because of the technological revolution, in a quickly changing world, obtain the necessary training to secure employment in other highly specialized trades.
In the area of in-industry training, it is also essential to increase our financial contribution and to gear more precisely the federal government's effort to the trades where the need for specialized workers is greater. The program will be an essential part of the new in-industry program, the purpose of which is to develop the capacity to train 10,000 highly specialized workers every year. Its priority will be to help Canadian workers whose jobs are threatened by the technological revolution.
Both in the in-industry training program and the on-site training programs, women and other disadvantaged groups will be assured of equal opportunities. We shall provide employers with incentives to assist them in training or retraining underprivileged groups and increasing women's training opportunities in traditional occupations. To this end Mr. Speaker, at the Vancouver conference most provincial and the federal governments unanimously decided to urge industry to work in collaboration with the federal and provincial governments toward the setting up of training facilities which are so urgently needed for our manpower. Obviously, industries will benefit from those training opportunities because they will be able, as was indicated earlier, to respond to the technological revolution and rapidly changing working conditions.
To be efficient, any new training system should be flexible enough to adjust in medium and long runs, to imbalances between supply of and demand for highly specialized professions and trades. Most people agree that the present analysis method has been and still is woefully inadequate. Therefore, they proposed the introduction of a system of skilled labour requirement projections in Canada which is the best means available to ascertain the demand levels, over a period of three

February 19, 1982
Supply
to ten years, in such professions that require nine months or more of training. The new system will be sufficiently accommodating to allow for the exercise of judgment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to speak in support of the motion that has been presented to the House by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The motion contains not only a substantial part dealing with the matter of job creation in Canada now, but it also supports the principles of parliamentary democracy upon which our whole Canadian system is based. I will explain that in a moment.
First let me say what we are trying to do and what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to bring to the attention of the House and the Canadian public is the fact that ten Members of Parliament on the government side have stood up to be counted on the issue of the budget and the tremendously adverse effect it is having on the Canadian economy and, more important, on the Canadian people. That is what this motion is all about. We in the opposition want to band together with those members on the government side who stood up to be counted on this issue. We want to support them. We want them to know that we are here to help them because we are all here to help the people of Canada.
We cannot help the people of Canada if we back off to a government which insists on putting in proposals and programs against the wishes of the people of Canada. That is why the motion involves parliamentary democracy.
We were sent here by people in constituencies right across Canada, in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to represent them. That is what we must do. That is our purpose for being here. That is what the members who signed that letter, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) and the eight private members who joined together did to make this presentation and proposal.
They are saying to the government and to the people of Canada that they know what Canadians need and want is jobs. They have to go to work. What are we talking about when we talk about unemployment in Canada? We talk about the 1.2 million people officially unemployed in Canada, according to government statistics.
It is worse than that. It has been mentioned several times in this House and other places that those statistics are not accurate. There are many more people unemployed in Canada. Statistics Canada surveys simply scratch the surface. They take into account those people out of work and looking for jobs, of which there are 1.2 million. Unfortunately, there are millions of others in much similar circumstances. There are those who have given up looking for a job. There are at least
250,000	who know that they cannot find work in Canada, no
matter how they look. They are in provinces such as Newfoundland.
If you speak to the provincial authorities there, they will tell you that the unemployment rate there, which is officially close to 20 per cent, is even higher because so many people have given up looking for a job. They know they cannot get work.
It is the same in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and I believe all across Canada. There are thousands of Canadians who have given up looking for work. Therefore, it is not just the 1.2 million who are officially unemployed. There are those who know they cannot get jobs and have given up.
It is even worse than that. It is not only those 1.2 million Canadians. There are an additional 1.5 million Canadians with part-time jobs. What are part-time jobs? That is working less than 30 hours a week. Who wants to work less than 30 hours a week? You cannot support yourself and a family with the most menial tasks or low-paying jobs. If you work less than that, you are in poverty. There are 1.5 million of these persons in Canada. The unfortunate part is that 70 per cent of them are women. In many cases these women have to work to support a family. Either their husband has deserted them, they are widowed or they have to provide for themselves. 1 repeat, 70 per cent of the 1.5 million persons in Canada in that situation are women.
In addition, there are another 250,000 persons who are underemployed. These are people with qualifications for higher level jobs, but they cannot get those jobs. There are teachers working as waitresses in restaurants in order to maintain themselves. There are thousands of them across Canada amounting to a total of 260,000 persons in this situation. People with Master's degrees are working in the post office as mail sorters. You see this everywhere you go.
When you add up all those figures and talk about unemployed persons in Canada, you cannot just take the 1.2 million who are officially unemployed. You have to include the 1.5 million who are in part-time jobs, the 250,000 who have given up looking for jobs and the 260,000 who are unemployed. That comes to a grand total of almost three million Canadians in a situation where they either do not have any work, have given up looking for work, have a part-time job, or are employed at menial tasks much below their qualifications. That is over 10 per cent of the total population. That is the situation in Canada.
The Prime Minister wonders why members from Quebec get together to consider the matter, draw up a letter and send it to him saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, for heaven's sakes, create some jobs in Canada. We have almost three million people either out of work, underemployed, looking for work or giving up and becoming destitute." They are saying that something has to be done. It is as simple as that. We are responding to it. We have a motion before the House supporting those people. We want to know what other members of the government will do about this motion. Will they realize, as did their colleagues who signed this letter, that the situation has gone beyond
February 19, 1982

acceptability to Canadians and support their colleagues? We have to join together and take steps to rectify this.
What will we do about it? The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) supposedly answered the problems of Canada when he introduced his budget on November 12. Did it create jobs or economic programs or a climate which would lead to industrial expansion? No, it went to the other extreme. It provided a great number of disincentives. The solution provided in the budget was to tax the working people more. The Minister of Finance, in his budget, told business that it was gypping the tax man and he would set new rules. The government will move in and examine the businesses and discourage them from further expansion or development. That is the solution to the problem which exists in Canada which was given by the Minister of Finance.
You have to wonder what motivates the minister. Is he blind? Does he never return to his constituency? Do you know what the situation is like in his constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Mr. Speaker? There is a post office on every corner and parks everywhere. His constituents need the parks because there are no jobs and there is nothing else to do. The minister never provided any jobs in his constituency. The minister provides $2 million, twice a year, toward winter works and student work programs in his constituency. Every other constituency in Nova Scotia receives $100,000 for the same kind of projects. That is how he treats his constituents. The Strait of Canso has the deepest and best port on the Atlantic coast, but there is nothing there. There used to be an oil refinery there, but it has closed down. The common-user dock has been virtually unused. But the Minister of Finance gives them post offices, parks and little projects. That is how he deals with unemployment in his constituency.
Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) charges him with the responsibility of dealing with unemployment all across Canada. That surely gives us an indication of the difficulty we are in. The Minister of Finance does not understand the situation. The Peter Principle has set in. He has gone beyond the level of his own competence.
Fortunately, there are members of his own party who realize this problem. Not only do members of the opposition parties, the national press, or most of the economists recognize this, members of his own party realize that he does not know what he is talking about.
The minister has lost control and has brought in insufficient measures to revive the economy. Worst of all, he is misleading Canadians as to what he is doing. The minister has introduced these budgetary provisions and has attempted to tell Parliament and the people of Canada that he is practising restraint. He says that he will cut down on the federal deficit, but he is not fooling the Economic Council of Canada. It realizes that it is not cutting the federal deficit but simply transferring it to the provinces. He is merely flowing the $5 billion from the federal deficit into the provinces. This deficit will be on their books because it is money which comes from transfer pay-
Supply
ments and payments from established programs. The minister has done nothing about government spending.
The proof magically appeared before me today. I saw an announcement in the Ottawa paper today that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and the Prime Minister were announcing the construction of a new national museum at a cost of $185 million. The government will spend $185 million on a museum! Earlier today we heard the minister for housing (Mr. Cosgrove) say that he was implementing programs to assist Canadians in their housing needs. The provisions in the budget were to help home owners in dire straits and provide $7,500 per unit for 15,000 units to help people who want to rent houses. The implementation of the proposals which are provided in a bill which he has before the House will cost a total of $350 million. While the government is providing $350 million to help those Canadians with excessive mortgage interest rates and those who need rental accommodation, at a time when occupancy is unavailable in most Canadian cities, it will spend $185 million on a museum. I think Canada's heritage is important, but we must not have home owners losing their homes through foreclosure and have all those social problems which would result. We cannot have Canadians who cannot afford rental accommodation forced to the streets to seek assistance from municipalities while the government builds a museum for $185 million. Where is the heart and soul of the government?
The minister does not understand the needs of Canadians. Why do the Liberal Members of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance not travel across Canada to find out what the needs of Canadians are? Have they closed their eyes? They developed a budget which they thought would bring equity into the tax system.
If the government wanted to bring equity to the tax system, they would have conducted a proper investigation and listened to the problems Canadians have with the tax system. They have discussed these problems in order to develop a tax system which would be fair to all Canadians.
When the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker formed the Government of Canada he set up the Carter commission to examine the tax system. It travelled across Canada to discuss Canadians' problems and ultimately came up with proposals for a change in the tax system. These proposals were contained in the Carter commission report. That is the method for bringing equity into a tax system.
However, when the Carter commission report was introduced in 1967, Mr. Bud Olson, who is now a senator and minister of the Crown, stood up and said that "Liberal MPs rejected the Carter tax reform after years of study." Mr. Olson said that he and his colleagues in the Liberal Party totally rejected tax reform. That was in 1967.
Since that time, there has been a Liberal government in Ottawa, except for a short period, which has done nothing about tax reform. The government has never consulted the people of Canada. On November 12, the government produced a document which it said would bring equity to the tax system. The government never indicated that there was not equity in

February 19, 1982
Supply
the tax system or who was complaining about it. It just took it upon itself to remedy the whole system.
The equity which it claims to have achieved is accomplished by reaching out to 13 million insurance policy holders who are trying to provide for their families and taxing the benefits under that protection. Canadians buy insurance to protect their families, not to cheat the tax man. There are seven million Canadians who participate in health and dental plans, and the government says that it will tax them and make them pay. It does not care what happens to their children's teeth or if they get adequate medical care. All the government wants is dollars.
The government is correct about one matter. The only resource in this country is the people of Canada. They are the only ones who will pay tax. The oil will stay in the ground, the coal will stay in the mines and the wheat will stay in the fields unless Canadians turn it into wealth. The government is trying to tax that wealth. It is trying to tax the work of the Canadian people, but they have caught on and will not stand for it.
The Minister of Finance has been exposed and everyone knows that he has no knowledge of the tax system. We all know he knows about managing government expenditures. The Minister of Finance is making up for years of extravagant spending. Now he has to go to Canadians and take away the pensioners' $1,000 deductions. Fie does not care about the business people or insurance companies, they can provide for themselves, but he will tax the seven million workers in the housing construction industry. He will tax transportation for salesmen. How can this help the people of Canada?
The government reaches out to Canadians and attempts to tell them it is bringing equity to the tax system. No one believes that, including their own members. That is why we have put it in a resolution before the House.
Hon. members opposite had better stand up and vote properly because the people of Canada will be watching. They will know what hon. members opposite are doing. The people know what they are saying at home. It is in the newspapers. It is on the record. We are putting it on the record here. Hon. members opposite must realize and recognize that they are going to be counted. The jig is up. Never mind the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. Hon. members opposite are on their own now. The Prime Minister cannot protect them. There is no problem in Mount Royal. Everybody is happy there. The problems are in Amqui, Quebec and in the Matapedia Valley where people are out of work and starving to death.


Mr. Darling:: Don't forget Oshawa.


Howard Edward Crosby: The only reason this government is able to introduce this budget is that hon. members to my left in the New Democratic Party stood up and voted against my party when it was in government. That government was prepared to introduce proper economic measures which were responsible. Members of the New Democratic Party are not off the hook. They are part and parcel-someone said the New Democratic
Party is the Liberal party west. The Liberals have no representation from the west, so they haul in a few members of this red rump and bring them into their plans. If members of the New Democratic Party really wanted to defeat the government and if they really were upset with the tax measures in the budget, as we are, they could have voted the government out last Friday. Instead, they got together and called the whole thing off. They want to stay here. I do not blame them. They will never be any more comfortable than they are now because it is going to get worse for them from here on. The people of Canada are on to them. They know what is going on.
As I said, it is every man for himself on the government side. Hon. members opposite must stand up and be counted. The Prime Minister cannot help them. The Minister of Finance cannot help them because he is in trouble himself. The people in his constituency are sick of post offices, parks and little job-creation programs. They want the Strait of Canso developed. They want the oil refinery opened. They do not want the little bits and pieces of things the minister has been sending down. People are sick of this situation. They want Canada to go ahead and be developed, and they want the government to bring in proposals which would allow for that development. They are sick of the present policies. They are sick of being fooled. We have exploded the myth, and now hon. members opposite are going to have to live with it.
I want to end on a positive note. I admire those members of Parliament in the Liberal Party who got together and said, "This is what has to be done, Mr. Prime Minister; this is what you have to do to correct the situation in Canada; we have to have job-creation programs". Young people are out of work. We need jobs for our young people. We have to protect unemployed persons. We have to bring them back into the labour force so that they can provide for their families. If the government does not do that, we will have social disorder in Canada. Everyone is pointing that out. A psychiatrist in my constituency has written an article in which he points out very graphically the ill effects of unemployment and that lack of security for families and people generally leads to all kinds of social ills. We cannot sit here in Parliament with a blind eye to that kind of problem. We have to do something about it, and we have to do something about it now, not next week and not in the next budget. We must do something right now, and hon. members opposite know that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just one more thing. As representatives of the people in Parliament, we are often asked what our role is here. What is our role here? There was a famous parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, who said he was a delegate of the people. When he was elected to Parliament, he made up his mind and decided what to do. Edmund Burke was elected to Parliament in 1774 from the city of Bristol. At that time people were illiterate. They did not know how to handle national affairs. That is not the situation in Canada today. We do not need any Edmund Burkes. We do not need anyone here passing his opinion on what we should be doing. We want
February 19, 1982

Supply
people here who respond to the needs, the wishes and problems of the people of Canada. We are here to represent the people of Canada. I am here to represent the people of Halifax West. The Prime Minister is here to represent the town of Mount Royal. Perhaps the people in the town of Mount Royal do not have problems, but I can tell hon. members that there are problems in Halifax West, in Amqui, in the Matapedia Valley, in Gaspe and all across Canada. The problem is lack of economic activity and unemployment. That is the problem. We need job-creation programs to solve that problem, and that is why we have introduced this motion. That is why we have to stand up and vote on this motion. That is why we are calling upon hon. members opposite to join with us and to forget about the Prime Minister and the town of Mount Royal. Let them forget about that area of Montreal and its mansions, its houses and imported cars. Let them think about the northern regions of Quebec. Let them think about the Gaspe and why a train has to be stopped in the Matapedia Valley to draw attention to these problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order
58(9).
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.
Messrs.
Lewycky Manly Mitchell (Mrs.) Ny strom
Allmand
Andre
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bosley
Bossy
Bradley
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Chdnier
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Collenette Comtois Cook Cooper Corbett Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cossitt Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crombie
Ogle
Orlikow
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dion
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Domm
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Fennell
Ferguson
Fleming
Flis
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Garant
Gass
Gauthier
Gendron
Gilchrist
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argcnteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Harquail
Hawkes
Hees
Rose Sargeant Skelly Waddell Young-25.
Kilgour Killens (Mrs.)
King
Korchinski
Kushner
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
Lamontagne
Landers
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
La Salle
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Lewis
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacKay
MacLaren
MacLellan
Mal6part
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCauley
McCuish
McDermid
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East)


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Motion (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Clark) negatived.
Supply


Madam Speaker:: May 1 welcome back to the House two of last year's pages who are visiting us on reading week. They wore their uniforms today and worked on the floor of the House.
The House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.20 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME Xlll