1982-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the November 12 budget the government served notice that it intends to confiscate a portion of fishermen's catches as an advance payment of income tax when they sell their catch. This Saturday, May 1, the lobster season opens on Prince Edward Island, and fishermen are still very upset with the idea of having a portion of their catch confiscated. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House instructs the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance to withdraw this mandatory measure immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the evidence is clear. The startling facts from the Conference Board of Canada today should put an end to the myth that government economic policies are working-75 per cent of business executives say that it is a bad time to invest; 32 per cent are not proceeding with previously-announced investments; working people who get a meagre $200 tax cut are paying four times that amount with new hidden taxes on health and dental plans and energy taxes; and there are countless other real life examples. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Minister of Finance immediately announce a withdrawal of his disastrous November 12, 1981 budget and not wait until fall for his new budget as announced by the Minister of Justice, but introduce one immediately, one
which will be positive, promote development of Canada, and encourage full-time meaningful jobs for the 1,200,000 unemployed and those thousands of students presently coming into the work force.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the federal government's commitment of some $19 million toward the construction of a proposed Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, about which many serious questions have been raised concerning its design, its operating costs, and the irregular manner in which it was processed through local government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House direct the government to withhold the payment of any moneys toward the development of the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre until such times as a full financial cost benefit and impact analysis is undertaken and full public hearings have been held to determine the advisability of this particular structure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that red meat industry producers in Canada are still experiencing an ever-increasing life and death struggle for survival with no meaningful relief in sight, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Agriculture now take the necessary steps to introduce for the short term a meaningful national stabilization program, to be followed in the long term by a national marketing and supply management program which

April 28, 1982
would bring the stability needed for the betterment of producers and the industry as a whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House recognize the recent achievement of our Prime Minister and congratulate him on his induction into the Singles Hall of Fame by Singles International, where he joins such world famous luminaries as Miss Piggy of the Muppet Family.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Louis-Hebert.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas Mr. Pierre Samson has been elected President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois):
That the House congratulate Mr. Samson, particularly since he is the first francophone to be elected president of a union where nearly 30 per cent of the membership consists of francophones. I also move, Madam Speaker, that the House support Mr. Samson when he puts the union's demands before the Treasury Board, in the hope that negotiations on collective agreements will proceed as smoothly as our simultaneous translation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas a significant number of teachers undertake exchange assignments each year with selected teachers from other countries, and whereas the relocation costs, which often involve family dependants, and adverse costs of living and exchange rates, are absorbed personally by the individual exchange teacher, and whereas Section 8(10) of the Income Tax Act permits Canadians assigned to offshore employment in the energy resources industry or the developmental construction industry special remuneration from taxable income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the Minister of National Revenue be directed by this House to initiate changes in the income tax regulations so that Canadian exchange teachers may also be included in Section 8(10) of the Income Tax Act to alleviate the Financial burden facing the exchange teachers of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion concerning the status of working women. Today's Globe and Mail quotes Ontario studies which prove that the largest single factor in the 40 per cent lower wage rates for women is occupational discrimination and that affirmative action programs have the most potential for reducing the wage gap between men and women. Inasmuch as the minister purportedly responsible for the status of women indicated in committee last night that she has back tracked on mandatory affirmative action in favour of a go-slow policy, even on voluntary affirmative action in the Public Service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the minister purportedly responsible for the Status of Women be condemned strongly for relegating hundreds of thousands of working women to low paying, low status, dead-end jobs for the rest of their working lives.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 28, 1982


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the Conne River Band of Newfoundland has not received its first quarter funding for 1982 to date, despite assurances by both the minister and his parliamentary secretary that the necessary funding would be immediately forthcoming. Because essential services to the community cannot be provided by the Council due to this bureaucratic log jam between the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the government move immediately to release the first quarter of funding for 1982 to the Conne River Indian Band Council so that the necessary services and programs to the community can be continued.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given the projected summer shut-downs affecting some 1,400 iron ore workers at the Adams, Sherman and Griffiths mines in the Timiskaming region of northern Ontario, due largely to the collapsing domestic demand for steel products, and whereas the production from these mines is dedicated exclusively to the Dofasco and Stelco steel mills at Hamilton, Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government take immediate steps to restore economic confidence and to restore jobs to Canadian steel workers, both in the north and industrial Ontario, by rescinding the offensive and interventionist polices contained in the National Energy Program and the disastrous November 12 budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 request the
Oral Questions
unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning an urgent matter, namely, the recent floods in Beauce and the Eastern Townships.
Whereas the government has been denying that requests for assistance were received from Quebec as early as last week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent):
That the House urge the government to stop making frivolous excuses to the people of the flooded areas in Quebec and immediately provide assistance to the flood victims.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who undoubtedly noted the Conference Board report which was issued today in which the Board now finds that 75 per cent of the senior executives in this country believe that our economy will get even worse than it is at the present time. It points out, for example, that the main concerns of people in this country are the high interest rates, the weak market demand, and then government policies. Would the Prime Minister finally concede that his economic direction has been on the wrong course and that he should start paying attention to some Canadians who know what the reality is out there from coast to coast?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that the document to which he is referring also reflects an aspect he did not point out, namely the optimism expressed by the same persons with respect to the possibility of a drop in inflation in this country. I would also remind the hon. member that as soon as we are able to bring down inflation, we shall eliminate the climate of uncertainty that is holding back investors and preventing economic recovery. Their optimism as to a possible drop in inflation indicates that these businessmen agree with the government's policy to reduce inflationary pressures.

April 28, 1982
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, that is straight balderdash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REVIEW OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps my follow-up question can be asked of the Prime Minister, if he would have the courtesy to respond to it. The inflation rate in this country, after high interest rates since 1975, is actually higher than it was in 1975.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the Prime Minister chooses to blame international conditions for the sad plight of our economy, would he explain the research study released yesterday at Rutger's University in New Jersey, which points out that, of the seven countries under review, it is Canada which is last among the group of seven as far as economic performance is concerned?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I have not seen this review from the United States; but referring to the previous review to which the hon. member referred, the Conference Board news release, I fail to see why the hon. member describes as balderdash the perfectly correct answer given by the minister a moment ago. If the hon. member enjoins me to show courtesy, I would enjoin him to look at the facts.
I will read the statistics given concerning the question on inflation over the near term. Forty-five per cent of the respondents said that it would be lower and only eight per cent said it would.be higher, which was the exact point made by the minister. Therefore, the hon. member should get his facts straight before suggesting courtesy from others.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, at least the Prime Minister has said that he is willing to deal with facts.


Mr. Crosbie:: For the first time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INFLATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my follow-up question is based on the fact that the Prime Minister will agree that we have had a tight interest policy since 1975. In 1975 the inflation level in this country was actually lower than the current level. Would the Prime Minister tell us when his tight money policy will finally wrestle inflation to the ground as he has promised year after year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Whipper Billy Trudeau!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a tendency to confuse cause and effect, since he omitted to relate high interest rates to their cause which is the high rate of inflation. He has also neglected to situate within a broader context the various causes that have led to this high rate of inflation. Instead of
trying to draw attention to a question that is already heavily criticized by everyone, he should join the government in inviting all economic partners to continue the fight against inflation and thus help restore a climate that is favourable to investment.


LAY-OFFS IN MINING INDUSTRY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister, whoever that may be. The escalating collapse of Canada's industrial economy is not only reflected by the many thousands of newly unemployed in our manufacturing industry but in the shutdowns, massive financial losses, and lay-offs in Canada's primary mineral producing sector. For example, shutdowns at the Adams, Sherman and Griffiths mines in the Timiskaming region of northern Ontario will affect some 1,400 iron workers. Production from these mines is dedicated exclusively to the Dofasco and Stelco steel mills at Hamilton, Ontario. I ask the Prime Minister what concrete action the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recommended to cabinet at Meach Lake in order to reverse this alarming crisis. What specific proposals were offered to restore economic confidence and jobs to Canadians? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?


Some hon. Members:: No answer!


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Thomas Edward Siddon: It is obvious that we need a Prime Minister to take charge of this country because the one opposite has no sense of concern for the Canadian people who are losing their jobs. The Conference Board statistics recently released confirm that many corporations will no longer invest in Canada, leading to substantial additional cutbacks in production and jobs. This is confirmed by the documented outflow of more than $20 billion of investment capital from Canada in the past 12 months compared with only $4 billion in the previous year. At the same time, we learn that Ridley Island Terminals-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that preambles are not required for questions, and his is lengthy. He has to go to his question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Now that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is here, I hope he will answer why it is that Ridley Island Terminals has awarded another $7 million contract to a Japanese consortium at the same time that investment capital is flowing out of Canada. Where is the minister's elusive
April 28, 1982

industrial development plan that we have heard so much about? Why do we continue to export investment capital and Canadian jobs to foreign countries?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: This is the expert at losing to the Japanese.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are an expert at losing.
The question on the Ridley Island project has to do with the purchase of nearly $8 million of steel pipe. The answer is very clear. Maximum efforts were made to procure this pipe in Canada. Five Canadian firms, among others, were asked to bid on that. For one reason or another, every one of them declared themselves incapable of providing the special pipe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will provide a detailed blow-by-blow account of all the efforts that were made by the National Harbours Board and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to procuring this pipe. If the hon. member wants to challenge me on that, he can write me a note and I will provide him with a full answer.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, with the Minister of Finance, has time and again indicated how our problems in Canada are related to those around the world. I refer to the study mentioned earlier, by the Centre for International Business Cycle Research at Rutgers University. The study indicated that Canada is now in last place. While other countries have taken action independent from the Americans and have been successful in slowing the recessionary trends in their countries, we do not take action. With this evidence before us today, when can we exepct independent action to be taken, or do we have to wait until the fall budget is introduced?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the study to which the hon. member is referring requires some consideration. The hon. member concluded from this study that all countries should have their economic recoveries or recessions at the same time; I think he should remember that this is not the way things work. There has been a recovery in some countries, while in others the process is somewhat slower. What is, in fact, encouraging in this study is the fact that economies are interdependent and that there are symptoms of recovery in certain countries. We
Oral Questions
can therefore be optimistic and assume that, very soon, our economy will also be on the way to recovery.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDUCE INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, while I do not necessarily agree with the response, I appreciate a response-which is more than I can say for the Prime Minister.
I do have a question for the Prime Minister. His Minister of Finance has been going around the country, apparently very interested in the views of businessmen, business leaders and investment leaders. Interestingly enough, a survey by the Conference Board of Canada, just released-and these are leaders who are very knowledgeable and very susceptive of the economy-indicates that wage settlements are not a serious problem facing Canadians today. Yet the Minister of Finance has repeatedly indicated that wage settlements are his No. 1 preoccupation. Will the government now drop its preoccupation with wage controls and instead drop interest rates as a step toward economic recovery?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should realize that the government's concern embraces several causes and not only one cause of inflation, as the hon. member seems to be saying. The government has said on many occasions that the various economic partners each have their influence and that they should act with discipline and restraint in their respective sectors and spheres. The government itself has shown the way by very substantially reducing its financial requirements, as set forth in the budget plan, and it intends to continue to show the same discipline and restraint, in order to set an example and persuade all economic partners to join the government in fighting inflationary pressures.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT IMMEDIATELY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance, in the hope that the Prime Minister will rise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: On Monday of this week the minister responsible for co-ordinating economic development in Canada tentatively stated what a number of Liberal backbenchers have been stating over the last number of days, as well as, of course, some members of the cabinet-one being the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism-that is, that if present policies continue in this country major action will be required much different from that being presently introduced by the government. The minister responsible for economic development

April 28, 1982
Oral Questions
indicated that because of the position of our economy today extraordinary measures will likely be required. In line with the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is a rather long question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I will ask the question now. In line with the proposal of the minister responsible for economic development, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Finance prepared to indicate to this House that because of conditions extraordinary steps are required and action is required now, not in the fall of 1982?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is so well informed on the activities of this government, he will realize that in many sectors, important and indeed extraordinary measures have been taken to help businesses to adjust, and to assist the recovery of certain industrial sectors. Therefore, the hon. member should realize that government programs already contain special measures designed to help businesses to adjust and to promote economic recovery.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHINESE DELEGATION FROM THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a Chinese delegation, headed by Mr. Xu Dixin, Member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and deals with the very serious situation that exists in reference to the Falkland Islands. Does the Canadian government recognize the United Kingdom as having sovereignty over the Falkland Islands? Secondly, could the Prime Minister tell us what steps the government has taken since April 2 to support the United Kingdom in reversing the present aggression that has taken place in the Falkland Islands? What steps have we taken in addition to the pious expressions of support that we have given to date? What actual steps have we taken, and what might be contemplated in view of the present very serious situation?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is not for Canada to decide; it is a matter to be decided either by an international tribunal, whether it be an arbitration tribunal or the International Court of Justice, or by negotiation between the parties.
What is of great concern to Canada and to other peace abiding countries is that Argentina has chosen to try to settle a dispute over territory by recourse to force of arms and that the United Kingdom has had to have recourse to self-defence in order to regain those islands. That is the position that Canada has taken. It is in pursuance of that position that we have banned the export of war material to Argentina and that we have, like the members of the Common Market, imposed similar kinds of restrictions with respect to the entry of Argentinian imports to Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister does not see this question as being important enough for him to answer. Let me tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that what he has done to date is not sufficient. Apparently the Canadian government does not recognize the United Kingdom as having sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is an interesting admission.


REQUEST THAT ALL EXPORTS TO ARGENTINA BE BANNED
John Carnell Crosbie: May I ask a
supplementary question, Madam Speaker? The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that the action we have taken to date is to ban imports from Argentina and to ban the export of military supplies to that country. Will the government go further and ban any exports to Argentina during the period of this emergency in order to demonstrate or try to exert some pressure on Argentina? I refer specifically to the 3,000 nuclear fuel bundles that are supposed to be exported to Argentina by June 30. Has the government already or will it now ban any further exports to Argentina?
In addition to these expressions of support that we have heard, would the minister tell us what actual steps the Canadian government has been requested to take by the United Kingdom government, or what steps have been taken? Specifically, will we now ban all exports until this emergency is resolved?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member believes his question is important enough to be answered by the Prime Minister, but obviously his own leader does not believe that the question is important enough to be asked by him.
We have taken similar actions to those taken by members of the European Community with respect to Argentina. We are giving the identical kind of support to the United Kingdom that our other friends are giving, and more than some countries in the world are doing.
April 28, 1982

With respect to contracts, we are not inhibiting any contracts which were pre-existing at the time we took that course of action. The contract to which the hon. member refers with respect to the remaining nuclear material is in this category.
Beyond that, we have a signed agreement with Argentina that it will not use the nuclear material or nuclear technology that we supply, for any non-peaceful purpose. We would not want to depart from any aspect of the terms of that contract because we would not want to provide any opportunity for the other party to say that the contract was now null and void. We want to make sure that Canadian technology is only used for peaceful purposes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the House if one of the two consortia competing in the contract definition phase of the patrol frigate program is experiencing difficulties? Could he tell the House whether these difficulties may result in that consortium not being able to meet the October, 1982, deadline for submission of its proposal?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as far as the frigate program is concerned, everything is on schedule. 1 have had some communication with both consortia, scan-marine and Saint John Dry Dock Ltd. I am not aware of any difficulties experienced by either in meeting the deadline that will enable us to get the frigate program going.


QUERY RESPECTING PAYMENTS TO COMPETING CONTRACTORS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence who should be interested enough in the subject to know the answer. Could the minister tell the House whether the government has withheld, or is considering withholding, any milestone payment to one of the consortia in the Canadian patrol frigate program due to its not being able to meet the progress deadlines imposed by contract?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as of last week, when I received the monthly report on the frigate program, I am not aware of any such occurrence.
Oral Questions


FORESTRY
Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Roberval):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In February, the minister announced that agreements had been signed with the Government of Ontario regarding certain job-creation programs in the forestry industry. Last Friday, the minister announced that similar agreements had been signed with British Columbia. Could the minister inform the House how negotiations with Quebec are progressing and whether Quebecers in the forestry industry who are interested in participating in the program will be able to do so in the near future?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that we have received a proposal concerning a development and employment program in the forestry industry in Quebec which is similar to what we have undertaken in signing agreements with the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario. I can assure the hon. member that we will give it very prompt, and sympathetic consideration. I hope we will be able to make an announcement on an agreement by next week. I want to thank the hon. member and some of her colleagues for the work they put into developing this proposal.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the National Energy Board decision, made public yesterday, to allow Ontario Hydro to go ahead with the sale of electricity to the United States. I put it to the Prime Minister that, if the government allows this to happen, it will completely destroy the credibility of all the work done by the special committee on acid rain, by the House of Commons, by the government, by the Department of External Affairs, and our steady but slowly successful attempt to get support in Washington.
I put this question to the Prime Minister because the Minister of the Environment made a statement yesterday. What is the Prime Minister prepared to do, as leader of this country, as far as that agreement or decision by the National Energy Board with respect to Ontario Hydro is concerned, when it comes to cabinet for discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will take the steps advised by the minister responsible for the environment and review the decision of the

April 28, 1982
Oral Questions
National Energy Board, along with my colleagues, and the recommendations of the ministers involved.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for answering the first question put to him today in the House.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES RESPECTING EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by the special committee on acid rain, in view of the petition that was circulated in this House, in view of the incredible work that the Department of External Affairs has been trying to do in Washington, and in view of the fact that we have been making steady progress in getting friends in the U.S. House and Senate, will the minister assure the House that before Ontario Hydro is allowed to enter into any agreement with the New Jersey Power Corporation he will make sure that Ontario Hydro guarantees, in writing, to put scrubbers in place on all stacks at Nanticoke generating station, or equivalent technology, that will reduce and, we hope, eliminate the sulphur coming out of the smoke stacks?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the recommendation of the National Energy Board will come before cabinet for discussion. Clearly, I cannot tell him what the decision of cabinet will be before it has been taken. The views of the Department of the Environment were presented to the National Energy Board and are well known. I know of no reason to change them at the present time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. If one of the main purposes of criminal law is to punish individuals or corporations when, after due process, they are found guilty of an offence, how can the minister justify the prosecution and possible punishment of a shell corporation such as Uranium Canada, which has absolutely no assets, and which, for all practical purposes, is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the senior staff?
In addition, the maximum fine in the event of a finding of guilt is $1 million. Who would pay that fine? Would it be a new form of transfer payment from the President of the Treasury Board to the province of Ontario which collects fines?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, in this matter, I followed the recommendations I was given by Commissioner Bertrand and his legal advisers who decided in favour of prosecuting the companies that allegedly conspired to fix the price of uranium in Canada. So I took Mr. Bertrand's report and accepted his recommendations, and we put the Crown corporations and the private companies on the same footing. We were entirely justified in doing so because, a few weeks or months before that, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down a decision that Crown corporations could be prosecuted before the courts in Canada in matters of this kind.


JUSTIFICATION FOR PROSECUTION
Chris Speyer: The minister is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this room today. He is the chief law officer of the Crown, so how can a prosecution possibly be initiated against a corporation with absolutely no assets and no way of paying a fine? It would be nothing more than a book entry between the federal and provincial governments, so how do you justify it? Don't cop-out.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there was a corporation involved. When the Bertrand report said we should prosecute private and public corporations, we did not look in the books of every corporation before prosecuting. If that were the case, Madam Speaker, the hon. member would have said, "why didn't you prosecute?" We cannot presume there will be a fine because we do not know the result. If the court decides they should be fined, it will be a problem that the corporation will have to face at that time. As Minister of Justice I have done my duty, which is to prosecute-


Charles Joseph Clark: And hide everything you can.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -the corporation according to the recommendations of the Bertrand report. That is exactly what I have done. On top of that, to make sure that the views of the Bertrand report would be seen in the best light possible in front of the court, I decided to hire the same lawyer that Mr. Bertrand had selected.


CROWN CORPORATION DOCUMENTS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and deals with the situation where the other four corporate defendants in this uranium cartel case have requested that Uranium Canada and Eldorado Nuclear turn over to them documents in their possession for purposes of a full and fair defence. This request has been refused by the Crown corporations, which will mean that the corporate defendants' defence is going to be prejudiced. Will the Prime Minister direct the Crown corporations to
April 28, 1982

make available to these private firms the documents in their possession to assist them in a full and proper defence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to take note of the question and discuss it with the Minister of Justice who is here today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may not understand this, but the Minister of Justice is involved in the prosecution of these companies. The other arm of government is involved in the defence. The Prime Minister should consult with members of his cabinet because he has more men of conviction in his cabinet than any other Prime Minister in the history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENTS BE DECLASSIFIED
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Crown corporations are immune from prosecution and the remaining defendants are at a clear disadvantage in obtaining the evidence they require for a full defence. Therefore, will the Minister of Justice, or the Prime Minister, agree not to invoke the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act which will prevent the introduction of government documents as evidence in court? In addition, will the minister agree to declassify all government documents in this case so that the private corporations can have access to them for a proper defence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think I want to debate these questions which are in front of the court at this time. The argument the hon. member makes is in relation to a case which is in front of the courts at this very moment. It is for the lawyers there to put their arguments to the court.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not sub judice.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If there is some ruling by the judge in this case we will advise accordingly, but at this moment the question is between lawyers in front of the court. It is up to the court to decide; it is not for the Minister of Justice to pass judgment at this moment.


STATUS OF FUTURE ENERGY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for drawing up a comprehensive Crown corporation policy. In light of the fact that the decision in the Uranium Canada and Eldorado case is that they are agents of Her Majesty and therefore immune from criminal prosecution, is it the policy of the government, supported by the minister, that all new energy Crown corporations should
Oral Questions
automatically be made agents of Her Majesty and thereby be given immunity from criminal prosecution?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, that question is rather unrelated to the direct responsibilities-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Donald James Johnston: -I have had in terms of comprehensive Crown corporation policies. The issues I have addressed and discussed with the hon. member on a number of occasions are control, direction, and accountability of these corporations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except before the courts.


Donald James Johnston: With respect to the specific question he raises, I suggest he take it up with the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will address my question to the Minister of State (Finance). In his reply to my question yesterday the Minister of Finance said he was in close touch with the Inspector General of Banks and that he had no reason to believe that any of the banks operating within the Canadian system are not in a viable position, and he believed that each of them is viable in the circumstances, whatever that means. If that statement were true, why would the chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal describe many banks in the Canadian banking system as beached whales, and say that Canadians may have to turn to foreign banks to finance Canadian projects?
I ask the minister is he or the Minister of Finance satisfied that the Inspector General of Banks has the status, resources and authority to give the necessary attention and supervision to the Canadian banking system?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in the preamble to this question, the hon. member referred to comments by an officer of the Bank of Montreal. If the hon. member is seeking clarification of these comments, I would recommend that he put his question to the author and not to the Minister of Finance.
As for the hon. member's principal question, namely, does the office of the Inspector General of Banks have enough staff and expertise to perform its duties under the provisions of the Bank Act. As far as I know the answer is yes, and I am not aware that the Inspector General of Banks has asked for more resources to do the office's work.

April 28, 1982
Oral Questions


FOREIGN CURRENCY ASSETS OF BANKS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Is the minister aware that 40 per cent of the total assets of Canadian banks is in foreign currency assets, and that this growing practice is because they are not required to set aside reserves against foreign currency assets as they must do with their domestic assets? This weakness is now becoming a serious inhibiting factor to Canadian development; that is the issue. The Minister of Finance's answer to me yesterday is at odds with the statement of the chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal.
What is the point of Canadianization policies if we have to borrow from foreign banks to develop our own country, and is this minister, or the Minister of Finance, prepared to correct this unstable situation by separating foreign and domestic lending, and ensuring that proper reserves are set up at home for Canadian banks creating foreign currency assets?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that when we revised the Bank Act, changes were made in the requirements for bank reserves. The member should also recall that on the same occasion, certain foreign financial institutions operating in Canada were given the possibility of obtaining the status of Canadian banking institutions. As far as any effects on the reserves as a result of these changes are concerned, I am willing to ask the Inspector General of Banks what the consequences have been and whether the hon. member's assessment is correct.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. As he knows, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and the National Association of Women and the Law have both urged the government not to refer the important question of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs unless witnesses could be heard in a way that would not delay or kill Bill C-53, the long overdue legislation reforming Canada's rape laws. The terms of reference proposed yesterday by the minister require consideration of soliciting "during hearings on Bill C-53".
Does the minister agree with the position of these women's organizations on this important question and, if so, will he support a reference on this subject which would specify
hearings in the last three weeks in May when Bill C-53 is not before the committee?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, first we should refer the problem to the committee and unanimous consent has not been given by the hon. member to do that. After that, when the matter is before the committee it can decide about its own procedure. I want to accommodate hon. members as best I can. But if the hon. member is very keen to have Bill C-53 passed very quickly, I think judging by past experience the hon. member would have helped a lot if he had learned to shut up in committees once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the women of Canada will want to hear the minister's position on this important question. He has been silent too long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: If the minister wants to play games with the women of Canada with respect to rape laws, that is his problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TERMS OF REFERRAL
Svend Johannes Robinson: At the conclusion of question period, Madam Speaker, I intend to seek consent to move without debate a reference in identical terms to those proposed yesterday by the minister, with one addition, that witnesses on soliciting be heard in the last two weeks in May-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. When the time for motions comes, I will call the hon. member if he rises on motions. But it is the time for questions now.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I know the official opposition will support this particular reference. Is the minister prepared to support it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there is a motion that has been agreed to by the official opposition, by the members of my party and I guess the majority of the members of the New Democratic Party. We do not see why we should give the hon. member for Burnaby special status in this House to propose some special conditions, especially when the hon. member is always keen to get up on questions of rights yet he is one who voted against the equality of men and women in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 28, 1982


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a very important question to the Minister of Transport. At the present time fishing quotas that are established by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans literally direct most of Atlantic Canada's deep sea fishing effort into the frigid iceberg prone waters of Hamilton Bank, off the coast of Labrador, where at any given time some one half of the fleet operating in that area comes from the province of Nova Scotia. They are required to fish through ice packs which are five or six feet thick. As these men face almost certain loss of life in times of disaster because foreign hospital ships, freezer trawlers and support ships are no longer operating in the area, what does the minister propose to do in order to protect the lives of Canadian mariners beyond the present inadequate rescue facilities that are in place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question is rather a general one, is it not, Madam Speaker? I can only answer with a cliche that we intend to do the best we can with the equipment and the money we have. My hon. friend has a particular preoccupation. If he feels that a certain area is not sufficiently taken into account by the coast guard, I would be grateful if he would indicate which one it is and I will be pleased to provide him with whatever information I can find on the particular item.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I see the member for South Shore is rising. His supplementary question should be very short.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, the minister has asked me for a suggestion and that is why I rise on a supplementary question. In February, 1982-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It should not a suggestion even if the minister has asked the hon. member for a suggestion. The hon. member should ask a question.


REQUEST THAT COAST GUARD SHIP BE STATIONED AT ST. ANTHONY, NFLD.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that there has been a tremendous loss of life in the area within the past year and a half. Since there are many tragic examples that I could give to the minister of this loss of life, will he consider establishing a coast guard ship on station at St. Anthony, Newfoundland, equipped with a helicopter pad, in order to provide more adequate protection for our mariners who are forced at the present time to operate in this rather rough environment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we will certainly take that suggestion into account. I will bring it to my officials and have it debated. The department's view on this matter will be provided to the hon. member
Oral Questions
by me, to which he can object and give me his reason for the objection.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has indicated that Canada's policy toward Argentina is to speak loudly and send nuclear bundles. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm that the choice which was before the cabinet of Canada in relation to Argentina was, on the one hand, to suspend all commercial relations until the Argentinian forces were out of the Falkland Islands, and on the other hand to proceed with "business as usual", and the Government of Canada chose the option of business as usual?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, as often happens, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has completely distorted the position of the government. The choice before the government was, as the European community decided, whether to render impossible any future contracts between Canadians and Argentinians. We took that step, which was exactly the same kind of step the European community had taken in support of Britain. It would not be sensible to go beyond that in a general way because these contracts in the past were entered into in good faith. This is particularly true in the case of the nuclear industry. It would not be a good idea to engage in any such abrogation of past contracts because in this instance it would leave the Argentinians the option of declaring that, if the contract were not fulfilled on our part they, for their part, would not be bound by the undertaking which they gave to use Canadian technology only for peaceful purposes.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, these contracts were entered into before Argentina undertook an act of aggression against Great Britain and put occupying forces on the Falkland Islands. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister, if he is interested, tell us how Canada expects to be taken seriously on this question when, on the one hand, we condemn and, on the other hand, we send and export 3,000 nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the right hon. member appears to be rather badly informed on this case. The uranium which is involved in the fuel bundles is not even Canadian uranium. It is Argentinian uranium which we are upgrading in Canada according to the contract into which we solemnly entered.

April 28, 1982
Business of the House


John Carnell Crosbie: Why?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Britain is very pleased with the kind of support it has been receiving from its allies.


John Carnell Crosbie: What support?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Our actions are exactly parallel to those of the European community.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Canadian Aerobatic Association which wishes to send a team to Austria for the world championships in August, 1982. Has the minister received a letter of request for assistance from the Canadian Aerobatic Association, asking for assistance either in terms of money or in terms of getting the airplanes over to Europe?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have received such a letter. We do not have a great amount of funds for sending Canadians abroad to participate in functions of this kind. We will certainly give fair consideration to the request of the hon. member.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and thirtieth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on Tuesday, April 27, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to confirm, for the information of hon. members on both sides of the House, that tomorrow will be an opposition day.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to a practice that, I feel, is becoming a dangerous habit. I should like to refer you, Madam Speaker, to Beauchesne, fifth edition, Citation 319 on page 104, and I quote:
(1) It is the custom in the House that no Member should refer to another by name-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


Irénée Pelletier: No, Madam Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Does this question of privilege arise from today's proceedings?


Irénée Pelletier: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor.


Irénée Pelletier: Madam Speaker, during the past months, certain opposition members have referred to ministers and the Right Hon. Prime Minister by name, which is forbidden under the Standing Orders of the House.
I must also point out today that on Monday and Tuesday, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), yesterday, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), last week, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must not go beyond his point of order. In fact, it is certainly not a question of privilege, and the hon. member should not persist in treating it as such. If he wishes to speak on a point of order, I shall listen to him.


Irénée Pelletier: Madam Speaker, that is all right with me. I am quite willing to call this a point of order, but it seems to me that if all hon. members' privileges may be affected, it is more like a question of privilege. In any case, Madam Speaker, it seems to me you should be somewhat stricter on this point, because in my humble opinion, it is a practice that could well-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member disagrees with the manner in which the Chair conducts the proceedings of the House, he has various options from which to choose, which do not include making remarks of this kind and reprimanding the Chair. It is not a personal matter but concerns my role in the House.
April 28, 1982

The hon. member may have noticed that when some members use the name of the right hon. Prime Minister or another minister as an adjective, for instance in the case of the Trudeau era or the Trudeau administration, this is entirely acceptable. On the whole, hon. members do not make a habit of referring to other members or ministers by name, but in the very few instances that they do, and considering the time that goes into matters of this kind, I do not intervene if 1 feel that it was merely an oversight on the part of the hon. member. I cannot really interrupt proceedings every so often, if such infringements of the Standing Orders do not have quite extraordinary consequences for the proceedings of the House.
However, I have noted the hon. member's comments and I shall try to watch this aspect more closely. Sometimes my attention wanders, because I must also watch other members who wish to have the floor, and I do not always hear it when an hon. member happens to use the name of the Prime Minister or another member in the manner referred to by the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: 
PETITION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the city of Toronto calling upon Parliament to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to refuse to allow the testing of Cruise missiles on Canadian soil.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
Motions
That, with unanimous consent and without debate, it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting for the purpose of prostitution and including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard, and include-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am in a bit of difficulty because motions of this nature should be introduced by the government House leader; this kind of Government business should be introduced by the government. I could cite May and Beauchesne who stated very clearly that government House leaders must put all these matters to the House themselves and that government House leaders also move housekeeping motions, allot supply days and generally ensure that the House is kept busy. Of course, with unanimous consent this can be done in another manner, but it is usual for such a motion to be presented by the government.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Normally that is the case, Madam Speaker. I am sure the Chair is aware that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) is trying to obtain unanimous consent of the House in order to put a motion which is precisely in the same words as the one the government has endeavoured to have the House accept on two occasions. On both occasions it was thwarted by members of the New Democratic Party.
I suggest that there is nothing wrong. Indeed, it is perfect keeping with our practices for any member on either side of the House to rise, seeking unanimous consent of the House on motions, to put a particular motion. Of course it is another matter if the House does not give consent. I am certain that the government and the Conservative opposition are prepared to give that kind of consent. It remains to be seen whether the motion is acceptable to the members of the New Democratic Party now after they had refused it twice before.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, as I explained yesterday, we were quite prepared to give unanimous consent to have the motion moved. I do not believe there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind that not only were we prepared to give unanimous consent to allow the motion to be put, we did in fact give unanimous consent yesterday to allow the motion to be put. There was no attempt on our part to stop it.
However, I would like to make it quite clear that we are prepared to allow that motion to be put with unanimous consent subject to the withdrawal of that part which denies debate, there being no predisposition on the part of the House to deny an hon. member an opportunity to express his or her opinion on any motion put before the House.
16702

April 28, 1982
Motions
I suggest that it is a denial of the rights of hon. members to ask that any member be asked to forgo that opportunity. I suggest that, provided the "without debate" provision is withdrawn, we will be happy to give unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, perhaps to assist the Chair before it rules on the point made by the Chair, you may wish to consider Standing Order 32(1 )(p) which deals with the business of the House and which, I submit, provides any hon. member with the opportunity that is being sought by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney).


Madam Speaker:: First, I wish to reply to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). This morning again I went through the proceedings which took place yesterday. Indeed, once the motion was proposed I did ask for unanimous consent. But as soon as I asked for unanimous consent, some hon. members did give it, but not all of them. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was on his feet and I therefore recognized him. Consequently, that procedure by which I was seeking unanimous consent was interrupted by his seeking the floor-which is perfectly legitimate-and I gave him the floor. Subsequently there was an exchange on both sides of the House. Again I asked for unanimous consent in order to complete that procedure, and unanimous consent was not given. That must be made quite clear.
In my estimation there was not unanimous consent. As far as today is concerned, even without having looked at the reference, I think the point made by the hon. member is well taken. The House can do just about anything it wishes as long as it receives unanimous consent.
Therefore, I believe we have heard part of the motion, but if the House is ready to give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to propose her motion to the House, I can ask the House whether it will give that unanimous consent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to yesterday's proceedings in the House, I want the record to be very clear that it was absolutely the case that unanimous consent was granted by all parties to the putting of this motion yesterday. The only issue was whether or not there could be debate on it. Certainly, we gave unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: Not at all. There was no unanimous consent. I must make that quite clear for the record. The Chair would know by looking at the whole House whether there was unanimous consent.
It was the distinct and clear impression of the Chair that the proceeding to seek unanimous consent was interrupted by the hon. member for Burnaby rising to be recognized. As I say, that is perfectly legitimate. I did recognize the hon. member and, after the exchange, the Chair came back to complete the procedure. At that point the House did not give its consent.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, does your ruling mean that I may proceed with this motion?


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for the motion to be put by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to propose the following motion:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that during its consideration of Bill C-53, it take into consideration all legal methods of dealing with street soliciting with the purpose of prostitution, and including Sections 195.1 and 171 of the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the various provincial and municipal laws presently in force in this regard, and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations, provided that all witnesses on this issue be heard by the justice committee, or a sub-committee thereof, between May 10 and May 31,1982.
I seek unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion which would have exactly the same effect as the motion which was moved yesterday by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) and as the motion moved today by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) with the one proviso that the dates in question be May 10 to May 31 so that the consideration of Bill C-53 would not be jeopardized in any way.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give the hon. member its unanimous consent to put this motion?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have unanimous consent of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,431, 2,547, 2,548, 3,696, 3,733, 3,754 and 3,755.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Is there a policy applicable to the officers in the Prime Minister's office and in the Privy Council office respecting payment for travel to their homes outside the National Capital Region and for time off for such travel and, if so, what is the policy?
2.	Are such officers permitted to travel first class on Air Canada and other airlines at public expense and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Are such officers permitted to receive income and other benefits from sources other than the government and, if so, what are the limits?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 28, 1982


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2. Yes, Chapter 370, Sections. 8.3 and .3.2.2 of the Treasury Board Canada Administrative Policy Manual.
3. Yes. There are no amount limits. Officers in such situations, under the terms of the Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines, must ensure that such pecuniary interests do not conflict with the discharge of their official duties and disclose such interests to their superiors if they might be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 1,217 which stated in part that after his reappointment as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet Mr. Michael Pitfield made regular trips to and from Boston to visit his family and that first class air travel was permitted by the government, is it the policy of the government to provide payment for Mr. Pitfield to visit his family or for other senior public servants to visit relatives who happen to live in a location other than Ottawa and. if so, how is such expenditure of public funds warranted?
2.	What was the total amount spent by the government on trips to and from Boston made by Mr. Pitfield, including the date and amount in each case?
3.	Was there an agreement between the government and Harvard University and/or Mr. Pitfield that he should perform certain duties for the university after his reappointment in Ottawa and, if so, what are the details of the agreement and for what reason was it approved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Answers 1,217 and 1,217 (revised) stated in part that following his reappointment as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Pitfield made regular visits to Boston until the end of the 1979-80 academic year to visit his family and complete his teaching obligations to Harvard University.
It is the policy of the government when recruiting an individual into the public service to negotiate appropriate transitional arrangements with the individual concerned and, where necessary, with his employer. See also question 2,386, parts 3 and 4, answered May 25, 1981.
2. In relation to part 1 above the cost of the following travel between Ottawa and Boston by Mr. Pitfield was paid by the government:
March 10/14, 1980	$300.80
March 18/21, 1980	291.80
March 27/31, 1980	294.30
April 3/7, 1980	352.21
April 10/14, 1980	354.11
April 17/21, 1980	272.30
April 24/28, 1980	268.30
May 1/5, 1980	378.91
May 11/12, 1980	347.72
May 18/19, 1980	412.17
May 22/23, 1980	420.86
June 1/2, 1980	438.06
June 17, 1980	259.87
3. See 1 above; see also questions 1,217 and 2,386, answered May 25, 1981; and 1,217 (revised) answered May 27, 1981.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,217 which stated in part that after his reappointment as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet Mr. Michael Pitfield carried on with the completion of certain duties for Harvard University (a) was he on full salary with the government at the time and, if so, what was the salary per year (b) was any amount deducted from his government salary to compensate taxpayers for the time that he was performing duties for the university and (i) if so, what amount (ii) if not, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) For the
period after April 1, 1980, see question 1,883, part 1, answered April 10, 1981. For the period before April 1, 1980, Mr. Pitfield was also paid in the salary range for the DM-3 level, which was $62,900-$78,300.
(b) See question No. 2,386, answered May 25, 1981; see also question No. 2,547 answered today.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What position was held by Mr. Michael Kirby prior to December, 1981 and what remuneration was paid to him?
2.	Did he receive any benefits other than dollar remuneration and did the benefits include payments or allowances for regular weekly or more frequent trips between Ottawa, Ontario and Halifax, Nova Scotia for personal reasons?
3.	Was the remuneration paid on the basis of the regular public service workday and work week and, if so, how did he account for any time spent in personal travel between Ottawa and Halifax?
4.	(a) What is his position at present (b) what is the remuneration and does it include allowances for personal travel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations on exchange from the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP). Remuneration-DM-2, $73,400-$86,000.
2.	In addition to dollar remuneration, the exchange agreement with the IRPP provided for the payment of expenses for a weekly trip on the average by air (economy class) for Mr. Kirby to and from Halifax, including expenses for ground transportation.
3.	The remuneration was paid on the basis of the regular public service work week, although it is recognized that deputy heads work many hours of overtime for which no extra remuneration is paid. Time spent in personal travel did not infringe on official business time.
4.	(a) Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations. The exchange agreement with the Institute for Research on Public Policy was terminated as of December 31, 1981. (b) See 1 and 2 above.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Were any payments made to Mr. Peter Michael Pitfield in the past five years, other than instalment payments on his annual salary, and, if so, what was the amount?
2.	Did Mr. Pitfield furnish an office and, if so, what was the cost of each item of furniture?

April 28, 1982
Order Paper Questions
3.	Did Mr. Pitfield order, or cause to be constructed, a custom desk for his office and, if so, what was the amount paid for the desk and was any tender called?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. The only payments made to Mr. Pitfield were instalments on his annual salary; separation pay (see question No. 674 answered May 22, 1981); payments for work done on a part-time basis when Mr. Pitfield was not a member of the public service, amounting to $17,600 in fiscal year 1979-80; and reimbursement in accordance with Treasury Board directives of official travel, relocation, and hospitality expenses incurred by Mr. Pitfield in the performance of his responsibilities. The amounts of those reimbursements over the past five fiscal years are as follows:
1977-78	$ 6,813.83
1978-79	4,618.91
1979-80	3,786.83
1980-81	3,900.73
1981-82	9,852.32
(as of January 31, 1982)
2.	No.
3.	No. At no time during his career in the public service has Mr. Pitfield requested the refurnishing of his office. In 1980, however, Public Works Canada required the desk used by Mr. Pitfield and his predecessors since Confederation so that it might be put in the historic cabinet chambers in the East Block that are now open to public view. The original Clerk's desk has been replaced by Public Works Canada with a reproduction costing $4,850 in order to retain the traditional character and furnishings of the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council, now in the Langevin Block, and to discourage future incumbents from changing the decor of that office simply to suit personal tastes. Public Works Canada, in due course, will be replacing two other pieces that have traditionally been used by Clerks of the Privy Council with replicas at a cost of $4,400.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was anyone in government, particularly the Prime Minister, aware in advance that the Governor General was giving a press interview on January 21, 1982 or thereabouts and of the content of the Governor General's statements and, if so, what are all the details and the names of the persons involved?
2.	Is it customary for the Governor General to advise the Prime Minister in advance of his intention to hold a press conference or to give a press interview?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, Citations 171 (gg), (ii) and (nn).


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Governor General in an interview on or about January 21, 1982 declare that it was his opinion that Canadians may drift away from the
monarchy after the end of this century and, if so, was such a statement made on the recommendation of the government or with government approval?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question No. 3,754 answered this day.


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


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,675 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,675 shall be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Do departments publish magazines concerning their activities and policies and, if so, which departments?
2.	For each magazine (a) what is the name and the nature of the contents (b) how often is it published (c) what was the (i) press run (ii) size of the distribution list for each issue in the past 12 months (d) what was the total cost to the taxpayer for the (i) preparation (ii) printing (iii) distribution of each issue in the past 12 months?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 28, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I was making some comment on this government order last evening when we reached the adjournment hour. 1 would briefly sum up today what I believe is wrong with this bill. I find it very difficult to grant to this government the authority to borrow further. The reason I find it difficult is that it has mismanaged the finances of this country and mismanaged its economy to such an extent that it has created a sense of despair in Canadians about their personal future and that of their families.
If the government were to have a further borrowing capacity it would be used in exactly the same manner as it has used its existing borrowing capacity. The government would use its tax revenues from individuals and groups in exactly the same way. I believe that if I agreed to grant the government a further borrowing power I would be neglecting my responsibility to my constituents.
I firmly believe that if this economy had been properly managed we would not have the high interest rates which we are currently faced with. If we did not have the high rates of interest that we are currently facing, there would be more job opportunities in this country. One million of the million and a half people who are currently unemployed would be employed. If those one million people were employed and earning a living, and if they were producing products in their places of employment which would be sold both in Canada and around the world, we would be generating sufficient tax revenues to make it unnecessary for this government to go further into the money marketplaces to borrow at exorbitantly high interest rates.
The reason this government is required continually to come back to the House of Commons to ask for additional borrowing power is that this nation has such an unused productive capacity, primarily as a result of this government's fiscal and monetary policies. These policies have further reduced the tax flow and revenues which could have been used and should have been used to meet the ongoing economic and social programs that the government wants to put before the public of Canada. I want to say, quite frankly, that there could be no doubt in the mind of anyone that the responsibility for the economic chaos which exists in almost every single municipality from one coast
Taxation
to the other rests entirely with the Government of Canada at the federal level.
I say to the minister that I have never felt the necessity to worry about interim borrowing on the part of government. I have always felt there would be times when governments might have to borrow money. As in the case of individuals and corporations, it is necessary from time to time to borrow money in order to proceed with long-term projects.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Long-term projects, of course.


Ian Deans: However, I suggest to this government that, as a result of its high interest policy and as a result of its determination to pursue the Reagan theories-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not Reagan theories.


Ian Deans: -it has raised the cost of borrowing, both for private individuals and for government, to a level which makes it virtually impossible to contemplate allowing that opportunity to this government, at least at this time.
I want to know what the money will be used for. I suppose that I could be convinced in my mind of the necessity of the borrowing if the minister were to rise in his place and explain the long-term projects and the proposed schedule of payments. We should be satisfied that we would derive sufficient cash flow from the proposed projects to enable us to pay off the indebtedness. I would not even mind if the government were speaking about borrowing in conjunction with a series of other proposals, one of which would have to be the reduction of interest rates. I would even not mind if, in conjunction with the borrowing and the reduction of interest rates, the government were to state that it sees the necessity of stimulating the economy at this time in order to put a million and a half people to work and to provide job opportunities for Canadians who so desperately want to find employment but cannot. I would be prepared to consider granting to the government the opportunity to borrow at a reasonable rate of interest in order to stimulate the economy in certain areas. This would guarantee that a sense of economic growth is being developed across this country and that people are able to find a place to work and earn a decent living, allowing them to buy goods in the consumer marketplace and provide homes for their families. That would make sense to me.
However, why is the government borrowing? Is it borrowing to build homes? No, it is not. Is it borrowing to ensure new economic growth? No, it is not. It is borrowing simply in order to pay for the debt that it incurred from borrowing some years ago. It is borrowing to pay off old debts. There is not sufficient growth in this economy to justify that kind of action.
As I said last night, I spent four days last week in my constituency. I met with many people, from high school students to old age pensioners. I met with representatives from the unions of workers. I met with the chief executive officers of various companies. I met with small business people. We discussed the problems which had suddenly become apparent, "suddenly" meaning over the course of the last couple of years.

April 28, 1982
Taxation
These problems had become apparent in what had been the industrial heartland of the country for years, but primarily of the Ontario milieu. In Hamilton we had in place a series of different sized industries dealing with diverse commodities, all the way from the basic steel industry through to the manufacture of appliances. We made shoes, as I said last night. We had every conceivable kind of industry which, by virtue of the structure of the municipality, seemed to guarantee, at least to the extent that one could guarantee it, a degree of economic stability. We had diversified industry. We had the rubber industry, we made hopper cars and we had the basic steel industry. We made fridges and stoves, shoes and clothes. We built homes and made the bricks. We had a port for shipping. We had a glass company which made all kinds of glassware. In other words, there could be no more diversified economy than the economy of the area I represent.
However, today, what do we find? I find that without exception, in every single sector of the economy, in every single company, there have been lay-offs at a level comparable to that of the 1930s. In some companies, 80 per cent of their employees have become unemployed. Companies which had been seen to be the major movers and shakers in the economy of Canada are looking ahead and seeing virtually nothing in terms of the opportunity for economic recovery.
I want Your Honour to know that when I listened to my constituents, I could not help but sense their frustration. I spoke to young people in high schools. I guess I met nearly
2,000	students over the course of four days. I spoke to them individually in the auditorium and answered their questions. I discussed the policy of the government and what we would offer as an alternative. Almost without exception, their main concern was about what would happen to them after they left school. They asked, "Where will the job opportunities be? Where will I go to work?" In one case I spoke to a student whose father had worked in the glass industry for 28 years, but who had become unemployed. His son asked me, "Where will I look? What would you suggest, Mr. Deans?" To be honest, I had nothing to suggest. This government has so undermined the economic fabric of the country and has so depressed the natural optimism of Canadians, that I could not really point to one industrial sector where there was buoyancy, a sense of optimism and an opportunity for growth.
I spoke with senior citizens in my constituency and they said to me, "Ian, I remember what it was like in the thirties. I was there. The symptoms are here again today." Those with money are extracting more and more from the economy but are putting less and less back in. There has been an undermining of the sense of co-operation which must exist in a country. They said to me that they are simply glad they are not facing the kinds of problems that their sons, daughters and grandchildren are facing. They do not think that this government has the will to solve those problems.
I do not want to suggest for one minute that the solution lies only with the government. I recognize that the solution requires action on the part of this government, the provincial governments and municipal governments to ensure that we do not waste any more money. However, we must also put the
available capital to good use so that there will be an opportunity for those who are now seeking it.
The primary responsibility for the problem rests four-square with this government. The solution may require a multifaceted approach. It will undoubtedly require a redevelopment of that sense of what it is to be a Canadian amoung Canadians. It will require us again to instil in Canadians the need to buy the things their neighbours make. It must be clear that when there is the option of buying something manufactured by your neighbour or friend or buying something manufactured in another part of the world, where they are of comparable quality, good economic common sense tells you that you would be better off in the iong run to buy what is made in your own country.
That is what we must tell people if we want to see economic survival. They will participate. Why is this not being done now? Because they do not think the government knows what it is doing. They honestly do not believe the government knows. There is a sense of frustration, a feeling among people that they have a government that does not really care. The government has left the impression that it does not care about the effects of its policies on the average people. It gives them the right to create a further indebtedness. It gives them the right to borrow even more without any consideration for the effect it will have on working people from coast to coast. That is a miscarriage of responsibility. It is improper.
You, Mr. Speaker, are not in the position of voting. If you were, I am sure you would want to join with me in voting against the proposal put forward by this government. I feel confident that would be true.
The steel industry in Hamilton suffered a terrible blow. The government led it to believe a pipeline would be built. How well I remember just a year ago telling the government that the chance of that pipeline ever being built with private funds, given the many billions of dollars necessary, the economic conditions of the day and the high interest rates that had to be charged as well as the long period of time between the original investment and return on that investment, was pretty slim, at least during the last part of this century. Nevertheless the government went full steam ahead. It raised optimism without producing the goods. Then it heard that Alsands will not go ahead, or if it does it will be so diminished in size it will not produce the kind of economic recovery opportunity that everyone had anticipated.
The steel industry looks around and asks where it will go. In addition to those three major projects that would have provided some economic stimulus, we find that the automobile industry, to which the steel industry is closely tied, is in a recession because of imports and, to some extent, their own mismanagement. Nevertheless, it is seriously undermined. People will not buy automobiles because they cannot afford to pay 22 per cent interest at the bank or wherever they do their financing.
April 28, 1982

I turn from there to the International Harvester Company that looks as if it were on its last legs. How well I remember International Harvester! One of the main growth points of this country is the agricultural community, yet we discover that Massey Ferguson and International Harvester have no demand for their product. Why is the demand down? Is it because we do not require as much? No, it is because people in the farm community cannot afford to carry the high interest rates. They cannot afford to invest in combines, tractors and other farm implements they require because the interest rate charges are just too heavy. Even with subsidies, they are still way beyond what they can reasonably carry on the return they get from the sale of their produce, whatever it may be.


Mr. Darling:: Don't forget the reduced write-off.


Ian Deans: True. There are two industry sectors that are being undermined for the same basic reason, namely, high interest rates.
There has been a dramatic downturn in the glass industry. I met a man who for 28 years had worked in the glass industry. He was standing on his front lawn raking dead grass. He stopped me and said, "Ian, I have never been on unemployment insurance. I do not even know how to apply. One thing I feel confident about is that the company I worked for is not likely to open its doors again". It closed because it could not afford the high interest rates to carry the inventory necessary to be competitive. It was a small company. The interest rates charged today, added to the cost of production, resulted in too high a cost for their product to be competitive. Therefore they closed their doors, and are not likely ever to open again.
I have spoken to retailers. They told me quite frankly that they cannot carry a wide enough range of products in their store to compete with the major department stores. Why? Because of high interest rates. There is no way they can afford to go to the bank, and they must pay for their products up front. They must pay within a very short time whether or not the product is sold. Therefore, they have to borrow money at 20 per cent or more, and that is added to the cost.
There is no internal financing arrangement for them. The indebtedness they have taken on is substantially more than they, looking at their financing position year by year, can afford. Most smaller retailers do not make that much money. They are not in the upper one tenth of the population's earners. Their earnings generally are in the lower half. The reason they are in business for themselves is that they like the independence. However, the cost of independence these days is very high. It is 20 per cent at the bank as well as a loss of revenue they can ill afford, all because of this government's high interest rate policy.
This government comes to me and asks me, as an act of faith, to approve further borrowing. I say, no. I cannot approve further borrowing because I do not have any faith in this government. I cannot remember when last I did, it is so many years ago.
It has always amazed me how the Conservatives can have so much faith in the Liberal government. Since coming here four
Taxation
years ago, I have wondered why it is that the Tories consistently vote with the government. Here we are, 33 of us, battling daily to hold this government down, and every time a vote comes up in the House of Commons, up stand the Tories alongside the Liberals against the people of Canada. I know you keep notes, Mr. Speaker, and you are aware that between October and February, the Tories and Liberals voted the same way, shoulder to shoulder against Canada, 26 different times.


An hon. Member:: They don't like the truth.


Ian Deans: On the other hand, we in the New Democratic Party, even recognizing that once in a while the government does bring forward an enlightened measure, have supported the government on only 13 occasions during the same period. That is enough to show who gets into bed with whom, enough to show where the soul brothers are.
There is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Out of 39 times that votes were taken in the House of Commons-votes which in many instances were diametrically opposed to what the people of Canada wanted-the Tories stood up with the Liberals 26 different times. Shame, shame! No wonder your faces are red. No wonder you are embarrassed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if ever again I should hear a whisper from the Conservative party about an NDP-Liberal coalition-that they should have such nerve-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Would you believe it, the government has been virtually robbing the country of its opportunity to produce for itself? Here we have a government introducing the highest interest rates imaginable. Here we have a government that is following almost exactly the position of the previous minister of finance in the Conservative government, the present finance critic in the Conservative Party, and supporting Gerald Bouey right down the line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I remember-it is on the record-the minister of finance in the Conservative government saying; "Well, if I were still in government, I would be supporting Gerald Bouey's high interest rate policy." I remember the member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) going to Montreal and saying: "We do think the high interest rate policy of the Minister of Finance really is the appropriate policy to follow."
Lest there be any mistake in anyone's mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that we do not believe in the high interest rate policy being followed by the Liberal Party in office today, supported at every turn by the Conservative Party in opposition today. We do not believe that that high interest rate policy is in the best interest of Canada. We do not believe it is in the best interest of Canadians as individuals. We believe

April 28, 1982
Taxation
it will further undermine the industrial core that is so necessary for the future of the country. We believe quite frankly that this coalition of Liberals and Tories against Canadians has to stop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is anything you can imagine in your power that you can do to stop this coalition from undermining Canadian wealth, then I ask you to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: 1 would like to wind up my comments by putting to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be interested in hearing from the government where they think the jobs are going to come from for the 1.5 million or 1.8 million-depending on whom you include in the statistics-of Canadians currently unemployed. Where will those jobs come from, if people in Canada who are working cannot afford to buy the products that those unemployed people could be manufacturing?
Where will the tax dollars come from to pay off the indebtedness this government is asking us today to vote on. Where will the tax dollars come from in an ever-shrinking economy? Where will the tax dollars come from when fewer and fewer Canadians are working? The unemployed obviously cannot pay taxes, and since the unemployed are becoming a significantly larger percentage of the total working population, does it mean that the rest who are still employed will have to carry that additional burden, in order that this government may squander more and more dollars? Is that the only alternative? Is that all there is? Where is the other way?
How are we going to pay it off? 1 ask the minister, what are you going to use? Where will you get the money? You can get it only from taxes. If fewer people are working and more industries are closing down due to bankruptcy and there are fewer dollars being generated in the over-all, where are you going to get the money to pay this off?
I put it to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that these policies the government is following are totally unacceptable. These government policies are, almost without exception, based on false premises, false premises of a sudden economic change in North America from which Canada will derive great benefit.
This is a myth. It is a myth. I ask the minister to answer me; What are you going to do to change the situation, to allow the people of Canada once again to get work? What are you going to do to make it possible for Canadian consumers to purchase the things that Canadians manufacture? What are you going to do to make it possible for our auto industry to hold its own during this period of siege? What are you going to do to ensure that there will in fact be a shoe industry after this government is gone? What are you going to do to try to guarantee that the rail transportation system will in fact meet our needs as the country grows? What are you going to do to re-instil in Canadians the kind of confidence that we have to have if we are to survive as a nation? When are you going to stop denying Canadians the opportunity to build Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on this borrowing bill, Bill C-93, an omnibus bill in itself because it is also a taxing bill. I am pleased to speak on behalf of my constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka and, of course, on behalf of Canadians across this land, and I welcome the opportunity to do so here this afternoon.
It is indeed an outrage that this government has the gall to seek permission to borrow $6.6 billion to spend on its programs, at a time when it asks all other Canadians to reduce their own personal spending. In other words, they are the ones to make sacrifices. This government should be well aware of the sacrifices Canadians are making, most of them forced and unnecessary. Because this government has badly bungled its management of the economy, because this government remains committed to its disastrous policies, because this government exhibits aloofness and disdain toward the plight of Canadians, and because this government has shattered the confidence of all Canadians, the government is the one that should be making the sacrifices, and not the Canadians. The government should be reducing its own wanton spending, much of it obviously wasteful, spending which is the single important root of the problem. This government wants an additional $6.6 billion, with little regard to the fact that the money it now has has been poorly managed. It is asking Parliament for a blank cheque-just sign the cheque and we will spend it as we want.
No Canadian, either those at the personal level or those in business, would be allowed to borrow money under similar circumstances. No one else would be allowed to conduct affairs in such a scandalous manner. It is simply a matter of sound, practical economics, obviously something that the government fails to comprehend. By asking the House to condone this throwing of good money after bad, it appears that the arrogance of the government knows no bounds. And, if permission is granted, who will repay the loan, and at what cost? We know that is has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada and, as the previous speaker mentioned, in all probability the money that is being sought will be used to pay off debts we owe and will not pump anything into the economy where it is so badly needed.
The government knows that borrowing in this manner simply amounts to a deferral of taxes. What is borrowed today will have to be repaid in greater amounts at a later date. As the government deliberately marches deeper and deeper into debt it forces further sacrifices on Canadians. This is a sad and shameful legacy for future generations. Across this land one senses a growing and pervasive insecurity. It is something which is very real and which the government chooses to ignore.
The November budget provides a perfect example of this attitude of indifference. The budget presentation was an opportunity for the government to redress its past wrongs. It
April 28, 1982

was an opportunity, through sound policies and programs, to provide short-term assistance and long-term plans which would restore our faith in the future.
The budget was an opportunity for this government to take the helm and steer the country to safer and saner economic shores. Unfortunately, it did nothing of the kind. Submerged in producing costly advertisements, which glorify and extol its existence, the government merely peered over the waves and waves of discontent and announced it would continue to fill its own tanks with more of the taxpayers' money. The government is not piloting a ship of state; it is operating a decrepit and leaky submarine. It is a submarine whose skipper and officer mates have spent more time and effort plotting a constitutional course across the Atlantic than they have in concerning themselves with the many depth charges being lobbed in their vicinity. Depth charges, in this instance, may be a misnomer. One only has to glance through the log book of the voyage of this government to realize quickly it has not depth. The budget it presented gives ample evidence of this.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), when presenting his budget, said it had three main themes: restraint, equity and economic renewal. He then proceeded to outline measures whereby everyone but government itself would have to adhere to these goals. Government spending is a prime example.
This fiscal year the government, through tax changes announced in the budget, will increase its revenues by 31 per cent. But government spending, during the same time, will rise an additional 22 per cent. The government spends money at the rate of $187 million per day, $8 million per hour and $130,000 per minute. And on what? On assistance to people losing their homes because of excessively high rates for mortgage renewals? On aid to Canadians struggling under the oppressive burden of escalating prices for food and shelter? Is the money being spent on programs to reduce the cost of gasoline and home heating fuel, or to help small-business men and business women and farmers avoid bankruptcy? Is that $187 million per day being spent to provide much needed relief to senior citizens and those on low or fixed incomes, or on generating employment for the over one million Canadians out of work? Not that you would notice, Mr. Speaker.
Throughout the budget, the government was telling Canadians that they will have to keep treading water. The government was prepared to offer assistance, and scant help at that, only to those who are going down for the third time.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that people living in the little village of New Dundee renamed it Dire Straits. Since then a great many residents of the country have changed their mailing address to Dire Straits in order to qualify for assistance. But even that has not helped.
Small wonder that Canadians universally condemned the budget and the government. There is a distinct lack of credibility in both when what is being offered is tantamount to launching a two-seat lifeboat from a submerged submarine. The outcry and the outrage over the budget ultimately forced the Minister of Finance to rescind some measures and send some others to committee for review. No one knows when they will
Taxation
come back to the House for debate in Committee of the Whole. Legislation comes before the House all the time but I feel that nothing is more important than bringing in a new budget. I see no sign of it on the timetable of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), however.
I feel as I think a great many others do-and if they had the nerve a good many on the government benches would agree- that the entire budget should be scrapped and a new one brought in which would realistically reflect and address the needs of the nation.
I notice newspaper accounts, whether they be fact or not, to the effect that the Minister of Finance intimated that a new budget will be brought down in the fall. If it is necessary in the fall, Mr. Speaker, it is probably needed much more right now.
1 would like to reflect for a moment, Mr. Speaker, on the three themes in the budget. The first of these was restraint. This government, having all but destroyed the economy of the nation, now asks Canadians to adjust to living amidst the rubble. We are being told we must cut back on both our style of living and our expectations. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians whose manner of living has anything but style, and whose expectations faded long ago. There is a growing number of Canadians who are thankful they somehow manage to survive, and who are angry that mere survival has become an accomplishment for which to be thankful. The government is urging restraint on a population already reeling under the pressures of inflation.
I think it would make a great deal more sense, and be more acceptable if the government would practice what it preaches. As I mentioned previously, government spending is going to increase by 22 per cent. Although the finance minister promised to reduce the federal deficit, the difference between what the government collects and what it spends will remain as high as $13 billion. That is probably on the low side.
No one should mistake the promise of a reduced deficit as an indication that the government has repented and is about to abandon its wasteful ways. The Minister of Finance announced government restraint in November. Now the government is asking for authority to borrow $6.6 billion. A very large part of the government's already rising revenues will be the direct result of the oil pricing agreement it made with the province of Alberta.
The government, having applied special levies and taxes during the protracted negotiations, allowed the increased consumer cost to remain and pocketed the profits from the deal. Despite the fact that it would have had these additional funds to work with, the government chose not to apply them to a true reduction in taxes. It chose, instead, to look upon increased revenues as a means of justifying increased spending. The only thing this government is restraining is its glee.
Mr. Speaker, the second of the minister's budget themes was so-called equity. The finance minister was especially proud of his claimed overhaul of the tax system as a method of achieving this goal. Equity, to the government, consisted of closing

April 28, 1982
Taxation
supposed loopholes in the tax system. This, the government pointed out, would prevent the wealthy from talcing unfair advantage. Yet, at the time these measures were being touted, the government changed the tax structure so that the tax percentage on those in the highest level was reduced to 50 per cent from 67 per cent. One of these marvellous "equity loophole closures", which is supposed to strike at the rich, will hit hard at low and middle-income earners.
I am speaking now of the removal of tax deductions on interest or borrowing to buy RRSPs and other saving investment plans. This measure has had the effect of discouraging many Canadians from saving for their retirement. Many people will now have to rely on pension plans they have with their employers. It will be an even greater burden for those who are self-employed.
Then there is the problem of tax measures relating to insurance policies. I hope the Minister of Finance is now prepared to reverse his decision for regarding the new regulations for taxing the cash value and proceeds of insurance policies. I am aware that he made a statement with respect to whole-life insurance policies which would be exempt, but there are other policies, and the amount of money they will be able to collect on this very unfair and stupid tax will be peanuts compared to what they could collect in other ways.
There are, I believe, some eight or nine million policyholders across Canada, the majority of whom are not wealthy. They are in the middle class and, yes, in the low-income bracket. They are providing protection for their families and of course they have been fortunate enough to live a considerable length of time so that the cash values are increasing from year to year. The majority of these people are not cashing their policies in; they are leaving the proceeds in there to purchase paid-up additional life insurance, or letting the dividends accumulate so there will be that much more for their retirement or their estate.
I think the minister should go the second mile and forget all about this iniquitous tax. His predecessor, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), listened, shall we say halfheartedly, to his braintrust when he was Minister of Finance. Then all hell broke loose across the country, Mr. Speaker, and I give the minister full marks in that he withdrew it. It is too bad that the present Minister of Finance would not take that same advice.
Another tax measure designed to create a nation of the universally poor is that which will tax the benefits people receive from their employers as part of their income. With an escalating consumer price index, record prices for food, shelter and fuel, many Canadians have negotiated benefits in lieu of salary increases as a means of coping. The elimination of these tax-free benefits is sure to add significantly to the numbers of the working poor and add pressure to future salary negotiations throughout the work force. This, the government says, is equity. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is stupidity. I see the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) looking this way. I am not sure whether the minister was handed the budget at seven
o'clock or so on November 13, I believe it was, and did not read the contents in detail until eight o'clock that night. He must have had a haemorrhage along with a great many of the members of his government and backbenchers, when he started to extol the many provisions of what in all probability everyone agrees is the worst budget in Canadian history. That is proven because many members of the government had the guts to get up and talk about it. They did not vote that way, and for a very good reason; they would have been voting themselves out of a job. But some of them did make their feelings known in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); some of them spoke very vociferously in their ridings against the budget. Granted, time and space allows people to say one thing in one place and another thing in another place, and I guess that applies to members of Parliament as well.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and with these things in the budget concerning dental care and hospitalization and so on, is it any wonder that the people are worried sick? The budget quite simply means that the government, through increased taxation, will collect even more money to spend. I guess that is the name of the game. But not to spend on the Canadian people. No, we are supposed to be practising restraint. Our money will be spent on development, which means studies, reviews, assessments and consultations to decide where the rest of it will be spent in the future. The key phrase there is "in the future". What the government, as evidenced by the budget, has failed to realize is that if we do not take immediate action to assist Canadians with today's problems, all the money in the world will not buy sucess in the future.
Small business is in many ways the backbone of this nation, yet the budget all but dismissed the real needs of small businessmen and women. A record number of small businesses have either gone bankrupt or are on the verge; government-condoned high interest rates have seen to that. The small business development bond was of considerable value to small business and incorporated farmers who wanted to expand, and that instrument has now been extended and expanded to include the unincorporated. However-and here is the kicker-it will be available only to those in serious financial trouble, on the verge of bankruptcy, and those living in the municipality of dire straits.
The problem with this approach is that by the time you are in serious trouble, approval might not be forthcoming because there would be some difficulty in establishing your ability to repay. So there is a good chance many more businesses will close their doors and many more people will be out of work. This is hardly the way to promote economic renewal.
The Minister of Finance suggested that, with the budget as a guide, the government would get its house in order. Well, thousands of Canadians are just as concerned about their own houses and saving them. The minister and other members of the government do not seem to realize that Canadians who are losing their homes, farms and jobs are now beginning to lose their tempers as well. The attitude of the government to the plight of home owners was clearly revealed last year when a
April 28, 1982

convoy of angry Canadians arrived on Parliament Hill to demonstrate their frustrations. Cabinet was in session that day, but the only government member to meet with these people was the minister responsible for housing who promised to prod the government into action on their behalf. We all know that his prod was a mere pin prick if what was contained in the budget was the result of his efforts.
I am also well aware, Mr. Speaker, that the minister only met with a few selected representatives of that great crowd on Parliament Hill. 1 was here on that day and made it a point to go out and walk through the crowd, read the signs and talk to a great many of those people. One of the questions I asked was: "How did you vote in February, 1980?" Needless to say, the majority said they voted for the Trudeau government. I said: "Well, it serves you"-and I used another adjective- "right." They said, "Yes, but never again." Of course, we do not know when they will have an opportunity to vote again.
The Minister of Finance set aside $38 million under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the CMHC to provide mortgage assistance for a short time, but not for everyone. It was to be used to guarantee interest deferred on mortgage payments which exceeded 30 per cent of a family's gross income. Thousands of other home owners were left out in the cold. Those who were able to take advantage of the scheme were simply prolonging their period of indebtedness. For those unable to afford the luxury of owning a mortgaged home, the budget prescribes measures to assist in the rental area. Again, a drop in the bucket. The government magnanimously offered to provide interest-free loans up to $7,500 per unit for the construction of 15,000 units in major cities across Canada, when 200,000 are needed.

I will admit that the minister was able to go to the Minister of Finance and have the amount increased to 30,000 units. While this is a significant increase, it will still fall far short of the needs of Canadians for adequate housing. Therefore, thousands more will be left out in the cold.
Those who are fortunate enough to have a roof over their heads will also have to do some adjusting to the cold. Every Canadian family will be paying an additional $1,400 a year for energy costs over the next few years. The minister did say there was an insignificant saving on income tax to those in the lower and middle-income brackets. But when that is compared with what people will be paying for other items to keep alive, the government would have been further ahead to have left things the way they were. The minister said this was all in the name of economic renewal.
I have mentioned and enunciated a few reasons why the government's budget is in such contempt. Yet the government in this bill is demanding-because there is a majority government-the authority to spend another $6.6 billion on whatever it wants.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) says, many millions of dollars are being spent by this government on advertising telling Canadians just how wonderful it is,
Taxation
as well as using Canadian taxpayers' money to promote the government.
Rather than continuing to spend taxpayers' money and seeking to borrow more and rather than continuing its promotion of ill-advised and inopportune programs, the government should recognize it has the means at its disposal to reverse the nation's misfortunes.
Some methods for economic recovery have been suggested by those who sit in the opposition. I think it is incumbent upon the government to consider carefully these proposals and to act with some measure of reasoned decency. I want to put a few comparisons on the record. I will admit that many people say that comparisons are odious. But let us look at unemployment. The number of unemployed people has risen to 1.1 million from 350,000. That is an increase of 718,000 since the Prime Minister and his government took over about 14 years ago. The unemployment rate has risen to 9 per cent from 4.5 per cent. That is double the rate it was about 14 years ago. In these unemployment figures, the government has not taken into consideration the probably half a million people who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance and who have given up all hope of a job, many living and eking out an existence on their life savings. A good many more are probably having to resort to welfare. Let us take a look at inflation. This rate is up 7.6 per cent. It was 4.2 per cent in 1968, but now it is 11.6 per cent.
The consumer price index has increased 186 per cent. In 1968 our dollar was worth $1.12. Today it is worth 39 cents. This is a decrease in value of 65.2 per cent. In 1968 we had a trade deficit of $97 million. Today the deficit is over $6.5 billion. In 1968 the bank rate was 7.5 per cent. Today our interest rates are at 15.34 per cent. That is an increase of 7.84 per cent. Some months ago the interest rate was considerably higher than that. In 1968 the conventional mortgage rate was 9.25 per cent. Today is 18.5 per cent and higher in many cases.
I have some examples to cite. One constituent of mine from the town of Gravenhurst telephoned me almost in tears. He had a $38,000 mortgage coming due. At the new interest rate of 19 per cent his payments have increased to $646 a month. He was wondering what kind of relief the government would be able to provide for him. I asked him how much he earned. He works at a plant. The work week had been reduced for a time to three days a week. It is now back to four days a week. His income is in the neighbourhood of $1200 a month, and of that he will be paying over 50 percent to keep a roof over his head.
I have also had a distress call from a farmer in my area. I will admit that he thought things would remain the same when he decided a year or so ago to expand. At that time he bought an additional farm and built an additional barn. He did this on the basis of the old interest rates which did not worry him too much. But now he is faced with astronomical interest rates. He applied to the Farm Credit Corporation for a loan. I will give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) full marks for pleading the case of the farmers. But unfortunately the

April 28, 1982
Taxation
minister has not had too much success in twisting the arms of the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to get additional funds. Farmers are supposed to be able to qualify in certain circumstances for special farm credit rates. I believe these rates are 11.75 per cent. I believe the going rate for the Farm Credit Corporation is 16.75 per cent. But this farmer has not received approval for his loan. As a last resort he telephoned me this morning and told me that he had been in touch with the Federal Business Development Bank. The bank is looking at a loan for him in the amount of $230,000. I hope he gets it. But the interest rate for this loan is 21 per cent, which is the current rate at the Federal Business Development Bank.
Surely there are some ways we can assist people. The government is borrowing $6 billion, if there was some way whereby the government could subsidize interest rates for the farmers and businessmen, those of us in the opposition and in other parts of the Flouse would probably say that the government has a good plan. I am sure members would say, "Certainly you deserve this additional money." But there is nothing like that in the offing. The government has stood firm that interest rates must remain high in order to bring down inflation and, whether we like it or not, it will remain that way come hell or high water.
Another thing comes to mind. This additional money the government is borrowing could be used to help those women in need who are between the ages of 60 and 65. I have mentioned this on several occasions. I know it is one of the burning ambitions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I suppose it is discrimination, but women between the ages of 60 and 65 in many cases are the ones who are most destitute. They are in an age bracket which prevents them from getting a job. Many would not be physically able to take on a job for which they may be qualified. These women are living in absolute poverty, many of them too proud to apply for welfare. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and members from all sides of the House are aware that there are women in these particular circumstances. A good many of them are on welfare. I have pleaded with the government about this. I am sure that a great majority of members from all sides of the House feel this is one area where the government should spend a little more money. The government should use some of its borrowed money. It is not a case of spending the whole amount. If those women were made eligible at age 60-of course there are men who are in just as difficult circumstances, but to me women have a much harder job to survive-they would qualify for old age pension, the general assistance subsidy and of course provincial gains and could live in reasonable security and comfort from the age of 60 to 65. The only ones who qualify at present are the spouses of husbands or wives who are drawing old age pension. Also it should be emphasized to the government that a good many are receiving welfare. These funds are provided by the federal government and the provincial government on a cost-sharing basis. It would not be a case of the Federal government having to fund the entire amount.
The government should give immediate attention to this matter. I am sure it would have the endorsement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). In fact, I see many distinguished members across the way nodding their heads in agreement. I say to the Minister of Finance and those on the treasury benches that when they obtain this $6.6 billion, they should ensure it is spent in a manner which will improve the economy and the lot of citizens who are almost destitute.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, it was my good fortune to listen earlier to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in full flight. I must say to those of us who believe that the House is a house of debate that he is a very welcome addition. If he were still in his seat, I would remind him, however, that the New Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on concern for the unfortunate or the underprivileged.


Stan Darling: Right on.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) made that point when he drew to our attention the unfortunate circumstances of many people between the ages of 60 and 65.
This is a bill to grant the government the authority to borrow a considerable sum of money. My first impression was to debate in the style I enjoy as a member of the House, but having listened to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and my close friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka, I could not help but think of the strains on society at this particular moment in Canadian history. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain referred to the depression years. Some of us, not many of us, remember the hungry thirties. I know I do. As a youngster, more by accident than by good fortune, I lived in a family which was not particularly bothered by the recession or the depression. But almost half a century later I can still recall people knocking on doors and asking for charity. This is the word they used to say. They asked for food, for a nickel, a dime or a quarter to survive in the thirties. It was pathetic, it left a deep impression on me. I remember the hunger camps in Val Cartier, men from broken homes, people who had to find solace in each other's company and people who had to depend upon handouts to survive. Whenever I found myself becoming too comfortable in my office as minister of labour, I used to read or reread a book, which should be required reading for Members of Parliament, entitled, "Ten Lost Years, 1929-39". It was a very graphic description of the hungry thirties, particularly how the west and the maritimes were affected.
The other night I was asked by a university group for my views on the success of the Liberal Party of Canada as measured-and I do not want to be controversial-by its years in office. I think it is because we have been able to fashion an economic system which reflects our view and that of the Conservative Party of free enterprise, unlike the socialists. At the same time it also reflects the concern of the Liberal Party
April 28, 1982

for people which, in fairness is the priority and concern of social democrats. In essence we have in Canada an economic system which reflects the ability of a party-and it happened to be ours-that has been able to bridge the philosophy of both parties. Our so-called free enterprise system is really a model of compromise. It is a mix in part of a privately-run production system, free enterprise, and in part a publicly-run distribution system by government intervention, which people like to call it, to ensure that the less fortunate share in some of the benefits of the free enterprise system.
In case anyone listening wonders why I support free enterprise, let me point out that history shows it is the most successful economic system ever devised, probably since history was first recorded. Name me one in the world today which is more successful in generating capital than the free enterprise system. Certainly it is not socialism, communism or even social democracy. Free enterprise, that efficient breadwinner, has been able, to date, to provide the moneys needed for social distribution, which is one of the hallmarks of Canadian society as opposed to that of other countries. As a result, until recently-and certainly since the great war-we have had a relatively content people who, as a general rule, are secure to some degree from the fear of illness, thanks to medicare, and from extreme poverty, thanks to welfare and unemployment insurance. The free enterprise system and the social mix which our party represents have been able as a general rule, from the fruits of free enterprise, to generate sufficient capital to keep the free enterprise system growing and expanding and at the same time to provide a contented, well-educated, healthy Canadian population.
In all marriages-and I call ours a marriage of convenience between free enterprise and social reform-the greatest strain is usually money, especially when we reach one of those infrequent periods of time in our history when proponents of social reform, who know the free enterprise system, look concerned and worried as to whether or not the necessary pool of capital is sufficiently large to retain or maintain our normal standard of living in the country.
We hear from the opposition as spokesmen for free enterprise, not necessarily as endorsers of our social program, decrying the welfare state. On one hand they are calling for cuts and reduced spending, although they do not usually say where. But, when prodded, the strong proponents of free enterprise usually suggest cutbacks in medicare, transfer payments and unemployment insurance. They want to cutback on welfare and make people work by the sweat of their brow. They rationalize that people tend to be lazy, when we know the opposite.
On the other hand, there are those who view only the welfare aspect and constantly criticize free enterprise, and suggest that the enormous profits of the banks be additionally taxed. They propose to raise the taxes of private enterprise in order to pay for social programs while blatantly ignoring the
Taxation
fact that there must be a balance on both sides if we are to survive and if that marriage of convenience is to continue.
The government should be concerned that at this time there is growing hostility in Canada. If that hostility grows between the supporters of free enterprise and those who push for social reform, to the point where they will not accommodate each other, we will then run the risk of destroying a system which has provided Canadians with one of the greatest standards of living in the world.
In other words, conflict reinforces our natural destructive tendencies. Due to this constant reminder that the government must somehow cut back, we are witnessing a challenge to growth at the very time we need it most. We are seeing an anti-science backlash when only science can save us. We find a condemnation of profits when profits pay for everything. There is unfair criticism of the free enterprise system when only that system can provide the growth we need in the 1980s.
I would say to those who condemn social reform as a necessary evil that it is social reform in Canada which has prevented a major depression of the stature and depth which was experienced in the hungry thirties. The carrying out of social policies at all levels in Canada has created jobs in government, education and social services. This has kept millions of people off the welfare rolls at one time or another and has provided incomes and temporary employment. It has helped reduce the misery index and has kept the work ethic alive for thousands of people.
The Economic Council of Canada has said that our social policies in this country have gone a long way towards eliminating poverty. I am not for one moment suggesting that poverty does not exist at this time or that there are no problems with welfare. I am simply saying that what is basically a valid and excellent social system, which is tailored for Canadian needs, is being strained.
It is a myth that social reform checks economic growth. When people advocate government cutbacks in spending-that is real spending, not a few dollars on advertising-on areas such as research, unemployment insurance and pensions, and that we must postpone our social programs, they tend to forget that social reform in many parts of Canada has fuelled economic recovery. Money for pensions, family allowances and welfare provides the purchasing power that keeps many of our smaller communities alive. Free education and subsidized university education has built a reserve of professional knowledge and technical skill in Canada which forms the foundation for advancement on every front. Our expanded health care is insurance against loss of productivity.
Even Ron Anderson, who is hardly a left-winger, made this statement in one of his columns in The Globe and Mail:
Regional redistribution of incomes through the unemployment insurance program, for example, is two to three times as important to the Maritimes as expenditures by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. For the country as a whole, the UI program is one of the most powerful and sensitive of the automatic stabilizers built into the economy.
I repeat that the standard of living we have flows from the ability of free enterprise to generate the needed capital. It is

April 28, 1982
Taxation
the fruit of the free enterprise system which pays for medical programs, schools, the educational system and welfare. It makes transfer payments possible. The free enterprise system has always met the challenge imposed on it by free society.
It is significant that countries like Sweden, the United States and Canada have the highest degree of freedom in production, not state-directed production. We also have the highest consumption and highest standard of socialized consumption. The point I am making is that at this very crucial moment in our history when we are worried about money, high interest rates, inflation and whether or not we can continue to maintain our standard of living, we must realize that in each of those countries I have mentioned the free enterprise system I have described and the social programs are interdependent. They underwrite, support and make each other viable. Members of Parliament, the business community and social reformers must not sabotage each other.
As I have mentioned, any marriage usually survives through compromise. Each system which I have described has limits and cannot be expected to do more than it is capable of doing.
Today's limits on free enterprise are being set by society itself in terms of ethics and accountability while limits on social reform are being set by what we can afford. This is an important point. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) suggested that we cut spending while at the same time spending more for a particular group of Canadians-women aged 60 to 65. The paradoxis there and the limits to social reform are set to what we can afford. We cannot afford total justice or a totally clean environment at this moment, but we can afford to give everyone equality of opportunity, even if not equality of income.
The problems facing Canada during the challenge of the eighties are enormous. But they are stimulating and they make me envious of those young enough to participate in meeting those challenges in the future. We must replace outdated factories and worn out machinery. The capital needs in the 1980s will probably surpass $1,000 billion. It is only natural for people to suggest that cutbacks take place in the interval in welfare, medicare, transfer payments or other programs which form part of the Canadian mosaic.
I simply want to say that I respect the free enterprise system. Its productivity comes from leaders with drive, from builders, creators, innovators and initiators. However, it also comes from willing workers who want the reward of sweat and skill. It comes from motivation, perks and penalties that structure behaviour. Free enterprise has been maturing for more than 200 years, whereas our social programs, for the most part, began in this century.
I therefore say that it is time for us to take off our blinkers because words which describe ideology no longer mean what they did. Corporations move toward monopoly in the name of individualism while individuals move toward democracy in the
name of collectivism. It is a time for social reformers in the New Democratic Party to drop their anti-business bias unless they want to see reform cut back. It is time for those of us who believe in free enterprise to stop seeing reform as a giant political pork barrel unless we want the new society to be a post-business society.
I am confident that the policies of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) are the right policies. It takes courage for a minister to remain basically dedicated to a policy which is not politically popular. It is obvious that it is a spinoff from the dramatic and adverse impact of high interest rates. However, the policy reflects the intertwining of our economy with that of the United States. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that in future, over the next decade, we can develop a greater independence in our economic policies and in our approach to problems. However, as long as inflation remains the number one enemy in this country-and it does in the eyes of Canadians, if one reads today's Gallup polls-the Minister of Finance has little alternative but to ask all of us to practice voluntary restraint in order to avoid compulsory restraint. The future of this country is a great one and economic recovery will come sooner than most people expect.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, our beloved colleague from the Niagara Peninsula-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Lincoln.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Lincoln?


Mr. Whelan:: Abe Lincoln.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hardly. Neither he nor I can qualify in physical respects, shall we say, as Abe Lincoln. However, I had to smile a little during his peroration when he said we should follow the request of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) by showing some restraint. In his last budget, the Minister of Finance provided for a 22 per cent increase in expenditures. Is that restraint? I invite our colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), to read the speech given on February 16 by my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson)-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I read it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -there to put to rest the doubt which appeared on the face of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) concerning that increase. He said that the increase was perhaps only 16 per cent. It depends on whether one handles it on a national accounts or on a budgetary accounts basis. However, very definitely, the true increase is 22 per cent.
I consider Bill C-93 to be one of the most repulsive, dog's breakfast sort of bills we could ever see. This House ultimately refused to accept Bill C-94 even though the procedures were perhaps somewhat out of the ordinary. The point is, Bill C-94 no longer exists. It was divided into eight or nine bills, as it should have been in the first place. I object to this bill and I will vote against it, not because of its subject matter, but because of its form.
April 28, 1982

1 find it passing strange that this House should be dealing with this bill in its present form after the House had subsequently decided that such should not be the case. Standing Order 60(11) states:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
That is to be cleanly interpreted. The bill is to be based upon the provisions of a motion. I look at the budgetary papers and the notices of Ways and Means motions filed by the minister with regard to this particular budget. There is a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act (No.
1)	and a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules (1971). Then there is a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act; a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2); a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (No. 1); a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act (No.
2)	; and also a notice of Ways and Means motion with regard to the Customs Tariff. There is not a single word about borrowing authority.
This Bill C-93 is wrong. I know the Speaker has ruled differently and I must accept the ruling, but I do not have to agree with it. It is very wrong. We changed it with regard to Bill C-94 and there will never be another repetition. However, this bill takes us down a bifurcation in the road of procedure at the next stage. A Ways and Means motion based upon the budget takes us into Committee of the Whole, but there is no Ways and Means motion with regard to borrowing authority. Borrowing authority bills take us down into the standing committee. Therefore, any ragamuffin Ways and Means motion tacked on to a standard procedural motion at second reading should not keep it in the House. There is a schizophrenic direction given as a result of this combination. It is for that reason that the blessed thing is nonsense.
Let us see what Bill C-93 contains. First of all, Part I is entitled Borrowing Authority, 1982-83. Part II is entitled Excise Tax Act. There are some changes with regard to wine. There is a great relationship in the bill between the Excise Tax Act with respect to wine and the borrowing authority.
Under Part II, Clause 4(2), with regard to the Excise Tax Act, there are provisions concerning pipeline gas and the operation of the pipeline. Then there are provisions respecting the level of taxation on ethane and propane.
Then we go to Part III. This is an entirely new tax which had been provided for on a previous occasion. It was known as the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. Frankly, this is a wellhead revenue tax. There is a division, first dealing with revenue tax and secondly a royalties tax.
Can someone, preferably the Minister of State for Finance, advise me what is the principle of this bill? It stretches from increasing the excise tax on wine and on pipeline gas through wellhead revenues, royalties to a borrowing authority. There is absolutely no relationship. Those on the government side cannot insist that a second reading motion shall be adoption in principle. They will come up against a blank wall because
Taxation
there is no principle to the bill. It is as unprincipled as the government that put it forward.
On this occasion, are we to discuss the borrowing authority, the measurement of and the changes in the tax on natural gas, or are we going to consider the heinous tax on wellhead revenues which has caused so much grief in the petroleum industry and to Canadians?
With its unprincipled desires and greed, this government seized all it could from the petroleum industry and laid it on the backs of Canadians. It has an unceasing, ever-growing greed and hunger for revenue. The other day when the government of the province of Alberta announced a $5.4 billion plan of remission of royalties and assistance to the domestic oil industry, the minister's colleague, the minister of energy, reportedly said that the federal government had every right to move into that field and acquire those funds.
In the last few years the Government of Canada has been guilty of fashioning not one udder but two udders and taking all teats from it so that it can take the whole of the revenues from the oil industry which rightfully belong to the industry and the provinces.
Government members will say the Government of Canada has a right to revenues from the petroleum industry. Government has no right to tax. It has the power to tax, but no right to a particular revenue. That is the difference. There is no ordained principle of government, certainly not with the type of government we have in Canada, to certain revenues. The government can raise revenues to discharge its responsibilities; that is so. It has limited powers which it shares with other levels of government. Some people assert that as soon as an individual earns a dollar, the government has the right to a certain percentage of that dollar and to claim it immediately. I have seen that in writings by some income tax officials. I deny that that is a right. We have not yet reached that stage, unless we accept the principle that the citizens and corporations of Canada exist for the benefit of the state.
We have gone through the Constitution debate in the past year. There was one fundamental quarrel I had with the government, and that was that government could impose a Constitution on the people. By what right? A Constitution is a body of rules and laws given by the people to government for its governance. It flows from the people to government, not the other way around.
We now see those in power, the administrative bureaucracy, looking upon people and good corporate bodies as though they exist for the benefit and exercise of the authority of that administrative bureaucracy and its captive government. That is what it is. Many of these provisions are nothing but the thinking of the administrative bureaucracy. First they acquire and then hold on to as much of the revenue in this country as they can get without the authority of this House. It is a pro forma.
Estimates in this House are discussed and passed under guillotine. Ministers are not held accountable. In many

April 28, 1982
Taxation
instances they are not able to discharge their responsibilities or know what the estimates are, or have not put forward the programs themselves. They came up through the administration. We are hagridden with administration in this country. We are not the only ones. I have just returned from Australia. The former leader of the opposition there, who is now the Speaker, clearly indicated to me something in conversation. I am not disclosing any secret. Thank goodness in this House it is provided by statute that the estimates do not go through the administration or Treasury Board. They go from the Speaker to the Minister of Finance and are to be accepted. That is the way it should be. This House must be independent of the administration.
I find it extraordinary that there are so many ministers who either are not conscious of that principle or who agree with the administration that this House must be just another tool in the hands of government. Even the form of Bill C-93 in regard to borrowing authority is indefensible in this House. The minister said that he needed $6.6 billion borrowing authority, failing to disclose that Bill C-59, passed earlier in this session, provided for a permanent unexpended portion of borrowing authority, up to $3 billion, which need not be renewed formally by any other bill. In other words, there is a $3 billion cushion, to which is to be added $6.6 billion in this coming year. So the government has authority to borrow $9.6 billion in 1982-83.
Why does it do it that way? On a previous occasion this House had some control over both government and administration, because the borrowing authority was running out and the House was not giving that authority unless certain conditions were met. So what went through in Bill C-59? Mr. Speaker, I will read the section into Hansard for the edification of hon. members. Subclause (2) of Clause 2 of Bill C-59 reads as follows:
All borrowing authority conferred by subsection (1) that remains unused and in respect of which no action has been taken by the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 37 of the Financial Administration Act shall expire on March 31, 1982 to the extent that the unused authority exceeds three billion dollars.
It so happened that there was $3.7 billion left over, so there was only $700 million that expired on March 31; and there was sitting, before the passage of this bill, a cushion of $3 billion. That has not been affected by the passage of any section of Bill C-93. So Clause 2 of Bill C-59 is still in force. Unless it is changed in the future, it will always provide that up to $3 billion of any borrowing authority, if unexpended, shall remain authorized and therefore the administration has been cushioned.
In the same way, it developed procedures in the mid-1960s to get around the control that the House used to have on the administration through the granting of interim supply. Once that was breached, the authority of this House was lost. This House now has no more control on government expenditures than any individual member has control of the wind outside this building. That is something that many people wonder about. That is one of the things that has to be reformed. If calling for reform of Parliament means anything, in this type of government that we have or allegedly have, a responsible
government, there has to be authority in this chamber to hold the cabinet accountable. At the present time, cabinet sets the pace; cabinet rides roughshod. The members of this House behave like so many marionettes. We have timetables, we have guillotines, we have all sorts of procedures, all introduced under the guise of efficiency.
This House must be efficient and this House is efficient, Mr. Speaker. The way bills go through, the procedure for the handling by the Chair of the rules, the operations of the officers of the Table, all of this is very efficient. But that does not mean that we have to sacrifice our authority to cabinet in the name of so-called efficiency. That is a snare and a delusion.
To reform this House, among those things that have to happen is a return of authority to the House, with control over expenditures. The minister proposed a borrowing authority of billions and billions of dollars, a 22 per cent increase in expenditures, in effect. I do not mean comparing the principal, the figures in the main estimates, as against the final estimates of the previous year. That is another favourite government trick, comparing apples and oranges.
Let us line up the final estimates for 1982-83 against the final estimates for 1981-82. And even these are not yet in; they will be available to us only for guillotine consideration and passage in June. The money is spent; there are no two ways about it. And that expenditure will exceed the proposed expenditures by thousands of millions of dollars. It is an old trick. Piously the minister comes in this year and says that he has not got the same requirements, that he needs only $6.6 billion. It is really $9.65 billion that the minister will have available in borrowing authority this year, a reduction from the previous year when the money was not all spent. So there has been very little reduction in the borrowing authority, Mr. Speaker.
We have come up against some real problems with regard to borrowing. Last year in September and October the interest rate for Canada Savings Bonds was fixed at 19.5 per cent. Of course, a supplementary premium had to be paid on all outstanding Canada Savings Bonds in order for them to effectively reach 19.5 per cent; otherwise there would have been a massive conversion from old issues to new issues, notwithstanding the cumulative coupon that was affixed to a number of previous issues.
I should like to see the schedule of the Minister of Finance for new bond issues or for conversions in this fiscal year. If there are any 15-year bonds that mature in this fiscal year and which are to be renewed, what sort of interest coupon will they bear, so that there is not an immediate and almost dramatic drop in their face value, in order to reflect the true market value? Those are the measures of confidence that the market and the ordinary citizen have in government.
Last night and again today I heard the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) speak at great length about
April 28, 1982

the level of interest rates. There is nothing about interest rates in this bill, Mr. Speaker; not a direct or indirect reference. The government is powerless to set interest rates lower than the market decrees. The hon. member for Hamilton Moutain did not speak about the consequential foreign exchange controls that would have to be imposed if the government tried to set interest rates.
Last week I listened to a very instructive interview with the minister of finance of Australia where, incidentally, interest rates are as high as they are here. Of course, Australia is an ocean away from the United States whereas we are the next door neighbour and are directly affected by market conditions there and by the actions of its government with regard to interest rates. We should also consider the position in Germany, France, Great Britain-


Eugene Whelan: And Japan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Japanese rates are somewhat different, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will know, because their economy is different. Even the German economy is beginning to show the effects now. As a matter of fact, all of the European Economic Community countries are in the same position as we are, with high interest rates, inflation and growing unemployment. Some have higher unemployment than we have. I do not take any comfort in that as it would mean that we should assume that some of the unemployment in Canada today is not self-inflicted.
Through the national energy policy the government has put hundreds of thousands of people on the street. It takes the position of the ostrich with regard to the effect of its policies on the energy programs of the producing provinces. Many members of the government have no knowledge of what has happened to towns in Saskatchewan and Alberta or to small farms with half a dozen water trucks, mud trucks, three or four front-end loaders, or backhoes. They do not realize the effect of this program on people in the construction industry, in research, exploration and development of the petroleum industry. There have been many bankruptcies and auction sales of equipment because people are trying to protect the investment they have.
It is a crying shame, Mr. Speaker, yet the minister responsible for small business does not seem to be concerned about it, nor does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). The Minister of Finance, however, will see one of the best tax paying segments of the economy go down the drain and, as a result, no tax will be forthcoming from it this year. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), whose primary interest is in Windsor, should take note of the reduction in the number of cars and trucks ordered by the oil industry in 1981-82. Thousands of orders were lost and therefore the vehicles were not produced. We can see the effect on Ford, GM, Chrysler and the other companies that manufacture bulldozers, front-end loaders, pumps and other equipment in Ontario and Quebec.
Taxation
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) laid his heavy hand on the industry with his misplaced policies. Government supporters supinely accepted their government's policies concerning interest rates.
There is another area in which the borrowing authority is affected. We have lost some megaprojects and we are losing more. We are told we are not going to build Alsands. They did not build Cold Lake because the world price of oil had softened and was going down. The costs are so high. Of course, interest rates, which are the responsibility of government, are so high.


Mr. Kelly:: You were not saying that in 1979.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They were a lot lower in 1979.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Things were a lot different in 1979, and the hon. member, who is just a new boy here-


Norman Kelly: Sure they were.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I invite him to go and spend four or five months out in western Canada-or even four or five weeks- and learn a little bit about it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He would not last that long.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to tell the hon. member that from 1973 onwards the former minister of energy, Donald Macdonald, laid his hands on the oil industry to skim off for the government what he called windfall profits resulting from an increasing world price for oil. Then there was the fight with Alberta to the point of disallowing royalties as an expense; a shameful performance.
It was interesting to listen to the ministers discussing these points in committee. Now that the price is dropping the government keeps insisting that it is up to the oil companies and Alberta to adjust their returns downwards.


Norman Kelly: On new oil.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On new oil and on old oil. I think, Mr. Speaker, both governments have laid on too heavy a hand. The industry is best able to cope with changing oil prices, and if you gave them a chance to adjust we would not see this nonsense with Alsands and Exxon. They would know how to adjust.


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


Mr. LeBlanc:: If he lowers his voice!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans finds it a little loud, it is because I am talking to his somewhat deaf colleagues down at the other end. I do not need this machine. I want to make that clear to the minister.
In any event, I thank hon. members for their consent to continue but I will not inflict any more of my remarks on

April 28, 1982
Taxation
them. However, I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote against this bill, first of all because it is an omnibus bill and, secondly, because its contents are bad. On those two counts we should vote against the bill.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to speak on Bill C-93. I hope the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) will remain in the House and not pull his usual trick of leaving for coffee or whatever.
As you and all members know, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds. This from a government which just recently issued bonds for 20 years at 15.5 per cent interest, thereby telling the world that for two decades we are going to have high interest rates and inflation above 12 per cent. That is basically what the government is telling the world-that Canada does not have its economic house in order.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members really have taken the time to read through the bill and understand what it contains. Clause 1 of Part I of this bill provides:
The Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by any Act of Parliament heretofore passed, borrow, under the Financial Administration Act, by the issue and sale of securities of Canada, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole, six billion six hundred million dollars, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
In other words, we are writing a blank cheque to the government for $6.6 billion at a time when our capital outflow is at an all-time high, and when Canadian investors do not have the confidence to invest in our economy. They are taking an estimated $4.5 billion to the United States. Foreign investors, who once saw a secure investment climate in this country, have now taken out an estimated $10 billion over the past year. Clause 3(1) of Part I provides:
For greater certainty, any amount borrowed under this section or any other authority conferred by Parliament before the coming into force of this section may be borrowed in a currency other than that of Canada and may be repaid in the currency in which it was borrowed.
We are authorizing this government, Mr. Speaker, to borrow money anywhere in the world at a time when the Canadian dollar could drop significantly. Let me paint an example. Let us say this government, in its wisdom, decides to go to the U.S. to borrow money and they pay 15 per cent. They would be lucky to get 15 per cent because I do not think they are rated as a class "A" borrower any more. Our currency drops against the American dollar by 5 per cent, we repay the loan in American funds, and the loan costs us 20 per cent. That is the kind of blanket authority we are giving the government under this bill. We have seen it happen in the past and there is no reason whatsoever to think for a moment that it is not going to happen again.
I am going to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to read a section here. I would like you to see what the implications are of adding another section; it is not just a straight borrowing bill, it has to do with the excise tax. Clause 47.2(2) reads:
Where any qualifying goods have been purchased or imported by a person of a class prescribed pursuant to subsection (3) for the sole use of that person and not for resale and the tax imposed by Part V has been paid in respect of such goods,
the Minister may, on application by that person in such form and manner as the Minister prescribes, made to the Minister within four years from the time the goods were purchased or imported, pay to that person an amount equal to that tax.
Can you imagine the number of applications that the minister will receive, Mr. Speaker? Of course, we know-the minister will not receive them; we know they will go to the bureaucracy. We know that the government will have to hire 20, 30, 40 or 400 civil servants to look after that one small section. Do hon. members not see what we are doing in Canada day after day by increasing the size of government and the bureaucracy? We are strangling the Canadian economy and the Canadian people in the process.
The people in my riding and across Canada are sick and tired of this government and of any government that imposes restrictions on them, that strangles them and puts its hands in their pockets. We must allow the spirit of Canada to continue, the spirit that brought my great-grandfather to Ontario and my grandfather to Alberta. We have to get back that spirit. That spirit was free of government interference. Minimum government allowed maximum growth in this country. It is not the other way around. We have a government committed totally to government control in every sector of the economy. It is a shame because it is killing the initiative that exists in this country.
Most of my remarks will be addressed to Part III of Bill C-93. These are amendments to the petroleum and gas revenue tax which implements the Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. For short, we refer to the tax as the PGRT. This tax has been the most monumental grab on industry cash flow that was ever perpetrated on the business sector in Canada. It is a monumental grab. The scenario was that of a government saying:"We have firms across Canada in the oil industry, the golden goose, which has laid a golden egg, that are making too much money, so we will grab it". What has happened is that the government has not grabbed the egg, but it has grabbed the goose's neck because the government is slowly choking that golden goose to death.
We hear of projects waiting to go onstream immediately. We have heard this for two years. I refer specifically to the Imperial Oil project at Cold Lake which would produce in Canada 140,000 barrels a day of sweet crude. This is sweet synthetic crude, the finest crude there is. We do not need oil. We have lots of oil. We are self-reliant in oil. "Self reliant" means, of course, that we buy our oil from the Middle East, from Brazil and from other places. We buy plenty from offshore, to the tune of 400,000 barrels a day. We do not pay for it in Canadian currency; we pay for it in American currency, and we wonder why the Canadian dollar is weak. We wonder why inflation is high when we have an outflow of capital paying for those 400,000 barrels of oil a day. Canada has technology, engineering, people and natural resources. But what are we doing? We are going to the same companies,
April 28, 1982

which were asked to develop these oil deposits and through this petroleum and gas revenue tax, the government is grabbing the golden goose by the neck and choking it.
Let me give an example. I do not think all members understand when a company says: "You have killed our cash flow; therefore, we cannot develop our project." Let me put it this way. If I were to offer a house for sale at $500,000, if 1 were to say: "Walk into that house tomorrow and 1 will give you a month's free rent and I do not want a downpayment, 1 will sign it over to you.", what would you think, Mr. Speaker? Does that not sound good, Mr. Speaker? It does not sound so good when I tell you that it will cost you $10,000 a month to pay the principal and interest. So what you do then is look at your cash flow to see if your salary will cover it. You find that it will not.
That situation is no different from expecting a company like Imperial Oil to invest $13 billion in a project. Imperial Oil is not taking $13 billion from its cash flow; Imperial Oil is saying that it has to borrow that amount on the market. But immediately the money is used, the repayments must start. That borrowed money is not lent interest free until the plant is finished and then is repaid. The interest accumulates. The interest and the repayment have to be covered from the cash flow of the company. But the company will not have a cash flow from the production of the plant for at least five years because it takes that long to build.
Companies like this say very clearly: "Sure, we would like to build these plants." Imperial Oil would like to build the plant in Cold Lake. These companies want to build plants for the security of the country. The boards of directors are Canadians. The engineers working on the plants are Canadians and the managers are Canadians. The ownership would be through shares on the marketplace. Many of the shares would be owned by Canadians and by pension funds. It is absolutely mind boggling to me that we have a company ready to invest $13 billion in Canada, to work up a technology and extract oil from the tar sands at a rate of 140,000 barrels a day, and another plant in Fort McMurray called Alsands ready to invest another $13 billion to extract through a mining process another 140,000 barrels a day. That totals close to ed2227;-l
300,000	barrels of oil a day coming onstream in four years which would replace the oil we are importing from Venezuela and Mexico. But what are we doing? We are shipping our money and jobs out of the country. It is a staggering situation.
Alsands has stated repeatedly that it wants a return on its investment, just as though it were putting the money into government bonds with a guaranteed 19 per cent return or a return through long-term investment of 15.5 per cent, which is what this government pays when it floats a bond issue on the marketplace. The Alsands group are saying they need a return on their investment but they do not have the cash flow to proceed with the plant because, during the four years the plant is under construction, principal and interest must be paid on the loan. That debt must be serviced. No institution, no government anywhere, will lend money and say: "Forget about
Taxation
the interest; we will not start calculating the interest until the plant is built". Everyone knows that does not happen.
Are the companies telling the truth? Of course they are telling the truth. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the annual statements of earnings of the major companies across Canada. Everyone can see what happened to them last year. Some of the earnings of these companies have gone down by 75 per cent. They do not have the cash flow to service the debt; therefore, these companies cannot proceed with their projects. Government members are choking the goose; it is gasping.
Now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is meeting with oil companies in a last-ditch effort to save the Alsands project in Fort McMurray. We can forget about the Cold Lake plant; it is down the tube. It will not be started for at least three more years. The government put up $40 million to hold Imperial Oil in line for a few months so that it could do some negotiating, to be repaid to the government only if the plant went ahead in a year. The year will be up in June. I have it marked on my calendar; we will see.
The petroleum gas revenue tax has been devastating to the oil industry, the only viable and strong industry in Canada. The Economic Council of Canada indicated very clearly and emphatically that it was the only industry which would lead Canada to economic recovery. But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources came into the House with his National Energy Program and took aim at it. He is reaching out his hand and choking industry. He is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. As a result we are feeling it right across Canada, even in the manufacturing sector in Ontario because oil companies are not buying heavy equipment, trucks, steel, tires or rope; I could go on and on.
Let me look at the number of wells drilled in Canada. In 1981 the number of oil wells drilled in the western basin fell to 6,500, from 9,000 in 1980. We have questioned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as to why this happened. We have asked why the government has driven out oil wells, oil drillers and oil rigs to the United States. He admits that this has occurred, but says that there has been a downplay in the market and that we are not using as much oil any more. Why has drilling in the United States, where consumption has also gone down, increased by 20 per cent in 1981 over 1980? It is because the United States has a policy in place which encourages the industry to come in. It has taken a stand for the security of the United States. It will find the oil and become self-sufficient. It will not rely on anyone, including Canada.
We are living in dangerous times. We are on the knife's edge right now. We are saying that we will become self-reliant, but we will buy some of that cheap crap from Mexico which is being pawned off on Montreal refineries. We will even pay Montreal refiners a subsidy if they purchase Mexican crude. Montreal refiners are taking the subsidy and making windfall

April 28, 1982
Taxation
profits. This is displacing oil which is now shut in in the Lloydminster area and in some of the fields in Alberta.
Taxpayers across Canada are paying 4 cents to 5 cents per gallon at the pump, which goes into a fund to subsidize offshore oil. We have a two-tier system in Canada which was tried and abandoned in the United States because it did harm to the United States economy. We always learn from the United States ten years later. We are shutting down wells in western Canada.
Recently I returned from my riding where I learned that there has been a 1,300 per cent increase in unemployment in the oil industry. Roughnecks who worked on oil rigs, in the derrick, on the floor and in the pit are now lining up at welfare offices because they have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. I invite hon. members opposite to come with me to Grande Prairie to visit the welfare offices and watch these once proud and fine men line up and say they need welfare because they do not have jobs. This is because of the national energy policy of the government. They should come with me to visit Bonnyville and Grand Centre to look at the number of young people who are lining up at the welfare offices. These young people saved up their money in order to start small businesses. They thought that Canada was a place of opportunity and that they would build plants because Canada needed oil. We still need oil. Hon. members opposite should come with me to talk with some of these people. I wish they could answer my telephone calls and hear what they have to say. They do not understand. We have the natural resources, the trained people and the technology. All we lack is the will of government to make the country self-sufficient.
I wish hon. members opposite could come with me to talk with a farmer in Athabasca who told me last week that he took his pride herd to slaughter. He will not even maintain his herd; he took it to slaughter. Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has left the House. I was hoping that he would have heard that comment.
I wish hon. members opposite could have spoken with another chap in Newbrook who telephoned me and said: "What the hell is the use; I will not even bother planting a crop this year". He broke the land with his own hands and farmed in the community for the last 40 years, and now he asks "What the hell is the use?"
This is the type of despair the government is causing with its taxes, the National Energy Program and its budget. It has created a feeling of total despair across the country. People are asking what will happen. I will tell them what will happen. It will continue and get worse, until the government admits to Canadians that it made mistakes with the National Energy Program and with the budget. It should do the honourable thing-it should reverse many of the ill-conceived ideas pushed by socialistic bureaucrats in government departments.
Where is the backbone of hon. members opposite? Where is the backbone of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly)? He should rise and tell his caucus colleagues that he will not stand for it any longer. He knows as well as I that
policies of government in the National Energy Program and in the budget are killing the economy of the country.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg (Mr. Bussieres) is busy talking but perhaps he will read my speech. When will he stand up and tell the members of his caucus, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance that enough is enough and that they are killing the initiative of Canadians? While the government is killing the economy of this country, it is destroying our initiative. Unemployed people all across Canada are sick with fear because they do not know what their future will be.
Can you imagine the government introducing a 20-year bond issue at 15Vi per cent while the Minister of Finance at the same time repeats in the House every day that the government will fight inflation with its high interest rate policy. Although the high interest rate policy is there because of high inflation, the minister says they will beat it. Yet the government issues a 20-year bond issue at 15'A per cent! Members of the Liberal government must think Canadians are stupid if the government issues a 20-year bond at 15'/2 per cent while saying at the same time that inflation will come down. That irresponsible action will guarantee to the rest of the world that Canada is expecting double digit inflation for at least two decades; otherwise the government would not have issued those bonds.
I invite Liberal members to visit people in senior citizen homes. I wonder if they ever talk to senior citizens in their ridings. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) should talk to them and find out what has happened to their purchasing power. Just watch the tears running down an old lady's cheek because she cannot afford to buy her son and daugher-in-law a wedding present.


Mr. Irwin:: It is all indexed.


Jack Wendele Shields: We know that the hon. member's salary is indexed. He does not have to worry. I invite him to visit the fishermen in my area. He might be surprised that I am talking about fishermen but we have a freshwater fishing industry in northeastern Alberta. Ask those fishermen what is happening to them. The government has introduced a proposal whereby it will now withhold their taxes. These fishermen are also small businessmen. They buy trucks and nets and fish through the ice in the winter. Like other small businessmen, they sell their produce in the marketplace. Incidentally, the government also controls the market.
Prior to this budget, those fishermen were treated like any other small businessmen. They did their taxes at the end of the year; they deducted all their expenses and submitted their tax. However, what has happened now is that the finance minister, in his wisdom, has said that the fishermen cannot do that any more. The government will now withhold taxes at the wholesale level where the fisherman sells his fish. This irresponsible, terrible and sick government is now attacking small fishermen in northeastern Alberta and using their money for the full year
April 28, 1982

while giving them a refund at the end of the year without interest. That is an example of how desperate this government is for funds in order to continue its growth pattern. Only God knows what their grandiose scheme is.
1 would like those hon. members to talk to some of the young people who have graduated from universities, technical colleges and community colleges. I only wish that all those members in the government backbenches could come with me to Fort McMurray, Grand Centre, Athabasca and High Prairie to talk to some of those people the government encouraged by saying that the future is theirs. The government told these people to go to university to receive an education because the world is their oyster. Well, those young people did do that. I had 14 graduate engineers come to me in my area asking what they would do because they could not find employment. Most of them had job offers last year but due to the cutbacks by the oil companies they are unemployed today.


Ron Irwin: Oil companies obviously need more money.


Jack Wendele Shields: I hope that hon. member is in his proper seat. They do not sit in their proper seats, Mr. Speaker, so they cannot be identified. If the hon. member had been in the House when I began my remarks, he might understand what cash flow is and why it is needed to service debt. However, I understand that is beyond their capability.


Ron Irwin: Explain profit from investment.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would like to explain it to the hon. member if he is prepared to listen. I could offer him a house for $500,000. It is available at no downpayment and he can move in today. I suggest that he would look at the situation and determine if he
Taxation
would have the cash flow to cover it. He would find that if he had to pay $10,000 or $20,000 a month to maintain the mortgage on that house, he would not have the cash flow.
I will explain to hon. members opposite once again that the Alsands consortium at Fort McMurray is attempting to put together a $13 billion effort. They will not receive any cash flow from that operation until the $13 billion is spent. In other words, they need cash flow from other sources to maintain the debt. That is not unrealistic.


Ron Irwin: Explain profit from investment.


Jack Wendele Shields: Those Liberal members do not understand simple economics, and we expect them to have the backbone to stand up to their colleagues in the frontbenches and say that enough is enough! The government is killing the economy and this is evidenced by the number of unemployed across Canada. I suggest to the hon. member that he visit the unemployment lines and go to this riding to talk to small businessmen to find out what is happening. He may then have the nerve and backbone to stand up to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to say "Enough is enough; resign and leave this place to let some other members take your place and run the country."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 29, 1982