1982-06-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, over the past two years Canadians have witnessed the most arrogant, incompetent, and destructive government in Canada's history, responsible for a gross national product that in the last quarter was the lowest in 28 years; over 1.5 million Canadians out of work; investment capital leaving Canada at an unprecedented rate; the Canadian dollar at its lowest ever in the country's history; inflation at 11 per cent; interest rates over 20 per cent; every major energy project dead or dying; business failures up 50 per cent; farm bankruptcies 70 per cent ahead of last year, and our deficit approaching $16 billion this year alone. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That all members of this House shoulder their responsibility and force the resignation of this inept and incompetent government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, on January 29 of this year in this place, the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) said, "If the Liberal Party thinks we", that is, the Liberal Party, "have to be communistic, we shall be communistic." Now the Liberal Prime Minister has taken up this message and on Saturday in western Canada advised his Liberals to embrace the left. Further, he implied that to solve the government's economic disasters it will be necessary to scare the hell out of Canadians. Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That this House advise the Prime Minister that he and his government have already scared the hell out of the Canadian people, and that a more simple and humane solution would be for the Prime Minister and his government to resign and scare the hell out of the communists and other left-wingers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. While the New Democratic Party has always said that FIRA was not the cause of the outflow of capital from Canada, and while the Reaganite Tory Party and U.S. businessmen have been calling for the removal of FIRA, the net result of which would be to put more Canadians out of work by increasing our balance of trade deficit with the U.S., and hence to raise interest rates in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House endorse the position taken by Abraham Rotstein in a study by the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, who maintains it was "the over-all effect of foreign direct investment since 1976 along with U.S. branch plants which has been responsible for the outflow of capital from Canada", and that this House call on the government to strengthen FIRA and to start repatriating our manufacturing industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was put in place to allow farmers to borrow against grain grown but not marketed. The funds involved are not gifts, but loans which are repaid. The current maximum available under the cash advance

June 21, 1982
program is inadequate and should be raised to a more realistic level. With the current situation of unprecedented high interest rates and low commodity prices, the need for such an adjustment is even more critical to the western Canadian economy. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the federal government proceed as quickly as possible to initiate the legislative amendments required to bring the maximum under the cash advance program to a more realistic level.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, given his penchant for buying foreign equipment whenever possible while chairman of the National Harbours Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Transport issue direct instructions to the new president of VIA Rail to give Canadians, at all times, first preference in purchasing equipment and supplies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On June 17, the Tory member for Prince George-Peace River spoke in this House about funding and native leadership in regard to the upcoming Constitution conference. He said:
-in British Columbia responsible native political leaders have been starved out and the department has purchased itself the kind of help from among the Indians who may be prepared to sell out their brothers and sisters for their own selfish gain. They will no doubt be the representatives at the conference.
Whereas this is a typically irresponsible kind of Tory muckraking and venomous, slanderous attack on the democratically elected Constitutional conference leadership, including the democratically elected spokesman James Gosnell from the Nishga tribal council, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That the Leader of the Conservative Party have these vicious remarks withdrawn, or admit that in leaving them on the record they stand as Tory policy for the upcoming federal election.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, rather than scaring the hell out of Canadians by creating unemployment, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advocated this past weekend in Alberta-


Mr. Peterson:: He did not.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, he did.


Peter Elzinga: -I urge the government to act quickly to stimulate the economy and cushion the adverse effects on the average Canadian. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Minister of Finance immediately roll back all provisions of his November, 1981, budget and the National Energy Program, and table a new budget immediately which will stimulate the economy and restore investor confidence in Canada, putting Canadians back to work and lowering interest rates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, two of the major chartered banks in Canada raised their mortgage interest rate to over 19 per cent on Friday, and the others are expected to follow suit this week. The banks have obviously taken note of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in western Canada over the weekend when he defended his government's tight money policy as a means of "scaring hell out of the people". In light of the fact that what really scares Canadians the most is the continued reign of a government which has mismanaged the economy of this nation
June 21, 1982
to the point of disaster, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Prime Minister who, because he is the Prime Minister, scares the hei! out of the people, immediately call a general election so Canadians, who are obviously ready and willing to elect a new and capable government, will have no reason to fear the future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Madam Speaker, today Canadians enjoy political freedom which has few parallels anywhere in the world. Indeed, democracy can probably be gauged by the extent to which a nation tolerates dissent. Today we tolerate literally all forms of political dissent, from elected advocates of separatism to others who advocate union with the United States. But surely another measure of political maturity must be the ability of a nation to forgive past transgressions against the authority of the state.
With the benefit of hindsight, Madam Speaker, I and many others in this House believe that the case of Louis Riel, who was elected to the Canadian House of Commons as the hon. member for Provencher, deserves to be reconsidered. For his political leadership of the 1885 rebellion, he was charged with high treason, tried for murder, and hanged despite a jury recommendation for mercy. In retrospect, many historians agree that mistakes were made on both sides and that natural justice for the Metis people has not yet been realized.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and, I hope, the entire Progressive Conservative caucus:
That this House grant Louis Riel a posthumous pardon for the crime of high treason.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
____________________________18637
Oral Questions FORESTRY


NECESSITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JOB-CREATION PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in view of the government's slow and inadequate response to unemployment in British Columbia's forest sector, in view of the fact that the present B.C.-Canada employment bridging assistance program for forestry workers requires participants to be on unemployment insurance, and in view of the fact that many loggers and millworkers have already exhausted their UIC benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That the government immediately establish a supplemental program to provide jobs for forestry workers who do not qualify for the bridging program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister who will be aware, I am sure, that the gross national income of the country dropped in the First quarter, on a seasonally adjusted annual basis, by 8 per cent. That is the second largest percentage decrease since records have been kept. Since the dollar is also in a free fall, will the minister explain why the government does not feel that now is the time for the government to swallow its pride and withdraw those key policies-any key policies-which are causing some reduction in economic growth, some increase in unemployment, such as the energy program, the last budget, and the huge deficit in the federal government budget?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I must agree with my hon. friend that there has been a decline in the first quarter in the real gross national expenditure by 2 per cent. I am informed that on an annualized basis it is 7.8 per cent. That situation is not particular to Canada. I observed this morning that the United States has forecast an annualized decline of 4.3 per cent on the same basis as Canada.
There are a number of good figures in the national accounts that my hon. friend prefers not to talk about, and it is pretty obvious why. For example, the balance of payments on a



June 21, 1982
Oral Questions
current account basis has a surplus of $1.2 billion for the first quarter. The merchandise trade surplus stands at $3.5 billion. Personal disposable income has increased by 1 per cent. Personal savings stand at the same level of 13.3 per cent. These are a number of the rather positive statistics.


Mr. Stevens:: Unemployment is up. Interest rates are up.


Mr. Nielsen:: Inflation is up.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Again, my hon. friend is free to choose the figures he wants, but I just wanted to indicate that there is in the national accounts a number of statistics that are really unfavourable and that we deplore, and others that are quite good.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, surely the minister understands that the 8 per cent drop in real terms in national income means that 1.25 million people are unemployed. Canadians are not interested in selective statistics which the minister can pull out of a hat. Canadians want to know what the government is going to do to get the economy going again.
I should also point out to the Acting Prime Minister-he missed it this morning-that the Gross National Product in the United States just went up in the second quarter by 0.6 per cent. The United States is coming up. Canada is still in a free fall going down.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have one simple question for the Acting Prime Minister. How much of a decline in the economy and how much of a decline in the Canadian dollar is the government going to allow before it changes its mind, swallows its pride, and introduces changes in the basic policies which are causing these problems?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was doing what I think is normal on this occasion. When my hon. friend chose only one set of statistics, in order that Canadians get the whole truth I indicated that there were others. I am quite entitled to do that. The truth does not hurt. People want the whole picture. My hon. friend took one set of statistics, and I indicated that there were others.
On the subject of what the government will do at this time, 1 am reading the Prime Minister's statements from the weekend. As reported by the Canadian Press, we find the following:
Trudeau promised new economic initiatives being prepared by the government wouldn't be mere tinkering but would have real substance.


Erik Nielsen: Scare the hell out of them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is what the Minister of Finance repeatedly said last week. He intends to present that statement. He will take part in the debate this afternoon. There will be plenty of time for him to explain what is happening. There will also be
the statement in which the minister will lay down what the government reaction is to present circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Grit times are hard times.


EXPECTATIONS OF CANADIANS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister should know that the truth is hurting. It is hurting those Canadians who are being laid off; it is hurting those people who have to roll over a mortgage at 18 per cent, 19 per cent or 20 per cent, and it is hurting those businesses that are going bankrupt today.
Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that the obvious solution to our economic problems would be for Canadians to cut their wage and salary demands and lower their expectations. That is a quote I got from the newspaper today. If the Minister of Finance in his mini-budget will only ask Canadians to lower their expectations, can he tell the Canadian people how in the world we will get the economy going again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this lowering of expectations is not something that only the Prime Minister has been saying. I have seen a number of quotes from members of the opposition saying the same thing, for example, one even willing to exercise that by cutting back on foreign aid; another requesting a 10 per cent reduction in the general expenditures of the government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is that all?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The lowering of expectations is not an expression on which the Prime Minister has a trademark. It has been recognized by many, by most, as being-


Mr. Clark:: Not by us.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, we will see what the Leader of the Opposition has to say this afternoon on that subject, but generally speaking it is recognized in Canada as one of the fundamental measures to take at this time.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. The Prime Minister has admitted over the weekend that the direction of his policies since the November budget has been to scare the hell out of people by creating unemployment and causing bankruptcies. I would say that he has certainly succeeded. I cite the case of a couple with two children. Both parents have lost their jobs and they are about to lose their home, and they are scared.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
June 21, 1982


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What has this couple ever done, except to work hard all their lives, that they should be the target of the Prime Minister's threat to scare the hell out of people?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, again, the Prime Minister is not doing anything that is not done in most developed countries of the world. I spent the weekend looking at statistics on this subject. A few months ago, for example, the Leader of the New Democratic Party was telling us the wonderful things which the socialist government was doing in France. I read on the weekend of the latest developments in France. They are certainly not of the nature which the leader of the NDP had in mind. Mr. Mitterrand has done a 180 degree turn, reducing social security and increasing the contributions of employers and employees to unemployment insurance and so on. I am just trying to say that the situation which exists in Canada is one which exists in all countries or in most countries of the western world at this time. The measures which are taken in other countries of the world, of course, will not be so dissimilar from those which will have to be taken in Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND BANKRUPTCY LEVELS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, does the Acting Prime Minister understand what the Prime Minister is saying? He is saying that if enough people are unemployed, if enough businesses go bankrupt, then he might persuade other Canadians to lower their expectations, and that is unconscionable. How many does the Prime Minister consider enough? Is two million unemployed enough? Is 2.5 million unemployed enough? Is 2,000 bankruptcies enough? How many does the Prime Minister consider enough before he stops his sadistic policies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is quite good at adding passion to the debate. I am trying to remain realistic on the subject. She makes a great to-do about bankruptcies. Again, if one looks at the statistics, one will realize that bankruptcies have happened in Canada regularly over the years. There were instances, for example, in 1978, when we had more than we have at the moment. While sympathizing, and being extremely aware of the difficulties in the Canadian economic situation at this time, I think one has to remain objective and try to see these issues in proper perspective. That was not what my hon. friend was doing a minute ago.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who says that Canadians want to know the whole truth. I suspect that Canadians do know the truth, and they know that this group across the way is taking us to hell in a hand basket because of its economic kamikaze policies. With the present annualized
Oral Questions
fall in our gross national product of 8 per cent, I think it has fulfilled the Prime Minister's dream and he has been successful in wrestling the economy to the ground. Will the Acting Prime Minister not agree that because of the government's policies a number of sectors of the Canadian economy are too far gone to be reclaimed? How long must this country wait? Must we find ourselves in economic ruin before the government is prepared to take some real gutsy action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think that the Prime Minister's words are being distorted. What he said during the weekend was that hard measures will have to be taken and, as I quoted him a moment ago, they will not be mere tinkering. They would have real substance. I think that the rest of the words put in his mouth by previous questioners have been distortions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It sounds as though the Acting Prime Minister agrees with the Minister of State for Economic Development when he made the great revelation on the weekend that Canadians never had it so good.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister's intent is to scare the hell out of the people of Canada, suggesting that perhaps the tonic we need right now is higher unemployment-more people out of jobs-
I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if creating higher unemployment is a tactic we can expect from the government in its economic war with the Canadian people? I suggest it is one of the most cynical tricks ever played by a government on its own people, if it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this gives me a good opportunity to indicate that what the Minister of State for Economic Development said during the weekend is quite different from the quotation that has been given.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is what he said.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let us have a look. Even from the paper from which the quotation was taken there is the following paragraph in which the minister says:
-that things "look particularly difficult" for people who went deeply into debt because they "didn't believe there would be an end to the inflationary special ... But the 60 to 70 per cent of the total who don't have debts probably never had it so good."
That is quite a different statement from the one my hon. friend just put to the House. I suspect that this is the sort of thing we have been hearing since the beginning of this question period. I have just indicated that in this particular instance the quotation attributed to the Minister of State for Economic Development was quite false. Reading from the very paper that reported the first part indicates that this was so. My hon. friend should not have asked the question in the manner in which he did.

June 21, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO LOWER INTEREST RATES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In an interview which the Prime Minister gave on the weekend he is quoted as saying the following: "The federal government may have to restrict money supplies even more severely to scare Canadians into lowering their expectations." Obviously, restricting the money supply will mean even higher interest rates than exist at the present time.
Given the fact that present high interest rates have led to the million and a quarter unemployed, the highest number we have ever had, and given the fact that they have also led to an increase of almost 40 per cent in business bankruptcies, which means if interest rates continue at their present level we are likely to have 15,000 or 20,000 bankruptcies, how many bankruptcies, how many more unemployed do we need before the government will drop this insane idea of higher interest rates and tighter money?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, because of what just happened, I hesitate to take the quotation attributed to the Prime Minister at face value. Unfortunately, I received a copy of his speech only about two minutes before I entered the House. I have not had a chance to read it all. However, the points that were raised by the hon. member could be the subject of debate this afternoon. I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance, who will be taking part in the debate, will want to reason with our friends on the other side of the House, on what is happening in the area of bankruptcies, the relationship between bankruptcies and interest rates, and other matters of this kind. So, could we postpone this matter? I am sure that my hon. friend would want to take part in the debate, and at that time he could make his arguments.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He had notice, more or less, on Friday when I was trying to ask him this question. Can he please explain the appointment of Pierre Franche as the new president of VIA Rail, especially at a very critical time in that organization's life, when there is no VIA Rail bill, and when the government has appointed a president who has no experience with the railway whatsoever, according to his curriculum vitael


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, most people thought that what was needed was a good administrator, and Mr. Franche was not a port expert when he became chairman of the National Harbours Board six years ago. Since then, the operating income of the National
Harbours Board has gone from minus eight to plus 30 million dollars. Productivity has gone from 67,000 tonnes per employee to 91,000 tonnes. In 1976, 11 ports were losing money, and now all 15 are making money. So, we felt that this was the sort of man VIA needed at this time. If Mr. Franche does as well for VIA as he has done for the National Harbours Board, my hon. friend will be the first to compliment us on his selection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will not go into the history of the National Harbours Board and the capitalization of existing debt which does produce a rather interesting black picture in terms of operations. However, I would like to ask the minister a very deliberate question. I would ask him to clarify some confusion, and explain to this House whether Pierre Franche is not the brother-in-law of Dr. LeClair, the president of the CN? If he is the brother-in-law of the president of the CN, which just happens to be the biggest client of VIA Rail, does the minister not think that this is a rather invidious position in which to put both of these individuals?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed they are brothers-in-law. 1 do not think one should be punished in life for having a brother-in-law, nor should one be rewarded. So, we felt that this consideration was really immaterial in the selection of the new president of VIA.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my pigeon has just gone out into the lobby. Oh, I see that the hon. minister is on his way back.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. A year ago the minister provided committee members with a 15-year capital program projection chart and graph and this year he provided the members with a revised graph. If one compares the two graphs, one will find that the Department of National Defence has had its capital requirements for the years 1984 to 1991 reduced by over $3 billion. Would the minister tell the House what programs are to be deleted or postponed?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as far as I know from the information I have received from my department, and the decisions which have been taken by this government, there is no major program which has been delayed. All the programs are in progress and
June 21, 1982

are proceeding on time. If the hon. member wants to know about the F-18 program, the frigates program or the small arms replacement program, all these programs are on time and will be completed.


FRIGATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. If there is not a shortage of $3 billion, the minister is putting out very misleading graphs. May I ask him about the frigates which have not received cabinet approval at the present time for anything beyond the $63 million contract definition phase? Would the minister explain how that program is to go ahead as scheduled when his expected cash flow is being so severely restricted?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Victoria also wants to confuse this House. He knows very well that the CPF program put forward was well protected according to the forthcoming budget, and there has been no change in the way we will carry it out. Obviously, the two contractors will make their submissions in October, and we will not evaluate them until March or April, 1983. Then, according to my knowledge, everything should go according to plan in relation to the six new frigates. A decision will probably be taken in due time to have the funds available for this program.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for regional and industrial expansion. The minister is well aware of the fact that the country's current economic mess is having a disruptive and damaging effect on the economies of a number of Canadian provinces, including Ontario, which has gone from being a "have" province to a "have-not" province. The minister has promised that his department, having concluded a review of the guidelines and designated boundaries now in place, will announce the extension of both, to permit and encourage the creation of new industries and businesses and the expansion of existing ones. Will the minister inform the House when this announcement will be made and what new areas, particularly in Ontario, will be so designated?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I do not accept everything in the premise to my hon. friend's question. I can tell him that the review to which he has referred has not been completed, nor have the necessary conclusions on that review been reached. But as soon
Oral Questions
as that point is achieved, I will be happy to make an announcement.


REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF GRANT PROGRAM
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the same minister. Would the minister not agree that the expansion of the grant program in Ontario would stimulate the economy of the province, creating new jobs, and would not in any way contribute to the very serious problem of inflation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for York-Peel and his colleagues will appreciate the hon. member's representation for greater government expenditure. I will certainly give it every consideration.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. As the minister knows, yesterday the Festival du Vieux Port de Montreal started its summer program. Would the minister explain how this federal program, under his department, operating in Montreal where one quarter of the population is English-speaking, is able to flaunt the Official Languages Act and the language provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by publishing all of its publicity materials in French, including a half-page ad in French in the English-speaking Montreal Gazette? Why is this federal program not carried on bilingually, and what will the minister do to see that it is so carried on?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention shortly before question period today. I report to him and to hon. members of the House that the Corporation of the Vieux Port in Montreal was established with local representation as an agency of the federal government, rather than on-line responsibility, in order to attempt to be sensitive to local community conditions and aspirations. I have not had time to investigate, but if the situation as relayed to me by the hon. member is accurate, then, in my opinion, the corporation has been most insensitive in that particular advertisement. When I do have an opportunity to investigate the facts, I certainly intend to bring to the corporation's attention not only sensitivity, but also the programs and policy of the government which have been supported by all parties in this House, that is, of promoting both official languages in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 21, 1982
Oral Questions HOUSING


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. Does the minister recall when mortgage interest rates peaked at 20 per cent last year and thousands of Canadians were out in front of the Parliament Buildings trying to get Ottawa to take some action to assist them? We were told to wait for the budget. We then received Bill C-89. Only 300 Canadian families were able to take advantage of its provisions. Interest rates are now back to 20 per cent. What does the minister propose to do to try to bring interest rates down to a level which people in Canada can afford?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the starting point, in response to the hon. member's question, as would be my response to the editorial in The Toronto Sun today, is to implore hon. members to investigate the facts, that is, to discover what has actually transpired under the assistance program made available by the majority of hon. members in the House. Rather than 300 families taking advantage of that program, or, as The Toronto Sun states, 400 families, in fact there are 1,400 families benefiting under that program today.
At the time of the escalation of interest rates last fall, many members brought to my attention difficulties of individual Canadian households as a result of that. I recall saying that the government would attempt to respond to those very difficult situations. I am very happy to note that 1,400, some 400 more than the individual cases brought to my attention by all members of this House of Commons, have found assistance under that plan. In conclusion, if members will genuinely try to understand the plan and promote it among their constituents, more Canadian families will be able to benefit by it.


Ian Deans: I am not going to enter into a contest with the minister about numbers. He is wrong.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT ACT TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. I will put it quite bluntly. Why does the Government of Canada not bring in legislation to require that interest rates for mortgages be provided to Canadian families at a price they can afford? The minister knows full well that Canadian families cannot afford 20 per cent mortgage interest rates. The program he has offered does not even begin to put a dint in the problem.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would again ask the hon. member and all hon. members that, when they request the Government of Canada to spend more money and put more money into the economy, they consider the choices. Whom do we serve? We serve a wide spectrum of Canadians. There are those Canadians, for
example, who sacrificed to pay off their mortgages in this difficult time. They did without things in order to pay off their mortgages. There are those Canadians who rent. There are those Canadians who pay less than 30 per cent of their incomes and find it easier to meet their own housing needs. We, as a government, have to be responsible to them as well. We have attempted to balance relief to Canadians. We have asked Canadians to spend up to 30 per cent of their income on their shelter needs. We think that is a fair request.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister will be aware of the proposal by Chrysler Corporation to put a new diesel engine plant in Windsor, which would have created 1,400 new jobs. He will also know that his inability to gain support in cabinet has now lost 500 of those jobs to the state of Michigan. With the Province of Ontario already putting its money on the table, can the minister offer any hope to the unemployed in his riding that he can come up with the money and guarantees necessary to proceed with this project?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's impressions of the matter are not particularly correct. I have not yet come to the conclusion that what has been proposed by Chrysler, and it is something that has changed from week to week, has yet reached a point where I can say it is a good deal for the workers, the communities in question, and taxpayers in general. When I get to that point I will be happy to seek the advice of my colleagues. I hope my hon. friend will give the same priority that I do to making sure there is a good deal for all those concerned.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister at some point to tell me where I have been inaccurate. Certainly I am accurate in the fact that 500 of these jobs have already gone to Michigan. I am accurate in the fact that the province of Ontario has put its money on the table. I am accurate in the fact that the people in the area want those jobs. If the minister is unable to convince his cabinet colleagues to spring a few dollars free to guarantee jobs for those in his own riding, how can he expect us to have any confidence in him, and why then in fact should he not resign?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend has a complete and accurate picture of the situation. The proposals
June 21, 1982

by Chrysler, which are still very much a matter of discussion and negotiation, have changed a number of times since the matter was first raised with the government. I do not think it is definite that the benefits and the corresponding cost to the taxpayer are necessarily as optimistic from the point of view of workers and communities as he suggests. To give an example that he does not know what he is talking about, the plant in question is not in my riding. It is in a riding represented by one of my colleagues. When it comes to working for the working people in the Windsor area, I will be happy to stake my achievements against the non-achievements of my hon. friend and his colleagues any day.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. He will know that two hours ago the Canadian dollar was trading at its lowest point in history against the U.S. dollar. The minister will also know that on Tuesday of last week the Prime Minister was asked four questions by the hon. member for Yukon, the last one of which asked the Prime Minister to confirm that it was not the intention of his government to impose foreign exchange controls. The Prime Minister refused to respond in the fashion that everyone in this House would have expected him to respond, by suggesting that it was a matter of cabinet solidarity which precluded him-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member feel he has to repeat all questions that have been asked in this House? He should ask his own question. That is why he was recognized.


John Albert Gamble: Having regard to the condition of the dollar today, will the Acting Prime Minister deny that the government has any intention of imposing foreign exchange controls?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this has been done many times. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have denied it. My hon. friend will have an opportunity this afternoon to take part in the debate. If he wants to raise the question after the Minister of Finance has completed his oration, I am quite sure the Speaker will permit him to do so.


REQUEST THAT SPECIAL COMMITTEE EXAMINE ESTIMATES
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has frequently asked the members of this House to offer positive suggestions with respect to how this country may be assisted in its economic plight. Will the Acting Prime Minister accept the suggestion made last week that this House establish a special standing committee for the purpose of examining the estimates with a view to reducing those that can be reduced in order to pare the cost of government?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I look forward to the debate this afternoon because, presumably, we will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. In the last week or so we have heard from a number of members on the other side. For example, the hon. member who asked the question asked for a reduction in Canada's foreign aid. Others have asked for a 10 per cent cut in government expenditures. Others have asked for an increase in the money provided for housing, others asking for an increase in the money provided to home owners, and so on. We have had a real hodge-podge of suggestions.
This afternoon will be a great day for the opposition. They will have an opportunity to reconcile their views and come out with a co-ordinated stand. We on this side of the House have done so. The Minister of Finance is now building on the consensus that we developed among ourselves. Hopefully the opposition will do the same thing. It will be useful to the country if we can take a generous, widely-based position on what needs to be done at this time.
 * *


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister is aware, about ten days ago the Court of Appeal of Ontario confirmed a superior court judgment with respect to the uranium cartel and said that Uranium Canada and Eldorado Nuclear were immune from prosecution. What method does the minister, who is in charge of these Crown corporations, propose to allow the people of Canada and the members of this House to know the results of the Bertrand inquiry as they pertain to those two Crown corporations?


Hon. Mare Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the matter has been before the court. It is still subject to being further appealed, if the parties so desire. Therefore, 1 would not want to comment. My only comment is that I will let the law follow its course.


MINISTER S POSITION
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, in this case the minister and the government are guilty of the most massive cover-up ever in this House. I say to the minister, as his own counsel said, that he had the directing mind and will of Uranium Canada, and completely controlled and determined the acts of that corporation. In light of what the Court of Appeal said in an unreserved judgment from the bench, will the minister tell us how the Canadian people are to understand what the Bertrand inquiry put forth? What method does the minister propose to allow the Canadian people and members of this House to know that?

June 21, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 respectfully submit to the hon. member that he is talking through his hat. 1 do not have a counsel before that court.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On June 4 the United States Health and Human Services Secretary, Richard Schweiker, ordered the food and drug administration to take the necessary steps to warn parents and others not to give aspirin, ASA and other salicylates containing drugs to infants and young children suffering from influenza, chicken pox and other types of viral infections because the drug is linked with Reye's Syndrome, an illness which causes permanent brain damage and death in 30 per cent of the cases.
I would like to ask the minister if her department is aware of this problem and, if so, will she also be taking the necessary steps to warn parents and other members of the Canadian public of the danger of giving this drug under the circumstances I have mentioned?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in Canada, no guidelines have been issued as yet to Canadian parents or Canadians in general regarding the use of aspirin for children, but we are aware of the situation in the United States. We are watching developments closely in the U.S., and in Canada, we have decided to start discussions with the Canadian Paediatric Society, with whom we have been in touch about this matter.

We decided to wait for their annual meeting a little later in June of this year to finalize the dossier. We may then have to issue a warning to all Canadian parents. Before any formal move it should be noted that, if possible, aspirin should not be given to children whenever something else could be used.


MARKET INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, despite the showers today it is "Sun Day" in Ottawa. I therefore have a question for the affable Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Earlier this month the solar industries okayed their long-awaited warranty program which ensures consumer protection for their products. That removes the last roadblock, which the
alternative energy report said was necessary before market incentives could be put into place.
I wonder if the minister is prepared to tell us today what market incentives he has in mind for the solar industry so that solar can finally compete with the heavily-subsidized gas, oil, hydro and nuclear industries.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the affable member for his question. He forgot to mention one step, and that is the establishment of standards. I am pleased to inform the hon. member that tomorrow the Canadian Standards Board will probably approve new standards for the solar industry. That will also be a very important step in ensuring the viability of that particular industry.
I would also like to inform the hon. member that the National Energy Program has allocated about $160 million to support the solar industry in the next five years, either through research or support for a number of activities. The industry has requested that we give particular attention to the commercialization of the solar industry. That is indeed a welcome initiative, and the government will examine this particular aspect with great interest.


IMPORTANCE OF EXPORT MARKET
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, we know that the PUSH program was to be a five-year program. After four years only about $20 million of the $125 million allocated has been spent. We spend $10 billion a year on oil compensation. We have spent about $4 billion on nukes. I could go on and on, but I am sure you do not want that, Madam Speaker. The point is that the amount directed to solar and its marketplace incentives is peanuts compared with the billions we are spending on more traditional and centralized forms of energy development. Our solar collectors can compete, and they have won awards all over the world. If we are not prepared to provide some incentives in the domestic market, what of the $4 billion foreign market? What is the minister prepared to do to ensure our share of the export market? At the moment it is equally puny.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Canadian solar industry has indeed been extremely dynamic and innovative. We are very happy that the PUSH program, to which my hon. friend has referred, has been the mainstay of that industry during the last few years. Had it not been for the support of the federal government, we probably would have no solar industry at the present time. We are making solar energy an alternative under the oil substitution program, just as natural gas, electricity and wood qualify for conversion grants. We have indeed taken steps to support and encourage the use of solar energy in our country.
As far as exports are concerned, the Minister of Trade and his department have also been actively engaged in supporting
June 21, 1982

that industry. To mention only one example, there was an energy exhibition in Kenya last summer at which the Canadian solar industry was well represented. Significant sales were made, thanks to the support the federal government has given to that industry.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Minister of National Defence, if I might have his attention. I draw to the minister's attention incidents involving Canadian destroyers which have inadvertently-I am sure through some misunderstanding-destroyed probably 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the herring catch capability of fishermen on the eastern side of Halifax harbour during the last week or ten days. The matter has been corrected through local intervention. Will the minister intervene with the Adjutant General's office in the Maritime Command to ensure the most expeditious settlement of claims so that the fishermen might purchase additional nets and participate in the lucrative herring fishery which is just now coming into full swing?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we pay very close attention to any remarks he makes because most of the time they are very ably made on behalf of his constituency. I agree with the hon. member. We will take all the steps necessary to see that claims can be settled in the interests of both the Canadian Armed Forces and the fishermen of his region. We will do everything possible to help. The hon. member may tell the fishermen-and we will tell them-that we will try to settle the problem as quickly as possible.


DEPARTMENTAL REACTION TO COMMITTEE REPORT ON ACID RAIN
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister will know, in October of last year the all-party unanimous subcommittee report on acid rain was released. The minister will also know that last week the Minister of the Environment seemed to indicate that talks between the United States and Canada are falling apart. Can the minister advise the House what the reaction of his department was to the recommendations of the subcommittee report on acid rain, and what response the minister has given to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, with respect to his department's part, now and in the future, in carrying out the recommendations?
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my department is represented by me as a member of the cabinet. I give full support to the Minister of the Environment in his actions to deal with the question of acid rain. When the Minister of the Environment speaks about the acid rain issue, he speaks on behalf of the government of which I am very proud to be a part.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the minister is proud to be part of the government, but that was not the question.


NATURE OF DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, what has the minister or his department done to communicate to the Minister of the Environment or anyone else the reactions, suggestions, criticisms or whatever there may be, in some sort of document, with respect to the recommendations brought down by the acid rain subcommittee last October? That is what we want to know. That is what we are asking the minister. We are not asking for an off-the-cuff comment about how proud the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment are to be part of the government.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my department communicates directly and practically on a daily basis with the Department of the Environment.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: I will rule today on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) on Friday last. He raised a point of order with respect to the procedural acceptability of a number of votes in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1982-83. I want to thank him for bringing those matters to the attention of the House and the Chair. I did appreciate, of course, the usual thoroughness and detail of his submission. I want also to express my appreciation to the hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who, unfortunately, is not in the House today. I have to rule on this particular point of order despite his absence.
Points of order relating to the procedural acceptability of funds in the estimates have been raised many times since the change in the rules on supply in 1968. The background has been well covered and indeed I dealt with it myself in my ruling of June 12, 1981.1 do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House by repeating it all today. I invite the attention of all hon. members to that ruling and would remind

June 21, 1982
*	Point of Order-Mr. Andre
them that the role of the Chair is to rule on procedural aspects only and not to decide questions of law.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre objects to 11 items contained in the Main Estimates. These are: Communications, Vote 1, 70 and 80; Energy, Mines and Resources, Vote 1; Environment, Vote 5; Finance, vote 1; Public Works, Vote 10; Supply and Services, Vote 1; and Transport, Votes 1, 10 and 45. The hon. member is of the opinion that these votes should be ruled out of order on the basis that they seek authority which does not appear in existing legislation, that is, "authority to spend revenue received during the year".
As I said in my ruling of June 12, 1981, an item that seeks to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and the funds to put it into operation runs counter to the rulings of the Chair since 1974, which hold that legislation is required to authorize new programs, particularly matters of major substance.
I quite agree with the hon. member on this particular principle. However, after examination I find that the 11 items objected to are indeed based on legislative authority, which is the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82, and therefore are in order. This is consistent with my ruling of June 12, 1981, with respect to two votes in the Main Estimates 1981-82 of the Department of External Affairs, in which I said:
However, two of the items. External Affairs Votes L50 and L55, have previous statutory authority, albeit previous Appropriation Acts, and thus are in order.
I would like here to make a brief aside. Last year, in the same ruling, 1 did express the wish that "if all votes included a reference to the statutory authority on which they are based, it would be easier to determine whether or not they were in order." I wish to thank the President of the Treasury Board for doing just so in this year's Main Estimates. It is a step forward in making it easier for the House to find its way through the complex world of estimates.
In his argumentation, the hon. member for Calgary Centre made reference to Bill C-96, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act which is now on the Order Paper. He cited this in support of his contention that what is being attempted to be done in the estimates is clearly out of order. My response is that this is immaterial in the matter before us because statutory authority exists. We are not dealing with new programs but a continuation of programs which exist. This bill might well solve the problem in authorizing new programs in the future. It is not yet law, however, and is therefore of no assistance in the present circumstances.
The next item objected to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre is Privy Council, Vote 1 on the grounds that it seeks to amend legislation and, on this basis, the hon. member makes a parallel with Agriculture, Vote 30 in the 1981-82 Main Estimates which was ruled out of order on June 12, 1981. I must admit this vote caused particular concern to the Chair. Agriculture, Vote 30 was specifically seeking to go beyond Section 12 of the Animal Disease and Protection Act and was ruled out of order for attempting to amend existing legislation, whereas Privy Council, Vote 1 does not refer to specific legislation but is in fact a continuation of a vote in the 1981-82 Main Estimates covered by the Appropriation Act No. 2,
1981-82. In other words, Privy Council, Vote 1 does not attempt to amend the Salaries Act but provides for the salary of certain Ministers of State assigned by virtue of Section 23 of the Government Organization Act, 1970, which is itself the legislative authority required. The authority for the amount can be found in the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82. I therefore find Privy Council, Vote 1 also in order.
The third classification mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre dealt with expenditures not authorized under existing legislation. He cited Public Works, Votes 15, 25 and 35, and pointed out, based on Section 9 of the Public Works Act, that no authority exists for the minister to spend public moneys on non-public property. He added that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act, not yet passed by this House, would give that authority. The three votes in question, however, appear in identical terms in Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82 and are therefore authorized under existing legislation. These are, therefore, not new programs and are in order.
The hon. member then offered a submission that Industry, Trade and Commerce, Votes 25 and L35 attempt to create new programs and are therefore out of order. Funds were appropriated for them, however, in the 1981-82 fiscal year in Appropriation Act No. 2. In view of this circumstance, I cannot agree that these votes authorize payment for new programs. I must rule them in order.
At this point the hon. member invited attention to Vote 40 of Public Works, contending that the vote is out of order on the grounds that it establishes a new Crown corporation and authorizes the corporation to spend revenues received during the year. As in the instance of the Industry, Trade and Commerce votes, funds were appropriated in 1981-82 for this program. On the second ground, that of spending revenues received during the year, I might well have included this vote for discussion under the hon. member's first classification. I find this vote also to be in order.
Finally, we come to Secretary of State, Vote 40 which the hon. member submits is out of order because it is based on an invalid authority, namely, paragraph (d) of Vote L27a of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1976, which, he contends, lapsed several years ago. After thorough examination, I must respectfully differ with the hon. member. Paragraph (d) gives the terms and conditions of the payment and describes how payments are to be made. The statutory authority, again, is the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82 and intervening Appropriation Acts.
By way of conclusion, I should like to make a brief comment. The President of the Treasury Board in his response argued that, when raising points of order of this kind, timing is of the essence. As all hon. members are aware, estimates are a complex subject and their examination is time consuming. My predecessors and I have noted that it would be helpful to the Chair and would assure a more appropriate procedure for challenging the estimates if points of order are presented as soon as possible after the estimates are returned to the House
June 21, 1982

from committees. However, the hon. member for Calgary Centre was well within his rights in raising the point of order when he did.
In summary, I have examined all cases. 1 wish to return briefly to my ruling of June 12, 1981, when I said:
Finally, it seems clear that it is in order to extend the purposes of an item in an Appropriation Act by means of an item in the estimates provided that it does not amend any other legislation.
It seems to me that in each case we have sufficient legislative authority in a previous Appropriation Act or elsewhere.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, may I get a clarification on the point you have ruled on? Are the Appropriation Acts to which you referred dated prior to 1968 or subsequent thereto? The distinction is rather important because, as you know, Appropriation Acts after January 1, 1969 are non-debatable. As a matter of fact, they are subject to very little review. There were some that did cause the House to question them, but there again the point at issue is can anything pass through this House and not be debated? If there is an estimate which is posted and raised as question of order, and the legislative authority is deemed to be an appropriation bill, with the greatest respect I submit that is begging the question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is asking me to comment on a ruling and I will not do that. The ruling is there to be read. It has been prepared with all the expertise that I can command, and I would ask the hon. member to consult it and guide himself accordingly.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: Since today is the final allotted day the House will go through the usual procedure this evening to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practice do hon. members agree that the supply bill to be dealt with later today be distributed now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed?
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the ninth and tenth reports of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED-PRESENTATION OF FIFTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITION
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on the very important issue of disarmament which was signed by over 400 people in Kitimat, British Columbia. The petition notes the Liberal government's plan to allow Cruise missile testing in Canada, and calls on the government to support a worldwide disarmament program. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to take heed of this message and review their respective positions on Cruise missile testing, and I hope they will support the growing worldwide peace movement.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Wednesday, January 14, 1981, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,387, 3,749 (as revised), 3,894, 4,186, 4,235 and 4,315.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what was the total person years of (a) military (b) civilian personnel in the Department of National Defence?
2.	What number of civilian personnel are employed outside Canada?
3.	What is the estimated percentage saving, if any, when a civilian replaces a military person in the department?
4.	Are civilians used in positions that could be filled by military personnel and, if so, for what reason?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.
	(a)	(b)
Fiscal Year	Military	Civilian1976/77	78,033	37,2881977/78	78,446	37,0161978/79	78,866	37,4531979/80	79,315	37,4941980/81	79,692	36,7422.	Forty-nine.3.	It is 13.3 per cent (This percentage was obtained from the per capita personnel costs as shown in the department's estimates).4.	The Department of National Defence carries out its approved roles, tasks and missions with a unique combination of military personnel and civilian personnel. Canadian Forces (CF) personnel carry out military tasks and these CF personnel are supported by a work force of mixed military and civilian manpower. The structure of the work force is derived from a simple set of principles which ensures, where possible, a task is carried out by the least expensive manpower, while at the same time ensuring that the Canadian Forces has the competence to discharge its operational responsibilities in time of war. The civilian component of the department is composed largely of technical and operational categories which are necessary to the operation of DND bases, dockyards, airfields, repair facilities, supply depots, etc. Civilian personnel are employed in positions which could possibly be filled by CF personnel but for reasons of efficiency, continuity in function and availability of specially trained staff, selective use of civilian personnel has been deemed more economical.
CPP DISABILITY BENEFITS Question No. 3,749 (Revised)-Mr. Greenaway:
1.	By constituency, over the past three years, how many applications for CPP disability benefits were made by residents of British Columbia?
2.	By constituency, how many of the applications resulted in benefits being granted?
3.	By constituency, what is the average monthly disability payment made by CPP?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The total number of applications for CPP disability benefits made by residents of British Columbia over the past three years is 11,991. There were 3,814 applications in 1978-79; 3,936 in 1979-80; and 4,241 in 1980-81.
2.	Of that number, 8,329 applications resulted in benefits being granted; 2,517 applications were accepted in 1978-79; 2,668 in 1979-80; and 3,144 in 1980-81.
3.	The average monthly disability payments made by CPP at the end of each fiscal year were: $172.05 in 1978-79; $190.84 in 1979-80; and $212.92 in 1980-81.
There is no breakdown of this information below provincial level. Information by constituency is not available in this case.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Was a proposal made to the government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or otherwise, by Associated Freezers of Dartmouth/Hali-fax, Nova Scotia or by someone else to freeze and store bait for the Japanese fishing fleet and to freeze and store tuna caught by the fleet for transshipment?
2.	Was permission refused by the government, through the department, to freeze and store bait and tuna for the fleet and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many jobs or hours were lost and what amount of revenue was lost by such refusal?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	A number of proposals for storage of bait and tuna for the Japanese fleet were received by the department in the autumn of 1981 from several sources. A brief summary and disposal of each proposal is provided as follows:
Mariculture proposal-This proposal which was approved on October 5, 1981, requested the offloading of 3,000 tons of albacore and yellowfin tuna for storage and later transshipment to Puerto Rico or U.S.A. It also included the possible landing and sale of 3,000 tons to Canadian processors. In return the operators of the tuna vessels agreed to purchase up to approximately 5,000 tons of squid from Canadian processors. The first vessel unloaded on November 30, 1981, and by March 1, 1982, 13 vessels had unloaded a total of 165 tons for which sale to a Canadian company has been arranged. This was stored at Associated Freezers in Dartmouth.
Ishiwata Trading Co.-On October 23, 1981, Ishiwata Trading Co. requested permission to transport squid from U.S. to Associated Freezers in Dartmouth f">r the tuna fleet. The tuna fishery in Canadian waters closed on October 25, 1981, before approval could be given.
Zengyoren Tokyo proposal-On September 29, 1981, this company, through its agents Messrs. Pickford & Black requested authorization to land and store bait for the tuna fishery by bringing a reefer boat to Halifax. A telex approving this proposal was sent on October 2, 1981. Shortly thereafter
June 21, 1982

agents discussed preliminary arrangements with the department to bring an Italian vessel to Halifax to unload squid. No further requests or approaches were made to the department and it was later learned that the vessel was directed to St. Pierre to offload its cargo. The unloading occurred sometime between October 8 and October 15, 1981. From the beginning of this transaction no refusal was given by the department and it must therefore be assumed that either the vessel owners or Zengyoren decided to use St. Pierre for freezer storage.
Toshuku Ltd.-On October 7, 1981, this company requested permission for two Korean vessels to load approximately 40 tons of squid in Halifax. This request was denied as no bilateral agreement exists between Canada and Korea.
2.	(a) See part 1.
(b) It is obvious from the above that little or no employment or revenue was lost due to actions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, nor can it be suggested that the department's decisions influenced vessels to conduct their business elsewhere as in the case of Zengyoren.
It is possible that some proposals were not completed as anticipated due to the decreased demand for freezer storage brought about by the nature and early closure of the 1981 tuna
fishery.


Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the rental of office space by the government in the Quinpool Centre, Quinpool Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia for regional customs, regional excise and port of Halifax-customs (a) who is the landlord of the centre and, if it is a limited liability company, who are the principal shareholders (b) what is the total square footage being rented (c) what is the exact amount of space rented for (i) regional customs (ii) regional excise (iii) port of Halifax-customs (d) what is the rental fee on a square footage basis?


Paul James Cosgrove: (a) F.S. Industries Limited is the landlord, carrying on business under their holding company's name of Willowgate Development Corporation, principal shareholders being: city of Halifax as head lessor, John R. Fisk Investment Ltd., Hugh K. Smith Investment Ltd. (b) 35978.34 square feet. (c)(i) 19897.07 square feet rented for regional customs, (ii) 6942.72 square feet rented for regional excise, (iii) 9138.55 square feet rented for port of Halifax-customs, (d) $11.15 square foot.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount per annum is paid in rent for the accommodation at 1616 Dorchester Boulevard West, Montreal used by the Department of Employment and Immigration?
2.	What was the commencement date of the lease and what is its duration?
3.	Is there an escalation clause and, if so, does the clause have an upper limit?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. The
annual rent amounts to $530,730.40 for the office space and $9,600 for the parking.
Order Paper Questions
2,	The commencement date is 1981-08-01 and the termination date is 1984-07-31.
3.	The lease contains an escalation clause for the increase or decrease of municipal and school taxes and an escalation clause for the operating costs for that portion of the building occupied by the Department of Employment and Immigration. No upper limit exists for the increase of taxes and operating costs.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Over the past three years, how many applications for CPP disability benefits were made by residents of each province, excluding British Columbia?
2.	How many of the applications resulted in benefits being granted?
3.	What is the average monthly disability payment made by CPP?


Royce Herbert Frith: 1. Number of applications made for CPP disability benefits by residents of each province excluding British Columbia during the last three years (197980, 1980-81, 1981-82):
Province	Number of Applicants
1979-80	1980-81	1981-82Newfoundland	1,008	1,001	1,252Prince Edward Island	218	211	258Nova Scotia	2,604	2,441	2,822New Brunswick	1,546	1,379	1,482Quebec	-	13	29Ontario	19,003	18,187	20,671Manitoba	1,884	1,879	1,901Saskatchewan	1,282	1,194	1,273Alberta	2,167	2,109	2.147Total	29,712	28,414	31,8352.	The number of applications resulting in benefits being granted was 18,671 in 1979-80; 22,673 in 1980-81; and 22,790 in 1981-82.3.	The average monthly disability payment made by CPP at end of each fiscal year was $183.36 for 1979-80; $204.64 for 1980-81; and $233.76 for 1981-82.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,542 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 21, 1982
Supply
[ Text]


Mr. Schellenberger: From 1970 to date, by year, what amount was spent on the financing and construction of new houses and on housing rehabilitation by (a) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (c) the Rural and Native Housing Program (d) any other department or agency?
Return tabled.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, on March 31 I placed on the Order Paper a relatively simple question with respect to the rental of office space by the government in the Quinpool Centre, Quinpool Road, Halifax. If the parliamentary secretary has some objection to answering this, I could phrase the question in another way or put it to him in written form. I simply do not understand why information which must be contained in the rental agreement is not forthcoming after two months.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to that offhand but I will be happy to look into it and bring the information to the hon. member's attention.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House approves the government taking immediate action to lower interest rates, stimulate production, investment and jobs, strengthen the dollar and lower the rate of inflation.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have today introduced a motion which expresses goals on which I believe this House of Commons can agree, and I would hope that our time today can be spent considering what is happening in Canada, why it is happening, and what we who live in the richest country in the world can do to pull ourselves back to prosperity.
We all know what has happened. Canada is in the worst recession since the reconstruction immediately after the Second World War. We had reports today that the gross national product in the first quarter of 1982 was down 2 per cent. That indicates that for the third quarter in a row Canada has had negative growth. This country, with all our potential and strength, instead of moving forward is slipping and falling backwards.

In May, the unemployment rate was at 10.2 per cent. This means that 1,241,000 Canadians declared they were unemployed, and according to Statistics Canada, there are another
100,000	Canadians who are not included in this percentage because they have given up their search for employment. Every day, an average of 1,200 jobs are lost, which means that during the weekend, 2,400 Canadians lost their jobs. Another 1,200 will join the ranks of the unemployed today. During the last five months of this year, 4,425 Canadian businesses went bankrupt. Farm bankruptcies have increased by 61 per cent over last year. Our manufacturing sector is operating at 70 per cent of its production capacity, the lowest level since these figures were first recorded.

Our productivity as a country has dropped for four years in a row. Real wages are down for the fourth year in a row. Our inflation rate was 11.3 per cent as of April, 1982, while the United States rate is only 6.6 per cent. Interest rates in this country are going up again. Our dollar is trading at the lowest level in its history. TThe Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claims it is not fair to compare the Canadian dollar with the American dollar, and I suppose he is right. We should be comparing the Canadian dollar with the American cent because that, unfortunately, is the comparison which counts today.
The government made an error of 60 per cent in calculating its budget deficit. The deficit will be somewhere between $16 billion and $18 billion. In seven months a 60 per cent government error occurred. We hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), if he speaks today, will at least clear up exactly what the projected deficit is so that Canadians will know just how heavy the burden is that we are facing as a country.
Those are the hard, unchallengeable statistics. Those are the cold facts of the world's richest country sinking gradually into economic disaster. But the disaster is much more than economic. What we are facing in Canada today, as any of us know who travel this country and talk to Canadians, is not just an economic disaster, it is a human tragedy. It is a tragedy that is tearing the hope, the heart and the pride out of thousands of Canadians each day.
We have seen the facts about the number of Canadians unemployed, the shameful number of Canadians who are out of work. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to think about the neighbour of the man or the woman who has just lost a good job and is worrying if he or she is going to be next. Think about the parents of children coming out of school with no work to go to. Put yourself in the place of a woman or a man who is the only provider for a family and who has either lost a job or fears that job will go tomorrow, next week or next month. If I might
June 21, 1982

borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, these are the Canadians who have already had the hell scared out of them. They cannot afford any more economic policies designed to scare the hell out of the people of Canada.
Some hon. Mfembers: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This House deals very often in cold statistics and hard facts, but we are also a community. We in this Parliament are the only ones to whom the people of Canada can turn looking for some help, hoping that we might, through the force of our arguments and to the extent of our determination, be able to force this government to change policies that are bringing agony into the lives of individual Canadians.
I want the House to dwell for a moment not just on hard economic facts, but on some of the human implications of what is going on. I ask members of this House, all of us comfortable, all of us well paid and all of us with positions that are reasonably secure-at least until the government calls an election, which it must, and then the positions of Liberal members will suddenly become insecure-to think of the plight of others. We in this House are among the privileged in the land. We have the obligation at least to ensure that when we talk about what is happening to our country we try to place it in some kind of human perspective. I ask members of this House to think of the tensions that are created by the deliberate economic policy of the Liberal government. Think of the fighting now in individual families over money. Think of the family breakups. Think of the people pushed beyond the edge of despair. Look at the statistics that came out this weekend on suicides among young people. Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, about the relationship between those suicides, economic conditions and the pressures that exist in homes across the nation.
We do not like to think about human costs. Statistics are cold. They are hard. They are manageable. You get used to them. But you do not get used to alcoholism; you do not get used to suicides; you do not get used to wife beating; you do not get used to family breakups. All of these increase when the economy fails. My friends in this House, those are the realities of our Canada today.
When we talk about an economic policy that is driving Canadians out of work, we have to calculate the human cost. When we talk about an energy program that is driving away the investment that can create jobs, we have to realize that the jobs which could have been created if that investment had stayed here would have meant people would have kept their hope and some people may have kept their lives instead of risking them. That is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with policies that are forcing people into alcoholism. We are dealing with policies that are forcing people into family breakup. We are dealing with economic policies that are forcing Canadians to commit suicide. That is the context in which we have to see what is being done to our country. That is the context in which we have to judge our duty to our fellow citizens as the one institution in the land which has the power to force this government to act.
Supply
Some of you know that in the city of Windsor two years ago the mayor of that community established a special committee on services for the unemployed. That committee reported in 1980 that Windsor's high level of unemployment led to uncontrollable stress, in the words of the report, and increased use of tranquillizers, alcohol and other drugs.
A Toronto study of 100 violent family situations in which the police had been involved found that 80 per cent of wife beaters were people who were unemployed, who were responding in that vicious way to the tensions that unemployment and economic privation have placed upon them.
In Canada, as the unemployment rate rose from 6.9 per cent in 1975 to its present rate today, the suicide rate rose from 12.4 per 100,000 to 14 per 100,000. A disproportionate number of those suicides are among young people. A disproportionate number of those people are young people who are children of single-parent families. Those are facts. Those are the consequences. Those, quite literally, are the victims of the economic policies that the Liberal government is forcing on this country today.
Family violence has doubled in five years. Wife beating claims an estimated 24,000 victims per year in this country. In the United States where research is often more advanced than ours, a study by John Hopkins University has determined that every 1 per cent rise in unemployment foreshadows a 4.1 per cent rise in suicides, a 5 per cent rise in homicides, a 4 per cent rise in prison admissions, and a 4.3 per cent rise in admissions to mental and other hospitals.
We are a different society in some ways in that we have less crime in Canada or the statistics would be somewhat different. But the comparison is there. The relationship is there between those horrible social consequences and the economic policy that this government is imposing on its people. Economic problems create social problems that will take decades to heal. That is what is happening in this country. Those are the hard facts and those are the human results of those hard facts.
We as a Parliament have to ask ourselves why that is happening. Why is that happening to this, the richest nation in the world? Why are we allowing that to happen in this, the most compassionate nation in the world? Of course we are influenced by international conditions. Of course we are part of the world. But allow me to let the government in on a little secret; so is every other nation part of the world. Yet we are unique by our ability to solve our own problems here. We have immense resources which the world needs, whether food, natural resources or human resources. We have a tradition of people wanting to work and wanting to build. Canada has the highest literacy level in the world. We are a country that should not be begging others to bail us out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is different about world economic conditions as they apply to Canada and as they apply to other countries? Other countries have faced world conditions and acted to make their situation better. Canada's government has ignored world conditions and has acted to make the Canadian

June 21, 1982
Supply
situation much worse than it needs to be. I assume that members of this House of all parties want to solve Canada's problems. Certainly we should because that is what we are here to do. That is what we are paid for. That job is fundamentally beyond payment: that is our duty to the people who sent us here.
Let us look at what caused some of those problems. Let us not pretend that everything that is going wrong in Canada is caused by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand or some other foreigner safely distant from debate in this place, because a large number of our problems were caused right here in this country. We can solve them right here in this country if we have the guts and if we have the will to do so.

For instance, let us have a look at what is causing inflation. In Canada, inflation is largely caused by the fact that the government has indulged in unrestricted spending and taxation since 1972-73. Government deficits during the last ten years, ending in 1981-82, have totalled over $77 billion.
Thus, today, the federal government's second largest budget envelope covers payment of debt interest and debt charges which, according to the government itself, will reach $16.6 billion during the current fiscal year. Out of every $5 spent by the federal government today, $1 is for debt interest and charges. This is one of the major causes of inflation in Canada.

What about interest rates? They are in part, of course, caused by inflation, but they have been 3 per cent or 4 per cent higher because of the need to protect the weak Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is weak because in the period from 1974 to 1981 we have had $30 billion in deficits on the current account of our balance of international payments with the rest of the world. We are paying the price now for the legacy of John Turner, Donald Macdonald, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the present Minister of Finance.
Then in the face of that and in the face of developments in the world, the government introduced an energy policy and a budget designed directly to drive away Canadian investment and foreign investment which create jobs and growth in Canada. At precisely the time when the Government of Canada needed to build investor confidence, the government delivered this double whammy of its budget and its energy policy. It literally drove billions of dollars of investment and hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs out of the country. That was not done by any other country; it was done by the policies of the Government of Canada in a budget that is wrong and in a National Energy Program which is dreadfully and disastrously wrong. Everyone with a modicum of common sense, everyone who went beyond grade three and many who did not get that far, knows that investment which creates jobs needs a stable climate, needs conditions upon which one can
count, needs rules which will not be broken at the whim of a minister or the whim of government. Canada has become as stable as a string of firecrackers. No one knows where the government will pop off next. It has breached contracts, it has confiscated land, it has deliberately destroyed the ability of individuals to save, and it has deliberately stopped incentives which it knows on the record would create jobs.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: And they laugh! They laugh about confiscating land in the country. They laugh about breaching contracts in the country.


Mr. Guilbault:: We have more savings than before.


Charles Joseph Clark: They laugh about destroying the capacity of Canadians to obtain jobs. These are Canadians.

And those laughing today are Quebecers, from a province and a region that is suffering most as a result of the policies of this government. They must be people without any sense of shame, considering the fact they are supposed to represent those who have suffered such hardship as a result of the policies of this government.

The result of this deliberate introduction of the double whammy of a budget which is bad and an energy policy which is bad has been that $10.2 billion in direct capital investment left Canada in 1981 alone. That is direct capital investment; it does not take account of the other $9 billion in unidentified capital flows, a figure which, by the way leapt fourfold in the last year. In the seven years before the double whammy of the budget and the energy program, Canadians invested $16 billion in foreign countries. In 1981 that direct capital investment by Canadians soared to $10.2 billion in one year. That was made up of $5.3 billion in foreign capital which left the country and $4.9 billion in direct investment abroad by Canadians.
The Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, headed by the Hon. Walter Gordon, suggests that $1 million in direct investment creates 40 to 50 jobs. Let us just assume that $1 million of direct investment creates 40 jobs, according to the low figure of Walter Gordon. If just $1 billion of that job-creating capital which has left Canada had stayed in Canada, it would have meant 40,000 jobs here. If that money had not been driven away by the Minister of Finance, there would be 40,000 Canadians working today who are not working today. If the $4.9 billion which Canadians invested abroad last year had stayed in Canada, it would have created 196,000 jobs in Canada.
Those are the stakes. We are dealing with people's lives here. We cannot blame other people. It has been the policies of the government which have driven away the money that could have created the jobs, the hope and the faith which Canadians want to find in their country.
June 21, 1982

Let us look for a moment at some of the other direct results of Canadian government policies. The House knows that before the Liberal government took office, the Cold Lake and Alsands projects were ready to go. The Liberal government lost them both. The National Energy Board estimates that those two projects would have created 153,000 jobs in Canada between now and 1990. Those 153,000 jobs were lost when the Liberals lost the Alsands and the Cold Lake projects.
The petroleum and gas revenue tax, the PGRT, wiped out the profitability of many marginal oil wells which require frequent services. This means that well servicing was down by 31 per cent in 1981. In that industry, too, thousands of jobs were lost directly because of the government and its taxing policy, which taxes and punishes the people to fatten the government which then tries to blame others.

Under the Canadian ownership program, $7.7 billion were spent to purchase foreign oil companies. If this money had been available for investment in Canada, we could have created 307,000 jobs. The National Energy Program has cost this country 343,000 jobs in the last 18 months. About 300 drill rigs have left Canada because of the National Energy Program. This means 15,000 jobs that are now lost to Canadians. So much for the National Energy Program.
Now for the budget, whose aim was to stop Canadian private investment and increase government revenue. Corporate tax changes alone have cost Canadians nearly $1.7 billion. If this money had been left in the pockets of Canadian investors and had been invested directly, it would have been possible to create 68,400 jobs this year.

To take specific examples from the budget, the provision to allow only onehalf of the capital cost allowance results, according to Walter Gordon's figures, in the loss of 44,000 jobs in Canada. The decision to extend the corporate surtax for large business results, in applying the standard of 40 jobs per $1 million of investment, in 18,600 jobs lost. The decision to impose a 12.5 per cent tax on dividends paid by small businesses from income taxed at lower rates results in the loss of 3,600 jobs. Thirty-six hundred people could have been working in Canada if it were not for that one budget provision alone. And so on it goes. You can take the receipts that they gain, you can compare them to the standard that the Gordon Institute puts out, and you can see just how many jobs this government is costing Canadians day after day after day. You can see just how much agony it is injecting into the lives of ordinary Canadians.
We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs that were lost, not because of American policy, not because of world conditions, but as the direct result of Canadian government policies that are wrong. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has any idea of what his energy and budget policies have done to this country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Or cares.
Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: Or cares. That is a question we must now put when we look at the human cost of these policies. I wonder if he has any idea of what those policies to which he and his colleagues cling so stubbornly-putting their pride ahead of the wellbeing of Canadians-have cost Canadians. Those policies have cost Canadians 714,000 jobs since the introduction of the National Energy Program and the budget.
For the Minister of Finance to absolve himself of responsibility and to blame everybody else is like a classic drunk standing with an empty bottle in each hand and saying, "It is not me who is scaring the hell out of people, it is just the pink elephants." Well, the disease is the minister's to cure. The minister must start by changing his own most basic assumptions.
That brings us to the question of what we can do in Canada to solve Canada's economic problems. First, we must insist that the statement or whatever planned by the Minister of Finance for the next few weeks must be, in effect, a budget or a mini-budget. He cannot escape with less. He owes the people of Canada that much.
Second, all of our actions must be based on the understanding that while we, too, are part of the world, we have a unique ability to control our own destiny in Canada. We should build Canada, not blame others.
Third, we should accept the principle that this nation needs investment to create new jobs and security that are the key to growth, individual security and to confidence in our country. We must re-establish a climate of confidence in Canada as a place to invest.
A fourth assumption must involve the recognition that an excellent way to reduce the government deficit is to put the Canadian people to work so they can pay taxes instead of collecting unemployment insurance. The House should know the facts about this. Between August of 1981 and May of 1982, the number of Canadians with jobs dropped by 320,000. We have estimated that the average Canadian taxpayer will pay $2,737 in federal income tax and $1,313 in provincial taxes, which averages out to a total of $4,050 in federal and provincial personal taxes. If those 320,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs-who were working and are no longer working because of the government-were still working and paying taxes at average rates, they would be contributing to the federal treasury and the provincial treasury respectively $875,840,000 and $420,160,000, for a total of $1,296 billion in new tax dollars to help cut the deficits. That does not take into account the amount of money which would be saved by not having to pay unemployment insurance to people who would rather be working. Those are the assumptions on which new policies should be based.
Let me come to the specific policies which we think must be followed and the changes which must be made. First, the disastrous November budget must be withdrawn. The attack on incentives which is central to the November budget must be abandoned and a new budget must be brought in which encourages individuals to invest in Canada and create jobs

June 21, 1982
Supply
here. That new budget should reject the idea that the only purpose of tax policy is to enrich the federal government. It should accept the idea that tax policy can create growth, investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.
Second, the government must recognize that the National Energy Program has absolutely destroyed confidence in the Canadian energy sector as a safe place for private citizens to invest.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: An hon. member says nonsense. Would he identify himself? They do not identify themselves because anyone who knows anything about what is happening in Canada will know that no one with a nickel to invest in the Canadian private energy industry would do so unless they had an iron-clad guarantee that is safer than the iron-clad guarantees that the minister said he had from the American government.

Once again, we are hearing from a member from Quebec. 1 hope that next time, perhaps today, he will speak to defend his fellow citizens and not to defend the policies that have caused them to lose their jobs.

One of the dramatic facts about the energy industry was that our Canadian energy industry grew and was becoming increasingly a Canadian-controlled industry due to the initiative of individual Canadians. That must be the tone of a new energy program. If that is the tone, the purpose of the energy program must be to find energy for Canada and not simply to find tax revenues for the government in Ottawa.
Third, the review of the activities of the Foreign Investment Review Agency which began during my government should be continued in order to reduce uncertainties, to target on the major investments which might cause real problems of Canadian control and to reduce the time lost to bureaucracy. We need both Canadian control and Canadian jobs. The reform of FIRA can give us both.
Fourth, the restraint side of economic policies must be pursued by this whole Parliament. We can all enumerate individual examples of government waste, whether it is three JetStars flying to Winnipeg because the ministers do not like to talk to one another or whether it is the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on Liberal Party propaganda in the name of government advertising. However, there needs to be a much more thorough examination of expenditures by this whole Parliament.
The other day my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) proposed a motion under Standing Order 43. He asked that the government set up a special committee of the House to examine such measures in the estimates that might be reduced or eliminated, and that that special committee be entitled to call witnesses to examine expenditures with a view
to reducing government expenses by 10 per cent. That proposal was rejected by other parties but I believe it merits the most serious consideration.
Finally, we must restore a sense of partnership in this country as the basis for solving our economic problems. I was personally shocked to hear the Prime Minister of Canada declare recently that co-operative federalism is dead. If cooperative federalism is dead, then Canada is dead. The only way this country can function is by bringing its partners together and making them work together. I have personal experience with the possibility of achieving that. The government which I had the honour to lead was bringing Canadians from all backgrounds and groups together in the national economic development conference.


Mr. Collenette:: Is that why you lasted nine months?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am asked if that is why the government lasted nine months by the member for York East (Mr. Collenette), who will soon be returning to private practice. The government lasted nine months because the NDP-Liberal coalition voted to bring us down. We will remind Canadians of the reasons that occurred every day between now and the next election.


David Michael Collenette: Absolute incompetence.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for York East has just described himself as an absolute incompetent and the rest of the House shares in that definition.
The point 1 am making is that when there is a government in Ottawa that is prepared to exercise leadership to bring people together, that leadership can be exercised and people can be brought together. Because the great majority of Canadians, whether they are provincial Premiers, labour leaders, business leaders or whatever, want this nation to work. They want this fighting to stop; they want this nation to work. If the program that I have outlined is followed, we can bring down interest rates by at least three or four points. We can stimulate production, investment and thousands of Canadian jobs. We can strengthen the Canadian dollar by restoring confidence in the Canadian economy. By demonstrating our seriousness and exercising the restraint that these times require, we can bring down the rate of inflation. That is our challenge and I hope that this Parliament is up to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate which has been launched by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in which he has put forward very important questions concerning interest rates, production, investment, jobs, the Canadian dollar and the rate of inflation. In the brief time at my disposal, I would like to try to deal with some of the questions which have been raised and are of such importance to the Canadian people.
June 21, 1982

The Government of Canada and the Liberal caucus have been discussing the economic situation with a view to intensifying the efforts to improve our economic performance and to prepare ourselves for the future. 1 particularly appreciate the efforts which have been made under the leadership of the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to bring forward ideas and proposals which address themselves to the current economic situation. I have indicated to the House of Commons that I intend to make an economic and financial statement to the House before the summer adjournment. I would hope to make that statement as quickly as possible.
Today the Leader of the Opposition has recommended that that statement be cast in the form of a budget or a minibudget. Whatever form my statement takes, there is no doubt that the economic situation is serious. The Canadian economy is in recession, a recession which has been much deeper and much more prolonged than any forecaster, government or private, had predicted. Unemployment is extremely high, businesses are in difficulty across the country, high interest rates and high inflation are stifling economic activity and holding back investment.
We are sharing in the international recession into which the United Stated and the rest of the industrial world have been plunged for many months. It is natural that in these circumstances, and particularly prior to the statement which I intend to make, the Leader of the Opposition should have seized this particular occasion to highlight problems in the economy. Certainly, in these difficult circumstances, there is a clear need for all participants in the economy and all participants in governments, federal, provincial and municipal, to join together as much as possible in seeking economic solutions. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he places a high priority on Parliament and the necessity of Parliament working as effectively as possible in order to bring about solutions to the problems of the country.
When the Leader of the Opposition spoke last March, the day on which we dealt with parliamentary reform, he made an observation which certainly attracted my attention. He said:
Our country has changed tremendously since Confederation, and its problems are more numerous and often more complex. We cannot solve today's problems with 19th century tools. There must be a way to agree on limiting debate.
That is not the point which I particularly wanted to highlight in the paragraph; rather, it was the concluding line which
states:
Common sense and mutual respect must prevail if differences are to be resolved.
I would hope that I would conduct my remarks with respect for the views of the Leader of the Opposition, if not agreement with those views. The opposition has been demanding action and solutions. Last week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself returned from the Versailles Summit, the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite recited a list of problems and called upon the government to take action. They then discounted, and indeed again today the Leader of the Opposition discounted, the international sources of our difficulties. They suggested that by pressing the United States to reduce its interest rates, the Canadian government has simply been looking for excuses. I get the impression from
Supply
listening to opposition members that they believe there are quick and easy solutions to the problems which face the government and that if only the government would see the light and drop its pride, if only it would abandon the policies to which we give our confidence, then everything would be all right. In a sense, we heard the same views expressed today by the Leader of the Opposition. Withdraw the budget. Withdraw the National Energy Program. Withdraw FIRA. These are solutions which the Leader of the Opposition has advanced.
In referring to the National Energy Program, he has failed to put it in a context of falling energy prices and falling demand throughout the world and, in fact, in the context of what is happening in the country of our neighbour, the United States. For example, I do not think the National Energy Program is responsible for the current situation in the United States drilling industry. What is that industry like today in the United States, not in Canada, not influenced by the National Energy Program? The fact is that in the first quarter of 1982 the drilling industry in the United States suffered its most significant downturn in activity since 1970. The drilling industry experienced a drop of almost 25 per cent in its activity in the first quarter of 1982. That had nothing to do with the Canadian National Energy Program.
I could go down the list and say to the Leader of the Opposition that he must be much more forthcoming and precise if he is to make a contribution to the debate which is now raging in the country and if he is to make a contribution to the solution that we are seeking. I have heard him say nothing about monetary policy, which is a main influence on our economic activity. I have heard him say nothing about incomes policy, which is so critical to our situation at the present time. I have heard him say very little about fiscal policy except to say that we all ought to engage in the laudable effort of expenditure restraint. Of course, I agree with that. Members of Parliament have an opportunity, when they examine the estimates in committee, to propose reductions if they wish. They can suggest what may be done to bring about expenditure reductions, not in a punitive, political way to embarrass the government, but rather in a way in which the objectives set by the Leader of the Opposition can be achieved.
It is open to members of the opposition, as it is to members on this side, to say, as an hon. member said the other day, that maybe we ought to review our foreign aid program. Maybe we ought to have a big drop in our expenditures in foreign aid. However, I heard not a word from the Leader of the Opposition as to where he would make these cuts and in what programs. Therefore, it is my appeal to him to give some precision to his proposals and to his ideas, which have been sadly lacking this afternoon in his statement. He would give the impression that the unemployment that exists in Canada is entirely due to wrong-headed government policies.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!

June 21, 1982
Supply


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) says "Hear, hear". She agrees with the Leader of the Opposition that all the unemployment we have is because of bad government policies. We know that unemployment carries with it very heavy costs, both economically and socially.
Certainly the first priority of the government is more jobs and stronger growth in the economy. It will be impossible to provide the number of jobs we need in Canada unless we get inflation under control. The Leader of the Opposition made passing reference to inflation in his speech. It is mentioned in the motion. He mentioned it one or two times, but did he give the House of Commons a recipe or proposal that would have the effect of reducing inflation in Canada at the present time? There was no such proposal.
I ask members of the opposition what is their proposal at the present time. Do they believe that we can have more jobs and more economic growth in the country if we persist in having a rate of inflation of over 11 per cent, one that has now put us in the forefront of the countries of the world with inflation performance? I worry greatly about that. I worry about inflation because I worry about unemployment.
The ministers who attended the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund tried to express their concerns about inflation and unemployment and tried to relate one to the other. Because the communique was signed by so many countries and because the discussion was participated in by so many ministers in such a major way, I think that the words they used express clearly the attitude of this government with respect to inflation and unemployment. I quote as follows:
The committee voiced particular concern regarding the high levels of unemployment now prevailing in most countries. The comprehensive type of policy approach that it advocated-
Namely, the committee.
-did not rest on a view that the fight against inflation is more important than the fight against unemployment. Rather, the committee's view was that combating inflation is a necessary step for resumption of sustainable growth at a satisfactory pace. The committee considered that reduction in inflation and inflationary expectations, in nominal and real interest rates, and in existing rigidities is essential for steady expansion of output and reduction of unemployment.
All the ministers tried to relate inflation and unemployment because they have been, unfortunately, linked together in the last number of years. The countries with the best inflation performance have the best employment performance. The lower the inflation, the lower the unemployment.
I take responsibility for the policies which the government administers. We all do. But to draw the conclusion that government policies are responsible for the world recession and for the high unemployment in Canada is not only to be unfair, but to be simplistic.
We have 1,200,000 people unemployed in Canada, a very high figure. Every effort ought to be made to bring down that rate. In the United States there are 10,500,000 unemployed. My policies are not applicable in the United States. In Japan, a great performer as a nation, there are 1,400,000 unemployed. In France there are two million, in the United Kingdom almost three million and in Italy 3,200,000. In West
Germany, another great performer economically, the unemployment rate is 7.3 per cent. That is extraordinary by historical standards for the Federal Republic of Germany. Even though they have a way of controlling their unemployment through the control of guest workers, nevertheless they have
1,700,000	unemployed at the present time. I repeat, their rate is 7.3 per cent, which is very high by their historical standards. I am saying that all countries share the same problems. They share the strong determination to bring down these frightfully high unemployment rates and to do so as quickly as possible.
We have a comprehensive set of employment programs in Canada at the present time covering training, labour market development, direct job creation and measures to stimulate employment in the private sector through wage subsidies, tax credits and assistance to the small business sector. Total funding for these programs is approximately $1.7 billion in
1982-83. That is in addition to the employment tax credit. This $1.7 billion for 1982-83 which is directed to the employment side includes the initiatives taken since the November budget, which total about $400 million for fiscal year 1982.
I attach the highest importance to unemployment, and I recited the extensive measures that the government is taking in order to relieve the problems of unemployment in this country. However, the fundamental cure is to get recovery under way not only in Canada but in the United States and Europe as well. All of us are interdependent. Seventy per cent of our economic relations are with the United States. How can we prosper, develop and get out of a recession when the United States economy, according to the words of the United States treasurer several weeks ago, is dead in the water?
I mentioned the United States. This brings me to the question of the Canadian dollar. The Leader of the Opposition said the weak Canadian dollar is all due to the bad policies of the Government of Canada. That, of course, is wrong. Events over the past several weeks in exchange markets the world over have borne out the contention which I have been making in the House of Commons almost every day, that the unprecedented high and volatile real interest rates in the United States are the prime factor behind the meteoric rise in the exchange value of the American dollar against all major currencies of the industrialized world. To single out the Canadian dollar and say it is weak against the American dollar and then to say that is because of bad government policies is unfair, inaccurate and unjustified.
Last week there was a 2.3 per cent decline in the value of the Canadian currency against the United States dollar. What was the decline for other currencies? Their depreciation was even more dramatic than that of Canada. The depreciation in the Japanese yen was 3.3 per cent; the Deutschemark, 3.5 per cent; the Swiss franc, 5 per cent; the French franc, 6.5 per cent; the Italian lira, 3.6 per cent; the pound, 2.8 per cent; the Belgian franc, 4.4 per cent; and the Dutch guilder, 3 per cent. In every
June 21, 1982

case the depreciation of those currencies against the American dollar was greater than the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. In every case, each of those currencies was weaker against the American dollar than was the Canadian dollar. If countries like Germany and Japan, so often described as the real success stories, cannot insulate their currencies and their economies from the impact of high real interest rates in the United States, how much more naive to think that Canada, with its greater degree of trade and financial relations with the United States, can insulate itself from the high interest rates in the United States which contribute to and provide strength to the American currency.
The fact of the matter is that as a country we have had to walk a narrow path between moderating volatile interest rate movements and maintaining a degree of stability in the foreign exchange rate. Those who assume, totally erroneously, that the government has abandoned the dollar and is engaging in the de facto devaluation fail to recognize the incredible magnitude of the depreciation in recent weeks of all OECD currencies against the American dollar.
What does become painfully obvious, however, is that such a marked depreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar, a strategy proposed by some people in the country, does not bring interest rates down but, rather, adds more pressure to already onerously high interest rates in this country.
Observe what is happening. It gives the lie to those who say there is an easy way out by letting the currency go. Like many other countries, Canada has had to intervene in the market to maintain orderly conditions. The other evening I listened to the radio telling us that the central bank of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Bank of Switzerland were active in the exchange rate market for the same reason Canada was at the same time.
I do not believe there are underlying weaknesses in the Canadian dollar. I do not believe that at all, and I ask hon. members to take a look at the recently released balance of payments figures for the first quarter of this year. Canada's current account, seasonally adjusted, swung into surplus at an annualized rate of $1.2 billion. The performance of the current account in the first quarter, if annualized, gives us a surplus. That is a rather significant performance, and it reflects a healthier merchandise trade balance, which virtually doubled to a $3.6 billion surplus over the first quarter of last year. Part of it is due to declining imports, but not all of it. There has been movement in exports as well.
We hear about capital outflows. Today the Leader of the Opposition attempted to spook everyone about a flood of capital leaving Canada. I ask him to take a quick glance at the balance sheet; it reveals some encouraging signs. It shows a strengthening of the long-term capital account, from the net outflow of half a billion dollars in the first quarter of 1981 to a net inflow of $4 billion in the first quarter of 1982.
If there is pressure on the Canadian currency-and there is-it comes from transactions in short-term financial instruments, often the form for highly speculative and interest-rate-sensitive transactions. That is where the principal pressure on the Canadian currency is coming from at the present time. I
Supply
say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should not continue with this blind opposition to the facts. The Canadian currency, compared with all other currencies, is weakening less-or is stronger-than all the other currencies I have mentioned. That was pointed out today in a very interesting commentary by an economist on the CBC.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is authoritative?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not ask members of the opposition to pay much attention to that; I sometimes do not myself, but I find it very odd that the same motion which calls for a strengthening of the Canadian dollar also calls for lower interest rates. How can that be done? How can it be done immediately? Hon. members opposite want immediate action. Can anyone in the Conservative Party get up today and tell me how we simultaneously can have lower interest rates in Canada and a strengthening of the Canadian dollar? I am afraid, given the harsh realities which all industrialized countries face, this is hardly a workable alternative strategy. However, I am preparing an economic statement, and I would be prepared to hear how we can have lower interest rates and a strengthened dollar at the same time.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Ask Herb Gray.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The last time these questions were linked together was at the first ministers' conference when the Premiers said we should lower interest rates by reducing the value of the dollar. Some of them said they could live with a 75-cent dollar. We argued against that at the time. I must say the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) was on the right side at the time because he said what had been proposed by the Premiers at the first ministers' conference was a policy of desperation. I ask the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre to take us into his confidence.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What are his solutions to the recent decline in the exchange rate? I know that in a television interview he trotted out a few tired old hobby horses which might not make it to the home stretch, if they were permitted to get to the starting gate. His solutions are so long term, so vague and so general that they cannot be implemented in any concrete or specific way. As I read his proposals, if we were to try to adopt them, we would be jeopardizing energy selfsufficiency and jeopardizing greater Canadian control over Canadian resources. The Leader of the Opposition has to get his lines in order. Does he believe in greater control by Canadians over our resources? That is what the Canadianization program is all about. We believe in that, but the Leader of the Opposition is asking us to withdraw the Canadianization program. Is he ready to make that proposal in a concrete way? I believe that is the dilemma the Conservative Party faces at the present time.
I turn now to interest rates. How can we lower interest rates immediately, except by some general proposal that can never be implemented? Interest rates in Canada are high for two

June 21, 1982
Supply
basic reasons. First, because interest rates in the United States are exceptionally high. These interest rates have put pressure on the Canadian dollar. Funds from every country are attracted and are flowing toward those high United States interest rates, particularly at a time when U.S. inflation is declining. That is why the American dollar is strong at the present time.
Second, we have high interest rates because we have high inflation. At the Versailles Summit we called upon the United States to do everything possible to reduce the extraordinarily high interest rates prevailing in that country. We have been clear on that point; we have been persistent and have acted in the clear interests of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition calls this shifting the blame. Would he have us, among all the seven nations sitting around the Summit table, not raise the question of high interest rates in the United States? I believe we would have been shirking our responsibility had we not called upon the United States, in the present circumstances to do something about their interest rates. According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, just this week the secretary-treasurer of the United States said they recognized that interest rates are unacceptably high. So does the rest of the world, Mr. Speaker. They want us to get those interest rates down and so does the man in the street.
I believe you are rising gently to ask me to end my statement, Mr. Speaker. I would just conclude by asking the members of the opposition a few questions about their effort to assist at the present time. Do they support the current monetary policy or would they ease that policy and flood the system with funds in order to bring down interest rates? Do they believe that would be constructive?
Do they believe in a restrictive fiscal policy or an expansionary fiscal policy? What is their policy on income demands and income settlements? What do they propose to do in the face of income settlements of 11 per cent now in the public service and in that range in the private sector? These are hard questions that have to be answered. Not one sentence in the otherwise interesting speech of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the hard issues that the Government of Canada must face in the present circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I want to put forward some suggestions, if the minister can bring himself to listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has the floor.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your drawing the rowdies to order.
I want to spend a few moments of my 20 minutes speaking about what might be done in Canada. To begin, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), as he once again bleats about the defeat of his government, that it is quite clear
to anyone on the outside looking in that the reason his government was defeated was that the budget he brought in did not meet with favour either with the House of Commons at the time or with the public subsequently. There is no point crying about the problems that the budget created. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition decided to have an election thinking he was going to win and discovered that there was not support across the country for the measures he had introduced.
I want to deal with other matters because they are much more important than that. I want to talk a little about the state of the economy in Canada. You do not have to analyse statistics to see the problems in this country. I do not think the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) thinks for one minute that the people in this country believe that the policies he is pursuing on behalf of the government are working. He must surely understand now that the very high interest rates that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has made sure are in place at the behest of the government, are causing inflation to rise, causing people to lose their jobs, causing farmers to lose their farms, causing small-business men to have to cut back substantially on the use of their productive capacity and the employment of people who would normally work in those industries.
You do not have to be a genius-and I am sure the Minister of Finance is not because I have been watching him for two years-to appreciate that if high interest rates are causing all these problems and are creating as many problems as they are solving-and I suggest they are creating even more-then we must begin by coming to grips with the question.
The Minister of Finance asked about fiscal policy and about monetary policy and about an incomes policy. With regard to a monetary policy, there is a time for selective stimulation and there are certain parts of the economy that desperately require some assistance at this time. I say to the minister that there is no question in anyone's mind that the housing industry has the capacity to produce jobs in the hundreds of thousands while at the same time meeting a social need. There is no secret about the fact that every dollar put into that industry yields more in return than any other single industry dollar in terms of employment and meeting social needs of the country.
If at this time it is necessary to impose certain new restrictions on interest rates in order to guarantee that people will be able to buy and maintain the homes that should be available to them, then the government has to take that kind of action. There is no question, in my mind at least, and I think in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people who today are faced with the problem of renewing their mortgages, that the single factor that is undermining their economic stability and creating many of the hardships that the Leader of the Opposition spoke of with regard to the impact on families is the exorbitant increases in monthly mortgage payments which are far beyond what people can reasonably be expected to afford.
In monetary policy terms, there are places where stimulation is required. There are times to stimulate. It is not an over-all loosening of the purse strings or pumping in massive sums of
June 21, 1982

money which is required. I suggest that the minister begin by selecting an industry that may be able to meet two objectives, one being social need and the other being employment requirements.
The minister asked about an incomes policy. How does he expect people who cannot now pay their bills on the incomes they earn to accept that they should receive less than the increase in the cost of living? How can the minister argue that an incomes policy that will give people wage increases lower than the cost of living increase is reasonable, given that many of them are now faced with the prospect of losing their homes and being unable to provide for their families?
The minister may sit with his back to me if he wishes but that does not alter the facts. The facts are that the minister cannot expect the vast majority of working Canadians, who are at this very point in time barely eking out an existence because of the ridiculous economic direction this government has taken, to survive somehow on an increase which is less than the cost of living. You can argue it all you want but it does not wash in the minds of the majority of Canadian families.
Then, of course, there is fiscal policy. The minister talked about how the opposition has an opportunity in committee to reduce estimated expenditures. Try it! Just try it and see what happens to you. You will be quickly beaten down by this overwhelming majority of subservient backbenchers who insist that this government, though it is wrong, must be right because they have more numbers than anyone else. That is not the way Parliament is supposed to work. If the minister were fair and honest about it he would say there is no opportunity for opposition members to reduce government expenditures, there never has been and there never will be. To make that kind of argument is to tell other than what everyone knows to be true.
What is really wrong in this country? There are a number of serious things, but I want to put to the minister quite bluntly that not all of them require government expenditure. We proposed not two weeks ago that if the government wanted to give substantial aid to the auto industry and thereby create large numbers of jobs all across this country, it could simply impose on imported vehicles a level of entry consistent with what other countries-Japan being the prime example- impose upon us without legislation. If we were to restrict their sales volume until such time as they bring their production in Canada up to a point which begins to meet that sales volume, that would have a beneficial impact on the manufacturing sector, which is currently Canadian or at least operates in Canada, and produce tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians. If we wanted to, we could take steps to protect the shoe manufacturing industry in Canada, because without that industry the price of footwear will rise by leaps and bounds. We could take steps which would not cost this government dollars out of its pocket. But the government refuses to act.
Supply
We could have taken steps some time ago, Mr. Speaker, to protect the farm machinery industry. We could have instituted a plan which would have made it more attractive to farmers to purchase that machinery now rather than delay it for two or three years, when the only place they will be able to buy it would be outside Canada, because the industry here will no longer exist. We could have embarked on the kind of housing program which I put before this minister and the minister responsible for housing on numerous occasions, which would have created for forestry workers in British Columbia and other parts of Canada the opportunity to work rather than go to the unemployment insurance office. But the government turned it down.
The government says we have no concrete proposals or policies to offer, so therefore it does not want to listen. Well, I suggest to the Minister of Finance that our policies, as opposed to those currently being used by the minister, would work for Canadians.
The Minister of Finance tells us that interest rates all around the world are high, therefore ours must also be high. That is patent nonsense. Go to Great Britain and see how much mortgage interest rates are. They are at least 50 per cent below our levels here. I say to the minister that when he starts talking about these things, for heaven's sake man, go and find out for yourself. Mortgage interest rates in the U.S. are considerably below those rates charged for other commodities. Mortgage interest rates in Great Britain are down to 10 per cent and below, which is half of what ours are. Mortgage interest rates in Europe are considerably below the normal interest rates charged for other manufacturing of commodity purchases. They treat that sector of the economy as it should be treated, as an essential part of an economic package and a social need. It is a number one priority in guaranteeing people will have an opportunity to get accommodation at a price they can afford.
But what does this government offer? This government offers a never-never scheme, a program where you can take your interest and add it to your principal and never in your lifetime will you be able to pay off the mortgage. Other parts of the world require by law that affordable mortgage interest rates be made available so that people can obtain the accommodation they need.
What has happened in this country that it has now become more attractive for people to buy an investment certificate or a bond rather than put their money into risk ventures in the hope of making some real gain? What has happened that it is now more attractive to hold a guaranteed mortgage certificate than it is to hold stocks in a blue-chip company? We have allowed interest rates to become the single lever with which we are going to manage the economy and it does not work. It cannot work. It cannot possibly be expected that there would be growth in the economy if people can get more by putting their money into a guaranteed investment certificate. You just cannot win that way, and I say to the minister that this is where the error has been made.

June 21, 1982
Supply
Why does the Bank of Canada have to set an interest rate five percentage points above inflation? The Bank of Canada does not have to receive a massive return. Why is the Bank of Canada not prepared to combat inflation by setting an interest rate let us say one percentage point above inflation and then require the financial institutions to follow suit and set interest rates which are manageable for Canadians? If that were done, there would be more money in the economy. Would it be money that the government is putting into the economy? No, it would be money the average Canadian is putting into the economy. It would then be more attractive for people to manufacture products because there would be people with money left over at the end of the week to buy them.
The minister may well say that the level of savings in Canada is higher than it need be. That may well be true, but most of the purchasing in any economy-and this one is no different-is done by young families. Most of the new consumer-oriented products are purchased by young families, and after they have met their fixed costs they do not have sufficient disposable income to make those kinds of purchases. I say to the minister that a dramatic change in his policies is required. It is not just simple tinkering, it is not another SI50 million in a housing program which currently does not work, and it is not simply giving the oil industry more money. As far as that industry is concerned, let me just point out to the minister that by July of next year the price of a barrel of oil will have gone up another SI0.25. By most analysts' statistics, every dollar increase in the cost of a barrel of oil adds .5 per cent to the cost of living. Therefore this government has negotiated a 5 per cent increase in the cost of living over the course of the next year. How is that combating inflation? How is that holding the line? How is that consideration for and commitment to this country's future?
As my time wears on, Mr. Speaker, I want to move an amendment and then make a few comments about it. I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That the motion be amended after the word "inflation" to add: "and urges prompt action to increase Canadian ownership of the manufacturing, oil and gas sectors, as well as direct the Bank of Canada to lower its lending rate to not more than 1 per cent above the rate of inflation."
In the remaining time I have left I have some comment about the minister's argument on interest rates. It has been my contention, and the contention which my party has put forward for a long time, that the major problem in this country which keeps our economy from rebounding, which keeps the manufacturing sector from growing, which is forcing businesses, farmers and people into bankruptcy, is high interest rates.
The minister always makes reference to what he calls the facts. He says that interest rates around the world are high. Yet of central bank rates around the world in 1982, Canada had the third highest rate, behind only Ireland and Italy. Canada's interest rate in March, 1982, was 15.11 per cent compared to 12 per cent in the United States and 5.5 per cent in Japan. In inflationary terms in 1980 and in 1982, the
composite average of industrial countries showed an increase of 12 per cent in the inflation rate. The rate in the United States was 13.5 per cent while in 1980 it was only at 10.1 per cent in Canada. However, between then and now the industrial composite has gone down to 7.9 per cent in the United States to 6.7 per cent, but in Canada it has risen to 11.6 per cent. Why has that happened? Because Canadian businesses have had to add into the cost of doing business here exorbitantly high interest rates; because Canadian businesses have had to add into the cost of carrying inventory exorbitantly high interest rates; because the house building industry in Canada knows that Canadians cannot afford to purchase the homes which they are capable of building because of exorbitantly high interest rates.
All across this country people are beginning to understand that their incomes are being eroded daily because they are being asked to pay exorbitantly high interest rates. If this government is serious about its battle against inflation on the one hand, and about its battle against unemployment on the other hand, about its commitment to make sure the necessities of life are available to people in all walks of life at a price they can afford, then the government will begin to solve the problem by coming to grips with exorbitantly high interest rates.
I suggest that if there was one single theme to follow in trying to establish in Canada an independent path, if the government wants to establish in Canada the road to recovery, then it should begin by stopping the increase in oil prices next year which will add at least five percentage points to the cost of living, and by taking steps to ensure that the Bank of Canada reduces interest rates to people, businesses and farmers across this country and allows the Canadian economy to work again.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in its terms the motion today calls upon the government to take immediate action-not next week, not next month, not next year, but immediate action now. There is a very simple reason for that. These problems with which we are faced today just cannot wait. We have a weak Canadian dollar of which we are reminded daily. Three weeks ago when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) announced that the budget deficit would be substantially higher but he would not tell us what the amount was, we told him that was dangerous as far as the exchange markets were concerned. The dollar then was worth 85.5 cents U.S. Today it is bumping along just above 77 cents U.S. We have to move fast because the weak Canadian dollar is forcing up interest rates and we can see that happening daily.
Industry is in a perilous position. The Bank of Montreal and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce have given us very graphic figures showing that about two-thirds-60 per cent to 65 per cent-of cash flow today is being used by industry across the country just for interest rates. This cash flow is not going into reinvestment. That is why we have the very weak economic figures announced this morning. The gross national product, or the national income of the country, is down 8 per cent on an annualized basis in the first quarter of this year.
June 21, 1982

Allen Marchement, head of The Trust Companies Association, said that a number of industries are in such a perilous position that they might not last another six months if interest rates continue at the levels we have today. We must act now. That is what we are calling on the Minister of Finance to do. We are not saying that we are going to get immediate results overnight. He knows that, we know that. But action would follow quickly if the people of this country felt that there was a plan of action or an understanding of the problems which the country is facing. What is required is a plan of action to stem the crisis of confidence and remove this sense of floundering which we see in Ottawa on the part of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of not knowing what to do. In addition, we have to strengthen the Canadian dollar and take pressure off interest rates. We have to have an action plan today that will lay the base for a long-term recovery program.
Last year the Minister of Finance said that economic renewal was one of the primary objectives of his budget. He seems to be approaching economic renewal in the same way that we approach urban renewal in this country. We wipe out the neighbourhood. We flatten the neighbourhood to the ground and then bring in programs of economic renewal, as is done with urban renewal. That is not the way to build this country. We will lose so much long-term productive capacity if we continue in the direction in which we are moving today.
I listened to the minister today as I have listened to him on other days when he has said that the problems are not his fault, that these things are outside of his control. He is right to some extent. The problems were started back in 1972, 1973 and 1974 when John Turner was minister of Finance of the country. Government spending rose 108 per cent during Mr. Turner's three-and-a-half year term of office. That is when monetary policy went completely out of control. That is when it all started.
That style was continued by Donald Macdonald and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). We had a reprieve when the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was Minister of Finance. We had a change in the direction of government policy in this country and better management. We had a more competent degree of management in controlling the way government tax dollars were spent in this country.
Yes, the world economy and the high interest rates in the United States are part of our problem. We recognize those things. We do not deny them. Having said that, the minister cannot wring his hands and say there is nothing that we can do about our problems, that there is nothing we can do to convince President Reagan to change his policies. We have to deal with the realities of today. We have to accept the fact that there are not these quick and easy solutions which the minister says are the only way. There are other ways of dealing with the problems.
We cannot continue to spend our time casting the blame on people in other countries. We must deal with the realities of today, the problems and the policies at hand which are causing the problems in Canada. When we hear the Minister of
Supply
Finance talking this way, is it any wonder that the confidence level of businessmen in the country has dropped from 58 per cent in 1979, when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was the Prime Minister, to 10 per cent today? One businessman in ten has confidence that the government knows what is going on. This is why we have to have action.
The forthcoming financial statement or the mini-budget which we are urging the minister to bring down immediately is the most important economic statement or the most important thing which he will be doing during his term of office. If it does not do the job, if it does not rekindle the air of confidence in the country which we must have to get the economy moving, then the measures which will have to be taken in the fall in the full budget will be much more Draconian, much more difficult and much more hard for Canadians to accept.
I want to dwell on the most immediate problem which the country is facing today-the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is a reflection of high interest rates, lay-offs and high unemployment in the country today. If we can turn around that problem, then we can make some real inroads toward solving the problems of inflation, unemployment and high interest rates. This is the number one goal which the minister must address today. There are other problems down the road which he will have to address, but that is the first job or the first thing he must do.
The outflow of capital which is at the heart of the weak position of the Canadian dollar must be stopped. It is an open wound today and the minister is doing nothing about it. Let me talk about the reasons for this; the Leader of the Opposition referred to some of them. I should like to touch on them in somewhat more detail. Last year we had $10.2 billion worth of direct capital flowing out of the country. It was five times the level of the previous two years. Unidentified outflows of capital, such as items that were too small for the statistics people to pick up, represented an outflow of $8.4 billion or four times the level of the previous year. The total is $18.6 billion or an outflow 4.5 times the outflow during the previous two years.
The result is that it has greased the slide of the Canadian dollar on which we are right now. It is causing high interest rates, as the Bank of Canada is told by the minister to respond with high interest rates to stop the slide of the Canadian dollar. Most important, the key problem which we are facing in the country today, unemployment, is made far worse because the job creation toward which that money could be directed in this country is now directed toward job creation in the United States, Germany, Belgium, Australia and other countries. If that money were invested in Canada, it would have created 190,000 jobs. That is equivalent to 1.5 times an Alsands project or about 1.5 times the amount of money spent coast to coast in housing. I urge the House leader of the New Democratic Party to pay attention to that figure. This is how we could solve the unemployment problem about which he keeps muttering in reference to the housing industry.
I heard the minister today use the spurious argument that we have had a capital inflow and that we have not had a
18662

June 21, 1982
Supply
capital outflow. Sure, we have had a balance in favour of money coming into the country, but let us look at the reason for it. The money coming into the country to offset the huge outflow is money which is going into government bonds and bank deposits. Why? Because we are paying record high interest rates in Canada. The Bank of Canada is told to jack up interest rates to bring in this money, to retain the balance in our balance of payments and to hold the Canadian dollar so that it does not slide down to 70 or 75 cents. If we did not have the original outflow of capital, we would not have to increase interest rates and try to draw in capital which is seeking one thing and one thing only-high interest rates.
The Minister of Finance said that he wished the opposition would tell him how we could have lower interest rates and a stronger Canadian dollar. It is very, very simple. Those countries which have strong currencies have lower interest rates. The policies which Canada is following are putting pressure on the currency and are forcing up interest rates. If we had policies which drew money into the country, we would have a strong currency and lower interest rates.
I should like to refer to a speech which was made last weekend by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), wherein he said:
To the extent that equity replaces borrowed capital, it reduces the upward pressure on our interest rates.
If we have equity capital being invested in the country so that we do not need high-cost borrowed capital from other countries, we would have lower interest rates. The President of the Treasury Board is saying exactly the same thing. I think the Minister of Finance should come down from his ivory tower into the real world and understand what is going on. I suggest that he speak to the President of the Treasury Board.
The government must change its policies. We must change the budgetary policies in the way outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, such as the anti-investment and anti-job-creating aspects of the budget. We must change the National Energy Program, but not by the tinkering which was done in the House three weeks ago.
Turning to FIRA, I heard the Minister of Finance again distorting the words of the Leader of the Opposition. We have no desire whatsoever to scrap or abandon FIRA, as he tried to distort the words of the Leader of the Opposition. We are saying that the nature of FIRA should be changed so that it does what it was originally intended to do-to screen foreign investment coming into the country and to get it in on the best possible terms for Canada. Right now it is an obstacle because it is under the direction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who is a nationalist extremist in the way he has administered this policy. He is forcing foreign investors to withhold investing money in the country in a way which would create jobs. Surely jobs are what we need the most.
The fourth area to which I should like to refer is the need for a genuine program of restraint. We have seen the budget deficit of the government run totally out of control. It is up
around $16 billion to $18 billion. I was hoping the Minister of Finance would tell us that figure today. The market needs it. It is one of the reasons the dollar is weak and interest rates continue to rise.
These four initiatives must be at the heart of any stabilization of the Canadian dollar and at the heart of any road to recovery if we are to get the economy moving again. They are not the full answer. I make no claim that they are the full answer. That awaits a budget in the fall. But they are alternatives which we put before the House and I urge Liberal members to respond to these and tell us why they think they are not the answer.
I hope Liberal members of the House will support our motion to lower interest rates, to increase the value of the Canadian dollar and to increase production. Surely that is the direction in which we in the House should be urging the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to move. These are the First steps to recovery and the first steps to a reduction of lay-offs, a reduction in the number of bankruptcies, a reduction in high mortgage rates and a reduction of the high inflation rate. If we have a strong Canadian dollar, we will have lower inflation. Every economist will agree on that.
In the economic figures which have come forward over the past six to nine months, we have seen all parts of the country being affected by the weakness in the economy, some parts of the country more than others.
[ Translation]
As a result of the federal government's economic policies, Quebec, a province represented by 74 Liberal members, is paying a very high price for those disastrous policies. No doubt the 74 are proud of the fact that there were 1,950 commercial bankruptcies during the first Five months of 1982, an increase of 49 per cent over last year.
[DOT] (WOO)
Nearly 2,000 bankruptcies mean 40 per cent of the total number of bankruptcies in Canada. No doubt they are pleased with the fact that since April last year, 156,000 jobs were lost in Quebec, compared with 161,000 in the rest of the country. I would ask the gang of seventy-four not to put the blame on the provincial government. After all, the provincial government does not represent Quebecers in Ottawa, nor does it develop federal economic policy, or set interest rates at levels that are strangling small-and medium-sized businesses. In 1968, there were 350,000 people unemployed in Canada; today, we have about the same number in Quebec alone. The 74 members who are suffering from inertia should explain to these people that they are unemployed because their members opted for the wrong policies or, even worse, because these policies are causing more hardship in Quebec than elsewhere because their members have failed to give them adequate representation.

Today we have proposed a number of motions to show how a Progressive Conservative government would restrain growth in
June 21, 1982

government spending, how we would reduce the size of government and how we would live more within our means.
I would like to discuss some of the votes we are considering today. First, I would refer to Vote No. 5 under Energy, Mines and Resources which calls for a 27.5 per cent increase for that department. An increase such as that cannot be considered at all as restraint. It is particularly unacceptable for that department to ask for an increase in spending when it is the one that is supposed to be responsible for optimal federal energy policy strategies with due regard to their economic, social, regional and environmental impact.
Let us review the impact of the energy policy. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is the department which introduced the national energy policy which resulted in the departure of 226 oil rigs from the country. So much for the economic impact.
As far as the social impact is concerned, there is a large increase in unemployment directly resulting from the National Energy Program. With respect to the regional impact, there has been more division caused by this energy program between the east and the west which has led to a sharp increase in the degree of separatist activity in the west. That department now has the gall to ask for a 28 per cent increase in spending for the damage it has done. That increase should be refused and I think the House knows that.
The next votes I would like to refer to are Vote No. 10 and Vote No. 20 under the Department of Finance for the Inspector General of Banks and the Department of Insurance. We are in opposition to these requests because we want to criticize the minister responsible for not accepting his responsibility to control those two departments. Those departments are to be the watchdogs of the insurance and banking industry. You are signalling me, Mr. Speaker; I thought I had five more minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has 20 minutes. His speech commenced at 4.45 p.m.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 will quickly move along then. I wanted to refer to a number of votes but since I misjudged my time let me say that there is one particular request which we feel it is very important to stop. It is the increase in spending requested by the Canadian Unity Information Office. There has been a total misuse of that office. It is clearly political and partisan promotion of the government and it should be ceased. It is totally out of keeping with the requirements and the original objectives of that office.
In closing, let me make one observation. During the 1960s we judged the performance of this country against the huge potential which existed for us. In the 1970s, as our performance began to slip we started to judge ourselves against the performance of other summit nations. Now in the 1980s, when our performance has slipped to the rock-bottom of those countries, those countries are being blamed for the problems which exist in our country.
Supply
Surely we must go back to the guidelines of the 1960s and judge ourselves against our huge potential. That is what we are attempting to do in our party today by submitting these alternative policies. We urge the government to embrace these policies in a manner which can bring us back to the spirit of the 1960s where we can judge ourselves against that huge potential which we all know is there.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was not too surprised at the Opposition Leader's speech, because after all, we are used to his way of analysing the facts and to the solutions he tends to suggest. However, I was very disappointed in the comments made by the member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), because he usually seems to have a more logical turn of mind and to be more realistic in the kind of solutions he proposes. If he reads what he just said in the House, he would realize that he recited three disappointing verses which merely repeated his leader's refrain. I was particularly surprised at his comments in referring to the votes in the Estimates for the Office of the Inspector General of Banks and the Department of Insurance. It is quite obvious that these two agencies are government watchdogs of the industries they are supposed to regulate, and I am sure that the hon. member, following the testimony given before the standing committee by representatives of the Office of the Inspector General of Banks and the Department of Insurance, will agree that they are indeed the watchdogs of this kind of institution, and that in the last few years a number of factors relating to the Bank Act review, as far as banking institutions are concerned, and to the Department of Insurance, have provided ample justification for the additional funds being requested for these two agencies.
The hon. member alluded to a rather special situation in Quebec, and I must say that his analysis is quite astonishing, because he is making it appear that the federal government actually wants the situation in Quebec to be worse than in other provinces. If Canada's general economic situation is suffering the adverse effects of its dependence on other economies, the hon. member should pursue this line of reasoning and try to explain why certain sectors of Quebec's economy are being more severely affected and thus making that economy particularly vulnerable.
The Leader of the Opposition has told us that he realizes economic trends cannot be turned around overnight. He also said that blaming others will not solve our problems, and his solution was to point out that the basic cause of our problems is the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) last November, in addition to the National Energy Program presented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and finally, he asked for changes in the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Throughout his speech, not once did he mention the basic cause of the uncertainty and

June 21, 1982
Supply
lack of confidence that were undermining our economy, namely, inflation.
He said the major cause of inflation in this country was government spending, and he then went on, but forgot to tell us where government spending should be cut. If we want this debate to be a little more realistic, we must ask ourselves what is causing the present economic situation in western economies and more specifically, in our country. As I said earlier, Canada's economy is an open economy which is heavily dependent on what is happening in other countries. This dependence makes us even more vulnerable when economic trends elsewere change or weaken. It is common knowledge that at the present time, the economies of the West are going through an extremely difficult period and are, in fact, in a recession, and our vulnerability is in direct proportion to the position of our economy which is an open one vis-a-vis these other economies. We are now suffering the effects of this recession in addition to our domestic economic problems. What the government wants to do through its policies is to get at the root of the problem. The government does not support high interest levels; its policy is aimed at bringing them down. The government's policy is to create stable employment in the long term, and its first objective is to get rid of inflationary pressures and bring about an economic upturn in as many sectors as possible.
Mr. Speaker, as long as our society is prepared to live with high inflation rates and encourages inflationary expectations, we may be certain that high interest rates will continue to be with us. We shall have to make a superhuman effort to create jobs and we shall be increasingly vulnerable to the slightest economic disturbance. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked to have the budget withdrawn, he was not contributing anything of substance to the debate, because if we look at what is happening in other countries, then we also see high unemployment rates and high interest rates, although the budget that was tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance was not tabled in other countries which, nevertheless, are suffering from the same symptoms. It is certainly not the budget tabled here in Canada that has caused high unemployment and interest rates in other countries. We must therefore conclude that the opposition leader's reasoning in which he blames the November budget is entirely wrong. He also told us to set aside the National Energy Program. Mr. Speaker, the aim of the National Energy Program, which was presented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), is to ensure that Canada will achieve self-sufficiency. The program proposes a wide range of measures, from Canadian ownership of enterprises involved in oil and gas exploration and production, to helping and encouraging Canadians to save energy and change their habits vis-a-vis energy use-for instance, by converting home heating systems from oil to other energy sources such as gas, electricity or solar energy-and including a multitude of objectives that will make Canadians energy self-sufficient as soon as possible. There was a breaking-in period which demanded considerable adjustment on the
part of Canadians, so that mechanisms that would ensure the success of the National Energy Program could be quickly established. As the economic situation changed and various components of the program were established, we adjusted the program's pace to the economic situation and the needs of the moment, so that today we can say that the National Energy Program is well established and will provide the greatest possible benefits to Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested a reform of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The member for Etobicoke Centre said that the objective was not to break up the Agency but to change its nature. Mr. Speaker, when we change the nature of things, we are apt to destroy them altogether. I think the House should be told at what stage, and how, the hon. member wants us to change the nature of this agency-which according to the Act, is to review foreign investments, and find out whether they are in the interest of the Canadian economy in general-and the hon. member should tell us what he wants to do with it. If he wants to change the nature of the Agency, how does he want to change it? Finally, after having said that he wants to change the Agency's nature without destroying it, he said that all was not well with the Agency today, because it was administered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). I really fail to understand why anyone would bother stating, first, that they do not want to change the Foreign Investment Review Agency, second, that they want to change its nature, and finally, that if the Agency is not working properly, this is due to the fact that it is being administered by one minister rather than another. That is the kind of double talk we have had to listen to this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the comments I made at the beginning of my speech. If we want our economy to recover, if we want to create jobs on a permanent basis, if we want to see interest rates go down, we must deal with a problem that is undermining investor confidence and preventing us from having confidence in the economy, namely, inflation rates, and in order to bring about a substantial drop in inflation rates, all economic partners, including governments, businesses and private citizens, must reduce their demands on society. Instead of demanding more personal wealth than the economy is able to afford, we must make a concerted effort, as individuals, as a society and as a government, to increase our collective wealth, which will then be redistributed at the individual level in the form of dividends and profits for corporations and also in the form of revenue for governments, which will then be able to reduce their substantial deficits. Bringing down inflationary expectations means greater realism, an increase in individual and corporate productivity, and this positive approach demands that we get rid of the climate of uncertainty and instability caused by inflation, which is slowly destroying the hopes and expectations of all Canadians.
June 21, 1982

The Minister of Finance has attended a number of international conferences; the International Monetary Fund and at the Versailles Summit, to name a couple. Since his return, he has had a series of close consultations with his cabinet colleagues and the Liberal caucus, and he has indicated that before the summer recess, he will be making a statement to the House on the state of the economy. Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to repeat the need for all economic partners to make a concerted effort to get rid of this climate of uncertainty caused by inflation, to ensure that a more positive approach will create a proper climate for investment which in turn will create new jobs and reduce unemployment, and thus give everyone a better future to look forward to.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this motion submitted by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
That this House approves the government taking immediate action to lower interest rates, stimulate production, investment and jobs, strengthen the dollar and lower the rate of inflation.
Twenty-eight months ago, encouraged by repeated promises of a better and brighter future, Canadian voters returned the Liberal Party to office. For those 28 months, indeed almost from the beginning of this period, the very government which promised Canadians heaven on earth has transformed the lives of thousands of them into a living hell.
Just this past weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), having created this hell, said his government is now assuming the role of exorcist, and by its tight money policy is now scaring the hell out of people. Well, he certainly is. He is scaring the hell out of people by what he is doing as Prime Minister and because he remains Prime Minister.
The litany of ills which has befallen this nation since this government resumed office makes the description of punishment contained in Dante's book "The Inferno" pale by comparison. In the first quarter of this year, the Canadian economy fell by about 1.7 per cent, the sharpest quarterly decline in 28 years. In the fourth quarter of last year, Canadian manufacturers were operating at only 75 per cent capacity on average, their lowest level of utilization since 1961. This has resulted in a net loss of about 157,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since last August.
It has been predicted that farm income will decline by 15 per cent this year while expenses for farmers will rise by about 10 per cent. Farm bankruptcies in the first four months of 1982 were 13 per cent higher than in the corresponding period last year. Business bankruptcies in the first four months of 1982 were 37 per cent higher than during the same period last year and 61 per cent higher than in the first three months of 1980.
In May, a record 1.2 million Canadians, 10.2 per cent of the labour force, were unemployed. This figure is even higher when one includes those not registered as looking for work,
Supply
those who have simply given up hope and are probably living on welfare or eking an existence out of some savings. I presume this would represent an over-all total of 1.5 million people.
Some 195,000 jobs were lost to the Canadian economy in the first five months of this year. Each of these lost jobs has cost the federal government an average of $2,737 in lost federal revenues and $1,313 in lost provincial revenues, for a total of $4,050 in losses to both levels of government.
Canadians who are having trouble keeping their jobs are also having trouble keeping their homes. In the fourth quarter of 1981, a family income of $45,000 was needed to afford an averaged-priced home in Canada. That was the average. In many parts of the country, the figure was nearly double. In 1965, 50 per cent of Canadians could afford to buy a home. Today less than half of them can afford such a purchase.
Those once able to afford a home are now losing their homes when faced with mortgage renewals at interest rates now at the 19 per cent level, which in some cases have nearly doubled the monthly payments. Canadians able to cope with their housing needs are being forced to cut back on such essentials as food and clothing. The value of building permits issued in March of this year was down 12 per cent relative to the same month last year. When inflation is taken into account, building activity is down by 20 per cent to 25 per cent.
There is no doubt that the housing situation in Canada is critical. The government made a half-hearted attempt to address this problem in the November budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The effort was obviously an abysmal failure. In the budget, provisions were made to assist up to 12,000 payments with mortgages deferrals, but only 700 applicants have so far responded to the plan.
The budget also contained measures for the creation of up to
30,000	rental units across the country based on a 15-year interest-free loan of up to $7,500. Although there have been some applications for this loan, none has been taken up and no new units constructed up to the present time. Obviously these two measures have failed to address the needs of Canadians.
Equally obvious, the government must initiate new programs which will contain more practical plans to assist first-time home buyers and those requiring rental accommodation. A very practical way to accomplish this would be for the government to implement a mortgage interest deductibility plan and a municipal tax allowance of up to $1,000 for home owners. These measures were contained in the Progressive Conservative government budget and were two of the many sound policies shunted aside when the government, then in opposition, rose to oppose the budget and defeated the government, with the help of the NDP.
If confidence in the government's ability to solve the housing crisis is at an all-time low, so too is confidence in its ability to manage other aspects of the economy and the country. This month, for the first time in history, the Canadian dollar was trading on the world currency markets at less than 80 cents as

June 21, 1982
Supply
compared to the U.S. dollar. The level today is 76.99 cents and many experts are predicting that the dollar will fall to 75 cents some time this summer.
An estimated $24 billion was erased from the value of shares traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange in the first quarter of this year, the worst quarter since 1934. This lack of confidence at all levels has resulted in apprehension and a deep sense of insecurity across the land. Canadians, being asked again to tighten their belts and lower their expectations, are growing increasingly angry with a government which does neither.
The nation is deeply in debt, an estimated $135 billion in debt. This year alone the government's deficit is expected to reach $16 billion and some place it as high as $18 to $20 billion. The cost of interest on the public debt will be about $16 billion this year, the equivalent of $1,750 per taxpayer. One dollar in five is now being spent to pay interest on the debt.
Given these astronomical financial burdens, one would expect the government to place a priority on the reduction of its own expectations and spending. Such is not the case. Despite the staggering deficit and the threat of further economic chaos, the government continues its wasteful spending.
The money grab undertaken by this government is evident in the estimates it is presenting to Parliament for approval, probably later today. More than $94 million has been budgeted for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983. Approval for this amount should be denied until the government introduces programs which would be of benefit to the consumer and to businesses, both segments with their backs to the wall. But it is sheer folly and dangerous to our future for the government to insist that the solutions to our problems are in the hands of others. We can, and we should, be implementing a series of sound and practical programs to encourage investment, development, productivity and employment.
The government also seeks to spend more than $9 million on the Metric Commission this fiscal year for a program the majority of Canadians overwhelmingly opposed and one that is causing confusion, anger and added costs.
Then there is the $103 million the government plans to spend for health and social services. Both these are important government services, but I strongly suggest that if Canadians were given the opportunity to work and did not have to struggle to obtain the necessities of life, the need for health and social services would drastically decline.
This nation has a number of very serious problems to solve and overcome. The greatest tragedy of all is the government's response to Canada's economic woes. Although it is responsible for the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves, the government repeatedly refuses to adopt new policies of economic renewal and recovery, opting instead to place the blame somehwere else. It would be unreasonable to suggest that Canada is alone and apart from other nations in these hard
times. Rather than whimpering in resignation over the situation and the rest of the world, we should be responding to these influences in a positive way. Yet this government remains committed to a policy of high interest rates as a means of "wrestling inflation to the ground". It says high interest rates are inevitable and caused primarily by the economic policies of the United States. This attitude of the government cannot be justified and must be condemned. Our deficit and the growth of unnecessary government spending are at the root of our economic problems. This government is costing the taxpayer more than it is worth. Our interest rates are high, not because the money supply is tight but because it is expensive to support a government whose grandiose schemes and plans bear no relation to the problems at hand and whose spending is out of control. It is expensive to support a government whose plans for raising even more money to throw away causes the economic base of the nation to crumble.
Even with the resulting changes in the November budget, instead of solving our problems it has created worse ones. The National Energy Program, which raised gasoline prices far above the promised increase of 14 cents a gallon, is now in shambles. Twenty-eight months after the promise of a better, brighter future Canadians are wondering if they have one to look forward to at all.
The personal hardships being suffered by individual Canadians are matched by, and in some ways the result of, the disastrous effect of this government's policies on industry. The automobile industry is a prime example of one of those hardest hit. Canadian automobile sales are at a ten-year low. The government introduced some amendments to its November budget to ease the burden for those involved in daily car rentals, but something should also be done to change the penalties on those leasing cars on a regular basis. It is a known fact that many automobile dealers, both large and small, derive considerable income from the leasing of vehicles to businessmen, professional men and others, and this has certainly declined drastically since the budget.
There is not an area or region in Canada which has managed to escape the massive problems created by the economic mismanagement of this government. The part of the country I represent, northern Ontario, is no exception. All of Ontario, once a wealthy, prosperous, have province, is now a have-not province. While the problems of the economy are felt throughout the entire province, those in the northern area are feeling the effects more deeply. Although there is a number of industries of some size in northern Ontario, the economic base of the region consists essentially of small and medium-size businesses. The impact of inflation and the high interest rate policy of this government has all but wiped out this financial base. Companies which have been growing and expanding on a regular basis are either struggling to keep their doors open or are going out of business altogether. I have seen many cases of this in my own riding and, yes, in my own town, where one business went bankrupt and another, because of high costs, just folded its tent and closed up. That was the end. This has resulted in the loss of jobs in various communities and exerted
June 21, 1982

unbearable pressures on the economic and social services the communities offer. We do not often hear of these problems because the jobs involved are not of the scale of those lost when giant industries lay off or cut back, but they are of relative and equal importance. When a small business goes under, that frequently causes problems for other businesses which supplied either the firm in question or the people who worked for it.
1 have spoken of the snowball effect of the loss of a business to a community, and today we are seeing more and more of this happening. If something is not done soon, many communities may never recover.
This government should consider the immediate expansion of the scope and guidelines of the Small Business Development Bond. Measures contained in the November budget did enlarge the eligibility criteria but then restricted application to those businesses on the verge of collapse or bankruptcy. Before waiting until a business goes under for the first time, the government should be offering assistance to small businesses which have proved their ability to swim, even against the tide. The change would be a sound and obvious way to generate much needed employment across the country.
Tourism is one of the major industries in all of Canada, and particularly in my area of northern Ontario. There is not a community, large or small, which does not welcome travelling visitors to our beautiful area of the country. Some would suggest that because the Canadian dollar is worth less than the American dollar, visitors from the United States will be flocking to this region and will help the economy of the area. While we do have our share of American tourists, the people in that country are also pinching pennies, and the flow of tourists is not great. While tourist traffic is of admitted benefit, its reduction is not the main reason that the industry is in trouble. And I point out that Canadian tourists spend a great deal more than American tourists. It is on that basis that we should be worrying even more.
The mining industry in Canada is also in trouble. This has created monumental problems in northern Ontario where many mines are located. In the first quarter of this year mining companies have lost $119 million; 8,150 employees have been fired, and 50,000 others are facing temporary layoffs. The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has described mining as the backbone of the Canadian economy but has admitted that the government is doing nothing but keeping a close watch on the situation and studying ways of sparking an upturn. That is a typical response. The government spends and spends and then studies the problems the spending creates.
As I said to the House last week, the Prime Minister, having promised prior to his trip to the Versailles Summit conference that he would come back with solutions to our problems, left empty-minded and returned empty-handed. My motion at that time was that the Prime Minister, having failed in his attempt to change world thinking-let alone that of Canadians-
Supply
should call a general election and let the people of this country select a government capable of getting the nation back on its feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stan Darling: There are sound policies and options open to a government which is serious about resolving the problems of the Canadian economy. The government has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot do the job; Canadians know there are others who can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada is on a perilous course. I want to do all I can to change that direction. I want the Government of Canada to stand for hope instead of despair. I want new leadership to turn the economy around and get Canada, moving forward again. I want policies to create jobs, unite the country, make the aged secure, and reduce the terrible burden of taxation and rising prices on Canadians in the lower and middle-income groups. I want policies to restore the work ethic, strengthen the family unit and be responsive to the needs and demands of the Canadian people.
It is clearly time for a change in the policies of the government, and I want to do all I can to bring them about. If the government wants to adjourn the House before it deals with the tragic problems facing Canadians, it will do so over the strongest objections that I can muster.
With over one million Canadians unemployed, our dollar shrinking to the lowest level in our history, with inflation raging and real growth near zero, it is time for all Canadians of every political persuasion to unite and develop policies for the economic recovery of our nation.
The government says that it has done all it can. It is tired and worn out. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) tells us to lower our sights and reduce our standard of living. Mr. Speaker, I reject policies that discourage growth and discriminate against investment. I reject the theory that the Canadian economy must slide more deeply into recession before it can regain its potential heights of achievement. I reject the government's policies. I believe that to live is to grow and that if we lower our expectations we will lower our achievements.
It is true that resources may indeed be finite, but man's ingenuity is not. We are a nation of immense possibilities and great potential. We inhabit one of this planet's greatest treasure stores of minerals and natural wealth. In energy alone we are the envy of the world. With our vast resources, the tar sands of Alberta, the untapped resources of the Arctic and the continental shelves, the coal fields of Saskatchewan and the

June 21, 1982
Supply
maritimes, our spectacular potential for hydroelectric development in Quebec and Labrador and in the Bay of Fundy-what industrialized nation would not envy Canada?
What people except Canadians can point to such abundant blessings, as we prepare to face the future and claim the twenty-first century as our own? Mr. Speaker, it is not just energy that provides us with unbridled opportunity. Our educated population, our vast arable lands, our unequalled fresh water resources, our unexcelled human resources of honest, hard-working people-with these and other aspects we have all the vital ingredients necessary for a real and lasting prosperity. All we need is the national will and the leadership to put all this to work for us.
There is one reason why Canada trails the western industrial nations in development, one reason why unemployment exceeds one million Canadians, one reason why the federal budget continues to skyrocket, and one reason for so much idle capacity in both our factories and our labour force. That reason is the mismanagement of our economy by this government.
Too often our extracted wealth is exported as raw materials, letting others manufacture the prosperity that rightfully belongs in Canada. We gain little when half of all goods purchased in Canada is made elsewhere from coal, oil, natural gas, wood or other materials extracted from our own reserves.
In these and other ways we have, over the past decade, the wasted years, turned our backs on the challenge of creating wealth. The legacy of this decade of experimentation has been a litany of economic problems. The cost of government has soared. Prices have exploded. Investment capital has either dried up or fled the country. Economic growth, the engine of jobs, has been stifled. In 1968, there were 375,000 Canadians out of work; in 1974, it was 500,000, and today, 1.25 million Canadians are looking for work and thousands of others in our school system will soon join the quest for employment.
The legacy of a government that has run out of ideas, lacked the imagination, the creativity and the courage to pursue innovation and encourage the free-enterprise system, has become an albatross around our necks. It is the tragic errors in judgment that have shackled the free-enterprise system, eroded our work ethic and dimmed our shining promise for tomorrow.
I believe that the free-enterprise system can deliver our incredible national potential. Within our vast borders lie tremendous forest and agricultural reserves-coal, iron, lead, uranium-indeed, most of the raw materials demanded by industrial growth. We have oil and natural gas and, more important, we have an abundance of fresh clean water- almost one third of the world's fresh water supply. We can be self-sustaining in food. In relation to our population, we have more arable land than any other nation, and we have not yet begun to farm the three oceans that wash our shores. And geography has situated us alongside the richest market in the world.
Today, with more than one third of the world's population about to embark on the industrial transition we have already gone through, the need for our expertise in developing largescale public works such as transit systems, water purification plants, electrification and waste treatment facilities, has never been greater. The Arabian states, countries in the Far East, and South America need our high technology, our skills and commerce, and our know-how in transportation, banking and insurance.
There is indeed a world market for Canadian skills and Canadian products, but it will never be reached with a preoccupied, inward-looking government that wrings its hands and says, "We have done all we can." We need new policies to demonstrate faith once again in our ingenuity and individual initiative. We can generate the economic activity that will enable us to be a compassionate nation.
By turning our economy around we can restructure our badly overworked tax system so that it deals fairly with lower and middle-income groups. We can then let the wives of farmers and working Canadians join the Canada Pension Plan. We can elevate the standard of living of our senior citizens who now live in poverty, and we can work to enable them to remain independent in their own homes as long as they are able to do so and to treat them with compassion and thoughtfulness when they are not.
A blueprint for the economic development and recovery of our nation will require a package of many things. Two of the most dynamic are an enlightened science policy and a modern transportation system which can enable us to produce our goods more efficiently and transport them to the markets of the world.
I have talked to Canadians who feel they have no future in their country. I have visited senior citizens who are waiting out their lives in empty idleness, and I have looked into the faces of our young people, our nation's greatest hope, and seen disillusionment and anger because their country has no place for them to work and their government gives them the impression that it has given up or that it does not care.
I do not lightly dismiss the difficulty of leading the economic recovery of our nation, but these are not normal times and Canada is not an ordinary country.
At the bottom of the Great Depression, before he lit the light of hope in the United States, President Roosevelt said, "The only thing Americans have to fear is fear itself'. He referred to an attitude that was prevalent in his country and an attitude that is growing now in ours.
We must recognize that the quality of government and its attitudes, as well as policies, can be either a serious deterrent or a major contributor to technological and industrial development with their intended social pluses and minuses. It is therefore the responsibility of government to set challenging yet reasonable economic, social and national objectives leading to a scientific, technological and industrial policy, and energetically and consistently to support and encourage all aspects of that policy. A national objective supported by tax and investment policy should be set to match and eventually surpass those declared goals of competitive advanced nations
June 21, 1982

in the field of research and development. Industrial policy must concentrate on the strengths of Canada, both human and physical.
Our policy should clearly identify and deliberately support advancing technologies and industries such as the challenges in the electronic, microelectronic, communications and biotechnological fields. Our policy should also support a strong basic research role through national and academic institutions. With the changing complexion of the world economy, Canada is faced with the opportunity to move forward on the wings of change with the new wave of industrialization that is starting to take hold in North America.
In reality, we have no choice. The large and growing number of unemployed Canadians is repugnant to this nation's social conscience, and a great but aging industrial structure, which has given Canadians one of the highest standards of living in the world and the most generous social justice progam, is finding it difficult to maintain those standards. Canada needs a new and enlightened industrial strategy to meet the challenge of a changing and developing world, and that policy requires a strong regional complement. We are merely in the beginning of a North American reindustrialization of such a magnitude that our regional problems may once again be overlooked unless we seize the opportunities that are presented and act to take advantage of them. Clearly we must build on strengths in areas of Canada that suffer from regional disparities, and this policy must be central to any national policy of economic recovery.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to four votes taking place tonight which are related to the economic issue now before the House. The purpose of those votes is to give all Members of Parliament an opportunity to indicate with their vote whether or not they feel these programs have been operated efficiently and fairly in the best interests of all Canadians. One vote will deal with the Canadian Home Insulation Program. All members who feel that it has been efficiently and fairly operated-and I am not one of them-will have the opportunity to express their feelings tonight. Another vote has to do with the Export Development Corporation, which has just financed a very large sale to another country at 9.7 per cent, which is a much lower rate than that at which Canadians, even the Canadian government, can borrow money. We will see whether or not all members feel its operation is commendable. A third vote will deal with the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and whether it has been efficiently and fairly operated. I do not think so, and other members will have an opportunity to show how they feel about it tonight. Finally, there will be a vote dealing with the Privy Council office, which is the catch-all for just about every research project which no other department wants to undertake. I hope members will avail themselves of the opportunity to show where they stand on that. Most certainly the members of my party will.
Supply
I feel there is a number of very challenging issues which face the government, not the least of which is development of the transportation system in the Atlantic provinces. We have in the Atlantic provinces the two deep-water ports of Halifax and Saint John. They contain the deepest water of any port on the Atlantic seaboard because of the configuration of the continental shelf. As hon. members know, the continental shelf is very shallow along the United States and the Atlantic seaboard, but the exceptions are found in Halifax and Saint John. We feel development of these two ports, which jut way out into the Atlantic, will enable them to receive the largest vessels in the world, bringing with them armadas of profit for Canadians. We can sell that transportation facility to the entire Atlantic seaboard for unloading huge ships and trans-shipping by rail or smaller vessel the cargo they carry. This means that Saint John and Halifax become assembly plants for all types of manufactured goods which can be exported to world markets through the two ports.
For the rest of the Atlantic provinces to avail themselves of this prosperity we need in place a modern transportation system. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we do not have in the Atlantic provinces. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in an ill-advised move, wiped out one half of the rail passenger service in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and it has not been replaced yet with the high-speed trains which he indicated would make it a pleasure for us to not have this less expensive form of transportation. We have under study now before the air transport committee of the Gander Transport Commission applications for inter-city air transportation which, if a decision is forthcoming soon, will help solve the inter-maritime problems in transportation. But the heavier transportation of which I speak requires modern rail transportation, modern vessel transportation, and the development of our two deepwater ports which I think can help this come about.
Another area I hope the government will look at is in the field of electrical energy and the development of Fundy tidal power in concert with the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls development in the same grid in eastern Canada.
I notice my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am two minutes over, and I would like to thank you for your courtesy.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer).


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, since the previous speaker had a couple of minutes left on his time I wonder if he would be so kind as to allow me a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) accept a question?


J. Robert Howie: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 21, 1982
The Royal Family


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). 1 thought he gave us an interesting speech. It had a nice blend of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member is going to ask a question, he should ask it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to tell the hon. member how much I appreciated his thoughtful comments. At the same time I think he was a little bit short on one or two of the details-


Mr. McDermid:: Ask the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe you had recognized the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). I think the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) is just killing time because they do not have a speaker ready. We have a speaker ready to go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Portage-Marquette.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate because the country is clearly looking to this place for some leadership.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) on a point of order. What is his point of order?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I believe we had arranged that I could ask a question of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and he still had some time left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Portage-Marquette.


Charles James Mayer: I believe that the motion put forward by my leader is a very appropriate motion in the sense that normally opposition days are taken up with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ROYAL FAMILY
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. It will be evident from the contents of it that it will be appropriate to do
so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to move a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to offer the congratulations of this House on the birth of a Prince, a son to Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales; and assuring Her Majesty that this happy event affords the greatest joy and satisfaction to Her faithful Members of the House of Commons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has passed an Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen, expressing congratulations on the occasion of the birth of a Prince, son of Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the said Address.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark:
That this House approves the government taking immediate action to lower interest rates, stimulate production, investment and jobs, strengthen the dollar and lower the rate of inflation.
Charles James Mayer: for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) last Friday, I think that in many ways we are experiencing, if not a real depression, at least a psychological depression because many people have partially given up hoping or believing that anyone knows what they are doing in the country.
I believe many people have rightly looked to the government for some answers. That is fair game and proper. In many cases they have the right to look to government for solutions because the average taxpayer in the country works for one level of government or another. From January 1 to the beginning of June, average Canadian taxpayers have worked approximately five months for government, and when governments take a lot away in terms of their earnings, in terms of their gross national product, or however one wants to define it, I think taxpayers and citizens in general have a right to expect something in return. When so much is taken away from people in the form of taxation, they have a right to expect something back. When the government becomes so large in terms of its meddling or interference in our lives or in the economy, again it is fair game that citizens should expect something back from governments. It is in that kind of context that I think we should approach the debate this evening.
This is what we in the opposition tried to do in framing the motion. Most motions on opposition days condemn the government for one thing or another. This motion does not do that. It asks:
That this House approves the government taking immediate action to lower interest rates, stimulate production, investment and jobs, strengthen the dollar and lower the rate of inflation.
It is asking the government to do something. It is not condemning it for past sins, although we could easily do that. In the name of common sense and in the name of some urgency, it is asking that the government do something. There is a lot of urgency because of the present economic situation.
I should like to leave the government with some suggestions this evening as to what can be done. Too often we in the opposition are accused of simply criticizing and not offering any suggestions. I should like to make three or four suggestions along the lines of those which have been made already, and I should like to close with some specific suggestions as to what could be done in some of the areas with which I am familiar.
The first one about which I want to talk is the National Energy Program. Many statistics have been bandied about in speeches and in articles in various newspapers across the country. I think it should be obvious from all the statistics- and I do not want to get into them this evening-that the National Energy Program is causing massive problems in the country. If we look at it in terms of the investment it has chased out of the country, it makes no sense whatsoever to discourage Canadians from investing in Canadian industries and in Canadian energy related industries, to discourage foreign investment from coming into the country to invest in our industries, and at the same time to raise interest rates to attract that money back into the country. It does not make any sense to anyone.
Supply
Essentially the same thing is being done with FIRA. We all want to own our country. One of the goals of the National Energy Program is that we have 50 per cent ownership of the energy industry by the year 1990. That is truly a laudable goal with which we all agree. I think we would have to question what Canadian would not agree with Canadians owning 50 per cent of the industry by 1990. FIRA is in somewhat the same category. It wants to encourage ownership of Canadian industry. There is nothing wrong with that, but many people find it hard to live with the fact that FIRA is too discretionary. It is almost akin to making up the rules as one goes along. If FIRA had some firm guidelines or some firm rules at which potential investors could look and know that the government would adhere to them over the life of the investments people were contemplating, FIRA would probably work and work well. Essentially FIRA is a game played, and the rules are made up as the game progresses. This discourages people from investing in Canada.
I am not referring only to big industry. For example, last Friday I had an opportunity to speak with a banker in Brandon. As a matter of fact, he was my banker, so I was all the more interested in talking with him. He pointed out that many small industries-and we were not talking about millions of dollars; we were talking about probably tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars-are affected by FIRA. He said that people have given up applying to FIRA for permission to buy because of the red tape through which they must go. They submit and get a proposal back, they resubmit and get another proposal back. This discourages people from investing in the country. Again, it makes no sense to me-and I do not think it makes sense to many Canadians-that with FIRA and the National Energy Program Canadian dollars are discouraged from staying in the country and investment is discouraged from coming in from the outside, investment which creates jobs in the country. To counter this they raise interest rates, which attracts money back into the country, and we all know what happens when we raise interest rates at home. It hurts business, it hurts Canadian business. Surely the best way to buy out or own our own country is to have a healthy, expanding and vibrant Canadian economy. By raising interest rates people are simply driven out of business. That is no way in which to own our country.
Since I do not have a lot of time, I want to go fairly quickly through the points I want to make this evening. Let us talk about the budget for a minute. The budget is a document which, in effect, discourages production in Canada. We have heard about inflation. A basic definition of inflation is simply too much money pursuing too few goods. I suggest that what the government and what the Bank of Canada has done up to the present time was to emphasize the supply of too much money over too few goods. If the government were serious in addressing Canada's inflationary problem I believe that one of the logical solutions it could pursue would be to study ways to make use of its fiscal policies, which is essentially the taxation policy of the government, as well as using the Bank of Canada

June 21, 1982
Supply
to encourage production. I do not understand how inflation can be brought down by pursuing a policy which raises interest rates to such a level as to discourage people from spending their money. This has the effect of lowering demand and inflation but it also chases people out of business, which results in a shortage of goods. If there are not enough goods on the market, the price will go up. Therefore there must be a point at which a rise in interest rates contributes more to the inflationary spiral than relieves the problem. When one looks back at these three areas, the National Energy Program, FIRA and the budget, one realizes that the main intent of the government has been to have greater central control of the Canadian economy through its bureaucracy.
I would like to make a point with respect to bureaucracy in my part of the country. I consider the first bureaucrat to have gone to western Canada to be John Palliser. I would like to repeat what he said about that part of the country. He was sent to the Red River area by the British Parliament to explore it and report on its potential for settlement in 1860. He visited Red River, and what he had to say upon his return is worth noting. He said:
The Red River is an oasis in the midst of a desert, a vast treeless prairie on which scarely a shrub is to be seen. The climate is unfavourable to the growth of grain; the summer though warm enough is too short in duration, so that even the few fertile spots could with difficulty mature a potato or a cabbage.
I want to point out that he was talking about Manitoba, where I come from, which now produces, I suggest, the finest potatoes in North America. He defines the area which has come to be well known as "Palliser's Triangle". It runs approximately from Boissevain in southwestern Manitoba, to Saskatoon, to the Waterton lakes. He said that that area, "presents a barrier to continuous growth of settlements between the Mississippi Valley and the states on the Pacific coast." He went on to say:
This central desert extends, however, but a short way into the British territory, forming a triangle having for its base the 49th parallel from longitude lOOd-
And I have already referred to the areas of Boissevain and Waterton lakes. The point is that Palliser was the first bureaucrat to visit that area, and he said it could not be settled. We did not listen to the bureaucrat. We settled the area. It was not the bureaucrats who settled it nor was it settled by a direction from the central government. Bureaucrats did not homestead and make sacrifices to achieve prosperity for that part of the country and the country as a whole. They said we could not do it.
What we see today are bureaucrats, through the National Energy Program, FIRA and many of the budget provisions, telling us not what we cannot do but what we can do by giving directions from this cocoon called Ottawa. They give directions from this hermetically sealed place that in many ways operates from outside the real world.
John Palliser was incorrect when he told us that it could not be settled, and it should be obvious that today's bureaucrats are incapable of giving direction to what should occur in Canada's economy today. The lesson we should learn is that
we should be wary of turning too much control over to the centrally located bureaucrats.
I believe that the excessive involvement of the bureaucracy in the affairs of the economy of our country has led to many of our difficulties. I suggest that it is responsible for a million and a quarter unemployed. For example. Our lumber industry has literally collapsed in northwestern Ontario and in northern British Columbia while at the same time we are told that there are 50,000 to 60,000 housing starts which are needed but have not begun. It makes no sense to people when they see how rich we are in human and natural resources, resources which need to be utilized but the use of which cannot be co-ordinated. As Adam Smith once said, we need the invisible hand working among us helping to make decisions on an individual basis deciding what is best for the individual.
Another drawback to our recovery is the fact that there are too many government grants. Taxes are being collected and given back in the form of grants. These grants are more in the form of penalties which dictate what the recipient does instead of providing incentives to begin new ventures. One gentleman described a government grant as taking a quart of blood from one arm and transferring it to the other arm while losing half of it on the way over. This is true of the bureaucracy. The taxpayer's money is taken from them but much of it is lost in the process of returning it. Money is the lifeblood of our country and our productive capability.
We need a tax system which will review that productivity through incentives instead of penalizing success.
In the time I have left I wish to make a few comments on the Bank of Canada. The purpose of any parliamentary democracy is to have Parliament accountable to the people who sent us here. However, I submit that the Bank of Canada is involved in fiscal and taxation policies in Canada to a greater extent than are many members who sit in the opposition who are elected and accountable. I believe it is not properly accountable to Parliament when it has so much involvement with fiscal policy. For example, the Bank of Canada can increase the money supply to help the government of the day finance deficit. However, we know very little about how the Bank of Canada operates. There is some question, for instance, as to whether it understands or is able to calculate accurately what the money supply is. Yet we are told interest rates are being raised to regulate the money supply and thereby lower demand and inflation.
I would like to reiterate a suggestion which I made approximately one year ago. In order to make the Bank of Canada more accountable we should seriously consider appointing two members of the House to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada. At present, there are 12 members on the board. I defy anyone in the House, or anyone listening, to name one of those directors. Yet the Bank of Canada has great influence on our daily lives. If two Members of Parliament were elected to the board it would make the Bank of Canada much more accountable for the daily running of its affairs. This would be a very positive step, I suggest.
June 21, 1982

I listened very attentively to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) this afternoon when he replied to our party's leader. He told us that we are sharing in an international recession, which is something we realize. I believe Canadians would say that they are having more than their share of recession as a result of this government's policy. However, that is not the problem. The problem is for the government to identify some of the areas in which it can take action. We have all made suggestions as to areas in which the government could cut back in its spending. The Minister of Finance mentioned the fact that we in the opposition have said nothing about monetary policy. As I said, 1 do not see how pursuing a monetary policy to the extent that it raises interest rates to the level at which they drive people out of business is a responsible solution. I do not believe you could find anyone who has gone broke, lost his job, lost his home or has had family problems as a result of interest rates who believes this was necessary in order to protect the value of the Canadian dollar. No one who has lost his business through high interest rates gets much satisfaction from the fact that he did this to protect the Canadian dollar. That makes no sense to anyone, yet that is what this government is doing with monetary policy.
As far as an incomes policy is concerned, let me tell the Minister of Finance that the best way to have an incomes policy is to have a healthy economy which is growing, so that the citizens, the taxpayers of the country, are able to share in something that is progressive and growing. If we keep going the way this government is sending us, the government will not have to worry about an incomes policy because there will not be any income. So, I say again that I do not understand why the Minister of Finance should talk about an incomes policy.
He made reference to the fact that the opposition had not talked very much about a fiscal policy. Fiscal policy simply means examining the expenditures of the government. If one looks at the votes we will go through this evening, one will find that Vote 40 of the Department of Agriculture should be deleted from the estimates. Let me tell hon. members about some of the things that we could delete as far as the fiscal policy of this government is concerned. There were $111,000 spent to study improvement in the spreadability of butter. I am sure we could live without some kind of academic study on improving the spreadability of butter.


Ian Deans: It is easy. Leave it out of the fridge.


Charles James Mayer: We could refer to many other areas. The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), whose seat is in front of mine, moved a motion under Standing Order 43 pointing out that the Department of Finance should very seriously consider looking at all the estimates with the idea of cutting back on 10 per cent of government spending. This was a serious suggestion. We do have some suggestions relating to fiscal policy.
The Minister of Finance said that we in the opposition had
not said anything about inflation. Let me tell the Minister of
Supply
Finance that there are two sides to the equation of inflation. In the classical definition of the economist, inflation is simply too much money chasing too few goods. If we ignore the productive side of that equation, I think we do it to our detriment, because we simply cannot attack the inflationary problem by trying to screw down the supply of money and therefore to restrict the purchasing power of consumers. I want to suggest that what we need is more productive policies from the government so that people can have some faith in the future of this country. After all, we do have more natural resources per capita than any country in the world.
Let me close by telling a story which is rather humorous. We are not in a very humorous situation, but I think we all must have a sense of humour. This story reminds me of the way in which this government is carrying out its economic policies. It concerns a man who bought a hot air balloon. I am sure that those of us in the chamber are familiar with hot air and I think Your Honour has heard this story before. The man who bought the balloon asked his friend to go with him one Sunday afternoon, in the heat of the day, to fly this hot air balloon. They went out into the country into a field and went up in the hot air balloon. In the middle of the afternoon some cumulus clouds drifted by and they became very nervous about where they were because they had never flown a balloon, they could not see the ground, and they did not know what kind of predicament they were in. All of a sudden they drifted into an opening in the clouds. They looked down and saw a man in a field. One of the men in the balloon hollered down and asked, "Where are we?" The gentleman in the field looked up and said, "You are in a balloon". Just then the balloon drifted into some clouds and they could no longer talk to the man on the ground. One of them said, "That man must be an economist". His friend asked, "What would make you think that?" He said, "Who else but an economist could give us such accurate, precise, yet utterly useless information?" In many ways, that is the kind of information and those are the kinds of policies that we are getting from this government.
I would hope that the government would pay attention to some of the suggestions that we in the opposition have made here this evening and act on them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these times are difficult times for every country in the world, including Canada. I want to stress that we on this side of the House are very conscious of and very concerned about the unemployment levels, the high interest rates that Canadians are facing, the lack of growth in our economy and all the difficulties this situation means for individuals and families all across the land. In the debates which have taken place today and previously, the opposition, particularly the Conservative opposition, has tried to blame all those difficulties on the budget and the National Energy Program, ignoring what is happening in the rest of the world today, particularly in the industrialized

June 21, 1982
Supply
world. We are encountering a situation today in which we have about 30 million unemployed in the industralized world.
I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the National Energy Program because of the importance which appears to be given to it by the opposition in connection with our current difficulties. I would certainly be very pleased to see importance given to this program, if it were also combined with some rational, fair-minded understanding of what the program is all about. But, unfortunately, what we have seen and heard more often than not are biased and hysterical reactions based on misunderstandings or deliberate distortions of our energy policies and goals.
Conservative critics have portrayed Canada's economy as the all but devastated victim of an energy program designed to scare off foreign capital. In the few minutes available to me today, I would like to respond to this line of thinking or, should I say, to that brand of scaremongering.


John Albert Gamble: Scaremongering of your own.


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stated that he would absolutely change the National Energy Program, and in this he was merely echoing the views of his backbenchers who were saying that they would scrap the National Energy Program. What do they mean? Do they mean that they would scrap the conservation programs and the $500 grant that we have given to over a million Canadian families in the last two years in order to help them convert, to insulate their homes and reduce the costs of heating their homes?


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Marc Lalonde: I hear the Conservative opposition saying, "Yes". That is part of their program. Would they abolish the off-oil substitution program whereby we are paying people up to $800 to switch off oil to natural gas or to electricity, and the programs whereby they would expand the distribution of natural gas to the maritimes? I see that an hon. member from Vancouver is nodding his head and saying, "Yes". Would they scrap the hundreds of millions of dollars in the research and development provided under the National Energy Program? Some now say that they would not. Would they scrap the agreements with the provinces whereby we will have a secure and sure environment for energy investment in the oil and gas industry between now and 1986?


Mr. Epp:: Marc, your nose is growing.


Marc Lalonde: Would they scrap those agreements with the three western provinces and Nova Scotia? Would they do away with the tax breaks for the oil and gas industries, whereby the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have given $7.4 billion in tax breaks to the industry in the last two months?


Charles James Mayer: Oh, how much did you take away?


Marc Lalonde: What would they do? Are they proposing higher prices for consumers than they are at the present time?


John Albert Gamble: Not as high as yours.


Marc Lalonde: We know what they have in mind. What they have in mind is to attack our Canadianization program, and we saw the best evidence of that this afternoon in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Marc Lalonde: That is what they have in mind. We heard the speech this afternoon in which the Leader of the Opposition attacked our Canadianization policies as being contrary to the best interests of Canadians. This criticism can be expected on the part of some of the foreign investors who gained particular advantages in the Canadian energy industry, operating for many years under a set of rules and incentives which inadvertently favoured their progress over that of smaller companies and prospective new companies in the industry. To expect that from the Conservative Party of Canada is rather strange. It is all the more strange that they are turning into mere echoes of foreign companies in this regard.
We have addressed that problem in our energy program with a new incentive system that opens up the oil and gas sector to more and more Canadian companies willing to invest in the search for oil and gas. However, we have ensured that the incentive to find oil and gas remains powerful for all companies, regardless of nationality. Let me review just a little of the background in this regard.
The basic reality facing Canadians as they entered the 1980s was this. They would have to pay more and more for their oil and gas and in the process would finance the vast majority of the costs of replacing what they used. Yet Canadians did not have anything resembling a fair chance to share in the benefits of that huge investment. It was not optional that they be afforded this opportunity. It was a prerequisite for the kind of vigorous growth that will be required in the petroleum industry in the years ahead.
It is the judgment of the Government of Canada and the vast majority of Canadians that an increase in domestic participation in the petroleum industry is a national priority. As of October 1980, no less than 72 per cent of upstream oil and gas revenues were accounted for by foreign-owned companies. The goal, which must sound ludicrously modest to most Americans and other foreigners, is 50 per cent Canadian ownership of these revenues and Canadian control of a significant number of the larger corporations by 1990.
I cannot emphasize too much that our goal allows for the foreign-owned sector of the petroleum industry to grow and prosper in real terms if it chooses to take advantage of the opportunities. Our policies are pro-Canadian, not anti-foreigner. I believe that the future course of development in our promising offshore and frontier regions will demonstrate particularly the accuracy of that description.
June 21, 1982

Let me repeat. Our policies are designed to ensure a fair share of the total benefits for Canadians, not just through direct participation as investors but also as providers of goods and services and across the broad range of socioeconomic impacts that major offshore developments can bring.
We want to minimize the costs of all kinds and maximize the benefits. It is a challenge calling for a comprehensive policy approach, and that is what we have provided. Our policies are in keeping with our international obligations. They are fair to Canadians, fair to foreigners and fair to all others who work and invest in Canada.
It is absolute rubbish to claim, for example, that the Canada Oil and Gas Act requires oil companies to give preference to Canadian suppliers. What Canadian suppliers want and need is not preference but an opportunity to be considered and to compete, not to be ignored as they have been in the past.
Another argument that we often hear from the Conservative Party and in some other circles is to the effect that Canada's prosperity has been primarily created by foreign investment and that any change in that supposed situation endangers Canada's economic future.
The fact is that Canadians have for many years provided the vast majority of the funds needed to finance the expansion of the energy industry and of the economy as a whole. These funds were in large measure provided to the extremely profitable growth of foreign subsidiaries in Canada.
In that context, it is interesting to note that even under the National Energy Program, the multinational oil companies are still doing very well in Canada. However, we know that the oil and gas industry had become a net exporter of capital in the latter part of the 1970s, long before the introduction of the National Energy Program. So, it was simply wrong to picture the oil and gas industry's dramatic improvement in financial fortunes during the 1970s as having anything to do with an inflow of foreign capital.
As I have said, we need foreign capital now and in the future, and we have ensured that the incentive will be there in the energy industry. However, we also need, and we are getting, a basic change in the participation of Canadian investors and Canadian companies in this industry. To obtain a fair share of the benefits, Canadians must share more in the direct ownership and, I might add, the risks of direct ownership of the oil and gas industry. That is what has begun to happen under the National Energy Program.
Of course, it is clear in retrospect that these have not been the easiest times for Canadian companies to be increasing their debt loads in direct response to the need for greater Canadian participation in the oil and gas industry. Oil price expectations have changed dramatically. Interest rates have remained higher than expected as a result of policies beyond the control of the Government of Canada. Markets for oil and gas have been softer than expected as a result of the general economic slowdown around the world.
To lay the blame for the effects of this kind of international financial and economic difficulty at the door of a Canadian energy program is transparent nonsense, yet it is propagated
Supply
by the Conservative Party and some foreign critics of the program.
Thus we have the attempts to blame the Alsands shutdown and the National Energy Program while the Colony oil shale project in the United States, in which Exxon have invested a billion dollars, is abandoned for supposedly economic reasons. Again, the opposition blames the decline in over-all drilling in Canada on the National Energy Program while in the United States it is just the oil industry tightening its belt in the face of lower prices and soft markets.
There is a very serious need for perspective in these matters.
I invite those interested to read a very revealing article in Fortune magazine of June 14, 1982, entitled "Getting Lean and Mean in the Oil Business". You would think you were reading the most depressing article in the Alberta Report, yet in the United States they do not have a national energy program. This article reports that the oil and gas industry in the United States is going through very difficult times indeed.
What we have in Canada at the present time is a situation where for both Canadian and foreign companies there is a very positive environment for investment in the oil and gas industry. For example, let me tell hon. members that the after-tax rate of return is more favourable in Canada than in most other oil areas.
A foreign company operating in Canada which is currently taxable will have a rate of return after-tax of 27.7 per cent. In Norway, the rate of return for a stand-alone project would be 18.3 per cent, 24.4 per cent in the United Kingdom and 21.6 per cent in the United States. That is the situation in terms of return on investment. If you compare the after-tax cut of $100 worth of exploration, it shows that a foreign company operating in the United States pays out $54, whereas the same company operating in Canada expends only $40.
The incentive for oil and gas exploration in Canada is much greater than in the United States because of better geological promise. In the United States 12 barrels of oil are found for each foot drilled. In Canada the discovery rate is 43 barrels per foot drilled. In the United States 200,000 cubic feet of gas are found per foot drilled. In Canada 860,000 cubic feet are found per foot drilled. That is the situation in which companies in the oil and gas field are invited to invest in this country. It is a good environment for Canadian companies, and it is interesting to note in particular the comments made by a large number of small Canadian companies in connection with the moves made by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada in the last two months. It is interesting to note that even for foreign-owned companies Canada is still a place where it is better to invest than almost any other place in the world. That is the situation today, and that is the situation which will be maintained under this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There may not necessarily be a House agreement, but I understand there is agreement

June 21, 1982
Supply
between some hon. members that the Chair should recognize the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and then by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Does any hon. member wish to comment, or may I proceed in that fashion?


Erik Nielsen: D'accord.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I was reminded today in an editorial in the Toronto Sun headed "Paul's Plan" of the maxim that it pays to advertise. It is somewhat ironic to get that reminder from a newspaper which has not always been supportive of government advertising in the past, but the statement is made that this government has not sufficiently advertised the Canada mortgage renewal plan. As I begin my comments I must take issue with that statement. The article says: "There hasn't been much about the mortgage assistance plan." I recall very well, as I am sure do other hon. members, the complaint right after the budget that newspaper advertisements were taken out and that empty space was held so that the government could advertise the plan the day following the budget announcement. I find it somewhat ironic that the accusation is made that that program has not been advertised sufficiently. I recall very well hon. members opposite flashing a newspaper advertisement entitled "Attention Home Owners". There was criticism of that advertising at the time.
What is more important is that the plan has been advertised since the majority of the members of this House supported it. There have been further widespread advertisements in newspapers across the country. We have repeated that newspaper ad and attempted to draw the plan to the attention of Canadians renewing their mortgages. I have distributed information, documents and kits on the plan to all hon. members on both sides of the House so that they could bring the plan to the attention of constituents who call their offices inquiring about it.
I take issue with the Toronto newspaper which says the plan has not been advertised enough. I know there has been some free publicity. It has not been tremendously positive all the time but, nonetheless, there have been newspaper comments- free publicity I suppose-in newspapers such as The Financial Post.
Obviously, I must accept the admonition that it pays to advertise, and we should talk more about government programs, but I do not accept the admonition in The Toronto Sun. The reason I say that is the article itself. The introduction to that criticism about lack of advertising contains the contention that only 400 people have responded to the plan. We know that some 1,400 people have responded to the plan. We know that about 1,000 people have been approved under the plan. We know that in response to the last advertisement, which was national, 7,766 people clipped brochures, wrote in and asked for further information on the plan, which has gone out. I know I have to publicize and advertise when, for example, the plan has been described-inadvertently-by the official critic in th Conservative opposition as being a plan providing a grant of some $300 when it provides $3,000. This afternoon the
housing critic of the New Democratic Party again alleged that only about 300 people have made application under the plan when, as I have indicated, over 1,000 people have already been approved under the plan.
What is the background of the plan? I think it is worth reviewing and publicizing. In April, 1980, the Speech from the Throne of this government in starting its mandate said that the government would:
-act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
Those were the words. That is the way the program started. That was the commitment given by the government. The plan was to carry out that commitment.
Then there was the further assertion that this program could be introduced without the government's embarking upon a major subsidy program. I underline that because the thrust of my remarks will be that even though we are pressed to advertise and even though we are pressed to increase funding under this plan and other plans, the government must of course be practical and provide plans in a way that is efficient and takes into account all the demands upon the government for more funding for housing in these days.
Recently the critic for housing in the official opposition moved a motion under Standing Order 43 which I do not accept. That motion was:
That this House directs the Minister of Finance to reinstitute the MURB provision and to designate those funds allocated for the Canada rental supply plan to non-profit and co-operative housing as part of his financial and economic statement to this House.
The minister has promised to make a statement to this House. A need has been demonstrated. I recall giving a reminder to hon. members on both sides of the House this afternoon about a response to constituents in very difficult circumstances. Last fall interest rates were over 20 per cent. Constituents wrote inquiring what could be done by me at the time of the budget and subsequently. I am very pleased that we have this program and that $350 million has been set aside by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). We have been able to respond to a number of Canadian families. Our response has been more than the individual requests of members in the House who have taken the time to write to me and to bring to my attention individual cases of constituents who have been hard pressed and who have asked for help. As I say, over 1,000 families have been assisted under this plan. It is a plan which addresses the difficulties of families. On renewal of a mortgage, when a family has paid up to 30 per cent of their income toward meeting principal, interest and taxes, they are then assisted by the government, either by way of deferral of interest or by way of an outright grant of up to $3,000. The plan had to be funded. The commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne. The finances were provided; $350 million were allocated by the Minister of Finance. We appreciate that that funding provided for that specific need might be in competition with requests of hon. members for funding for
June 21, 1982

other needs identified by their constituents. Such needs are identified and requests are made by Canadians facing other difficulties in these difficult times. In difficult times and when resources are scarce, the government has been pressed for a plan and a way by which to respond which will provide some practical relief and some sensitivity to the needs of Canadians. However, at the same time the government must take into account that the funds allocated come from only one place, and that is the taxpayer. We all know that. We have indeed picked our priorities. We have set funds aside and attempted to publicize as best we can, within limits, the allocation of those funds and how they will be used. To those Canadians who do not benefit from specific plans I say I sincerely hope there is an understanding that Canadians who have sacrificed and worked to pay off their mortgages will support the government by being willing to support those in need. The government responds first to those who need help most. Roughly half the Canadian population rents and is not building up equity in shelter needs. We hope that those people will also find comfort in the fact that they are supporting Canadians who otherwise would face the prospect not only of losing their homes, but also of being in the position of looking for rental accommodation, which is difficult to find.
Finally, for those Canadians who are not paying up to 30 per cent of their income for accommodation, we hope that support under the Canada mortgage renewal plan will assist the people who would otherwise face losing their homes. This involves the government putting its priorities on the line, and stating what it feels is important in response to difficult times.
My critic in the Conservative Party said that the Minister of Finance should reintroduce the MURB program. As minister reporting to Parliament for Canada Mortgage and Housing, I do not promote that proposal. I do not think that it addresses those Canadians who are facing the most critical need. Amongst those, of course, are renters who are having difficulty finding accommodation. Is any Member of Parliament unaware of the publicity about people trying to find affordable accommodation? Rather than support the MURB program, which was primarily a tax incentive program for Canadians looking for means to shelter income, we chose to allocate the $350 million to people seeking rental accommodation.
The Canada rental supply plan was designed to produce
30,000	moderate rental units in Canada, one third of which would be designated to serve Canadians whose means are very limited and who are therefore supported by this government and many provincial governments, on a rent geared to income basis. We feel that this plan responds to those people who would have to rent, to people who need support to meet their rental payments and to the handicapped. Five per cent of all those units are designed for handicapped persons. We believe that program is a much more effective way of serving people who have actual and pressing needs.
I cannot support the motion of the housing critic of the Conservative Party that we return to the MURB program. We do not see that as a good course of action at this time when resources are scarce. By definition it means that we would
Supply
have to decide where the assistance should go first. We believe that the government's initiatives through the Canada renewal plan and the Canada rental supply plan serves another objective which is to provide jobs quickly-although not as quickly as we would wish-in the construction industry. I wish the House had responded to my request last December that the legislation be passed right away. In that case, the plans could have been in place sooner. The rental supply plan will generate
30,000	units of housing accommodation. In turn, that will generate at least 60,000 person years, directly and indirectly, in construction.
In this way the government is addressing priority social needs as well as addressing the problem of employment in the trades. Employment has been severely undermined by the fact that the public is not buying property at current interest rates and by the fact that in the United States, which is our biggest market for lumber products, housing is perking along at about 50 per cent of the rate in Canada.
These plans not only serve the needy, they serve to stimulate the economy, and they serve to provide jobs in an area which all of us know requires attention.
The government has taken other initiatives in the housing field since the budget. 1 can argue, and I will demonstrate, that our concern is for people in need. In our response to people in need, we have supported employment. As a matter of fact, the thrust of the opposition's motion is that we should be addressing that very problem. And we are, Mr. Speaker. The Canada home renovation plan is an example. It is designed to provide up to a $3,000 grant for home improvements to households who earn less than $30,000 per year. There is a graduated reduction from the amount of grant available as the income goes up to $48,000.
The effect of this plan is to help home owners who had difficulty financing renovations at current interest rates. It will accomplish two other things as well. First of all, it will create an additional 10,000 person years in the construction industry, which is so hard pressed. As well, the $3,000 grant is conditional upon individuals spending at least $6,000. That has the benefit of levering funds from the private sector to support the trades that need employment at this time. That is an effective program and it has been well received. Many communities across the country have responded, and at this point the plan is almost totally subscribed.
The improvement in the Canada home insulation plan was designed with the same thoughts in mind, to support people in need of assistance, with a $500 grant. The plan is now available to people whose homes were constructed up to 1971, which is a move from the 1961 deadline. In addition to serving the conservation of energy, that plan will employ 20,000 people across the country.
I began my comments with reference to the criticism which appeared today in The Toronto Sun that reminds us that it pays to advertise. I am taking this opportunity to respond to the criticism and comments made by hon. members opposite

June 21, 1982
Supply
by pointing out that these plans are available. They will serve renovation needs, the purchase of homes, the finding of rental accommodation and assistance to families that have been most severely affected by high interest rates. These plans are designed, in place, and can serve Canadians. The resources are there but they have not been fully utilized. I think I have demonstrated that the use of these plans will have the following effects: they will put Canadians to work in the trades; generate employment for people who are skilled in these trades but unemployed; they will bring new money into the economy, or should I say out of the banks, and put it to work generating employment in these trades.
I believe my comments fall in line with the thrust of the latter part of the motion put by the opposition today, that there has to be co-operation. What I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, is recognition and co-operation by all members who sought the assistance of the government for some of these plans, in order to take advantage of these plans so as to respond to their constituents who may not be aware of them, as The Toronto Sun says today. 1 believe in using our resources in a way which will first of all serve the needy, and secondly, support the economy and get people back to work. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that kind of co-operation is a common goal shared by all members of the House irrespective of their political philosophy or commitments.


Erik Nielsen: Are you going to vote for the motion?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the speech we got from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) this afternoon was the usual defensive and apologetic speech we have come to expect from him in the last couple of years. It is a far cry from the kind of speeches he gave and legislation he used to support when he was the minister of labour and then the minister of national health and welfare and helped to bring into being the Canada Pension Plan and the medical insurance plan which have brought such great benefits to the people of Canada. In recent years he has become one of the most conservative members in the present government. He has become the complete captive of his officials who have consistently given him the wrong advice, advice which has produced the highest unemployment rate in the history of Canada, the highest rate of inflation, and a situation which is becoming worse almost daily.
In his speech this afternoon the minister brought forth figures with which he tried to demonstrate that, while we were having difficulties in this country, we were doing quite well as compared to other countries.
We decided to accept the challenge in that argument and obtain figures showing the per capita income of Canadians in 1968, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was first elected, and for 1980, just to see what has happened. We were not completely successful but we were able to get from the United Nations 1979-80 year book the per capita income figures for a number of western industrialized countries for the years 1970 and 1978, the figures are very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and disprove completely the minister's contentions this afternoon. In 1970 the per capita income of Canadians was the third highest in the western world, behind Sweden and the U.S. In 1978 we were eighth, behind Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the U.S. and The Netherlands. Not only that, Japan had an average per capita income in 1970 of just half of Canada's, and they had almost caught up with us by 1978. I should point out that I am not including OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as the Prime Minister accused the leader of my party of doing some weeks ago. I am talking about the industrialized countries.
When the minister says we are doing quite well, Mr. Speaker, he is just dead wrong. He has admitted that we are in a recession, one deeper and more prolonged than any forecaster had predicted. That is not quite true. It is deeper and more prolonged than the minister's so-called experts had predicted. There were other experts who had predicted precisely what has happened. The minister says our problems are due to high interest rates and high inflation which are stifling investment. That is true, Mr. Speaker. He said there are no easy solutions to our problems, and that is true. But then he said the first priority of the government is to create more jobs, and to do that we must get our inflation down. That is what the government has been saying for the last six years, and to achieve that end, between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we have had high interest rates. How are we going to improve the economy and get people to invest in productive capacity when companies are not making profits, when they are working at less than 70 per cent of capacity and paying 18 per cent and 20 per cent interest? How are we going to improve the economy when interest paid on savings is running anywhere between 13 per cent and 16 per cent for term deposits, and when last year's Canada Savings Bonds paid 19.5 per cent interest? People who have money to put into savings are not completely stupid. They are not going to invest their money, even in blue-chip companies, when they will get at best 6 per cent or 7 per cent, and the value of their stock has dropped in the last couple of years by probably 25 per cent or more.
As usual, Mr. Speaker, the minister had no real advice to the Canadian people. The Prime Minister has been saying lately that we have to tighten our belts. What are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying? They are saying that Canadians should be satisfied with wage or salary increases of 6 per cent or 7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the cost of living has risen in the last year by almost 11.5 per cent. So what the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are saying to the Canadian people is that they should accept a reduction in their standard of living of 5 per cent or 6 per cent. They are not going to do that voluntarily, and they should not. If you could persuade people to reduce their standard of living and purchasing power by 5 per cent or 6 per cent, at a time when industry is working at less than 70 per cent of capacity, all you would do would be to make the position of Canadian industry and business even worse. So, Mr. Speaker, I say that
June 21, 1982

the few proposals we got from the Minister of Finance really offered no hope to the Canadian people.
The same can be said for the speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). He said we need to produce a feeling of confidence for the Canadian people. I say to him, as I said a few moments ago to the Minister of Finance, how can you get Canadians to have confidence in our economy, how can you get them to invest in productivity improvements in Canadian plants and industry, when they can see that those plants are now working so far below capacity? Why should people invest in new plants and equipment when industry cannot sell the goods it now produces with existing plants and equipment. Why should they invest in Canadian industry when they can put their money into government bonds or term deposits and make substantially more than they would by putting it into even the best of the blue-chip companies?
Then the Leader of the Opposition said that we need to have government restraint. He was very careful not to indicate where a Conservative government would cut back. In other words, where the restraint would come from. Some Conservative Members of Parliament have not been as careful as the Leader of the Opposition was today. Some Conservative members since November, 1980, have not infrequently expressed admiration for the kinds of policies which are being enacted in the United States under the leadership of President Reagan. Let us look at those policies for which, I think, some Conservatives have a great deal of admiration. Let us just take a look at what President Reagan has done to get restraint in the American economy. He has cut back on medicare and medicaid. He has cut back very drastically on the food stamp program, which is the closest thing the Americans have to our family allowance system. He has cut back on financial assistance to American states and cities. He has cut funding to American universities. He has cut back support for research and development and he has urged cutbacks in the American social security benefits.
If that is the kind of restraint that Conservative Members of Parliament believe in, they ought to be honest with the Canadian people.


John Albert Gamble: You should, too.


David Orlikow: I think the Conservatives ought to tell Canadians that that is how they would cut back on government expenditures. If they did that, I am certain the Canadian people would not want to support parties which advocate those kinds of programs.


John Albert Gamble: What about the giveaways?


David Orlikow: I wish the hon. member would rise in his seat in his own time and tell us which are the giveaway programs. Is medicare a giveaway program?


John Albert Gamble: What about foreign aid?


David Orlikow: Is social security a giveaway program?


An hon. Member:: What about the CBC?
Supply


David Orlikow: Is hospital insurance a giveaway program? Those are the kinds of giveaway programs that I want to continue and expand. If hon. members want to cut back on those, they ought to tell us.
Unemployment has reached a crisis situation. Unemployment is at a 40-year high. Some economists, either tenured economists in our Canadian universities or economists with good paying, secure jobs in the Department of Finance or even economists with the Economic Council, are telling us that we should not worry about unemployment, that the situation is not very serious. We are told that we are into the post-industrial age, and we have to accept the fact that our manufacturing industries will gradually disappear. I wish some of those so-called experts would talk to some of my constituents.
One of my constituents whom I met last week came to this country from Portugal in 1959. He came to Canada because he had been told and had read that this was a great country. He came here prepared to work, and he did work for 13 years for the Swift Canadian packing plant in Winnipeg. Swift is a multinational company. It is one of the giants in the food industry. After working there for 13 years, Swift Canadian closed its plant in Winnipeg and put 600 people out of work. This constituent of mine got a job with another Canadian giant. This time his job was with the CPR as a machinist's helper. He was doing a good job, but after two and a half years, because of a slowdown in the economy, he was laid off. 1 wish those so-called experts who think unemployment is not very serious would talk to my constituents and to thousands of others who, through no fault of their own, are no longer working.
As the Minister of Finance said this afternoon, we have 1.25 million people unemployed. But those are official figures. The minister and other members of the House know that those figures include only those people unemployed who are still actively looking for work. There are areas in Canada; in Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, in the Gaspe and in the Interlake area in Manitoba-where it is no use looking for work. People are not looking for work in those areas any more and they are not counted in the unemployment figures. We have probably another 300,000 or 400,000 unemployed, if they were included in the statistics.
Bankruptcies have increased by almost 40 per cent. We now have 800 to 900 businesses that go bankrupt every month. Probably for every one that goes bankrupt there are four or five businesses that close up voluntarily before having to declare bankruptcy. It is no longer only the unskilled people in the slow growth areas who are unemployed. Today, we find it is no longer only the small, inefficient companies that are going bankrupt. Today we find that vacancies for accountants, executives, engineers, scientists and other professionals have decreased by 47 per cent in the last year. University graduates are finding it more and more difficult to get jobs. Statistics Canada tells us that 32,000 managers and administrators are unemployed. I am sure that every Member of Parliament knows some person in his or her constituency who has a middle

June 21, 1982
Supply
or senior executive job who has worked 25 or 30 years for a company and suddenly, now that he is in the 50 to 60 year age group, he is either out of work, laid off or the company is closing up. The jobless rate for this occupational group, which he always thought was immune to unemployment, is now running at 3.5 per cent. This means that unemployment is no longer a problem only for the lower-income groups but also for middle and high-income groups.
Bankruptcies are no longer a problem for just small and inefficient companies, we are seeing more and more well established companies, companies which operated successfully during the Great Depression of the 1930s, which are now going bankrupt. Our large companies are finding it increasingly difficult to face these difficult times. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal states that Massey is edging closer to joining the bankruptcy list. Analysts at Merrill Lynch Royal Securities published a report on mining listing seven companies as "near the edge", with financial conditions that are, or could become, precarious. These companies include Brenda, Denison, Falconbridge Nickel, Hudson Bay Mining, Inco, Sherritt Gordon and Teck. This is not at all surprising when one realizes that interest payments are killing these companies.


Mr. Huntington:: That is right.


David Orlikow: According to financial reports, 66 per cent of all corporate cash flow is now going into paying interest. That compares to 25 per cent of all corporate cash flow going into interest payments just a year ago.
I presume members of the Conservative Party are chuckling because they believe in high interest rates.


John Horton McDermid: Don't be silly.


David Orlikow: Last year, Massey-Ferguson paid out 187 per cent of its cash flow in interest payments. Global Communications paid out 167 per cent. Those companies will not be able to continue much longer.
We have been told again and again that we have to get our inflation rate down. We have an agreement between the federal government and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan which says that in the next 13 months the price of a barrel of oil in Canada will go up by $10.25. Every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil adds one half per cent to the cost of living. We are looking at an increase of close to 5 per cent in the cost of living in the next year because of the price of energy.
How can we get the cost of living down when that kind of thing is occurring? Payments of unemployment insurance benefits are at an all time high. They increased in March of this year by 48 per cent over March, 1981. From city after city we are receiving reports of sharp increases in welfare. This is happening because many of the people who are unemployed have now exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. The process is accelerating-more and more people who were
laid off last year will exhaust their benefits, and then they will go on welfare.
We in our party believe that it is absolutely insane to pay hundreds of thousands of people who are willing and able to work. These people could produce many of the things we need in the country, yet they are paid to sit at home and to draw unemployment insurance benefits or welfare.
In the few moments remaining I should like to make some concrete suggestions as to how to deal with the emergency we are in now. I would like to list a few important steps which we believe should be taken. We believe that the government should scrap its high interest policy. It should admit that the policies followed on the advice of the deputy minister of finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have been a failure. We need a made-in-Canada interest rate which would be much closer to the actual increase in the cost of living than the present 5 per cent to 6 per cent gap. We need an emergency housing program which would revive the forest, construction, furniture and appliance industries. We believe that $500 million should be invested to produce 50,000 more homes than we are now producing this year and that that would produce
100,000	jobs. We want the government to bring in a tax cut of $2 billion which would essentially go to low and middle-income Canadians.


Mr. Kelly:: Reaganomics.


David Orlikow: No, not Reaganomics. President Reagan believes in giving the reductions in income tax to top income earners. That is the exact opposite to what we would want.
We believe that Canadians need a reduction in income tax to meet increased costs of living. We believe that that would produce 50,000 new jobs. We want policies to get the manufacturing industry, which in recent years has been cut to ribbons, back into production. We believe that the government should do these things and that these policies would provide jobs for Canadians. Perhaps they would not provide jobs for every Canadian because we live in a world which is going through a recession. But must we accept the fact that a million and a quarter Canadians need to be unemployed? We believe that we need a policy of full employment rather than the kinds of policies which we have had from the government.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister responsible for housing, I thought I should take a minute to read the motion which we are debating this evening. It reads:
That this House approves the government talcing immediate action to lower interest rates, stimulate production, investment and jobs, strengthen the dollar and lower the rate of inflation.
Lowering interest rates is the only single made-in-Canada benefit which can have a major impact that will save the economy. No one questions that interest rates will be lower once the economy collapses. Do we want interest rates to be once again at 5 per cent with no one able to borrow? That is
June 21, 1982

what we are heading into if we continue along with the government policies that are in place today. Thousands more Canadian people will be broken in pocket book and in spirit if the government and its bureaucracy continue to impose this bookkeeping type of economic discipline on the average Canadian. Admittedly, material expectation levels have to be brought down, but does the government also want to destroy the expectations for work, achievement and security?
The only difference of opinion between the government and a large majority of Canadians is whether interest rates are to be brought down now or whether many more Canadians are to be added to the roll call of casualties of present policies. The benefits of lower interest rates are many. First, we would have more competitive production and exports from our industry. We would also, with lower interest rates, be able once again to start building and modernizing new plants with new investment. Housing would once again become viable in this great country. There would be a substantial reduction in government borrowing costs. We would be able to remove that terrible burden from the backs of Canadian taxpayers. There would be substantial increases in tax revenues to the government if we lowered interest rates. Also there would be lower transfer payments for unemployment and welfare costs. We would have, as a result of rising revenues to the government, a lower federal deficit.
One of the two principal negatives of lower interest rates, which are quoted by all those associated directly or indirectly with present government policies, is that they will cause more inflation. I could hardly believe my ears today when 1 heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) say in the House that lower interest rates will cause more inflation. To the people on the government side and their advisers who keep saying this, 1 say that the opposite is the case. High interest rates have not decreased inflation in the country. They delivered lower inflation in the United States, but the cause of high interest rates there was the Eurodollar call on its reserves. Their problem is not our problem. We can control our own destiny if we manage our affairs properly. Throughout the world the nations with the lowest interest rates have the lowest rates of inflation. The literature, the statistics and magazines are full of proof in that regard. It is logical that businesses being subject to high interest rates have higher interest costs which have to be incorporated into their prices?
The second negative we keep hearing from the government and its advisers against low interest rates is that they cause a weakening of the currency. I heard the minister say this in the House today when he spoke. I say again to hon. members of the government that the opposite is the case, for around the world the nations with low interest rates have strong currencies. All we have to do is to look at Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland has an interest rate of about 6 per cent and Japan has an interest rate of about 7.75 per cent; both have strong currencies. To some considerable degree their strong currencies are the direct consequence of the normal function of future exchange markets. Why do we in Canada not learn that?
Supply
Now I should like to move to the part of the motion to "stimulate production, investment and jobs". Over time we Canadians as a whole live only as well as the total which we produce. To achieve our previous standard of living and to maintain the promise and opportunity this very rich and great land offers, it is necessary to have all of us increase our expectations for work, achievement and security. Increased production, investment and jobs require continuing and increased purchasing power and desire in the domestic market, particularly through productive investment. It is no good having people with savings and capital sitting on 15 per cent and 20 per cent rates of interest. The need for that money is out in the creative areas which create jobs, modernize plants and deliver wealth. Increased production also requires export markets. Both domestic and export markets reap the maximum benefits from long-term financing at reasonable cost. In other words, lower interest rates and demands are placed on the cash flows of the productive elements of the nation.
Why has this Liberal government moved the country to short-term financing where mortgages are on a one-year term, at a floating rate and very difficult to renew for most people?
To strengthen the dollar we must address the policies of the Bank of Canada. One of my colleagues spoke about that tonight. I believe that this is where we are going wrong.
To enjoy confidence and stability and to reduce inflation we must have a strong dollar. This means that the Bank of Canada must have undoubted reserves to cover foreseeable obligations. In the long run, these reserves will have to be earned through the export of goods and services or the sale of Canadian assets. I would prefer the former.
Prudent management of our short-term position, combined with long-term borrowings, can give us breathing room for long-term correction, if we have the will. Devaluation makes for little improvement in exports. It only causes significant further inflation.
My reading tells me that for each cent the Canadian dollar drops we increase the upward pressure on the cost-price index by one third per cent to one half per cent.
Since the Minister of Finance was asking many questions of my leader today, I will ask him some questions. What is wrong with the Bank of Canada borrowing adequate funds internationally on a medium to long-term basis to maintain undoubted reserves and to permit orderly repayment of private and corporate borrowings? The nationalization program of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the follow-through from the private sector has cost this country some $18 billion to $19 billion of call on its reserves. We now have to address that. This would not increase our over-all external debt. The debits and credits would balance.
Another question: why does the Bank of Canada not maintain a forward exchange market in the Canadian dollar at levels which will eliminate undue pressure on domestic interest rates?
Why does the government budget not provide something like $2 billion a year for the Bank of Canada operating deficit

June 21, 1982
Supply
which could be recovered many, many times from the tax on profits on increased revenues within our productive sector and from reduced UIC payments? I would suggest that the factor might be as high as thirty to one on that.
Why does the Minister of Finance not increase the withholding tax to 30 per cent on all foreign interest payments from Canada on loans with less than a 60-month term?
I have another question. Why does the Minister of Finance not introduce penalty taxes with respect to price and wage increases in order to break the current inflation spiral?
All of these things would take the heat off the currency flows and would allow the Canadian government and the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates. We will never get back into the international game unless we start managing interest rates and our economic health. If that is what we as Canadians want, it is time that the government took action.
I have offered these questions because I think they have to be asked, examined and answered. The Keynesian economics are not addressing the rigidities which once again come into our national lives and economies. These rigidities have to be addressed if we are to resolve the present downturn in the business cycle.
Let me now turn to the other part of the opposition motion which concerns inflation and its reduction. This is really public enemy number one. It is behind the interest rate dilemma that we face today and the correction which we are going through, which is very painful indeed.
If we stimulate the economy it will be necessary to have some restraint. Otherwise, we have suffered this pain for nothing. In my opinion, we will need a tax-based policy, as just suggested. We also need an addition to a pact, or a social contract with organized labour, with some form of price restraint so that recovery from the bad days of this recession will not be too sudden and set the inflationary spiral in motion again. I believe that is an essential element of long-term recovery.
If the government continues its present path millions more will suffer as a result of a complete collapse. It will take ten or more years to recover. I have lived through the thirties. Not everyone in the House is of that age. It was rough. That is why I appreciate everything that this country has given me and others, and the benefits that have attracted so many new Canadians to this country. It is all at stake once again, but we do have the knowledge that we can crack the nut if we have the will.
These bookkeeping methods of the government and the Bank of Canada are doing more damage to this country than a massive physical catastrophe, for when you have an earthquake or some other disaster, the people come together to work and somehow get organized into some kind of disciplined form and know exactly what to do to rebuild what once was. However, today the whimper and the cry at large within this country is, "What can I do? What is going on?"
The other night there was a simple little rally in my riding. It normally would have attracted 90 to 150 people. There were over 700 people there asking, "What is going on? What can we do to help? Is there no way out?"
I have asked some questions here tonight in the few minutes I have and have made some suggestions that somehow or other will break through that impasse of the Keynesian economists who cannot, will not, and are not addressing the rigidities of supply and the reaction to supply-demand that we need to get back to.
We talk about an oil surplus. The oil surplus is ridiculous. There is no oil surplus in this world. If one ever saw an example of the supply-demand working, it was when the people started driving smaller cars, turning their thermostats down and reducing consumption. As a result supply came up and world price dropped. Why not go back to that fundamental natural law instead of trying to mismanage it?
With no government leadership and direction, the only positive action that is taking place in Canada today is an outflow of our intellectual talents, the enterpreneurial talents that risk, build and create jobs and an outflow of capital from the country. I just read that over $18 billion, I believe, of private capital has left Canada this year. What a national tragedy! I see the entrepreneurs, the skills, the talents in the engineering field and the business field packing up to go south where the free enterprise system will survive alongside the corporate giants because their laws address behaviour and they have competition laws that allow free enterprise to survive. That is a national tragedy. The present government policies are destroying the country from within. We are destroying ourselves mentally and spiritually all because of bookkeeping which causes high interest rates done by those still seeped in Keynesian technology. That day has gone. There must be a new dawn.
I attended an international economic conference and very senior economists were there. I have listened to economists debating in this country. It is a debating society. They do not have answers. Somehow or other we, as a people and as a government, must start opening up our minds to these new management technologies and techniques available within the Bank of Canada. I would ask hon. members of the government to read Hansard and to read some of those questions I have asked in these few remarks tonight and ask why these things cannot be done, because very good international banking people are telling me that it is entirely possible. That is the way in which a country like Switzerland operates. It is not exactly the way Japan operates, but it operates on those fundamental principles. A low interest rate is the only way we will bring down inflation in this country . We must get ourselves ready for the GATT era, and if we are to do so, we must start changing tax laws, tax policies and monetary policies which interfere with the creation and the production of work and jobs.
June 21, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply
(Division No. 202)


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In this country we have the ability, the talent, the technology, the universities, the people and the will to do it. But we must move our attitudes into the twentieth century. Those of us in organized groups must stop demanding more from the system than the system has to offer. If the private sector is to survive and blossom again, the managers and owners in the private sector will have to realize that those enterprises are there to serve employees, suppliers and consumers. Our tax laws must deliver us back to addressing tax costs, not profits. If we are to move into the area of free trade, a country like Canada can no longer continue under a customs union which favours one part at the expense of others. But we can address that if we get our act together and move on proper, creative, new economic thrusts which can take us into the twenty-first century.
That is where it is at, and that is what our young people coming out of our schools and universities today want from this government, from this Parliament. That is what we must deliver. The challenge is ours, yet we play around in stupid, little, narrow, political games, trying to knife each other when the country is going right down the drain with these socialist, old-fashioned, Keynesian, new, international world order policies and thrusts. Look at Britain. It nationalized industry after industry. The payrolls of some of those manufacturing industries were larger than their gross revenues, and they are finished. That country has had the hard struggle of returning those out to bottom-line management. I keep coming back to what Professor Florey had to say. The government controls the private sector. No one controls the public sector. So why continue with these nationalization policies? I say to Your Honour and others on that side, vote against this motion and you vote against the lowering of interest rates, which we can do as a country if we determine our own style.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Vote against this motion and you vote against the stimulation of production of goods and jobs which are desperately needed. Vote against this motion, and you are voting against a stronger dollar. All of these things are the key elements to a lower rate of inflation which is the future of our kids and of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 58 (10).

The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Deans) which
was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Benjamin Blackburn Blaikie Bosley Bradley Broadbent Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdale Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble
Allmand , Appolloni (Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-T will ingate) Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger Blais Blaker Blenkarn Bloomfield Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt , Bussieres Caccia Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Ittinuar
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
++NAYS
Messrs.
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdt* (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dcsmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Wilson Wise Wright Young-120.
Duquet Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaicl
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.) '
Hopkins

June 21, 1982
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagnc Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loiselle Lumley MacBain
Supply
Messrs.
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Mal6part
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-La keshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Thomson Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Wenman Whelan Yanakis-147.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 40, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 40, in the amount of $5,623,000 under the Department of Agriculture-Canadian Dairy Commission-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 21, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen: The House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston) which was		
agreed to on the following division:		
	(.Division No. 204)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Alimand	Duclos	LoiselleAppolloni	Dupont	Lumley(Mrs.)	Dupras	MacBainAxworthy	Duquet	MacEachenBachand	Erola (Mrs.)	MacGuiganBaker	Ethier	Mackasey(Gander-T wi 11 ingate)	Evans	MacLarenBeauchamp-Niquet	Ferguson	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Fisher	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Fleming	MaltaisBerger Blais	Flis Foster	Marceau MasseBlaker	Fox	MastersBloomfield	Francis	McCauleyBockstael	Frith	McRaeBossy	Garant	MunroBreau	Gauthier	(Hamilton East)Bujold	Gendron	NicholsonBurghardt	Gimaiel	(Miss)Bussieres	Gingras	OlivierCaccia	Gourd	OstiguyCampbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau) Ouellet	(Miss)	Gourde	Parent(South West Nova)	(Levis)	PelletierCampbell	Gray	Penner(LaSalle)	Guilbault	PepinCampbell	Harquail	Peterson(Cardigan)	Henderson	PinardChenier	Herbert	PortelanceChretien	Hervieux- Payette	ReganCollenette	(Mrs.)	ReidComtois	Hopkins	(Kenora-Rainy River)Corbin	Hudecki	RobertsCorriveau	Irwin	RobinsonCosgrove	Isabelle	(Etobicoke- La keshore)Cote (Mrs.)	Johnston	RompkeyCousineau	Joyal	RooneyCullen	Kaplan	RossiCyr	Kelly	RoyDaudlin	Killens (Mrs.)	SavardDawson	Lachance	SchroderDe Bane	Lajoie	Simmonsde Corneille	Lalonde	SmithDemers	Lamontagne	TardifDeniger	Landers	TessierDesmarais	Lang	TobinDingwall	Laniel	TousignantDion	Lapierre	TrudeauDionne	Lapointe	Turner(Chicoutimi)	(Charlevoix)	VeilletteDionne	Lapointe	Watson(Northumberland-	(Beauce)	WeatherheadMiramichi)	LeBlanc	WhelanDubois	Leduc Lefebvre	Yanakis-144.Althouse	Supply
NAYS Messrs. Gilchrist	McKnightAndre	Greenaway	McLeanAnguish	Gurbin	McMillanBaker	Gustafson	Miller(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday	MitgesBeatty	Hamilton	MunroBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Blackburn	Mountain)	MurphyBlaikie	Hamilton	MurtaBlenkarn	(Swift Current-Maple	NeilBosley	Creek)	NickersonBradley	Hargrave	NielsenBroadbent	Hawkes	NowlanCardiff	Heap	NystromCarney (Miss)	Hees	OberleClark	Hnatyshyn	Orlikow(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	PaproskiClarke	Howie	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Huntington	PattersonCoates	Ittinuar	ReidCook	Jarvis	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Jelinek	RiisCorbett	Jewett (Miss)	RobinsonCrombie	Keeper	(Burnaby)Crosbie	Kempling	Roche(St. John's West)	Kilgour	RoseCrosby	King	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Korchinski	ScottCrouse	Kushner	(Hamilton-WentworthDantzer	Lambert	ScottDarling	La Salle	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	Lawrence	Shieldsde Jong	Lewis	SiddonDick	Lewycky	SkellyDinsdale	MacDonald	SpeyerDo mm	(Miss)	StevensEllis	MacKay	StewartElzinga	Malone	TaylorEpp	Manly	ThackerFennell	Mayer	ThomsonForrestall	Mazankowski	TowersFraser	McCain	VankoughnetFretz	McCuish	WenmanFriesen	McDermid	WilsonFulton	McGrath	WiseGamble	McKenzie	WrightGass	McKinnon	Young-126.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 40 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 1, in the amount of $94,142,000 under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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.

June 21, 1982
Supply


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Vote 1 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5, MINISTRY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 5, in the amount of $8,871,000 under the Ministry of State for Economic Development-Northern Pipeline Agency-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 5 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1- ADMINISTRATION
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 1, in the amount of $17,529,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Administration-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to ask whether the House might consider unanimous consent to allow the vote which has just been taken to apply to the next three votes, since I believe that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party will be voting the same way in the next three votes as they have in the one just preceding.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to allow the vote which has just been taken to apply to the next three votes?


Erik Nielsen: If that is the case, with the New Democratic Party voting the same way as we are voting, that is acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, the vote which has just been taken applies to Votes 6, 7 and 8, I believe. I will check.
The next question is as follows-


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but I understood that it would apply to votes Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I thought we had just voted on No. 6, or, in other words, up to Vote No. 30, in the amount of $245,758,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Madam Speaker:: We have just voted on No. 5 in the amount of $113,944,000. That would apply. This page was marked "six" and this one is "seven". Therefore, it applies to Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Messrs.
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-126.
June 21, 1982


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5, ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 5, in the amount of $113,944,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Energy Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25, ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 25, in the amount of $262,000,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Canadian Home Insulation Program, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30, ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 30, in the amount of $245,758,000 under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-Canadian Oil Substitution Program, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L40, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: That Vote L40, in the amount of $299,100,000 under the Department of External Affairs-Canadian International Development Agency-Loans, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Deans
De Bane
de Corneille
de Jong
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Jewett (Miss)
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Keeper
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Lewycky Loiselle Lumley MacBain
(Kenora-Rainy River) Riis Roberts Robinson
(Burnaby)
Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rose Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Skelly Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis Young-169.

June 21, 1982
Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Dick Dinsdale Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Gamble Gass


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Vote 1 agreed to.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might again seek the unanimous consent of the House to consider Vote No. 11 to have the same count as No. 10, and to consider Votes Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22 the same as Vote No. 9.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent that this motion apply to the votes mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would go through those numbers again?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to have the following consideration, that Vote No. 11, Vote No. 17 and Vote No. 21 be considered the same as Vote No. 10.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that was a different proposition than the one I heard the first time. If the hon. member would get his act together and make a proposal, I will consider it.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 am trying hard not to play games. Let me make the proposal 1 made before, that Vote No. 11 be considered the same as Vote No. 10, that Vote Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 22 be considered the same as Vote No. 9.


Madam Speaker:: That is not quite the same proposal as the first one. Perhaps we can repeat it and hon. members might agree to it. It is that Vote No. 11 be considered the same as Vote No. 12-


Some hon. Members:: Ten.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the vote we have just taken was Vote No. 10. I would like to suggest for consideration that Vote No. 11 be considered-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. The vote we have just taken was Vote No. 11. It was credit L40 in the amount of $299,100,000. That is the vote we have just taken.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but could I just ask for guidance. What became of Vote No. 10?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member give me two seconds. The numbers on this page do not correspond to the numbers I am getting when I am proposing the motions. I will just straighten this out. My memory serves me better than this sheet. We have just voted on credit L40 in the amount of $229,100,000.


Erik Nielsen: That was $299 million.


Madam Speaker:: Two hundred and ninety-nine million. That was No. 10.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this is the last remaining element of control that this Parliament has over expenditures. It is sufficiently important to exert that control by voting separately on each one of these motions.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,119,000 under the Department of Finance-Inspector General of Banks-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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.
Supply
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Paproski
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Roche
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright-100.
June 21, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Are members playing games with me? Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 10 agreed to.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been voting now for an hour and a half, and at the current rate we have another hour and a half of voting. Perhaps the House might want to rise for ten minutes and take-


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I want to be sure there are no mistakes on the record as far as any of these votes are concerned which, as the House is aware, are very important. Just now, there seems to be some confusion between your numbering of the various votes and that done by the representative of the New Democratic Party. I will try not to
18694

June 21, 1982
Supply
confuse the issue further, but it seems that the request made just now by the New Democratic Party members, which received the unanimous consent of the House, was to have the three votes following the one that had just been called considered as having been agreed to in the same proportion. Now, according to your numbering, one vote appears to have been omitted, and to make sure that is not the case, I would like to at least clarify what has already been done, and I shall not be referring to the remaining votes.
1 understand, according to your own numbering, that the last vote was Vote No. 11. Please stop me if I am wrong.


Madam Speaker:: This is Vote No. 12, but on those sheets it is a different number. According to my numbering, it is Vote No. 12, that is, Vote 10 in the amount of $1,119,000.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we are talking about Vote 10, Department of Finance, and the vote recorded immediately before Vote 10 was Vote L40, Department of External Affairs. What 1 would like to clear up is that the four votes preceding Vote L40, External Affairs, are deemed to have been agreed to by the House in the same proportion as when we voted on Vote 1, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. If that is agreed, the record is correct and I have nothing further to add. But if there is no unanimous consent, I would like to make sure that all votes following Vote 1 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have been voted by the House.


Madam Speaker:: Just to get things straight, I have the impression that the votes as numbered by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) correspond exactly to what the House seems to have agreed to do.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as you know, I sent you a note, and the reason I rose the last time was for the same purpose. My understanding of the votes to date is that this evening we voted on the amendment of the New Democratic Party and on the main motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Then we voted on the following votes: vote 40 in the amount of $5,623,000 under Agriculture; vote 1 in the amount of $94,142,000 under Consumer and Corporate Affairs; vote 5 in the amount of $8,871,000 under Ministry of State for Economic Development; vote 1 in the amount of $17,529,000 Energy, Mines and Resources; vote 5 in the amount of $113,944,000 Energy, Mines and Resources; vote 25 in the amount of $262 million, Energy, Mines and Resources; vote 30 in the amount of $245,758,000, Energy, Mines and Resources, and then we voted, for some reason, on vote L40 in the amount of $299,100,000.
I followed it very closely, Madam Speaker, and my understanding to date was that we did not yet vote on vote 30 in the amount of $43,500,000.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right, and that is why I rose to ask the unanimous consent of the House, because the votes that were called also cover Vote 30 in the amount of $43,500,000, Department of External Affairs. If there is no unanimous consent, we shall request a separate vote.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the vote called for No. 6, that is, Vote No. 1, also applying to Vote No. 10, that is, Vote 30, in the amount of $43,500,000, External Affairs? Is there unanimous consent for the vote as recorded for Vote No. 6 to apply to Vote No. 10 as well?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I should like to propose that vote L40 in the amount of $299,100,000 under External Affairs be applied to vote No. 30 as well, in the amount of $43,500,000 under External Affairs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I think the basic difficulty is that the Chair is working from a numbered list that does not appear on the Order Paper. Everything is confused thereafter. I suggest that the Chair call vote No. 5, department such and such, and that that be the only title to a particular vote.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) referred to an enumeration which corresponded to the one I had. That is why I answered him, referring to that enumeration. However, I quite agree that the best way to do it is to call the vote.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is asking unanimous consent for the vote for credit L40 in the amount of $299,100,000 for the Department of External Affairs in the proportions registered by the House to be applied to the vote for credit No. 30 in the amount of $43,500,000, Department of External Affairs. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I have that vote recorded as 144 yeas and 126 nays. Everybody else seems to have come to the conclusion that the vote was not taken. If the House is in such confusion that they want to vote twice on the same motion, we are prepared to vote again.


Mr. Broadbent:: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that at 25 minutes to 12 this group of rational individuals is set to take about two more hours to vote, if we proceed in this way. I should like to make a serious proposal, to which I hope all parties will agree, and that is that we set aside five minutes for the House leaders of the three parties to organize the vote. Instead of taking two more hours, it could be all over in 25 minutes and we could come back fresh and work in a civilized way tomorrow.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, before considering the suggestion by the hon. member, the Leader of the New
June 21, 1982

Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), I wish to say that an attempt was made well before the House started to vote, and our suggestion was turned down. Before considering his request, however, I would like to clear up the confusion about the vote on Vote 30 in the amount of $43,500,000, Department of External Affairs.
The Chair asked for the unanimous consent of the House. We said yes, the New Democratic Party members say yes and the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seems to be saying that if we have to vote twice, we are going to vote twice. Perhaps he could say yes or no and if it is no, we can vote on that particular vote. Let us clear this up once and for all.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party and his supporters may be perfectly willing to dispense in such an easy fashion with the last vestige of any control or order over the expenditures of the House of Commons. We are not. We are bound by the Standing Orders that were altered in 1969, to follow this ridiculous process-and I agree that it is ridiculous. Nonetheless, those were the changes that were forced down our throats at that time by closure by that government. We are not prepared to dispense so easily and cavalierly with this right of control over the public purse, which is the last function that the opposition has-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I cannot allow that to pass. The facts of the matter are that we have already followed a practice not unlike this one in the past, and common sense tells us that where there is the opportunity to expedite the business of the House without forgoing any of the rights of Parliament, then common sense should prevail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: May I ask the House again if the House gives its unanimous consent, as was suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), that the vote as recorded in the proportions recorded for credit L40 in the amount of $299,100,000-that the proportion of the votes recorded be applied to vote 30, External Affairs, in the amount of $43,500,000?


Erik Nielsen: I say again, Madam Speaker, as I said before, that the vote recorded for vote L40 under the Department of External Affairs is 170 yeas and 100 nays. The vote that I have recorded for vote 30 under Department of External Affairs is 144 yeas and 126 nays, so of course we cannot consent.


Yvon Pinard: In the circumstances, Madam Speaker, because of this infantile behaviour and this inability to say a straightforward yes, I request a separate vote on Vote 30 in the amount of $43,500,000.
Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the House leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government may regard Parliament as infantile-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have faced his attempts to bulldoze democracy before. We did not stand down then and-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will not allow the government House leader to treat this Parliament with that contempt.


Madam Speaker:: The confusion comes from the fact that we are not sure that the vote recorded previously applied to Vote No. 30 in the amount of $43,500,000. Therefore, we have simply decided that a vote as recorded previously applied to that one. We have not voted formally on this particular vote. Therefore, there is no problem for the Chair to put it to the House and we will have a separate vote on it.
Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves that Vote 30, in the amount of $43,500,000 under the Department of External Affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Out! Out!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Chair will again put the question to the House, is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some bon. Members: Out!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is everyone settled down?
Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moves that Vote 30, in the amount of $43,500,000-the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I have been trying with very great difficulty, as I am sure have all hon. members and the Chair, to follow these events tonight. But I do rise to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that what you are reading does not conform with the Order Paper of Monday, June 21, page XXII which says:
June 2, 1982-That Vote 30, in the amount of $250,000-
I am wondering, Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We are on page XIX.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, someone says we are only exhibiting our ignorance. I have to say that most of the members, certainly the public, are now long lost, and I would

June 21, 1982
Supply
ask that you make it very clear what vote we are voting on. In the interest of some common sense around here, perhaps Your Honour could relate what you are referring to to the document which most members have in front of them because they do not have the advantage of your list. That is not too much to ask for, Madam Speaker, and I say this in order to help you in a difficult moment.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. It seems to me that the question we are voting on is what is put to the House and what I read to the House. If that, for some reason, does not correspond with the Order Paper-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, now just a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are not going to have that.


Madam Speaker:: What was the hon. member's reference, because this corresponds exactly? We have page 1982 of the Order Paper and Notices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Page XIX.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That is exactly what I have just read to the House.
I think we have our pages straight now. The hon. member
agrees?


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 30, in the amount of $43,500,000 under the Department of External Affairs-Canadian International Development Agency-Operating expenditures and authority, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Vote 30 agreed to.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 never get discouraged. 1 would ask for the concurrence of the House to have the vote that we have just taken recorded similarly for Vote 75 in the amount of $5,284,000 under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Vote 45 in the amount of $110,908,000 under the Department of National Health and Welfare. On the paper I have they would be listed under number 17 and number 21.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we are seeing an attempt at grandstanding, which is quite outside of the Standing Orders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They laugh over there at the right of the opposition to question supply by this process, the only process available to us. Standing Order 58(10) requires the Chair to put every question necessary to dispose of these proceedings forthwith successively without debate or amendment. That is what we should be doing without entertaining grandstanding points of order, propositions and negotiating on the floor of the House. These are the proceedings of supply. It is our last opportunity to oppose estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservative House leader having-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Quiet down and listen for a change, Mr. Clark.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the great respecters of parliamentary tradition to my right would listen, they would obey the rules and let the Speaker recognize the person who has the floor.
I would like to suggest to the Conservatives, having demonstrated their profound understanding of democracy, that perhaps they will give unanimous consent to allow the pages to go home at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Ed.


Madam Speaker:: It might be more difficult to operate without the pages. They are essential to the operation of this House, especially at this late hour. However, if the House agrees, those pages who want to go home, might go home and those who want to stay, can stay and work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is right, of course, that unless the House gives its unanimous consent to other than what is provided for in the Standing Orders each vote should be taken separately. I did ask the House for its consent. Obviously, we do not have unanimous consent to apply certain votes to some of the votes.
I will now proceed.


Mr. Harquail:: Madam Speaker, I plead my own rights with respect to the interventions we have already heard tonight in the event they could be misleading. We are also prepared to vote and we are here to vote. We call also for the protection of our own rights to continue with the vote in accordance with the way it is laid down in the Standing Orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 20, in the amount of $11,094,000 under the Department of Finance-Insurance-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the

June 21, 1982
Supply
fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Vote 20 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE I, DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Donald James Johnston: That Vote I, in the amount of $43,532,000 under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Administration-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 21, 1982


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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 1 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 5, in the amount of $9,094,106 under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Trade-Industrial Program-Metric Commission, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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.

June 21, 1982
Supply


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Vote 5 agreed to.
[ Translation]


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 65, EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 65, in the amount of $58,000,000 under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Export Development Corporation, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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.


June 21, 1982


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Vote 65 agreed to.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest in the interest of the members that perhaps we might consider the vote just taken, which I read to be vote No. 60, to be applied equally to Votes Nos. 18, 20 and 22.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 75, FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 75, in the amount of $5,284,000 under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Foreign Investment Review Agency, in the Main Esti-

June 21, 1982
Supply
mates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Lewycky Loiselle Lumley MacBain MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey MacLaren MacLellan Malepart Maltais


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 75 agreed to.
June 21, 1982

Supply


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10, CANADIAN UNITY INFORMATION CENTRE
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 10, in the amount of $25,073,000 under the Department of Justice-Canadian Unity Information Office, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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.
Messrs.
Gourd	LeBlanc
(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Leduc
Gourde	Lefebvre
(Levis)	Loiselle
Gray	Lumley
Guilbault	MacBain
Harquail	MacEachen
Henderson	MacGuigan
Herbert	Mackasey
Hcrvieux-Payette	MacLaren
(Mrs.)	MacLellan
Hopkins	Malepart
Hudecki	Maltais
Irwin	Marceau
Isabelle	Masse
Johnston	Masters
Joyal	McCauley
Kaplan	McRae
Kelly	Munro
Killens (Mrs.)	(Hamiltor
Lajoie	Nicholson
Lalonde	(Miss)
Lamontagne	Olivier
Landers	Ostiguy
Lang	Ouellet
Laniel	Parent
Lapicrre	Pelletier
Lapointe	Penner
(Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce)	Pepin


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.				NAYS
And more than five members having		risen:		Messrs.
			Althouse	Gilchrist


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bell?			Andre Anguish Baker	Greenaway Gurbin Gustafson
			(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	Beatty Benjamin	Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-MooseThe House divided on the motion (Mr. Johnston), which	Blackburn Blaikie	Mountain) Hamiltonwas agreed to on	the following division.	Blenkarn Bosley	(Swift Current-Maple Creek)Bradley	HargraveBroadbent	HawkesCardiff	HeapCarney (Miss)	HnatyshynClark	Hovdebo{Division No. 219)	(Yellowhead) Clarke	Howie HuntingtonYEAS	(Vancouver Quadra) Coates	Ittinuar JarvisMessrs.	Cook Cooper	Jelinek Jewett (Miss)Corbett	KeeperAllmand	Campbell	Dionne	Crombie	KemplingAppolloni	(LaSalle)	(Northumberland-	Crosbie	Kilgour(Mrs.)	Campbell	Miramichi)	(St. John's West)	KingAxworthy	(Cardigan)	Dubois	Crosby	KorchinskiBachand	Chenier	Duclos	(Halifax West)	KushnerBaker	Chretien	Dupont	Crouse	Lambert(Gander-Twillingate)	Collenette	Dupras	Dantzer	La SalleBeauchamp-N iquet	Comtois	Duquet	Darling	Lawrence(Mrs.)	Corbin	Eroia (Mrs.)	Deans	LewisBegin (Miss)	Corriveau	Ethier	de Jong	LewyckyBerger	Cosgrove	Evans	Dick	MacDonaldBlais	Cdte (Mrs.)	Ferguson	Dinsdale	(Miss)Blaker	Cousineau	Fisher	Domm	MacKayBloomfield	Cullen	Fleming	Ellis	MaloneBockstael	Cyr	Flis	Elzinga	ManlyBossy	Daudlin	Foster	Epp	MayerBreau	Dawson	Fox	Fennell	MazankowskiBujold	De Bane	Francis	Forrestall	McCainBurghardt	de Corneille	Frith	Fraser	McCuishBussieres	Demers	Garant	Fretz	McDermidCaccia	Deniger	Gauthier	Friesen	McGrathCampbell	Dingwall	Gendron	Fulton	McKenzie(Miss)	Dion	Gimalel	Gamble	McKinnon(South West Nova)	Dionne	Gingras	Gass	McKnight(Chicoutimi)	
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-142.
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-125.

June 21, 1982
Supply
Messrs.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Vote 10 agreed to.


Mr. Lachance:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I was in the Elouse during the last roll call, even though the record will show that I did not take part in the vote.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30, ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL AFFAIRS
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 30, in the amount of $250,000 under the Department of Justice for Administration of Federal Judicial Affairs-Canadian Judicial Council, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if we could have an explanation as to which side of his mouth the hon. member for Elamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) was voting from.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Are we right in presuming that the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) should be counted with the nays?


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: More or less!


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Credit 30 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10, HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 10, in the amount of $103,448,000 under the Department of National Health and Welfare-Health and Social Services-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Althouse	Beatty
Andre	Benjamin
Anguish	Blackburn
Baker	Blaikie
(Nepean-Carleton)	Blenkarn
Bosley Bradley Broadbent Cardiff Carney (Miss)

June 21, 1982
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Corbett Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdale Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Gass Gilchrist Greenaway Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Supply
Messrs.
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Ittinuar
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski Kushner Lambert La Salle Lawrence Lewis Lewycky MacDonald (Miss)
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitgcs
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-119.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 10 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 45, MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 45, in the amount of $11,908,000 under the Department of National Health and Welfare-Medical Research Council-Grants, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Vote 45 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1-PROGRAM EXPENDITURES-PRIVY COUNCIL
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 1, in the amount of $28,639,667 under the Privy Council-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: 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.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 21, 1982
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Ittinuar
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski Kushner Lambert La Salle Lawrence
Supply
Messrs.
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath *
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-123.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Vote 1 agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1982-83
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-121, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1983, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-121, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: On division on all of them.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. 1 should like to get clarification on a statement directly from the President of the Treasury Board, that this Appropriation Act contains no legislative enactment, so that we can have quoted, as we were earlier today, that certain practices objected to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre had been approved, allegedly, by an Appropriation Act, giving legislative authority for those particular points. The question is, simply, are there any legislative enactments contained in the language of this bill?
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, February 23, 1982, except those items disposed of earlier this day and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(A)
Donald James Johnston: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, June 1, 1982, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald James Johnston: As I pointed out in the course of the debate on the point of order on Friday, there are no new legislative decisions contained in this bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, reading from page 22 of the bill of schedule A, Privy Council office, Vote 1, Privy Council we read the following:
Program expenditures, including the operation of the Prime Minister's residence; the payment to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a Minister without Portfolio or a Minister of State who does not preside over a ministry of State of a salary equal to the salary paid to Ministers of State-
The question I want to ask at this time concerns the Minister of State no one knows for what. We are not permitted to ask. The provisions of the Financial Administration Act, Section 23, require that upon appointment a minister of state, in order to lawfully hold that position and draw that salary, must have a responsibility allotted to him. This Minister of State-I cannot even name him correctly because we do not know his responsibility-is not so appointed.
Unless that matter is cleared up to our satisfaction-perhaps he has a responsibility by now-Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act certainly clearly sets forth that he must do. I would suggest that the Prime Minister explain what
June 21, 1982

that responsibility now is before we are called upon to vote for this measure. 1 believe, unlike the vote that was just taken a moment ago, there is in our practices a prohibition, or at least an inhibition, applying to members voting on a measure in which they have a pecuniary interest unless they declare that interest. However, I will not press that point. I do press, however, the point of the responsibility, if I could have a reply from the Prime Minister.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: This morning, the Speaker did rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon, and ruled that this item was admissible.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, the member for Yukon is raising a point of parliamentary practice. Both parliamentary practice and Standing Order 58(10) are perfectly clear on the fact that at this stage, there shall be no questions put nor any debate; questions are to be read by the Chair immediately and put to a vote.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the items are at this stage. I am not referring to a point of order raised today. I am referring to a question which surely the Prime Minister is required to explain in response to a civil question put to him. What responsibility does the Minister of State from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking a civil question. I would be happy to deal with it at some other time. However, the rules at this time call for us to vote without debate, and that is what I propose to do.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Schedule A carry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the rare occasions when we have the Prime Minister in committee. Perhaps there is no explanation. Perhaps there are no services performed by the Minister of State from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
This House of Commons has just been put in a situation imposed upon us by closure by a former Liberal government of having to ram through billions of dollars of estimates without adequate debate. We now have a situation where we are asked to approve a particular estimate that pays a ministerial salary to a minister who apparently does nothing at all except perhaps help the Minister of Justice and his various propagandist activities in the province of Quebec.
It is a very legitimate question. If the Prime Minister has something to tell the House-the Prime Minister has just indicated that he has nothing to tell the House. That clearly indicates that the Minister of State has no responsibilities that merit his collection of a substantial ministerial salary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Why, in the name of God, are we paying this man so much money when his own boss does not know what in the world he does?
Supply


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The rules of the House do not provide for debate at this stage. The hon. member has posed his question and, at this stage, as chairman of Committee of the Whole I must put the vote. Is the House ready for the question?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, let me, just to set the record straight, and it is important for us to do it tonight because we have been misled by the opposition, once by the hon. member for Yukon and now by the Leader of the Opposition. The supply rules were adopted unanimously on December 20, 1968, and not by closure. He should know the facts before making such accusations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the architect for the government side in the bells matter has now entered the debate, and since he is apparently answering for his silent Prime Minister who can tell Canadians nothing except that he intends to scare people to death while he is spending millions and millions of Canadian dollars-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The rules of the House provide at this stage that all questions shall be put, and I am quoting, " . . . forthwith successively, without debate or amendment" in accordance with Standing Order 58, subsection 10. With all due respect to the parties involved, the Chair will now put the question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: It is a long-standing practice of this House that members having a pecuniary interest in a matter upon which they vote are obliged to declare that interest. I therefore suggest that the Minister of State, for whatever responsibility he has, if he has one which I do not think he does, should rise in his place and declare whether or not he is minister of state drawing any money attached to that position.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Yukon again raises another point of order. I have to rule that it is quite apparent the capacity in which the hon. member would draw his salary. This does not relate to a personal conflict of interest that is in connection with whatever duties are assigned to him in the House of Commons.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are they? There are none.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Again, I am referring to the rules of the House. The rules provide that at this stage questions shall be put forthwith successively without debate. I am therefore calling for the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Take the vote.

June 21, 1982
Supply


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we are not rubber stamps.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We refuse to be rubber stamps.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With all due respect to the hon. member, we have Standing Order 58 which provides for votes to be called at a certain stage. I have recognized a number of members who have raised points or order and who have put questions to the government. At this stage I will ask those in favour of Schedule A to please rise.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Order. Learn your business.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The Chair is asking for yeas and nays on Schedule A.


Erik Nielsen: No one has asked for yeas and nays.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: Those fascists over there.


Erik Nielsen: We are entitled, Mr. Chairman, to allow the-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On Schedule A, those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those in favour will please rise.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order. I rise on a point of order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Order! Order!


Erik Nielsen: I want to be heard on a point of order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Thief, thief, thief!
And the members of the Official Opposition having left the chamber:


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All those in favour will please rise.
All those opposed will please rise.
Schedule A agreed to: yeas, 136; nays 24.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: When shall Schedule B carry?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those in favour of Schedule B will please rise.
Those opposed will please rise.
Schedule B agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald James Johnston: that the bill be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: On division?


Ian Deans: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They want a vote.


An hon. Member:: Ring the bells.


Ian Deans: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense with the bells.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House that the bells be dispensed with in calling this vote.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to dispensing with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 21, 1982


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being nearly two o'clock in the morning, this House stands adjourned-


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in a few days it will be the first of July, and the first of July is Canada Day as we all know. Since this evening we seem to have cleared the air in this House and a more parliamentary spirit seems to prevail, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House for proceeding quickly with all stages of the bill to make the first of July Canada Day.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the official opposition, I do not think that would be an appropriate move this evening.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. It being nearly two o'clock in the morning, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 1.54 a.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 22, 1982