1982-11-15

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   MEDICAL CARE CALL FOR RE-OPENING OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS

['No.']
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Inasmuch as negotiations on the content of the proposed Canada Health Act between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the provincial Ministers of Health have broken down, and the Minister is now going to recommend unilateral action to the Cabinet, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the spirit of co-operative federalism, to re-open negotiations with the provincial Ministers of Health on the subject of the Canada Health Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 deals with a most serious accusation of alleged irregularities within the Canadian Dairy Commission which has prompted an inquiry by the RCMP. The CDC currently has liabilities of $287.7 million from a drawing account of $300 million, and it annually collects millions in special levies against dairy producers. In view of this RCMP investigation and of the appearance, as witnesses, of senior officials of CDC before the Public Accounts Committee, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That, until the Canadian Dairy Commission is out from under the dark cloud hovering over it, direction of its day-to-day operations be removed from the Minister, and its Chairman, and placed under trusteeship to protect the huge
financial investment of the federal Government and the Financial contributions of dairy producers across Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE PRESS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned on the weekend of the death of two distinguished parliamentary journalists-

-Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin of the CBC French network, who is mourned by all his colleagues-

-and Mr. Steve Scott, a long-time reporter with the Canadian Press. I therefor move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House pay tribute to the services rendered by Monsieur Poliquin and Mr. Scott.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to pay this tribute?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE LAW OF THE SEA
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada will be sending a high level delegation of Government officials to an exclusive resort in Montego Bay, Jamaica, between December 6 and December 10, where they will sign the Law of the Sea Convention on behalf of Canada, and whereas the Treaty should properly be signed at the United Nations, were it not for the fact that the United States and several other nations have refused to sign the Accord because it establishes a world socialist regime to control sea-bed mining, and given that Canada's position on the Law of the Sea has never been fully debated in the Parliament of Canada, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
20638

November 15, 1982
That, upon the Prime Minister's return from Russia, he immediately cancel the plan to send a delegation of Canadian bureaucrats to a luxurious resort in Jamaica to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty, and that Canada hereby reserves its support for the Treaty until Members of Parliament have had an opportunity to debate thoroughly the implications of the proposed new sea-bed authority in this House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Atlantic Container Service has terminated its marine container service from the Mainland to Corner Brook and the West Coast of Newfoundland as of November 5 because it cannot compete with the heavily subsidized CN rail service, thereby leaving the West Coast of Newfoundland with only one mode of transportation; and in view of the fact that Atlantic Container Service requested the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), by letter of October 4, to grant special emergency assistance and there has been no response; and in view of the fact that the City Council of Corner Brook and other organizations have sought assistance but have received no clarification on the status of the service, or any information from the Minister, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Transport meet his responsibilities for the provision of adequate transportation services to and from Newfoundland by acting immediately to deal with the requests of Atlantic Container Service and the City Council of Corner Brook, rather than continuing simply to ignore all requests for action or information, and that the Minister report to the House of Commons by November 17 as to what action he has taken or what solutions he has put forward.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas CNR and CPR employees have been rebated a medical allowance since their 1971 collective agreement because the Manitoba Government provides universal medical coverage, and considering that both CN and CP have cancelled this rebate as a result of
the Manitoba Government's decision to impose a 1.5 per cent levy for health and post-secondary education in the form of a payroll tax, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Minister of Transport request that CN and CP return to their workers the cancelled rebates which amount to some SI.5 million at this time, which they have taken out of the pockets of their own employees.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the attention of all Members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there has been a public outcry in Toronto by the Federation of Metro Tenants Association, Toronto City Council, and by thousands of affected constituents in my riding of Parkdale-High Park against the foreign takeover of Cadillac Fairview apartments which had been initially, supposedly, sold to Greymac Credit Corporation, then to Kilderkin Investments Limited, and fearing that this takeover by some 60 Saudi Arabian investors could lead to outrageously excessive rent increases beyond the 6 per cent guidelines, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That FIR A not allow the transaction to take place until a complete investigation is carried out by FIR A, or by a special task force involving the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, given the fact that Nordair has faced a work stoppage for more than four months, severely disrupting passenger traffic and the economies of many cities on Nordair's routes west of Montreal, and since there appears to be deliberate stalling by Nordair and the Government of Canada on resolving this costly dispute, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
November 15, 1982

That the Minister of Transport make a full statement to this House on the Government's policy of negotiation by starvation in this strike, and admit that his Department has absolutely no intention of getting Nordair's planes back in the skies until the company's employees submit to a merger between Quebecair and Nordair.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That, in the absence of Canadian reporters in Moscow, the CBC provide the Prime Minister with free time immediately upon his return from the funeral of Leonid Brezhnev to brief the nation on the results of his discussion with Mr. Andropov, and in particular about the plans of the former Chief of the KGB in such matters as disarmament and protection of human rights.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the withdrawal of educational assistance to off-reserve elementary and secondary school students of treaty Indian status by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is clearly most retrogressive and is bound to discourage many treaty Indian children from pursuing their education. Whereas it is clearly the responsibility and duty of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to encourage Indian children to pursue their education, I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be directed by this House to exercise his responsibilities and use his ministerial powers to restore educational assistance immediately to off-reserve elementary and secondary school students.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions VIA RAIL


DEMAND FOR RESTORATION OF CANCELLED SERVICES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that today is the first anniversary of the Minister of Transport's Via Rail passenger cutbacks which he predicted would save $100 million annually, and whereas the Supplementary Estimates contain a $134 million increase in subsidy because the cancellations included two of the most popular trains in Canada, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the Minister of Transport restore the train services he abandoned one year ago and apologize to the taxpayers for his $134 million mistake.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, on November 5, five young native children died in a house fire on the Deadman's Creek Reserve near Kamloops, B.C. In addition, two children, both under ten years of age, are now in the burn unit of Vancouver General Hospital as a result of this tragic incident. In light of these most recent deaths, and in view of a death by fire rate that far exceeds the national level, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Government immediately initiate a region by region study of native fire related deaths with a view towards eliminating the conditions that resulted in this most recent tragedy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to

November 15, 1982
Oral Questions
the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Royal Commission that has been established by the Prime Minister in connection with Canada's economic union and future economic course. In the press release issued by the Prime Minister to announce this Royal Commission, he said that the terms of reference of the Commission are "perhaps the most important and far-reaching that have ever been assigned to any commission" in this country. We have been awaiting the announcement of the composition of this Commission, which was to come within ten days of the announcement of the appointment of the Commission itself on November 5.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he is now in a position to tell who the other members of this Commission are, or has he not been advised of this? Has he not received any word from Senator Keith Davey or Jim Coutts on who will be the other members of this Commission?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, consultations are practically completed. The announcement should be made soon, but certainly not before the return of the Prime Minister, since the Commission itself, appointed by the Cabinet of Canada, is appointed upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Having spent some days in his constituency during the past short recess, Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that one of the major concerns about the Commission is the question of credibility. It is perceived to be a partisan, political Commission headed by a man who seeks the Liberal leadership.


CHAIRMAN'S DIRECTORSHIPS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the terms of reference provide that the Commission will look into the appropriate national goals and policies for economic development of our country. Mr. Macdonald is a director of a number of multinational corporations and large Canadian corporations which include Boise Cascade Corp. Ltd., McDonnell Douglas Corp. Ltd., the Bank of Nova Scotia, and other corporations. In order that there will be no perception of conflict of interest in the carrying out of his responsibilities, will the Minister of Finance obtain from Mr. Macdonald his undertaking to resign from these corporate boards, in order for him to be perceived as being independent in his assessments?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I hope when the names of the Commissioners are announced and the Hon. Member sees a few well-known Canadians with strong Conservative affiliations that he will not conclude they have immediate leadership ambitions in the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I can assure him that the Hon. Member for St. John's West is not on that list, however.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's a relief!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question itself is concerned, surely my friend should rejoice over the fact that we have a man to head this Commission who has extensive experience, not only in public administration but also one with a good knowledge of the private sector of the Canadian economy. As far as the directorships are concerned, I will certainly raise the issue with the Prime Minister when he returns so that he can raise it with Mr. Macdonald.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unlike the Hon. Minister of Finance, we on this side of the House are not desperate for new leadership in our Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberals can take this matter as humorous, the economic future of the country, but it is most serious.


PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, there were reports over the weekend on the 40 per cent increase in bankruptcies in the country and unprecedented unemployment, with more people on the dole this winter season than ever before in the history of Canada. To use a well-known Conservative statement, the people of Canada do not want to wait for spring; they want to do it now, and they want the Government to do it now.
Will any of the results or recommendations of the Commission be available to the Government before the end of the term of inquiry, that is, three years, because it is apparent to me that the Government is completely bankrupt of any new ideas in terms of economic direction?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I never said that the Conservatives were desperate about their leadership. I only implied that they were terribly scared, and from listening to the Hon. Member this is what I would have to conclude.
I want to tell him that the Royal Commission itself will examine the immediate and long-term prospects of the Canadian economic union. The Government is not waiting for the report of that Commission before taking action to deal with the very serious recession we are experiencing at the present time. The Commission is no substitute for decisions which will have an immediate impact.
I announced a number of decisions in my economic statement of October 27, and subsequently the Minister of Employment and Immigration arrived at agreements with the provinces whereby the provinces will add certainly well over $100 million to the $500 million we are putting into direct job creation. The Hon. Member also knows about the $1.5 billion
November 15, 1982

of direct and indirect job creation which we have in operation at the present time.
The Government is taking appropriate steps; there will be more steps taken in the months to come. The Royal Commission will examine the future of Canada in terms of the economic union and of the future prosperity of the country over the next two decades.


TERMS OF CHAIRMAN'S APPOINTMENT
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In accepting the chairmanship of the Commission, Donald Macdonald specifically stated that, with the Government's agreement, the option was open to him to resign and run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. In that event, my question is twofold. First, if this is the most important and far reaching Commission in the history of the country, do the people of Canada not have the right to expect that its Chairman will stay and finish the job? Second, how can the Chairman be properly critical of present and past government policies when such criticism would erode confidence in the party which he hopes to lead, and irritate delegates he hopes to attract?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the Hon. Member that I was not aware of any decision to the effect that Mr. Macdonald would not conclude the work of the Commission. I hope this Commission will work speedily and effectively and bring forward a report that will be of benefit to the whole of Canada.
Second, this Commission is not going to spend its time examining the last 50 years. I hope it will spend its time examining the next 20 to 30 years, that it will provide Canada with the framework and plans for action that will be of benefit to the whole of Canada-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Self-sufficiency by 2020-


Marc Lalonde: -and that will bring about a better economic union in this country and better prosperity for all Canadians.


QUERY RESPECTING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance who indicated in a previous answer that he seems to know who the members of this Commission are going to be. I ask the Minister whether or not Ian Stewart is going to be a member of this Commission?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am not in a position to tell the Hon. Member what the exact composition of the Commission will be.


Mr. Nielsen:: Just answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: As I indicated, the Prime Minister will make recommendations to Cabinet on his return after the consultations have been concluded.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister is no doubt aware that, through a series of transactions during the course of the last week, some hundreds of millions of dollars changed hands in Toronto. The end result is that approximately 10 per cent of the rental units available in that city are now owned, or will shortly be owned, by Saudi Arabian investors.
It is very difficult to see what significant benefit will flow to Canada from this takeover. I have looked at all of the criteria set out under FIRA, and I cannot find a single criterion under which this particular transaction will provide a benefit and therefore qualify. Will the Minister order that this transaction be stopped until such time as FIRA has an opportunity to review it?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1
agree with the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, if the allegations are proved to be correct, as reported in the media this past week, with respect to this transaction or series of transactions. I can tell the Hon. Member at this time that my officials are looking into the situation to see if this case can be reviewed under FIRA.


JURISDICTION OF AGENCY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that the transaction is the takeover of a business operating in Canada that provides not only a profit for those who own the shares but also accommodation for tens of thousands of Canadians, many of whom cannot afford to absorb the cost that will be passed through to them as a result of this transaction. What possible question could there be as to whether or not this transaction falls under the terms that caused FIRA to be set up to protect Canadians from unfair takeovers of Canadian industry?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, counsel for some of the participants in the transaction advised us that this transaction was not reviewable under the Act. Consequently, the Minister, under Section 8 of the Act, as I recall, has the power to have the case reviewed if he finds reasonable and probable grounds to have it reviewed. This is a very complex situation and that is why our officials are taking the time, together with officials of the Department of Justice, to look into the situation.

November 15, 1982
OraI Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HALT TAKEOVER
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I go back to the Minister again because it is clear, on the face of it, that there will be significant numbers of Canadians who will be asked to absorb what is now quite clearly an inflated price, the result of some backroom shenanigans undertaken by persons who have for years represented the Tory Party in Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Jewett:: That is why they are not asking any questions.


Ian Deans: Quite pointedly, in order to assure that those tenants will not be forced to carry that burden, and in order to assure that this kind of thing will not be allowed to happen in other centres in Canada-in Vancouver, in Hamilton, in Montreal and in Ottawa-will the Minister step in and say that this transaction cannot be completed until he has reviewed it? And, upon review, if the facts are borne out as they are presented today, will the Minister stop it?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, if there has been a circumvention of the Ontario Rent Review Act, that is obviously under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario, not the Government of Canada. If there is reasonable and probable grounds to have this case reviewed, I will take every step that 1 can under the law to review it.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. On November 2 he condemned outright a list of ethnic groups and leaders that was drawn up by the Government of Quebec. He said flatly that the Government of Canada would not engage in such activity. My question, however, arises from a 1974 document called "A Revised Handbook of Selected Ethnic Organizations in Canada", of which I understand the Minister is aware. It contains profiles of a number of ethnic organizations in Canada and, in some cases, it mentions ethnic leaders. In many cases the descriptions are very unflattering, accusing them of being neo-Nazi, of being communist, of being racist, of being extremist, and so on.
Why was this document drawn up? Why was it strictly confidential? For what purpose was it used? Will the minister undertake to have this document released so that groups and individuals who were profiled in it will see how they are viewed by the Government of Canada and will have a chance to respond to the very serious allegations that are made in it?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, as I said at the time I was questioned by, I believe, the Hon. Member for Saint Denis, I had checked with my officials. There was no comparable list to the list put out by the Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs. That list gave political affiliation in domestic terms, political biases or slants. In some cases it listed criminal backgrounds or activities.
A newsman and a newswoman came to me in the past seven days and brought to my attention a book which was last produced in 1974, that listed organizations, the purpose of the organizations, and a definition of the political goals in the sense of old country politics. The officials who lead my directorate, and I, have been unaware of the book. It has not been in circulation or used, to the best of my knowledge or their knowledge, since 1974. I can hardly answer questions by the Hon. Member on why it was done at that time, except, that upon asking my officials if they could recall-because they did not know of the existence of the book-the explanation given was that, as the multiculturalism directorate focused with the Minister of State, it was important, when people or organizations came forward for funding, to know what the goals of those organizations were. Incidentally, I have ordered the book destroyed although it was quite different from the list prepared in Quebec, as I tried to point out earlier, and my previous answer is quite consistent with my answer today.


DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBOOK
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, included on this limited distribution list, with 52 numbered copies, was the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. I might add as well that individuals are mentioned, such as Mr. Andreas Papandreou, who is the present Prime Minister of Greece and who is described as being the head of an extreme left world-wide political movement. He was in Toronto. The domestic activities of these groups were profiled in these profiles as well. Therefore, the Minister has misinformed the House.
With respect to the distribution list of some 52 numbered copies, why were the Prime Minister's office, the Privy Council office, the I Directorate of the RCMP, which is part of the security wing of the RCMP, the Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Eastern European Division of the Department of External Affairs, and the Deputy Solicitor General, included? What use was made of this list?
Did the Minister not even go to the trouble, when he saw that distribution list, to inquire what purpose it was used for and how entitlements to individuals or organizations could be affected, whether it has affected people's rights to enter into Canada, whether it has affected their employment in the Public Service, and whether it has affected funding of these organizations as a result of the very extreme statements that are made in some cases?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is quite irresponsible in suggesting that there were any judgments on
November 15, 1982

individual personalities in the Canadian political context. It was an identification of political activities in the sense of old country politics, right wing, left wing, and what the source or goal was, if there was a political goal, in the sense of old country politics.
I can hardly answer the questions which the Hon. Member asks since that was clearly seven or eight years before I became Minister. It has not been in circulation. That is the assurance which has been given to me by all of the officials in the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch. I did originally seek the assurance of the Solicitor General that no such lists were in use by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police based on ethnicity and political affiliation in Canadian terms, and I was given that assurance.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the ongoing search for the elusive Western Development Fund. In last November's 1981 budget the Minister of Finance told the House that there was $345 million of the Western Development Fund allocated for native housing and economic development. We heard in the June budget that $85 million of this had been deferred. Could the Minister tell us what is occurring with the remaining $260 million if, in fact, this money is still earmarked for Indian housing and development? When can we expect distribution of these funds?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the last announcement was with respect to the Native Economic Development Fund remaining the same, at $343 million, but spread over a longer period of time. The Government commitment for the remaining part of this fiscal year is still in place. When the system has been put in place for its delivery it will be announced in the House.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could he tell us who is in charge of this fund at the present time? We hear from the other place that it is the Prime Minister. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister would be in charge of a fund for native housing and economic development.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, there are several ministries involved. For instance, my own Department is involved because of the responsibility for status Indians. There is the Secretary of State's Department, it being responsible for non-status and
Oral Questions
Metis people, in the sense that it deals with them as opposed to my Department. There is a business component to this. So there are several Departments involved. That is why the Prime Minister's Office is involved, simply from the point of view of allocating the responsibility either singularly to one Department or to joint departmental responsibility.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport. According to the "Court Circular" published in The Times of London on November 10, Mr. Michael Pitfield, Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada, has been received by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain. It would appear that Her Majesty has invested Mr. Pitfield with the Insignia of a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.
Does the acceptance of this award by the Clerk of the Privy Council mean that the Government of Canada has changed the rules prohibiting Canadian citizens from accepting titles from foreign countries; did the Prime Minister and/or the Government give permission to Mr. Pitfield to accept this award from the Queen of Great Britain and, if so, what was the rationale used by the Government to justify this exceptional decision?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Secretary of the Privy Council would not violate a law. I do not think that he would violate a convention either. Therefore, in this instance, this is either one of those honours that Canadians are not excluded from receiving, or he has received proper authorization to accept it.


Mr. Clark:: From whom?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will find out from the Prime Minister as soon as he comes back. I am sure that he will deliver a full answer to this question, if asked on Wednesday.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. According to a press report this morning, the Minister is working on a high technology strategy. In view of the fact that our research and development in Canada is among the lowest in developed countries and that we have serious unemployment problems, what specific advanced technology strategy is the Government proposing to increase

November 15, 1982
Oral Questions
our research and development in Canada to at least the level of other industrialized countries?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, it is true that my colleagues and I are working on a technology strategy for Canada. We have been doing so for some time and we will continue to do so. When recommendations are brought forth and adopted by Cabinet, announcements will then be made at that time.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that industrial R and D increased by 26 per cent in 1982. I would hope that our strategy will be able to build and reinforce that success.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Surely the Minister can give us some idea of when we can have that report made public, because of the tremendous unemployment and the need for some kind of strategy for where we are heading.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP, CONTENT AND CONTROL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question arises from the fact that many of the key sectors of our economy are foreign owned and there is very little product innovation in these areas. Can the Minister answer a specific question as to what strategy the Government is planning in terms of increasing Canadian ownership and content and control in the advanced technology area? How does he reconcile this with the Government's recent retreat on FIRA?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any retreat from FIRA. Perhaps that question might more appropriately be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As I mentioned a moment ago, we are working on a high technology strategy. Clearly, the Government has been very committed to a policy in this domain for many years. We are building upon the successes of the past. I have no announcements to make specifically today until my colleagues accept the recommendations that we will be bringing forward. An appropriate announcement will be made then.


EMPLOYMENT
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He is in danger of creating a situation where we have potential jobs but no money to fund them and, on the other hand, he has job creation funds but no jobs in place. We are in the ridiculous position of having to lay off workers in some cases in order to hire other people. For instance, in my riding of Vancouver Centre I have $3 million worth of job
applications under the Canadian Community Development Program and only $200,000 in available funds. At the same time the regional office will be receiving millions of dollars of job creation funds, but no qualifying job applications to fund. The suggestion I have made to the Minister is that if he is really concerned about having jobs funded immediately, why does he not fund more of the Canada Community Development Program job applications which we have on hand, rather than wait two or three months until we have new make-work programs in place.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in trying to follow the somewhat tortuous syntax of the Hon. Member, I think she is saying that she believes, job applications which have come under the Canada Community Development Program might be eligible for funding under NEED. Certainly, if a community has developed a useful project, then such projects are eligible for funding under the NEED Program. They can be entertained under that particular Program, provided they meet the criteria that we set forth.
However, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that, in addition to the money whichg has been allocated at the constituency level in a variety of areas across Canada, including the City of Vancouver, a special allotment has also been set aside for CCDP under the special response features. I believe $2 million has been allocated in the case of Vancouver. She would be working with other Members of Parliament in the area to determine an allocation. Therefore, additional money is being directed under that Program between now and Christmas which will help to deal with some of the additional applications she has received.


Pat Carney: If my syntax is tortuous, it is because it is his Department which has brought in the CCDP program, the SRF program, the Special Response Program, the needy NEED Program, and all these fancy acronyms. What we want is money for jobs that people can work at now, not money for jobs that they can work at in the spring, and I am sorry that the Minister is unable to respond to that reality.


LOCAL ADVISORY BOARDS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with local advisory boards. In this last program, the Minister has abandoned the concept of local advisory boards helping to sort out some of these applications. The advantage to every M.P. in having the power to set up local advisory boards would be that they could draw on all the resources of their commuinities. Therefore, at a time when we must stretch every dollar until it squeaks, why has the Minister abandoned the use of local advisory boards which are important community resources?
November 15, 1982


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member both recognizes and applauds the various job creation efforts we have undertaken. The question that she raises, however, is why we did not have local advisory boards. That was purely the option of local Members of Parliament. If they wanted to establish local advisory boards to give them advice on job creation efforts, it was within their power to do so. However, what we did say was that we would not pay the extra costs because, frankly, we wanted to put that money toward creating jobs, to help people, which is what we have done.


HOUSING
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed toward the Minister of Public Works, who is also responsible for housing. The question pertains to the takeover by Saudi Arabian interests of some 11,000 rental housing units in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a matter which has been occurring for the last number of weeks, and there is indeed great danger of there being other such examples. Can the Minister tell us what consideration he has given to the matter and whether or not he is willing to make some intervention to protect the interests of tenants in Metropolitan Toronto?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, obviously I would not try to pre-empt the very important and key role of the provincial government in this issue. On the other hand, I recognize that there is a very serious potential for disruption of rental patterns there and in other parts of the country, if this example is followed. For this reason 1 have asked officials of CMHC to consider the matter immediately, including the involvement of the Corporation, if any. My preliminary information is that it is a very limited involvement and would appear to be in the field of limited dividend projects, and very limited. The rest of the information concerns how the Corporation sees this and what advice it would give me. I hope to have information from the Corporation very soon. I recognize this as a potentially serious problem.


FUNDING FOR CO-OP HOUSING
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister understands that one of the reasons we are being taken over by foreign interests and, indeed, why there is a continuing problem, is because the vacancy rate is about .41 per cent in Metropolitan Toronto. Therefore it makes us sitting ducks for takeover. Surely one of the responsibilities of the federal Government is to create an investment environment for housing which would allow us to ease the vacancy rate. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, is he willing to provide more financial opportunity for
Oral Questions
the construction of co-op housing? Second, will he meet with the provincial minister, concerning that matter and other housing matters, in order to deal with the problem on a long term basis, so that we will not be running into it again?


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I recognize that Toronto has one of the tight markets in the country, although a look at the arithmetic indicates that in the rental unit plans which were granted over the last year, Toronto has fared quite well. That having been said, however,
I recognize the difficulty and I hope to meet with the Ontario Minister of Housing very soon.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development a question arising out of the matter which he addressed just a few moments ago with respect to high technology. A newspaper report indicates that one federal official has characterized the documents as containing nothing terribly new, in that they do not incorporate measures to promote venture capital, export marketing and corporate structures, which, if such is the case, indicates that there is nothing new in the proposals, at least those seen by the journalist. Would the Minister indicate what his proposals do contain, in broad terms, aside from the usual method of throwing money at the problem, and whether or not those three items which 1 have mentioned are included for discussion with his Cabinet colleagues?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will not comment upon a leaked document. I may have seen the specific document, but I am not aware of which specific document the journalist may or may not have been perusing. There are a number of documents in the system with respect to high technology, obviously, arising from many sources. The proposals which I will bring forward to my Cabinet colleagues have not yet reached the Cabinet. After they have been brought forward and after they have been discussed, and if they are adopted, then appropriate announcements will be made by Ministers responsible.


REQUEST THAT DISCUSSION PAPER BE TABLED
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Minister obviously does not know the answer today, but would he check to see whether, among any of the documents to which he is referring, there is a discussion paper, in the full meaning of that term? If there is, would he see that that document is tabled in the House of Commons in accordance with the freedom of information legislation which his Government has so recently embraced?

November 15, 1982
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any discussion papers which are to be tabled in the House of Commons before they are considered by Cabinet. I migth say that I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member representing Nepean-Carleton, because it is clear that Ottawa is one of the areas which has benefited greatly from the technological strategy of the Government in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: As I mentioned a short time ago, the strategy that we intend to bring forward will build upon and reinforce the kind of success which Ottawa itself has enjoyed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As of last week there has been a complete breakdown in negotiations with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over federal moneys voted for the unregistered Indians of that province. Considering that all band services and programs for the Micmacs of Conne River have now been cut off, can the Minister tell the House how he plans to fulfil his earlier commitment that, if necessary, he would take unilateral action to ensure that the Conne River Indians have the necessary funding?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that I did meet with the Indian leaders from Conne River approximately a week ago. I indicated to them that I could go through with an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland. The terms of the agreement would be such that the money due to them, or a good deal of it, would start to flow as stipulated under the agreement. They quite clearly indicated that the terms of the agreement as insisted upon by the Province of Newfoundland were not satisfactory to them. They were in contravention of the understanding reached between the federal Government and the Province and were prejudicial to the Indian communities, and they would not accept the money under those circumstances. I therefore do not see any point in pursuing that avenue any further and, as a result, I am going to my Cabinet colleagues for a determination on what further course to take. Of course the other option, if we do not flow the money through that agreement, is by doing it unilaterally, as the Hon. Member suggests.


REGISTRATION OF CONNE RIVER BAND
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, this problem has been dragging on for several months and the people of the Conne River Band are in desperate straits. In view of the continuing difficulties with the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, involving the transfer of these funds, is the Minister now prepared to proceed with registration of the Conne River Band so that funds can be provided directly to them as they are to other Indian people across the country?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, that aspect of the matter, as the Hon. Member may be aware, is before the courts and of course, therefore, I am precluded from commenting on it.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister will know that there is an investigation by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission into the firm known as Canadian Javelin Limited, a federally-incorporated company, and into the activities of John C. Doyle who is the dominant shareholder in that company, and who has had control of it for some 20 to 25 years.
Would the Minister explain to the House why he has directed the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to send a commission to take evidence in Panama from Mr. John C. Doyle in connection with their investigation, when Mr. John C. Doyle refuses to come to Ottawa to give testimony to the inquiry: and particularly in view of the fact that he is a fugitive from justice in Canada who is on bail, charged with very serious offences in Newfoundland in 1972, in connection with federal laws? He left the country after putting up bail, and refused to return. He is also a fugitive from justice in the United States. Why is the Minister giving this fugitive from justice these kinds of facilities to give his evidence to a Canadian agency, when he should be required to come to Ottawa to give evidence, the same as everyone else?
[ Translation]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member should need such a long preamble for a single question, namely, whether or not there is going to be a rogatory commission in Panama. The rest is merely the Hon. Member's own interpretation and personal opinion. I can inform the House that, at the request of Mr. Balestreri, whose conduct is being investigated by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, this gentleman's lawyers have asked for a rogatory commission, alleging that Mr. Doyle's refusal to come to Canada would deprive Mr. Balestreri of a full and complete defence and that he had reason to believe that if there were a rogatory commission in Panama, Mr. Doyle would agree to be

November 15, 1982

questioned by the commission and would testify in Panama. Thus, the Department of Justice decided that in order to protect Mr. Balestreri's right to a full and complete defence, a rogatory commission could take evidence in Panama.


REASONS FOR SENDING COMMISSION TO PANAMA
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, 1 want to remind the Minister that there are no charges and there is no trial. There is an investigation by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission into the affairs of Canadian Javelin Limited, not of Mr. Balestreri nor of Mr. John C. Doyle, nor anyone else.
My question to the Minister is this. Why is this special arrangement and facility being given to Mr. John Christopher Doyle, who refuses to come to this country? No law bars him from entering this country, but, if he returns to this country, he will have to face trial on serious fraud charges in connection with that company.
Why then is the Minister going out of his way by an act of discretion to order the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to send people to Panama to take his evidence, when that gentleman should be coming to Canada to give his evidence, if he has evidence to give? He is not the accused; there is no trial; there is an investigation ordered by the Minister's predecessor. Why is he taking this unusual step to facilitate a fugitive from justice in Canada?
[ Translation]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): I think the Hon. Member may not have understood my answer. I will repeat it, and I hope this time he will understand.
We did not authorize this procedure for the benefit of Mr. Doyle, since it has nothing to do with his status. We are responding in the affirmative to a request submitted by Mr. Balestreri's lawyers, and the decision was made after consultation with representatives of the Department of Justice, to find out whether it was customary to authorize a rogatory commission in these circumstances. Now, of course, the question is whether or not there will be a rogatory commission, and the Hon. Member is asking a hypothetical question, since in any case, it is not certain that a rogatory commission will sit in Panama.
* *
*


FINANCE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who has very properly seen fit to do away with many of the ill-conceived tax changes that were brought in by his predecessor in the budget of November 12 last year. He has corrected a
Oral Questions
number of them, but he has not gone far enough. 1 would ask the magnanimous Minister if he would take another step in that direction and withdraw the regressive and unfair tax that his misguided colleague imposed on whole life insurance which is used for investment purposes.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have had meetings, as a matter of fact this morning, with the Life Insurance Association. My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has had extensive discussions with representatives of the insurance industry. I have indicated that I intend to table a draft bill sometime in December, which I hope will be the subject of discussion. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity then to examine what conclusions I will have reached on the numerous points having to do with the taxation of insurance policies.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Minister has done a very nice job of dancing around the subject, but he has not answered my question. What I would like to know is whether or not he will withdraw this regressive tax. Surely he realizes that it hurts people; surely he realizes that it prevents them from planning for their retirement years.
I ask him this question. Does he not realize that what this tax measure does is make people more, not less, dependent on government in their retirement years?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I heard every word of the Hon. Member's comments and her recommendations in support of her point of view. I informed her that the matter was now being examined within my department and with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance. As soon as my conclusions have been finalized, I shall be glad to address these to the Hon. Member and to her colleagues in the House, when I introduce draft legislation for consideration. However, I may remind the Hon. Member that our taxation system cannot afford to provide exclusive privileges for certain financial or savings instruments, which is the issue I am examining at the present time, and I soon hope to conclude consideration of this matter.
* *
*


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in order to remove the studies and conclusions of the Royal Commission on the Economy from Fantasyland and the Land of the Never-never, particularly in view of the serious economic situation confronting the country, including the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, can the Government accelerate the reporting date of the Commission from its present three-year period to 18 months, so that the report will address itself to conclusions that will have some relevance to the economic

November 15, 1982
Petitions
situation that confronts us today, and in the solution of current problems?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Commission has indicated that he hoped to have the report concluded well within the mandate. As a matter of fact I think I read somewhere he indicated he hoped to have the report ready within two years, so that is pretty close to the figure mentioned by the Hon. Member.
I want to point out that the Government is not going to wait for the report of the Commission to take steps. We have already taken steps on October 27 and we will continue to take steps to attack the present situation that we are facing. The Commission, as I indicated, is going to study the medium and long-term problems that the country is facing in the economic field.
In the meantime we have indicated that the Government is ready to assume the leadership required in the current difficult circumstances, and will continue to do so in the months to come.


POSSIBLE FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, at least can the Government assure us that this Commission of doubtful usefulness will be appointed before Christmas? If it is appointed before Christmas, can the Government say whether the Chairman, Mr. MacDonald, will be convening a conference of the First Ministers, which has so long been refused by this Government, to discuss the financial problems of the country?


Marc Lalonde: I indicated, surely, that the full membership of the Commission would be known soon, well before Christmas. As far as a conference of First Ministers is concerned, obviously, it would be a matter for the Prime Minister to call, not for the Chairman of the Royal Commission, even if it is "Royal".


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, November 10, 1982 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, with your permission, on behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to rise on a point of order to place on record our feelings at the news of the death over the weekend of the former Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, the Hon. Hugues Lapointe.

I am very proud, and I trust the House will allow me a few minutes, to pay tribute to a man who served his country with great distinction in a number of impressive functions. His military career, like that of thousands of other Canadians-he served overseas with the Chaudiere Regiment-was a symbol of the great respect he had for traditional values, and he was driven by the will to defend the rights and freedoms Canadians have acquired in the course of our short but eventful history. As a young man, he saw politics as a challenge and never hesitated to defend his ideals. He was a worthy representative of all Canadians and was proud to represent his fellow Canadians from Quebec. In his riding of Lotbiniere, he was both respected and loved for his innate understanding of the democratic way of doing things and for his readiness to share in the joys and sorrows, the successes and disappointments of others. He served with valor as a soldier and with integrity as an elected representative. He was a competent minister and a Canadian in every sense of the word, at all times.
We shall remember him as we remember so many other Canadians who never lost confidence in the future of this great country and thought it worthwhile to defend it in every way.

To his family and friends, on behalf of all Quebecers and all Canadians, I extend the heartfelt wishes of this House. Hugues Lapointe will be greatly missed.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Official Opposition,
I wish to join the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Government in offering my sincerest condolences to the wife and family of Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. Hughes Lapointe was a great Canadian and a distinguished Quebecer. He started his impressive political career when he was first elected in the riding of Lotbiniere. Later he was appointed Solicitor General, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Postmaster General under Prime Minister St-Laurent. His participation in federal politics came to an end when he was defeated in 1957, but after leaving the federal scene, in 1966 he was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec a position he occupied for an unprecedented twelve years. His reputation as
November 15, 1982

a man who has served his country with distinction is an honour to his family and to his native province.
Our sincerest sympathy goes out to his wife, his family and his friends.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may 1 say that those of us formerly of the CCF, and more recently of the NDP, are also happy to join in the tribute to our friend on this occasion. I happened to have the privilege of knowing Hugues Lapointe when he first came to Parliament about 40 years ago. After that, he served the country in many ways in the Government of the day. In due course he became the Lieutenant Governor of his province. We are happy to recall the service which this man rendered to this country over the years and to join today in this tribute to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Smith:: Madam Speaker, before answering questions on the Order Paper, there is a matter relating to House business of which I would like to advise the House, and that is a change in the business for tomorrow. I have already advised both Opposition Parties, but for the record there will be a change from the business indicated by the Government House Leader on November 10; the first item of business tomorrow will be second reading of Bill C-l 30. The balance will be as set out by the Government House Leader in his statement on November 10.


Erik Nielsen: On the House business, Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary at this last minute would be changing the business of the House from that which was set forth last week. He has now said we will be proceeding with Bill C-l30 instead of Bill C-90, which was the plan. I would like to know why that change has come about. This is very short notice.
Second, he has not yet made it clear that if we proceed with Bill C-l30 tomorrow, will it be followed by Bill C-90 or Bill C-85 or Bill C-131? Would he please outline the business so we have some idea what we are dealing with tomorrow, instead of all this vagueness? I would like an explanation as to why this last-minute change.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not believe my comments were vague at all. I said the sequence of events would be as set out by the Government House Leader in a statement to the House on November 10, and that is the case. The sequence which he set out was Bill C-90, Bill C-85 and Bill C-l31. Following second reading of Bill C-l30 that would be the
Order Paper Questions
sequence of business dealt with by the Government. As to why, it is not necessary for the Government to give explanations as to the order of business. That is something which falls within the purview of the Government as set out in Standing Order 18(2):
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
What I have tried to do is give Hon. Members opposite the courtesy of being advised at the earliest possible opportunity, and I have done exactly that.


Erik Nielsen: I take it, then, it is confirmed that tomorrow we will be dealing first with Bill C-l30. Following that, if Bill C-l30 is completed tomorrow at second reading, we will then proceed to Bill C-90. Following Bill C-90, if completed, we will proceed to Bill C-85; and if that is completed, we will proceed to Bill C-l 31. If there is any doubt about that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If the yappers to my left would keep quiet.


An Hon. Member:: It's the Liberal Party West.


Erik Nielsen: If there is any doubt about that, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would correct that impression. With respect to explanations, I suggest, Madam Speaker, there are no explanations except one-that the Government was afraid to have a vote on that measure tomorrow.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the sequence is as I set out the first time, the second time, and I will now confirm it for the Opposition House Leader for the third time. I am delighted he finally got it on the third try.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,932 and 4,386.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the Customs and Excise Program at page 32.23, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to Catering and Housekeeping Services (a) how does the Department account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) for what reason does the Department require these services?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
There were no expenditures reported, under the category of "Catering and Housekeeping Services", by this Department in the 1978-79 Public Accounts.

Order Paper Questions
When the Department embarked on its Central Training Program it did not possess a residence for employees who participated in college programs and thus participants were lodged and obtained their meals from commercial establishments. As travel expenses, these costs were charged to the travel budget and as such were not reported in the Public Accounts as a separate item.
In February 1979, the Department moved its training program to the Heron Road training facilities where a residence was available and students obtained their meals on the campus. Public Works Canada administered a contract for maid and catering services and this Department used the same contractor for provision of these services.
(b) The Department operates a centrally located college for training of its Customs Inspectors, Excise Officers, and other departmental employees.


Mr. Nickerson: Did Mr. Neil Taylor, Mental Health co-ordinator at the Inuvik General Hospital, tell the 1982 Annual Conference of the Canadian Public Health Association that 179 out of the 584 government employees in the Inuvik Region had received psychotherapy during the preceding twelve-month period and, if so, is the Secretary of State, as Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, satisfied that public services are being properly rendered when 30 per cent of the staff in a particular region are suffering from marital problems, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, manic depression or paranoia and, if not, what action does he intend to take?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Under the PSEA, the PSC is responsible for the recruitment and referral of potential candidates for vacancies in government departments. It is the department's responsibility to select and appoint employees and to assess the performance of employees against expected results such as services to the public.
Should there be a necessity to release an employee from the Public Service as a result of that employee becoming incompetent or incapable of performing the duties of his or her position, it is the responsibility of the Department to make such an assessment and recommend release action to the Commission. The Commission will then make a decision on such a recommendation depending on whether the employee appeals the recommendation, and if that option is chosen, on the nature of the appeal board's findings.
Consequently, in order to ascertain the quality of public services in the Inuvik area, the responsible Departments are in a better position to comment. The PSC has, however, contacted two Departments, with large operations in Inuvik, namely MOT and NHW. Both Departments commented that staff problems were not worse in Inuvik than in other northern locations. Inuvik being a larger centre, it offered better facilities and services than most northern sites. However, NHW mentioned that its turnover rate was relatively high which they felt reflected the "transient nature" of the area, brought about by the number of workers seeking employment or actually employed with the Beaufort Sea and Norman Wells drilling
November 15, 1982
projects. Inuvik serves as the base centre for Arctic explorations.
Both Departments claimed to have no special employee assistance programs in Inuvik to provide counselling to employees with personal problems.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,723 and 4,368 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have questions Nos. 2,723 and 4,368 deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: L Which Departments or Agencies regularly supply data concerning individual Canadian citizens to foreign Governments, institutions or individuals?
2.	By Department or Agency, what is the nature of the information supplied and what conditions are placed by the Government on its use?
3.	Is provision made for informing affected citizens that a transfer of information has taken place and, if so, what is it?
4.	Is provision made for affected citizens to have access to transferred information and to correct false information and, if so, what is it?
5.	To which Agencies or Departments of foreign Governments, to which other foreign institutions and to which individuals is the information made available and, in each case, since March 1, 1980, what is the approximate number of individuals about whom information was made available by the Government?
6.	Which Departments or Agencies maintain files on foreigners not resident in Canada, and, in each case, what is the nature of the information maintained?
Return tabled.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	Other than the data bank maintained by the RCMP under the name of the Canadian Police Information Centre, are other data banks maintained by the RCMP to store information concerning individual Canadians and, if so (a) what are such banks (b) are they linked in any way which might enable retrieval of information in all of the data banks with a single computer access?
2.	Is information stored in such data banks pertaining to individual Canadians maintained permanently and, if not, when and how is it eliminated from the data banks?
3.	How many data banks storing information concerning individual Canadians are maintained by the security services section of the RCMP?
4.	Are the data banks maintained by this section accessible to (a) members of the RCMP outside the section (b) civilian employees of the RCMP (c) other
:
November 15, 1982

government officials (d) officials of provincial governments (e) officials of foreign governments?
5.	Does the security services section of the RCMP have direct computer access to data banks maintained by (a) other government departments or agencies (b) provincial government departments or agencies?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to introduce its promised comprehensive industrial strategy to rebuild the Canadian economy in the 1980's and for its failure to produce specific strategies to harness the potential of Canadian industry, to promote the advantageous utilization of Canada's human and natural resources, to increase exports of Canadian manufactured goods, and to provide incentives for training opportunities and to the private sector for new, and increased levels of research and development in Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion now before the House, I do so with an unexpected assist from today's Globe and Mail which has extensive references to this subject. I refer, of course, to the fact that we find a leaked story on page B1 of The Globe and Mail setting out that: "Industrial strategy begins with talks".
I mention this because I think it is interesting that the first point we make in our motion is to condemn the Government for its failure to introduce its promised comprehensive industrial strategy to rebuild the Canadian economy in the 1980s. We are dead on, Mr. Speaker, because here we have a report in today's Globe and Mail setting out that the talks with respect to an industrial strategy are going to begin in November, 1982 at a time when there is no one in this country with any uncertainty in their minds concerning the inadequancy of this Government's programs to get our country prosperous again. In short, I am saying that this motion, on its first point, has to be one which most Members of this House will agree with because this Government has no industrial strategy, by its own admission. In fact, if one believes the report in The Globe and Mail, the Government is only beginning to talk today about an industrial strategy for the 1980s, notwithstanding the fact that almost 20 per cent of this decade is already behind us.
In our motion today, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that certainly myself and most of our speakers are going to dwell on the positive aspects of what can be done to get Canada moving
Supply
once again. I say that because I think most Canadians feel a great sense of frustration with the fact that they know we can do better, but they sense, for reasons they cannot clearly perceive, that we are failing to increase our national wealth, the real growth of our economy, that in fact we are poorer today on an average basis than we were six or seven years ago.
I dwell on that, Mr. Speaker, because I think we must never forget that Canadians are a very inventive people. Historically we have shown that, given the proper atmosphere, the proper break if you like, we can be among the world's leaders in inventions.
On that point, if I may, I would like to just remind Members of some of the things which have been invented in Canada. For example, back in 1857 James Miller Williams brought in the first commercial oil well in North America at Oil Springs near Sarnia. I was thinking just last week, when that fact was drawn to my attention once again, what a strange transition we have here. In the last century, in 1857, Canada was a pioneer in bringing in commercial oil wells in North America. A Canadian was the first.
Today we have a Government which devotes its efforts in the oil and gas field to bringing in a National Energy Program which is generally credited with hamstringing that industry in this country. Not only has the Government brought in such a program to hamstring other sectors of the energy field, but it has, of course, introduced us to a thing called Petro-Canada. That company has now cost us some $3 billion, Mr. Speaker. I am going to touch on that later because I would like us all to consider what that S3 billion could have been used for other than simply buying out the oil and gas interests of foreign concerns in Canada, a buy-out which did not create one more barrel of oil, one new invention, or add one nickel to the wealth of this country.
Let me go on, though, to touch on some of the great inventions which Canada has had over the years. 1 do not have to remind the House that 1874 was the year Dr. Alexander Graham Bell invented the principle of the telephone in Brantford, Ontario, and we now find that Canada in truth is one of the pioneers with regard to communication, especially telephone communication, around the world. In 1884, almost 100 years ago, we find that Sir Sandford Fleming invented standard time. It was subsequently adopted by all the railways in North America and became the standard around the world as far as timekeeping is concerned. In 1887 we have Sir William Osier, who at the age of 39 was chosen to head the medical school at the newly-formed John Hopkins University in the United States. He is generally credited with having revolution-alized the treatment of patients in hospitals, not just in Canada or North America, but throughout the world. Given the chance, Mr. Speaker, this is the type of innovative and inventive person we have had in Canada over the decades Canada has been in existence.

November 15, 1982
Supply
As you know, three types of sports all began or were invented in Canada. Basketball, football and hockey all started in this country. We find, for example, that Sir Frederick Banting, who discovered the beneficial effects of insulin on diabetes, was given a Nobel prize for his invention and was also generally regarded as one of the greatest medical achievers of our century. Sir Charles Saunders, back in 1904, developed the Marquis strain of wheat, and later developed the Ruby, Garnet and Reward strains of wheat which were very suitable to Canadian prairie conditions. On his death a London newspaper said that he contributed more to the wealth of this country than any other man.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we have a list of people who in past years have been inventive, who have brought, if you like, real wealth to Canada, second to none in the world. Then, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the world economy is still flourishing, still prospering, why do we find that we are lagging? Why has the spark for research and development in this country started to lag? Why do we now find that, rather than keeping up with world trade, we are falling behind?
There may be some on the Government side who will say "Show us why we are falling behind". In anticipation of that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer them to the fourth Report of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation which was presented to this House and sets out the exact position that Canada is in today with respect to world trade. I mention this because I think it is interesting to read the morning press and find that we are still talking about having further discussions concerning what we might do to turn trade around to our advantage in Canada.
The time for talking has ended. We know what the problems are and we know what some of the solutions are. It is time for the Government to have the courage to put in place a program that will start rebuilding Canada, especially with respect to our manufacturing and trade position for the 1980s. I say this because the Special Committee stated that it met with 450 witnesses in Canada and nine other countries. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it heard from people in ten countries, including Canada. It held 270 meetings. It presented an extensive report that, first of all, dramatizes what it believes is the true nature of our deficit in world trade and then it offers solutions.
With that kind of background-the background that I will refer to shortly that the Science Council of Canada has been giving to the Government day after day and year after year- why does the Government have to tell us it is still time to have discussions and hear from more people? It is time for decision, Mr. Speaker. We do not need more discussion and bafflegab from the Government.
On page 3 of its report the Special Committee stated:
-trade deficit in the end product category, which in 1980 accounted for a staggering trade imbalance of $18 billion.
It goes on to point out that the share of total world trade Canada enjoyed in 1972 was 4.9 per cent and that by 1980 that percentage had fallen to 3.2 per cent.
I would remind Hon. Members that this is not some outside think-tank group which is speculating about the facts; it is a
Special Committee of this House that pointed out that our trade in manufactured products has fallen so far behind that we now have a deficit of $18 billion, and only 3.2 per cent of total world trade compared to 4.9 per cent in 1972.
On page 5 the report goes on to say:
Between 1969 and 1979 Canada suffered a 33 per cent decline in its overall share of world exports. This performance was the worst among industrialized countries during this period. Nor do we fare any better in comparisons with the major developing countries. In the period 1969-79, Canada's average annual export growth rate was 15.1 per cent; the developing countries averaged 23.1 per cent. Canada pays a very high price for this lost market share-a price that this country can no longer afford.
The report goes on to mention that if one uses the assumptions it has been able to come up with in its research data, $8 billion to $12 billion of opportunity in additional exports is being lost to Canadians at the present time. It also points out that if foreign sales could be improved by only 10 per cent on average, that would mean Canadians would have an additional $6 billion in sales of manufactured goods, creating new customers around the world. But here is the crunch, Mr. Speaker. Having demonstrated the imbalance, especially in end-products trade, the report goes on to say:
Exports also have the potential to increase employment. At present, small and medium business account for 70 per cent of all manufacturing jobs; efforts that result in more sales will add impressively to employment totals. Committee research indicates that $1 billion in additional exports can generate 42,700 jobs. Thus, the export potential we identify could mean somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 additional jobs for Canadians.
I should like to stress that this is the first point that we hope to make today. It is not just a question of statistics; it is Canadian jobs that we are talking about. If we can do a better job of exporting to world markets, then the employment situation in this country is bound to improve. Before we can do that, we have to accept some of the harsh realities, however. For example, we have allowed ourselves, largely through the efforts of this Government, to drift into a position where today we are taxed on average, 20 per cent higher in Canada than are our cousins in the United States. That is a load that Canadians must carry, be they in business or the employees of those businesses, that our cousins do not have to cover when they are getting ready to compete with us in world markets.
Compared to our main trading partner, the United States, we have a deficit on a per capita basis which is twice the size of theirs. Oddly enough, in the United States the government is worried about the deficit, while in Canada we have a Government that tries to rationalize the deficit that is a burden on every Canadian, not just on those living today, but on future generations as well.
Is it not odd, in this connection, that we have a Government so totally out of step that it sends the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) to the United States to sell, as he says, "not goods, but goodwill"? It is not goodwill that we should primarily be trying to export to the United States, Mr. Speaker, but goods. If we can sell the Americans more Canadian-made goods, presumably the goodwill is there, else they would not buy.
November 15, 1982

While the Minister of State for International Trade is in the United States selling, not goods but goodwill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in France seeing the only remaining socialist government that he can make friends with, among major countries, on the basis that he wants to have an alternative deal to counteract the United States market in North America. Talk about spitting and sucking at the same time, Mr. Speaker. One Minister goes to the United States saying "let's have goodwill, let's do more business with you," while the Prime Minister goes to socialist France to try to curry favour with his only remaining friend among the Big Seven, the only socialist government he can find to talk to.
Let me go back, Mr. Speaker. Having this high deficit, this high taxation phenomenon in Canada, is it any wonder that we now find that we have the highest unemployment level of any of the major industrial nations and almost double the level of inflation that they are currently experiencing in the United States or in the United Kingdom? The short answer is that the 15-year program that this NDP-Liberal Government alliance has thrust on the Canadian economy has not worked.
The golden rule which we in the House can accept when we are looking for a new direction is that the socialist model has not worked and certainly will not work in the future. I say this because I believe we must come to grips with the real problem facing Canada today. We must allow the free enterprise system, the private sector, once again to get on with the job of creating wealth in the country and leave it to government to decide how, if necessary, it wants to redistribute that wealth. Also we must ensure that government, instead of intervening more, will intervene less as far as the economy is concerned.
I say this on three levels. First, if this Government wants to map out a new industrial strategy for Canada, it should deregulate rather than regulate further and generally have less control of the private sector than has been the experience over the past ten to 15 years. Second, it should consider less government spending, less give-aways and less bail-outs than has been its custom over that ten to 15 year period, encouraged as it has been by the socialists to our left. Finally, it must reharness the personal initiative and inventive spirit in Canada and give Canadians a chance to be free once again to participate in the prosperity upon which the country can build and grow, compared with the dull, dull performance of recent years. I say "dull performance" because we are absolutely last among major industrial countries in the area of productivity. As far as research and development are concerned, we are virtually at last spot. In short, we are not devoting ourselves to the rebuilding of Canada in the 1980s which we should be getting on with.
If I may, I should like to stress three points. I believe that Canada can rebuild in the 1980s. I believe it can regain some of the momentum which it lost if we promote exports in a more aggressive manner than we have been doing. Only this weekend I spoke with a chap who has extensive knowledge of world markets. He said that the word he hears wherever he goes in
Supply
the world is that Canada does not so much sell its goods abroad; the world buys our goods. In truth, we are not out there selling the way Canada could and should be selling.
The second point is that we must get on with capitalizing our industry. We must hit dead the bogey that somehow profits are wrong and that we must almost be ashamed to use the word. Another word for profits is jobs. To the degree that we can create the wherewithal through profits, we create the investment funds needed to build up productivity and job opportunities lacking in Canada at the present time.
We must process our resources to a much greater extent than we have been doing in recent years. Surely we must learn our lesson, as the Science Council of Canada pointed out so effectively in its November, 1981 booklet entitled "Hard Times-Hard Choices". Surely we have learned the lesson that we cannot expect employment in Canada if we systematically ship resources to some other country, allow them to manufacture the goods and only import manufactured goods. As was mentioned by the Science Council, we are the most open country in the world as far as such trade is concerned.
For those who have perhaps forgotten what the Science Council pointed out a year ago, let me read into the record what appears on page 15 of the booklet:
-Canada already stands unduly exposed. As recent studies have shown, few countries are as willing to allow ready access to their domestic markets as Canada is, and it is debatable whether we have gained significantly from this exposure. Canada already imports more duty free, finished manufactured goods-even excluding automotive goods-than do the U.S., Japan and the European Economic Community combined.
Surely that is a startling statement-a country of 24 million people importing more manufactured goods than those three large common markets combined, Japan, the European Common Market and the United States common market.
Let me continue. Accepting that we have to process our resources to a greater extent than we do at present, let me touch upon the entire area of research and development and its potential if we started diverting some of the money spent in the country and investing in the future. As far as our resources are concerned, let us think not only of what we have to dig out of the ground, mine or extract from an oil well. Let us think of our potential in water which has not perhaps been exploited to the present time. When we look at the lights above us, we should remember that that electricity was literally generated a few seconds ago; but because we have not learned how to store it, the electricity not instantly used is either never generated or lost for all time. Why cannot we set upon a research and development program whereby we will learn how to store water power we generate, hydroelectric power, so that it may be used, not instantly, as is our habit, but over a prolonged period? This is one of our challenges.
We hear in energy debates about oil and gas expenditures, Petro-Canada and whatnot. We should take a look at the glass of water sitting upon my desk and think about the energy which is in it, in the form of hydrogen and oxygen, which makes up water, H20. In short, some day a way to harness the hydrogen will be discovered, and we will have one of the

November 15, 1982
Supply
greatest forces the world has ever seen. Why cannot Canada be a pioneer in that type of inventive work? If we could hand some funds over to those who are almost begging for funding to allow them to get on with such research, we would not have to worry about energy shortages. A country which has 25 per cent of the fresh water supply in the world should never have to say to the rest of the world that it is short of energy. We would not have to do so if we set our minds to research and development which would unearth the secret and allow us to harness this potential.
Let me go into some other fields. At the present time research and development takes roughly $900 million of federal funds. That seems a huge amount of money until we start identifying where the Government spends other amounts of money. For example, we have in Supplementary Estimates before the House a request to spend $200 million for further capitalization of Canadair and a further $200 million capitalization for de Havilland. Those two amounts, making a total of $400 million, will be coupled to the $1.7 billion that we have already committed to help out those two firms. In short, that is $2 billion for two companies, and for those two companies alone it is twice the total Federal Government commitment to be made this year for research and development for the entire nation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we could take a portion of those funds and use it for research and development, we would find a much greater reward down the road than by leaving that money to be invested in those two enterprises.
The United Way Appeal in Canada, much to its credit, has raised or hopes to raise $110 million this year. That is 55 per cent of the amount of capital that we are being asked to put into Canadair alone. For example, the Heart Foundation, the Cancer Fund, the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope, have each raised or hope to raise about $25 million this year. That amount, which is for research, is a small amount compared to what this Government dishes out for some of its favourite projects in the form of bail-outs for various corporations, both private and public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we should accept that it is no longer a question of identifying the problem or a question of saying what should we do in Canada, because the solutions are there. It is time for the Government to get on with the job. The Government should say that what it is going to do is create the atmosphere in this country that will allow our potential to be reharnessed once again. I suggest that it begin not by apologizing for the free enterprise system but by saying that the free enterprise system is the solution and not the problem. It is the Government that is the problem.


Mr. Blackburn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member entertain a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, for the past 30 minutes I have listened intently to the Hon. Member's speech. I was waiting and waiting for him to give this House and the nation the Conservative Party's definitive industrial strategy. The Hon. Member has not given one example. Could he very briefly give us a few specifics of the Conservative Party's industrial strategy that for two and a half years we, in this House and the nation, have been waiting for?


Donald W. Munro: What about yours?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have the attention of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). As he probably knows, we have six other speakers to follow me. They will fill in exactly the industrial strategy that he is looking for. However, let me outline three things that he will hear if he is just a little patient.
First, we think there is room to insure, much as NHA mortgages are insured, business loans in this country. Second, we think there is room to introduce industrial revenue bonds for small businesses in this country, similar to what one finds in many of the states in the United States of America, but greatly needed in Canada if we want to get small businesses reharnessed and people back to work. Again, we are going to suggest that it is time that the precedent, if you like, set by the Ontario Government be endorsed by the Federal Government. The Ontario Government in its Small Business Development Act has a program which raises money for small businesses. It facilitates the raising of that money by making grants available up to 30 per cent. This program should be endorsed by the federal Government and added to, instead of frustrated by the federal Government, something which has been going on in this country.
We have many other points like that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to take away the making of those points from my colleagues who will be speaking during the course of this debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today gives us the opportunity to speak to a very important issue that is facing the country, namely the need for an industrial or an economic development strategy that I believe has been sadly lacking for the past 30 years or 40 years.
I suppose we could have an agreement in this House that the most important priority and the most important question to solve is that of providing jobs for about 1.5 million Canadians who do not have jobs today. That is the most important priority. There is nothing that is as difficult for a person or for a family than to be faced with unemployment, to be able to work but not have a job because of the state of Canada's economy. If we look to other countries in the world we find that the unemployment statistics in Canada are among the
November 15, 1982

worst, if not the worst, of the industrialized states. We also find that the long-term situation looks very bad from all the reports that we see.
In this country we have an economy that is disintegrating before our very eyes. Why is that happening? What is the difference between Canada and the United States, Canada and Japan, or Canada and Europe? Why do we have unemployment problems that are much higher here than in other countries? Why does the long-term look so much worse in Canada than in other countries?
I think there is an answer to that question. There is a major difference between us and other countries. Other countries decided a long time ago that they would control, own and direct their own economies. We in Canada do not do that. We have more foreign ownership, foreign control and foreign investment in the equity stance than any other industrialized country in the world. As a result of that, we are now reaping the benefits of a very truncated branch-line economy where we export capital and import unemployment from other countries around the world.
I think the time has come for this country to have a new vision of what we are about and where we are going. As I listened to members of the Conservative Party today, and as I have listened to them over the last few months when they talk about the whole question of foreign investment and economic direction in this country, I think they have picked up the mantle of the late C. D. Howe. They have picked up his mantle of unfettered continentalism. I wonder what John Diefenbaker or Sir John A. Macdonald would think of this Party to my right today if they heard the talk about removing FIRA, getting rid of all the inhibitions of foreign investment and, in effect, becoming the fifty-first state of the United States of America?


Mr. Blenkarn:: That is nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That Party has played the tune of Ronald Reagan in this country. It has taken FIRA and what really is a mouse and created a monster out of it.


An Hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: At one time that Party, under the leadership of people like Sir John A. Macdonald up to John Diefenbaker, did have a bit of respect for Canadian economic nationalism and for creating a Canada owned by Canadians. But we see the same thing across the way. I am glad to hear a Liberal interjecting at this point. In my opinion, what we are seeing is a massive retreat concerning FIRA, a massive retreat in trying to own Canada.
I remember the 1980 election campaign very well. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the Leader of the Opposition at that time. He travelled across this country promising that if he were re-elected, he would not only maintain FIRA but would strengthen it and make it into an agency with teeth on behalf of Canadians. He said in Toronto on February 13 that, if elected, the Liberal Party would "make sure that FIRA's mandate will be broadened to include the periodic
Supply
review of all foreign firms of large size to assess the performance of these companies in such areas as export promotion and research and development". He also said in the Throne Speech a few months later, in April:
The new government wants to expand the opportunities for independent Canadian-owned enterprise, especially in highgrowth areas like advanced technology.
The government's commitment is to ensuring that foreigh-owned companies operate in accordance with Canadian industrial goals.
He also said in the Throne Speech:
-the Foreign Investment Review Act will be amended to provide for performance reviews of how large foreign firms are meeting the test of bringing substantial benefits to Canada. As well, amendments will be introduced to ensure that major acquisition proposals by foreign companies will be publicized prior to a government decision on their acceptability. The Government will assist Canadian companies wishing to repatriate assets or to bid for ownership or control of companies subject to takeover offers by non-Canadians.
What do we see some two months later? We see a tremendous retreat by the Liberal Government opposite. Not only does it not try to strengthen FIRA; it wants to make it weaker in response to pressure from the administration of President Reagan in the United States. I suggest that this Government is once again opening up our doors to unregulated and uncontrolled foreign investment that is stealing jobs from Canadians, moving billions of Canadian dollars to the United States, Japan or western Europe in the form of profits or dividends to foreign investors.
This is what Governments in this country have done in the past. In fact, in 1981 our deficit in the balance of payments was $9.1 billion. That money could have been used to create jobs for Canadians, to develop an economic strategy which would strengthen the nation and make it more productive and cost competitive internationally. Instead, our banks are lending money to foreign investors who are investing in Canada, creating unemployment in Canada while creating employment in other countries of the world.
One only needs to review the statistics. According to Statistics Canada, the branch plants of foreign-owned firms import nearly five times as many foreign goods in the manufacturing sector as Canadian firms. Much of this is done from the branch plant to the parent in the United States or elsewhere in the world. Many of these goods are imported despite the fact that it has no real bearing in terms of a company's efficiency or competitiveness.
There is very little research and development conducted in this country. Research and development is not carried out in this country because so much of our economy is foreign owned. To illustrate this, I have figures that show that in 1973 only 2.7 per cent of Canadian manufacturing firms had R and D facilities operating in this country. If you look at the figures for research and development for 1975, Canada is probably at the bottom of the list of developed countries, certainly at the bottom of the list of all the OECD nations. Research and development expenditure should be doubled in this country.

November 15, 1982
*
Supply
One reason for the lack of research and development is that many of our firms in key industries are foreign owned and involve very little product innovation. In the United States, for example, 1.84 per cent of sales in all industries went back into R and D. In Canada, only 0.78 per cent, less than half, went into research and development. Domestically, Canadian firms put up 0.86 per cent of their sales for research and development while foreign controlled firms in this country only put up 0.71 per cent of their sales. This proves once again that foreign controlled firms are less likely to put money into research and development, the creation of jobs in Canada and the creation of products that are more cost efficient, which would create world trade and provide Canadians with more jobs.
In addition, we find that approximately 58 per cent of our exports are in the resource sector, which provides little in terms of employment because they are capital-intensive industries. On the import side, however, we find that 60 per cent of our imports are in the area of highly finished goods and products. I maintain that as long as we do not control our economy as Canadians we will not be involved in the processing and development that should be done in this country.
In 1970 we had a manufacturing deficit of some $2.5 billion. That had escalated to some $17.8 billion by 1980. By 1981 it was around $21 billion. In the automobile sector-despite the auto pact with the United States-we see an accumulating deficit that is skyrocketing. The deficit in 1980 was approximately $10 billion. It is probably reaching closer to $15 billion in 1982 despite the fact that we have an agreement with the United States which is supposed to give Canadians a fair share of production jobs in accordance with the sale of cars in this country. In 1976, for example, our share of car purchases was 8.9 per cent and our share of production was only 7 per cent. Despite the agreement, we are getting short changed and, as a result, we are exporting jobs to the United States of America.
This same situation is true for almost any industry one wishes to consider. We can consider machinery, which is labour-intensive and innovative. It is important in terms of new technology. Our trade imbalance in machinery for 1980 was $6.9 billion. If Canadians were to overcome this tremendous deficit in our balance of trade in machinery, we could create some 69,000 production jobs alone in Canada.
Let us consider machinery with respect to each sector. Canada is a major agricultural producer. However, we have a deficit in agricultural equipment of $1.3 billion. We have a deficit of $1 billion in the mining and construction industries despite our resources. We have a deficit of $563 million in powered generation equipment for the year 1980. The deficit with respect to industrial machinery is $898 million. We have a $1 billion deficit in rolling equipment and machine tools. Many of these deficits involve sectors in which we should be specializing and leading the world. We should have surpluses in our products such as agriculture, mines and hydro. These resources are in abundance in Canada. If the Europeans, Japanese or Americans had this abundance of resources they would be producing in abundance, exporting around the world and creating thousands of jobs, many of which would be highly paid and highly skilled. However, because of lack of imagination and the chicken mentality of governments over the years,
we do not have the nerve to control our own economy as the Americans, the Europeans and the Japanese have always done.
In the area of high technology we already have a deficit in computer and office products in 1981 of some $1.77 billion. At that rate, some 60,000 jobs will be lost between now and 1985. Yet we have a Government that is just now beginning to think of developing a strategy in Canada for advanced technology. That type of approach is just not acceptable.
Despite those statistics which show the massive deficits in the balance of payments, the export of jobs and the lack of control over our economy, I am amazed that the Government is now retreating on such a small agency as FIRA. The Conservative Party has turned aside its traditions and is now almost unpatriotic in terms of what is once stood for and what it is now calling for-more unfettered foreign investment and the dismantling or the pulling of the teeth of the Foreign Investment Review Act.
It is beyond me why we as Canadians do not have more imagination or fortitude than we have seen in the past. I have an interesting quote about how Canadians lose jobs from a United States Senate Committee hearing on July 8, 1981. Mr. Harvey Bale is assistant trade representative for investment policy in the U.S. I think we should very carefully listen to his words. He said:
We believe that U.S. foreign direct investment has also made a contribution to employment in the United States through the link between exports and investment. Much of our trade with foreign countries originates with orders placed by the subsidiaries of U.S. companies located overseas. For example 75 per cent of our exports to the 300 largest companies in Canada originates from the subsidiaries of U.S. firms.
The purpose of much of the foreign investment in our country is to create jobs in other countries around the world. I maintain that the time has come when we as Canadians should do as other developed countries have done, namely, take control of our economy and ensure that key sectors are developed and owned by Canadians through an application of public ownership, social ownership, private ownership, cooperative ownership and the like.
Petro-Canada controls or dominates only 12 per cent or 14 per cent of the market, but is only the fifth largest company. We should ensure that Petro-Canada becomes the largest company in the country and controls over 50 per cent of the market. These are examples of what we will have to do. We must also ensure that foreign companies operating in Canada, in proportion to their sales, will ensure the same proportion of research and development, expansion of their plants and creation of jobs. Many countries in the world have those kinds of rules and regulations. France, Germany and Japan were virtually destroyed during the Second World War. Those countries decided that they would rebuild their economies by ensuring that their nationals, their people, were in control so that they could make decisions and provide employment. Today, all three of those countries are doing better than our country.


November 15, 1982

Since 1960 we have seen our standard of living, which was formerly second in the world, plummet to tenth place or even worse, depending upon how one reads the statistics, in terms of standard of living, or average income, around the world.
Therefore, it has become imperative that we have a national industrial strategy which will deal with certain key sectors which we should be developing, sectors which are of natural advantage to us, such as agricultural products and other resources. We must specialize in those areas and process those resources and food products much more than we do now before export. We must develop machinery, agricultural or mining, to provide our own market and to supply markets around the world. We must do things like that if we are to create jobs for Canadians.
Then we must consider other areas of natural benefit to Canada, such as transportation and communications. We are a big country and we must develop ways of moving quickly and communicating quickly and efficiently. We should specialize in trains and communications equipment. It should be ourselves, for example, rather than the French and the Japanese who have the fastest trains in the world. It should be ourselves who are exporting technology to other parts of the world, rather than the French and the Japanese. The same is true in the communications sector where we do have some technology, some Canadian know-how which is very good. We are a world leader in that sector and we should develop other sectors more quickly.
I would very briefly like to refer to the area of advanced technology. We have heard many reports which state that we are lagging behind. We have an industry which is being run down, an industrial sector which is disintegrating very rapidly. Unless we make some changes very quickly we will be in even more serious trouble in the years that lie ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to stand, and if I may have two or three more minutes, I will wind up my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the time allotted to the Hon. Member may be extended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 wanted to wind up my remarks by making an appeal to the House to consider what is happening to our various sectors, industrial, steel, footwear, textiles, and to many industries which have provided jobs in the past. In almost all cases we find that technology is moving very rapidly, but unless we change and innovate we will lose even more jobs in these sectors. In the future it will be very important to innovate here in Canada, to ensure that development of hardware, computers, new gadgets and technology occurs right here in this country. It will also be equally important to ensure that we control the technological revolution. We as Canadian people must introduce it in a planned and sensible way as a result of consultation with ordinary working people, the Provinces, the farmers, women and people who will be most affected by micro-chip technology, new hardware or new software.
Supply
It is very important that we start training our young people for the new society which is already with us. It is startling to me to find that there are 40 times more people in electrical engineering schools in Japan than in this country. The Japanese are preparing for the society which is already with us. Twice as many people graduate from their schools than in the United States, even though they have half the population of the United States. We are moving into an era of robotics and fully automated factories, yet we are not producing and planning for the future which is lying ahead.
As my last comment in this particular debate, I suggest it would be constructive if all three Parties in the House were to establish a special committee on the social and economic impact of advanced technology which would provide some input from elected parliamentarians as to how we want the country to evolve and develop in the next 20 or 30 years. If we do not do it, it will arrive from other places. Technology will be imported from Japan, western Europe and the United States. Once again, it will not be Canadian owned and controlled and perhaps will not even be developed in this country as much as in the past. Because of growing perfectionism in the world, we will be importing much more than we imported in the past. So I think it is important in this Parliament that we form a special committee to study the impact, socially and economically, of the new technology. That would be a part, I would hope, of a new industrial and economic strategy that we need very badly. Its priority must be, as I said, to ensure that industrial and economic activity in this country is owned, controlled and developed by Canadians for Canadians.
We have the resources and we have the people. All we need is the dream, the goal, the vision; and I am sure that, with the goodwill of the Canadian people, we could create a country that is second to none in the twenty-first century.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be participating in the debate this afternoon on a motion by the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), and I would ask the Members opposite to be patient as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) will be rising in the House later today.
I listened very carefully to the comments made by the Member for York-Peel just now, when he talked about promoting our goods and increasing exports, but I did not hear him making any suggestions on how our exports should be increased.

The Hon. Member talked about frustration. Well, there is frustration in Canada, everyone knows that, and 1.3 million are unemployed. There are different areas of frustration. He says Canadians know we can do better. We all know that. We had a lesson on inventions in the nineteenth century. We had a talk about pioneers. We even had a lesson in history and one in

November 15, 1982
Supply
chemistry, but not one word about how to increase productivity or exportation.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel talked about regularization. I think he felt like talking about privatization, but the fact is that whenever he starts talking about that, Petro-Canada comes into his speeches, and that is kaput as far as the Tory party is concerned. Tories are not supposed to talk about Petro-Canada.
[ Translation]
If 1 take the last part of the Hon. Member's motion, Mr. Speaker, it says, and I quote:
-and to provide incentives for training opportunities and to the private sector for new, and increased levels of research and development in Canada.
1 wonder where the Hon. Member was on October 28 of this year when we had first reading of Bill C-136, a bill that is concerned with small businesses and will help small businesses contracting loans between June 28, 1982 and March 31, 1983, to finance acquisition of new depreciable assets or to finance research and development. That he did not mention. Did he mention the day, Monday, November 8, when the bill was passed on second reading and referred to committee? No, he did not. Are the Progressive Conservatives afraid to mention certain measures this government has brought before Parliament? Mr. Speaker, I think they are more interested in talking about bringing down this government and about their leadership than in providing constructive criticism aimed at helping Canadians to break through the present economic impasse.
Mr. Speaker, it was indeed very appropriate that Bill C-136 should be introduced on October 28, during the third annual small business week. This event is sponsored by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Development Bank for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the general public and business people in particular the various ways in which the federal, provincial and municipal governments can help with their administrative operations. We had exhibits with information booths across Canada.
At the end of a full week here in the Outaouais region, prizes were awarded to various individuals for outstanding accomplishment in business during the past year. When the prizes were being awarded, the Outaouais was visited by one of the ministers in the Quebec government, who was eager to satisfy the separatists and decided to shoot off a few arrows from the other side of the river. He was in Hull at the University du Quebec, and I would like to make it clear to Minister Biron that the whole week dedicated to small business was apolitical and had been organized by the Outaouais Development Corporation, the Federal Development Bank, and business people. Instead of making political remarks that certainly did nothing to enhance the well-being of the people or small businesses, if the minister had told people: Listen, we are going to help you, we are going to reduce income taxes since you are paying the highest taxes in Canada, we are going to
reduce income taxes so that you can live as well as your counterparts in Ontario and the United States. That would have helped business people. Or he might have told people involved in the transport business: Listen, we are going to reduce the tax on gas so that you will be able to compete with other people instead of paying $5, $6, $7 and sometimes $10 more to fill the tank in your car or bus.
Were these people going to get a refund from the provincial government? No, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not mention that. He criticized the federal government as if the latter were still largely responsible for the slump Quebec is experiencing at the present time. I know there are separatists who are going to say that if Quebec had its own resources, in other words, if Quebec alone had the authority to levy taxes, it might be possible. I simply cannot believe that some separatists are still using this argument, namely, that if they had control over all their resources, in other words, if they were independent, they could afford more or less the same standard of living and the same taxation levels as other provinces.
In an article that appeared in Le Droit on April 16, and 1 am going back that far because it is important and we tend to forget, it was said, and I quote:
Ottawa is giving more than it is taking away from Quebec.
In 1980, the federal government spent $14.9 billion in Quebec and collected only $10.5 billion in revenue and taxes-
That is what independence will mean: more taxes. Our people pay the highest taxes in Canada, and if we have to pay four billion dollars more, where are we going to raise it? I feel this has to be said, Mr. Speaker, because certain leaders and certain ministers in the provincial government are making bold accusations without being able to substantiate them, in order to confuse people and perhaps smooth the way for some of our separatist friends.
To get back to Bill C-136, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that this legislation would help businesses finance acquisition of new depreciable assets or finance research and development, between June 29, 1982 and March 31, 1983, by making them eligible for an interest subsidy, provided by the Canadian government, of up to 4 per cent of the amount borrowed from the bank. The federal government will pay directly into the account of the borrower a sum representing up to 4 per cent of the amount borrowed. It is understood that as soon as the interest rate is down to 12 per cent, the subsidy is reduced accordingly. That is a concrete example of what this government has done to promote small business research and development.
The Hon. Member talked about increasing exports of Canadian manufactured goods. He does not seem to be familiar with the 6 and 5 program. The program is not an end in itself but provides the means, that is, by reducing salaries, Canadians will be able to bring down the rate of inflation and consequently interest rates, and thus increase investment and
November 15, 1982

the number of jobs available, so that in the final analysis, we will be reducing the unemployment rate. In fact, increasing productivity was the purpose of the 6 and 5 program, and this is extremely important in the present economic situation, if we are to become at all competitive and compete with other countries who are producing the same goods we are.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should discuss some of the measures this government has taken since 1980 with respect to industry. This governemnt has made an effort to create a climate that is favourable to investment, whatever the members opposite care to think. The government has taken measures aimed at ensuring that funds will be available for viable projects and provided loan guarantees for both small and certain larger companies. I will have more to say about that later on. I take the liberty of speaking in such a way that my friends opposite will remember. We are not all mean Liberals, we are not all mean Government members. There are certain things which ought to be appreciated. Michelin tires, for instance. The Canadian Government will award $42 million in grants to promote a program which will eventually trigger a $400 million-plus investment by Michelin. Mr. Speaker, I believe that will be in the Atlantic Provinces-I cannot recall which one, but in any event it does show that the federal government has taken the initiative in that field. Some people raised hell and said all kinds of things about the Chrysler deal, but the fact remains that it was not an outright grant but a loan guarantee. Unfortunately, they are now talking about going on strike. That made it possible for the workers to keep their jobs and there is the possibility of a $150 million loan guarantee. Massey-Ferguson and their $126 million loan guarantee was a similar case and again the purpose was to keep people working.
We now have a program which has been implemented to modernize the textile industry so that it will be competitive with other countries marketing similar products. Modernization is the order of the day in the forest industry as well because one out of ten workers depends on it for a living, which makes it a key sector in Canada. Gatineau's CIP in my riding was awarded $6 million by the central government under a federal-provincial agreement and the MacLaren Company was also granted $6 or $7 million to update its facilities. Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars have been spent for a newsprint industry in Amos. 1 do not know how many millions were spent by the companies which own the plants, but still the federal government has done its share to launch that industry.
This government has also approved the five-year program of the National Research Council of Canada. Mention was made
Adjournment Motion
of research earlier. An amount of $48 million has been allocated to promote research and development, provide information to small businesses and encourage the private sector to use advanced technology. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I see that my time is going quickly. But it must be kept in mind that it is the private sector which will get us out of this difficult situation. We shall be called all sorts of names, such as socialists and the right or left arm of the New Democratic Party, and so on, but that does not bother me. More important, it still remains that the Liberal Party now believes that the private sector will get us out of this fix. The federal government wants to play an active part in support of the private sector and help small and medium-size businesses and the private sector as a whole to become self-sufficient.
We have taken some measures and we shall continue to do so, but we are willing to act in a spirit of consultation, cooperation and harmony. And when I say harmony, Mr. Speaker, I think you know what I mean. There is nothing you cannot do with the people behind you and when all three levels of government and everyone else put up a common front. Then, you can do anything. Someone said earlier that the Canadian people know they can do better, but in this spirit of harmony, co-operation and collaboration, the results can only be positive.
Mutual trust is essential, Mr. Speaker, to economic recovery. No federal or provincial policy or program and no management or labour initiative can get Canada out of the recession unless everyone works together, and this includes the members of the Conservative Party and the NDP. It is only with their co-operation that we can succeed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway)- Mines and Mining-Map distribution costs; the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-Energy-Cold Lake project- Loan made to Imperial Oil. National Energy Program- Request for withdrawal; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Energy-(a) Inquiry respecting Program cutbacks, (b) Chip and Off Oil Programs.

November 15, 1982
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to introduce its promised comprehensive industrial strategy to rebuild the Canadian economy in the 1980's and for its failure to produce specific strategies to harness the potential of Canadian industry, to promote the advantageous utilization of Canada's human and natural resources, to increase exports of Canadian manufactured goods, and to provide incentives for training opportunities and to the private sector for new, and increased levels of research and development in Canada.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute in its regular report of July, 1982 entitled "Canada's Economic Predicament", commenting on the June 28 budget, had this to say and I quote:
Canada's primary problem has been mismanagement of its economic affairs since the early 1970s by its federal leadership. The latest budget message is an abysmal stewardship report on the results of past economic policy for which the federal government must take responsibility.
The report goes on to say that this kind of leadership has placed Canada in a very serious economic predicament. It was rather interesting to hear the previous speaker pleading for the private sector to respond, asking the business community to trust them, after the damage they have inflicted upon the economy. I mention this simply to lay the background for the economic debate in which we are involved today, because in order to move ahead, to propose and advocate anything, one cannot forget about the past sins of this administration. That is primarily what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted to do in his three-part television presentation. Some of the things he had to say were correct, but we know from previous experience that a lot of the problem has been in fact created by the man himself and by the people who support him.
While the C.D. Howe Institute talks about the mismanagement of the seventies, we have to look at what happened in the last two years, since 1980. Clearly our economic fortunes have dipped very badly. As a matter of fact, they have been eroded disastrously. Why? First of all, the National Energy Program was a major contributing factor to the economic collapse of this country. Second is the prolonged and protracted negotiations with the producing Provinces over energy pricing, created primarily as a result of the irresponsible position which the Liberal Party took during the election of 1980. The effect of the NEP and the energy pricing agreement has imposed a very crippling federal tax upon the industry and upon consumers.
I can also mention the uncertainties and the confusion arising out of the number of budgets and economic statements which have been made. What was the effect? Primarily it has destroyed investor and consumer confidence in this country. The other problem we have is the unrelenting move of this Government towards greater state control and state intervention. The Government still does not believe that is one of the
major problems in this country. Ask the business people. I will have more to say about that a little later.
While the economic problems were materializing and we could have taken some measures over the course of the last two years, this country was engaged in, perhaps, one of the most bitter debates of all time, the debate on constitutional reform. In his frustration the Prime Minister said that federalism is dead, that there is no more co-operation. Well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have confidence in the future of this country. We have confidence that Governments can work together and address the real problems of the country. What his statement implies is that there is no political co-operation; therefore, there can be no economic co-operation. The division and bitterness created during the debate over energy and the Constitution has not subsided. It is going to take more than time, it is going to take action by the Government to ensure that those wounds are healed.
All of these things, Mr. Speaker, have led us further into the depths of recession. As I said earlier, we do have an economic crisis in which there is no investor or consumer confidence; there is no confidence in the economic leadership provided by this Government. In fairness, sir, I have to acknowledge that there at least seems to be lip service being paid and some gestures being made towards improving the situation. The Government has started to recognize that it has made serious and grave errors, and at least there is more perception that it is mending its ways and changing direction.
We have had the game of musical chairs being played in the cabinet and I think from the business point of view there is some measure of optimism. I am pleased the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) is in the House because, while I do not want to commend him too loudly or in any prolonged fashion, it is fair to say, however, that it was a right move to put the Hon. Member in that position because 1 think he understands business and will do an excellent job. However, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) pointed out, he is only one.
I wonder where he was when the Government imposed the devastating National Energy Program or the disastrous budget of November, 1981. That budget has had 44 changes and it is all but dead, but where was he then? He stood up and supported it. It was the most anti-business, anti-growth budget ever inflicted on Canadian business and the Canadian people, yet he stood there applauding the then Minister of Finance. I suppose he expects to make a name for himself by reversing the effects of that crippling budget. I hope he does, in the interests of Canada and the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker.
Some Members across the way, Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned the National Energy Program was a disaster, said "nonsense". That is rather strange when we have had two major changes to the NEP. That in itself is a recognition that it was wrong in the first place. Unfortunately the damage was done, just like the budget. I cannot imagine how Members
November 15, 1982

across the way can live with themselves after having voted in support of that November, 1981 budget.
The fact of the matter is that over a one-year period we have had confusion, chaos and uncertainty in the business community, but Members across the way stood up and applauded the Minister of Finance and supported him. They should hang their heads in shame. Now the Government is trying to cater to the United States. We have the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) journeying to the United States to try and get them back onside. We have the Prime Minister sort of giving the U.S. the back of his hand in his appeal for more trade with France. Of course, he is visiting other countries in Europe which are basically socialistic or communistic, so we still have that tendency toward kicking the U.S. in the teeth. The U.S. is our major trading partner, and if we can patch up the differences and work together to our mutual advantage in terms of trade, technology and jobs, I think we can make progress on this continent.
The Hon. Member who spoke just before me made a great pitch for the private sector, as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), suggesting that it will fuel economic growth. That is really hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. We need more than words to revitalize the private sector because there has been no Government in Canada, whether it be NDP, Liberal or Conservative, which has done more to stifle, frustrate and harass the private sector than this Government. Its whole economic thrust is based on more, not less, Government intervention. It wants to use grants and subsidies to force business to march to the tune of a board or army of bureaucrats. It is promoting the greater use and multiplicity of Crown corporations to get involved in business where the private sector could do the job. The Government is using leverage to achieve certain goals and objectives, leverage such as taxation, spending, procurement and regulation policies. It even uses confiscation to achieve its goals and objectives. So we have this assortment of sticks and carrots to manipulate business, to manipulate Canadians, to fine-tune them to produce the desired results. The bureaucrats are doing the fine-tuning, and of course the result is increased frustration, harassment and an increase in the army of non-productive bureaucrats. It is penetrating the whole marketing system, Mr. Speaker.
There is a myth within this Government that the bureaucracy can outperform and outwit the marketplace. In my view, there is no bureaucratic mechanism, regardless of computers, satellites, flow charts, or the armies of people, which can outperform the expertise of the private sector in the marketplace. One only has to look at the failings of Russia, particularly in its agricultural sector. Russia is now the world's largest importer of grain and meat. In the year 1970 it was a net exporter of grain. In the last ten years the U.S. has doubled the Russian output of grains. Russia has a centrally controlled and interventionist economy. They know how much fertilizer they are going to use in 1984 because it is all programmed. That kind of approach, Mr. Speaker, does not work there and it is not working here. As far as I am concerned, the invisible
Supply
hand of the marketplace is far more effective than the visible hand of the Government,
The NDP, Mr. Speaker, simply want more of this kind of intervention. As I understand their industrial strategy, they really want to turn Canada's economic program into a National Energy Program. They want more centralized control and more intervention, the kind of control and intervention which frightened away the oil companies and destroyed the oil industry in this country. As far as I am concerned, the most important and constructive suggestion I can make is for the federal Government to make a clear commitment to return to a more market-oriented economy. This would do more to restore investor and consumer confidence than anything that has occurred in the last two years. We must concentrate on providing the best product at the best possible price. That is basic and fundamental to business.
Secondly, we must remove the impediments which discourage the spirit of enterprise in Canadians. We must encourage individual initiative and ownership. We must provide incentives to build, to restore the profit motive and revitalize the private sector in order to encourage growth and development, particularly in those areas where we have a natural advantage. I believe Canadians want to develop their own abilities and ambitions without excessive Government intervention. They want to own their own homes and businesses, to be active partners in the growth and development of this country.
We can do that, Mr. Speaker. We can remove those impediments by simplifying our tax system, one so complex and counterproductive that even accountants and tax lawyers cannot understand it. This has created, again, a huge and nonproductive bureaucracy. It is not producing wealth, it is discriminatory, it militates against productivity, efficiency, price competitiveness, and it stifles innovation and creativity.
Things like the capital gains tax destroy the incentive to invest. We must consider instruments like the agri-bond, the Small Business Investment Bond, municipal bonds and Industrial Revenue Bonds which will provide pools of capital and the impetus to grow, to build, and to produce wealth in this country. The tax system can be used to encourage productivity, to improve our competitiveness, to revitalize and retool the manufacturing sector, to improve research and development and to stimulate innovation and advanced technology. But we need more positive signs and not simply rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
We must also engage in a major regulatory housecleaning in this country. Canadians of all stripes and in all walks of life are hampered by the bureaucratic web. We must reduce duplication, establish greater uniformity and remove the barriers which stifle innovation, competition and efficiency.
I support the call of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for a two-year moratorium on regulation that does not contribute directly to the economic growth of the country. The utopian ideal that in this country we can plan and regulate everything to perfection has clearly been discredited. We must face reality and make a clear commitment to scaling down the

truly become a very dynamic, prosperous and caring society once again.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover of the motion on his discovery that the Government has a role to play in our mixed market economy. Today's motion is perhaps an interesting change from some of the cries we hear from the Party opposite, which admittedly does not speak with one voice on the difficulties of government "interference" in the private sector.
The term "industrial strategy" is perhaps less useful than to think in terms of a set of credible, consistent and coherent policies designed both to adapt to current world difficulties and to overcome the structural obstacles to long-term growth within the economy. At Strasbourg last month, Mr. Van Lennep, Executive Director of OECD, said:
It has been another difficult year for the world economy. No one had thought that the task of defeating inflation and adjusting to the massive oil price shocks of the 1970s would be easy or rapid. But the process of adjustment has indeed been painfully long, and those of us in the business of economic forecasting have again predicted for 1982 an upturn that has not yet come.
Mr. Van Lennep went on to say that he believed there would be an upturn, but went on to say:
At the same time, we are to an important extent in unchartered territory, both as regards the strength of the conflicting forces of inflation and deflation at work, and the complexities arising from an unprecedented degree of international interdependence.
Recent developments in Europe have not been encouraging. Unemployment has risen more than expected. Demand and output have been weaker than expected. Demand is also weaker than expected in Japan. What does all this mean for Canada?
We face increased competition in our traditional markets and it becomes ever harder to penetrate new markets. We face competition from newly industrialized countries at the same time as less developed countries are finding it harder to purchase our goods, and we face competition from reindustrialized countries such as France and Japan. Canada is fortunate in having considerable natural advantages, including a well-educated work force, advanced technology and abundant resources; but expansion of our industrial sector has been constrained in many respects by a small domestic market. There is now a growing awareness of the need to improve productivity in order to protect and enhance our competitive position. We are the only industrialized country in the world which does not have access to a domestic market of 100 million or more. Our population is only about 25 million, dispersed over a large and difficult terrain.
We trade to live. Exports alone account for one-third of our gross national product, and 20 per cent of our work force is directly involved in producing goods for export. Because of our small domestic market and our heavy dependence upon exports, Canada has a disproportionately high stake in the health of the trading system. Therefore, it is clearly in Canada's interests to contribute to managing world trade in
Supply
ways that avoid conflict and harsh beggar-my-neighbour approaches to trade.
We are one of the largest trading nations on a per capita basis. As I said, trade amounts to more than one-third of our GNP. Leaving aside services, something in excess of 50 per cent of what we produce is exported. We import a similar amount. Therefore, it is vital to our economy and standard of living to maintain a world trading environment which will enable this trade to continue to flourish.
Where does this trade lie? Trade in excess of $100 billion a year, or almost 70 per cent of our trade, is with the United States, which takes about 60 per cent of its imports from Canada in goods that have either been manufactured or processed. About 14 per cent of our trade is with Europe and about 7 per cent of it is with Japan. This means that about 90 per cent of the huge amount of trading that Canada does involving both imports and exports is conducted with the industrialized western world, particularly with Europe, the United States and Japan. We are in a disadvantaged state because of our small numbers and our small domestic market.
When the last round of the GATT is implemented in 1987, we will see visible tariffs reduced to levels which will not provide the protection for the Canadian manufacturing sector that has allowed it to grow over the years. As we move into a freer trading mode our manufacturing sector, which is not as competitive as it should be in world terms, will have to undergo serious restructuring.
Apart from Australia and to some extent the United States, we are alone in having a huge percentage of our economy and trading produce in resources. In the resource sector a higher proportion of our exports goes to Europe and Japan than to the United States. During the GATT negotiations we hoped to find support from our trading partners for the sectoral support which we suggested would lead to a reduction in tariffs and higher levels of additional value in some of our resource industries. However, our trading partners to date have been unable to go along with that approach, and we continue to be faced with the problem of running into restrictions when we add value to our resources before shipping them from our shores. There is a continued determination on the part of the Government of Canada to endeavour to upgrade our resources before we ship them abroad, and the Government will continue to press for this.
Our merchandise trade figures are in fact very good if looked at as a whole. Currently we have a substantial surplus in our balance of merchandise trade. Over the last few months the value of goods we exported was in excess of that which we imported by almost $4.5 billion, but this surplus stems from large net earnings from our trade in food products, crude materials and semi-finished goods. We still run a persistently large deficit in finished goods.
It is generally considered that the manufactured or finished product sector tends to provide for more job creation than resource development. Therefore, it seems clear that we must seek out opportunities and methods to develop our manufacturing capacity. At the same time we must continue our

November 15, 1982
Supply
international marketing efforts both to improve our current market share and to identify additional markets where Canada can be competitive.
The question of research and development has been mentioned by previous speakers today. Canada's emphasis upon R and D has been low in comparison with other OECD countries. In 1979 our research and development expenditures were only 1 per cent of our gross domestic product as compared with 2.4 per cent in the United States, 1.8 per cent in France and 2 per cent in Japan. However, we have been increasing this somewhat, and our R and D expenditures are now at 1.3 per cent of the gross domestic product. The Government has formulated and is vigorously implementing a policy in support of our scientific development, with specific targets for 1985. Certainly the need is well recognized to establish a more comprehensive base for science and technology work in Canada.
Some of the building blocks of an industrialized strategy have been mentioned by previous speakers today. Apart from research and development, there is industrial restructuring, particularly to accommodate the microelectronic communications revolution. There are productivity measures which include job training. Here one must mention the National Training Act, which was recently passed precisely to deal with that. There are measures to deal with international trade, competition and promotion.
Last fall a document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s" was tabled in this House. In that paper the Government addressed a number of essential building blocks for Canada's long-term economic vitality. These included a $60 billion commitment to developmental spending to 1986, including over a quarter of that sum for energy development expenditures.
The Government stated in that paper that priority would be given to industrial resource and regional development, transportation, export promotion and human resources. Innovation was mentioned as a major factor in enhancing productivity. A series of new initiatives was proposed in five key resource-based sectors-energy, agrifood, fisheries, forest-based industries and mining. The question, then, is not whether we have a long-term economic development plan or a set of industrial strategies, but rather whether the broad themes are understood and are being communicated effectively.
Finally, the question of foreign ownership has been addressed by two members opposite in two different ways. One suggested that the Government is not being vigorous enough. The other Member suggested that the Government was overactive in this area. This perhaps merely points out the difficulty of the issue.
I think we would all agree that Canada needs and welcomes foreign investment. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned that we cannot afford to see capital leave this country. We would all agree with that. But also we cannot afford to see jobs leave this country. While nobody
wants to be unwelcoming to foreign investment-and we on this side would not like to see the extent of state control which the New Democratic Party advocates-surely there must be some sensible, prudent measures to assure that foreign investment benefits Canada.
What we now see is that our manufacturing sector, which is very heavily controlled by foreign owners, does most of its research and development offshore. There is, therefore, no benefit to Canada in the creation of new jobs and new products. We also see that foreign-owned businesses in the manufacturing sector import much more than similar Canadian-owned firms. I might just mention some figures. I say, not in any sense of being hostile to foreign investment but in order to emphasize the point, that however much we want and welcome foreign investment, surely we must be prudent when looking at our own long-term interests.
In 1978, foreign-controlled firms accounted for 72 per cent of our imports. Canadian-controlled firms imported only to the value of 4.3 per cent of their sales, while the value of imports for foreign-controlled firms, when looked at as a proportion of their sales, was 22 per cent. In the manufacturing sector the differences in import behaviour were even more pronounced. Foreign-controlled firms imported to a value of 29 per cent of sales, while Canadian firms had a ratio of only 8 per cent. When one also considers that Canada has a higher proportion of its industry under foreign ownership and control than any other industrial country in the world, we have to consider this rather seriously.
I mentioned earlier that research and development is generally done by foreign-owned companies outside of Canada. Our future high standard of living in Canada will depend more upon our mastering of industrial technology than on our accessibility to our natural resources. We must be keenly sensitive to the fact that science and technology are areas of enormously rapid evolution. If firms are doing their research and development offshore, we are losing a tremendous possibility for job creation within Canada.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago I celebrated my tenth anniversary on being elected a Member of this House. I remember during that election campaign the promise made by the Liberal Party that an industrial strategy was actively being developed and would be ready to take Canada to a new nirvana.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is still coming.


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He assured Canadians that the Liberal Party had things well in hand, that the final touches were being put on an industrial strategy and as a result of its sheer brilliance would lead Canada into unthought of horizons for growth, wealth, jobs and opportunities, things we could only heretofore dream of. That Minister did not manage to survive that election, but unfortunately the Liberal Party did. He was replaced by the Hon. Alastair Gillespie. He said: "I have picked up the baton and I am
November 15, 1982

running with it; just hold on, folks, soon we will have an industrial strategy that will address resources, technology, manufacturing. It will look after Canada's needs for the next century."
Were we ever lucky to have a Minister like that! Well, months and then years passed. The Minister was asked from time to time how things were coming. He said "We are on to it". At some point in time, though, something happened, because this magic answer, this industrial strategy, this answer to Canada, suddenly got replaced by a sectoral strategy. There were 19 sectoral groups identified by the Minister and his brave minions, I believe.


Edward C. Lumley: There are 23.


Harvie Andre: Twenty-three, I am sorry. I am corrected by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley). These groups worked laboriously. We were promised that these documents were coming. Eventually, 23 sophomoric, thin documents, written in second year economic language, were produced dealing with these 23 sectors. Those sectorial studies disappeared into oblivion about 15 minutes after they were published, because that is what they were worth. It was a totally worthless production.


The Hon. Alastair Gillespie moved: on to his reward as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The gurus in the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office, finding that this sectorial strategy would not work, decided that it must be a structural problem; it cannot be the fault of the Liberal Party. Therefore, they created the Economic Development Board and the position of Minister of State for Economic Development. The present occupant of that post is in the House today. Since the creation of that position, which was the new answer to our lack of industrial or economic strategy, absolutely nothing of value has been produced to this time.
However, over at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Alastair Gillespie discovered the Holy Grail. He found an industrial strategy, one based on megaprojects. I recall the First Ministers' meeting of 1978 when he proudly produced that list of 40, 60 or 120 projects. It was a magnificent list. What it was, though, was a list of every project that was planned, considered or even dreamed of by every business, government, entrepreneur and wishful thinker in the country. It was mostly pure fiction. There was one part which was real. That was the megaprojects dealing with energy development, particularly oil and gas development.
With the election of a Progressive Conservative Government in 1979 these megaprojects got under way. Work had activly begun and there was even a great shortage of engineers because of the work and planning that was going into these megaprojects. Some of those projects are mentioned on page 94 of the National Energy Program. They include the Suncor expansion, the Syncrude expansion, the Cold Lake project, the Alsands project, the Canwest project, the Saskatchewan heavy oil tertiary project, the Judy Creek light oil tertiary project,
Supply
and Hibernia. It is an impressive list. Each project was actively being pursued in 1979 and work was under way in 1980.
Before I deal with what happened to those projects I would also like to mention some gas-based projects which collectively represent megaprojects in that field. They are an ethylene plant by Alberta Gas Ethylene; an ethylene plant by Esso, Alberta Energy and Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas; a polyethylene plant by CIL and Trimac; a polyethylene plant by DuPont and Alberta Energy Company; a benzene plant by Esso and Alberta Energy; a styrene plant by Esso and Alberta Energy; an acetic acid plant by Celanese Canada; a vinyl acetate plant by Celanese Canada; an MTBE plant by Alberta Natural Gas; two Dow Chemical plants at Fort Saskatchewan; and an Alberta Gas chemicals methanol plant. They number 12 in all.
What is interesting about those oil and gas projects is that every single one has gone down the tube. The energy projects that were left from the mythical industrial strategy based on megaprojects produced by the Liberal Government were all destroyed by the National Energy Program. What is really galling is the audacity or stupidity, or perhaps both, of the content of this National Energy Program. I quote from page 94 where these oil projects were listed. It says:
The positive impact of the Program-
Referring to the National Energy Program:
-on oil sands development can be illustrated by its effect on the commercial viability of the Alsands project-
Can you believe the audacity, dishonesty or perhaps plain ignorance of someone to write such trash when, in fact, it destroyed those projects? The Alsands project was under construction in early 1980. Men and machinery were on site moving earth.
I do not want once again to go over all of the reasons the National Energy Program is wrong and discuss its disaster. There is no honest person in this country who does not recognize the disaster of the National Energy Program. Why was it such a disaster? One has to acknowledge that part of it is a result of the uncertainty. The newly elected Liberal Government argued, fought and disputed with the Provinces for two years before reaching some reasonable accord. It was an incredible display of mismanagement and stupidity. No industry, entrepreneur or investor can tolerate such a delay.
Second, the Government simply took too much money. It dipped in for a huge amount of money by way of tax increases which were justified on the basis of projections on revenue flow which were pure fiction. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, if you have not read Peter Foster's book called "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", subtitled "The Super Bureaucrats of the Energy Disaster", I highly recommend it. Those geniuses-one of whom is now in Paris at our expense to the tune of $200,000 a year-projected revenues that were pure fiction. They were calculations of the kind you would learn to do when taking a Ph.D in economics at the University of Toronto. They certainly bore no relationship to reality. These bureaucrats divvied up these fictitious numbers. The share of these fictitious numbers were certainly fair but they bore no relationship to reality. The

November 15, 1982
Supply
Government simply took too much money. There was not enough left to keep people interested and provide the economic activity from which jobs and spin-off effects come.
In addition, a terrible precedent was set. For the first time in our history, the Government retroactively changed the rules in a highly pejorative way. The world being what it is, we expect that kind of behaviour, unfortunately, from a banana republic, dictatorship or some of the less stable Third World countries. No one expected that kind of behaviour from Canada. Canada was considered to be a stable, democratic country with a long history of fair play. If we made mistakes in the past, we lived with them and changed the rules in the future. We did not change the rules retroactively until this Liberal Government and this Minister did so.
The impact of all of that has caused the demise of all the energy projects which I have outlined, including oil and gas projects. If those projects were in place today, the jobs which would have been generated would not be in the thousands or the tens of thousands, but rather in the hundreds of thousands. In Canada today there are hundreds of thousands of families whose income earners are unemployed because of the National Energy Program and the demise of the only kind of industrial strategy left, the megaproject strategy.
I would refer Your Honour and the rest of the House to the seventeenth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. Its predictions as to what disasters would befall this country if those megaprojects did not go ahead are turning out to be exactly on target. It was all there. Those were predictions of three years ago. Probably none of the Hon. Members opposite have read it because they would not like the message. However, we do not need a Royal Commission headed by Donald Macdonald and we do not need some fresh new insight. All we need is for someone opposite to read what has been done by this permanent Royal Commission, the Economic Council of Canada, and to heed its lessons.
I want to refer to what can be done and what needs to be done now. Clearly the most terrible and crucial problem facing Canada is the question of jobs. I had the misfortune of living in a home where the father was unemployed for a number of years and I know what devastation that can cause a family. The numbers involving the unemployed are so large that we sometimes do not comprehend them. We say that 12.2 per cent, 12.7 per cent or 1.5 million people are unemployed. They are numbers, but behind every one of those numbers is a family and I know, firsthand, what that means to a family. It is not enough that we say we will have a Royal Commission to look into the matter and report back in three years. It is not enough that we put together a committee of economists and say that from now on the Minister will listen to some outside advice. It is not enough that we reward the perpetrators of this tragedy by giving them year-long vacations in Paris at our expense. We must take action.
Let me speak in terms of what can be done. It has been noted by apologists on the Liberal side that there is not much we can do about world markets, and that is iccepted. There is
not much Canada can do now about the fact that the world has an oversupply of nickel, steel, copper, lumber, things that we produce in abundance, and therefore we cannot supply the world. We are unfortunately trapped in terms of those circumstances, but that is not true of our energy. The market is here in Canada. We can displace imports.
So there is no reason for us to blame the rest of the world or wring our hands and say there is nothing we can do, because we can, and we can in the area of energy. I am not referring to jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia when I am referring to energy development. A recent study by the consulting firm, Foster Consultants (Calgary), on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada illustrated that when money is spent for oil and gas in Alberta, when one dollar is spent, 40 cents ends up being spent in Ontario because that is where the pipe is produced as well as the valves, the machinery, equipment, trucks, cars and everything else used by the industry, some 16 per cent is spent in Quebec, with 28 per cent or 29 per cent actually ending up in Alberta and the remainder in the rest of the country. Therefore, we are not referring to something which benefits only one region but, rather, something which benefits the entire country.
The netbacks must be adjusted. During question period the other day, someone asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about lowering taxes. He replied by asking, "How can I lower taxes when we have such a terrible deficit? One cannot do both". I will give an example of where lowering taxes would decrease the deficit because it would produce more revenue for the Government than the current tax load. I will quote from a speech by the chairman of the board of Dow Chemical (Canada) Limited. He referred to the experience with the company's ethylene plant in Red Deer. In 1982 the company estimated that the ethylene plant would operate at 100 per cent capacity and, as a result, would create $60 million in income tax obligations, $45 million of which would go to the federal government and $15 million to the provincial government. However, the Feds put on an up front tax, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, which would supposedly gain $60 million a year from that plant, or double the the anticipated income tax revenue. Therefore, the Feds would be receiving in excess of $100 million, $105 million, and the Province would receive $15 million from income tax and, of course, would receive an additional $37 million from royalties on gas.
As a result of the natural gas and gas liquids tax, there was just enough of a marginal on the feedstocks to make it impossible for that plant to sell all its products. Therefore, instead of producing at 100 per cent capacity as planned and anticipated and for which markets were available before the federal tax was imposed, the plant was producing at 50 per cent, or half capacity. What was the result? The federal Government, instead of receiving $105 million as planned, instead of receiving the $45 million from income taxes that it would have received before it imposed the tax, will receive $20 million this year. The Province lost some $34 million in taxes and royalties. Therefore, the federal Government not only lost the extra $60
November 15, 1982

million in tax which it tried to collect but, in addition, cost themselves and the rest of Canada an additional $140 million. That is plain, stupid taxation. All the Government need do is reverse that stupid tax and it would reduce the deficit and put people back to work.
Second, the Government must cut red tape. Historically, for every three geologists working in the energy industry-those are the people who find the oil-one needed one paper shuffler. As a result of the National Energy Program, and goodness knows how many other things those geniuses in EMR have invented, the ratio is now reversed. Every geologist requires three paper shufflers to handle the red tape so he can do his job. We gnash our teeth about productivity and ask why we are so non-productive in this country. It is no wonder. All we do is produce work for paper shufflers. They do not produce anything but simply satisfy the bureaucrats in Ottawa, Edmonton, Regina and other capitals. Let us not blame it all on the Feds.


An Hon. Member:: And Alberta.


Harvie Andre: I referred to Edmonton. That is in Alberta, in case the Hon. Member did not know.
Finally, we must restore trust. I want to quote from an article in The Calgary Herald. Francis Reinhardt of the New York investment house, Carl H. Pforzheimer & Co., in reference to Canadian oil stocks stated:
The mood has improved and some institutions are investing in Canada again. But more who have been long-term investors, and made money here in the past, are staying out because they don't trust Pierre Trudeau not to double-cross them again.
There is the problem, lack of trust.
The best solution is a change of Government. I recognize we are not going to get volunteers for that but at least let us hear a mea culpa, at least let them admit that that was a mistake in the National Energy Program, the 25 per cent back-in, that retroactive confiscation of private property was a mistake. Blame it on Ed Clark; blame it on Ian Stewart; blame it on Michael Pitfield, blame it on somebody, I do not care, but say a mea culpa and show the world that yes, Canada does recognize the retroactive confiscation of private assets is foreign to the policy of this country, and that we will not do that again in the future.
If we do those three things, Mr. Speaker, cut red tape, reduce the net-back and admit the error so as to try to restore some confidence, we can get this sector back to work and generate not a few jobs, not a few hundred jobs, not a few thousand jobs, but tens of thousands of jobs, and restore some sense of future to the many families in this country.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks by expressing appreciation to the Official Opposition for providing this opportunity to speak to this motion today. As has been acknowledged by one or two previous speakers, none of the Official Opposition speakers have brought themselves around to discussing their motion or
Supply
laying out in specific terms for the Canadian taxpayer what they would do. They have failed to identify themselves with the question of industrial development in the country.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) talked about, in a critical way, moneys that are going to be made available to de Havilland and to Canadair. I find that very strange that an Hon. Member from Metro Toronto would speak critically of assisting that all-important aircraft manufacturing industry.
As was asked of him by one of the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, when will he identify what his Party might do if it ever has the opportunity to be a Government in this country? He said not to worry, there were other speakers following him and they would flesh this thing out as they went along.
The last speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) spent his time talking about the only subject that he seems able to speak about, namely, oil and gas. He ridiculed the Government, went on in the most non-productive, negative way, and finally closed wth his usual attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). What is new about that?
Since they have not bothered to address the subject they have brought to the House today, as I started to say, I appreciate the opportunity of having a few moments of debate in the House to bring the other side of the story.
In industrial policy initiatives since 1980 the Government has, through capital investment, created a favourable investment climate, assured capital availability, set up viable projects in slow-growth areas, and, in exceptional circumstances, it has guaranteed loans. The question of support to high productivity manufacturing, such as Michelin, Chrysler, White Motor Corporation, Massey-Ferguson, Ford-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Bail-out.


Maurice James Harquail: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) wants to oppose and criticize the system to protect those jobs in Ontario, and now attempts to interrupt my remarks. That is fine. All Canadian taxpayers will take note and good count of this performance. When there is an election and they go into that voting booth, that is when we see the results as to their appreciation of the position of Members from Ontario with respect to serious decisions that are taken to assist plants to ensure and protect those all-important jobs.
Reference was made to the amounts of moneys that have been spent on research and development. In spite of the ridicule and negative talk, the number of dollars that have been assigned by the federal Government to this all-important work is very substantial.
I want to tell Canadians about the dollars that are allocated for ITC and DREE. The new Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) has the responsibility for something in the order of $3 billion through current budget expenditures to aid industry and small business. The Opposition Members talk

November 15, 1982
Supply
about paper, they talk about negative things, but never do they acknowledge the fact that this type of commitment is made. In those areas where decisions are taken we see positive results from the expenditure of those dollars. When you look at small business, FDB, ILAP, STEP, tourism, and other areas of expenditures, current expenditures are over $2 billion.
Opposition Members talk of training people. I do not know of any other country in the world that is doing as much as this Government in providing funds for proper training of men and women in preparation for the work force. That program is not in an idle position. There is greater emphasis being put upon this important aspect of having men and women ready to go into the new high-technology jobs.
In so far as National Defence is concerned, again the Opposition claims that not a nickel is being spent by this Government. When the figures are considered, they are quite impressive, at $7.5 billion for the current budget, for the year-to-year operating expenses, not to mention the Aurora Program, the Leopard tank, the F-18, and the frigate program. In the next 12 years or so in excess of $20 billion is budgeted. The spin-off benefits, the ripple effects and the jobs that will be created by the Government's commitment to these important programs have been spelled out by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne).
When we reach the stage of carrying out the commitment we will take the opportunity to highlight the need for directing some of the construction of the frigate program to the dry-docks at Saint John, New Brunswick. They have proven their competence, efficiency and ability to produce an excellent product at that facility. I want to support my colleague who represents that area as well as the other Hon. Members who have identified that need. We know that very shortly hard decisions will be taken as to the location, and successful bidders, with respect to these major projects, and the expenditure to construct these new frigates for National Defence. I certainly want to express my appreciation to the Opposition for this opportunity to highlight the support for the all-important location of those contracts and jobs when we arrive at the final decision to go ahead with the actual construction of the frigates, which are under design at the present moment.
I want to take this opportunity also to flag a very important project in northern New Brunswick, the much talked about zinc refinery which is to be constructed by Brunswick Mining and Smelting, a subsidiary of the Noranda group out of Toronto. We all recall the great enthusiasm when the announcement was made in the course of a budget debate in this House that the plant was going ahead and it was going to create 1,500 person-years of work during the construction stage, and in excess of 500 permanent jobs once completed. I will not take a lot of time to talk about the positive benefits of this type of project when Canadians must find jobs.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have the downturn in the economy of Canada and the United States, not much has been said about the fact that we have three pulp and paper mills
under construction in northern New Brunswick, with a total capital expenditure in excess of $700 million. You will not find anyone in the media, CBC or anywhere else, who wants to talk about it for the strange reason that it is too positive, has an upbeat to it. It is good news. Something is happening to create jobs. At the pulp mill at Atholville, New Brunswick, alone, there are over 700 construction workers employed during the modernization stage. That plant will cost in excess of $200 million. The CIP newsprint mill at Dalhousie will have expenditures in excess of $200 million. The Bathurst Consolidated Mill at Bathurst, New Brunswick, will have expenditures in excess of $200 million. These are not projects which are just in the discussion or planning stage. The construction is under way now. The jobs have been created. The money is being spent. All the very positive economic ripple effects from these projects are under way now. But you cannot find anyone, certainly not in the Opposition or in the news media, who wants to tell Canadians the goods news about what is happening at a time when there are difficulties with the economy.
We are very proud of the fact, certainly I am, that we have been successful in convincing these companies to take advantage of the incentive grants provided by the Government through DREE and other attractive programs such as the 50 per cent tax credit, special investment on capitalization, which was brought in. This brings me right back to the urgency of coordinating and providing leadership from within the Government, the various Ministries, to ensure that the captains of the industry, one of the largest corporations in Canada, Noranda, continue with their plan to construct this zinc plant at Bel-ledune, New Brunswick.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has just announced the special allocation of $500 million for job creation, which was well received, and we congratulate him on this initiative, all the time knowing that it is temporary job creation. However, the project I have referred to, of course, results in permanent jobs. I have had meetings as recently as August of this year with officials of the Noranda Group who have stated they want to proceed with this plant, that they will need the plant when the economy turns around.
What I would like to stress today is that we must make sure all the various interested Ministries are very well attuned to the urgency of going ahead with this project in northern New Brunswick because of all of the jobs which will be provided during the construction stage, and, equally important, the permanent jobs which will result upon completion. While I remain optimistic because of the fact that the senior officers of the Noranda Group have stated on more than one occasion their need, desire and interest in going ahead, because of the soft market and the high cost of money in the early part of 1982, the project appears to have been moved to the back burner, certainly it is in the position of just idling at the moment.
What I would dearly love to achieve this afternoon is to focus on this project, bring some attention to it, to stress and underline the urgency of this project. I would also like to take
November 15, 1982

this opportunity to make an urgent request of the various Ministries concerned and responsible for the co-ordination of such a massive program as the construction of this $360-million plant, and to offer, of course, my energy and assistance in continuing the co-ordination of the work that has already gone into this project.
1 had occasion to have some discussion with the people in my area during the recent Remembrance Day observances and have found that there is, of course, a continuing concern as to whether in fact the plant will ever be brought into reality, notwithstanding the jobs that are already in place in the mines there, as well as in the operation of the other smelter, constructed some years ago, which provides more than 500 permanent jobs today. With the current unemployment situation in Canada and, certainly, in that part of Atlantic Canada, I need not take the time of the House to underline how much this project means to the economy and to that area. We must continue to keep the project on the rails, to keep that pressure on the officials of the Noranda Group as well as on the Government Ministries involved so we can see that important project brought to reality.
As I mentioned earlier, when I listen to some of the contributions which were made with respect to what is happening in this country, I came to the conclusion that there is simply gloom and doom, that nothing is happening, nothing is being done. 1 have been given the opportunity to put some of the figures on record, and they are not miserly or conservative figures; they are substantial figures. These figures are not only in the millions, they are in the billions of dollars, and they are not only being talked about, they are in place. They are being expended now within the economy of the country. Those areas which are represented by Members who are able to show initiative in carrying out the work to create jobs in a positive sense, are the areas which will be able to take advantage of the benefits of those dollars which have been allocated, and they will not have to whine or cry about the situation in the country. We must appreciate and deal with the dynamic entrepreneurial skills which Canadians have proved in the past they have.
1 invite, implore and urge all Hon. Members to take a very positive look at these excellent opportunities, certainly now with the interest rates coming down and with the upturn in the economy, according to the Conference Board and the Chambers of Commerce. The new Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, who is from Moncton, New Brunswick, was talking about his optimism with regard to opportunities to create new industry and jobs. This, if we are sincere at all, is what we should be talking about and addressing ourselves to, in a collective and co-operative way, not in a negative way at all.
My purpose this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to make a positive contribution to this aspect of parliamentary procedure where the Opposition has a day to have a go at the Government and bring on a resolution. However, I must say that certainly this motion has been a feeble effort, as shown by its wording which is rather convoluted. Certainly the Opposition Members have demonstrated that they are not really prepared
Supply
to discuss the issues. They have not brought any concrete recommendations or suggestions to the Government.
1 would like to conclude by quoting the Prime Minister's speech of October of this year when he said:
If we cannot fully employ ourselves in production, we must employ ourselves in preparation to produce and transport and complete and sell when the world is ready to buy.
And if we are to be ready when the world is ready we must recognize another reality, the nature of the competition we now face. Recession has driven other countries, because they are determined or because they are desperate to compete harder to keep their share of a shrinking world market. We face a world, as I have said, where the survival of the fittest nations has become the rule of life.
That certainly will be true for Canada. I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon I have been able to contribute once again toward the realization of that major project to which I made reference, one which will see the expenditure of millions of dollars and the creation of hundreds of permanent jobs, namely the zinc refinery at Belledune, New Brunswick.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the attitude of the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) when he questioned the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and asked how a Member can possibly attack an investment by the Government in a business in or near his community. I want to say to the Hon. Member that Members on this side of the House were not elected to come to Government with a big pot of money to bail out their constituents, regardless of how it affected the economy of Canada. They were elected to do a job. That is what is wrong with the Government the Hon. Member is with. Members opposite have the idea that somehow they were elected to come here with the attitude that Government has lots of money, let's get some for my riding because that will make me a somebody. A bail-out by the Government, a free-lunch society, and that is what is wrong. Industry is developed by entrepreneurs, not by handouts. In the handouts we have made to the Hon. Member's riding over the many years of this Government have we created prosperity? Have we put people to work? Have we made that riding a viable place where people are going and business is prospering? What have we done with one DREE program, one handout program, one bail-out program after another? Is that an industrial strategy, or is that a strategy of welfare, unemployment and lack of prosperity? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of strategy the Hon. Member for Restigouche has advocated, that is this Government's strategy, and that is a strategy we must now defeat.
Let us speak positively, Mr. Speaker, about where we must go as a country. First of all, I say to Hon. Members opposite that we must have an industrial strategy of freedom. We have to remove the shackles of regulation and red tape from business. If you want to make people think, you have to make them free. Look at the restrictions in the oil and gas industry. They are not increasing production in this country one iota. Look at the restrictions on farmers. Can you really say that we are producing farm products as cheap as we can? Are you really helping the young farmer get organized and build and create
20670

November 15, 1982
Supply
and grow in this country with the restrictions of marketing boards, regulations and red tape? Are you really improving transportation rates, making it cheaper to move goods, with one regulation after another which tells you what you must charge to move a certain product or person from one place to another? Are you really doing anything by not letting the competitive marketplace work? Are you really improving culture and the expression of opinion by one regulation after another, promulgated by the CRTC and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox)? Are you really improving the productivity of Canada with those regulations concerning the Post Office now before the Cabinet which will prevent municipalities having their employees reading the meter and delivering the bill at the same time, thus cutting the cost of delivering utility bills? Are you really doing something, or are you really trying to preserve a vested interest here, protect a vested interest there, and make Canada less productive, less profitable and with more people shuffling more pieces of paper than are really needed? Is it not the job of Government to be involved only where the vast public interest is at stake, not the minor public interest of some individuals who might want to be protected and maintain the status quo? Should Government not get out of these areas and give the entrepreneurial spirit of Canada freedom? Do we not need a strategy of freedom? I say to the Government, that is the strategy we need and that is the strategy we should start with.
Let us go on to another strategy. Let us talk about the strategy for investment. My friends from the New Democratic Party mentioned the Foreign Investment Review Act. It was brought up in Question Period today. There was concern that certain investors had bought certain buildings in Toronto and the rents would automatically go up because of it. What utter nonsense. Rent control is handled by the Province of Ontario. This Government should not be involved, and Members need not raise that issue in this Parliament. But what are we really concerned about? Let us look at foreign investment. The test now is whether that investment is of significant benefit to Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker, that almost every investment in Canada is of benefit to Canada. We need money to build, grow, to create plants and equipment.
We do not need to turn it off. What we should be looking at is whether the investment is likely to do significant harm to Canadians. The test should not be significant benefit, it should be: is this investment likely to do harm? Well, if it is going to do harm, then let us stop it. But almost always new investment, new technology, new people and new ideas create new opportunities for Canadians and new jobs. What we must do as part of our industrial strategy is to remove the shackles put on foreign investment.
We need to have another strategy, Mr. Speaker, the strategy of hands off. When I began my remarks I was speaking about the attitude of the Hon. Member for Restigouche. His attitude was that these Government programs were great because here he could, with his political influence, maybe get his constituents a dip in the pot.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock and return after dinner?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner break I was talking about Government programs and about the strategy of "hands off'. We have a Government policy that creates one program after another; a total alphabet soup list. Earlier this year I received a phone book, which was roughly one and a quarter inches thick, listing Government programs. Yet we heard the Hon. Member for Restigouche say that his job as a Member of Parliament is to make sure that his constituents can take advantage of these politically oriented programs. Surely, Mr. Speaker, his job is to do something for Canada, not to worry about the political orientation of Government programs.
That is the first problem with these programs, that they are politically oriented. They require someone to submit a brief; they require someone to examine that brief, and they require a grant or decision by the Cabinet, or whoever, that it is going to be of some benefit to someone for something. That is not the way to encourage business. It is not the way to build Canada. You do not build Canada with a bureaucratic nightmare of programs, but that is what we have today. What we have to do now is to eliminate as many of these programs as we can. We have to look at the programs and realize that we can get things moving in the country without this enormous expense list, this enormous bureaucracy, this enormous political influence in the economic activities of the country.
The number of civil servants required to administer the briefs, the payments made out of the envelope of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the extent of the applications and the quality of the applications, are staggering.
I should like to relate the story of a man who has some political affiliation and who came to my office one day. He told me that he was going to incorporate a company. He said that he knew his way around Ottawa, and he told me that he thought he should call the company "Rip Off Canada Limited". He said that if you know how to write a brief, you could get a grant or loan or something, and that was what his business pattern was going to be. He said "I will only take half the benefit from the businessman. He will get the grant and I will get half the grant, because I got it for him." The concept was "Rip Off Canada Limited", and that was going to be his modus operandi. That is exactly what is happening in the country today. That kind of thing cannot be part of building a nation.
November 15, 1982

My friend from Restigouche mentioned the fact that $5 billion was going out in this type of program, through regional expansion grants, EDP grants, loans and guarantees. Where are we going with this alphabet soup of programs? In this country have we developed the goal and growth we want? The answer is no, we have not. We would not have nearly 2 million people unemployed if we had developed them.
Just the other day the Hon. Member for York-Peel remarked to me that the unemployment rate is really 20 per cent if you take the Government out of the statistics. Twenty per cent of the people of Canada work for Government one way or another, and they are not laid off. The lay-offs are taking place amongst people who produce real goods and services in the country. That is where the unemployment is, Mr. Speaker.
Statistics show that there is 12.7 per cent unemployment, but statistics do not show that the number of people allegedly in the work force has been reduced by over half a million in a year. The fact is that we have massive unemployment, yet we have this myriad of programs that are supposed to do something. They are politically oriented programs and will not take us anywhere. When John Bulloch appeared before a Committee of this Parliament he told it that over 50 per cent of programs were of absolutely no use to small business and should be abolished. We should get rid of the burden, get rid of the people and get going. We should give business an opportunity to work.
We must have a tax strategy, Mr. Speaker, to encourage growth, not consumption. What have we got from the Government so far? On November 12 we had a budget that discouraged growth, discouraged innovation and new productive machinery by increasing the length of time it takes to amortize the cost of that machinery. In these times is it not appropriate to allow 100 per cent capital cost write-offs for new productive machinery? If you really wanted to increase productivity, is that not what you would do? Would you not tell a manufacturer to buy a piece of machinery that would make things faster and better or to buy robotics or tools that would make him more productive and efficient and able to compete and that he would be allowed to write off the cost in the year of purchase? Is that not what we should do? That is not what we get from a government which is greedy for more money, greedy for money to supply its programs and to feed its amazing bureaucracy. What we want is growth and productivity, but we have not had them.
Should we not have a tax policy in terms of economic development in the poorer regions of the country that ought to provide for tax allowances well in excess of capital costs in the normal sense? Rather than grants, the Government should say to people that they will have a 200 per cent write-off if they invest in depressed areas of the country. They should be told that if they make a profit, they can go home, put it in their pockets and not pay taxes. This is the way things should be done. It should be done by encouragement and by using the tax
Supply
policy of the country to create productivity, not discourage it; to create savings, not discourage them.
What kind of tax policy was presented last November? The other day the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) asked the Minister some questions with respect to the November 12 budget. He suggested that the Government should rip up that budget, and the Minister said, as reported at page 20615 of Hansard'.
-1 still maintain that most of those changes which were proposed by my predecessor were fair and just changes. However, the economic environment has significantly changed in the meantime, and we had to make adjustments. Those adjustments are what I have made. However, in terms of equity, I am fully behind the decisions taken by my predecessor in that respect. 1 think he was right in recommending them to the House.
The answer is clear, that the Government does not believe in growth, in savings or in productivity, but in something called bureaucratic equity. We will not build a country on bureaucratic equity. We build a country by giving entrepreneurs a challenge, a hope of profit or the sizzle of return. We do not build it by regulations or tax positions which are somehow related to something called bureaucratic equity.
Time is running short. The next strategy we must have is one of fairness. The taxpayers of the country are entitled to feel that when they pay their taxes to the Government they will be fairly treated. What is fair about a manufacturer paying his share of taxes only to find some Government Department giving an interest-free loan to his competitor? What is fair about guaranteeing, as the Government did in the Maislin case, the loans of one transport company when there are 15,000 in the country, as if it were a necessity, as if some other transport or truck driver or someone else could not have picked up the Maislin licences and served the public just as well? It is a question of fairness. The bail-outs by the Government have not been fair because they have tended to assist the losers at the expense of the winners. What sense of fairness is this to the business community when a person who is successful is penalized to support the person who has proven management incompetence? Did they improve the farm machinery business by bailing out Massey? To take a look at what happened to Versatile tractor, to White or to International Harvester, did they really create jobs and improve the farm machinery business? Did they really accomplish anything for Canada, or did they just blow $125 million of taxpayers' money down the sewer?


Mr. MacKay:: What about Consolidated Computer?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, what about Consolidated Computer, as my friend says? Let us take a look at some of the other Crown corporations.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Canadair.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We will have an opportunity tomorrow in committee to take a look at Canadair. We must have a strategy of confidence. People have to be confident when they deal with the Government or any government of Canada that they will have a fair shake, that when they invest in something, the Government will not unilaterally and by retroactive taxation

November 15, 1982
Supply
take it away from them. When people purchase Canada Savings Bonds and the Government of Canada says that those people can accumulate interest on them for the eight or nine years, is it fair to then say that in three years they will have to pay income tax on the accumulation?
This year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) sold cumulative bonds. At the same time he did not tell the purchaser of Canada Savings Bonds, who bought them on a cumulative basis, that in 1985 they will have to pay tax on their earned interest. That is what the budget indicates, that is what he did.
Flow can one have confidence in a Government which lies, misrepresents, seizes assets retroactively or changes the tax treatment of a business expense? How can one have confidence in a government which says to a public servant who has paid a 1.5 per cent extra premium for an indexed pension that somewhere along the line it does not have to honour that guarantee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I thank the House; I will try to be exceptionally brief.
I should like to speak of the attitude of the Government toward co-operation with other elements in the governmental system. Over a very short period we have had a Government which has said that co-operative federalism is dead. Unfortunately or fortunately, as one looks at it, we have a system of government in Canada which essentially depends upon two levels-the Provinces and the Federal Governement. When we wind up in a continual conflict between one element of Government and another, we wind up with a situation where taxpayers, entrepreneurs, business persons and people in every walk of life do not know where they stand. It is essential to have a federal-provincial conference of First Ministers on the economy. The situation in the country in terms of employment is desperate.
The other day in the Senate of Canada the Government introduced Bill S-31. It was designed for no other purpose than to cause a war between the federal Government and provincial governments. If we are to have a strategy on which to build the country and put people to work, we must get rid of the confrontational concept of government. I say seriously that we must be finished with the idea that governments are opposed to each other. Surely we elect provincial governments and we elect federal governments. Surely it is the same voter. Surely the voter's interest is to make things work efficiently. The concept of confrontation must cease. Bill S-31 must be withdrawn. A federal-provincial conference must be called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to indicate to the Hon. Member that Bill S-31 is not before the House. I invite him to keep his remarks to the subject before us.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate for several reasons. First, as Hon. Members who have sat through this debate will understand, we have heard only a couple of constructive suggestions tonight. However, by and large what have we really heard? We heard some Hon. Members in the Opposition say, cut the deficit. Others said, spend more money; give more money to industry; create more jobs. Other Hon. Members said, strengthen FIRA, while others have said that we must let more investment into the country and that we should relax FIRA procedures. One Hon. Member from one Party was up endorsing the report of-


Pauline Jewett: You don't even know which Party.


Edward C. Lumley: -the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation. That Hon. Member will recall that there was a split among the Parties in the House with respect to the National Trading Corporation, and the Government decided for the time being not to go ahead with it. Yet, at the same time, the Hon. Member's Party advocates that the private sector should be left alone. There is one sure thing we can see from the debate tonight, that is that there is no unanimity in the Opposition with respect to the motion before us. Let me quote one part of the Opposition motion. It reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to increase exports of Canadian manufactured goods-
It is rather ironic that on this very day the largest export contract in the manufacturing sector in the history of Canada was signed this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was a gift, a $300-million gift.


Edward C. Lumley: If my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) were here tonight, he would be talking about what has happened to the economy of Canada with respect to exports in the last couple of years. Since I have had some small part to play in this activity, I would like to cite a few figures for my colleagues. The latest StatsCan figures are for September, 1982. In these figures we find the following:
The Canadian trade balance on manufactured goods {using the proxy of inedible fabricated materials plus inedible end products) improved dramatically in September and in the first nine months of this year when compared with the position of a year earlier. In the first nine months of 1982 there was an estimated surplus of $3,837 million in Canada's trade in all manufactured goods compared with a deficit of $2,627 million in the comparable period of last year-an improvement of some $6.5 billion.
How the Opposition can condemn the Government for not increasing exports in Canadian manufactured goods when this year we will have the largest merchandise trade surplus in Canadian history is beyond my comprehension.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about manufactured goods?


Edward C. Lumley: Let us take a look at several other aspects of our international trade figures. First, in the last couple of years

|
November 15, 1982

our trade as a percentage of GNP has increased from the historic level of 25 per cent to almost 33 per cent.
Second, one of the Government's priorities, and I am sure the Opposition's, is the diversification of our trading markets. Of our total trade the U.S. has fallen from the 70 per cent mark to around 65 or 66 per cent. In other words, our trade is more diversified now than at any other time in Canada's history.
One of the other areas the Government has been concentrating on during the past couple of years is with respect to its trade strategy. I say trade strategy because the Government in essence adopted a trade development strategy for the first time in modern history with its focus on major capital projects. For example, the Bombardier contract which was announced today will create 25,500 person years of work in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: That is a campaign team clap.


Edward C. Lumley: The main reason for concentrating on capital projects is the sale of capital goods. I am sure all Hon. Members will join with me in praising the Canadian manufacturing industry as well as the Canadian consulting engineering industry, as a matter of fact, all Canadian business, because it has maximized trade potential in these major capital projects during the last two years, far more than at any other time in Canada's history. For instance, there is the General Motors contract with the U.S. worth over $1 billion in the sale of armoured personnel carriers. Our largest World Bank financed contract was the Suralya Power Project, obtained by Babcock and Wilcox. I might indicate that there was some insinuation from one Hon. Member that we assist only those constituencies that are represented by those on the Government side of the House. This project happens to be in the constituency of an Hon. Member on the other side of the House, the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer).
There is one important aspect to our trade which very few people in this House realize, and that is that over 70 per cent of Canada's total trade is in some form of manufacturing. We are not the hewers of wood and drawers of water that some Members of this House and some members of the public would like to make us out to be. In terms of manufactured goods in the export market, what has also happened over the last couple of years? What are some of the other constructive measures this Government has taken?
In the first place, the Government of Canada, two and a half years ago, decided to get into the matching export subsidy business. This increase of manufactured goods in export markets is not just by coincidence. For example, we started to make better use of parallel financing in the countries where CIDA assistance was available. We introduced a new financing facility called Credit Mixte to provide Canadian industry with competitive financing to enter into those middle-income markets which did not have a facility before. The PEMD Program is a program for export market development. Companies all across Canada, especially small and medium-sized
Supply
firms, have been involved in this Program. The Program was expanded from $7 million to $21 million.
In only 20 minutes Mr. Speaker, we do not have too much time to get into all the specific aspects of the Hon. Member's motion. With respect to the portion on providing incentives for training opportunities, if my seatmate, the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) were here tonight and had the opportunity to speak, I am sure that he would talk about the new National Training Act. Over $1 billion from the federal Government this year has been allocated to it. That, I might add, was with the full co-operation of all the Provinces and all the Parties in the House of Commons. Over 250,000 people will be trained under the new National Training Act.
One part of this program that I think addresses the question raised by several Members concerning high technology is the major skilled growth fund. This provides financial assistance to employers, provinces and non-profit groups to help modernize training facilities and to help adjust our labour force to the high technology industries of the future. Most important are our human resources. The Minister of Employment and Immigration over the past two and a half years has more than addressed himself to this particular aspect.
In the motion of the Hon. Member for York-Peel there is mention of an industrial strategy. I would like to call his attention to the November 1981 budget, wherein a special document was produced by the then minister of finance, "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s". The Government of Canada did not just introduce an industrial strategy, it produced an economic strategy. I would suggest that the Hon. Member for York-Peel and his colleagues read this particular document. If they look at the contents of the document, they will find that the priorities are set out clearly for all to read. There are five major priorities. They are: developing industry, developing natural resources, developing transportation, developing exports, developing human resources-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When are you going to do it?


Edward C. Lumley: One can also find the Government's policy direction on ownership of private industry-the Government and the private sector; federal-provincial relations; the international competitive environment, etc. The Government more than produced an industrial strategy. This document sets out a guideline for each and every economic department to follow during the course of its daily operation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When will it begin?


Edward C. Lumley: Let us take a look at the section on industry, Mr. Speaker. One can read our objective for industrial and regional benefits from major projects; industrial investment and innovation; and industrial adjustment obviously. 1 do not have the time to indicate the details of the specific document-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member entertain a question? It is very simple. I

November 15, 1982
Supply
know the program he is referring to, but when is it to be executed?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, most of it is being implemented since the document was introduced in 1981.
For example, let us consider a couple of programs which the Government has introduced. I will deal with the industrial side. I think I have already addressed the trade component. If the Hon. Member would like to go through the document, I am sure this can be verified. In October, 1981, just prior to the publication of the document entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s", the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board was created. It is responsible to our Department. The Board consisted mainly of businessmen from the private sector. Its mandate was, first, to promote the revitalization of the textile, clothing and footwear industry; second, to promote the strength and diversification of the economic base of regions which are heavily dependent on these industries; and third, to assist workers misplaced as a result of industrial adjustment in these sectors. This program, worth about $267 million, as I recall, was initiated around the same time as the economic development strategy was put forward by the then minister of finance. The Industry and Labour Adjustment Program-the ILAP Program-is a $350 million program which includes subsequent designations of communities for benefits under the program and designation of the major appliance sector and the autoparts sector for aid under the industry specific restructuring program portion of the ILAP.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) asked when some of these programs will be implemented. As I recall his opening comments, he said that the time for talk is over. He obviously has not been paying attention to my colleagues and me in the House during the past two and a half years, otherwise, he would be aware of the number of programs that have been initiated by this Government. 1 do not know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but my officials have provided me with about 50 pages containing the programs and projects that have been initiated by this Government. I have only outlined a couple of them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Look at the results.


Mr. McDermid:: I am sure they have.


Edward C. Lumley: Obviously the Opposition does not want to hear about what has been done. That is fair game. The Opposition wants to indicate to the Canadian public that the Government has done nothing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Yet they do not want to listen to the Government's response. The Opposition wants to indicate that the Government has been in competition with the private sector. They say to let the private sector do its own thing, as 1 understood one Hon. Member to say. In the area of trade, the Government has been an active partner, in a complementary
sense, with the private sector. I would suggest to Hon. Members in the House that if they do not believe that the private sector has been happy with what we have done with respect to international trade, they should look at the statements emanating from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Exporters Associations or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I am sure the indication is that we have been both an active and a complementary partner with the private sector.
Let me deal briefly with the sectorial strategies. In the last two or three weeks I have undertaken discussions with several individuals in the private sector, including both labour and management, regarding the possible implementation of task forces in the automobile and the aerospace sectors to report within a maximum of four months. The House knows that the Government has undertaken to set up a task force with respect to the fisheries sector and that we are looking at petrochemicals as well. We have already undertaken a review of the shipbuilding sector, and that report will soon be announced.
In establishing the sectorial task forces in this way-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Again.


Edward C. Lumley: It is not again. I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) that it was this Government in 1977-78 that established the 23 sectorial task forces which included business, labour and Government. I think the results were very beneficial to the Canadian economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What did you need the Macdonald Commission for?


Edward C. Lumley: When the Hon. Member's Government took office in 1979 I do not recall their restoring those industrial task forces or taking advantage of the input which the private sector made at that time.


Philip Derek Lewis: I love the results.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the Macdonald Commission?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Go to confession.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, one of the Hon. Members opposite talked about too many programs. I happen to agree with him. One of the priorities of our Department is to scrunch those programs. Right now, we have approximately 87 major programs. We will try to reduce this to about thirty, and we are down to about 50 at the present time. We are not doing this for reasons alluded to by the Hon. Member. The main reason is that this Government has a sincere desire to develop the economy in every region of this country. We also have a desire to encourage more small and medium sized businesses across Canada to take advantage of the Federal programs that are available to them. The difficulty is that the majority of the programs are just too complicated, and they are mostly delivered here in Ottawa. Thus one of our major priorities is to
November 15, 1982

diversify the decision-making and delivery mechanism of all these programs. In the next couple of months I hope to be able to make an announcement in this regard.


John Horton McDermid: Is Industry, Trade and Commerce moving to Stephenville, Newfoundland?


Edward C. Lumley: You are right, Stephenville, Newfoundland and Sydney, Nova Scotia. There are two of our priorities, Mr. Speaker.
In the remaining minutes that I have, I want to make some comments about productivity. There is no doubt that improving Canada's productivity must be the priority concern of both the Government and the private sector as Canada evolves from the current recession, a concerted and national effort is needed on the part of Government, business and labour in order to bring down inflation and undertake productive investments, which will, in turn, strengthen the competitive position of Canadian firms in domestic and, more important, export markets. In this context, our Department will be focusing its policies and programs on the promotion of productive investments in areas of strategic importance to Canada from an industrial and regional development and adjustment viewpoint.


Philip Derek Lewis: Like Maislin.


Edward C. Lumley: Policies to support both the development and the utilization of advanced technologies will be an important aspect of the strategy. I will be consulting extensively with the private sector and with labour to ensure a strategic focus in a co-operative manner for our Department's activities, and to ensure that the Department's initiatives are carried out in a cooperative manner with the private sector.
While I was talking about productivity I heard a comment from the Opposition with respect to bail-outs and a few companies.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about Maislin.


Edward C. Lumley: I would like to ask those Hon. Members if they would have let Chrysler Corporation-


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Edward C. Lumley: -and Massey-Ferguson go down the drain?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Edward C. Lumley: The Opposition would have let all those jobs go down the drain. I find that incredible, Mr. Speaker, when I hear Hon. Members talking, on the one hand, about job creation, high technology, exports, and then saying that they would let the Canadairs, the de Havillands, the Massey-Fergusons and the Chryslers of this world go down the drain.
I think the Chrysler Corporation story is one of the great success stories in the past couple of years.


Philip Derek Lewis: How many cars are coming off the line today?


Edward C. Lumley: I am surprised at these Hon. Members who talk about job creation-
Supply


John Horton McDermid: What about Coca-Cola?


Philip Derek Lewis: Bail it out.


Edward C. Lumley: The Chryler Corporation guarantee has not cost the Government of Canada one single cent to this day.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yet.


Edward C. Lumley: If we had lost the Chrysler Corporation, 40,000 people would have been added to the unemployment rolls in this country on the first day. If you go back two years, that is 40,000 people who have been employed for two years in the private sector without the cost of one cent to the people of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tell us about some of the people you threw out of work with the National Energy Program.


Edward C. Lumley: I do not know how the Opposition considers return on investment. In my opinion, when the Government of Canada, by undertaking a guarantee, can keep 40,000 people working for two solid years, that seems to me to be a good return to the country's taxpayers.
I see that my time is coming to an end, and I can tell by the animation shown on the opposite side that they have at least heard my speech tonight. That is a welcome change.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate the three main goals of our Department. First and foremost, and I believe that all Members will agree, is the goal to create jobs. The second goal is to help provide a stable economic environment for the private sector in this country. The third goal is to pursue balanced industrial growth in support of Canadian regional development objectives.
I would conclude by saying that I agree with the Hon. Members who have said that what we need in this country is more co-operation and less confrontation. I believe that, with the help of all Members in the House, we will achieve those goals.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, there is much in the motion introduced by the Conservative Party with which I concur. I condemn the Government also for not having introduced its promised comprehensive industrial strategy, its failure to produce specific strategies to harness the potential of Canadian industry and to promote the advantageous utilization of Canada's human and natural resources and for its low level of research and development in Canada. Indeed, there is much in the motion that I think any fair-minded Canadian would have to agree with and say that what is lacking is a sense of direction and purpose and an effective national strategy to restore our economy and put the country back on its feet. This would offer some hope to the unemployed and particularly to the young men and women who are graduating from the universities without any prospect of meaningful employment.

November 15, 1982
Supply
The record of the Liberal Government during the 1970s and even during the 1960s in the area of research and development is appalling. 1 think much is already contained in various commissions and studies, to which the Hon. Member referred, regarding the low level of research and development in Canada during the seventies. The percentage of R and D as a percentage of the gross national product dropped to 0.9 per cent. That was around the same level as the expenditure of research and development in countries such as Ireland and Portugal. What happened during the seventies, the years, the decade of Liberal neglect, was that our university research facilities have deteriorated. Studies have shown the deplorable condition of the equipment in our universities. There is no immediate prospect of funding to modernize the equipment which is so badly needed by the research community in Canada. Indeed, if the Government were really committeed to having a strong research and development sector in Canada, I would suggest it would immediately introduce emergency funding to update the existing equipment in our universities. It would be a significant and also a symbolic gesture to show the Government's commitment to improved R and D in this country.
During the seventies also, under the leadership of the Liberals in Government, we saw a massive brain drain. In fact, the projections are that even if we do accomplish our 1.5 per cent of GNP toward R and D, the goal which was read to us during the Speech from the Throne which opened this Parliament, there is grave doubt that there will be enough trained manpower to fill all the scientific positions because of the starving of funds for the scientific community.
Much has been done to blame workers in this country. It is a favourite pastime of our Conservative friends and the Liberal Government to blame Canadian labour. They say Canadian labour is not productive. I would suggest that the fault lies in part with the Government opposite, because during the 1970s, when industry should have been reinvesting in research and development and in more modern plants and equipment, it did not do so. There was a dismally low level of research and development in Canada, below 0.9 per cent of the GNP. In part, both Government and private industry are to blame. The fact that major industries in this country are branch plants of larger multinationals has meant that very little research and development has occurred in the Canadian subsiduaries. It has meant that very little capital has been reinvested in new equipment. In other words, the cream was taken off. Dividends were distributed to shareholders all over the world without the desirable amounts of money being returned for new equipment. Both industry and Government, and industry's lackeys, the Conservatives, have the gall to put the blame on Canadian workers.
To me, productivity is very simple. It is the difference between a person who saws 24 hours a day with a handsaw and another who spends three hours sawing with an electric saw. The person with the electric saw, of course, will be more productive than the person with the handsaw, and it does not matter how motivated they are in their work. The person with
the handsaw can have the highest motivation and put in 24 hours a day, yet he will produce less than the person with the electric saw, with some new equipment, with the means to produce more.
Yes, indeed, there is a need for an industrial strategy and, in fact, I would say there is also a need for a social industrial strategy.
The underfunding of the social sciences was another area of Liberal neglect during the seventies. It consisted of the starving of funds for social sciences in this country and the squeeze on the universities. Surely the Government opposite must share a fair amount of the blame for that. We in the New Democratic Party have been calling for an industrial and social strategy for years. In fact, it is a major tenet of our philosophy that one must have some national strategies and establish some national goals in order to bring together industry, science and government into a cohesive whole. If one does not have these strategies, and if one relies upon the blind mechanism of the "market", one will essentially have economic and social anarchy and, indeed, that is occurring today.
I therefore find it somewhat amusing that the Conservatives, in their Opposition motion, should be calling for an industrial strategy, yet most of the speeches I have heard today suggest that that strategy should be one of letting the marketplace take care of things. They suggest that we should just let Government back off, and let the captains of industry, banking, finance, et cetera, make those decisions which will drive the engine of industry and create new science, new research and new developments. I find it just amazing that, on the one hand, they are calling for an industrial strategy and yet, on the other hand, they are saying that the public has no influence or important part to play in the economic life of this country or in the degree of research and development we will have in the future. I find it amazing, especially when I hear people in the Conservative Party who should know better mouthing that line. In this age of rapid scientific discovery and innovation, the public sector has a tremendous need. In the areas of protecting public health and the environment, there is a tremendous need for Government regulation, and concern. However, my Conservative friends say we should do away with all these regulations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, we do not.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yet they are the first ones to complain when private industry has failed to live up to its public responsibilities or when the Government has failed to enforce the public interest. May I take as an example, the case of urea formaldehyde, a new technological innovation which has been proven dangerous to human health. Are the Conservatives suggesting that we should have even less public regulation and have more urea formaldehyde type of situations occurring?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who led business into it?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is this the case? However, when the accident occurs, they insist that Government should solve the problem and fix up the mess.
November 15, 1982


Philip Derek Lewis: Welcome to the issue!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If you had not had Government in it in the first place, you would not have had the problem.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My Conservative friend suggests that if we had not the Government in the first place, we would not have had the problem.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Of course not.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is this kind of thinking that really has me puzzled about my Conservative friends. The problem with the Conservatives is that they are trying to ride both sides of the fence, and I am sorry, but it does not add up.
In the area of rapid technological innovation, there is a tremendous need for public concern and interests to be protected, particularly-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Who is going to do that? The policeman?


Simon Leendert de Jong: My friend asks who will do that. There is only one body which has the ultimate responsibility for the public, and that is this institution.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: More policemen.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That means Governments and that means the strong public sector. If the Conservatives cannot intellectually understand that, they could at least be honest and stand up
and say so.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We understand it.


Pauline Jewett: They are on both sides of the issue.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The history of this country has always dictated an important role for, the public sector-economically, as in the development of the CPR, and culturally, in the development of institutions like the CBC. It has been recognized most in this country that if matters are simply left to the market forces, our provinces would have become additional States in the Union.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Nonsense!


Simon Leendert de Jong: A conscious public effort is needed to withstand that pull south. The same is true in the area of research and development. While the Conservatives call for more research and development, and I totally agree with them, how do they propose to get more research and development?
Every major study has indicated that the main problem with research and development in this country is that the private sector in Canada does not invest in R and D as they do in the United States, Japan, Germany, and Great Britain.


An Hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Because every study on the subject has indicated that the branch plant economy, the nature of our economy, dictates against the development of our industry in this country. That is the result of studies of economists, sociologists and accountants. These are not ideological figures; they are not
Supply
political figures; this is the bare-bones reality of where we are at in this country.
Where are the solutions and how are we going to come to these solutions? Unfortunately, the solutions are not alluded to in the motion and the speeches we have heard today.
There is a tremendous need for an industrial-social strategy. Many countries in the Western world are experiencing unemployment at significant levels. There is no immediate hope that that situation will change in the next couple of years. It seems that the economies of the Western world have reached a certain plateau. Many governments now are making a mad dash, hoping to gain some leadership in the only growth area in most economies, the high-tech industries.
The interesting contradiction is that most of those technologies will cause increased unemployment. The new microtechnologies will mean the massive lay-off of hundreds of thousands of clerks. What is missing is a national, social and economic strategy because we are going into the twenty-first century, whether we like it or not. We have essentially two choices. One is to proceed in an unplanned way, in a reactive way, trying to solve the problems as they are created. The alternative is to plan for the changes; to develope some strategies in order to control the pace and direction of these changes so they will have a minimum negative effect on Canadians. Those are the two choices we have.
To me a national economic and social strategy will bring together members of industry, labour, universities and the scientific community. There should be a give-and-take and some co-operation. The only way we are going to survive as a society is through that co-operation because these new technologies will be coming and they will have both a positive and a negative impact upon our society. Yet what I see from the Liberals is just continuing blunder after blunder after blunder. We are going to blunder into the twenty-first century.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They are following your policies.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My Hon. friend from the Conservative Party says that they are following our policies. May I suggest that what the Liberals have done is to give Government a bad name. Years of mismanagement have brought disrespect to the public sector, and 1 blame the Liberals for that. The Liberals like the Conservatives, they have never believed in a strong public role in managing the economy. That is why it is an ongoing program of blunder and blunder.
We are going to go into the twenty-first century and we are going to have technological innovation, whether it comes from within Canada or without, or whether other countries are going to take the lead. In fact, many other countries now are investing huge sums of money into R and D. I refer to France where agreements between labour, industry and government have meant a massive increase in their R and D expenditure. They are going to take a massive leap, especially in the fields of microtechnology and bio-engineering. Telidon, or their

November 15, 1982
Supply
version of this technology, is being introduced on a massive scale. Whether we like it or not, the twenty-first century is going to come to Canada. It is just a question of how prepared we are going to be for it.
There are certain questions I believe we should ask in discussing R and D. We should also be concerned about the qualitative and not the quantitative aspect of R and D. Research and development for whom? Who will benefit? Who will pay what price? Perhaps we should also look at other forms of technologies. There is a whole other field rarely discussed called appropriate technology. These are the technologies like the innovation of new airtight wood stoves that allow massive decreases in fuel consumption, that reduce the cost of living of average Canadians, make us as a society more self-sufficient and less dependent upon non-renewable resources like the fossil fuels.
Perhaps there are other innovations that will reduce the cost of living that Canadians have to face every year. Those would be technologies and innovations that would reduce the cost of living, that would make it easier for Canadian men and women to live and would require less income on their part.
There are new technologies in alternate energy. Perhaps we can develop new technologies in home construction. I estimate that the Canadian family has to spend up to $750,000 in their lifetime to pay for their housing. Perhaps we can develop new forms, new technologies and new means by which housing can be supplied so that it is no longer necessary for an average family to earn $750,000 just to pay for their housing, therefore, making it less necessary to earn that income.
Perhaps we will never again have full employment. If that is the case, how can those who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, gain the income to buy life's necessities, how can they survive? Are they, as victims, to be blamed, to be called lazy and parasites on society? I do not think so.
I think there are possibilities for Canadian ingenuity to develop other social forms, to develop appropriate technologies that would allow a meaningful existence to all people. We have the brain power, we have the resources. I know there is a natural will in the country to come together and work toward some collective goals. What we need is some leadership. We have not seen that leadership.
In conclusion I thank the movers of the motion for presenting this resolution. It is an important motion. I think it should be debated in terms of its full meaning. Perhaps out of such debates we can begin to come to some understanding as to what an industrial and social strategy really should include, if we are to survive as a society.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker at the beginning of my remarks tonight 1 think it is important that we take a look again at this motion which the Tories put on the Order Paper for today, and to look at all the imagined failures for which the Opposition is condemning the Government, for failure to introduce a comprehensive industrial strategy to rebuild the Canadian economy, for failure to
produce specific strategies to harness the potential of Canadian industry to promote the advantageous utilization of Canada's human and natural resources, for failure to increase exports of Canadian-manufactured goods, and for failure to provide incentives for training opportunities and to the private sector for new and increased levels of research and development in Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is applauding that. The only thing, Mr. Speaker, they did not condemn this Government for failing to do was moving the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They will probably get around to that one of these days also.
Let us look at that motion and at some of the speeches the Opposition has made here in this House today, and we will start with the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). He started off by saying he was going to be positive, then proceeded to be negative once he finished listing some of the great inventors of Canada. And when it comes to inventing and being a great inventor, the Tory Party will probably go down in history as being one of the greatest inventors of political scams in history. The Hon. Member says this Government is still trying to turn trade around, and he went on to talk about some of the trade deficits which the country had. He chose, of course, the year 1979 when he said the trade deficit was $18 billion. Naturally, the Hon. Member went back in history, as Tories always do, because he did not want to talk about the last three years in which the trade surplus for Canada has been the largest of any three years in our history. In fact, for the first three-quarters of this year, the trade surplus is over $14 billion, while in the third quarter, the U.S. trade deficit was over $13 billion. These are the great free enterprisers and entrepreneurs which the Tories opposite hold up to us as an example when they want us to increase our trade.
It is odd, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member conveniently forgot the three latest years which have been the best trade years in our history. He then spoke about the deficit and he compared it to the U.S. deficit and said our deficit is twice as high on a per capita basis, and the U.S. is, of course, more worried about their deficit than this Government is. I do not argue with that, Mr. Speaker, but the U.S. Government is a whole lot less worried about their poor and their ill than this Government is, because this Government believes in protecting the people of this country from forces over which they have no control, like unemployment and illness, and that is what the Tories conveniently forget to put on the record.
The Hon. Member then condemned the Government, and the very Minister at whose Department this motion is aimed, for giving additional capital funding to de Havilland and Canadair. 1 would like to hear him explain that to his constituents in the Toronto area, because he says it would have been better spent in providing research and development. Apparently, we are to follow the example of the Diefenbaker Government in cancelling the Avro Arrow. But the Hon. Member
November 15, 1982

fails to mention, of course, at the same time, how much of that capital money de Havilland and Canadair have put into research and development in this country to keep aerospace workers employed, and to develop new aircraft, some of the best aircraft in the world for the purposes for which they were developed.


An Hon. Member:: What about the Challenger?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon.
Member opposite wants to talk about the Challenger. I would be glad to talk about the Challenger because it is the finest executive jet aircraft built to date. And that is what bothers the Hon. Members opposite. When they see a company which happens to be owned by the people of Canada doing a good job, they become very upset about it. de Havilland has developed two of the best short take-off and landing aircraft in the world. Yet the Hon. Member for York-Peel would have that go down the drain, for some odd reason. He was not the only Hon. Member who spoke about these companies. There was one other Tory member, and that was the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who conveniently left out de Havilland. He only talked about Canadair because that happens to be in Montreal and not Toronto. A good deal of the money which has gone to these two companies, Mr. Speaker, has in fact gone into research and development, the kind of research for which this country is richer.
I am not going to say much about the New Democratic Party because, generally speaking, their remarks were much more positive than those of the Tories. I might just comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), the last speaker for the NDP. He said we were going to blunder into the twenty-first century. He is probably right. Then we heard from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who has a pretty good reputation in this House. He was making a great plea to give private sector a free hand. I do not mind that at all, Mr. Speaker. I think it is good to have a private sector. But the Iron Ore Company of Canada had a pretty free hand, and there is a rather famous Tory who has been promoted on his great management skills in that company, and it is not doing so hot these days. They are walking away from a community which will be dead if they do, along with several other ancillary communities which are dependent on that mine and that production.


An Hon. Member:: Talk about Uranium City.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, I will talk about Uranium City. That is a tragedy also, but I do not go around bragging about it as the Tories do. If an operation in which the Government is involved fails it is a great tragedy, but when a whole town may be devastated by private industry walking away from it, that is fair game. Let us be consistent in our logic and not continually use Tory logic, which does not seem to be any logic at all.


An Hon. Member:: You are still smarting over the New Brunswick election.
Supply


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I am not
smarting a bit over the New Brunswick election because I was not part of the New Brunswick election. I did not have to be elected in that election, and I will worry only about the next election in New Brunswick.


An Hon. Member:: You told me what was going to happen. You were 180 degrees out.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I might have been. I will not argue that. But the voters have spoken and I accept it, and that is something the Tories have never done. They have never accepted the verdict of the voters unless, of course, it is one of those rare occasions when they happen to be victorious.
We had the plea from the Hon. Member for Vegreville to give private enterprise a free hand. We did that with Hawker Siddeley in Nova Scotia and with Clairtone and Brickland, and Massey-Ferguson, Admiral, Chrysler and Maislin, a whole list of them. They were all great exponents of private enterprise, until they got into trouble and made their pilgrimage to Ottawa to get money from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley), then hightailed it back home to condemn the Government for being involved in private enterprise. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. It is either fish or fowl, it cannot be both.
The most obnoxious speech, Mr. Speaker, we heard today from the Opposition was the speech of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. Well, he is the right winger of all right wingers. He would have let Chrysler go down, he said. He did not say it in his speech, but he said it from behind the curtain when the Minister was speaking. He says you build a country by the sizzle of the return of private investment. That is all very well, but at the same time he said that if you reduce taxes, Government gets out of the businessman's hair and lets him have a free hand, then everything is going to be fine. I would say that is a prime example, Mr. Speaker, of a brain in neutral and a mouth in overdrive.
He told us about somebody coming to his office who called the Government incentive programs, "Rip-off Canada". This individual was supposed to have some connection with this Government. From the way the Hon. Member recounted the story, if that gentleman had any connection with this Government, it should have been with the correctional services part of the Solicitor General's Department, and only with that. It is reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member to make statements like that in this House, and I suggest to him that he should not make statements like that unless he is prepared to back them up with facts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I ran out of time and you know it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Hon. Member says he was running out of time. He was given extra time and used it to talk about something else.

November 15, 1982
Supply
The Opposition, of course, is always making those kinds of demands on the Government. They are always demanding new programs, new incentives and new spending. On the other hand, they also want a smaller budget, a leaner Government, fewer taxes, less regulation and less interference with business.


Jack Wendele Shields: And less Grits.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Well, I guess that is one of the luxuries you have when you are in opposition. You can have your cake and eat it, too. We heard, again from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, and some of his colleagues still sitting in the House, that they would let Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler go down. But that was not the stance they took in Question Period day after day when those companies were originally in trouble. They were up on their hind legs demanding of this Government that we provide incentives to assist those companies to save jobs. Now that the jobs have been saved they are condemning the whole effort.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What did you do with Alsands and Cold Lake?


Mr. Kempling:: Tell us about Maislin.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I mentioned Maislin in my remarks. As far as I am concerned, it fits in the same category with Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler and all the others that you are opposed to. Alsands and Cold Lake were private enterprise as far as I am concerned.


Jack Wendele Shields: Yes!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Nothing has been done, they say. Let us take a look at the record, Mr. Speaker. The record is long but I will not go into it in a lot of detail. The Opposition Members do not believe, of course, in assisting the underdeveloped areas of this country either. From what we heard this afternoon we can assume that there should be no tax incentives for the underdeveloped areas, there should be no grants, and yet we have the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) getting up here in the House, crying crocodile tears over the situation at Chatham where not one job has been lost because of this Government's action, and where I am determined not one job will be lost. Yet they do not want any incentives for areas like that.
Let us look at some of the money the Government has put into the various regions of this country. I am talking about the time since 1980, and this is only part of the list. The Winnipeg core, for instance, $32 million; Northern Ontario, $10 million; Iles-de-la-Madeleine, $13.7 million; southeast New Brunswick, $10 million; P.E.I. development plan, $80 million; Strait of Canso Development, $3.2 million; Sault Ste. Marie infrastructure, $21 million; Manitoba northland, $4.5 million; coast of Labrador, $47.3 million. The list goes on and on and on. I will not read any more, it is available for anyone who wants it, but I do want to talk for another minute or two about the situation in New Brunswick, and Northumberland-Miramichi in particular. We in New Brunswick are very much dependent on the incentives devised by this Government and provided by all
taxpayers of Canada for the development of our area. We have the problem of Chatham, and it is a very serious problem indeed. 1 reiterate, not one job has yet been lost.


John Horton McDermid: Yet.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: And we have today from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne) a commitment to the maintenance and operation of the runway, to the maintenance of the third field training and technical unit, and to the maintenance of the infrastructure there so long as it has to be maintained until other uses are found for it. Apart from that, he is committed to transferring to Chatham the pay directorate of the Department of National Defence and some 350 jobs, with a capital investment of $6 million or $7 million.
That is a good start but it is not a solution, it is only the beginning of the solution. We had to have a full solution. I have said time and again that four areas cannot be tampered with: the economic benefits must be maintained; the level of jobs must be maintained; the infrastructure, including the runway, must be maintained; and the accrued rights and benefits of the civilian employees must be protected. That is not a very small undertaking, Mr. Speaker. I suppose if you were losing that many jobs in Toronto there would be all kinds of Tory Members up on their hind legs yelling and screaming that the Government had to provide incentives to retain those jobs. Once the jobs were retained, of course, they would then be up on their feet yelling and screaming that the Government should not be involved. Just like the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal who never had any interest in the Miramichi until the announcement was made with regard to the stand-down of 416 Squadron at Chatham, and then all of a sudden his heart started to bleed. Well, that has not impressed a lot of people in the Miramichi, and I doubt that it will.


Philip Derek Lewis: Neither have you.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Instead of
crocodile tears, our interest is in action. But we must solve problems like that, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that private industry alone will not solve them because private industry, if left to itself, will do exactly what the Tory Members over there want it to do; it will locate in the Edmontons, the Torontos, the Montreals, the Calgarys, the Windsors and Halifaxes, but it will not locate in the small rural areas of this country without incentive from Government, without grants to assist in the development. If anyone here can convince me, for instance, that Mitel would have gone to Buctouche without Government incentives, I am prepared to listen. But I say it would never have happened, and we will never have that type of industry or development on the Miramichi of New Brunswick without Government incentives and grants, and without persuading business to put their industries where the labour is. The Tories, of course, would have us move those workers to their part of the country, to the metropolitan areas of the country, rather than to provide the jobs and opportunities where the people
November 15, 1982

are, where they have grown up, and where they want their families to live and grow up.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about this motion which is quite relevant in the present economic context. I shall try to do so quickly since other Members also want to speak. I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion which, and I quote:
-condemns the Government for its failure to introduce its promised comprehensive industrial strategy-
-for which we have been waiting I do not know how many years. Mr. Speaker, I shall not go over some remarks about partisanship that I was somewhat shocked to hear in such an important debate. I listened closely to the criticisms which the last spokesman for the New Democratic Party levelled at the Progressive Conservative Party, but I think that the Canadian people realize that it was his own party that made it possible for this Government to return to power. It is not the first time that the New Democrats have sold out to the Liberal Party. I am thinking about 1974 and the following years. If one party should be held responsible for the loss of 400,000 to 500,000 jobs in Canada jointly with this Government that refused to maintain our tax credit on mortgage interests, which would have really given a new impetus to the building industry, it is certainly the New Democratic Party. It should be held as fully responsible as the present Government. There are limits! I shall not say too much about the NDP because we in Quebec are not very familiar with it, not even with the meaning of those three letters. I remember the candidate who opposed me in my constituency and the billboards that said: "NDP means No Drawing Power." This party is therefore not our main concern in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to go quickly over the comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley), who referred to the efforts made by this Government since 1981. It is obvious that the Government is making some effort; it is also obvious that it has acted as a fireman must act when a fire breaks out. Today's motion condemns the Government, and I think everyone will agree that it was not the Progressive Conservative Party that has wasted the time of this House during the last 20 years, considering the length of time it stayed in power. We are all well aware that in the last 20 years, except for a very brief period, we have had a Liberal administration which is responsible for our present problems.
Is there any need to refer to the thousands of bankruptcies, to unemployment which has increased tenfold in the last ten years or to the present situation? The Liberal Member who spoke before me stated that the private sector could not manage its own affairs effectively without the co-operation of
Supply
the Government. Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that within the framework of an industrial strategy, the Government will obviously have to develop an attractive climate for investment, that it must provide medium and long-term directions to private industry if it is willing to make room for private business, and that it must also provide additional assistance to certain disadvantaged sectors or regions. There is no doubt about that, but it must be within the framework of an industrial strategy and a medium and long-term economic policy. As concerns this economic policy and industrial strategy, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be able to devise solutions this evening, but common sense requires that I point out to the House that the government has not made every effort possible to develop such a strategy, which would mean, first of all, bringing together industry, namely investors, businessmen as well as unions- and if productivity is our goal, this is important-and, of course, the Government itself and the Departments concerned. To my knowledge, a real industrial strategy has not been brought before this House in the last 15 or 20 years. In my opinion, we have had no real industrial strategy. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a clearly socialist view of the economy as a whole.
Anyway, our liberal friends know where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came from before leading the Liberal party. This is of significance, and I am serious about this, Mr. Speaker, because the NDP often complains about liberal policy. Well, the Prime Minister has a socialist approach and the liberals do not realize where the Prime Minister has led them. He has done such a bad job of implementing his socialist policy that the socialists will no longer support him, they can not vote in support. This is astounding. And it is a fact that the whole government approach is now distorted by the Prime Ministers' views. Well, the Liberal party was not leaning that way not so long ago, before the last fifteen years. I would simply ask honorable members to ponder seriously and honestly over the prevailing situation. There is no doubt that the outlook is bleak. Canadians are worried.
Canadian youth is losing hope, and why, Mr. Speaker? Because there has not been a genuine industrial strategy. What would have happened? The minister referred earlier to the aid extended for instance to Canadair and de Havilland. Is that creating one single new job right now? Not at all. This is another government effort to salvage what may be left. If we had had a genuine industrial policy or strategy, would the shoe or textile industries have gone through the hardships they have over these last few years? Of course, they will argue they have spent millions. The minister said so earlier. In the textile industry, there was a recommendation to grant millions of dollars, but to what end? To promote early retirement at age 50. Clearly, they have given up hope in the future of the textile industry. They are going to help other industries. How long did we have to wait for the minister to reinstate quotas in the

November 15, 1982
Supply
footwear industry? Five or six months, and in this House, Hon. Members opposite would invite me to put questions, because it was getting embarrassing for them to challenge the minister. Finally, the minister caught on, and I do not blame him too much for his efforts. He has been talking about it since 1981, but we know that an industrial strategy should have been established 20 years ago, and I feel I have to call to account a government that has been in power for 99 per cent of those last 20 years.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is ample justification for blaming the government for the lack of any industrial policy, and this is why it is difficult for Canada, an industrialized nation, to match many other countries at this point. So, here we are, Mr. Speaker, coming with band-aids to salvage what can be saved, and this is unfortunate. A genuine industrial strategy would have enabled a number of industries to stick it out. Those industries would have been forewarned. Union co-operation could have been obtained. The importance of what is called productivity could have been foreseen, to meet international competition. There has been no strategy, there has been no concern for the future, there has been a lack of foresight, although to govern means to be able to anticipate future developments. I submit we have every justification to blame the government for not establishing the industrial strategy that was of vital importance for Canada's future. They failed to do so, and today they resent our blaming the government's failure to create such an industrial strategy. Clearly the government must accept not a part of, but the total responsibility for the want of such a strategy, and therefore the responsibility for the growing misery in this country where Canadians are greatly concerned about the ability of their administrators.
This is the long and the short of it, Mr. Speaker. I doubt there is any government Member who is not embarrassed at having to defend the current economic conditions we are going through, because of the lack of a long-term strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this is not to say that the government must get involved daily in industry or the private affairs of individuals.
The duty of the state is to propose major trends and policies which will be of interest to the private sector, for example, incentives to invest in the country, and therefore it must be in a position to provide this additional assistance which is often required. And the state also has the power to steer those industries toward sensitive sectors and regions which the unemployment rate has made vulnerable. The state can do that, but without substituting for private companies. That is all we are asking for. But again that is part of a well-orchestrated industrial policy and strategy. I repeat-and I have said it before-the situation will remain unchanged until such time as the Government agrees to meet with union and industry spokesmen and spells out its mid- and long-term outlook. But that is not being done in the energy sector.
Everyone knows that investments of $40-odd million will be required because the Government undertook to substitute for private industries. That is what happened because the Government decided to substitute for private industries instead of giving them free rein to do what they can do better than the state. And the same is true in other areas. It has therefore become urgent to introduce an industrial strategy, and we would be remiss if we did not take the Government to task for failing to do anything about it during the past 20 years. As a result, thousands of Canadians are now deeply concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did say that a hard winter is ahead of us, and other agencies have confirmed that the unemployment rate will remain at 12 per cent. Of course, nothing has been done to solve that problem.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion brags about the $1 billion recently earmarked by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for a number of new projects which will make it possible for thousands of Canadians to work for 20 or 26 weeks before going back to the unemployment insurance counters. That is not the way to build our country and give Canadians renewed confidence.
I could recite long lists of figures and talk about the huge bankruptcies we had in 1982; 40 per cent of those 8,074 bankruptcies occurred in my province. And God knows, Mr. Speaker, as you do, that the people of my province are worried as well about the lack of any industrial strategy which they deplore. So we are amply justified in blaming the Government today. I am quite certain that some Liberal members are also extremely disappointed because they were unable to influence the Cabinet which has refused to meet urgent needs and introduce that industrial strategy for the future of our country. We are now demanding it in stronger terms than ever. It has never been so urgent, but the harm has been done and the Government must assume full responsibility for that. With respect to the lack of industrial strategy, the Government will not get off the hook as easily as that, even though its advice is that we should forget the past.
How can anyone ask Canadians to have faith in this Government, responsible as it is for the mess we are in? That is impossible, Mr. Speaker. That is why of course we are again trying today to convince the Government to accept a proposal which has to be implemented, namely the introduction of an industrial strategy. I would hope that this time the government will realize its importance as a key solution for many years to come. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is too late, much too late, and you cannot ask starving Canadians to tighten their belts further. But Canadians will certainly remember that the blame for this belt tightening is to be laid not on this side but on members on the other side who would take no heed of them. Although I still have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to let other Hon. Members speak.
November 15, 1982


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Joliette answer a question?


Roch La Salle: Very quickly, though, because I want to let other Hon. Members speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please! The Hon. Member has asked the Hon. Member for Joliette whether he would answer a question. And the Hon. Member for Joliette has clearly indicated that he would rather let other Hon. Members speak.


Roch La Salle: I have agreed to give a very short reply to the Hon. Member's question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed! The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


André Maltais: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to be more specific about asbestos and iron. I would like to know what would have been the effect of an industrial strategy considering that markets depend on international conditions?


Roch La Salle: I said that if an industrial strategy had been developed 15 or 20 years ago, the closing down of plants could have been anticipated and prepared, but as there has been no industrial strategy, those conditions were unexpected and the poor people of those areas are now facing a recession and they are concerned because the government has not drawn up any industrial strategy which would have enabled industries to train them and perhaps direct them to another sector.


André Maltais: I would like to ask another brief question. With regard to iron, if we consider private entreprise.


Roch La Salle: I regret Mr. Speaker, but as I promised I would like to allow some of my time to my other colleagues.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to discuss this matter with Hon. Members here in the house tonight, especially since I have not heard anyone on the other side of the House mention the hard facts, the real data on what we have done to establish science and technology here in Canada.

It is true that Canadian manufacturers, producers and exporters face incredible challenges. This is for a number of reasons. The inflation rate in Canada is not at the level we would like to see, nor is Canadian productivity as high as it should be by international comparison. Our international markets have gone soft as the world recession has taken a real hold. Other countries are suffering much more than we are because of these circumstances.
In this spirit of diminishing world markets, we see many countries resorting to non-tariff barriers and to a spate of other mechanisms designed to stop our exports, and we are an
Supply
exporting nation. The way to overcome these problems will not be easy. We have never pretended that it would be, but certainly the cutting edge of our economic strategy for the future must be the encouragement of technological research and development. It is through this approach that we will be able to compete in international markets in the days, years and decades ahead.
The paper released last year entitled, "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s" recognized the important contribution research and innovation has made in the past and will make in the future to economic growth. Its single most important message was that we must concentrate our efforts on various industries in Canada, including resource and industrial development, export promotion, transportation and communication infrastructure, and the development of manpower skills. A solid research base is fundamental to success in all these areas.
In January 1981 the federal Government committed itself to a major increase in the level of research and development, namely, that we would go up to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by the year 1985. I believe the way we are doing this is the correct approach. Approximately 50 per cent of this increase will come from industry itself, one-third will come from the federal Government and the remaining one-sixth will come from a combination of provincial governments, universities and private institutions. This ambitious target is one which I believe we have to meet if we are to acquire the newly emerging technologies we need badly in order to create jobs in the country.
What progress have we made in less than two years since the program of 1.5 per cent of GNP devoted to research and development was entered into? One might argue that we have not gone far enough, but the results are most encouraging. In less than two years we have gone up from less than 0.9 per cent of gross national product to over 1.2 per cent. It shows what we can do when we have the collective will, when we set those targets and we set our priorities. This has been no mean accomplishment, particularly in the period of recession that we have faced.
Another thing that happened, which I think is significant, is that during this period we have attempted to achieve more research and development by a co-operative relationship between industry and government. In the first two years covered by the framework, the federal expenditures on research and development rose by nearly $435 million. The main estimates for 1982-1983 will increase R and D expenditures even further by an additional $250 million. It is important to note that this increase is going primarily to industrial research and development where it will have the best opportunity to create more jobs for Canadians. The R and D activities

November 15, 1982
Supply
financed by the federal Government but which are performed by industry will have almost doubled in three years.
Federal assistance to industry in support of research and innovation takes a number of forms. We are all familiar with the Industrial Research Assistance Program administered by the National Research Centre; the Enterprise Development Program and the Defence Industry Productivity Program. These are programs of the federal Government aimed at providing technological information services and creating new centres for advanced technology. We have developed two university innovation centres, and we are developing ten universities with the capability of doing electronic research right across this country in every one of our Provinces. In addition, we have used the federal procurement and contracting out policies to support increased R and D of Canadian industry. Twenty two per cent of the federal Government's 1982-1983 budget for research and development in the natural sciences is directly targeted to industry. All of these efforts and accomplishments to date, in spite of the tough economic times we face, are in addition to the tax incentives granted for innovation and development for new research.
As many Members in this House are probably aware, we have the 100 per cent write-off. In addition to that, we have an additional 50 per cent write-off for new research and development. On top of that, we have a generous tax credit, all of it aimed at increasing the ability of the private sector to go out and invest in new technology and do new research. When you take into consideration these tax incentives that are being offered, you find that they provide up to 80 cents on each dollar of new investment in research and development. That is a fairly generous program. In addition, we are undertaking discussions with the private sector to see if these approaches can be better honed, if they can be better developed, if there are new ways to channel more private sector funds in a more advantageous manner so they can flow into research and development. We have seen some innovations from the private sector, such as the scientific research investment certificate whereby investment firms have been able to raise money from people who might not otherwise be prepared to invest in science and in research and development. These innovations have come hand in hand with the programs that we have been introducing to try to encourage far greater research and development in Canada.
I mentioned that the approach we have been adopting has been one of co-operation between industry and government. I have outlined briefly a few of the Government programs. In terms of what industry itself has done, it has been one of the strongest contributors in the past and, of course, under our new program will be the strongest contributor, contributing at least half of the new expenditure on research and development. In terms of what industry has done, in 1979 industry's contribution to R and D rose 26 per cent. In 1980 it was 18 per cent. In 1981, it was 26 per cent, and for 1982 it is again estimated that it will reach 26 per cent. These are the highest rates of growth in research and development ever achieved in Canada.
One of the problems which I do not think has been completely documented, and I would not want to go overboard in making the case, is the whole role of foreign-controlled firms contributing to Canadian research and development. A study done in 1980 in terms of the electrical products industry indicated that while the foreign controlled firms enjoyed 65 per cent of the Canadian market, they contributed only 40 per cent of the research and development. I am not here to criticize foreign firms. I am here to say that I think every Canadian, every firm operating in Canada, whether Canadian-controlled or foreign-controlled, has an obligation to contribute to the future industrial strength of our country, to job creation, to the strengthening of Canada's capabilities and know-how by doing research here in Canada in fair proportion. By doing that in Canada and being able to export it we will as well be able to gain the royalties for selling the know-how. Research will feed upon itself. It is synergistic. The more you have, the more you will create, the better the atmosphere will be in Canada for creating the type of innovation we need. As I said, this will be the cutting edge of our new technological development.
We have had some tremendous examples of what can happen from this type of government and private sector cooperation when it comes to R and D. Northern Telecom is, I think, a signal example of what has happened in Canadian industry. It highlights the role of our high tech. I am pleased that Northern Telecom announced just recently that over the next five years it will spend an additional $1.2 billion on an R and D program in high technology digital communications systems. It estimated revenues from this new technology will be at least $13 billion, and it will create hundreds, even thousands of new jobs here in Canada. This is just one example of how Canadian industry, the Canadian private sector, has responded to this call we have put out for more R and D, is taking the risks and is working with Government, because people did come to Government to get assistance for these programs.
What we have accomplished is encouraging, and the Government is determined to use this solid basis to help develop technologies that we as Canadians need to adjust to changing world realities, the rapidly changing realities where in certain industries, such as computers, one seems to have a new generation coming out almost every year.
[ Translation]
However, Canada is facing a shortage of highly qualified scientific manpower in certain sectors. We now need practical experts who are capable of guiding and directing the new technologies that are being created in communications, information and biotechnology, while at the same time renewing our traditional resource-based industries.
Young people today are aware of these trends and more and more, they are opting for courses in applied science and commerce at our universities. The latter are starting to adapt their training programs to the demands of the eighties, but are
November 15, 1982

having to cope with financial constraints. Engineering, computer science and commerce departments are finding it difficult to recruit staff and are losing experienced teachers to the lure of higher salaries offered by the private sector. Furthermore, excellent labour market conditions for students with a bachelor's degree in fields where the demand is high prevent those students from doing graduate work. For instance, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology examined the outlook for engineering graduates and found that between 1979 and 1985, the demand for engineers would exceed the national supply. The shortage will be particularly acute at the postgraduate level. There will not be enough engineering specialists to fill teaching and research positions in industry, government and the universities. The ministry also found that industry was very concerned about the availability of highly qualified research staff and the problems that universities were experiencing in meeting demand. We are glad to see, however, that the industrial and commercial sectors are approaching this problem in a very constructive and innovative fashion.
Some industries are entering into co-operative agreements with the universities, which is another way of meeting their requirements for human resources. Similarly, during the past year, a number of companies have entered into direct aid agreements with universities in Canada. For instance, the Bank of Montreal is subsidizing studies on international finance, IBM is supporting marine sciences and Mitel and Systemhouse are encouraging studies on office automation.
The federal Government has recognized that Canada's supply of skilled human resources is critical to our technological development and has taken major steps to strengthen university research and training capacity in Canada.
I would like to summarize some of these measures that we have taken in recent years. First, the three federal research granting councils, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, were reorganized to focus on training research manpower and maintaining a basic university research capacity in respective fields of study and on orienting more of their research support toward issues of national concern. These Councils have prepared five-year plans and have reassessed their programs in light of past experience and future priorities.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council supports university research and research training in areas directly related to industrial growth. It has greatly expanded its highly qualified manpower programs by increasing the number and the value of graduate scholarships, providing longterm research associateships, both at the universities and in the private sector, and by establishing undergraduate summer research bursary programs so that more students can be attracted to postgraduate studies in the scientific and technological areas.
Supply
We also have direct federal support of university research and research training. It now totals $477 million. Since 1979 the budgets of the granting Councils have been increased by $170 million, or 75 per cent. These figures demonstrate our Government's commitment to doing something about research and development to manpower training in Canada.
The impact of these measures has indeed been encouraging. The strategic research grants are attracting some of the best researchers. We have seen the emergence of fibre optics, video techs, radio relay systems and many other products of the future through our co-operative programs. We stand in the forefront with the Canadarm and with satellites such as the one Canadians proudly saw launched, recently. Our domestic communication satellite system is the best in the world.
I understand that I am running out of time. I would not want to strain the indulgence of the House, which has always been courteous in the past. Perhaps I could ask for one more minute in order to get these important facts on the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I thank Hon. Members for their indulgence. These are areas where we have become world leaders in technological development. We have shown that we can do it.
Most important, the challenge in the days ahead is to ensure that we have not only technological development and manpower development but that the public and private sector, business, including those which are foreign controlled, labour, our universities and academics and governments at all levels, lock arms to increase further our ability to compete. This can be done by working together in our collective will and effort, our collective ability united in a consensus for action, a consensus for action based on new research and new ideas for the 1980s.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Hon. Members for allowing me to participate in this debate, however short it might be. I was particularly interested to hear the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) because he made a statement which I believe is very appropriate to the remarks I wish to make this evening. He stated that research feeds on itself.
I would like to remind all Hon. Members that 15 years ago Great Canadian Oil Sands, 100 per cent owned by the Sun Oil Company of the United States, ventured into the tar sands in northeastern Alberta to conduct a giant research and development project. Today, that project produces 145,000 barrels of oil each and every day. This has contributed at least $20 billion to the Canadian balance of payments picture over the life of that one giant research project. It was not done, as the NDP says, with Government intervention. It was not accomplished by the Government saying that it will prop the company up if it tries to develop these oil sands. This was accomplished by foreign private enterprise, without one nickle of the Canadian taxpayers' money either at the provincial or federal level.
I remind Hon. Members of that fact. We heard the NDP Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who said that what

November 15, 1982
Supply
the development strategy in Canada needs today is more Government regulations, more Government input, more Government control and more Government ownership. I simply want to ask how much more government the Canadian people must suffer before the Socialists realize the destruction they have wrought upon our country.
When I talk about Socialists, 1 am talking about the NDP who have propped up the Liberals during the 1970s. The NDP is saying that development strategy of the 1970s was not there. It was the New Democratic Party that propped up the present Government.
I would like to return to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale who said that research feeds on itself. I would point out that from the original investment at the Sun plant of Great Canadian Oil Sands, which is now Suncor at Fort McMurray, a town of 30,000 people developed. From there, the next plant, Syncrude Canada, came on stream. Once again, this was a result of private investors with no Government subisidies, loans or guarantees. It was only with the lack of Government intervention that they started another plant, Syncrude of Canada.
Before you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the indulgence of the House for a further ten minutes? If the House would agree, I would forgo my time on the "Late Show".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Chair should seek the unanimous consent of the House. The Hon. Member is proposing to give up time available to him during the late show this evening in return for the House not seeing the clock for the same length of time, that is, ten minutes. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not.
It being ten o'clock, pursuant to-


Jesse Philip Flis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Ordinarily, I cannot recognize a point of order after ten o'clock.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, since one minute was kindly extended to the Hon. Member from this side of the House, I think it would be only fair if an additional minute could be granted to the Hon. Member speaking at present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, the issue I want to address tonight is a good example of what I call government waste. It might not involve a very large amount of money, but the whole scenario is pretty wretched.
It was first drawn to my attention early last July by the editor of the Bridge River-Lillooet News, who received this package by courier; actually, on July 4 or July 5. This package was sent out by the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) and was to be in the hands of 576 community newspapers across Canada by or in advance of July 1 for use during the Dominion Day celebrations. This particular editor was incensed because it had come by courier and he wanted me to check into the matter. I therefore put a question on the order paper and asked what was the purpose of the package and what it contained. The answer was that the package contained a photograph of the Minister of State for Mines and the Governor General of Canada. There was also a "Canada Then and Now" map package and a news release from the Minister's office for use in conjunction with Dominion Day. It was distributed by Prestige Mailing Systems Limited and sent by courier service to 576 members of the Canadian Community Newspaper Association. As I said, this package was supposed to have arrived in advance of July 1.
1 then asked, whether any packages were mailed through Canada Post Corporation and, if not, for what reason, and the answer was, "No". Technical problems with printing and packing the maps had resulted in an unforeseen delay of the availability date for mailing the package. Therefore, courier service was utilized in order that the package would reach recipients as close to Dominion Day as possible. These packages were sent out on June 30. There was no possible way they could reach their destinations by July 1.
I then asked what the cost of production of the package was and the total cost of delivery. The answer was that the cost of producing these 576 packages amounted to $1,783 and the cost of the courier service was close to $6,000. This cost of production bears some scrutiny because we found out that the three maps alone contained in the package itself sell for $5.95. We thought that because there were 576 maps, perhaps the Government might have received a discount on the bulk sale. That was not the case, sir. We telephoned the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Canada Map Office, and were informed that there was no discount given and that they cost $5.95 per package. If one multiplies this amount by the 576 sent out, one arrives at a figure of $3,427. We therefore see a discrepancy of $1,650 just in the production of the package.
November 15, 1982

If that were not bad enough, even though these packages were put into shape too late to be sent out to arrive at their destinations by July 1, a courier service was employed and $6,000 was spent to get these packages to their destinations. All of them arrived too late for their purpose.
When I asked the Minister of State for Mines last week whether she could justify this expense, she said that the cost of distribution was completely justified in the national interest. What kind of national interest is served by a clear waste of $6,000? I would ask for a more complete answer. I would like to have the whole situation explained to me and to the taxpayers. I hope the Auditor General will consider the matter at some point.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, responding to the Elon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), I must say that his concern is one which ought to be placed before Parliament. Perhaps, as he said in his closing remarks, it ought to be reviewed by the Auditor General and we should have the pleasure of his comments at some point in time so that we can pursue the debate even further. However, let me just say a few words with regard to the national atlas of Canada to which the maps in question belong.
Canada has had a national atlas since 1906 and five editions have been produced over 75 years under both Liberal and Conservative governments. Granted, the Conservative government was only short-lived. These atlases contain maps which reflect and summarize our national resources, growth and achievement. They parallel the evolution of Canada since almost the beginning of this century. The lastest Fifth edition is especially significant this year. It portrays Canada as we were in 1867, the complex evolution of our lands and territories and the make-up of the modern nation.
The medium of maps is a very effective way in which to inform Canadians about national development and to celebrate our progress as a nation since Confederation in this our constitutional year. For this reason, it was appropriate to make the maps available as near as possible to Canada Week.
Furthermore, while it is usually not very difficult for large newspapers and the major media organizations to obtain rapid access and awareness of new publications, that is not always so easy for the hundreds of relatively smaller weekly newspapers in this country. These grassroots community papers are read by many Canadians outside the major cities and they were our target group in this particular mail-out.
Technical difficulties in completing the maps reduced the time available for distribution by Canada Post. Courier service was chosen in order to ensure delivery as reasonably close as possible to Canada Week. The first Canadian to receive a copy of the maps was His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, and rightly so. A photograph of this presentation was provided with the package of maps for possible use by recipient newspapers thus informing their readers of the existence of the maps. The approximate cost of this was $3,000.
Adjournment Debate
In view of the significance of the subject matter of the maps and our wish to let all Canadians know about them, this was very low-cost advertising in the marketing of these national maps.


ENERGY-COLD LAKE PROJECT-LOAN MADE TO IMPERIAL OIL. NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 I rose in the House and asked the then minister of energy, mines and resources the state of the $40 million loan to Imperial Oil in an attempt to salvage the Cold Lake project. The Minister did advise the House that the loan was lost forever, that the loan would not have to be repaid on July 1 because there was the agreement in place that if the project did not proceed at Cold Lake by July 1, 1982 these funds would be lost forever.
I then asked the Minister if he did not now recognize that the most destructive piece of legislation to hit Canada in a number of years was the National Energy Program, that it was the single instrument that was deterring investment in Canada, particularly in the oil and gas sector. The Minister totally ignored that question; he did not answer.
I would like to point out something to the Parliamentary Secretary who has been chosen to answer this question. The investment in Alsands and the Cold Lake Project in northeastern Alberta, both giant research and development projects, particularly the one in Cold Lake where the very first commercial in situ extraction was to take place, was approximately $10 billion, producing 140,000 barrels of oil a day. That would contribute approximately $2 billion a year or more to Canada's balance of payments. Over 25 years it would have produced 1.3 to 1.5 billion barrels of oil and would have employed, at peak construction, 10,000 people. Ongoing employment for the life of the project would have been between 3,000 and 4,000 people; indirect employment would have been approximately 6,500 people; total engineering manhours would have been approximately 50 million. Those figures apply to the one project only, the project at Cold Lake. Having regard to Alsands, which went down the tube, you could double all those figures. The amount of money to have been spent on facilities, which would have tremendous impact on the Canadian economy, was $9 billion for one plant; on facilities, $1 billion; infrastructure, another $1 billion; sustaining investment for the life of the project, $20 billion; operating expenses for the one project, and I am talking about Cold Lake, over its 25-year life, approximately $60 billion. This is a total of $90 billion of a direct investment into the economy of Canada at a time when jobs are needed and when the engines of the economy are winding down.
If you use the normal multiplier to determine the injection into the Canadian economy over that 25-year period, we would be looking at $250 billion to $350 billion as a result of the investment in that one plant at Cold Lake in northeastern Alberta. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker; $500 billion to $700

November 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
billion if two plants, the Alsands and the Cold Lake, were allowed to proceed.
Why did they not proceed? We talk about research and development. The Alsands consortium and Imperial Oil at Cold Lake were ready to proceed. Because of the lack of foresight on the part of this Government, which would rather import oil from offshore, we lost $2 billion a year per plant. That represents a drain on our balance or payments. This money has to come from somewhere. When you drain off money for the purchase of off-shore oil, you affect interest rates and the money markets, and you hit jobs in Canada. I am not talking of just jobs created in northeastern Alberta, or in one province, I am talking about jobs in the steel industry, the automotive industry-jobs clear across this country. It was estimated that not one province would fail to benefit from the development of the Cold Lake project. Not one province would fail to benefit from the development of the Alsands project.
Eighteen months ago, Mr. Speaker, a number of Members of Parliament visited the Cold Lake and Alsands plants. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who will be replying to this question tonight, was with us. We toured those plants. He saw the vast investment and vast potential for Canada's energy scurity. He saw the vast potential for investment in the supply of pumps, steel and manpower from right across the country. He knows, if anyone knows, exactly what I am talking about.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I normally enjoy listening to the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), but I must say that tonight he has gone a bit overboard. It is correct to say that I was with him in his constituency at Fort McMurray and visited a number of the sites he referred to, but he forgets to mention in his remarks that the reason or reasons why the Alsands consortium decided against going ahead with the project was because of the economic realities of the time.
The Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta made a very, very strong proposal to the Alsands consortium; two levels of Government, Mr. Speaker, and it was the Alsands consortium decision alone not to proceed. When the Hon. Member stands in this House and points his finger at the Government of Canada, that is complete gobblydegook on his part. Those are the facts, and he ought to know better. To perpetrate that kind of thing on the Canadian people I think is intellectually dishonest.
I should remind the Hon. Member of the nature of the agreement effective February 1, 1981, whereby Imperial Oil Limited received advances to a maximum of $40 million to maintain the Cold Lake project. It was agreed that if, before the repayment date, the board of directors of Imperial Oil had passed a resolution suspending or cancelling the Cold Lake project, Imperial Oil would have no obligation to repay the amount borrowed. The effective date in this case was the latter of July 1, 1982, or the first anniversary of the full payment
date. In fact, the project was suspended before July 1, 1982 and consequently the obligation for repayment was removed.
As the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources noted when the matter of the Cold Lake project was discussed on July 30, 1982, Mr. Speaker, the period during which the Cold Lake project operated on the basis of the $40 million advance was a productive one, during which further engineering information was developed and employment was provided for a number of people in the Cold Lake region.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca notes that these two projects did not go ahead. I remind him that other projects in other countries have not gone ahead for the same economic reasons, that of world recession. Those are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, and those are the facts which the Hon. Member refuses to acknowledge and to place before this House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, his idol, his mentor, the Premier of the province of Alberta, has stated explicitly on a number of occasions that people ought not to be using 1980 as the benchmark for reference to oil and gas activity. But somehow the Hon. Member refuses, intentionally or otherwise, to recognize the facts of a world recession which has played havoc with these projects and many others, not only in Canada but in the U.S. as well as in European countries.


ENERGY-INQUIRY RESPECTING PROGRAM CUTBACKS. (B) CHIP AND OFF-OIL PROGRAMS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue a question which I raised with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on his economic statement. The economic statement said that $616 million would be freed in the energy area by scaling back funds allocated to a number of programs, although he did not mention any specifically. He did, however, state that allocations for the Petroleum Incentives Program would remain at their existing levels.
If the economic statement were really serious about job creation, it would have delineated which projects were to be cut, at what loss of jobs, and for what gain in jobs in the new program, which is clearly a job creation program. Any reallocation of funds must mean a net increase in jobs. Nevertheless, nothing was specified.
Rumour has it that the CHIP program and Off Oil Program were again considered for cuts, and I asked about these. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) gave a wholly unsatisfactory reply, not giving assurances that they would not be. What is happening, it seems to me, is that we are seeing a further erosion of the valuable parts of the National Energy Program. We are losing the energy self-sufficiency and job creating aspects of the Program, while the give-aways to the corporations are continuing. I believe this is a sorely mistaken sense of priority.
First of all, let us consider the question of conservation. It is still true that conservation is the cheapest source of new energy and that it provides the most jobs. A study by the Economic
November 15, 1982

Council of Canada estimates that adding insulation to one million existing homes would produce 27,000 person years of employment, at a cost of 7,000 person years in the oil industry or, in other words, a net gain of 20,000 person years in jobs. Estimates are that it cost nearly $1 million to create a job in the tar sands, as an extreme example, while it costs $50,000 to $100,000 in conservation or the renewables. Further, the jobs are created where they are needed; that is, where people are living. They do not require the disruption of families or starting up new, single industry towns in trailer parks. Conservation programs minimize environmental destruction. Fixing up old houses where people already live is greatly to be preferred to disrupting native communities and risking serious environmental destruction by oil spills, for which we have as yet no technological solution.
It is true that there are problems in existing CHIP programs, quite apart from the urea formaldehyde scandal. There have been abuses, as the Government was warned. It was urged to establish proper inspection procedures. The answer now is not to abandon that Program but to correct the flaw in it and to institute proper inspection procedures.
The National Energy Program, as originally set out, had some laudable principles; self-sufficiency in energy and a move to conservation and the renewables being most notable amongst them. There was a recognition of the basic facts of life in energy, that we could not achieve self-sufficiency in Canada without substantial reliance on the renewables and conservation. But what happened then, Mr. Speaker? The highminded principles were relegated to the low budget area of the Program.
Petroleum Incentives Program grants are measured in the billions, but conservation is measured in the millions. What is wrong with the Petroleum Incentives Program grants? They are give-aways to corporations which pay no taxes, or less than their fair share. They mean that the public pays for exploration and gets no equity for it, while the companies talk about risk taking. They deplete the heritage which we have been given and which we have some obligation to pass on to future generations. Petroleum Incentives Program grants mean that expensive oil will be pursued, dug out and sent south at enormous cost in money and in social terms. People will pump more gas into their gas guzzlers and let heat seep out of their non-airtight houses. The Petroleum Incentives Program grants are a slow route to Canadianization. More fundamentally, they do not address our need for long-term energy security. They are directed at a non-renewable resource and, at best, postpone the day of reckoning. Eventually, and not all that far aheard, we are going to have to switch to renewable resources. The less we use now of the non-renewables, the easier it will to be make the switch.
The Petroleum Incentives Program is also inflationary, a factor that should count nowadays. It means pursuing ever more expensive forms of energy. The same money invested in conservation measures means savings in the here and now and in the long run, for with conservation you save year after year after year. Conservation means finding cheap oil again, the
Adjournment Debate
equivalent of oil at $5, $10 or $20 a barrel, depending on the particular measures used. That is far less than the oil that the Petroleum Incentives Program grants are directed toward.
Conservation and the renewables happen to be matters in which we can have our cake and eat it too. We can pursue a number of worthy objectives at the same time, instead of having to play one off against the other. We can create far more jobs than would be created from conventional nonrenewables. We can promote environmental protection instead of risking serious damage. We can respect native concerns and give them time to develop their priorities instead of imposing ours, from the south. We can maintain our standard of living, for alternative energy resources are rich and the technology is available. The lack has been in implementation, not in knowledge of what needs to be done. That is where the serious gap is. Meanwhile, we subsidize conventional energy sources and make the new ones "pay their own way", as they say, and make them compete unfairly.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to maintaining the CHIP and off-oil programs, and wanting to use them more efficiently. Naturally I would want to commend him for any greater efficiency he can manage, but 1 would like to hear more. What does he mean by cutting? Does he mean to cut those, and if he does not cut those two particular programs, which programs will he cut?
Finally, I would like to challenge the Government to consider the real potential of the National Energy Program, especially its job-creation aspects. If it did the necessary calculations and took a critical look, I think it would find that its priorities would be reversed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the question and of the comments of the Hon. Member is not only of concern to her Party but to my Party as well.
Let me state quite clearly that the Government of Canada has no plans to abandon the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the Canada Oil Substitution Program. On the contrary, the Government is looking forward to maintaining strong support for energy conservation and substitution in the residential sector.
With respect to the Canada Oil Substitution Program, it is heartening to note that off-oil conversion activity has continued rather strongly during 1982, at a time when generally consumer spending is weak. Conversions from oil to electricity and renewable energy sources are on target. Conversions to natural gas are below target, as they were last year. From the time the Canada Oil Substitution Program was launched late in 1980 to the end of September 1982, it paid approximately 270,000 grants for a total of $ 183 million.
On the subject of CHIP, there existed some concern that the Program was not as effective as it might have been in helping to achieve potential saving available from home energy conser-

November 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
vation. A large part of the problem appeared to lie in the structure of the CHIP grant which had the effect of encouraging some inflated prices and some questionable sales techniques, such as the marketing of attic and weatherstripping "specials" priced at or near the amount of the CHIP grant. To ameliorate the sitution, on November 9 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) announced changes in the grant formula and criteria of CHIP. These changes are intended to achieve more effective conservation activity and contribute toward the energy budget savings announced on October 27 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
Briefly, the changes to CHIP include that a home owner doing his own insulation work would obtain a CHIP grant on
60 per cent of the insulation materials, up to a maximum of $500. Originally, CHIP provided 100 per cent of material costs and 33.33 per cent of labour costs. Second, for work done by a contractor, 60 per cent of the contractor's bill would earn a CHIP grant, up to a maximum of $500. However, the home owner will be required to file a copy of the contractor's billing, showing a breakdown on labour and material costs so that the several costs could be checked by CHIP administrators against acceptable standards.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 16, 1982