1982-07-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, in view of the total confusion in the air transport administration of the Department of Transport with regard to the future of Mirabel and the fourth runway for Toronto at Pickering, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Transport present a clear policy statement on these two white elephants prior to the summer recess.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, on May 20 the Under Secretary of State announced that a document outlining a comprehensive voluntary action policy had been sent to cabinet for decision and action. On June 23 the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) told the House that he had personally raised the give and take tax proposals of national voluntary organizations "several times in cabinet". On June 28 another budget again ignored Canada's voluntary sector and provided no incentive or support. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House urge the government, since cabinet is clearly divided, to table the draft policy document before the House recesses in order to test public
reaction and to demonstrate support for the enrichment of our society resulting from the service of Canada's three million volunteers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the favourable vote taken today in the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a bill to force a ten million ton reduction of sulphur dioxide in the U.S. within 12 years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House go on record as supporting the action of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in attempting to force action on the urgent problem of acid rain, and that this House express its appreciation to Senator Stafford and his fellow Senators from both American political parties for their efforts to improve Canadian-American relations with regard to environmental questions.
I commend this motion for all-party support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which was seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 22, 1982
[Stage Direction]
O)

Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas Canadian parliamentarians must set an example in their daily life; whereas they have spouses and children in their ridings, and whereas much of the work of this House is concerned with family matters, I move, seconded by the member for Vancouver Centre:
That parliamentarians return to their respective ridings not later than July 30 of this year, in order to do their duty as responsible citizens, namely, bring up their children, consolidate their family life and be available to their constituents in these difficult times.


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, a motion of this kind requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the provinces are leading the federal government in putting into effect genuine measures of restraint, and in view of the fact that a major Vancouver paper has reported that the premier of British Columbia is considering a reduction in the number of his cabinet ministers through combining two or more responsibilities into a single cabinet portfolio to reduce the expense of cabinet and the cost of bureaucracy which surrounds each cabinet minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House implore the Prime Minister of Canada to show responsible leadership similar to that of the premier of British Columbia by instituting plans to attack the growing top-heavy nature of the massive government superstructure which the Prime Minister has created and which is so much a part of the problem Canada faces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Auditor General of Canada has reported that the Canadian Dairy Commission has secretly paid more than $17 million to three Quebec firms without any public tenders, without the benefit of legal advice, and without making the contracts public, and whereas the RCMP is investigating these questionable practices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That the Canadian Dairy Commission become the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and that the Minister of Agriculture explain to that committee why he has failed to provide proper supervision of the Commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INFLATION
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the President of Bell Canada has announced that his company is reviewing its application for a rate increase; whereas this is a test case for many Canadians who want to be sure they will not be alone in paying the cost of supporting the economy, I move, seconded by the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher):
That this House ask Bell Canada to continue its review and to agree voluntarily with the 6 and 5 per cent ceiling, and thus contribute to the joint effort of Canadians against inflation.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 22, 1982


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my motion deals with reports that an Edmonton businessman is attempting to raise $5 million through $10 donations for a speedy retirement for the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I applaud this admirable project and wish it Godspeed. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House not only endorses this project but charges the President of the Treasury Board with the responsibility of auditing the funding and ensuring an early retirement of the $10 man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by Local 990 of the United Transportation Union that the CNR is making transfer movements of 80 cars or more from Symington yard to Fort Rouge, to W.I.T. and Transcona, without a caboose, and thus without tail end protection in the case of a derailment. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has also been alerted to this problem in which we find the CNR acting in violation of the view of the railway transport committee that the marshalling of transfers should be subject to the same requirements and rules as are mainline trains. Many of these transfers are carrying dangerous commodities. Therefore in order to avoid a Mississauga-like event in Winnipeg, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to direct the CNR to stop this irresponsible and dangerous practice which is just the latest example of how the CNR's mania for eliminating jobs also affects the safety of railroaders and surrounding communities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recognize the high unemployment level both current and projected in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and offer financial support for the development of a hotel in Hamilton as he did in his own municipality of Windsor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. John Tory, who modestly describes himself as principal assistant to Premier Davis, using provincial cabinet stationery has asked Conservative MPPs to be nice to and recognize Ontario Conservative MPs, and whereas Premier Davis has promised to make every effort to recognize and include federal Conservative MPs in provincial government and party functions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That when this House adjourns the federal government make available a meeting room, preferably within 50 metres of Parliament Hill, where Ontario Conservative MPPs and federal Conservative MPs can meet, as recommended by Sun journalist John Downing, to join hands in singing, "Blessed be the tie that binds."


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The House has expressed its approval by applauding.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who will

Oral Questions
know that today the Conference Board has declared that confidence in Canada is at an all-time low. Does the minister recognize that the problem of youth unemployment is serious, and does he agree with what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said yesterday, that we could lose a whole generation of young workers who become frustrated at not being able to find jobs? Will the minister have something to say today which will give young people, who are now being laid off in enormous numbers, some hope that they can play a part in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, what 1 find to be most encouraging and what I hear about public opinion through the press media and other means is that the people of Canada are now joining in the objective indicated by the Minister of Finance in his budget. I find that wonderful.


Mr. Clark:: Massive unemployment!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I also take satisfaction in the fact that today, for example, the bank rate has come down to 15.6 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -the exchange rate is keeping at 79.35 cents in relation to the U.S. dollar, and the index of industrial production rose by one per cent in May. These are a number of indicators, not of a very rapid change, but of a move, and the same indication comes from the United States. My conclusion, and the Leader of the Opposition will find it professorial, but I will make it nevertheless, is that there are clear indications that if we all hold hands, as one of the hon. members just said, the near future will be much better than appeared in the recent past.


LAY-OFFS AFFECTING YOUNG PEOPLE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, we are all wringing our hands and hoping something will happen. The minister will know that, while we are happy to see a drop in the bank rate, it is still one full per cent higher than it was in January when we saw the worst economic performance in one quarter in this country's history. It is all very well for the bank rate to drop a measly 57 basis points, but it is still high. The minister knows that there are young people being laid off and that they are the first to go in any lay-off program. Does the minister appreciate the fact that unemployment of those between the ages of 20 and 24 has risen 60 per cent in a full year? What program does the government have to ensure that it will not be the young people who will pay all the penalty of being first laid off in those parts of government service under federal jurisdiction?
July 22, 1982


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the issue raised by the hon. member is, of course, of particular concern to the Department of Employment and Immigration. In fact, a meeting was held in Toronto to see how these problems could be solved. In the last budget it was announced that funds would be earmarked for the young people of this country. We have the new training legislation passed by Parliament and given royal assent in June, which will be aimed at helping the young across Canada, and we shall therefore be able to provide training for jobs in the high technology sector in this country. Both the department and the government are concerned about youth employment-that was the whole point of our meeting yesterday in Toronto-and we are going to continue our efforts to meet the needs of Canada's young people and provide jobs for them.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows, and the government knows, that there is not much point in training people when there are no jobs.


Mr. Chenier:: There are jobs.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The government knows that apprenticeship plans do not work when factories are turned off and their doors are closed. The government knows that it is the young people who are first laid off. What program does the government have through Public Works, perhaps a Roads to Resources program or something of that nature, to put these young people to work, so that they are not on the dole, so that they are not collecting unemployment insurance, and so that they are not taking part in training programs for which there are no jobs and no hope of jobs?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member ought to realize that in recent years, we have had to admit 25,000 foreign workers to this country, and that the role of the new legislation will be to provide training for these jobs, especially for young people.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, when I mentioned the budget a moment ago, I was referring to the job-creation programs that are to be announced shortly by the minister. We shall certainly stress job creation for youth, and I am sure that all young people across the country will benefit from the programs during the years to come.
July 22, 1982


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, all members of this House just supported a motion under Standing Order 43 commending very heartily the United States Senate environment committee for its decision earlier today to slash acid rain-causing emissions in that country over the next 12 years. My question to the Minister of the Environment is this. The minister said some weeks ago that Canada might have to withdraw from its negotiations with the United States toward achieving a binding bilateral accord on acid rain because of American foot-dragging on the issue. Will the minister tell the House whether the major breakthrough on acid rain in the U.S. Senate today-it is a major breakthrough-has given the minister and the Canadian government cause to reconsider their threat to withdraw from their negotiations with the Americans on acid rain?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, partly because it gives me the opportunity to agree with him that the decision by the United States Senate earlier today is a major breakthrough. I would like to say that there are members on all sides of this House who, through their work with their Congressional counterparts in the United States, have helped to make that favourable event take place today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The House earlier today recognized the efforts of Senator Stafford in the United States in that regard. It is important also to recognize the efforts of Senator Mitchell of Maine, and the leading democratic spokesman, Senator Jennings Randolph, and particularly the support which the Senate Leader, Howard Baker of the United States, gave to these efforts. Those decisions by these extremely able, influential and leading American Senators have been very helpful to us.
As the hon. member suggests, this extremely favourable sign should encourage us to continue our work in the United States with the administration, and equally with Congress. In his question the hon. member used the word "threat". I do not think that is a word I have ever used. It was simply a fact of life that, given the delays in the negotiations, it was necessary for us to reassess what position we should take. It is my hope that the scientific group which has been working on this problem will resume its activities in the month of August. When we see the results of those working task forces, we will be able to begin negotiations again early in the autumn. However, it will depend to some extent on whether the task force reports indicate that progress is being made.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, every member on this side of the House welcomes that positive reassurance from the minister.
Oral Questions


ONTARIO HYDRO-INSTALLATION OF ANTI-POLLUTION DEVICES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the same minister. Earlier this week Ontario Hydro announced that it is going to shelve plans to instal acid rain controls on its plants in Ontario. Now that we have had a genuine act of good faith by the Americans on the acid rain question, will the minister consider using his good offices to try to convince Ontario Hydro to reverse its decision, as an act of good faith on the part of all Canadians on this important, vital and urgent problem?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. I will do everything I can to try to bring to the attention of Ontario Hydro the importance of moving as quickly as possible to introduce and maintain anti-pollution devices which are as effective as possible. I think the important thing to note in relation to that Ontario Hydro statement was the reaction of the provincial minister, Mr. Norton, who emphasized that it was the intention of the Ontario government to work with other provincial governments and the federal government in bringing forward proposals for the achievement of emission reductions in eastern Canada of 50 per cent by the end of this decade and that that could very well lead to more restrictive limitations on the actions of Ontario Hydro than are presently envisaged.
One favourable consequence of the event the hon. gentleman has discussed has been the underlining of the statement of the provincial environment minister that he is determined to work out effective emission reductions over the next few months, and that Ontario Hydro may very well be required by the provincial government in those circumstances to have even lower emissions than Ontario Hydro now believes we will face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday Ian Sinclair, chairman of another blue ribbon advisory committee, told Canadians they would have to restrict their wage increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister why the Canadian people should restrict their wage and salary demands to 6 per cent and 5 per cent on the advice of a man who earns over $550,000 a year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that, when he said those words, Mr. Sinclair was conscious that they also applied to himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 22, 1982
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Could 1 have his 6 per cent?


Mr. Beatty:: Life is tough all over.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is a meagre $30,000 a year increase.


SALARY INCREASE FOR BELL CANADA CHAIRMAN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, Bell Canada announced yesterday that it would be turning its back on the dream world of 6 per cent and 5 per cent and that it will be going ahead with its plan to increase rates by 25 per cent. Does the minister consider it acceptable for Jean de Grandpre, chairman of Bell Canada, to take a salary increase of 22 per cent, which will bring his annual income to $645,000 a year, and also to ask Canadians to accept 25 per cent increases in their telephone rates?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, what I said about Mr. Sinclair applies to Mr. Jean de Grandpre also.
I think hon. members should be aware of the way in which the system created by the Minister of Finance and announced in his budget will be implemented. What I say for Bell Canada applies also to Air Canada, for example. Requests for increase in prices will be submitted to regulatory agencies. The regulatory agencies will pass judgments on the validity of those proposed increases. Should approved increases be more than 6 per cent, there is a committee of cabinet which will look at them to find out if they qualify under the theme of extraordinary, exceptional and uncommon circumstances. That is the way the system will be implemented.
Hon. members should not ask each minister each day what he intends to do about CN, Bell and so forth. What we would like to do is let the regulatory system, as it exists now, follow its normal course and act only after decisions have been made by regulatory agencies. It may very well be that in a number of instances the regulatory agencies will not allow more than 6 per cent.


APPLICATION OF RESTRAINT TO FAMILY EARNINGS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, Mr. Sinclair, the president of Bell, and the minister who just responded, have said that exceptional increases of more than 6 per cent will be allowed if component costs for organizations like Bell, like Air Canada, and like VIA, are more than 6 per cent. Will Canadian families be allowed to accept increases of more than 6 per cent if their component costs increase by more than 6 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I would very much like to know from where my hon. friend took this element of component costs. I have not seen it as a factor in the determination.
I think I can give an illustration in my own area of transportation. It may be, for example, that an increase of only 6 per cent granted to Air Canada might damage or prejudice the
economic situation of the whole of the air carrier industry. This is the sort of consideration that the committee will have in mind in assessing what are extraordinary circumstances.


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the cabinet taken a decision to roll back the exorbitant rent increases on some 20,000 units owned by CMHC? If not, does the government intend to take such a decision and hold CMHC to the 6-5 guideline?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for this area is in Vancouver today speaking to a meeting of people interested in the construction industry. I will consult with him, because I really do not know. I think the case is before cabinet but I could not swear to it.


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State concerning the plight of universities and university students in Canada. The unemployment that affects young persons in Canada is a crushing burden on students who must work to earn tuition fees for next year's university session.
We know that the minister has been talking to the provincial officials responsible for secondary education in Canada and that there has been much discussion, but my question concerns the plight of the university students. Will government funding be so restricted that university students will be faced with tuition increases of 30 per cent and more in the next academic year? I would like the minister to make a commitment to university students now that they will be brought into the world of 6 per cent with respect to tuition fees for the next academic session.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I can only begin by complimenting the hon. member for his idea, although the authority to restrict the amount of tuition increase rests with the provinces rather than with the federal government. I think he has struck home at a very, very real concern. I can assure him, through you, Madam Speaker, that the Government of Canada is not going to decrease the amount of money that goes through the provinces for the
July 22, 1982

universities in the coming year, but, rather, is going to increase it by a substantial amount.
This is a matter that I have already been considering, but in view of the hon. member's question I am going to contact the provincial ministers of education further to our meeting on July 9 and urge them to speak to all universities and seek their agreement to limiting any increase in tuition fees to not more than 6 per cent.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to add to federal-provincial conflict, but the Secretary of State knows very well that any failure to fund by provincial and federal governments has to be made up by students, through tuition fees. I should like to ask the minister what he meant in his recent press release when he said that the government is moving to strengthen support for students and to improve accessibility to universities. What proposal does the minister have in mind to make it easier for university students to get into university and pay the costs when they get there?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, first of all the hon. member is referring to statements that came out of the very productive and friendly meeting that I had with the ministers of education on July 9. As a consequence of that meeting, our officials are working together on developing an improved student aid assistance program. Of course it will be some months at the very minimum before an agreement can be achieved. In the meantime I am happy to report to the hon. member that most of the provinces in Canada have agreed at least to match the increase in funding for universities that the federal government is making available in the coming year. Therefore, there would appear to me to be little reason for universities to impose an increase above 6 per cent on tuition fees for the coming year. I hope that will be helpful to the students.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who will probably know that it is proposed as of August 31 this year that VIA Rail employees will replace CN personnel, one agent and three operators, at the Woodstock, Ontario, railway station. The VIA Rail replacement personnel will only be selling tickets and will not be inspecting trains for hot boxes, dragging equipment, shifted loads and sticking brakes, work which is currently performed by CN personnel.
Why is the government considering this change which will cause great upheaval in the lives of capable CN employees, and which will increase the chances of a derailment occurring
Oral Questions
in the Woodstock area, a change which is in direct conflict with the current policy on rail safety?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not really think that I am expected to be aware of what goes on in every railway station in the country. Had the hon. member given me notice of the question I would have done my best to find out the particular circumstances in this particular instance. Be that as it may, I will do so now and report to him.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CHANGE
Bruce Halliday: I appreciate that the minister may not have been aware of this, Madam Speaker, although a letter went to his office on June 30 regarding the matter. The people in that area are concerned about the hazardous situation that will exist when VIA Rail personnel are not able to detect possible problems in trains. I wonder if we could have an assurance from the minister that he will undertake an investigation before August 31, when this change is due to come into effect, so that people will not be worried about the possibility of another Mississauga incident.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already said that I would look into it.


TRANSPORT
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He will recall that two weeks ago I asked him about the cessation of Lakespan and he said that he would advise me immediately. Tomorrow the ship is being sold back to the Norwegians. Would the minister use the authority provided under Section 702(4) of the Canada Shipping Act and stop the ship leaving Oshawa and Canada, as there are liens pending against it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my information is that CN is actually trying to establish a lien on the boat so that it could then be sold and all those who have claimed reparation could be properly compensated. For those who are not in such a position, CN would try to accommodate them on a voluntary basis. This is the situation as it existed at two o'clock this afternoon. I will keep on with it so as to prevent the ship from returning to Sweden or wherever it came from, if that is needed. My information was that the ship was owned by Lakespan and consequently they had a right to it.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I happen to know that the ship is in Oshawa and not back in Norway. It appears that the minister has answered my question, and that he will be dealing with the small creditors about whom I am so concerned.
19588

July 22, 1982
Oral Questions MARINE TRANSPORT


NEED FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA PLEASURE CRAFT SEWAGE CONTROL
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. At present there are no sewage discharge regulations for small craft operating through the Gulf Islands in the Strait of Georgia. At one high-density anchorage spot, oyster meat has shown seven times the accepted minimal level for fecal coli-form count. Will the minister act immediately to bring in long overdue sewage control regulations for pleasure craft on the coast of British Columbia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this could come under fisheries or environment. I will call a meeting of my two colleagues this afternoon and look into the matter to see if my department or other departments have done anything about it.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the minister. In a letter to me earlier this spring he indicated that the reason those regulations were not passed was because the matter had been handed over to the Province of British Columbia. The province indicated as far back as 1974, and has reaffirmed this month, that it sees this as coming under federal jurisdiction. When will the minister stop passing the buck between his counterparts among the provincial ministers and act to prevent the Strait of Georgia from becoming an open sewer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was going to say that we will call in the minister from British Columbia to join our meeting, but that would have been considered too facetious. I can only say very seriously that I will try to clarify the jurisdictional question. This has been done in a number of other instances and I will try to add this one to the list.


DOME PETROLEUM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are negotiations going on between Dome Petroleum and the minister with regard to the financial problems Dome finds itself with, and is it the minister's intention to use public funds to bail out Dome Petroleum, or is it his intention to use one of the Crown corporations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I already answered this question in the House last week.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S REASONING
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, to the same minister, whose answer was not sufficient in my thinking-does he think it is fair to ask the ordinary Canadian worker and taxpayer to bail out Dome Petroleum in view of the fact that its problems result from both the minister's misguided National Energy Policy and highly speculative investing at very high interest rates on the part of Dome?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is misguided in many aspects of his question and his assertions. The only answer I need give him is that no bail-out is considered.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Time will tell.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is with regard to powered ultra-light aircraft. There have been at least four persons killed in Canada in accidents involving powered ultralight aircraft over the past few years. These aircraft have been commercially produced for about four years, and over that time Transport Canada has been working on regulations concerning them. Will the minister advise when legislation will be introduced, and what steps will be taken in the legislation to reduce injury and death in the use of these aircraft?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this should be done before the end of the year. The operator of the craft will have to be licensed, and the craft itself will be subject to a registration process.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Riverport Seafoods Limited plant at Riverport, Nova Scotia, was completely destroyed by fire on Saturday, September 26, 1981, almost a year ago. At the same time the federal government wharf adjacent to the plant was also destroyed. Since there is no insurance on government wharves, and in view of the continued need for docking space by the large Riverport
July 22, 1982

scallop fleet which is now required to tie up three and four ships abreast when unloading, when can the fishermen expect an announcement concerning the replacement of this much needed facility which, 1 submit, is a moral responsibility of the federal government?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, 1 made it very clear from the very beginning that as soon as we knew if the plant was going to be rebuilt or not, then we would be able to design a wharf accordingly. One of the difficulties I have, in spite of the rumours and articles in the Halifax newspaper, is that until the last two days I had no firm commitment that the plant was going to be rebuilt. If there is not going to be a plant, then we are ready with designs and we can go ahead quite quickly.


SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY OBSERVATIONS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, following the loss a socioeconomic study was made by the Nova Scotia Department of Development concerning the impact of the plant and wharf destruction, and it was released in October, 1981. That report pointed out that, even if the plant cannot be rebuilt, a new wharf in an excellent harbour, with a developed industrial water supply and a willing labour force, could attract new industry to Riverport. Has the minister read the report and, if so, has he any comment to make on its observations?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have read a precis of the report, but I repeat to the hon. gentleman that the configuration of the wharf will depend on whether it is to be used as a landing site for the scallop fleet as opposed to being just an overnight or weekend tie-up area for the fleet. On that point 1 have to see what the company intends to do.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I think we are all very much encouraged by the action of the U.S. Senate with regard to acid rain, and I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Ontario Hydro is using vast quantities of imported high sulphur coal from Pennsylvania. It has been doing so for a large number of years, even though there have been many attempts to have low sulphur western Canadian coal used in Ontario. In light of the minister's attachment to the reduction of acid rain in Ontario and the eastern seaboard, what is he doing with respect to converting Ontario Hydro from the use of high sulphur Pennsylvania coal to very low sulphur western Canadian coal?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam
Oral Questions
Speaker, perhaps it would help if I explained the context in which we have made our efforts in terms of acid rain reduction. The view we have taken is to urge the kind of emission reductions which would reach the safe fallout level that scientists have told us are required to respond to the problems of moderately sensitive geological areas. We have not attempted to dictate the method for arriving at these emission reductions. Rather, we have said that what most concerns us is the consequences. That is to say, a certain level of emission reductions will be required; the figure which comes forth from the scientific evidence is a 50 per cent reduction in eastern North America or eastern Canada by 1990. We have not tried to describe the method by which that reduction should be reached; we are more intent on having the reductions reached.


IMPORTATION OF OIL FROM MEXICO
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy who will know by now that many aspects of his energy program have created problems in employment, in both the oil industry and manufacturing in Ontario, indeed to the whole economy, through higher interest rates and other difficulties. There is one specific area in the program having to do with the deal Petro-Can has with Pemex, the state-owned Mexican oil company. Is the minister aware, as indicated on page 71 of the NEP "Update", that the deal Petro-Can has with Pemex results in oil being brought into Canada at $22 per cubic metre less than the price of domestic oil, and does he think it is fair that Canadian consumers should have to pay the additional $176,000 a day for domestic oil available in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that we still need to import oil. To give him an idea, I would inform him that the conventional light crude oil shut in for August and September is predicted to be a negligible or zero volume, and that we expect there will be no heavy crude shut in over the next three months as exports have increased very substantially, thanks to the steps we have taken. Unfortunately, we are still dependent on foreign imports although our measures have succeeded in cutting by more than half the imports as forecast by the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, a few years ago in Tokyo. Rather than having 600,000 barrels a day of imports, we will be importing less than 250,000 barrels a day by 1995, thanks to the measures taken under the National Energy Program.
As far as the imports from Mexico are concerned, to which the hon. member has referred, I remind him that the imports from Mexico represent a very small portion of the total

July 22, 1982
Oral Questions
imports we have from Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, in particular-


Charles Joseph Clark: Name one person who believes you, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: -and the instructions to all companies, including Petro-Canada, have been to reduce to a minimum the imports that we are bringing into the country.
Finally, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that our exports to Mexico have increased tremendously since we made a deal with Mexico on oil. This has meant jobs for thousands and thousands of Canadians in the manufacturing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that the figures right now equate to an approximate 7 per cent reduction in the use of oil because of the programs of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The remainder is because of the way this minister of energy, this Minister of Finance and this Prime Minister have screwed down the economy of this country so that we are all facing bankruptcy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT NOT BE RENEWED
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the same Mexican oil deal. In spite of the number of components to his answer, since much of this deal was predicated on completion of a Candu reactor sale to Mexico, which is now defunct, and in view of the fact that this deal with Mexico for oil is an "evergreen" kind of deal that depends on a renewed contract on the basis of PetroCan and Pemex; will the minister ensure, when this energy contract comes up, that we do not accept a renewal, and in spite of the minister's protestations, we do not have oil in Canada at $22 per cubic metre-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That question really was quite long, as was the hon. member's first one.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to a 7 per cent decline as if it were a small event. I remind the hon. member that this means over 100,000 barrels a day less that we have to import.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This means that Canadians, through the conservation and substitution measures announced by this government, have been saved the cost already of the equivalent of a full tar sands plant. The taxpayers of Canada have been saved about $10 billion to $13 billion in investment-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Marc Lalonde: -thanks to the measures we have taken.


Mr. Stevens:: An economic collapse is an instrument of conservation.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the Mexican contract itself is concerned, I find it strange that the hon. member would have us rely on Middle East oil exclusively rather than being able to rely on several sources of supply for this country, which means that we will have a better security of supply.


Charles Joseph Clark: Does anybody believe you?


Marc Lalonde: Moreover, we will be able to expand our export trade into the countries that sell us oil.


Charles Joseph Clark: Name one person who believes you.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, 1 had hoped to ask my question of the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week the International Monetary Fund granted an $85 million loan to El Salvador. Some have considered that this is one of the most controversial and political loans the International Monetary Fund has granted since the $66 million loan to President Somoza a few weeks before he fled with the national treasury. Would the minister tell us how Canada voted on that particular loan, and why?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I will have to take that question in part as notice. But I would say, and I am sure the hon. member knows, that Canada has a long tradition of treating matters before bodies such as the IMF as economic matters and not as political matters. We do not apply any ideological tests to our aid or to our action before international bodies.


INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK PROPOSALS- CANADIAN POSITION
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, in light of the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on the question of the $194 million loan proposals now before the Inter-American Development Bank for El Salvador, because of the state of the civil war in that country, is the minister going to advise the Minister of Finance how he should vote?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would be advising the Minister of Finance on the political aspects of the decision involved, and certainly I would not advise him on the basis of the political aspects that grants should not be made, precisely because of the fact that such a decision should be made on economic grounds. If the difficulties were such that on economic grounds a sound decision could not be made, then the decision should be made on that basis and not on a spurious political basis.
July 22, 1982


FINANCE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Bearing in mind that federal tax on farm fuels is now 60 cents a gallon, representing 40 per cent of the farmers' cost for fuel, what is the minister's perspective on that in light of the fact that food costs have risen significantly in the past month and the past year? What is the effect of the federal tax in relation to food costs, and is it the minister's opinion that fuel taxes have had some effect in making the price go up?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Finance established his budget a few weeks ago, obviously he must have had this and other like considerations in mind. If he discarded it, it is because he felt that he could not give dispensation from paying such taxes on energy because it was necessary for his budget.


JUSTIFICATION FOR TAX
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, when the minister said that obviously it has an effect, an upward pressure on food prices, and bearing in mind that in the calculation of inflation the cost of food is one of the most significant factors, how is it that the government can justify-in a period when it argues that its main objective is a decrease in inflation-putting in place a tax that in fact causes inflation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, all taxes contribute somewhat to inflation.


Mr. Huntington:: And deficits.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was trying to indicate that when the Minister of Finance makes his budget he looks at all aspects. I am quite sure, being the kind of man he is, that he looked at the possibility of reducing the tax on fuel to help farmers. If he did not discard it, it was because he thought that in the exercise of balancing advantages and disadvantages he could not be generous in that particular instance. But I am aware that the Government of Saskatchewan has reduced the provincial fuel tax because it thought it could afford it.


Charles Joseph Clark: That government thinks agriculture is important.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That government thought it was also attractive to the population also at election time.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Madam Speaker, you have made an excellent selection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the government, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Twice in the last two weeks the Prime Minister has refused a request from this side of the House to strike a special committee of Parliament charged with the responsibility of looking for ways to cut fat in the federal budget. Since he most recently did that, the government has released figures showing that the expenses for hospitality-that is wining and dining-at the taxpayers' expense, exceed some $10 million a year. Will the Acting Prime Minister reconsider that decision, and will he agree to strike a parliamentary committee charged with the responsibility of looking for ways to cut out waste in federal spending?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, as far as I can remember, did discard the possibility of a special committee because he thought that all committees had the task of watching over the expenditures of the government. But recently there have been instances, and I am quite sure there will be others, when cases will be brought to the attention of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Cases of what?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I am sure hon. members are aware, the government intends to take very prompt action each time one of those cases comes up.


INCREASE IN HOSPITALITY EXPENSES OF TREASURY BOARD
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why it is necessary for the Department of Employment and Immigration to spend over $309,000 a year on hospitality? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that this was a matter which would be looked at, not by Parliament but by the President of the Treasury Board, can he tell the House how the President of the Treasury Board has any credibility in this matter when spending on hospitality under him increased by some 67 per cent in one year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is only by the knowledge of each particular case that an opinion can be made. For example, the other day the hon. member raised the case of my own department which he suggested was spending too much on communications. Each time these cases are brought up, presumably the ministers will do their very best to counter the negative impression created,

July 22, 1982
Business of the House
by stating the facts. I would think it will be rather easy for the opposition to single out situations from here and there and to try to blow them up to make them look very bad.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the 309th Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Wednesday, July 21, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement has been reached at the level of House leaders on the way to dispose of Bill C-125, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the government. With Madam Speaker's permission, I will read the motion or House order. If you seek unanimous consent, I think we will obtain it. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That, with regard to Bill C-125, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be deemed to have been withdrawn;
That, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole;
That, at the appropriate time in Committee of the Whole stage of the said bill, a minister of the Crown shall propose an amendment to delete in line 14 of page one of the said bill the word "eleven" and to substitute therefor the word "seven";-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: It continues:
That, no later than 9.45 p.m. this day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all questions necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, except as provided in this order;
That, if necessary for the execution of this order, the House may sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment; and
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding, immediately after Standing Order 72, the following:
72A. If, at any time before March 31, 1983, a minister of the Crown
introduces a bill to provide additional supplementary borrowing authority of
not more than four billion dollars, the said bill shall, after receiving second
reading, be considered in a Committee of the Whole and, not later than fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time appointed for the consideration of Government Business on the third day that the said bill is debated, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
and;
Provided that the said Standing Order 72A shall expire when any bill mentioned therein has been finally disposed of.
That is the motion; that is the agreement among the parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising to discuss the motion-if so, I should first like to put it to the House-or does he want to make some kind of intervention before the House gives the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) permission to move the motion?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I was taking advantage of my right to rise and indicate the consent of the official opposition to that question, which is quite normal.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, we were prepared to vote on this bill last night. We are prepared to vote against $7 billion today as we were prepared to vote against $11 billion yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. minister to move the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I was beginning to suspect that you wanted me to say "no" to the order.


Mr. Dantzer:: Do not say anything.


William J. Yurko: I want a moment to make a few comments before giving my unanimous consent to this motion.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no.


William J. Yurko: I have the right to say "no", if I wish to say so.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member seems to want to debate the motion. We have asked the House for unanimous consent for the minister only to propose the motion, and we have that unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: The question has been put.


Madam Speaker:: I am not asking the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) a second time to give his unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
July 22, 1982

Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, now that we have the House order in place, 1 wonder whether the government House leader could indicate the business of the House for tomorrow and for next week.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, today, as has just been agreed, we will conclude debate on the borrowing authority bill authorizing the government to borrow $7 billion now and, if need be, $4 billion before the end of this fiscal year within a three-day debate. Of course, at 9.45 p.m. this day the bells will be ringing.
Tomorrow we will call Bill C-122 respecting the Small Businesses Loans Act. We hope, with the collaboration of hon. members on both sides, that we will be able to adopt that bill through all stages to allow small business some relief.

Next week, on Monday, we shall proceed with consideration of the report stage and, 1 hope, third reading of Bill C-92 concerning National Harbours. As hon. members are aware, the bill was in committee for consideration. It has now been reported, and there are several amendments on the Order Paper. We would like to be able to pass this legislation before the summer recess.
If everything else goes according to plan, and Bill C-124, which is now in committee, has not been reported back to the House, we shall proceed, after consideration of Bill C-92, with the report stage of Bill C-85, which concerns the Canagrex Corporation.
In any case, Tuesday we shall try to expedite all stages of Bill C-109 which provides for financial assistance for owners of homes insulated with UFFI. Madam Speaker, provided the opposition parties agree, we shall bring that bill before the House at three o'clock on Tuesday, in case there is a division. A proposal to that effect is now being considered by the House leaders. If an affirmative answer is received from all parties, debate on Bill C-92 or Bill C-85 will be interrupted in order to dispose of all stages of Bill C-109.
Finally, I wish to confirm that as soon as we receive the report on Bill C-124, which is now before a Standing Committee of the House, and concerns compensation in the Public Service, we shall proceed immediately with consideration of the report stage of that bill and interrupt all proceedings on the bills I mentioned earlier. Thus, we are giving first priority to final passage of Bill C-124 as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of indicating to the government House leader that his having been sufficiently co-operative to agree to the changes we have suggested to the committee reference on Bill C-109, we are now prepared to agree with the revised draft House
Petitions
order that he supplied to us, in order that that matter could be brought on Tuesday and dealt with, as we have committed ourselves to deal with it previously on the record.
Might I ask the government House leader if he has any idea what we will be doing in August?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear what we will be doing in August; we will be dealing with Bill C-124. I want to say, however, to the government House leader with regard to Bill C-109 that we have referred the representation made to us by those representing persons who have UFFI in their homes; as I hear my colleague say, "the victims". 1 now understand that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may well have indicated to them that he is willing to meet with them. We would not want the bill to proceed until after that meeting takes place.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this would not change many things since in the order that we proposed there will be a special committee created that would take into account any representations made to the minister. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. friend is in good faith and it would be very simple to accept the adoption of the bill and allow at the same time a parliamentary committee to look into the matter. In any case, we will be waiting for the NDP to support that bill by next Tuesday.


POINT OF ORDER
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon when you put my motion to the House, you erroneously said that it was seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). In fact, it was an all-party agreement which was seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 people, who are expressing their concern that union workers at Tannerie Canadienne Incorporee in Saint-Pascal de Kamouraska have been laid off since December 24, and that is seven months. I will spare you all the

July 22, 1982
Railway Act
whereases, Madam Speaker, but in concluding, your petitioners humbly request that it please Your Honourable House to demand, first, that the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission immediately pay these workers the unemployment insurance benefits to which they are entitled for the period starting on the day they were laid off, and second, that the government establish appropriate mechanisms to allow that enterprise to resume operations, irrespective of who the future owner will be, so as to enable those workers to go back to their jobs. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario humbly sheweth that whereas Israel Ludwig is a government appointee and is chairman of the Race-relations Committee of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, and that Mr. Ludwig when speaking in Vancouver advocated that Christian religious holidays be abolished, that the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunication Commission remove licences from stations which give unwarranted coverage to "racist" groups, that a similar government body be set up to censor the written media, that additional penalties be made mandatory for crimes motivated by racism and that the law be changed to widen the definition of "hate" for the purposes of prosecution, and that these proposals show a contempt for the majority in this country, ignorance of our traditions of freedom of speech and abolish hard won liberties, and wherefore Mr. Ludwig's views and conduct are in opposition to the freedom of speech guarantees of the Charter of Rights, we believe that he is unfit to advise the government and request that he be dismissed from his position as chairman of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls) moved: the first reading of Bill S-29 (from the Senate), to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 4,209.



CHARTER OF HELICOPTER

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development charter a Bell 205A-1 helicopter at Hay River from Quasar Helicopters Ltd. and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	To what locations were trips made in the helicopter and what was the total distance travelled and the flight time of each trip?
3.	What equipment was used on the trips?
4.	Which personnel took part in the trips and what were the classifications and job titles of those persons employed by the department?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	DSS awarded a contract, on behalf of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to Quasar Helicopters Ltd. for the exclusive services of one Bell 205A-1 helicopter. The aircraft will be used to transport personnel, equipment and supplies to support forest fire detection and suppression activities, and resources inspections.
2.	The services will not start until June 1, 1982; therefore no flying has been done against this contract as of the date this question was asked.
3.	The helicopter is equipped with extra high skid gear and belly gear.
4.	Not applicable, see 2 above.
For information, in the summer of 1981 the department also chartered Bell 214 helicopters from Quasar Helicopters Ltd. and Bell 205A-l's from other companies for use during fire fighting.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,353 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have Question No. 4,353 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 22, 1982



ENROLMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN IN SCHOOL

Mr. Manly: By province, over the past twelve years, how many Indian children were enrolled in each of grades one to twelve?
Return tabled.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as you would know from a point of order I raised just a couple of days ago, 1 would like to say at the outset that I do not raise these points of order frequently. However, I have had a question on the Order Paper for 20 months, and when I asked the parliamentary secretary what he might do about it in view of the fact that the answer I received was not an answer at all, his partial suggestion was that perhaps I could replace the question. He concluded his comments by saying, "I will do my best to get him an answer as soon as possible."
Would the parliamentary secretary clarify for me what his expectation is for question No. 3,370? Will he require that I wait another 20 months by replacing the question, or will that question be readdressed? Has he had an opportunity to look at it?
The question deals with the Calgary post office, which is one of the most inefficient in Canada. Certainly the people in that city and particularly those people in the surrounding rural area of the city of Calgary are very poorly served by that particular post office. Would the parliamentary secretary indicate whether or not he deems it necessary that I replace the question and perhaps wait another 20 months before we get an answer that means nothing because the government does not want to answer the question?
I would say finally that, as a documentary on my position, a media person approached me yesterday, not knowing that I had raised a point of order, and asked what the answer meant. He said it means nothing, that it is just a conglomeration of words. Would the parliamentary secretary give me some indication of his expectation?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the hon. member did not find my answer succinct, brief, precise, clear and to the point. I think that the point I was making was that if he felt that the answer tabled by the government was inadequate, he could then place another question on the Order Paper seeking further clarification. If he does so I will endeavour to see that it does not take too long to answer that subsequent question.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, in a short sentence I can say that it is not a case of being inadequate, it is unintelligible. It makes no sense. One should read it. There is no meaning to it. If the parliamentary secretary can read it and understand it, would he please take me to lunch some day and let me know what that answer says?
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


David P. Smith: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be happy to look into this matter on behalf of the hon. member. It is a pleasure, as usual.


An hon. Member:: How about his lunch?


Mr. McKinnon:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give me any information about question No. 2,596, which I put down on the Order Paper on June 5, 1981. This question asks the Department of National Defence to inform me as to how many people are serving in what could be described as sharp-end units. I also understand that the minister has had an answer for some six months, but that he is refusing to bring it before the House. If it is so embarrassing for the government to tell us how many people in the Canadian Forces are in sharp-end units and how many are in static units, then I wish he would have the nerve to come into the House and say so, or maybe the parliamentary secretary would tell me.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to give the hon. member a status report on the answer to that question today, but I will be happy to look into it again on his behalf.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, July 21, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-125, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, as a result of the efforts of the Progressive Conservative Party, there has been a victory for the people of this nation today, albeit a small one. It should be recognized there has been a victory because this bill, which it should not have been necessary to bring in, asking this country to cough up another $11 billion, has been reduced by $4 billion. The amount is astonishing in itself, but the fact that the government is asking the

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
people of this nation to come up with that sort of money is absolutely and totally unacceptable.
However, it must be noted that the government recognized that it could not get away with this one in the face of the opposition which has been mounted by this party, in the face of the determination of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), of our House leader and all the critics in this party who have fought so valiantly to ensure that the protection of the people of Canada was first and foremost and was looked after in this House. That particular opposition was launched, initiated and designed by this party. There can be no question but that if we had not taken the initiative and had not shown our determination in the face of the wanton spending habits of the government, the people of Canada, the citizens of this nation, would have had to bear an additional $4 billion in debt. This bill, although I certainly cannot support it, will no doubt be passed by the government majority and the people of the nation will be faced with the burden of an additional $7 billion.
Five weeks ago I stood before the House and debated Bill C-11, which asked for supplementary borrowing authority for only $6.6 billion. Today I am debating the government's request for about that same amount again, plus an additional billion dollars. As old C. D. Howe once asked, "What's a million?" It seems the government has now translated that question into, "What's a billion?"
The government is asking for another $7 billion in borrowing authority. This request means that the government has now asked for a total of $13.6 billion in borrowing authority in the past month, a total of $17.2 billion in borrowing authority for this year, and $39 billion in the two years that it has been in government thus far. Not so long ago, only last November, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stood before the House and advised Canadians of a strategy his government had devised to combat inflation and the recession, a program of economic restraint, equity and renewal. Last month the minister again stood before the House and advised Canadians that we must now strive for economic renewal under the weight of a staggering economic burden, a deficit almost twice the amount expected, a deficit of almost $20 billion. The minister confessed action "must be taken within the very limited room for manoeuvre imposed by the deficit. Recession has resulted in a serious worsening of the government's financial position. Tax revenues have fallen while expenditures have risen". In two short sentences, the minister informed Canadians that the projected budgetary deficit for the current fiscal year will be $19.6 billion instead of the $10.5 billion that he initially projected last November. Our financial requirements are now projected at $17.1 billion instead of the November forecast of $6.6 billion.
In a following paragraph, the Minister of Finance assured us not to worry, for his "last budget put in place a structure of revenues and expenditures that should, when recovery gets fully under way, gradually lower the deficit and avoid putting excessive pressures on capital markets as private borrowing picks up to finance investment". There are no assurances in this statement for a public or an investment community
obliged to deal in an environment of non-confidence in the government or its policies.
In the Progressive Conservative report of the special committee on the budget and the economy, our primary recommendation for economic revitalization was to restore individual and investor confidence by establishing a climate for growth, development and expansion. A Progressive Conservative government would start from the premise that government's role is to accept and enforce an economic framework upon which private individuals and businesses can act with confidence in the future. The current low level of confidence in the future of Canada, combined with high federal spending, are major factors in our current economic situation. It seems that the government is determined to descend upon the people of this country, the taxpayers of this nation, 23 million citizens, like a bunch of screaming banshees out of the heavens, falling on a waiting prey. There seems to be no end to their insatiable desire to spend.
Oftentimes I am asked a question, and I am glad to have the opportunity to set my answer on record. I am asked, "What would you fellows do if you were the government?" For the benefit of those who have asked me that question in the past and for the benefit of those who may ask me in the future but, more particularly, for the benefit of those hon. members opposite who might be genuinely concerned about the deficit imposed by the government on the taxpayers of our country, let me just tell them what a Progressive Conservative government, when elected, will do and would do now if it were in power.
The latest budget came out on June 28. We are led to believe that there will be another budget some time in the fall. It is hard to say just what that might project. I would be very pleased but astonished if the projected deficit by that time had not increased another $4 billion or $5 billion.
Let me state what a Progressive Conservative government would have done had it been in power. First, it would have completely withdrawn the November budget which the Minister of Finance brought in. He seems to have some sort of magical hold on his leader. He remains in office even though he should have gone the way of the grey goose. We would have demonstrated leadership and restraint by holding government spending to the rate of growth in the economy to bring down the deficit. No business enterprise in the nation or in the free world could possibly exist with the kind of financial guidelines under which this government operates. It spends far in excess of what it brings in. It seems to rely on the fact that it still has credit, although I suspect it must be dwindling as quickly as the popularity of this government, which is now in a minus state.
We would have encouraged Canadians to invest by providing incentives. We would have reinstated the small business development bond for small business to allow it to expand. We would not have brought in a disaster plan that is available only
July 22, 1982

to those on the last thread of their rope. We would have put in place a meaningful small business development bond such as we proposed when we were in power.
We would have provided a tax incentive system to give Canadians the opportunity to own their own homes. The minister brought in a program which will offer first-time buyers $3,000 assistance after the first of the year. That is fine. It may be one of the more positive aspects of that budget. However, we should be addressing ourselves to the fact that high mortgage and interest rates are prohibiting young people from purchasing homes in this country. They should be given assistance with their mortgage payments, not the initial amount. Anyone who has the money required to maintain and sustain those rates of interest probably is not as much in need of a $3,000 grant as some of those who should be in homes.
We would have made fundamental changes to the National Energy Program to make it fair to consumers, the provinces and Canadian energy companies. We would have streamlined the Foreign Investment Review Agency to make job-creating foreign investment again welcome in this country.
The deficit brought in by this government is unmanageable and will not earn the confidence of the public or the investment community. National and international investors are leery of this government. It has not only lost control of its spending but has miscalculated its debt by an astounding 100 per cent. What private business or household could survive if it miscalculated its expenditures by almost 100 per cent? It is absolutely astounding. These people are supposed to be responsible. We have seen them for what they are, incompetent rather than competent.
The public does not have confidence in this government today. It does not have confidence in the Minister of Finance or any others in this government who are in a position to make decisions. Members opposite know that. Daily I receive correspondence to this effect. I would just like to read some of these comments which I receive in my office. One states:
I would like for the Prime Minister and his followers to sit at my table for one week, just so they could understand how us poor folks live.
I suspect one day would do. Another reads:
Mr. MacEachen's decision to present a new budget on the p.m. of June 28 should be interesting. I don't hold much hope for any measures which will do anything significant to turn things around.
That was obviously written before the budget. How accurate that person's judgment was! There was nothing significant to turn anything around. The only significant thing was that the government had no alternative but finally to confess that we were in much worse shape than the people of this country were led to believe. Another comment reads:
I am most concerned about the outlook the federal government has taken toward the future of our fair country.
Another one reads:
I would encourage the federal government to withdraw altogether and all go to the Falklands.
That is probably one of the best places they could go. Finally, another constituent writes:
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Isn't it about time the people of Canada had a chance regarding their future? Please help us.
That is a sad tale. It is a plea for help. Time after time this party has attempted in this House to bring the government to its senses with respect to its spending program and the plight of Canadians. Unfortunately, it always falls on deaf ears.
In my part of the country, Atlantic Canada, all kinds of situations have developed which can be described as nothing less than abusive. This government has made the decision to close CFB Chatham-Newcastle-Miramichi region. That will put 3,500 people out of work and take out of circulation a payroll of $30 million annually. When that closure takes effect, 45 to 50 per cent of the work in that region will become unemployed.
If there was a logical reason or some justification for closing that air force base, 1 could understand the government trying to shore up its effectiveness, but that is not the case. That air base is strategically located in about the best spot it could be for the identification of foreign aircraft. There are foreign aircraft within this country's identification zone. Soviet Bear aircraft have been identified flying through the Canadian identification zone. Those sightings have been made by interceptor aircraft out of CFB Chatham. They are there. We should be in a position to use that base, which is strategically located, and have it continue to play its very vital role. For some reason far beyond my comprehension or the comprehension of those who will be thrown on the unemployment insurance rolls, the new F-18 aircraft is going to be located in Bagotville in the province of Quebec.
Every once in a while it is brought to our attention that perhaps we should not be questioning why all these things which seem to be positive are happening in the province of Quebec, but we are motivated to ask about them because it seems that time and time again the province of Quebec is the recipient of things other provinces traditionally have had. Certainly we must all work together and contribute to the betterment and the building of this nation, but should we not be equitable in our approach to the entire business of economic growth? That is something at which we as parliamentarians and as Canadians should take a serious look. We should want to strive for unity in a way that is beneficial to all of us and in a way that is fair, and surely the best way to do that is to ensure that all Canadians, including Atlantic Canadians, Quebecers, Ontarians and Canadians in the west, get a fair share of the pie.
What happens? We see the closure of CFB Chatham. That does nothing to contribute to unity or an understanding by people who live in Atlantic Canada of problems in other parts of Canada.
We heard in the news this morning that the Heath-Steele mine in northern New Brunswick is being closed down. That is not too far from CFB Chatham. Five hundred people will be thrown out of work. Five hundred people will lose their jobs because of the closure of that mine. That is a result of a poor

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
and depressed economy. Hon. members opposite are partially responsible for that, and they have to accept their fair share of the blame.
We see that an electronic manufacturing plant in the Moncton region has been delayed by several months. One thousand people, apparently, will be employed, if that plant ever does come on stream. Eight thousand unemployed people put in applications for those potential 1,000 jobs.
We have seen the price of gasoline increase. We have seen VIA Rail services cut and slashed, particularly in New Brunswick. This has happened in Nova Scotia to a lesser degree, but the train which served the southern portion of New Brunswick and gave us our link to Montreal has been cut and hundreds of jobs have been lost. That should never have happend. That train was one of the most used trains, one of the most efficient trains and certainly one of the most popular and best trains in the nation. That train should never have been taken off, yet for some unexplained reason it was. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will not give us an explanation. The Senate committee has taken him to task and has thoroughly thumped him over this particular arbitrary decision to cut that rail service. The Progressive Conservative task force which travelled across the nation receiving briefs on the discontinuance of VIA Rail lines heard time and time again that people should have had the opportunity to be heard and that the due process should have been followed. We were told that the CTC should have had the opportunity to conduct public hearings. But no, this uncaring, thoughtless and certainly unthankful minister, with the backing of his cabinet colleagues, arbitrarily discontinued that train.
The port of Saint John is a wonderful port, thanks to contributions by the provincial government which has spent about $22 million in recent years on the modernization of that port. There is a grain elevator at that port. We have all the necessary facilities. When Montreal opens up in the summer, we naturally lose business to Montreal. It was not too long ago that I was petitioned by a group of dock workers in Saint John. The petitioners were members of the United Transportation Union in Saint John. They asked me to speak to the minister responsible for grain shipments and to ask if just two or three shipments of wheat or grain could be diverted to the port of Saint John during slow months. They were not asking for a lot but just for a very few. I said I would contact the minister and, indeed, I did. I wrote to the minister on May 25, 1982. That was a month and a half ago, and to date I have not received so much as the courtesy of a reply.
That does not necessarily astound me. Some time ago I asked the minister a question in the House concerning alternate transportation for peole who would be inconvenienced because of the VIA Rail cutbacks. He referred to something about alternate means. He said that if I would give him a list of the communities involved, he would get back to me. I wrote the names of the communities down on a piece of paper and passed them to the minister. He said, "I will get back to you". That was months ago and, of course, I have never heard another word from him. I heard the minister in the House
today answer an hon. member who asked a question of importance to that hon. member. The minister said that if he had received notice, he would have been able to look into the matter and have the answer available. However, the minister said he would look into the matter. Unless the minister is motivated to do something by some sort of attack in the House, I doubt very much if the hon. member will ever hear from the minister.
Let me get back to the matter of grain shipments through the port of Saint John. I asked for only two or three shipments. In the process of all this, 1 contacted the manager of the Saint John port development commission in Saint John and asked him if he would support me in this effort. He wrote back to me because he was concerned, unlike-obviously-the Minister of Transport, who is responsible in this House for the Wheat Board. The manager of the Saint John port development commission was concerned and brought to my attention the fact that he had made representations, along with the port authority, time and time again for this sort of thing to happen. He informed me that when employees at the grain elevators on the St. Lawrence River were on strike back in the summer of 1980-there are four grain elevators in Montreal-he pointed out to the Wheat Board that the grain elevator at Saint John was only partly full and could handle grain quite nicely. He informed the Wheat Board that the port of Saint John would be prepared to take grain and, indeed, invited the Wheat Board to ship grain through the port of Saint John. He was advised that no ships were being nominated for the port of Saint John. The only satisfaction he received from the Wheat Board was that the Wheat Board thanked him for his telephone call. That sort of attitude is intolerable. I do not quite understand why Saint John should be singled out to have its rail services cut, why the government refuses to recognize the $22 million investment of the province of New Brunswick in that port and why the government refuses to divert wheat shipments to that port.
Oddly enough, the core of the city of Saint John is represented in this House by a Liberal member. That member supports the government on every measure. He votes with the government when it wants to cut VIA Rail. He supports the government. He supports the budget. He supports increases in the price of gasoline. He has supported every measure which has come before this House, even those which have been dastardly and have worked against the best interests of the people of Saint John. The hon. member never balks. He never says anything contrary to the government. He always moves in the direction he is told. One would think the government would give this fellow a chance to do something good for his city. One would think the government would throw him a few crumbs once in a while in the form of some assitance for the city of Saint John, but the government totally ignores the poor fellow.
I think it is a crying shame that the hon. member has been forgotten and cast aside. He certainly must be making representations to the government to do something for the people of Saint John. I know that must be taking place, but 1 feel the government is ignoring it. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker.
July 22, 1982

When it comes to members from New Brunswick, there is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) who sits in this House on many occasions. He has dealt the commercial salmon fishermen of the Saint John region in New Brunswick one of the most severe blows possible; he has cut back their quota for the year. He imposed quotas on fishermen in the Saint John, New Brunswick area which he refused to impose on others in the Atlantic region who fish for the same species. He has imposed on New Brunswick a hardship that he has not the intestinal fortitude to impose on others.
It is difficult to say why this is so. New Brunswick was one of the prime movers in the salmon conservation effort in the early 1970s and voluntarily imposed a ban on commercial salmon fishing. Commercial fishermen had to suffer for that. Most of the slamon caught commercially in the Atlantic region is caught off the coast of Newfoundland. Approximately 65 per cent of those salmon are headed back to their native rivers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
You do not get to the root of a problem by attempting to solve it at the end; you have to go to the beginning of the problem. It must be recognized by the minister that it is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders, New Brunswickers and Nova Scotians to have total management of the salmon stock in Atlantic Canada, but for some inexplicable reason he chose to cut down on the commercial salmon fishery and angling in New Brunswick. It is worth noting that the tourist industry, the outfitters and guides of New Brunswick, receive a substantial portion of their living and that the province benefits substantially from people who come there for sport salmon fishing.
In depression times people used to be able to go into the woods and saw logs or cut pulp, but the building supply business in New Brunswick is collapsing today. Saw mills are idle and pulp mills are purchasing limited quantities. People do not have the opportunity now to go to the woods and cut pulp in order to feed their families.
In the House today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made a great deal of the fact that the government is going to bring Alberta oil to the Atlantic region. This will be subsidized at $2.50 per barrel. If the government had taken a responsible attitude toward the development of energy in the country, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia could be selfsufficient in energy today or could be well on the way to it.
But where is the natural gas pipeline the government promised to build? I understand that the prime contractor and others interested in that pipeline cannot find out when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources intends to bring forth that promised $40 million for the front-end engineering costs of the pipeline. The government made this commitment; there is no two ways about that. The money was promised a long time ago but it is not forthcoming. There has been tinkering and tom-foolery to the point of exasperation. If I were a betting person I would say that the pipeline would never
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
get across the St. Lawrence River as long as the minister is in office.
The government is spending money on taxis. It spent $3.5 million on taxis last year. The Department of Transport alone spent $422,000 of that. The government spent $16.7 million on telegrams. I could go on and on about the way the government wastes the money of the Canadian taxpayer but I do not have too much time left.
Let us consider who are the big losers in this program. Sadly enough, they include the single taxpayer, all taxpayers without children and married taxpayers with children who earn more than $12,000 per year. The cruelest blow of all is to the senior citizens drawing old age security who have to rely on that and perhaps a little bit of supplemental income from investments. These people suffer the most because of the ineptitude of the government. I have no time for a government that chooses to ruin the country on the backs of the old age pensioners. The people of this country have no time for that sort of government either. It has deindexed everything. That means that inflation is in the interests of the government; it will receive more in tax revenue because inflation is on its side. That is not an incentive, it is a disincentive.
This program may in the short term bring in a few more dollars but it will backfire on the government. It is going to force so many people out of work in this country that there will be fewer and fewer people in a position to pay taxes.
The social programs that have been so generous in the past will have to bear a greater burden. We should have been putting money aside for a rainy day. No lifetime goes by without its share of rainy days, but the government did not recognize that. It chose to fool the people into thinking it had good managers and was in charge of the situation. It was in charge of opening the purse strings and losing every last nickel we had. From the way members of the government strut around you would think they were proud of that.
The government seems to have been determined to carry through with its policies, knowing full well what is bound to happen to it within the foreseeable future. It is almost as though it has adopted a scorched earth policy and is going to level everything. It is going to make sure that whoever gets into power-and there is no question about that the next time around; we will be there and we will have to clean up the mess, but we will deal with it and deal with it effectively. But the government is not going to give us much of a chance when it is forced finally to turn over the reins of government in this nation.
The Minister of Finance has stated that he now anticipates our deficit to be in the vicinity of $19.6 billion, up about $10.1 billion from what it was projected to be last November. 1 issue a challenge to the Minister of Finance here in the House. If by the end of the fiscal year the deficit goes over $19.6 billion by, say, just $2 billion-I could have said $1 billion or one penny-the only alternative-I will not say "the only honourable thing" because there is no honour left in that bunch over

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
there-the only alternative left to the Minister of Finance is to resign and the entire government with him.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words this afternoon on Bill C-125, one of the bills flowing from the budget. As we begin to participate in this debate our country, along with all other western industrialized countries, faces one of the most difficult times since the 1930s. It is a time when over 30 million people in the OECD countries are unemployed, and we are especially concerned about the 1.25 million unemployed in Canada.
Although the figures in the budget documents indicate that Canada had one of the highest levels of growth in 1981, it is projected to have one of the strongest declines in 1982. The interesting aspect of that, Mr. Speaker, is that most of the growth in 1981 occurred during the first half, certainly during the first three-quarters of the year. In fact, we went into a sharp decline in the third and fourth quarter of 1981, and of course that is projected to continue this year. So the impact on unemployment in this country is much worse than it would have been otherwise.
The other interesting fact, I think an alarming one and one which concerns us a great deal, is that the decline in growth in the United States is second only to Canada, that being a 1.6 per cent decline from 1981. The United States being our largest trading partner, this is very significant for us. High interest rates in the United States, compared to their inflation rate, have driven down the value of the currencies of all western industrialized countries relative to the U.S. In 1981 the Canadian dollar rose marginally less than 1 per cent against the U.S. dollar, while all other currencies declined sharply. For example, West Germany declined by 12.4 per cent, the U.K. by 19.9 per cent, the Japanese by 7.3 per cent, and the French by 20.7 per cent. This decline has continued into 1982. The Canadian dollar, at the time of the budget, had declined by 7.8 per cent, whereas all other major western currencies had declined by larger amounts.
A few nights ago I was surprised and very concerned about a report on the CBC national news that much of the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar was due to the fact that many of the large chartered banks and financial institutions were investing large portions of their funds in U.S. securities. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very harmful thing for us, although many of us from resource areas in Canada do not really mind seeing a lower dollar because it means our exports of natural resources bring a better return in Canada. However, it does have an inflationary effect on our economy.
This is a time when the banks are pressing small-business men, farmers, fishermen and home owners almost unmercifully by calling loans and so on. At a time when they are charging very high interest rates, this seems most inappropriate. At the same time many chartered banks are closing rural branches. For example, in my constituency, in the community of Manito-waning on Manitoulin Island, there has been a branch of the Bank of Montreal for the last 75 years. The community has a
stable population and the branch serves several thousand people. The next nearest branch is 25 to 30 miles away in an adjoining community. There are many senior citizens living there who do not have transportation. The second largest Indian band in the province of Ontario with over 2,000 resident band members is immediately adjacent.
The bank is working at full tilt with a staff of seven and apparently a need for more people, but they informed the reeve and the councillors a few weeks ago that they plan to shut down this branch in the next several weeks. They complain about many problems, such as too many branches, some bad debts and perhaps poor administration, yet instead of the bank absorbing the costs involved at a time of record high interest rates and record high profits during the past year, they are leaving the local residents to suffer. It seems to me that with this kind of patriotism shown by Canada's chartered banks we do not really need any traitors in this country.
It seems clear, Mr. Speaker, from examining the world economy and the loss of growth projected for the U.S. and many other countries, as outlined in the budget document, that the world demand for many commodities is going to be very poor this year. Not only that, but prices are going to be very low. In fact, during the past three or four months the price of some minerals like copper has been proportionately lower than in the 1930s in the depths of the depression. For those of us living in resource areas like northern Ontario which produce commodities like nickel, copper, uranium, pulp and paper, steel and so on, this is a bad omen for the prospect of any dramatic upturn in the economy during the coming year.
There is very little that Canada can do to pull the international markets of the world out of a recession. However, in my own constituency, a large number of megaprojects are still under construction. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) spoke about the need for incentives. In fact, there have been very strong incentives for many industries. For instance, the steel industry, the pulp and paper industry and others have put in place massive construction projects. In my own constituency many are still going on this year and are providing valuable employment at a time when many of the products being produced are in low demand or their prices are very marginal. In fact, in Espanola at the Eddy forest products plant a construction project is going on now. This construction program has been going on for the past year and will continue for another year. It is worth over $200 million and is to modernize and upgrade the pulp and paper mill. A few years ago a large saw mill was built. This saw mill will produce over one million board feet of lumber per year. That kind of construction and facility in a year of low demand is very beneficial in terms of jobs.
Likewise, in Elliot Lake a massive expansion of the uranium mining operations has taken place. Some of it is still continuing. The final expansion and development of those mines to meet the increasing demand is going on. This year 600 or 700
July 22, 1982

new houses will be constructed providing additional employment during a period of low demand for many of the commodities.
In Blind River a uranium refinery is under construction costing $130 million. This is creating many jobs in that community.
Similarly, a few months ago the federal, provincial and municipal governments in Sault Ste. Marie signed an agreement to spend $70 million on a major community infrastructure program. This will provide new sewer and water facilities for that community to accommodate the growth which is planned for Algoma Steel during the course of this decade. That megaproject will start construction next year and will provide employment at a time when the demand for steel products is down.
During the past couple of years the steel industry in Canada has been going through a major construction period with massive investments of several billions of dollars, some of it at Algoma Steel. The incentives which have been put in place should be continued for this vital industry.
Our steel industry in Canada has fared better than most other steel industries around the world, but ours is suffering now like many other industries because of the economic downturn. However, the steel industry is modernizing, it is competitive and the lower dollar is beneficial in that regard. Its know-how, expertise and its competitive situation are its strongest ally for the future.
If we can put in place programs to modernize and upgrade the pulp and paper industry and the steel industry through a system of incentives, we should do the same for other industries, such as the high technology industry, during the next few years in order to make them competitive and able to meet the challenge in the international community. This will also, of course, provide jobs.
There is not a great deal Canadians can do to pull the world out of recession which all western industrialized nations face right now. It is difficult for us to create more demand. I do believe our trade department and our minister should be continuing their efforts to get out and fight for the markets that are available. We should have incentives and programs to assist in that regard.
What is worrisome in the international statistics presented in the budget is the rate of inflation in Canada as compared to the United States, our principal trading partner and our strongest market. The inflation rate for May stood at 11.8 per cent in Canada, whereas it was 6.7 per cent in the United States. At the same time our wage settlements were running something like 5 per cent above those of our best customer, the United States of America. Therefore, our concern must be not only with the unemployed, but with assisting small business, home owners, fishermen and the farmers, and we must take action to increase our productivity of those commodities we produce and manufacture in this country. We must produce efficiently and our products must be at a price at which they can be sold in international markets.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
International trade is very important to Canada. It is perhaps more important to us than to any other country in the world. Something like 30 per cent of our GNP comes from international trade and for many of our rural and northern areas, it is the principal source of income and employment. I believe that is why the government has proposed in the budget papers and the budget bills that we set as a target the reduction of our inflation rate to 6 per cent next year and to 5 per cent the following year. These are not targets for inflation picked out of a hat or grasped out of thin air; they are goals we must achieve if in the next two years we want to be competitive in the real world where our products are sold and if we want to be on a par with the United States in selling the products of our factories, our forests and our mines. Sure enough, the world economy and the demand for products will turn around, but the question is whether our inflation rate will drive our production costs to a height where we will no longer be able to compete or sell abroad.
I know that the opposition parties and some companies have indicated their opposition to the proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Perhaps that is not surprising since they are sworn to oppose the government in every way possible. It seems to me the opposition from Bell Canada and Air Canada to a program to reduce prices to a 6 per cent ceiling is not satisfactory. This morning The Globe and Mail carried an article under the heading "Bell, Air Canada set to challenge 6 per cent prices limit". It seems to me most of the people in this country really want to reduce the inflation rate to 6 per cent and 5 per cent during the next two years. As the world comes out of the current recession, people want us to be in a position to compete and to seize markets.
The rather unfortunate part of all this is that companies such as Air Canada and Bell Canada are almost in monopoly positions. Air Canada has some competition with CP and a few other companies, but Bell Canada has practically no competition. It has a virtual monopoly. I think many people are becoming fed up with the ever-increasing demand for 25 per cent or whatever every year or so. Even a 6 per cent increase will be very high for low-income Canadians, senior citizens and those who are out of work.
I have opposed practically every rate increase Bell Canada has put forward to the CRTC during the last three or four years, but much of my opposition was due to its very poor service. My argument before the CRTC was that if Bell Canada wanted massive increases, then let it provide improved services to rural areas, extended calling areas and so on. In this case I certainly oppose its request for an increase because 1 think it is in the national interest for Canadians to work together toward the goal of 6 per cent and 5 per cent for the next two years. I believe Bell Canada should support such a national program. It seems to me that if the CRTC does not bring Bell Canada into line to support the program, then surely the government should do it.

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
A Crown corporation the size and magnitude of Air Canada, with its great impact upon Canadian transportation costs, should fall in line with and support the program. I know there is a mechanism in place for its application to go to the CTC, but it seems to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) should call a meeting of the shareholders of Air Canada. The Minister of Transport should lay the facts of life before Mr. Taylor, the president of Air Canada. There are many people out there hurting. There are senior citizens who cannot afford an increase in transportation costs of 6 per cent or over. There are businessmen and farmers who will also be affected because they have to make necessary business trips. There are many unemployed people in the same position. The minister should ask the president of Air Canada to co-operate and, if he says no, he should be advised that the shareholders held a meeting and he was voted out of office. If he does not want to cooperate in this program, there are many people awaiting his position.
This program is largely a voluntary one. There are regulations through the CTC, the CRTC and other federal regulatory agencies. There is control in the bill which is now before committee concerning federal public servants and employees of Crown corporations. If average Canadians see large, powerful companies such as Bell Canada and Air Canada not cooperating, the chances of obtaining co-operation and assistance from them will be very difficult.
I am impressed by the real amount of co-operation I have seen on the policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has met with the provincial premiers. There seems to be a good rapport and there has been good response. I understand that further meetings are planned. All of these things are very encouraging. Also the response from the meeting with the CLC and other trade union groups seemed very encouraging. Further meetings will be taking place there.
Likewise there has been a very good response from business. For example, yesterday a group of senior businessmen talked about how they could work together and co-operate to reduce the inflation rate, to increase our productivity and to bring in, over the next couple of years, a policy or a program which will place Canada in a good position when there is a turnaround in the world recession and a return to a growth situation.
Within the last three or four weeks a number of companies have indicated their support for the program. They are planning to co-operate. I am referring to companies such as Alcan, Cominco, General Foods, Heritage Group, Hiram Walker, Polysar, Sherritt-Gordon and White Farm. Many more have indicated that they want to support the program. Also there has been a great deal of support from individual Canadians.
I should like to read a letter which I received from a constituent. This person wrote:
This letter is with reference to our economic situation. First of all I am in support of the 6 per cent guidelines, essentially. However, I feel much more is needed in order to cure our economic difficulties as follows:
(a) A coalition government as I believe any reasonable ideas re our situation
economically should be acted upon
(b) establish a "social" contract with our members of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or Chamber of Commerce. This "social" contract would be similar to West Germany's system which has worked considerably better than our present adversary system. I do realize part of the problem would have to be addressed provincially. However, my philosophy is one of tripartism. That is, government, business and labour must work together. Legislation would have to be changed.
The letter continued:
(d) Let us promote a new era of research and development in Canada.
Overall, I feel that we should adopt an attitude of open mindedness to new solutions rather than an "it will never work in Canada" attitude to economic and other solutions.
There is support from many, many Canadians. They want to see us work together. The kinds of meetings which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are attending with the provincial governments, business and industry are supported by many Canadians.
The kind of co-operation we saw in the House today wherein the government varied the amount of the borrowing authority is commendable. We will have two pieces of legislation, if necessary, on the borrowing authority rather than one. The government is protecting its position to raise the required funds for all its social programs during this fiscal year. At the same time it is being sensitive to and considerate of the position of the opposition in regard to giving the government a blank cheque for the fiscal year. This is the kind of commendable co-operation to which my constituent referred.
The budget documents set out a program of co-operation because of our concern for inflation. They also contain a new and innovative proposal for indexed investment certificates where people who invest their money in this new proposed financial instrument would pay income tax only on that part of the interest above the inflation rate. Indeed, this is a new, interesting and perhaps novel idea. 1 am sure that people begrudge paying income tax on interest which, in effect, is only inflation.
At the same time, this new indexed investment certificate would reduce the borrowing cost for development of small business, agriculture, fishing and housing by 3 per cent to 6 per cent. Those are the areas where we want to create investment and provide assistance. If we can accomplish this through this new instrument, I suggest it will be very beneficial.
I think it is significant that this potentially complicated instrument is being referred to a blue ribbon committee of people who are knowledgeable in that field, including representatives from the trade union movement. This will mean that there will be consultation and co-operation with the private sector that will produce a much more workable and practical system.
It has also been proposed that there be a similar instrument for investment by Canadians for equity stock position. I am especially pleased that there is provision in the budget documents for direct employment programs. Many of the rural
July 22, 1982

areas in my constituency which do not have principal industries have very high seasonal unemployment. The direct employment programs work very well in these areas. Not only do they create employment for hard-pressed municipalities every year, but they provide many worthwhile programs. Among these are renovations and improvements to community facilities as well as aiding in the development of the tourist industry through the construction of parks, recreational facilities and marinas in co-operation with groups like the small craft harbours branch, which has been especially active throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area. Their work has been appreciated very much. I believe that area has the largest number of government wharves and docks of any constituency on the Great Lakes.
There is some $200 million provided in the budget for direct employment programs, another $150 million for employment intensive programs carried out by departments and another $100 million from existing programs in the Canada employment department. This totals some $450 million. As well, there is another $300 million for permanent private incentive programs. This gives a total allocation for employment and direct employment support programs of some $750 million.
There has also been a great deal of funding provided for the housing industry which will create additional jobs for Canadians. I believe the budget projects some 300,000 jobs that will be created by the programs outlined in the budget papers. This includes the direct employment programs, such as the community development program, the labour intensive projects within government departments as well as programs like the forestry worker employment support program which was announced several months ago.
1 think one of the most interesting provisions of the budget was the direct injection of additional money into the housing industry. I hope this money will be put in place as soon as possible in order to proceed with those projects, especially in northern areas where winter construction of foundations and footings is difficult. There is a total of approximately $300 million provided for first-time buyers and builders of houses in the form of $3,000 grants. Similarly, the housing repair program was oversubscribed from the day it was announced a few months ago. That program has doubled.
1 am anxiously awaiting the announcement of the 2,500 additional units of co-operative housing because we have a proposal from the community of Elliot Lake in my constituency where we hope to construct 62 additional units of cooperative housing. This is an innovative program which has great potential. Construction of these units will be a first for the Algoma constituency where most of the housing is provided by the mining companies. There is very little private sector accommodation for people working in the service sector of the community. This will be a valuable addition for them.
All of these programs which were announced in the budget have been very useful. I am especially pleased that there will be approximately $200 million for the agricultural industry to provide low-interest money for farmers who are particularly hard pressed. This money will be provided at 12.5 per cent,
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
which is 4 per cent below the Farm Credit Corporation lending rate, presently 16.5 per cent.
As well, there is the interest reduction funds of some $400 million which will be available to reduce interest rates for small-business men, farmers and fishermen by some 4 per cent for investment in new projects. Elopefully, this additional funding to assist these industries during the next few months will cover that gap until the new investment instrument which I have previously mentioned is put into place.
With the implementation of those projects I believe that much progress has taken place. I believe that the budget addresses many aspects of the problems we face today in our tough economic times. It addresses the question of inflation and introduces a plan to work toward a reduction in inflation during the next two years. It also provides incentives for investment, reduction of interest rates, job-creation programs and improvements to our housing situation. These are a number of items which I believe are important and should receive the support of the House.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to intervene in Bill C-125, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority. The bill will enable the government to borrow sums of money which it needs to keep the government operating.
I find that there have been some absurdities during the debate. The first occurred yesterday when the Liberals introduced a notice of motion to bring in closure of the debate. At that point, opposition members felt that there were perhaps enough speeches on the record to deal with the borrowing authority bill and so no more hon. members spoke on behalf of the opposition yesterday. So all day yesterday, hon. members in the Liberal Party talked out their own bill and would not allow it to come to a vote. As an individual Member of Parliament, I found that to be very strange indeed.
The next absurdity was that the government, in asking for this borrowing authority, was asking to borrow $11 billion. We found that the government really did not need $11 billion. It was just projecting that times were getting so bad that it may have lost control and that it wanted extra money to provide a cushion, so that it could just run to the lending institutions to borrow extra sums of money.
Then this afternoon we had another absurdity when we heard the government itself admitting that it did not really need to borrow $11 billion, of which the NDP and the Conservatives were aware, so the government introduced a motion to reduce the amount requested in Bill C-125. We will be voting at 9.45 this evening on Bill C-125. The Conservatives were very happy to hear the government say that it was reducing the amount of its borrowing authority bill to $7 billion. However, if the government needs more money by the end of the fiscal year, it can just borrow another $4 billion without further debate.


Mr. Epp:: Not true.

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Douglas Keith Anguish: Or, at least, very limited debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is not what the House order passed in the House today states. What the House order states is that there will be a three-day debate.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I pointed out that it would be a very limited debate. It is marked down in the motion introduced by the government that it will still be able to borrow $11 billion under Bill C-125. That elated the Conservatives and it is no wonder, because they thought they had a victory, but they cannot even see through the fact that the government will still be allowed to borrow a total sum of $ 11 billion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Seven billion dollars.


Douglas Keith Anguish: This session started on April 14, 1980, after the February 18, 1980 general election. Since that time the government has asked for authority to borrow money on four different occasions. First, the government brought forward Bill C-30 and requested authority to borrow $12 billion. Then it came to us with Bill C-59 and asked for borrowing authority for an additional $14 billion. That did not seem to be enough. Bill C-111 was brought forward and the government asked for borrowing authority for an additional $6.6 billion, bringing the total to $32.6 billion up to this point. Even that is not enough. Bill C-125 is now before us and the government is asking for another $11 billion, bringing the grand total since April 14, 1980, when this session started, to some $43.6 billion.
That is only the surface of the problem with the government. By the end of this fiscal year, the accumulated debt of the federal government will be $150 billion, or possibly even more. My home province could run on that amount of money, with present day dollars, for about 75 years.
I think the former Auditor General was quite right when he stated in his annual report that the government has lost control of the public purse. This accumulated national debt puts an increased strain on the economy of the country. It has been created by successive Liberal and Conservative governments which have been unable to deal with the business of running the country. It has also been created by increasing government deficits year after year.
The budget brought down in November by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) projected that the deficit this year would be some $10 billion. Then on June 28, when we found we needed a new budget, the government admitted that it had miscalculated. Even though we all knew we were in bad economic times and that the government had a back-up support staff of some 300,000 or more people to provide information about this country, we found at that time, on June 28, that the deficit had increased by almost twice the amount we were told in November it would be. It had increased to $19.6 billion. That is a large amount of money. There are some other countries throughout the world with larger deficits, such as the United States of America, whose deficit is much larger, but on a per capita basis the deficit in Canada is twice that of the United States of America.
What does a deficit like that mean? From time to time we in the New Democratic Party have advocated deficit budgeting, but the type of deficit budgeting which is needed and can be allowed is very different from the type which is being adopted by the Liberal government and which it is locked into. It is perpetual, year after year, and it gets worse and worse. If there is to be a deficit budget, it would make sense to have deficit budgeting in areas where there can be investment in the future and revenue can be generated for the operation of the country in future years.
I would like to compare our federal deficit to some of the provincial deficits across the country. Using 1978 figures, the source being the Bank of Montreal, the debt in British Columbia under a Social Credit government was $2,497 for every man, woman and child. In great Tory Alberta it was $2,222 for every man, woman and child. In great Ontario it was $2,544. The lowest in Canada was the small province of Prince Edward Island. The next lowest in Canada in 1978 under an NDP government was the province of Saskatchewan. It was $1,709 in that province, much better than any Liberal or Tory administration anywhere in Canada.
There is often talk about the size of bureaucracies. My source of information is Statistics Canada, 1979. In Alberta under that great Tory government which believes in carving off the fat, 2.6 per cent of the population was employed in the public service. At that time in Saskatchewan under an NDP government, it was 1.9 per cent of the population, the lowest in Canada.
The spending of this government places a great load on the Canadian people. It spends at the rate of $214 million a day, which breaks down to $9 million an hour or $150,000 a minute.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And you want them to spend more.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says we ask them to spend more. We only ask them to spend more in those areas I pointed out. We believe in deficit financing where it is an investment in the future. If the hon. member would listen, he might understand the sound economic policies that could turn this government around. It would be no better under a Conservative government than under a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I am sure the people in the galleries will listen to these figures even if the members of the House will not. Per capita spending on behalf of every one of you sitting in the gallery in 1967-68 was $549 for every man, woman, child and baby in this country. For the 1982-83 fiscal year, that amount has increased to $3,175 for every single one of you in the gallery. Compare this to some of the municipal governments. Maybe some responsibility should be placed on them because
July 22, 1982

they may be better able to handle it. In places like The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake the per capita spending today is in the area of $570 or $580 for every man, woman and child.
When you look at the situation for taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, it is even worse. Many do not pay taxes because they are unemployed. Others do not pay taxes because they are retired and do not have a large enough income to require them to pay taxes. However, each and every taxpayer in the 1982-83 fiscal year will have to pay $8,251. With increasing unemployment and a worsening economy, this figure will ever increase. In fact, the debt in Canada will soon take in excess of 30 per cent of all the money the government raises in revenue just to service the debt. That is a shameful state of affairs.
This great amount of money has very serious effects on the interest rates that individual Canadians have to pay to financial institutions. There are a couple of things that happen. Either the government prints more money, which is inflationary, or it takes huge sums out of the money supply in this country. The more competition there is for money, the more interest rates are forced up. With this government taking some $150 billion out of the economy, it causes great upward pressure on interest rates.
It is not only government spending which does that. Throughout the world huge sums of money are spent each year on armaments. Each year $500 billion is spent on armaments throughout the world. This has a very harmful effect on the money supply and affects those who have to borrow for their mortgages or small businesses. The money is just not available. It is said that the way to get into small business in Canada today is to buy a big business, vote Liberal or Conservative, and then sit back and wait because it will soon be a small business.
The purpose of the government is to govern in areas where individuals cannot operate as effectively and efficiently with due regard for economy, in a manner that is fair and equitable to all people. The problem is that this government has lost control.
It is not just the public or private sector, but a problem of magnitude, how large and overbalanced this government has become. We must attempt to turn that around. It is also a problem of magnitude in the private sector and the public sector. I point to the problems experienced in the last few years by Massey-Ferguson, Ford, Chrysler and other huge companies not now as effective and prosperous as they once were.
What are some of the alternatives? Eventually we in this country will have to get away from the centralist attitude. I say this as an individual Member of Parliament. The small constituencies in Canada must become more self-sufficient. The local people should have more input. The members of the Conservative Party are having a great laugh during my speech in the House of Commons. I find it strange that the NDP are often blamed for some of the ills in this country, yet we have never formed a federal government since confederation in 1867. We have influenced and helped to bring in many good
International Development Research Centre
programs, but the blame lies nowhere else than on successive Conservative and Liberal regimes in this country.
With regard to smaller areas gaining self-sufficiency, the local people would feel much better if they had control over their own destiny. Members of Parliament are often frustrated because of their lack of input and the fact that this government often will not listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all items preceding No. 36 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 10, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stewart:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all communications, transcripts or notes of interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between the government through the International Development Research Centre and any other person or group requesting or being considered for financial grants from the International Development Research Centre, particularly relating to financial grants or fellowships or financial sponsorship to individuals who hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries or who were or are members of recognized political parties in other foreign nations.
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, because of a particular situation in the House on June 10, debate on this motion was shortened, so I thank you again for giving me the opportunity to finish the remarks which I began on that day.
The motion under consideration is a motion regarding Canada's role in international aid, with particular reference being made to the International Development Research Centre. The motion was introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). In his remarks at the opening of debate that day he criticized-unfairly, I felt-Canada's aid program for those parts of the world which need help at this particular time. The argument he used was simply that when times are tough in Canada, we should think of ourselves first and other people when times get better. I do not hold to that principle, simply because the aid program Canada has is a program which, as well as helping people in the Third World, also helps Canadians. Eighty per cent of the aid given by Canada remains here. Because it is given in a tied form, the money which is given in the form of aid is used to buy materials here in Canada.

July 22, 1982
International Development Research Centre
The motion directs itself particularly to the International Development Research Centre here in Ottawa, which is a small group receiving about 3 per cent of the aid budget of Canada. However, I feel that the work done by this centre amounts to far more than 3 per cent of our total aid program. Throughout its history, I believe the International Development Research Centre has shown that this kind of aid given in this particular way helps bring about results in the developing world and in Canada as well. The results produced by the centre far outweigh the money spent.
An editorial in the Cape Breton Post of April 3 of this year gives a very positive outlook on the work of the International Development Research Centre, and I would just like to read from that editorial as follows:
The annual review of Canada's International Development Research Centre affords a textbook example of the way to go about helping the unfortunates of the impoverished Third World. Instead of making magniloquent talk about "global negotiations" and "the Spirit of Cancun," this unobtrusive federal agency goes about sponsoring a myriad of relatively inexpensive programs aimed at applying scientific knowledge toward heightening the quality of life.
Since its formation in 1970 the Centre has been concentrating on supporting researchers living and working in developing regions and on other research to promote the well-being of the rural poor of the semi-arid tropics. Their crying needs are food, energy, clean water and sanitation which in our blessed abundance we here tend to take for granted. Yet, as the IDRC points out, simply acquiring enough of these occupies one-third of the world's people, all day, every day. To fail to do so is to fail to survive.
The tone of that editorial is very close to the direction taken by the parliamentary task force on North-South relations, on which I happened to have the privilege to serve last year. All three parties in this House were represented on that task force, and the task force presented the same basic idea about aid. That idea is that aid is not something which deprives but something which really does build an economic base for people to develop themselves. I would just like to read from page 12 of our report as follows:
Investment (not charity) in the well-being of the poor is frequently the best economic investment a country or the world can make. A small farmer with education raises his yields dramatically. A mother with decent nutrition can nurse healthy children who can learn and work more productively.
Robert McNamara, a former minister of defence of the United States and a former president of the World Bank- certainly anything but a left-wing socialist in his basic thinking-has observed:
It used to be said that lack of capital was the chief obstacle to economic growth. But we now know that capital formation explains less than one-third of the variations in growth rates among developing countries; human resource development explains a great deal more. Investment in the human potential of the poor, then, is not only morally right, it is very sound economics.
Coming from Robert McNamara, a former president of the World Bank, I say that is something which should be taken with no grain of salt.
Our report continued:
The lesson is being learned. The International Development Strategy for the 1980s, recently approved at the Special Session of the United Nations, gives concrete expression to the philosophy of investment in the poor. It contains specific goals and objectives relating to the elimination of hunger, universal primary education, primary health care for all and a sharp reduction in infant
mortality by the end of the century. In particular the role of women in development and the need to integrate them into all the sectors of development has been fully recognized.
It is with those thoughts and in those terms that I would like to draw my remarks to a close because I realize my time is very limited. I would like to finish by telling of a small incident. I spoke today with a physician friend of mine formerly from Saskatoon and now from St. Boniface, Dr. Ian Carr, who is one of the physicians for social responsibility and has just returned from the Pugwash conference. He spoke to me today, and for the first time I met a person who spoke about the possibility of an impending third world war as being within the timetable of a few months. He spoke of 18 months as being a timetable people who were at Pugwash feel is a probability or a reality in relation to a nuclear world war.
With respect to development, one of the greatest problems is that huge amounts of money are being taken out of the economies of the world and directed to the building of armaments. My colleague, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), referred to this. Many of these armaments are now being sent into developing countries with no purpose at all except to destroy. Somehow we, the responsible people on the face of the globe, must take note of this reality. Something must be done to reduce the tensions which bring about war so that everyone will have enough on which to live and so that everyone will have access to health care and the opportunity to be educated. That seems reasonable. Why is it that we cannot find a way to turn the whole armaments movement around? We do not have centuries in which to do this. We should be turning it around within a matter of hours, days, weeks and months, because the inevitable drive of armaments is for destruction.
I hate to finish my remarks on that note, but I think what l said does relate to what is going on. The hon. member for Simcoe South criticized aid programs in his speech. Instead of using aid money to build a human world, money is being used to build armaments for the destruction not just of the first world, the second world and the third world, but the whole world. I think my colleagues here and people everywhere should take this matter very seriously.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate and a particular honour to follow my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), who, as we all know, has dedicated a large part of his life to helping others, mainly the poor people of South America. I am also delighted to follow the distinguished member for Saskatoon East in this debate because he was a recipient under the bursary program of IRDC. That points to another avenue of success for IRDC that makes a lot of countries envy the program launched by the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson in 1971.
I think it would be proper for me to begin my remarks by quoting the president of IRDC, Mr. Ivan Head, who said:
It is shortsighted to assume that North-South relations are played according to the rules of a zero-sum game in which each point gained by one participant is a
July 22, 1982

point lost to another. International development, in fact, is a mutually beneficial process in which all win, or in default of which all lose. The over-all health and vitality of the developing world is central to the well-being of the economically developed nations-
That includes Canada. I believe that those words of wisdom from the president of IRDC mean that we should think about this warning. The hon. member for Saskatoon East brought out the point that aid to a developing country is aid to the donor country, because we make sure that the wealth of the world is better divided.

Mr. Speaker, the philosophy behind the establishment of the International Development Research Centre was to develop and support research throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, since only 3 per cent of research was being done in those countries. In the eighteenth century, famous scientists such as Lavoisier and Celsius made their contribution to the well-being of the population of this earth, while the nineteenth century had Ampere, Kelvin, Pasteur, Darwin and Doppler, to name only a few. The twentieth century, however, has not seen the same level of research activity in developing countries, and of course far less there than elsewhere. So the philosophy behind the IDRC, Mr. Speaker, was to enable industrialized countries like Canada to make a contribution to research in various fields, with emphasis on nutrition, farming, drinking water supplies, forest protection and so forth. As a result, Mr. Speaker, projects have been designed and implemented by the government and the IDRC, and their success has been the pride of that agency.
Mr. Speaker, with my colleague for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and others, I have had an opportunity to visit a number of projects in the Philippines, Singapore, and Bangladesh. It was very exciting to see the results of these projects and the impact these research and development activities can have on the economic development and well-being of developing countries. In the Philippines for instance, rice production, in certain areas, had more than tripled, thanks to flood-resistant strains that were developed locally. Similarly, special wheat strains were developed locally for growing during the dry season on the same soil where rice is grown during the rainy season, since in that climate, crops can be grown twelve months a year.
There are research centres that attract researchers from all over the world, because they have been able to provide favourable conditions for their work. Those of us who have had an opportunity to visit Bangladesh will have seen that this country, which so often suffers from typhoons and floods has, in only a few years, with the help of the IDRC, been able to develop special strains of rice and wheat and other agricultural products that are highly weather-resistant, and today, one of the most serious problems facing Bangladesh is a shortage of storage space for rice and wheat. It goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that the activities of our International Development Research Centre have had tangible and extremely useful results for developing countries. At the same time, the IDRC has tried to
International Development Research Centre
meet the needs of countries that are faced with a variety of problems. There are of course Canadians and North Americans who, from their comfortable vantage point, tend to judge people in developing countries rather severely, and who tend to believe programs like W5, for instance, whose staff filmed a horror story about the results of the DRIP project in Haiti. They were not altogether factual or honest in their approach, because they neglected to mention the positive achievements of both CIDA and the IDRC. Mr. Speaker, if people would only look at the facts, they would see how often the IDRC and CIDA have been successful in their activities.
Of course, there is a difference between countries that have to cope with a number of climatic conditions such as typhoons-I was referring just now to Bangladesh which has this problem as well as floods-the droughts in the Sahel, earthquakes and flooding in Nicaragua and hurricanes in the West Indies, Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a difference between these countries and ours and our neighbour to the South, which are blessed with a stable climate and well-defined seasons during which farm production can go on uninterrupted, without the risk of the catastrophes I have just mentioned. Mr. Speaker, that is why the activities of our research centre are so widely supported, and let me remind my colleagues opposite that it was not a minister on this side of the House who, with great verve and eloquence, defended the activities of the IDRC in Vienna in 1979. I am referring to the Hon. Senator Martial Asselin who was talking about the IDRC's activities and its achievements. He used the IDRC as an example of what other industrialized countries could do to provide assistance to developing countries. So this should help to reassure the member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) with respect to the activities of the IDRC and its achievements.
To get back to this horror story that was shown to Canadian television audiences on the W5 program, the film only stressed the administrative problems the project had experienced. For instance, the program showed some fire hydrants, with the comment: How ridiculous to instal fire hydrants in a village like Petit-Goave! Well, Mr. Speaker, it would be ridiculous not to instal fire hydrants, because those people need water and fire protection as much as any Canadian, because their buildings and homes are made of wood. Furthermore, the hydrant is a water station. Since most homes do not have drinking water, people have to go to a water station, and the hydrants are a source of potable water. And as to the comment that it was entirely ridiculous to replace the fire hydrants, they were put there by the Americans in the first place, many years ago, I think in the thirties, for the reasons I just mentioned.
In the same program, an attempt was also made to have Canadians believe that the roads that were built had been and were being used only by project workers. That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker, because we used the road that goes up to the mountains, and besides being used to move equipment

July 22, 1982
International Development Research Centre
and supplies for the construction of the clinic and the technical training school, the road is also there to help people get around, for instance, farmers who have to come down from the mountain with their produce to Petit-Goave, and would otherwise have to go through the valleys along rough paths. The road is built and it will be around for a long time because it has not been eroded by rainfall. It is maintained by the people of Petit-Goave, and it is used by area farmers and the people in charge of the medical clinic and the school, so the people are really motivated to maintain the road.
There was also the issue of irrigation projects. Here again, Mr. Speaker, the program would have Canadians believe-and after all, why shouldn't they, since they are paying for the project through their taxes-that the irrigation project was useless since it had to be redone. Now I am sorry, but we visited this project, and I think the whole story was a fantasy, because the project is going to improve the irrigation of arable land in the area concerned, while it will not require a lot of maintenance and repairs since there is very little soil erosion in that particular area. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that all this almost obscene talk about the complete or almost complete failure of certain projects is certainly not conducive to making Canadians understand the need and the urgency for continuing projects that have been undertaken in order to help developing countries.
Of course, not everything went according to plan, and we must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that carrying out an integerated project in a country like Haiti with its particular political climate is quite different from what it would be in Canada. We were so ambitious and so eager to get on with it, and 1 am referring to our CIDA officers, so eager to carry out this project that would benefit an entire region of Haiti, that we may have been a bit too enthusiastic and optimistic about the eventual results. However, out of the $21 million invested in the project, a very large portion, I would say at least 90 per cent, will help to improve the lives and well-being of the people of Haiti.
It was therefore unfair of the program's producers to criticize these activities the way they did, and to repeat the program a second time, which they did about two weeks ago after getting further information on CIDA activities in Haiti, as though they were trying to get the Canadian people up in arms about what CIDA is doing. Of course, they used this guy who probably helped the W5 producer to get his information, and I am referring to this Mr. Templeman, an official who had no responsibility himself for the project. I fail to understand, Mr. Speaker, why a responsible television network like CTV would have used an official who had certain views or opinions on the DRIP project but was not at all involved in the program, since he was assigned to the Canadian diplomatic service in Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about another aspect of the motion proposed by my colleague for Simcoe South, namely, fellowships. I mentioned earlier that my
colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon East had been awarded one of the fellowships, which are one of the major components of the IDRC's program. Since the motion mentions this component rather specifically, I shall say a few words on the subject.

The general objective of the fellowships program of IDRC is to improve the competence of professionals and researchers from developing countries, and to broaden the resource base of Canadian professionals concerned with international development. In the past year the program's orientation has shifted toward shorter term awards with particular emphasis on upgrading of professional, managerial, or research skills rather than long-term academic training.
The fellowships program offers several different categories of awards, and I will list a few of them. There are ten Pearson fellowships to be offered in the 1982-83 year with a total value of $375,000. In this program IDRC is offering carefully selected public servants a nine to twelve-month program in Canada to improve their professional and managerial skills. Each program involves a series of placements in government, industry, university, research centres and/or appropriate centres. For 1981-82, the field of concentration of agriculture. For 1982-83, awards will be made in the health field.
The purpose of the fellowship is to assist young public servants in developing countries to enhance themselves professionally so that they might better serve their country. They must be 25 to 35 years of age, have at least three years' working experience, and be citizens of developing countries. In order to be selected, candidates must be nominated by Canadian missions, undergo regional interviews and pass a final selection by an IRDC committee in Ottawa. The value of the award is the total of the actual cost of round-trip travel for the fellow and his or her family, research and Canadian travel up to $5,000, and a basic stipend of $16,000 with allowances for family, medical expenses, clothing and other necessities.
Pre and post-project awards are to provide training for individuals who have been or are to be associated with an IDRC supported project. The pre-project award will assist in the training of an individual who is key to a proposed IDRC project. The post-project award will upgrade the qualifications of an individual who has shown great promise during the life of the project. The training given should enable this individual to contribute to building up research capabilities in the home country. You now have, Mr. Speaker, a broader view of the program and how the beneficiaries of the bursaries are selected.

However, at the beginning of the second decade of the IDRC's existence, there is still much to be done, and I hope that the Canadian people and the members of this House will now have better understanding of the activities of the IDRC.
July 22, 1982


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity today to speak in this debate. Since some time has elapsed since we heard the motion, 1 am going to start out by reading the motion my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), has presented. It asks:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all communications, transcripts or notes of interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between the government through the International Development Research Centre and any other person or group requesting or being considered for financial grants from the International Development Research Centre, particularly relating to financial grants or fellowships or financial sponsorship to individuals who hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries or who were or are members of recognized political parties in other foreign nations.
I have not heard any speakers so far give any logical reasons why the government should not supply this information. That is the bottom line of this whole debate. If such wonderful things are being done, as mentioned by the last speaker and by some others, why is the government hesitating to make this information public? That is all the motion asks. If it is such wonderful information and if the record is so wonderful, I would think the ministers would be falling all over each other to see who could present it first.
I believe hon. members on the government side will have an opportunity today to vote in favour of this motion and the government will then be required to present this information. If hon. members believe this has been such a wonderful program and that everything is hunky-dory and satisfactory, I would say to government members here that here is their wonderful chance to make it public and to vote in favour of this motion today. The government will then supply all this wonderful information it is talking about. That is all we ask.
We now have a freedom of information bill and we will see how it works pretty soon. But here is a chance to show that the government really believes in making information public. That is the bottom line to this whole debate, as I have just said.
In the report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations it states that in 1978 the Treasury Board conducted a study on the effectiveness of food aid, but the results were never made public. Hon. members can find that on page 49 of the report.
Again, if the results were so wonderful and if this money is doing such marvellous things as feeding hungry people and enabling people to become self-sufficient, which is the object of the whole exercise, why was the report not made public? This sort of thing is what is bothering the people of Canada. It bothers me and it bothers my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). The request is reasonable. Just tell us what is going on and let us have the complete history. I think the chairman of the committee would be right up front if he said, "Let the people of Canada know what is going on".
International Development Research Centre
The information regarding interest rates charged to Third World countries is kept secret. That bothers me. I made a simple telephone call to the department some weeks ago to find out what the interest rate was on a large loan being made to one of the Third World countries. I was advised the information was not available, that it was secret. The information is even kept secret from members of Parliament. I do not think one should be trying to force something out of a civil servant, but he told me that this information is not even made available to Members of Parliament. I asked him if he made the information available to ministers. He hesitated. I do not know whether they do or not, but I imagine the minister of the department has access to it. If he is a minister worth his salt, he would know what is going on.
Here we are giving credit to countries at the expense of the people of Canada, yet the rate of interest charged is not made public. If it is a low interest rate and it can be justified, surely we can carry the judgment of the people of Canada to decide if the cause is worth while. Canadians are not illiterate. They would accept sound argument if sound argument was put forward. But to keep information secret and for us to be told that we cannot have it makes everyone suspicious.
In Canada banks are required to divulge the interest rates they charge. I do not know why the government does not make public the rates charged when we give lines of credit to other countries.
Canadians are compassionate people. We do not need to plead with the people of Canada to be compassionate when need arises. I think all political parties are compassionate. They want to help the needy. People may have different views on how to do that, but people are compassionate. Some may object to waste and extravagance. 1 do, and I am sure this party objects to waste and extravagance. I think any party in Canada should object to waste and extravagance.
We have certain objectives to meet. For instance, CIDA's written policy on food aid states that, "food aid from developed countries represents an attempt to bridge the gap between food production and food requirements in developing countries until self-sufficiency is achieved." "Until selfsufficiency is achieved" sounds like an excellent objective.
Let us look at some of the results and see what is going on. For instance, Cuba is in the communist bloc and yet we have been assisting that country.
When I was a boy I used to see people gathering iron, steel and metals around our coal mines. We would be paid two bits for bringing a load to the truck. We thought it was wonderful to get some money. That steel and other metals went to Japan. It was not very many years later that it came back to us in the form of bullets used against Canadian youth, men and women. I am a little leery about giving things to communist countries.
On May 20, 1980, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) explained in the House that Cuba was $10 million in arrears on a loan with terms of 3 per cent interest, seven years grace and 30 years maturity. At that time Cuba was two semi-annual payments in arrears. I have not been able to find

July 22, 1982
International Development Research Centre
out if Cuba has met the payments or whether they have been written off. But that information should be made available to the people of Canada. Why should we be lending money to Cuba at 3 per cent interest and 30 years maturity when we cannot help our home owners and our farmers who are going bankrupt and our businessmen who need money?
The government has a borrowing bill before us now for $7 billion. We will be paying interest probably in the range of 15 per cent to 21 per cent if we are lucky. The rate may be higher.
The New International Economic Order, for short, NIEO, is advocated by the United Nations. The object of this order is to transfer resources of countries that have worked hard to develop them and to transfer them to Third World countries. I find that somewhat bothersome.
The Brandt report worries me. I am advised that this report is strongly supported by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). Whether or not that is true, I do not know, but it is certainly alleged that he supports it. The Brandt report says that to help develop nations we should increase foreign aid to 0.7 per cent of the gross national product. At the present time we are providing $1.23 billion per year in foreign aid. There are those who want it increased. I think we should be careful about this, especially when we see hungry people right in this country, when we see the living conditions of natives on reserves, when we see people losing their homes and their businesses, and when we see more than a million people unemployed who wonder where their next meal is coming from. We should remember that charity begins at home before we start increasing foreign aid.
The second recommendation is even more disturbing. The Brandt report recommended that a form of international income tax be levied on developed nations.
It recommended a form of international taxation or global taxation. It proposed that an international body have the authority to levy a tax on other countries for worth-while causes such as on arms trade, international investment, hydrocarbons and exhaustible minerals, luxury goods, military spending, the consumption of energy, international air travel, the use of the "international commons", ocean fishing, offshore oil and gas, seabed mining, the use of space orbits, radio communications, etc. Also it suggested a 0.5 per cent levy on all these things. If one takes a trip to China at one's own expense, he or she must pay a 0.5 per cent tax to this international body. Certainly that would be a wonderful way to raise money, but they do not mention how many international civil servants would be needed to do the job.
I would not support an international authority to levy taxes upon Canadians. Canada is a sovereign country. If we are to tax our people, our own governments will tax them, not some international body. I oppose this with all my might and strength because it is a ridiculous situation. If we ever get to the point where we provide taxing authority to the United Nations or to any other international body, the next step will be an international police force which will be able to pound
unwilling nations into submission. We should recognize that this is what would happen.
I was somewhat amazed when I read a statement of the former president of CIDA, Mr. Maurice Strong. I do not know him, but I have heard about him. He said that this idea was a prime objective, "as it provides the fairest and most dependable method of transferring resources".
We have plenty to do now right in our country with our resources. As a matter of fact, we are already helping other countries by bringing in oil, and our own oil wells are closed down.
I do not want to deal with that issue right now because I do not have the time, but the matter of interfering with national sovereignty should be watched very carefully. It may be done subtly and step by step, and eventually some world body will have control and authority to tax.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he is supporting such a thing, will rise in the House and say so, or 1 would like to hear him rise and say that he will not support it. Also I would like to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say it, because there is a very subtle movement going on in the world today which is trying to get control of nations through the back door. If we ever get to the point where we are under the thumb of an international body, heaven help the people. Even this government is better than an international one. At least it has to report back to the people periodically.
There is something else with which I would like to deal in connection with the report. I should like to refer to a comparison which was conducted by an environmental board in the United States. It compared Iowa with Bangladesh. The member who spoke before me referred to Bangladesh. Both Iowa and Bangladesh cover the same area, in size. However, Iowa is rich in agriculture, while Bangladesh is desperately poor. The population of Iowa is two million and the population of Bangladesh is 78 million. We could simply transfer food from now to doomsday, but if we are to help the people of Bangladesh, we should help them to help themselves, to become self-sustaining and to start doing a little hard work along with receiving gifts from other countries. This is what undeveloped countries have to realize.
Let me give another example. Tanzania was once an exporter of foods. Scandinavian figures show that Tanzania's losses through self-inflicted agricultural decline are 250 per cent greater than the losses incurred because of higher oil prices. They are roughly equivalent to the foreign aid received between 1973 and 1980. Nyerere's policy of collectivizing farmland has ruined its agricultural system and has made beggars out of the people. This is not very helpful to the people of Tanzania. Would that be helping a country? This is only part of the dismal record.
From 1978 to 1981 Canada gave the government of Tanzania $91,541 million. The sum was broken down as follows: $78.92 million in the form of grants or straight gifts, $1,709 million for specific programs, and $10,912 million for food aid.
July 22, 1982

I would like to know what was done with that money. They are in worse shape now than in the years in which we gave them that money from 1978 to 1981.
What is happening? Are we building up a world slavery or something? Are we simply going to dish out money for a few big shots to use as they want while the masses go hungry? They have not fed the hungry of Bangladesh. We must remember that Canada forgave $71.9 million. We said that they did not have to pay it back at all; it was given to them. This was referred to on page 37 of the C1DA annual report of 1979-80. We should be giving aid to enable people of help themselves, not to make beggars of them. Equipment is fine, money is fine, but only if work is involved to make use of them so that they can become self-sustaining.
There are too many bleeding hearts in Canada who want to just give and give and give without expecting any results. We want the government to be accountable. This motion would be a step in the right direction. The government should be accountable for what it does. It should ensure that the money is being spent properly. Too much of our help is directed toward helping them continue with discredited communistic policies rather than helping the people. The losers are the rank and file people, the masses who obtain very little of the aid.
I wish the Government of Canada would realize that economic growth is achieved through hard work and incentive. Our farmers did not reach the level of production of today by depending upon government. It was hard work. It was the work of their brains, their backs, their arms and legs which produced the farms of the country. They produce and have produced tremendous amounts of food. There was incentive because they knew if they worked hard they could build up something for their wives, their children and the generations after them. This is what we must instil in the minds of people in these other countries. We want to help them to become selfsustaining. We do not want to become a welfare association for the world. We want an accounting of every cent which goes to these countries from the government.
Today we are contributing $1.23 billion. It should be doing a lot of good. I would like an accounting from government as to what it is doing when it takes $1.23 billion and sends it elsewhere at a time when many people in Canada are wondering where their next meal will come from. We are so hard up that the government starts capping the indexation of the pensions of retired public servants, many of whom are not even receiving enough money now to live properly. Their average wage is only $8,000 a year. Yet the government is capping indexing in that area. Certainly, if the average wage is $8,000, some wages are higher. If the government wanted to have a proper policy and had to take money from these people who spent their lives working for the government, why did they not start at the top instead of at the bottom? It should not have been done at all. Let us have an accounting of what the government is doing.
International Development Research Centre


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for at least giving me an opportunity to speak for one minute. He talked about the motion in some detail. I want to say from my point of view that the short answer is that extensive files exist on the vast majority of these applications. Therefore, it would be impractical to lay before the House copies of all communications, transcripts of notes or interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between IDRC and any other person or group requesting or being considered for financial grants.
Furthermore, with respect to fellowships, IDRC records will not indicate whether applicants are members of political parties, neither are records indexed according to whether applicants hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries.
I also want to point out that the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) has indicated in effect that he is more concerned about the spending of funds under CIDA than he is about the International Development Research Centre. Most of his remarks tended to deal with that aspect. I quote him from page 18329 of Hansard of June 10, 1982 where he says:
I do not think there is a Canadian alive who does not want to give aid to Third World countries if and when that aid is desperately needed, Mr. Speaker.
I subscribe to that statement which he made.
He also stated-and I am paraphrasing him-that Canadians generally want to be assured that the government does not give money to unstable and communistic regimes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time provided under Section 2 under Standing Order 48 for the consideration of this motion has now expired. The Chair would like to point out that the Standing Order also permits at this time for a further five minutes' participation in the debate by a minister of the Crown and for an additional five minutes by the mover of the motion, after which the Chair is bound to put the question.
Before I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Irwin) I must point out that unanimous consent of the House is required for the parliamentary secretary to speak in the minister's place. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will address a few remarks in this debate on his behalf.
I really should thank the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) for putting forward this motion which was originally heard back on June 10. I had heard some of what

July 22, 1982
International Development Research Centre
the International Development Research Centre had done, as have most of the members of the House, but I never realized how extensive and well respected the work of the centre was throughout the world. Basically it has a small budget compared to the other budgets we have, but it has been highly spoken of on almost every occasion that it has been referred to.
I refer the House to The Financial Post article by Philip Teasdale dated August 18, 1979. He says:
The agency, the brainchild of the late Lester Pearson, has a tiny (by foreign aid standards) annual budget of $38 million. But over the years it has earned a large reputation.
It was the first agency in the world to devote its efforts to giving scientific and technological advice-instead of just money-to the developing countries of the Third World.
Since June 10, and before, I have talked to officials at that particular centre. We should be very proud of what we have done, as Canadians, through this centre which is only a little over a decade old. It has involved 849 projects in 100 countries. It deals with life expectancy, adult literacy and, something that I found very significant, the research and development of traditional crops. We do not try to impose on those countries the production of crops that we have in Canada. We deal with crops they have such as millets and sorghum. We have had success in Bangladesh, Egypt, Panama, Zambia, the Philippines, Korea, Ghana, Tanzania and along the Amazon.
In forestry we are helping those regions of Africa where 50 per cent of the forests will be depleted by the year 2000, if assistance is not provided. We are also providing assistance in the area of health to Ecuador, Thailand and Sudan, particularly with regard to tropical diseases.
I believe that the people involved in this work on our behalf should not be spoken of in a partisan and derogatory way. We should be aware of what they are doing and be very proud of them.
If the hon. member has complaints about CIDA and certain of its functions, that is fine. As far as the International Development Research Centre is concerned, I have seen nothing I would not be proud of as a Canadian.
In June when this motion was first before us, I thought it would provoke a very profound debate, and that is why I was prepared. I was originally to be one of the initial speakers, but now I find myself winding up the debate.
On June 10, the hon. member for Simcoe South said that we had given $107,000 to the Belgian Congo for the development of nuts, but that the only nuts that had been developed were here on the Liberal benches. Well, you have to be a little crazy to be a politician anyway, whether you are a member of the opposition, the NDP or the Liberal Party. That is acceptable. Then the hon. member went too far. He called us a cell of leftleaning demagogues headed by the right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). To be called a nut is one thing, but to be called a left-leaning demagogue is not acceptable to anyone on this side of the House.
I will conclude on a certain note of facetiousness, because I do not believe that the hon. member is really complaining
about the work that the centre is doing. I think he is complaining about waste in certain agencies, and I think that kind of complaint should be guarded to a certain extent. When an agency can say that the opposition has looked at its work and has indicated it is doing a good job, it is like getting a passing grade. I believe this is acceptable because it is the role of democracy.
I would like to end by saying that the International Development Research Centre is one of the bright lights of Canadian government, of whatever political stripe, and should be encouraged and fostered. As Canadians we should be carrying on these duties abroad because this is what we do well.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about aid in this debate. All hon. members and all Canadians want to give aid where it is needed. We are talking about freedom of information and the fact that this government witholds that information no matter what subject it is on. We are also talking about the fact that the government is wasteful and a poor manager.
We want to consider the basic reason why I brought this matter up and put it on the Order Paper. My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), asked a question, as reported in Hansard on December 16, 1980, as to why Mr. Manley was going to be given $60,000 to come to Canada to study under an IDRC grant. That is what we want to know. Why is the government so left-leaning? Every report that I read which concerns international development is left-leaning.
On November 13, 1980, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) why this country gave $100 million to Jamaica, $10 million as a grant, when Mr. Manley was prime minister. But when Mr. Seaga was in power from 1980 to 1981, all the government gave him was $2.3 million. A left-winger like Mr. Manley can get $100 million but Mr. Seaga can only get $2.3 million. I think it is pretty self-evident as to which way the government leans. I have all the meaningful figures on Jamaica here.
What does the government have to hide? The IDRC is a sacred cow, just like CIDA. What does the government have to hide? There is a bill presently before the House which proposes deindexing, but foreign aid is indexed. It is indexed to GNP. It is indexed from 0.05 per cent now, in 1982-83, rising to 0.075 per cent by 1990. The budget of CIDA is up $188.8 million. Where is the fairness and restraint there? Where is the freedom of information? Show us what the IDRC is doing and show us which countries the aid is going to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The order provided for consideration of private member's business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
July 22, 1982


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-125, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House last dealt with Bill C-125 before private members' hour at five o'clock, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) had the floor.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my remarks with respect to Bill C-125, which would provide to the federal government supplementary borrowing authority to borrow a relatively large sum of money in order to keep the operation of the government in progress and in order to carry on business as usual. I had made some references to the large amount of our current national debt, which we estimate will amount to $150 million by the end of the 1982-83 fiscal year, and I tried to outline some of my concerns as an individual Member of Parliament. The Conservatives seemed concerned that I, as a member of the New Democratic Party, should be condemning the deficit, but I will continue to condemn the deficit of the government-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Good.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -because I think the government has lost control of the public purse strings. In the past, the New Democratic Party has spoken in favour of deficit financing, but not perpetual deficit financing. We believe that it is all right to run a deficit if that money is being invested in somet-ing which will generate revenue or provide security for the future. I said that I felt that the purpose of government was to govern in areas where individuals cannot operate as effectively, with due regard for economy and efficiency, in a manner which is fair and equitable to all people within a country. We are certainly an over balanced government at the federal level. I spoke about how smaller communities or constituencies of the country should be trying to become more self-sufficient in any areas that they possibly can.
During the first part of my intervention in this bill, I was also asked by the Conservatives what areas I would cut within the federal government. I will outline some of those areas, but before I do, I would like to discuss some of the ideas that we should be promoting to further self-sufficiency within the country.
1 believe many areas in the country could be almost selfsufficient in all respects. There are others, of course, that could not, and there are others which should not be localized. I can understand the role of the federal government in ensuring that
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
there is equity across Canada for as long as we are all Canadians. I hope that we all continue to be Canadians, as we know Canadians today, for many years into the future. I can understand the federal government's wanting to have control over vast areas of the economy so as to provide equity, such as by way of the established programs financing, or to provide health services and post-secondary education which is of the same standard all across Canada or at least provide these services so that there are no areas which cannot develop and have the same health care services and education as other areas of the country, no matter whether in the maritimes, in Newfoundland, British Columbia or in Saskatchewan. I can think of some areas where we should localize and try to become selfsufficient, such as the Town of Meadow Lake within my own constituency. We have a large sawmill there which is feeling the pinch because of bad economic times. But the waste material from that sawmill is burned off in what is called a beehive and all the energy goes up into the air in smoke. It is very possible, and the technology is there for that sawmill to provide the electricity, that it could be changed from thermal to electrical to provide the entire electrical needs for the Town of Meadow Lake and provide a surplus for use in other regions. Where something like this can be done, they should supply their own needs in terms of energy, and the excess pumped into a central grid system. The province should be the collector of the surplus and distribute it to regions that are not self-sufficient in terms of energy, namely electrical requirements, the other towns and cities throughout the province.
The same should be done on a national scale. Surpluses should be distributed to other regions of the country. In those areas where there is a surplus of market vegetables, grain or energy, after supplying the needs in Canada, the rest should be exported to the international market.
Something else comes to mind, the amount of vegetables imported into this country. At peak times we import about 80 per cent of our vegetables. This may seem like a small matter, but we have the ability to produce those here. If we did that, we would not have to rely on other countries to the extent we do at present.
Canada could become the most self-sufficient country in the world. We have a little over 24 million people. There are thousands of miles from Bonavista to Vancouver Island from the 49th parallel up to the 60th and beyond. People are spread over that area. There are some problems in transporting the commodities to all these people, but it can be done.
In Canada there is a wealth of resources. Even if we only used oil for our energy needs, we could be self-sufficient. However, in some areas alternate energies can be developed. Canada should be self-sufficient in energy by the goal year of 1990. We should have been self-sufficient long before that. However, under the National Energy Program, which has been a flop, the goal is 1990. I do not believe the government will achieve that goal and that we will have energy self-sufficiency

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
or security of energy supplies by then, even though we certainly should have.
This is a very hard time in many parts of our manufacturing sector, mainly central Canada, Ontario and Quebec. There are a great many problems in the shoe and textile industry. That should not be the case. That presents a real problem for the government. When a pair of shoes imported from Brazil or Italy can be purchased for $50 to $70 and a comparable shoe of Canadian manufacture sells for $125, it is hard to convince the consumer to buy the Canadian product. I can appreciate that the government has difficult problems to come to grips with. There is the fine balance of whether to manufacture the product here and place tariffs on imports, which does not give the consumer a break, or whether to cause more unemployment. I am sure there are many arguments in the Liberal caucus on that problem.
Before my time runs out, I would like to talk about some expenditures that could be cut by the federal government which to this point have not served a useful purpose. I know that when they were started, the intentions were good and honourable. The first cut I would suggest would be to abolish the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That department has held back our aboriginal people, the treaty Indians, for many years. It has not substantially improved the living conditions on Indian reserves. In fact, they have likely deteriorated since Confederation.
In the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the ratio of government employees to treaty Indians is 33 to one. Some classroom teacher-student ratios are not that good. Some may think the Indian people should be treated like children, and in some cases they have been, but that should stop. There is a flagrant waste of money within that department. I do not lay the entire blame on the federal government, but it is their responsibility.
The department does have to protect some rights, as well as treaties and agreements that have been signed in the past. I suggest the alternative to a large overwhelming Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be an Indian rights protection office. It could be much smaller. More control could be turned over to the Indian people so that everything that happens in their everyday lives would not be dictated by a department of government.
There are many public employees within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with good vision for Indian people. They are not at fault. This is part of a system out of control. Those people could find many useful places in society without the frustration of having to work for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I do not totally condemn advertising. However, this is an area where a cut could be made. It could substantially reduce our national debt and our ever-increasing yearly deficits. Government advertising and polling done by the government could be cut to at least half. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by this government on advertising, which quite often is of a partisan nature. If it were only done to educate the
people of Canada, that would be fine. However, quite often it loses that significance and there is more partisanship than information.
There is something else that can be done to turn this country around. I will be making representations to the Committee on Parliamentary Reform which will be sitting this summer. First, the upper house should be changed from a patronage Senate where members are appointed in a partisan manner to a council of provinces with two or three democratically-elected people from each province. These people would run for reelection in the provincial elections.
This would give some increased control over what happens within government without costing a great deal. In fact, it would likely cost less than the present patronage Senate system. It would overcome the complaints of many Canadians about having representation by population. That has been a destructive force in this country and needs to be changed.
An elected council of the provinces to replace the Senate would give regional representation. It would be a meaningful upper house which could scrutinize the work done in this House. That is a proposal I will be making to the Parliamentary Committee on Regulatory Reform.
I see my time is rapidly running out. I think Members of Parliament need to have more influence and more input into what happens in government. Too often things happen without consultation with Members of Parliament and their constituents. There should be that consultation because we have a large and vast country. My constituency is some 2,000 miles from Ottawa. Many other constituencies in Canada are 3,000 miles, and perhaps more, away from Ottawa. I do not condemn the government for this, but members of the cabinet cannot appreciate all the problems across this very vast land. Many government programs are band-aid programs. I do not always agree with programs of that kind, but if the government is going to use band-aid measures to patch up some of the holes in our economy and to solve other very pressing problems, there should be consultation with local governments, provincial governments and especially Members of Parliament who are democratically elected by their constituents.
Just before I close 1 would like to pay tribute to my wife Mona and our three children, Bree, Ashala and Nikki. I was talking with them tonight, and they think it is insane that some Members of Parliament have sat here over the summer and not really contributed very much. My children will be going back to school very soon, and I am very anxious to get home and to spend some of the summer with them before they go back to school. I want also to hear what the problems in my constituency are.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would certainly be going home sooner, as he would like to do, if all of us were to make shorter speeches. That is what I will endeavour to do here tonight.
July 22, 1982

I will make a brief reference to a well-known economist, Ken Galbraith who, in his book "The New Industrial State", wrote the following:
Like private consumption, any new public service quickly becomes a part of the accustomed standard of living. Once given, support to schools or hospitals or public transportation cannot be readily withdrawn.
It strikes me that that is the situation we face today. This government has provided social programs, economic development programs and defence programs-you name it-and the Canadian people have come to expect the government to deliver these programs. In other words, they have become a part of our accustomed standards and way of life, just as Galbraith told us. If we are to continue giving support to these expectations, then Bill C-125 must be passed.
The combined opposition can keep on talking about briefcases and cook books, but if they deny passage of this bill, they will in essence be saying no to some $7 billion for our old age pensioners; some $2.5 billion for those who receive the guaranteed income supplement; some $250 million for spouses allowance payments; some $2.3 billion for family allowance payments; some $110 million for medical research grants; some $23 million for Indian and northern health services, the ones just deprecated by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish); some $24 million for the administration of our airports across the country; and some $500 million to run VIA Rail. The opposition will be saying no to some $29 million to run the CNR and CN Marine; some $672 million for the war veterans allowance and civilian war allowance benefits; some $600 million for the payment of war veterans pensions; and some $470 million to run our transport system.
The passage of this bill would allow $1.7 million to be used to protect consumers across the country; some $7 million to promote economic development in certain regions; some $2.3 billion for unemployment insurance benefits; some $96 million for fishermen's benefits; some $200 million for direct job creation; some $200 million for employment training; some $4.6 million toward easing the adjustment of immigrants in our country; some $236 million for the efficient use of our energy resources; some $135 million to run Petro-Canada so that we can increase Canada's energy supply; some $540 million to run our security systems, our prisons, the RCMP and the like; some $70 million to keep our federal courts open and running; some $20 million for Canertech, which is the imaginative scheme put forward for renewable energy resources; some $575 million to provide research grants for science and technology; and some $4.5 million to promote and ensure a safe and healthy work place.
This list could go on and on. These are the programs which are fully supported by Canadians, and we do not intend to see them denied. We cannot say no to small business when it comes to the $400 million allocation announced on June 28 in the budget. We cannot say no to home buyers. They need the $300 million to purchase their first homes. We cannot say no to the construction industry, which requires incentives so that it can start building again. We cannot say no to those who seek
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
non-profit and co-operative housing, some 27,500 units, and we cannot say no to those who wish to take advantage of home renovation plans and programs which amount to some $30 million across the country and benefit urban areas where unemployment is the highest.
Our financial needs-our deficit, if hon. members want to call it that-depend on how much money we can collect through taxes and how much we spend on our social programs and policies to run our country. If the economy were strong, we would not have to borrow this money. That fact is clear. However, revenues have decreased; hence, the high deficit. In fact, it has been calculated that $4 of every $5 increase in the deficit is due to lack of funds coming in.
The situation we are facing in Canada is also faced by many other industrialized countries. That situation has caused what is commonly called a world recession here, in the U.S., in West Germany, in Italy, in France and in the U.K. The deficit, therefore, is not because we are spending more money on new things; it is because we want to honour the commitments we have made in the past, and those commitments now cost more.
This is very much unlike what is happening south of the border, where the Reagan administration has chosen to cut social costs. I am sure my hon. friend across the aisle would be prepared to do that, as Tories usually are in difficult times.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As you have done.


Mr. Caccia:: We do not want to fight the problem of reduced revenues in Canada on the backs of those who benefit from our social services and our social programs. We want to honour our commitments, and that is why we are asking, through Bill C-125, for the approval of the House of Commons to proceed. We need this bill to pay our commitments and to ensure that the standard of living of Canadians is maintained to the best of our ability.
I would like to review briefly some of the arguments presented by the opposition in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) put forward his arguments on Monday last. He belongs to that great New Democratic Party, which now is undistinguishable from the Tories. The statements made in this debate by members of the New Democratic Party demonstrate that they are running scared in relation to getting elected in the west. They want to camouflage themselves and not appear to be what they ought to be, namely, in favour of progress. They want to appear to be as regressive as possible.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is one of the most unsupportable claims you have ever made, Charlie.


Charles L. Caccia: The hon. member for Skeena said something rather astonishing. He said that Crown corporation borrowings must be stopped.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: He has found the support of the Conservatives, which proves the link I was trying to establish a moment ago.

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
I should like to ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) if he is aware how many people are employed in the Crown corporations he referred to. Some 147,000 people work in our Crown corporations and another 60,000 are employed by the post office. Some 207,000 count on the subsidies that the hon. member for Skeena would like to deny. VIA Rail, the post office and so on, all operate because of these grants, loans and contributions. Does the hon. member wish to say no to these people as well? After all, it is the people who work in these Crown corporations, Canadian people, who benefit from the subsidies.
Last Friday the hon. member for Skeena said that our borrowed funds must be used wherever possible for long-term job creation and community stability. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether 207,000 jobs are not long-term job creation? Do they not provide community stability? Of course they do and this is why we need to have this bill. We need to have access to funds to continue to support these programs. These realities cannot be denied.
In his speech on July 19 in the House the hon. member for Skeena said, as reported at page 19460 of Hansard:
We will cut interest rates.
Later he said:
By stimulating the economy and providing full employment the NDP would generate $3.6 billion in additional tax revenue. A $2.2 billion tax cut to low and middle income earners through a refundable tax credit-
How would the NDP cut high interest rates? Would they tell us how they would do that? There is dead silence in that corner, Mr. Speaker. I wish they would come forward and tell us how they would get this additional $5.8 billion that the hon. member for Skeena referred to. He stated that the NDP would not cut pensions, UIC payments or medicare programs as he believes the Tories would. How would he maintain all these social programs and still generate an additional $5.8 billion without increasing the deficit? I submit that it is impossible.
A lot has been said during the debate about public accountability. The Tories say that our deficit is unwarranted and that there is waste. They call for a committee to be struck to study the waste so that costs can be reduced. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) joined in the fire. 1 wish those who raise this point would take the time to attend the Public Accounts Committee. This committee operates under the authority of Parliament to do this very thing. Members of the opposition are asked to chair this committee so that the public accounts can be scrutinized impartially. In fact, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) is chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and 20 members from all three parties sit on the committee. It looks over what is spent by the government and the Crown corporations and has the power to study each department and see whether there is waste. So the Tories' suggestion is no suggestion at all; the very committee they ask for already exists.
The opposition has suggested that the $19.6 billion will drive interest rates up or will crowd other borrowers out of the
investment market. This is not likely to be the case. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has said that there are two reasons why this country will be able to live with this deficit without causing interest rates to rise. The first is that business is not borrowing or investing so much these days therefore the business community is not making its usual demands on the country's investment pool.
The second reason is that we have a high level of savings in this country. In fact, 13 cents out of every dollar is saved, so there is plenty of money available to be borrowed. What will drive up interest rates are high inflation and high U.S. interest rates. These are the two most important determinants of interest rates in Canada, as well as the uncertainty caused by the high U.S. deficit produced by the Reagan administration.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) stated in the House on Tuesday that the Canadian dollar fell in 1975 from $1.06 to 85 cents. He said that for the same year the Japanese yen, the German mark and the Swiss franc-


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. minister would entertain a question?


Charles L. Caccia: When I complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
In his speech, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said, "There has been a drop in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to these other countries." The fact is that our dollar is looking better all the time. In the last six weeks, from June 30 until yesterday at noon, the Canadian dollar had risen against the United States dollar by 3.2 per cent. In the past six months the Canadian dollar rose against the Swiss franc by 9 per cent and by 12.4 per cent against the Japanese yen. In both cases the Canadian dollar has climbed continually in the last six months. The Canadian dollar has also risen 8.7 per cent against the Italian currency, 3.3 per cent against the pound sterling, 2.6 per cent against the German mark and 8.5 per cent against the Japanese yen. All of this occurred in the past six months.
As you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, our dollar is becoming stronger every day. This is a very good sign. Our dollar is strong because, in the words of the Minister of Finance, "- our fundamental strength remains. Canada's resource wealth is undiminished."
To the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap I say this is an indication of the health of our country-a country that will soon be very healthy.
I should like to refer briefly to the concluding remark of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap, the finance critic of the NDP. As reported at 19529 of Hansard, he said:
But we in this party feel that there is another way to reduce the deficit. That ^ way is to stimulate the economy to get growth going again in the country, so that revenues start to flow into the government and so we can start taking care of the debt. That is our proposal.
These words could have come from the Liberal benches because that is the objective of the budget. Why on earth, with that kind of concluding statement, did the NDP vote against
July 22, 1982

the budget? They contradict each other with their voting and their statements in the Elouse.
Time is running out, Mr. Speaker, and there are others who wish to participate in the debate. Once we have received the authority to borrow that we are seeking in this bill, we can go ahead and work together to bring about the world of 6 and 5 per cent that the Minister of Finance referred to. By 6 and 5 I refer to the program which was announced in the House on June 28 and which is progressively being adopted throughout the country. Today the Toronto Transit Commission made a public announcement to that effect.
We need to bring down inflation so that interest rates will fall and the deficit will come down. We are counting on the Canadian public to join in the fight to bring the inflation rate down. The 6 per cent world advocated by the Minister of Finance is a strong world. Industry will have money to expand and grow, to hire more people. When more people are working the government will receive more money. It will then be able to reduce its deficits. And here is the good news, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian dollar is getting stronger. It has risen since June 30 and is continuing to rise. Today it closed at 79.59 cents U.S., and this is a very encouraging trend. As well, this afternoon it was announced by the Bank of Canada that the lending rate decreased by half a percentage point to 15.6 per cent; the prime lending rate has fallen accordingly. This is the second time in two weeks that there has been a decrease in interest rates in Canada. Our budget is working, our economic policies are sound, and we look to all Canadians for their support in this endeavour.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister would accept a question, I want to ask him whether or not he understood that I was comparing the value of the dollar relative to other currencies over a 12-year period, using 1975 as the benchmark and calling that an indices of 100. Did he understand what I was trying to say?


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand him very well because 1 also have the text here, and he actually went back to June, 1970. However, I would ask him to refer to more recent years, otherwise he could go back 100 years and draw conclusions to suit his purpose. I would rather he looked at the performance of the last six months and then drew conclusions, rather than going back 12 years to suit his own political purposes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) just said we could go back 100 years. We do not have to go back 100 years, we can look at the government this year: inflation, 11 per cent; deficit $20 billion plus; unemployed, 1.3 million. That is this government's record this year. We do not have to look back 100 years, let us look at it right now. I thought, Mr. Speaker, I would never see the day that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) would look bright in economic terms. I finally saw that tonight. I am glad the Minister of Labour is not taking over the finance portfolio;
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
we would be in even greater trouble than we are today, if that is possible.


Charles L. Caccia: I agree with you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am glad you agree. Labour is the same problem.
What we are facing today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill asking the Canadian taxpayer and this House for authority to borrow and allow the government to finance its $20 billion deficit for one year. That is the issue before the House, nothing else. There is no greater indictment, no greater example of defeat in economic terms, than a government which has to come to Parliament again and ask for more borrowing authority. That is the issue, the issue which Canadians are facing because of the deficit this government has brought upon them. This generation will be forced to take 23 cents out of every federal tax dollar collected to service the debt. Of every federal tax dollar, 23 cents now goes just for interest. If that were reduced, what could we then do with social programs? That is the legacy of this government. Then we hear the Minister of Labour standing up and saying, "our economic policies are working". If you want to bring on disaster, Mr. Speaker, then yes, they are working. He has the unmitigated gall to come here and say to unemployed Canadians that their economic policies are working. There is no greater gall, Mr. Speaker, that anyone could express in this House than that.
What has happened with the deficit? The government came forward with a borrowing authority bill in which not only did they ask for the borrowing authority to finance the $20 billion deficit, but, Mr. Speaker, they wanted to have a little bit more just in case there is an emergency. A slush fund, a $4 billion slush fund. Just in case we have some trouble, fellows, we want $4 billion. Then what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in opening the debate for the Official Opposition, said there is no way the government is going to get that money. He moved an amendment at second reading which very clearly pointed out that we would reduce the borrowing authority, and it was reduced by $4 billion. This was the amendment of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition:
"this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than that amount which is required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-125, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority."
Today, Mr. Speaker, Canadians saw this House at work. They saw the leadership of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition who put to this government that it would not get its $4 billion slush fund. Under the House order passed today the government can come back and ask for an additional $4 billion before the end of March, 1983. But what this party has done, Mr. Speaker, is put this government on notice: if you are serious about restraint, if you are serious about reducing the deficit, if you are serious about reducing the call in the money markets for funds for the government as you are now doing, then do not come back by March 31, 1983 and ask for those $4 billion. Do not come back, do not ask us for more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) says "oh, come on". I want to tell her that Canadians in her riding today are suffering. Why? Because of the profligacy of this government, that is why, and for no other reason.
The government seems to be very cavalier about $1 billion. Old C. D. Howe once said, "What's a million?", but now they are saying, "What's a billion?". What is a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker? Let us say the present Minister of Finance stood over a big hole-which seems to be the national debt right now- and he was dropping in $20 bills every minute of every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. After 95 years, Mr. Speaker, he would still be dropping $20 bills. That is a billion. And this government is asking Canadians to finance another $20 billion deficit, to raise the national debt to something like $135 billion.


Roméo LeBlanc: What would you cut out?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just give me the time; first of all we would cut out this government.


Mrs. Erola:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Of course, Mr. Speaker, after my speech, and I hope my answer is better than the minister's in question period.


An hon. Member:: Her question will be better than yours.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, let us look at this deficit from the perspective of 1968, when this government first came to power. After a depression, two world wars and the building of a country, the total national debt in Canada stood at $17 billion. That was the total national debt. Now, 14 years later the national debt is $145 billion. In fact, the deficit this year is higher than the total accumulated debt after the first 100 years. Surely Canadians can ask whether government has better control in terms of its expenditures.
Members of the House know that the Auditor General, the chief witness before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, has said that spending control has simply gone; it is not there, that government spending is out of control. The government can say whatever it wants, but the verdict of independent people with expertise who looked at the accounts, is that government spending is out of control.
The Minister of Labour said that the deficit was not going to cause Canadian business any great difficulty because business was not competing for moneys. He justified that by saying that business was not in the money market now because it was in a down turn. That is true. But surely the question must be asked why. The answer is that it is because of the three budgets brought in by the Minister of Finance. First, the National Energy Program took away an industry's resources and its ability to give us energy self-sufficiency. The second budget of the Minister of Finance was condemmed universally across the country. People were absolutely shocked to learn in the third budget that the deficit was $20 billion and growing.
What this government has not been able to instil in Canadians is confidence. It has been unable to instil investor confidence. When the Minister of Labour said that there is no problem, that the government is not going to be able to raise interest rates because only the government will be in the money markets, that is true. But I say to the minister that is hardly a reason or a solution to the economic problems of the day.
This government uses one stock answer when anyone criticizes the deficit. Government members ask, "What will you cut out?" The extrapolation of that argument is this, that any deficit, any spending, any hardship on Canadian taxpayers is justified. If you have a problem, you have one solution. You throw more money at it. The Minister of Labour today literally took us on a cook's tour of the Blue Book of the expenditures of the government. He was saying "Look, we are doing all these wonderful things for Canadians, and therefore, we should continue". But he never answered the question that because of government policies-to a great degree because of government policies-1.3 million Canadians are unemployed. He never addressed the question which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned in Toronto yesterday, that is that we could be losing a whole generation of young Canadians because they cannot get into the labour market. 1 hope the National Training Act works. But I want to tell the minister and members opposite that you can have a training act and an apprenticeship program, but when a company has to cut back employees, who are the first ones to go? In most cases the first ones to go are the ones without experience or those who do not have their journeyman's papers. That is the situation we now face in Canada. A very tough decision will have to be made. No one in public life wants to make that decision. There must be a parliamentary committee with the power to cut expenditures before the fact rather than having the Public Accounts Committee look at expenditures after the fact. The Public Accounts Committee looks at the accounts roughly two years after the expenditures have taken place. But that money has already gone. It is already spent. What we need is a close examination of expenditures before they are made.
The government uses two arguments, first, that it would not be in trouble if only it were getting more revenue, and second, that if the revenue were not dropping, the government would not be in any difficulty. It reminds me of the person who says that he really has no problem balancing his or her own personal books. The only problem is that there is always too much month left at the end of the money. That is literally where this government is at. But when Canadians have difficulty and when they do not have enough money for their expenditures, what choice do they have? What do they do? They can go to the local banker and ask to float a loan. But for how long and how often can they do that? Eventually, what people have to do is to bring expenditures in line with revenue. That is the only avenue they have. They cannot say that they are going to continue spending more money because they know that if they
July 22, 1982

had more revenue they would not have the troubles they have. That is what the government is saying. The government says, "We would really have no problem if we had more revenue." I can say to members opposite that no one would have problems then. The argument being used that it is because there is a drop in revenue and, therefore, the government has a deficit is not the whole picture. You have to address the other half of the equation. The other half is that revenues are down, but how does one reduce the call on money? There is no other solution.


Roméo LeBlanc: Reaganomics.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister can say whatever he wants, but I simply say to him that Canadians have a problem. The government has a $20 billion deficit this year. How is the Liberal government going to address the problem? The minister does not want to. The Liberals want to talk about more revenue. The whole argument the Liberals use is that if Canadians would only pay more taxes and pay more to the government, there would be no problem.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is exactly what the Minister of Labour said. The government is not addressing the other half of the equation. The other half the government is not addressing is where it should reduce its expenditures. Why is the government not addressing that half of the equation? The government is not addressing it because on many occasions it was able to come to power by certain promises. Now it does not have either the political will or the courage to tell Canadians that the government cannot afford certain programs because of the deficit and that the government must reduce its expenditures. So often the federal government uses the argument about provincial deficits. It says that if the provinces were not into the money markets as deeply, the federal government would not have as great a problem either. I went through the provincial expenditures today and I found that only four provinces in Canada have a provincial budget greater than the $4 billion that was cut today from the borrowing authority because of the amendment of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. There are six provinces in Canada that have a smaller provincial budget than the total amount of money that was cut today in the bill. There is something which Canadians possibly do not recall and which they have probably taken for granted, and that is that we have always had a deficit and that governments have always operated on deficits. 1 have to give this government credit because in the 14 years this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in power, there was one year the government had a surplus. In 1972 the government had a surplus of $350 million. Therefore, it can be done.
If we take a look at the figures of Statistics Canada, we will see that there are a number of provinces which have surpluses, even now with reduced revenues. For instance, there is Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and then Nova Scotia with a $130 million deficit. Also there is a deficit in New Brunswick. Then we come to Quebec, which I want to mention because we often hear hon. members opposite refer to the large deficit of
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
that province. It is large, but the deficit in Quebec is roughly 10 per cent of its total provincial budget. The deficit of the federal government this year against its total expenditures is 25 per cent, yet we hear them ranting and railing about the province of Quebec and its deficit. In my assessment it is too high, but it is 10 per cent of expenditure, and the deficit of the federal government is 25 per cent of expenditure. If hon. members opposite ran their personal accounts this way, how long would they be in business? If they ran their household budgets this way, how long would they be in business?
I agree with the government when it says there are programs to which the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) refers as automatic stabilizers. They do ameliorate the shock of the recession to individuals, but I ask the government, when it is asking for the support of Canadians and of the opposition for restraint-and we are supporting Bill C-124, the wage restraint legislation-to show us where it will reduce the deficit, or join us as parliamentarians in examining future expenditures so that we can reduce them before the fact rather than after the fact. Then I believe Canadians would start taking account again of the fact that government is interested in looking after saving and husbanding taxpayers' dollars. At the present time Canadians generally feel that the government knows no limit to spending.
I commend the Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his foresight and for demanding that the borrowing authority be reduced. The government does not need a slush fund. It does not need those extra moneys. I say to the government, "Do not return to the House in four or six months and indicate again that the piggybank is empty; we have no more money, we must borrow some more". We will say, "no" then too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the hon. member whether he will answer a question. He suggested that the constituents in my riding have suffered very directly by the spending practices of the government. Is he suggesting that we cut off the $2.5 million which is spent weekly by the government to ensure and protect the incomes of those in my riding?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the question.


Judith A. Erola: Then answer it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will, if the minister gives me some time. I will not do like she does in question period. The government has created such a debt load and such high inflation and it has borrowed money internationally and raised interest rates to such a degree that businessmen and women in that riding and in every riding represented in the House have closed their doors. The government has created unemployment to the tune of 1.3 million Canadians. That is its legacy, that is its legacy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Canadians are paying from 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent more for money than are the Americans. That is why they are out of work, and she does not give a damn.
19620

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Judith A. Erola: That is why I give a damn. Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have answered the question, and those are the reasons exactly.
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-125 to provide supplementary borrowing authority. It was interesting to hear the comments of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). He is usually very articulate. I must say that he was attempting to be articulate tonight. I cannot say that I would agree with some of his assertions or indeed his conclusions, but I enjoyed listening to some of his comments. I think he failed to acknowledge the serious problems in the Canadian economy at the present time.
He, more so than most other hon. members opposite and in that particular party, knows that Canada is in a very severe economic recession. Also he is fully aware that unemployment in Canada is extremely high and that unemployment in other countries is also very high. He should be fully aware that the profits of businesses across Canada are at an all-time low. Therefore, the quick fixes and cliches of the Conservative Party of Canada and of the New Democratic Party are not suitable to present economic circumstances.
I would like tonight to dwell upon some of the expenditures of the Government of Canada in my constituency. Earlier today we heard the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) allude to the misgivings or the lack of political will of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). I want to explain to the House, to the galleries and indeed to Canadians in general that there are expenditures under the budget and under the government's economic plan which are taking place in my constituency, which unfortunately has one of the highest, if not the highest, unemployment rates in the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Resign.


Mr. Dingwall:: I will come back to the comment of that hon. member of the New Democratic Party. There are expenditures about which I think Canadians ought to know. They ought to know that there are legitimate expenditures which are needed to provide an economic base for some smaller rural communities across the country.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal used very uncomplimentary language against the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When I listened to him I could not help but think about the moneys which were provided in my constituency for small craft harbours. I am thinking of the community of South Bar, an area which is very dear to my heart. Since 1947 it has attempted to obtain facilities to improve docking and a new wharf. Nothing had taken place until 1981 when this government provided approximately $350,000.
Before that expenditure was made, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), came with me on a fact-finding tour of some ports. He visited that community along with others. His first impressions were: We have to do
something. We have to do something immediately, because for more than 25 years 20 full-time fishermen have been attempting to get a facility which they could use to take in their catch, sell their fish and make a living. Their livelihood does not consist of making in excess of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars; it is a bare living. I believe that Canadians have a right to hear about expenditures such as those made by the Government of Canada.
I listened with interest to the claims made by hon. members opposite about waste and unnecessary expenses. I agree that where there are unnecessary expenses, and I hope and encourage my government in every way I can to terminate those expenses in every possible manner. But this is one instance where the Government of Canada has injected money into a small rural community which would lay dormant in this tough economic recession if it did not receive this money. While I do not wish to bore members opposite, I can give examples of other expenditures, and I think it is important for the record to show them. For example, in another small rural community of Port Morien, $255,000 has been budgeted for breakwater repairs. In the municipal community of Glace Bay there are more than 60 full-time fishermen who receive about $250,000 for the dredging of the channel.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Tell us about Sysco.


David Charles Dingwall: I presume that the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party would advise cutting the expenses of those three communities. What about Barrachois Cove in New Waterford which has been budgeted for $180,000? The town of Louisbourg also has a wharf. Other small communities who have very productive people in them are False Bay Beach, Main-a-Dieu, and Chapel Cove. I repeat that these people are very productive because the opposition occasionally likes to give Canadians the impression that by making these expenditures in these small rural communities the recipients of that money somehow do not deserve it. They suggest that we should make cuts in those areas. 1 suggest the complete opposite, and I have complete confidence in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the plans which he has introduced in the recent budget for additional expenditures under small crafts and harbours. I believe that all hon. members, particularly from my province of Nova Scotia, should applaud and encourage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to make those expenditures because they are very worth while and they add to the recovery of the Canadian economy.
Moneys have also been allotted for fishing vessel subsidies in my constituency. Approximately $318,000 has been budgeted over the last number of years to fishermen who are building boats in my area. I believe this is absolutely essential.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is a Crown corporation in my riding that services all of Cape Breton, employs approximately 4,800 people. If one were to
July 22, 1982

heed the suggestions of the Conservative Party of Canada, I suppose that Crown corporation would be scrapped too. They would want to put it out of existence and place 4,800 miners on the unemployment rolls.
Thank God the Conservatives were only in power for nine months, because while they had trouble making decisions, they did decide in one instance not to support the capital expenditure program of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I am happy to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that my government has honoured all its commitments and is contributing to the capital expenditure program of that Crown corporation.
The Conservative Party of Canada seems to allege that, for some reason, the Crown corporation in that area which has chronic unemployment should not receive any financial assistance. I disagree wholeheartedly with that suggestion. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is in the House tonight. He has shown very active interest in that corporation. He is aware of the good work that the corporation has done in the past and he is extremely hopeful, as I am, that it will do even better work in the future. I am sure that he would want to join me in encouraging that Crown corporation to strive for the goal of making a profit. All corporations go through trying times in their infancy stage. Certainly, that corporation has had its share of ups and downs. I am hopeful that the corporation will see a turn around in the ensuing years so that the coal mining industry in my constituency will become a very profitable one. The 4,800 miners, those to whom the Conservatives made no commitment in terms of capital expenditure, are very proud people and are working hand in hand with management to achieve that goal.
The New Democratic Party to the left of the Conservative Party made reference to the "Sydney Steel Corporation". Members of that party are famous not only in my constituency-where we will never hear from them again-but across the country for not doing their homework and research. Those members of the NDP make wild, foolish and idiotic statements. The fact is that Sydney Steel Corporation has received funding. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is here tonight. He played a very important role in providing moneys to the Sydney Steel Corporation. We waited, listened to the Government of Nova Scotia and the unions involved who devised a business plan for the modernization of Sydney Steel, and then presented it to the Government of Canada. We approved the business plan in principle and provided in excess of S90 million toward the success of that plan. Therefore, when the NDP talks about a lack of commitment or insufficient funds for Sysco they should realize that the government has provided substantial moneys to that Crown corporation, which is owned by the provincial government. I say with regret that the members of the NDP are wrong as usual, although there are certain hon. members in that party who deserve the title of being honourable and are perhaps correct in their facts from time to time. The fact is that it is necessary for the Government of Canada to provide those expenditures.
However, the Conservative Party could not make up its mind when it was in power nine months ago. Those members did not know which way to turn. I know that they would have
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
turned thumbs down to the steelworkers of industrial Cape Breton. They would not have provided the funding to the Sydney Steel Corporation. They would not have forced the Government of Nova Scotia to be co-operative with the unions in developing a business plan. They would have turned thumbs down.
Another legitimate and reasonable expenditure of the Government of Canada has been the substantial amount provided by Canada Mortgage and Housing to my constituency. Of course, the Conservatives would have slashed that. The Conservatives would say to the municipalities of Dominion, New Waterford, Glace Bay, Cape Breton County and the town of Louisbourg that the money that the government has earmarked for those residents under the RRAP program to make renovations to their homes are somehow not legitimate expenditures. Somehow those Canadians who live in rural areas of chronic unemployment ought not to receive that type of money. My government does not believe in that philosophy. We have provided a substantial amount of money, in excess of $15 million, in fact, which is a very sizeable amount indeed. Wherever the Conservative members stand, and they are all over the map as we know, when they rise in the House to condemn expenditures, they ought to look at them all and clearly tell the people across Canada what they do not want, instead of just generalizing, because the Government of Canada has provided money for legitimate and reasonable expenditures. Take senior citizens' units, for example. Are we to deny accommodation to senior citizens? Are we to do that as a government, as a Parliament? My government has provided 55 new units in the Town of Glace Bay and 16 new units in a community in Richmond County called L'Ardoise. 1 think they are sizeable expenditures.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Tell us about poverty.


David Charles Dingwall: I do not question the amount, but I become somewhat irritated when the Conservative Party stands and says that the budget, the expenditure plan of the government, is all wrong. Those two communities appreciate the assistance and look forward to receiving additional moneys to build more units for senior citizens. I, for one, as the Member of Parliament for that riding, will continue to work to get additional moneys for units for senior citizens in all municipalities in my constituency. Over a million dollars has been provided for rural and native housing in my constituency. Sizeable amounts of money have been provided under the Canadian Home Insulation Program for 1980-82; in fact, in excess of $1.5 million. Over 5,100 units have benefited from the home insultation program in my constituency. I believe that if hon. members would disregard the political rhetoric that they expound from time to time, they would recognize that that particular program has gone a long way toward meeting one of the objectives of the National Energy Program, that is, conserving energy. Why should Canadians, whether they live in eastern Canada or in western Canada, from such a program

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
not benefit to achieve such a goal? I do not see anything unreasonable or illegitimate about such an expenditure. However, the Conservative Party would lead Canadians to believe that those expenditures, too, are unreasonable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You brought the west to its knees.


David Charles Dingwall: Of course, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been very instrumental in providing assistance to my constituency. It has provided moneys for a new coal reclamation plant in a community known as Scotch Village, but I guess that if one is a Tory, one of the blue boys-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You built a hotel in Windsor.


David Charles Dingwall: -one does not put money into programs or give any money to create jobs in those small communities across Canada which are suffering greatly from the rough economic situation we are in at the present time.
Concerning the ILAP program, I know hon. members opposite in the New Democratic Party have criticized-


Ian Deans: Of course. Only where you were wrong.


David Charles Dingwall: -the functioning of that particular program. I think that real question or the real test is to ask the individuals who have benefited from that program whether it has been a success. Yes, there were problems in terms of initially getting off the ground. But it is now functioning and has provided money to create many jobs. As I said, money has been provided for the coal reclamation plant in the community of Scotch Village. Money has been provided for the Haak Mining Equipment Company Limited, which is a manufacturing outlet in my constituency. Sizeable amounts of money have been provided. But I guess that if one is a Tory, one says, "no" to that. One does not put any money into job-creation, none whatsoever. That is the Tory philosophy and practice. That is what the Tories would do for those small communities outside the major urban areas of Ontario and Quebec.
What about the Department of Transport? What expenditures has the government made over the past number of years and, more recently, over the past number of months, to provide economic benefits to my community? It has incurred some very legitimate and necessary expenses. It has provided in excess of $3 million through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for renovations and improvements to the airport in my constituency. I think that was legitimate and necessary. I think the employees of that particular airport, and the people who use that facility, know that it was needed and appreciate the fact that the Government of Canada has made that particular expenditure. I applaud the Minister of Transport for finding those funds.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who just left the House, referred to some of the provincial deficits and I agree that some of them are very high. But one thing that comes to mind in terms of provincial governments is the highway strengthening agreement whereby the Government of
Canada embarked upon a program with provincial governments to upgrade highways. Some may feel that if all the roads in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver were paved, we would not have to worry about the rural areas of the country. However, my party is not of that viewpoint. In fact, under the recent agreement signed with the Province of Nova Scotia, my government has provided $7 million to upgrade an existing highway in my constituency, route 104, which is badly in need of repairs. I do not think that expenditure is illegitimate, unreasonable or wasteful. I think it is absolutely necessary. If one were to talk to the residents or business people along that particular highway, or to the truck drivers who utilize it, they would all say that it is a very legitimate expenditure. I know that the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) would agree that it is a legitimate expenditure, as there are rural communities in his riding.


Howard Edward Crosby: We have them all paved.


David Charles Dingwall: Of course, there is a certain element known as right-wing Tories who are trying to move in on the leader and take over, but I do not know if it will work. 1 guess we will know in January.
Those expenditures are essential to that community. Of course, the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan)-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A very great man.


David Charles Dingwall: I want to go on record as agreeing with the hon. member, the former minister of energy, mines and resources in the Conservative government, that he is a great minister, and I am glad he has said that tonight. He is a superb individual. He provided moneys to the Glace Bay Miners' Museum. I guess the Tories and the NDP would agree with this one. When the moneys were made available to that museum-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We are not like the Tories.


David Charles Dingwall: You are not like the Tories? Well, in a minute 1 will respond to the hon. member, who says that the NDP are not like the Tories, because both of you are painted with the same brush and you will go down the tubes together on this one.
The moneys were donated to the Glace Bay Miners' Museum by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan), $500,000, for the reconstruction of the miners' museum which was burnt down. I guess the Conservative Party of Canada will stand here, either tonight or some time later in the debate, and say that that expenditure was no good, that it was not a wise expenditure. I think the NDP would perhaps agree with me that it was a wise expenditure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: It was a legitimate expenditure and was needed to protect, encourage and promote the cultural values of the mining communities of industrial Cape Breton. The Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) ought to be applauded for that.
July 22, 1982

The Conservative Party would say no to the senior citizens of this country. They would absolutely freeze them out. We saw that in December 1979 when they tried to perpetrate a budget on this country. They could say that under Health and Welfare Canada moneys provided under the New Horizons Programs is not a legitimate expenditure.
Would they say that the moneys provided to the MacDonald Street complex, the L'Ardoise Jolly Club, the New Waterford Senior Citizens Club, the Valleyview Senior Citizens, the Daley Heights Senior Citizens, the Mira Manor, and the Donkin Senior Citizens Club are illegitimate expenses, unreasonable and wasteful?
When you listen to the Tory rhetoric, it is absolutely incredible. All they are doing in this debate is standing in their places and fudging the facts. They have no alternatives, no solutions, absolutely nothing.
More expenditures were made under the Health and Welfare New Horizons; the Golden Years Club of Kennedy Drive, the Senior Citizens of Glace Bay, The Bay Side Senior Citizens Club in Port Morien, the Saint Eugene's Catholic Women's League, at Dominion, Miller Manor New Horizons Club in the town of Dominion. All these expenditures were made. I should explain to those in the gallery and to the Canadian people that these expenditures were not enormous sums of money, such as $300,000 or $500,000. They were approximately $2,000 to $3,500. However, the Conservative Party of Canada would say to the Canadian people that expenditures of that nature are unreasonable and wasteful. This government disagrees with that and will continue to support our senior citizens and the New Horizons Program.
In my opening remarks I alluded to the fact that unfortunately my constituency suffers from high unemployment. I guess if you share the view of the Conservative Party, you would cut out unemployment insurance. I happen to agree with the principle of unemployment insurance. I think it is needed. Good economic times have never brought thousands of jobs to my constituency. There are no easy answers to regional disparity, despite what the members of the Conservative Party and NDP try to make us believe.
For example, in terms of providing money to create summer employment, this summer the government has provided in excess of $415,000 under that program for the youth of my constituency.


Howard Edward Crosby: The Liberal youth of your constituency.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) would freeze out the youth of this country, saying they do not need that money. Our government's response to that is to provide some moneys.
I wish I could have received much more money. Next year I will work twice as hard to obtain even more money so that all the young people in my constituency will be working. The Conservative Party of Canada would cut that out. They would
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
prefer to see those young people walking the streets, doing absolutely nothing.
Under the Canada Community Development Program, in excess of $4 million has been provided to my constituency. Granted, these are short-term jobs. There is no question of that, but it will provide in excess of 1,300 jobs. That is what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has done through the Canada Community Development Program.
One of the major objectives of this government in 1980 was the decentralization program. Two decentralization moves have occurred, but not in my constituency. I am hoping to get some at some point in time.


Ian Deans: How much do you want?


David Charles Dingwall: The NDP ask how much do I want. I want to help my people. That is my job. My job is not to collect a salary and then walk away from the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and not provide any meaningful input. My job is to fight for my constituents to obtain jobs and to assist them as much as I can. We know where the NDP are at.
Two decentralization moves have taken place, the citizenship branch of the Department of Secretary of State and the incomes security branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Both have provided jobs in industrial Cape Breton.
I do not think hon. members are serious when they say that should not happen. That is terrible. It is unbelievable that the Conservative Party would say that decentralization should not take place in an area that has chronic unemployment. The NDP are also against decentralization in an area that has sustained high and chronic unemployment. That is absolutely incredible, absolutely terrible that those two parties would be against decentralization.
We have provided moneys to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for a coalmining research laboratory and a coal liquefaction projection that is under way, a coal water fuel project. All of these projects will involve more than $7 million. They are very wise expenditures, legitimate and necessary. The NDP have clearly stated their position when it comes to job creation. There is no doubt in anyone's mind where they stand. They are like the Tories, talking out of both sides of their mouth.
We have an industry in this country which has to make tough economic decisions. Those decisions will have to be made in the very near future. I refer to the nuclear industry. I can refer to two heavy water plants which years ago were referred to in the media as disasters, a complete financial burden to the taxpayer that would never become productive. One of those heavy water plants is in Glace Bay in my constituency, and one is in Port Hawkesbury. Those two heavy water plants employ 718 people.
The New Democratic Party, the great pretenders so far as the working man is concerned, are also the great pretenders that they want to encourage jobs and have more Canadians

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
working. Where do the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in particular and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), stand with regard to the nuclear industry? He said in the House that he agreed with the resolution passed by his party condemning the nuclear industry and proposing that we rid ourselves of it, but he is also on record as saying that if he were in power he would close those two heavy water plants tomorrow and put 718 employees out of work. That is where the NDP stands when it comes to jobs.
Members of the NDP talk out of both sides of their mouths. In the next number of months when decisions have to be made on the future of heavy water plants the workers will have only one party to which they can turn. The Conservative Party is not innocent in this respect either, but if those workers lose their jobs, they will know the New Democratic Party has been leading the lobby and leading the charge. Members of the New Democratic Party are aiding and abetting. Their sole function, particularly in hard economic times like this, is to promote, profit from and live off gloom and doom. That is the role of members of the New Democratic Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are an embarrassment to this House. You make it embarrassing to be a Member of Parliament.


David Charles Dingwall: In an election campaign anyone can say, "Give more money to Sydney Steel," "Give more money to DEVCO," and "We will increase pensions, not by $35, but by $40". Anyone can do that when not in power. When one does not have responsibility, it is quite easy to do that. We know where the New Democratic Party stands.
The Conservative Party would close heavy water plants too, if it had a chance. Members of the Conservative Party would close them tomorrow. 1 do not think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will have a chance to get into power, but that depends on what happens in January and subsequently. The Conservatives do not have one policy. They had a policy convention here not too long ago which produced one resolution: not to have any other resolutions. The Conservatives have no energy policy. They have no policy for senior citizens. They have no policy for DR1E or for job creation. They sit, wait, criticize and live off the gloom and doom they spread in these tough economic times. That is their policy. That is where they are coming from. I think the Canadian people have judged them extremely well. They gave the Conservatives only nine months in office. I doubt that the Conservatives will ever get that opportunity again, but we must think about possibilities- not probabilities-and if elected again, I think they would last even less than nine months.
I have attempted to outline tonight where the New Democratic Party stands on job creation and where the Conservative Party stands on all the major issues. They have no policies or alternatives. I have tried to do this because hon. members opposite have used the time of the House to argue to the Canadian people that somehow all the expenditures contained in the budget and in the expenditure plan of the government
are wasteful, irresponsible and illegitimate. I defy a Conservative Member of Parliament or a New Democratic Party Member of Parliament to stand in this House and object to the moneys which are being spent in my constituency.
I see that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is at the back of the chamber. In his opening remarks in this debate he referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as being a designated hitter. According to the warped ideology of the Leader of the Opposition and his warped way of coming to conclusions, the minister has three strikes and he is out. There is only one party which is out. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was out on December 13, 1979. There is only one man in this House who will be out, and that will happen in January.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The House in committee of the whole on Bill C-125, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.
On Clause 2-


Mr. Bussieres:: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the profitable negotiations held earlier today and handled so very skillfully by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), I move, seconded by the government House leader and President of the Privy Council:
That Bill C-125 be amended by deleting line 14 on page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceeding in the whole, seven billion dollars,"


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Pierre Bussières: that the bill as amended be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:

July 22, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
(Division No. 233)	NAYS
Messrs.
YEAS	Althouse	Gass	MitchellMessrs.	Andre	Gilchrist	(Mrs.)Anguish	Gurbin	MitgesAllmand	Dupont	Lefebvre	Baker	Gustafson	MunroAppolloni	Dupras	Loiselle	(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Mrs.)	Erola (Mrs.)	Lumley	Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyAxworthy	Ethier	MacBain	Benjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	NeilBachand	Evans	MacEachen	Blackburn	Creek)	NickersonBaker	Ferguson	MacGuigan	Blaikie	Hargrave	Nielsen(Gander-Twillingate)	Fisher	Mackasey	Blenkarn	Hawkes	NowlanBeauchamp-N iquet	Fleming	MacLaren	Bradley	Heap	Nystrom(Mrs.)	Flis	MacLellan	Cardiff	Hees	OgleBegin (Miss)	Foster	Malepart	Carney (Miss)	Hnatyshyn	PaproskiBerger	Fox	Maltais	Clark	Howie	ParkerBlais	Francis	Marceau	(Yellowhead)	Huntington	ReidBlaker	Frith	Masse	Cook	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Bloomfield	Garant	Masters	Cooper	King	RiisBockstael	Gauthier	McCauley	Corbett	Knowles	RobinsonBossy	Gendron	McRae	Crombie	Korchinski	(Burnaby)Bujold	Gimaiel	Nicholson	Crosby	Kristiansen	RoseBurghardt	Gingras	(Miss)	(Halifax West)	Lambert	SargeantBussieres	Gourde	Olivier	Crouse	La Salle	ScottCaccia	(Levis)	Ostiguy	Dantzer	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Campbell	Gray	Ouellet	Darling	Lewis	Shields(Miss)	Guilbault	Parent	Deans	MacDonald	Siddon(South West Nova)	Harquail	Penner	de Jong	(Miss)	SkellyCampbell	Henderson	Pepin	Dinsdale	Manly	Stewart(LaSalle)	Herbert	Peterson	Ellis	Mayer	TaylorCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Pinard	Elzinga	Mazankowski	Thacker(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	Portelance	Epp	McCain	TowersChenier	Hopkins	Prud'homme	Fennell	McCuish	WenmanChretien	Hudecki	Regan	Forrestall	McGrath	WilsonCollenette	Irwin	Reid	Fraser	McKinnon	WiseCorbin	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Fretz	McKnight	WrightCorriveau	Johnston	Roberts	Gamble	McMillan	Young-94.Cosgrove	Joyal	Robinson	Cote (Mrs.)	Kaplan	(Etobicoke- La keshore)	Cousineau	Kelly	Rompkey	Madam Speaker:	Cullen	Killens (Mrs.)	Rossi	I declare the motion carried.	Cyr	Lachance	Savard	Dawson De Bane	Lajoie Lalonde	Schroder Smith	Motion agreed to	and bill read the third time and passed.	de Corneille Demers	Lamontagne Landers	Tardif Tessier	[ Translation]	Deniger Desmarais	Lang Lapierre	Tobin Tousignant	Madam Speaker:	It being past ten o'clock, the House stands	Dingwall Dion Dionne	Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe	Trudeau Turner Veillette	adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., sions of Standing Order 2(1).	pursuant to the provi-(Chicoutimi) Dubois	(Beauce) LeBlanc	Watson Weatherhead	At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put,	Leduc	Yanakis-131.	pursuant to Standing Order.	
Friday, July 23, 1982