1982-06-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, effective June 19 the CNCP telegram offices will be closing in Saint John, Moncton, Fredericton, Sydney and Charlottetown, displacing some nine people. A direct conflict has arisen between CNCP and the employees concerning the employment options provided by CNCP, as CNCP wishes to amend a portion of the agreement before taking further action. In view of the fact that the persons involved have between 29 and 40 years of service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the House urge CNCP to deal fairly with these workers and provide the job security agreement options they have enjoyed since 1962 and funded by the very employees now being denied these benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the terms of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House congratulates Prime Minister Thatcher, the Government and the people of the United Kingdom on their resolution of the conflict in the Falkland Islands that maintains the principle that armed aggression must be resisted, that respect for the United Nations Charter and the role of law in international affairs be observed and force not used to settle territorial disputes between states, regrets the loss of life and injuries on both sides and urges a peaceful settlement of all outstanding issues between the U.K. and Argentina.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the value of the Canadian dollar reflects international confidence in the Canadian economy and in the government's ability to manage national affairs, and whereas the dollar is now as depressed as the Liberals' credibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House deplores the policies of the Liberal government which have resulted in a 78-cent dollar, thereby causing a de facto 22 per cent reduction in all wages and pensions right across this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, the government has increased the designations in the nursing group of the professional institute from 800 to 1,600. In view of the fact that the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) told this House on Tuesday that such designations were only made when "these employees are carrying out their duties necessary in the interests of the safety and security of the public", and in view of the fact that the 1,600 designated nursing positions come to 110 per cent of the nursing group, since there are actually only about 1,450 nurses working for the government in that group, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):

June 15, 1982
That the government either admit that it is using designations to remove the right to strike, or that it hire the extra 150 nurses which the government claims through its designations are necessary in "the interests of the safety and security of the public".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, under heavy pressure the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has agreed to revise the capital cost allowance rate to assist about six multinational car rental companies while continuing to penalize and discriminate against some 2,200 Canadian auto dealers in the car leasing business. Whereas these Canadian auto dealers employ over 75,000 Canadians, which dealers are already hard hit by slumping sales and mounting overhead costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the minister practise the equity he preaches by extending the capital cost allowance rate increase recently given the six multinationals to the 2,200 Canadian-owned dealerships which lease their cars on a monthly and yearly basis, not by the day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the federal and provincial governments acquire agricultural land for public agricultural purposes and secure such lands from unwilling sellers, that is, from farmers who are, many times, unable to replace the land and thus are penalized through capital gains taxes; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House recommends that where agricultural land is acquired or expropriated by a provincial or federal government for another agricultural project, no capital gains taxes be levied by the federal government on the amount the farmer receives for said land.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of increasing problems in the footwear industry as a result of the government's refusal to meet the demands made by the industry, in view of the fact that the minister responsible stated yesterday that he would be in a position to make a decision after meeting with his provincial counterparts on June 21, and with a view to safeguarding existing jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer);
That this House unanimously urge the minister in question to make his decision not later than June 30.


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required to present this kind of motion. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43. Because of the steady decline in the stock of Chinook salmon the Department of Fisheries is contemplating a complete closure of the Fraser River gillnet fishery this season, meaning a tremendous loss of income for all Fishermen, especially for the Katzie Indian band which depends on fishing for 90 per cent of its income. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That to ensure that Chinook conservation is shared by all other user groups, a 24 hours per week fishery be permitted from April until November, and failing this demand, that gill-netters be given full compensation for lost fishing time and redundant gear of $10,000 per licensed boat.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
June 15, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, on Thursday, June 10, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) indicated that he would expect Members of Parliament, in examining the estimates, to reduce those estimates. In view of the fact that, by virtue of the rules, committees have ceased meeting on estimates, if the Minister of Finance is serious about the reduction in the cost of government 1 think the following motion would be found practical by the government. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the government set up a special committee of this House to examine such matters in the estimates that might in these difficult times be reduced or eliminated and that that special committee be entitled to call witnesses to examine expenditures with a view to reducing government expenses by 10 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In Saskatoon, the local employment centre is overworked and understaffed as the number of those seeking employment has increased from about 5,000 requests at this time last year to around 12,000 now. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration assign extra staff to the Saskatoon office to help handle the long lines of unemployed seeking jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the decision by the Ontario Minister of Community and Social Services to allow the Children's Listening Centre in Toronto to be closed at the end of this month because it is not on his list of spending priorities, and in view of that minister's further decision not to apply to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for financial assistance to maintain this invaluable centre for disturbed children, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House request the Minister of National Health and Welfare to investigate the possibility of providing the necessary funds to keep this children's centre open and to initiate negotiations with the province of Ontario to provide ongoing funding for the centre in view of that province's reluctance to do so.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HIRING OF PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that an independent House of Commons selection committee rejected on the merits the application of the daughter of a member of the executive of the Prime Minister's riding association, and in view of the fact that the young woman was hired as a guide by the Executive Committee because a letter was written indicating that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) supported her application, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House condemn this blatant political interference in the House of Commons hiring process-


Madam Speaker:: Order. This is a matter dealing with the internal administration. The hon. member has, I think, been told once before that matters of this nature should be discussed either privately with the Speaker or with the Members' Services Committee. Therefore, I cannot accept a motion on that particular subject.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, the plight of many railway pensioners in Canada grows worse with every increase in the cost of living, yet the CPR and the

June 15, 1982
Oral Questions
CNR continue to deny them the increases in their pensions which justice clearly demands. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
Thai the federal government instruct the CPR and the CNR to finally do something substantial finally about railway pensions, implement the recommendations of the Hall Report on Pensions, and give these deserving pensioners their due, i.e.. a retired life free from the threat of poverty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, i have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government giving any consideration, now or at all, to the imposition in any form or to any extent of wage or price controls?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me to tell this House what discussions are going on in cabinet, he w'ould be asking me to break my oath of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister such a question at all. 1 would simply like an answer to the questions that I am putting to him. Is the government giving any consideration, now or at all, to the pegging of interest rates in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is the same question in another form. He is asking me to comment on discussions in cabinet. If he wants to know whether outside of cabinet such things are being discussed, Madam Speaker, the answer is that I do not know.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am simply trying to establish government policy. Is the government giving
any consideration, now or at all, to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar?


An hon. Member:: The further devaluation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The same answer, Madam Speaker.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it would appear that this government is vacuous on the question of policy. I make one final attempt. Is the government giving any consideration, now or at all, to the imposition in any form or to any extent of foreign exchange controls in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam
Speaker, the same answer, to the same type of question.


ECONOMIC POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those of my colleague, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to Versailles vowing to force the United States to change its interest rate policy. Since he failed to achieve this, how can the Prime Minister justify to Canadians who are losing their jobs, or to home owners who are being forced to rollover their mortgages at increasing interest rates, or to his own caucus members, making the statement that he is not considering any fundamental changes in economic policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam
Speaker, I indicated to the House yesterday that any announcement on the government's economic policy would be made by the Minister of Finance in this House before the session adjourns.


GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is very forthcoming today. There are many Canadians looking for the answers to the questions that we are putting to the Prime Minister. Let me put a supplementary
question to him.
The Minister of Finance has for several months been blaming our high interest rates on the federal government deficit position in the United States. Since the Government of Canada budgetary deficit is proportionately almost twice the level of that which it is in the United States, is the Prime Minister asking Canadians to believe that his runaway deficit, the runaway deficit of his government, has nothing to do with the high interest rates in this country, and the weak Canadian dollar, and the bankruptcies and the lay-offs that have been caused by it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I understand, Madam Speaker, why the hon. member and his prede-
June 15, 1982

cessor, the hon. member for Yukon, are asking what the government's thoughts are on these various aspects of policy. 1 have just been handed a quote from their leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, who in an interview given to La Presse on May 4 said, "We did look for a solution other than that of the government but we do not have an alternative. Today I do not have a better solution." So I can understand the member for Yukon.


Mr. Clark:: Read the whole article, read on. Have the guts to read the whole article.


Erik Nielsen: Have the honesty; read on.


HOUSING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, we have been saying for some time that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have alternative solutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question for the Prime Minister concerns both the shortage of housing in Canada and the need for jobs. In each of the past three years we have built many fewer houses than we have actually needed in our country. Today we learned from the housing industry that in 1982 once again there will be 100,000 fewer houses built than we need as a nation. At the same time today we learned that there are
31,000	unemployed in the logging industry and that 143,000 construction workers are out of work.
Given the basic needs of Canadians for both shelter and jobs, will the Prime Minister assure us that the measures the government will be bringing in soon will include among them a serious housing program to get under way this summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can only tell the hon. member that I will give serious consideration to his suggestion.


REQUEST FOR REALLOCATION OF FUNDS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer the Prime Minister has given, but 1 would like to get a little more specific clarification from him on this matter.
In its budget the government allocated billions of dollars for megaprojects in the resource sector. As we all know, many of them have now collapsed. One of these was the Alsands project which included, in terms of dollar allocation this year, $1 billion. This $1 billion would have created only 5,000 construction jobs. There is a means, without increasing the deficit at all in terms of what the government was planning to spend, to use this in housing. If we used half of this in housing, for example,
Presence in Gallery
we would stimulate the production of an additional 50,000 housing units and, in addition, create more than 60,000 jobs. Will the Prime Minister give us more assurances that the government will simply reallocate these funds, which it already had planned to use, to produce the jobs and homes Canadians need?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the suggestion might be worthy of consideration if there had been some funds allocated for the purpose the hon. member suggests in the case of Alsands, but if he recalls the agreement which had been reached between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Alberta government, it was in the form of a guarantee of loans, a guarantee against tax liabilities. In that sense the hon. member is asking that we take half of the cash amount when there was no cash amount at all.


John Edward Broadbent: My information on the financing of that for this year is different from the Prime Minister's interpretation, but I will set that aside for a minute and go back to the genera] housing situation and the capital expenditure program of the government.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO STIMULATE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that the thousands of construction workers I have just talked about, and those in the lumber business who are out of work, are collecting unemployment insurance or collecting welfare, which are drains from the Treasury, instead of paying the taxes they would be paying if they were employed, and considering that we have a genuine and serious need for housing, does it not make immense social and economic sense to stimulate economic activity in this sector of the economy, which would not be inflationary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I just said, I understand the hon. member is making a representation on what the government should consider for inclusion in its economic statement. I take the representation as such, and I will consider it.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from the Republic of Germany which is headed by Mr. Peter Schmidhuber, the State Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs of Bavaria.

June 15, 1982
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY OF COLOMBIA
Madam Speaker:: I also have the honour to call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of Dr. Carlos Rodado Nortega, Minister of Mines and Energy, of Colombia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that he did not foresee any change in government policy. He implied the same today in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say to him, and I do not say this to him-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: -as a representation. I want to ask him, as the leader of this nation, what he proposes to do about the 1.5 million unemployed, about the 4,400 business bankruptcies in this country so far this year, and about the 11,000 personal bankruptcies. I ask the Prime Minister as leader of this nation, is he trying to shirk total responsibility for the hardship he is imposing on these average Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that reply may be smart, but under the circumstances it is contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The Prime Minister told us that we had to wait for Versailles. Now that Versailles is over, we have to wait another six weeks.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, as of noon today the Bank of Canada tells us that the dollar was trading at $78.39. It is on the way down, Madam Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to do anything about the severe economic crisis in this country which is dramatically touching the lives of average Canadians day after day, through unemployment, through rising interest rates, through personal bankruptcies, through business bankruptcies.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is he trying to tell us-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


James Aloysius McGrath: -he bears responsibility for that-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is disgraceful-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Cambridge.


An hon. Member:: Smile, you are on candid camera, you ' clown.


James Aloysius McGrath: My friend, you are the clown.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member please resume his seat? I am sorry, but the Chair does not entertain points of order during question period.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Cambridge.


An hon. Member:: No respect.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Punishing interest rates are the single most important factor in driving businesses into bankruptcy and ordinary citizens on to the dole.
What commitment did the Prime Minister get from the President of the United States at Versailles with respect to U.S. interest rates coming down in the immediate future? If he did not get any commitment, is the government prepared to act unilaterally so that Canadians do not have to absorb the punishing interest rates that are sending so many of them into a state of destitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, at Versailles the President of the United States made it quite clear that he believed that high interest rates were causing a lot of the economic difficulties in his country and in
*

June 15, 1982

other countries, and that he would undertake to do his best in negotiations with Congress.


An hon. Member:: Ele said that a year ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that I have been asked about Versailles, not about Ottawa. Ele undertook to do his best to achieve an agreement with Congress which would have the effect of reducing the deficit and therefore bringing inflation, meaning the rate of interest, down.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What is his judgment and that of his government on the success of the United States in bringing interest rates down? Will that affect Canadian policy and will the government act unilaterally to peg interest rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows, as I do, what has happened between the administration and the Congress of the United States. They have apparently reached some compromise which might be agreed to by Congress, but it is too early to say whether the House of Representatives will be followed by agreement in the Senate. We should know that in a few days.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister, who knows there are one and a quarter million people out of work in Canada at the present time. Would he inform the House whether he is willing to use his good offices with the appropriate ministers to reverse their decision with respect to footwear quotas, and thereby give work to at least 7,000 people who have been needlessly thrown out of work as a result of his government's action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understood the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member from Edmonton, to advocate exactly the contrary, that we should have no quotas or any form of restriction on imports. So perhaps this is an area again where the Conservative Party-


Charles Joseph Clark: What is your policy, Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am trying to answer a question from the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition asks me what my policy is. I say we have two different policies from his own members.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is your policy?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, our policy has been announced in this House. Representations have been made to the government, the Minister of State for International Trade has met with representatives of that industry, and we are considering the representations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, those people out of work have been hearing that answer for more than nine or ten weeks because of the government's inactivity.


THE ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister undoubtedly knows, the dollar has now fallen to 78.29 cents in relation to the American dollar, approximately six cents below where it was when the government indicated it would not like to see it fall any further. Would the Prime Minister inform the House why the Canadian dollar is so much less desirable than the American dollar at the present time in the eyes of foreign investors, and is it true that the six cents decline is also going to contribute to more inflation in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not recall if the hon. member was in the House yesterday, but I gave quite detailed figures indicating that in the eyes of investors all over the world-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In relation to the American dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, in relation to the American dollar, all currencies of major countries-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Ours has fallen. Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member needs a lesson in economics, this is not the place for me to give it to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and it concerns the situation in Lebanon. As a result of the war in Lebanon and the battles being fought by Israel and Syria within the territory of a neutral country, there are many Lebanese who have lost everything they own and are now wandering the streets of Lebanon. Could the minister inform the House what the Canadian government intends to do

June 15, 1982
Oral Questions
to help the Lebanese people, who are caught in a war that is being waged at their expense?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will recognize, the situation in Lebanon is still very confused as a result of the tragic events of the past two weeks. Therefore, no decision has been made by the U.N. or other agencies concerning refugees. However, in the meantime the government has taken a decision to allow the approximately 1,000 visitors of Lebanese origin presently in Canada to apply to stay here for a full year, with the minister's permit to work during that period of time. After the year obviously we will review their situation. This is comparable to what we did for the Polish refugees.
Similarly we will allow Canadians of Lebanese origin to sponsor family members in Lebanon, who can come here at the same time under relaxed criteria, and we will not require anyone whose visa has expired during that period of time to return to Lebanon during the serious period of crisis. Those are the measures we have taken during this period, Madam Speaker, and when other decisions are made by the international community relating to a larger refugee movement, I will announce them in the House.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY-PROTECTION OF JOBS IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO-INQUIRY WHETHER MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN TO CORRECT SITUATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. Whereas government import policies are hurting the footwear industry and workers in Quebec and Ontario are unemployed because there are no reasonable quotas on leather footwear, I want to ask the minister whether he intends to take prompt action to protect these Canadian workers.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, as I have said three or four times, because of representations made by members on both sides of the House, as well as by all segments of the industry, the government is reconsidering its position of last November, and we will announce our decision in the last week of June or the first week of July.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, given that it was March 4 when it was first promised there would be an answer probably within a month, and that the minister announced on May 20 that he hoped to have an answer within a week, can the minister undertake to give an answer within
this month as to whether he will restore the quotas and give the industry a chance to regain the 7,000 jobs lost and protect the other 13,000 jobs? Will he answer that this month considering that there have now been six months of delay since the original wrong decision?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member recognizes that exports as a percentage of Canada's gross national product are one of the highest of any country in the world. Therefore, any protectionist action we take could have some adverse effects on our future trade and job creation. Thus, it is a very complex decision and not one that should be made overnight. I have already indicated, four or five times, that we will make a decision in the last week of June or first week of July.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. CNCP Telecommunications have just announced they are pulling out of New Brunswick and Price Edward Island; the result is canned jobs. The Water Quality Control Branch in Moncton has announced its relocation; more canned jobs in New Brunswick. Mitel has been delayed for months; the result is canned aspirations. The strangulation by the minister of VIA Rail and of the Atlantic Limited has resulted in dozens of canned jobs. Now CN says it will lay off thousands of workers across the nation, including hundreds in Moncton. Will the minister assure those very concerned workers that indeed they will be rehired, that the lay-offs are only temporary, and will he advise them when they will be rehired?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I understand the lay-offs are until October 15, if my memory serves me well. That is what CN is saying, so obviously that is what will happen. On the question as a whole, I think my hon. friend would not like to accept the principle that CN should isolate itself from the rest of the economy. There is a reduction in traffic, so CN feels it has to adjust to that. If it did not, the future of CN might be compromised, and obviously the government would be asked to pay for the cost of maintaining these people in the CN labour force.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, we have seen all kinds of situations where this government has made different work projects available to different parts of the country where it might be more favourable to the government. It is hard to get at these fellows all at once because they are all in it together.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. members would help the Chair if they refrained from commenting on the answers, and instead just proceeded to their questions.
June 15, 1982


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO CABINET
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, Atlantic Canada is folding up. Its very economic foundations are being undermined, and the Minister of Transport and his cronies are the moles responsible for it. Will the minister at least speak sympathetically to some of his colleagues on our behalf in order to salvage some of those doomed jobs, aspirations and broken dreams in Atlantic Canada-just to save some of them or must we be satisfied with just a hint of a tear?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was merely asking the hon. member a very pertinent question. Does he believe that CN should insulate itself and keep all of its labour force even if there is no work to be done? That is a question.


Mr. Jelinek:: Why are you asking the question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do you believe that?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It's good to know that you do. With respect to the sympathy that I have for the workers, particularly in the maritime area, I think I demonstrated that fairly clearly in recent days with respect to SYSCO.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice concerning the case of Donald Marshall. The minister will know Mr. Marshall is a Micmac Indian who was convicted of the murder of Sandy Seale in Nova Scotia in 1971 when he was 17 years old, and that he has spent 11 years in federal prisons. There is public speculation now that he is innocent, and there have been published reports that another person has admitted to the crime. Will the minister tell the House now what has transpired and whether action can be taken to allow all the facts to be made public? If an injustice has occurred, can he take steps to have it remedied?


Miss MacDonald:: Somebody answer the question.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Marshall case, I am reviewing it and I am having discussions with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, but we have not as yet resolved the problem. However, I hope to be able to do so by the end of this week.
Oral Questions ACTION TAKEN BY MINISTER


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Marshall family and other people devoted to this case have been waiting months for some kind of an indication from the Minister of Justice about what course of action he will follow. He has the power to grant a pardon; he has the power to order a judicial inquiry; and he simply tells us that he is taking time to decide. Can the minister not tell us a little more about what is going on? This case has been the subject of national magazine articles. It has had headlines in newspapers. Why is the minister so unwilling to disclose the facts in this case? What considerations are being applied to Mr. Marshall who may have been wronged by our justice system in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, if this case was such a problem in the mind of the hon. member, he might have asked the question long before. Some members on this side of the House have talked to me about this problem for many weeks-


Mr. Lawrence:: The hon. member has asked you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and some people from the Cape Breton area also. I am working on that at this time. I am in communication with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. I have said that I hope to make a report to this House before the end of this week.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns Crown corporation legislation. This legislation was recommended by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its report to the House over a year ago. This recommendation was repeated recently in the fifteenth report. I know the minister himself recognized the need for such legislation, as was stated last year. Could he tell the House when Crown corporation legislation will be presented?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I expect that legislation dealing with the control, direction and accountability of Crown corporations-and very responsive, I might say to the concerns of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-will be presented in the very near term.


QUERY RESPECTING CONTENT OF LEGISLATION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, could the minister state whether consideration is being given to including comprehensive audit provisions in the Crown corporation legislation?

June 15, 1982
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the legislation, I believe, will be very responsive to the concerns of the government and of the hon. member with respect to better control, direction and accountability. He will have to await the tabling of the legislation, and at that time he will then be able to examine the specific details of the government's policy.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Transport Commission has decided to abandon the service provided by Canadian National Railways from Liverpool to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, a distance of some 135 miles, on August 1, 1982. This is a retrograde, reprehensible, repugnant step which is not and cannot be condoned by any Nova Scotian, especially those citizens whose industry and livelihood in Lockeport, Shelburne, and all along the South Shore will suffer as a result of the government's actions. Will the minister halt this madness since the action can only be implemented provided a new loading ramp at Yarmouth belonging to the Dominion Atlantic Railway has been upgraded or rebuilt, which according to the commission must be done on or before August 1 ? Will the minister please call a halt to what is going on?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as all hon. members know, decisions of the CTC are appealable to the minister. If my hon. friend feels as strongly as he does, and I am quite sure other people feel similarly, they can appeal the decision. I will then be seized with it and will have to render a decision.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I would point out that I wrote a letter to him on May 21, 1982, which I hope he will consider an appeal. What a farce this government is making of the Prime Minister's promise made during the last election campaign that his government would improve the services of the CNR to all Canadians.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is another broken promise.


Mr. Epp:: The Liberals have broken every other one, why should they worry about this one?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, another broken promise.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE REVIEWED
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, since the removal of service means the relocation of an explosives
storage area from a remote spot in Queens County, which can no longer be serviced by the CNR, to a more settled area in Lunenburg County, the re-establishment of which is a very great concern to my constituents, will the minister, in the interests of maintaining employment on the South Shore, review this entire matter? If not, will the minister please tell my constituents through this House how in the name of all that is reasonable will the heavy industry in the area between Liverpool and Yarmouth hope to be serviced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is a procedure for appeal to the CTC. I would doubt whether a letter to the minister is sufficient to bring about a review. However, I will send the hon. member notes indicating the procedure to be followed. If the hon. member wants the minister to review the matter, that is the best way to do it.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development. During the past few weeks, I have received a number of complaints from people in my riding regarding the problems caused by prostitution in the western part of Lower Town here in Ottawa. The area has seen a considerable increase in prostitution among young people who are probably being exploited by pimps. Since the police admit they are unable to control the problem effectively because according to them, the sections of the Criminal Code that deal with this matter are ambiguous, can the minister inform the House whether the government intends to take any action to facilitate the work of the police, and finally, would he undertake to meet again with his provincial counterparts to discuss such action and how the law is to be enforced?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the problem was referred to committee with the unanimous consent of the House a few weeks ago, and is being discussed within the context of the debate on Bill C-53 which is before the committee at the present time. The members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have received presentations on the subject, and they are now considering the various options open to the government for changing the legislation or taking other kinds of action if necessary. If the hon. member wishes to make representations, he could do so before the committee.
June 15, 1982


THE JUDICIARY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. A week ago I called upon the minister to correct his statement made outside the House that the Canadian Judicial Council had accepted the shocking report of its three-man investigation committee into the actions of Justice Thomas Berger. The minister refused then, but since that time he has had an opportunity to consult with Ontario Chief Justice Evans and British Columbia Supreme Court Chief Justice Allan MacEachern, among others.
Will the minister now finally agree that while the conclusion of the two reports, that is, that Judge Berger should not actually be removed from the bench, was the same, the Judicial Council rejected the major and important conclusion of its committee that there existed grounds for removal and that the fundamental condition of good behaviour had been breached by Judge Berger by his action in speaking out on behalf of Canada's aboriginal peoples?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think my parliamentary secretary dealt with the matter last night. Of course, the Judicial Council received the report from the committee. I do not think the resolution is a repudiation of the report. Both the report and the resolution called for the same thing, that it was an indiscretion or something reprehensible on the part of Mr. Justice Berger, but because of the circumstances he should not be removed from the bench. I have accepted the conclusion, as I am obliged to do, of the resolution. That is the only legal body that can make recommendations to me.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary. Of course there is a fundamental difference between an indiscretion and a breach of the condition of good behaviour. 1 have before me a transcript of an interview with Chief Justice Evans, acting chairman of the council. My supplementary question is this. In view of the fact that Judge Evans states in this interview, in response to a question, that it would not be correct to say that the council accepted their committee report, and in view of the fact that the minister stated on the same date, June 6, and I quote, "The council have accepted their report-


Madam Speaker:: Order. How long is the hon. member going to quote? This is the second time he has quoted. Would he go directly to his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In view of the above, will the minister now stop deliberately misleading the Canadian public on the position of the Canadian Judicial Council, particularly
Oral Questions
when Judge Berger is unable to reply to this attack, from the bench?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, again, I think that the hon. member did not read all the quotations from what 1 said in Sudbury. I would like to point out to him that I said that they have accepted the result of the report. I think that he should read the two questions before, and he will see that.
I just say, as I have stated so many times, that we have to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the legislative and executive power and the judiciary. That is a cornerstone of our system. In that case, both the resolution and the report say that the conduct of Mr. Berger was reprehensible but he should not be removed from the bench. I have accepted the resolution of the council. I do think that in the best interests of the justice, that the matter is settled. I have received their resolution and I have accepted it.
I do not intend to proceed with removal, but I think that I must state again that it is extremely important in our system that there is a clear distinction between the judiciary and the House of Commons and the executive, and it is in the best interests that we follow that very closely on both sides, not only when Members of Parliament have to deal with that system but when the system must deal with public issues.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Danke schon, Frau Prasidentin. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Could he make a brief statement on the success or failure of his program to engage in a sectorial way, namely in fisheries and forestry, a number of Canadians who are out of work, in a summer work program involving Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member danke schon aussi. In answer to his question I would like to point out that it is a fairly extensive program. We have now signed agreements with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia and we have negotiated agreements which will be brought to culmination with the province of New Brunswick and Quebec, as well as all the other provinces which are in various stages of discussion.
The programs in both Ontario and British Columbia are now in operation. In recent discussions which I have had with the province of Ontario, they have submitted proposals to extend Section 38 to include areas of renovation of housing, agricultural reform, and areas dealing with tourism. We are looking at all of these proposals, as well as the mining area
18470

June 15, 1982
Oral Questions
where we are doing a number of environmental clean-up projects in company with the mining associations and organizations.
The program is being undertaken with co-operation. The fisheries part of the program is one that is being delivered directly by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Again, that program has been signed and delivered in several of the ocean provinces and will also be available to provinces in the interior of the country.
Therefore, it is one means that we are providing, not the only means, but one that we are providing to help alleviate the unemployment problem-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: -and I think other hon. members should be interested in it.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW PROGRAM
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question will not elicit such an extensive answer. At the end of this month 200,000 young Canadians will leave our school system, a great majority of whom will enter the job market. Since the program has not produced the results that the minister had earlier indicated- very few people are involved in it now and very few dollars have been spent-would he make another review of the program, particularly with the view to involve industry in the program, especially in those provinces where the provincial governments are not as receptive to his ideas as we would like them to be?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in many cases we have been involved in discussions with industrial business organizations concerning those programs. I would point out to the hon. member that in the circumstances of young people coming on to the job market, particularly students, it is very important, as I pointed out in the House before, that we try to recruit the maximum effort by the business community to offer places and opportunities for summer students to gain employment during this very difficult period. Again, I would repeat my appeal to hon. members of the House to use their own communications and efforts in their constituencies to involve business people. I have written to many business leaders and associations, but that effort would be substantially enhanced if I could recruit the assistance of Members of this Parliament for this very noteworthy effort.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Why was Canada the only
country attending at Versailles that did not have a significant component of its delegation containing special expertise in science and technology and research and development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I try to keep the number of members of my delegation lower than those of the other delegations.


COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF FUNDING
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology. Did the minister make recommendations to the Prime Minister that our delegation be composed of people including those experts in science and technology? As well, what are his views on the present trend in France where they are putting a much greater emphasis on science and technology and research and development?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, while it is certainly true that the effort of the French government to increase the proportion of the GNP in France devoted to research and development are impressive, it is even more true that the rate of expansion of research and development in Canada is outpacing the projected growth in France.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Friday the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister of Justice's appeal in the case with respect to Uranium Canada and Eldorado Nuclear Limited in the uranium cartel question on the basis that these two Crown corporations were immune from prosecution in the criminal courts. What method does he now propose to make public provisions of the Bertrand report with respect to the activities of these two Crown corporations in order that there will be a fair trial of the private sector corporations still under indictment in this particular matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: against Crown corporations, we are reviewing that judgment and will subsequently decide whether we should launch a second appeal. 1 have no further comment at the present time.


Madam Speaker:: Question period is coming to an end. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising to ask a question. 1 would ask the hon. member for Saskatoon West to defer to his Leader.


Charles Joseph Clark: Go ahead, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the gesture by the Leader of the Opposition. I always defer to the greatest parliamentarian in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Justice rose and bowed, but I was talking about a truthful parliamentarian.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY PRIVATE COMPANIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The result of this policy decision by the government has been that there is one rule for the governors and one rule for the governed in our country with respect to criminal prosecutions under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. In view of the fact that the court decision is to prevent the participation of the Crown corporations, how does the Minister of Justice propose to allow the other remaining defendants access to the information which is essential to their defence, or is he trying to cover something up with respect to the government's involvement in this whole issue?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the statement by the hon. member is a bit funny because he says we have two standards. We do not have two standards. We have decided to prosecute both the private sector and the public sector. It has been ruled by two courts that we might not be entitled to prosecute the public sector, but it is not the policy of the government. The policy of the government is to prosecute it, just like the private sector. If it is not legal, it is another problem. We have said many times that we want everyone in this case to have a fair trial. I do not think that the ruling of the court will in any way impede the chance of the defence to have a full defence.


Madam Speaker:: I must deal with another matter before calling Routine Proceedings. Someone has signalled to me, and it has been confirmed to me, that the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has clearly said that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) had deliberately misled the House.


Some hon. Members:: Right.
Privilege-Mr. King


Madam Speaker:: I personally did not hear it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I heard it.


Madam Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member himself to tell me whether he did use that expression; otherwise I will check tomorrow in the "blues". I am afraid that if it is confirmed that the hon. member did use that expression, I will have to ask him to withdraw; but since I personally did not hear him, I will ask him today whether he did use that expression.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I did not use those particular words, no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PETITIONS
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 sixty-ninth Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) on Monday, June 14, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to present for your judgment my case for an opportunity to defend myself and my integrity as an aftermath to the statements made in this House by the government House leader on June 9. Today is the first day on which 1 have had the opportunity to present this question of privilege following my awareness of the content of those statements.
The offending and untrue statements by the government House leader are contained in Hansard on page 18296 as follows:


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood the point of order raised. He was certainly not on the floor of the House when the division was called. He should be asked about this.
Further, it states:


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I just said, namely that the hon. member may have misunderstood the point of order raised. There is no doubt that we all saw him, and he knows he was not on the floor of the House when the division was called.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I see what the hon. member is raising as a question of privilege. I must tell the hon. member that he does not have a question of privilege, because obviously, the statement that he made in the House-

June 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. King


Mr. Andre:: How do you know? You have not heard it yet.


Madam Speaker:: -was taken as being his statement, just as a statement made by another hon. member belongs to that hon. member. I think the way in which the Deputy Speaker dealt with the question closes the matter.
I do not have in my hand the quotation of the Deputy Speaker, but I read it before coming into the House, and the Deputy Speaker said quite clearly that if the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) said that he was here at the time the division was taken, then he was here. That statement is taken at its face value. We are all hon. members, and if the hon. member said that he was here, then he was here and the matter is closed. The last item which appears in the record involving this particular exchange in the House is this:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made a statement and it is the practice of the House to accept the word of the hon. member.
Therefore, the hon. member has nothing to correct.


Mr. McDermid:: It is one word against another.


Madam Speaker:: The statement in Hansard is quite clear.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) is rising on a question of personal privilege. His conduct has been the subject of comments by the government House leader which have been allowed to stay on the record. A similar matter was raised by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) the other night, something unprecedented in our procedures. They were allowed to rise on questions involving them personally in order to put their explanations on the record.
All that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen has on the record is a statement which is at odds with the statement made by the government House leader. All that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen wishes to do is to provide the explanation that he was, in fact, in the House and had slipped over to speak with the hon. member from Chilcotin-


Charles Joseph Clark: Prince George-Peace River.


Erik Nielsen: -the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). He was in the House when the question was put. After the question was put and while the vote was being recorded, he slipped over to speak to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and then resumed his seat. That is what he wanted to explain to the House and, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: -he should be given the opportunity to make that explanation quite clear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has had the occasion to make that statement quite clear, and I quote from Hansard where the Deputy Speaker stated:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The orders of the House provide that a member should be in his chair to hear the question put. Was the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) in the chair to hear the question put?


Frederick John King: Yes.
So I think that is quite clear. The record of the hon. member is straight and 1 think we all accept the word of the hon. member that he was in his seat at that time.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member for Yukon is rising again on this particular question, I do have to remind him that I cannot accept constant exchanges once I have ruled on the question. There is no question of privilege in this particular instance and the hon. member has made his case. I pointed out to him what is on the record. 1 think it is quite clear that his statement has been made for the record and I cannot accept further comments on this particular question. If the hon. member for Yukon has another question to raise, that is fine, I will hear him.


POINTS OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: By George, Madam Speaker, I do have another question to raise. It is the right of hon. members in this chamber to be heard and the obligation of the Chair to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I have sat here for too long observing double standards being applied.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Erik Nielsen: I have heard short, sharp questions coming from this side this afternoon and answers a yard long coming from members opposite, with all sorts of observations about the questions but none whatsoever about the length of the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: These remarks about the way in which the question period is being directed-


Harvie Andre: Not just that!


Madam Speaker:: -of course, are directed at myself, I presume. I think hon. members sometimes feel that the answers from the other side are too long-and ask me to cut them short. Some of them were short today. I fully recognize

June 15, 1982

that. I do try to cut them short when they are too long. However, when they are too short, I am afraid I cannot ask ministers to make them longer, because that is not, of course, within the purview of my responsibilities. 1 try to keep everyone brief.
Today was a particularly difficult day when some questions, not all of them, were quite short. As a matter of fact, we heard from many questioners on the opposition side, which pleases me because I have many customers on my list waiting to be recognized in the question period. 1 feel very bad when I walk out of the question period after having allowed questions from only eight or nine hon. members in the opposition. I like to satisfy as many members as possible. I want to remind hon. members that it is in their interest to make their questions short so that everybody will have a chance.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question. It is also in the interest of ministers to keep their answer short in order to allow those customers, as you call them, to put their questions. The specific instance to which I want to draw the attention of the Chair this afternoon is that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was cut off in the middle of asking his question and he did not get the answer from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Surely he should have been allowed to complete that question. Members should not be cut off halfway through their question and be asked to put a question which they are in the middle of putting.


Madam Speaker:: I stand to be corrected, but 1 think the commotion took place when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) failed to get an answer to one of his questions. I, of course, cannot force another member to answer a question. He failed to receive an answer to his first question and then went on to his second question. 1 think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will recognize that I did give the hon. member for St. John's East some leeway in asking his second question. Obviously he was going beyond what is usually accepted in the course of asking questions.
It is only to maintain decorum and good order in the House that I intervene in these circumstances. I am not trying to restrict the freedom of members to express themselves. On the contrary, all members want to express themselves. The more I try to keep some members' questions short during question period, the more members will be able to exercise that freedom to express themselves.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I would point out to him that his example was particularly unfelicitous. He is complaining about long answers from this side. The hon. member for Yukon will recall that the question asked of me by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was preceded by a very long string of statistics. The question was, and I believe I can quote it almost verbatim, "and is the Prime Minister attempting to
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
shirk his responsibilities?" That was the question. My answer was no. No, I am not attempting to shirk my responsibilities.


Madam Speaker:: All right, I am sorry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for St. John's East then rose and said-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) desire to put the record straight, but 1 am afraid that we should not enter into debate on the question and answer period. Of course, this is not the time to do it. There is ample time to do that on other occasions.


MR. CLARK-REMARKS OF MR. PINARD RESPECTING MR. KING
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I also rise in the interests of setting the record straight of contributing to what I think Your Honour has called decorum and order in the House. We have a situation in relation to the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) in which there stands on the record of the House, in the words of the government House leader's statements about the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen that are not true. The Speaker has ruled and has read from the ruling of the Deputy Speaker that the House must accept the word of the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen, who was indeed in the House when the question was put. By accepting that word-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may come to my point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Hear him out.


Charles Joseph Clark: May 1 be heard?


Madam Speaker:: No. I remind the right hon. member that I did ask the hon. member for Yukon not to comment further on this particular question which was raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). The record, I believe, is straight. Divergence of views about statements which are contradictory in this House are quite frequent. That is what debate is all about. Often we have on the record contradictory statements made by one member or another, and it is quite normal. There is a government party and an opposition party. Often their views are completely opposed. Therefore, it is not abnormal to have contradictory statements. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has made a statement. I suppose he stands by that statement. If he does not want to correct it, that is up to him, not to anyone else, to decide.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to come to my point of order, which is precisely that there is a disorder in the proceedings of the House in that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has made a statement that

June 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
is untrue and that stands on the record. He has not until this point risen to remove that inaccuracy, that untrue statement. I would ask him on a point of order, in the interest of maintaining order in the House of Commons, to stand in his place now and indicate that the accusation which he made against the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen is untrue.


Madam Speaker:: Just before the minister rises, I want to repeat that I accept statements of all hon. members and that the House accepts statements of all hon. members. One member says that this is his perception of the fact and another member says that he has a different perception of the fact. This is perfectly legitimate in debate. 1 would ask the minister not to debate this, but only to reply to the question asked in the way he now sees fit.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in law, as people who have had a chance to finish law school will know, there is an old principle which says that in case of any divergence between the French and English version of a text, the version in the language used by the speaker should prevail. Thus, when I spoke in the House that evening, I said on page 18296, according to the French version of Hansard-since I spoke in French-I said, and 1 quote:
Monsieur le president, jc pense que le depute a mal saisi le sens de la question. II n'etait certainement pas a son fauteuil lorsque le vote a etc tenu. II faudrait le lui dcmander.
The English version quoted by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) reads as follows, and I quote:
[English)
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood the point of order raised. He was certainly not on the floor of the House when the division was called.

There is a difference between "fauteuil" and "floor". When 1 said the member was not in his seat when the question was put-which is exactly what the member for Yukon said earlier-it was because the member was talking to another member at that member's seat. So he is corroborating exactly what I said on the evening of June 9, and since my statement has been corroborated by the member for Yukon, it is up to the member who raised a point of order to withdraw his statement.


Madam Speaker:: If I understand correctly, the French text already reads like the corrected version the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen is demanding, if he is, in fact, in a position to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 am trying to give the President of the Privy Council a chance to correct the record,
because, in quoting his own words, he accused the member for Okanagan-Similkameen of not being in his seat when the question was put, although the member was in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Certainly not!


Charles Joseph Clark: There may well be, Madam Speaker-if I may have some quiet from the Member of Parliament who embraces communist principles when speaking for the Liberal Party in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He wasn't the only one.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps he was not the only one. The Prime Minister points to himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There may well be a problem of translation. In English it does say that the member was not on the floor. In French it says the member was not in his seat. That, as I recall, was the language that was used by the President of the Privy Council. In fact, the Member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen was in his seat when the question was put.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Charles Joseph Clark: He then moved, he then moved.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Charles Joseph Clark: He then moved, during the voting, to speak with one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish). He was in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: He was not in his seat and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: The facts are quite simple, Madam Speaker. In English, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen stands accused of not being on the floor. In French, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen stands accused of not being in his seat. In fact, he was on the floor and he was in his seat at the time the question was put. He then moved and was back into his seat again when the opportunity came for him to vote.
It would clarify all of these matters if the President of the Privy Council would accept the word-I see that the Prime Minister is walking out on a parliamentary question-of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen and correct the record in French and correct the record in English.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker-
June 15, 1982


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member wants to speak on this point of order. He does want to speak on something else later, I know that, but I will hear him now on this point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 have just decided that the matter that I was going to raise later will not be raised. We have spent 22 minutes on this point of order. At the very time when we are having this debate about whether someone was in his seat or on the floor, I say to you, Madam Speaker, there are thousands who are dying in the Middle East, there are hundreds who are dying in the Falklands, there are millions of Canadians out of work, and that this is a ridiculous use of the time of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have a question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He is not in the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I saw, 1 believe, the President of the Privy Council rising and in fact I believe he was recognized, so I assumed he was going to remove the false statements from the record of the House of Commons.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 was going to speak in more or less the same vein as the leader of the New Democratic Party did just now. 1 think it is absolutely ridiculous-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the case, I declare that the debate on this question is over. I believe Hansard will be abundantly clear to everyone, and I hope that all hon. members are satisfied with the statements they have been able to make this afternoon in the House.


Some hon. Members:: No, not at all.


Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).
Petitions
Such an allegation goes to my honour as a member of this House and affects my privileges, because if such an allegation were made it would mislead this House and constitute a falsehood. I had clearly raised this case on two occasions in the House once by way of an Order Paper question on April 1, which was answered, according to Handard, on May 11, 1982, and appears at page 17285; and again by way of Standing Order 43 on April 19, 1982.
Now, Madam Speaker, too often ministers of the Crown in responding to private members in this House lay them open to charges of abusing the privileges of this House by making answers without giving an opportunity to respond. 1 want to make it very clear that when the Minister of Justice stands up and treats a serious matter as summarily as he does and he adds gratuitously the suggestion that 1 am only raising this at a late date possibly to gain publicity, possibly because the case has been the subject of a feature article in a national magazine, possibly because it appeared in a national newspaper over the weekend on the front page, then I should certainly point out that I was on record on April 1, 1 was on record before that, and I was on record in this House on April 19. It is the Minister of Justice who will not deal with the case, not members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I know the hon. member realizes he does not have a question of privilege, but he probably has a grievance and has made his point. A grievance can be debated on other occasions in the House of Commons and I invite the hon. member to use the procedure as it stands in order to air his grievances.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising from the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) during the question period when he responded to my inquiries concerning the Marshall case. I do not have before me the transcript of those remarks but I do believe I heard him say that I had not raised this case on a previous occasion.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table on behalf of over 40,000 Canadians the following petition:
That: martial law in Poland be lifted, the rights of trade unions which were achieved by the Polish people on August 1980 be reinstated, that the human rights mandated by the Helsinki Accord be reinstated;
That until these demands are met by the Polish government a trade embargo on Poland and the Soviet Union be imposed.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that you will find the petition in order and that the appropriate ministers of the Crown will consider the request of the over 40,000 Canadians signing this petition.

June 15, 1982
Order Paper Questions



SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT


Donald James Johnston: for leave to introduce Bill C-120, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have something today which is noncontroversial and should be music to the ears of all hon. members.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,151,4,036, 4,308 and 4,355.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,599 which stated in part that a province wide search was made for suitable limestone for the $2,500 worth of limestone purchased for the Prime Minister's new desk, before the actual purchase was made in the area of Cambridge, Ontario, did the search include an examination of limestone in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) on what date did such an examination take place (b) what were the names and job designations of those who completed the examination?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: As
stated in answer No. 2,599, a province-wide search was undertaken for suitable limestone samples through stone suppliers in Toronto. The limestone qualities in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville were not inspected, as it-along with other quarries, produces rubble stone, rather than dimensional stone, and were not represented with samples for the purpose which had been identified, (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the Nova Scotia Volunteer Week Committee receive a payment of $7,800 from the Secretary of State and, if so, under which program?
2.	Are funds available to other organizations or groups under the program and, if so, what circumstances entitle a group or organization to the funds?
3.	Was any part of the $7,800 granted to the committee paid to the wife of Mr. Michael J.L. Kirby, former Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, for any services provided or any expenses incurred by her?
4.	Was Mr. Kirby in any way involved in the obtaining of the grant and, if so, what was the nature of his involvement?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1.	Provincial Volunteer Week Committee (Nova Scotia
Volunteer Week Committee) received a grant of $7,800 to assist with its project "Community Volunteer Recognition Kit". Two of the project objectives-among others-are as follows: (i) "to increase dialogue between ethnic communities and the majority community on volunteerism, (ii) to increase opportunity for ethnic groups and the Provincial Volunteer Week Committee to recognize outstanding volunteers." The grant was made under group development section of the multicultural program.
2.	Yes, 51 grants were issued within Nova Scotia in the 1981-82 fiscal year. Conditions for granting: (i) group must qualify as voluntary organization under the criteria established for the Secretary of State Department programs; (ii) the project must meet the objectives and priorities of the program and the goal priorities of the Halifax Regional Office of the Secretary of State Department-in this case "the encouraging and supporting of activities to improve relations between majority and minority groups in Nova Scotia by reducing perceptual barriers"-.
3.	Ms. Bonnie Kirby is co-ordinator of the Provincial Volunteer Committee, and $3,000 of the grant is budgeted for salary at $500 per month for six months (Dec. 1, 1981-May 31, 1982).
4.	No.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	Does the Commissioner of the RCMP report directly to the Solicitor General or through the deputy solicitor general to the minister?
2.	Does the Commissioner have the status of a deputy minister?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. The Commissioner of the RCMP reports directly to the Solicitor General of Canada.
2. The Commissioner of the RCMP, for the purposes of the Public Service Employment Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, equates to a deputy minister in terms of status, however his title is that of a deputy head rather than deputy minister.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to part 3 of question No. 4,096 which stated that 215 used refurbished seats were being purchased from Air Canada for $276,860, does this mean that each seat will cost $1,287.72 and, if so, for what reason are the seats so expensive, considering they are "used"?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Refurbished seats from Air Canada will cost a total price of $276,860 or $1,287.72 each. This price compares favourably with the following alternatives: (a) New seats of similar design to refurbished seats total cost $678,700 or $3,156 each, (b) Refurbishment of existing seats by competitive bid ranged from $472,122.58 ($2,195.92 each) to $655,742.79 ($3,048.71 each).
June 15, 1982

[ Translation]


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,048 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4048 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government place advertisements in newspapers calling for applications for jobs in which applicants are restricted to those of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds and, if so, what are all the details of the advertising and is the government following a policy of racism?
2.	Does the government realize that (a) the majority of Canadian people support giving all possible advantages to Canada's native peoples (b) by restricting certain jobs to specific groups only, it is excluding other nationalities and Canadian citizens who might wish to apply?
3.	Is it the government's intention to adopt a policy to exclude blacks, whites or any other sections of the population in the future and, if so, what is the justification for such a practice?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-l 11, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the third time I shall have an opportunity to speak to this bill, since we had to divide the
Borrowing Authority Act
original bill, which dealt with the borrowing authority and certain amendments to the Excise Tax Act. Considering the fact that debate has been limited to a single day, today 1 shall be very brief in my comments and shall only raise some of the more important aspects of this legislation.

As hon. members are aware, Bill C-l 11 seeks parliamentary approval of borrowing authority for 1982-83 in the amount of $6.6 billion. The bill has been debated in the House and hon. members have been able to put questions about the bill to both myself and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) during our appearances before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Consequently, hon. members are quite familiar with the reason for and the contents of the bill, and I will not elaborate further on these matters.
At this time 1 would like to discuss the basis for the amount of borrowing authority being requested and to point out to hon. members that it will not be adequate for the whole fiscal year. Much of what I am going to say has already been said by the Minister of Finance when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, but 1 would like to repeat the essence of his comments to the House today.
Hon. members will recall that the request for $6.6 billion borrowing authority for 1982-83 is based on the estimated budgetary and non-budgetary financial requirements as set out in the budget which was presented to Parliament last November 12. These requirements were based on a forecast of Canadian economic growth that was current at that time. Since the calculations were made for that budget there has been a major slowing down of worldwide economic growth. In fact, most of the industrialized world is now suffering from an economic recession. It is important to note that the economic problems facing Canada are similar to the economic problems facing all major industrialized countries. All these countries, including Canada, to a greater or lesser degree are facing problems of persistent inflation, rising unemployment and slow growth.
In Canada, although budgetary projections did forecast some weakness, the depth of this recessionary period was not anticipated when the budget forecast was being prepared. Today the Canadian economy is in a much weaker position than it was Iasi November, and this has had and will continue to have an obvious impact on government revenues and expenditures and. consequently, on the fiscal position and financial requirements.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In other words, you are broke.


Pierre Bussières: As a result of these developments we expect the financial requirements will be larger, and we expect we will

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
have to ask the House for additional borrowing authority for 1982-83 some time before the end of the fiscal year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When?


Pierre Bussières: We would not expect the House to act on a request for additional borrowing authority without providing it with an update on the economic situation and the implications of these new developments for the government's financial requirements. The Minister of Finance has said he will issue a statement on the economy before the House recesses for the summer.

He also indicated, Mr. Speaker, when he appeared before the standing committee, that if a request for supplementary borrowing authority were tabled in the House, he would at that time explain why the government felt it was justified in requesting the borrowing authority. The statement to be made by the Minister of Finance before the House adjourns for the summer will also give hon. members a chance to reassess the minister's position on the economic situation in Canada. I am convinced that both hon. members and other Canadians realize that the government alone cannot be held responsible for the recession resulting from the present economic situation.
Canadians as well as the members of this House are well aware of the fact that our economy is linked to the world economic situation and to the U.S. economy. It is often said, and I feel it cannot be said often enough, that Canada has an open economy. We are dependent on foreign markets, and when there is a serious recession on those markets, we suffer the constraints of this situation. The fact that our economy is an open one and that it depends on the world economic situation and the situation in the United States, makes us even more vulnerable. Recently, Canadians and the members of this House were witness to world-level attempts at collaboration with a view to improving the international situation. I feel that inside our own country as well, we should stress concerted efforts by all economic agents to put our economy back on its feet and thus also create a favourable climate for economic recovery elsewhere.
There are a few points 1 would like to recall this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, which are important to this economic recovery. First of all, we should get rid of the habit we have acquired of living with high inflation rates, because that is where the root of the problem lies. Inflation creates a climate of uncertainty for investors and consumers, leading us to develop expectations and wage demands that create a climate that is very unfavourable to investment. If we want to create a favourable climate for economic recovery, we must drive out the cause of uncertainty which is inflation, and to do so, we must get rid of this habit we have acquired of living with inflation. We must also restrain our wage demands and this will happen as soon as we have rid ourselves of our inflationary expectations. All economic agents, including the federal government, provincial governments, municipalities, corporations, businessmen and
private citizens we must all pool our efforts and develop attitudes that will rid us of the disease that is undermining our society and our economy, and that disease is inflation. Once we have broken out of the vicious circle of inflationary expectations, we shall be on our way towards creating a climate that is more favourable to investment than the uncertainty which is now holding back investment that would otherwise help to create jobs, reduce unemployment and bring down interest rates.
Another aspect I should like to discuss before concluding, Mr. Speaker, is the government's extremely limited room for manoeuvring in the present recession. The government cannot afford to spend irresponsibly, and the resources at its disposal are committed to programs that would be very difficult to cut back. I am thinking here of the funds-one of our colleagues will be discussing this aspect in detail later on-which are transferred to the provinces in the form of equalization payments, financing of health care and social security, and financing of post-secondary education. Substantial amounts are also earmarked for programs such as family allowances, old age security, guaranteed income supplement and the child tax credit, all programs that are aimed especially at those people in our society who are most in need of help and who are also most vulnerable in times of high inflation. I think Canadians agree with the government's philosophy that in difficult times, when the economy is in a recession, our resources should be used to bring relief to those in our society who need it most.
The government's room for manoeuvring is extremely limited, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I called on our economic agents to pool their efforts in order to bring down inflationary pressures. I feel that this is a key factor in helping us put the economy back on its feet. Mr. Speaker, this is the only day hon. members will have to express their views on this bill, with which the government is seeking borrowing authority for $6.6 billion. As I said earlier, I have twice had an opportunity to speak to this bill. I appeared before the committee during one of its meetings to answer questions by committee members. 1 want to thank the members of this House for having granted me a few moments today to say my last words in this debate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks on this bill I want to make one observation that I think is very important to all of us in this House today. The minister observed that this bill has been split. I want to comment that it was split after the ruling of the Speaker, on the request of the government. It is also consistent with the action agreed upon between the government and opposition parties that the omnibus bill on energy security would also be split. These are two occasions where the government has tried to use the rules of the House to introduce
June 15, 1982

omnibus legislation which is totally reprehensible and has been turned down. It has been ruled on by the Speaker but the end result is that it was turned down by the House. 1 believe that the House acknowledges that this form of legislation is totally wrong.
I hope the government has learned that it should never again try to use this type of legislation where two or more bills are combined and put in one package. The government should not try to slide this kind of legislation by the House, using its majority to force it through. That is not acceptable to the House of Commons and such legislation should never be used again.
Let me say at the outset that after the comments made in committee the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), for this minister to come to the House and ask for permission to borrow $6.6 billion is totally in contempt of Parliament and in contempt of the Canadian people. We are being asked to vote on something when we have no idea what the end result will be. The minister himself said that he wants us to approve $6.6 billion borrowing authority, but he cannot tell us what the balance will be. He is saying to us, in effect, "Buy this used car from me. It does not work, but I am not going to tell you how much it will cost to fix it. I will come back and charge you more money to fix the car." That is what he is saying to the Canadian people today and it is totally wrong.
The minister has admitted that the estimates made in November were wrong. In committee the Minister of Finance said that he was wrong. In the November budget the estimate was $10.5 billion but I maintain that today this figure would be around $17 billion or $18 billion. Other economists in the country would say that the estimate is probably closer to $20 billion.
Why does the minister come back to the House and ask us for borrowing authority? Surely the Minister of Finance has gone through the numbers and knows the total amount he will have to borrow this year because of the change in his deficit requirements. That $18 billion means about $1,900 per taxpayer. That is a lot of money to ask from Canadian taxpayers.
Let me point out that at current rates of interest the effect of continually borrowing, deficit after deficit, is that every five years the amount doubles. If we have an $18 billion deficit today, in five years' time that will be $36 billion. The call on the Canadian taxpayer ten years from now will be $72 billion. For the government to ask for a blank cheque now is totally wrong.
We know that the economy is weak but we knew that in November. We knew we were in a recession then and we were telling the minister that we were in a recession, but he ignored us and said: "We will do business as usual. We do not believe we are in a recession." All around him people were saying the economy was in a recession but he ignored reality. He ignored the impact of the size of the deficit on the economy.
Today small-business men who are trying to keep a business going are struggling against the competition of the Government of Canada in the marketplace. They are struggling to get
Borrowing Authority Act
money at high interest rates. It is that competition from the Government of Canada that is forcing interest rates up in this country. The farmer, the home owner and the businessman are caught in the same spiral.
The minister spoke about restraint and said that we have to get used to restraint. Who is he trying to kid, Mr. Speaker? Last year the minister proposed an increase of 22 per cent in government spending. If that is restraint, when will the government get going and spend some real money?
1 do not know whether the minister has been told by the Minister of Finance to come into the House and do this, but to have the audacity to request authority for $6.6 billion when he knows there will be a request for another $6.5 billion or $7 billion or $8 billion of borrowing authority in three or four weeks time is totally irresponsible and totally in contempt of this Parliament.
This is a large amount of money, Mr. Speaker. It is very hard for Canadians to understand amounts of that size. I said that it represents about $ 1,900 per taxpayer. That is not just a figure that floats around Ottawa, it is a figure that is of concern to all Canadians. The size of the deficit and speculation about its ultimate size is causing great uncertainty in the financial markets of the country and in foreign exchange markets. It is one of the reasons the Canadian dollar is trading below 78.39 cents U.S. today.
One of the things that we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, is that as pressure on the Canadian dollar continues, the response of the Bank of Canada, as always, is to increase interest rates. Those increased interest rates are felt by all Canadians, those running small businesses, the home owner, the farmer, the fisherman. All Canadians suffer from high interest rates. They are at the heart of the weakness in the economy today. We have to understand that it is not just a problem that is felt in Ottawa; it is a problem for all Canadians.
On a number of occasions recently the Minister of Finance has used the flim-flam of trying to confuse Canadians by saying that the Canadian dollar is weak because the U.S. dollar is strong. Now, isn't that a great statement? There have been many times in the past when the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar are strong against other currencies, but why is the Canadian dollar weak and the U.S. dollar strong today? It is because the Canadian government is not following sound policies. Inflation is 5 per cent or 6 per cent higher here than in the U.S.; the U.S. economy is starting to turn around but we are still going straight down. That is why the Canadian dollar is weak. The marketplace has no confidence in Canadian government policies. The level of the dollar at 78.39 is the verdict of the marketplace. It is the barometer of the success or, as in this case, the failure of government policies. It is not just the budget but a series of policies which have led to the weakness in the dollar. It is the problems arising from the NEP, last year's budget and the federal-provincial squabbles which go on and on, provoked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance.

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
The Canadian dollar today is viewed as a basket case. Some people in the marketplace call it the banana because they see Canada approaching the status of a banana republic. It is a joke to those people but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not a joke to me because I have some pride in this country. I want to see the economy run better than in most other countries. It could be but it is not, and the reason is the failure of this government to address the problems which are within our control. If we were having problems but had some economic growth and lower levels of unemployment and inflation, I could accept that. However, 1 think the minister probably saw in this morning's paper that the Bank of International Settlements said Canada is dead last in productivity growth. You do not have to be a good economist to understand what is going wrong. You do not have to understand the intricacies of the economy. The fact that the Canadian dollar has gone from 1.02 six years ago to the current level of 78.39 says it all. And the bad management starts right here with this deficit we are talking about today.
We have in our country today, Mr. Speaker, and indeed around the world, a crisis of confidence in this country. I would like to read what Mr. W. A. Wilson said about this in a recent article:
It seems beyond dispute that a restoration of confidence is this country's greatest single need at the present time since little economic improvement is likely to start within Canada while confidence is as low as it is now.
Don McGillivray, also a respected columnist, said:
The government's most critical shortage today is credibility.
We have to rebuild that credibility and confidence in the country. But the government comes to the House of Commons and says: "We want to borrow $6.5 billion. Give us the authority, but we cannot tell you how much more there is to come. There will be more but we cannot tell you now." What does that say to people who are looking for some indication that this government knows what it is doing? It says nothing. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are doing nothing to restore that confidence.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) said in his opening remarks that Canada's economy is particularly vulnerable today to international economic forces. So why is not the government and the Prime Minister trying to restore that confidence? All the Prime Minister has been doing these past few weeks is to flail away at the U.S.; it is all the fault of the Federal Reserve Bank. On the weekend he said NATO was the problem. At the same time he and the Minister of Finance ignore the problems here in Canada. The Prime Minister's stated efforts at Versailles clearly failed. He went to Versailles to get a change in the monetary policies of the U.S. government and he failed. At the same time he comes back and tells those Canadians who are losing their jobs on a daily basis and struggling with high interest rates that there will be no major change in policy. If he felt so strongly that Versailles was the answer, how can he come back to Canada and sit on his hands and say business as usual, there will be no significant change in the policies of this country?
Let us look at the Canadian dollar as the focal point of so many of these problems. It in itself is the major problem facing Canada today, because the decline in the dollar leads to higher interest rates which affect all Canadians. The decline also reflects a tremendous outflow of capital to create jobs in other countries at a time when we have 1.5 million unemployed. Why is this happening? People in Canada feel very strongly about some things, one of which is their retirement income. People set aside money each year for their retirement, and when they see that little nest egg threatened by policies which lead to inflation and a decline in our standard of living, they take refuge in stronger currencies. Businesses small and large see their future threatened by this government's policies and they move their money out in order to spread the risk around. Sometimes they move their entire investment out of the country.
Just to demonstrate that I am speaking in real terms I want to put some numbers on the record. Last year direct investment in Canada by non-residents showed a net loss of $5.3 billion. At the same time Canadians made direct investments in other countries totalling $4.9 billion, for a $10.2 billion outflow. That compares with the previous two years of around $2 billion a year. Then there are the small amounts of money which are too small to be picked up by the statistics-gathering people. Last year that amounted to about an $8.4 billion outflow, compared again to a level of about $2 billion a year in the previous two years. So the total amount of money which left Canada in 1981 was $18.6 billion as against an average of about $4 billion, or 4.5 times the previous level. Just to put that figure in context, it represents about 1.5 times the total amount of money we spent in Canada on housing. That amount of money could create a tremendous amount of employment in this country. That is the sort of thing that has been going on in response to the policies of this government.
Why is there no confidence in the Canadian dollar? 1 have said this before and I will say it again, again and again. Why is the Canadian dollar weak? First, there is the National Energy Program; second, the attitude toward foreign investment; third, the budgetary proposals of last year; fourth, the high federal government deficit; and fifth, the federal-provincial squabbles. All of those things are causing pressure and are at the heart of the record outflow of capital to which I have just referred.
If those policies are turned around, the outflow of capital would be turned around and we would see that money surging back into the country. This would alleviate pressure on the dollar and it would alleviate pressure on interest rates. It would create employment in the country where we need it the most. I see the parliamentary secretary is shaking his head.


Mr. Fisher:: 1 will not agree with that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The parliamentary secretary does not know what has happened. He does not understand what is going on in the country today. I suggest the parliamentary secretary
June 15, 1982

talk to people, people in the real world, not those who are in the ivory towers of Ottawa but people who are dealing with problems that have been caused by the policies 1 have outlined.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Getting rid of FIRA would not change a thing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The parliamentary secretary says, getting rid of FIRA would not change a thing, but I say to him try it for six months and see what changes there will be.
The Canadian dollar should and could be higher in terms of the U.S. dollar. The parliamentary secretary should ask international investors who are shaking their heads why the Canadian dollar is weak. The Canadian dollar should be strong. A strong Canadian dollar would lead to lower interest rates in Canada.
Let me put on the record part of an article that appeared in The Financial Times about a week ago. It reads:
This is an embarrassing tragedy for Canadians. The dollar could be-should be-one of the world's stronger currencies. But years of economic mismanagement and strident nationalism have driven investors out of Canada, stripping the country of much of its potential.
These are made-in-Canada problems. We have the solutions totally within our control. The parliamentary secretary has proved once again that his head is buried six feet deep in the ground, because he totally ignores what is going on in the real world. The minister himself is frozen in inaction. He is frightened to move. He is frightened to make another mistake. He is betting zero for two in the budget and he does not want to make it zero for three by coming up with another mistake. The dithering which the minister is displaying and has displayed for the past six months is compounding the problem we are facing today and is one of the reasons for the high interest rates in Canada.
A number of people have said: "Let the dollar go, let interest rates go and all our problems will be solved." Let me put a few figures on the record. Let us look at facts and not at rhetoric. In October, 1976, the Canadian dollar was worth $1,028 in terms of the U.S. dollar. Since then the value of the Canadian dollar has declined by 24 per cent. In February, 1980, when this government came into power, the Canadian dollar was worth 86.5 cents. Since that time the Canadian dollar has declined 8 per cent against the U.S. dollar to its current level of 78.39 cents today.
What has happened to interest rates? When the dollar goes down, interest rates are supposed to go down also. Is that not what the government has been telling us, Mr. Speaker? But during this period of time, the chartered banks prime rate has risen from 10.25 per cent in 1976 to 15 per cent in 1980. The prime rate at the chartered banks is now 17.5 per cent.
Let us take a look at what has happened to inflation. Inflation has risen from 6.2 per cent in October, 1976, to 9.4 per cent in February, 1980. The current level is now 11.25 per cent to 11.50 per cent.
Let me turn now to the unemployment rate. I will not talk about the rate but rather about the number of people who are unemployed. These figures are shocking. In October, 1976,
770,000	people were unemployed. That figure has risen to the
Borrowing Authority Act
current level of 1.2 million. In 1980, 856,000 people were unemployed. Compare that to the current number of 1.2 million people who are unemployed. Those figures say it all. The human suffering and tragedy that is represented by those figures has not been cured by letting interest rates go and letting the dollar go. The decline in the value of the dollar has not solved the problem; it has just made those problems even worse.


Mr. Thacker:: Liberal times are lousy times.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have talked about some of the problems we can deal with immediately. As I told the parliamentary secretary, in six months' time the government could take action in the five different areas that I referred to earlier.
Let us look beyond that a little. Let us look at the problem of productivity in our country. I said a moment ago that the Bank of International Settlements has put us dead last in productivity among the industrialized countries. Action has to be taken in this area. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) has talked a lot about the problems of research and development and the need for more product development in this country. But what we are looking for here is action and not rhetoric. Rhetoric comes very cheap and the government opposite knows that. Instead let us again talk about facts.
We have to change the tax regime on research and development. More than that, we have to remove some of the regulatory problems that are inhibiting the increase in research and development. I will cite one example: it concerns the pharmaceutical industry. The law was changed about 12 or 13 years ago to call for compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical inventions. What has happened since, now that pharmaceutical inventions are no longer protected by the laws of this country? It is all very simple. At that time the pharmaceutical industry was spending about 8 per cent of its sales in research and development. Currently that industry is spending 1.7 per cent. The percentage has dropped from 8 per cent all the way down to 1.7 per cent. That is the sort of regulation which can be changed and must be changed if we are going to meet the objective of increased productivity in this country.
Canadians today have a great fear of the future. They know that there are great changes coming in the high technology industry. Canadians know, if we spend this money on research and development, that it will bring some dramatic changes in many industries in the country. In order to meet people's concern and anxiety as to whether or not they will be able to hold a job in that environment, we have to increase significantly the amount of on-the-job training so that people can adjust to the future. It will be a very exciting future, but if people do not feel they are a part of it, it is of great concern to them. That is why training programs have to be changed. If we can increase that level of training, people would be looking forward to what those new jobs can do for them. People will start spending their money. They will begin to think about buying a new car or a new house. That is the sort of thing that will get

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
the economy going again instead of having people totally mesmerized by the problems that face us all today.
I repeat what I said a minute ago about the need for restraint on the part of this government. The minister says that we must limit our demands, but to keep saying that again and again in face of the huge increases in government spending is throwing untruths at the people of Canada. They understand. It is hurting the government and it is hurting the credibility of the government when people continually hear there must be restraint. The government has to act. Its members cannot sit and talk. Rhetoric is cheap. The government must act and it must act soon.
During 1979, when we were in power, we showed that government spending can be cut below the rate of growth in the national income. My recollection is that it was down about 2.5 per cent below the rate of growth in the national income. Last year government spending was 50 per cent higher than the rate of growth in the national income. That cannot continue. There is good reason why that cannot continue.
A moment ago I discussed the compounding factor of deficits that increase with the high rates of interest which we have today. Right now we have a dead weight deficit because the deficit itself represents approximately the same amount that the government is spending on interest on the funded debt. We are spending one dollar in five in interest on the funded debt of the Government of Canada. That is dead weight because the money cannot be spent on any social program, on stimulating industry or on stimulating the economy. It is dead weight deficits which are causing the problems in the country today. We have been saying for almost five years that we must free ourselves of this dead weight. However, the government keeps coming back with the same statements. It does not understand the impact of what is happening.
Another policy which could be adopted involves the area of savings and investment. People must be encouraged to save their money in order to provide the funds that businesses and individuals can borrow to enable Canada to grow, allow businesses to expand and enable people to buy homes. If people cannot save their money, the pool of available funds to finance the economic recovery in Canada will not be there. This is one of the key elements for reducing the strain on the Canadian dollar as well as on interest rates.
Finally, incentives must be introduced in Canada. The budget of November, 1981, did as much to undermine and kill productive investment in Canada as any single act by the government in the past ten or 15 years. Small business people, who are at the heart of the economy in Canada and who provide 65 per cent or 70 per cent of employment in Canada, have been kicked in the stomach by that budget. Small business people have lost their confidence in the economy.
During the month of January the budget committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus travelled across Canada to hold meetings. I will never forget the discussions I had with a group of small-business men, and one from Dupont in particular. He said that he had left Dupont ten years earlier to start a
new business. After we talked about some of the problems that this budget presented to him, I said, "If you were in Dupont today and you saw the provision in this budget and the attitudes behind it toward you as a potential entrepreneur and srnall-business man, would you leave Dupont?" He said: "No, I would not leave Dupont today. The risk is too great and the government has removed too many of the rewards."
Just yesterday I spoke to another small-business man. He told me that one of the great benefits of owning a small business is that you can build a nest egg in order to have something upon which to retire. It is something you can work at and create yourself because it involves your future. However, he said that the budget of 1981 has largely taken away the ability of individual businessmen and small entrepreneurs to build that nest egg for their future. This is happening to a sector which is at the heart of our society as well as our economy. That is why the budget is such a damaging document.
Today we are discussing the size of the budget deficit and how we can get it under a greater degree of control. This control can be achieved in three ways. One is to reduce spending, another is to increase revenues, and a third-one that very few people talk about-is to reduce interest rates. Last year 22 per cent of government spending was on interest rates, which is an important factor to our budget deficit problem. This government has failed in all three of those methods of controlling the budget deficit.
Last year, government spending was up 22 per cent, as was set out in the last budget. Government spending is out of control.
With respect to the second method, raising revenues, the government has sought to increase revenues by increasing tax rates instead of increasing the incentives for Canadians to go out and work hard to build a business, increasing government revenues through an increase of the size of the Canadian economy. The government has gone about it in the wrong way. I believe that the minister's rating on that question is about three out of ten. He said that he would drop the marginal tax rate but only for very high income people. He has ignored the low-income earners who play a very important role in increased economic activity. He has also increased other tax rates and put a greater load on the economy which is showing up in the poor economic growth figures today.
Let me use the United Kingdom as an illustration. It is said that the experiments in the United Kingdom are failing, and I would like to expand on that for the record since the results are fascinating. In 1979 the government in the United Kingdom dropped the marginal tax rate for upper-income people believing that it would result in a significant drop in tax revenues. The government therefore increased the value-added tax by approximately 70 per cent or 80 per cent. As I indicated, the results of that experiment are fascinating. Revenues from income tax increased on a real basis for the first time in six years and the value-added tax that was increased by 70 per cent or 80 per cent only increased by approximately 45 per
June 15, 1982

cent in real terms. This represents a very clear illustration of the impact of incentive and how people can be encouraged to build and create businesses. This also inspires greater effort to purchase in the productive economy instead of making purchases of such things as Rolls-Royces, expensive pictures and gold in a non-productive economy.


Mr. Evans:: So we cut marginal taxes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is why you cut marginal tax rates, as the former parliamentary secretary says. But why did hon. members not cut it right across the board? That was the government's mistake.


John Leslie Evans: We did.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, you did not. You cut the tax rates only in the upper incomes and you know it.
The third method of deficit control concerns interest rates. 1 do not have to tell anyone that the government has failed totally in this area. We have interest rates which are hovering very close to the high levels of last year. As well, we have the weak Canadian dollar which spells increasing interest rates and probably a continuation of the high level of interest rates which exist today. Clearly, the lack of control of spending and the uncontrollable size of this budget deficit which we are discussing today will continue to present problems in trying to reduce interest rates.
The government must change its course and take action to offer some new policies. It must try to reverse its record and its policies in order to restore some confidence in the country and in individuals who have been building this country for 100 years but who can no longer look beyond the valley we are in today. They are only looking on the down side of that valley. The most punishing course for Canada to take today would be to cling to the blunders of the past.
It is for that reason that I urge the government to withdraw this borrowing bill and introduce a new financial and economic statement which would disclose the economic and financial outlook for today. I urge the government to come clean with Canadians and tell us what the problems are so we may then set out some alternative policies. I ask it to make some fundamental changes to the direction in which it is heading. Do not take the line that the Prime Minister was trying to give us today, that there will be no changes. I urge the Liberal caucus to take that message to the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tomorrow and to tell them that this country needs new policies and a change in the direction in which we are headed. If we do not have that change, how can Canadians see any hope? How will Canadians be able to feel any sense of confidence in responding to change if there is nothing to respond to? How will they act positively to get the country going again and back to the level of hope and confidence which existed 15 years ago? I say give Canadians a chance to prove that they can do it.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is not a particularly cheerful debate today in the House; this is not a happy day. Listening to the-


Mr. Thomson:: When was the last time you had a happy day in this house?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question was, when was the last time we had a happy day in the House? I cannot recall. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) has asked us today to approve Bill C-lll which would give the government authority to borrow $6.6 billion.
This should be a very straightforward debate. It should also be a very straightforward bill, an opportunity to comment on the state of affairs in the country and perhaps to compliment the government on a variety of initiatives and so on. Well, of course, today's debate is anything but that. It is like being hit in the solar plexus by Sylvester Stallone. It is like being hit over the head with a two by four. It is like being tossed a lead weight when one is drowning.
This request for $6.6 billion comes at a very peculiar time in Canada's history. I suspect that the people of Canada who are listening to this debate and watching the government's actions these days are absolutely shell-shocked. They cannot believe the announcements that they read in the newspapers day by day and that they hear via the media. What will it take to surprise any Canadian today in terms of gloomy economic news? I cannot imagine what it would take-yet the most positive thing that the Minister of State for Finance has said to us today is that in the next few days the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) will stand up in the House and give us an economic statement. That will be hollow news to people who are losing their homes, their farms and ranches, seeing their businesses go down the tube, seeing their friends and neighbours laid off from jobs and losing any hope of employment in the near future.
A statement by the minister-how nice! Will that not be welcome news? What the people of Canada are asking from the government is action; they are asking for legislation, for a removal of that hideous November 12, 1981, budget which sent shock waves around the country, sending a clear message to every Canadian that this government does not recognize that there is a serious economic problem. For many Canadians, that comes as a surprise. How on earth could anyone not perceive the economic problems this country is facing?
In an effort to seek the response to that question, one looks around at the power brokers within government circles. We recognize that not all 142 hon. members across the aisle are of equal weight in government decision making. Perhaps even the 30-odd cabinet ministers are not of equal weight. But when one looks at where those movers and shakers exist, where the power brokers within the Liberal cabinet originate, it is not surprising that a good proportion originate in the downtown towers of Toronto and right here in Ottawa. When one considers the economic milieu of head office Toronto or head office

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
Montreal, or the nation's capital here in Ottawa, and one's travel and interrelations are restricted to those particular areas, it is no wonder that people are a little misinformed as to the reality in this country, what is going on in Halifax, what is going on in Chicoutimi, what is going on in Regina and in Prince Rupert. Quite different things are going on around the country where lay-offs are occurring, where mines are closing and major businesses are closing their doors, either temporarily or permanently. Again, it is quite a different picture from the one we find in the head office areas of Toronto and Montreal. It has been very clear that the government has misread the economic situation in this country and perhaps in the western world. It has totally misread it, as clearly exemplified by the request today for $6.6 billion.
A few days ago in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Minister of Finance admitted that the government has misread the economic situation and underestimated its needs. A few months ago, the Minister of Finance predicted that the deficit for this year would be $10.5 billion. Many of us on this side of the House laughed at that point, knowing and sensing at that time what was happening to the Canadian economy. Seeing the Canadian economy deteriorating in a number of sectors, we felt at that point it was naive to think that the budget deficit would be only $10.5 billion this year. Now the Minister of Finance suggests that it will probably be closer to $13 billion. The finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party suggests it will probably be closer to $18 billion. Other financiers are predicting $19 billion and some are now venturing deficits of $20 billion for this year.
The situation is much worse than most of us in this House are prepared to admit or most business people are prepared to discuss openly. The situation is very grave indeed. How serious is it? What are some of the indicators? What are some of the clues as to the seriousness of today's economic malaise? We see the dollar plummeting, hourly now, as a true barometer of both the confidence of Canadians in our dollar and especially the confidence of those beyond our borders in the value of Canadian currency. At two o'clock today, June 15, the value of the Canadian dollar was 78.29 cents U.S. and falling. This is the barometer of confidence, then, that we use to measure how people are viewing the leadership provided by the Canadian government and how they really perceive the state of the economy.
What is particularly frustrating is the con job of the government in the sense that it attempts on a weekly basis, when it often goes out to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort artificially to shore up the value of the Canadian dollar, somehow to create the impression that it is worth more than it really is on those free-flowing international money markets. It is akin to holding a match under the thermometer in one's house in order to prove that the house is in fact a lot warmer than it actually is. It is not a true indication of the value of the Canadian dollar or the state of the Canadian economy. Nevertheless, we try to create this illusion, this artificial sense of
confidence which, of course, fools no one in Canada and certainly no one beyond.
Another indicator of the seriousness of the situation is today's unemployment situation in the country, a country which all of us in this chamber would recognize as being one of the most wealthy in the entire world, perhaps having more opportunities and potential than any other nation on the face of the earth. Yet today, in real terms, the numbers of unemployed in Canada is nearly reaching the figure of 1.8 million people. I know things are very bad, but it amounts to nearly 1.8 million people, about 16 per cent of the total work force in this country, up more than 45 per cent over last year and, of course, the statistics themselves mask what is really going on with those figures.
The fact is that nearly 1.8 million people are unemployed. What does that mean? It means a great deal of human tragedy and human suffering in this country, a level of human suffering which has not occurred since the depths of the depression in the 1930s. There is no hope. There are serious social costs which will amount to many billions of dollars in this country as a result of these high unemployment figures. The economic problems we face today will be overcome in one form or another in the years ahead. But the tearing of our social fabric, the social decay resulting from these figures, will not be mended in a year or two, or in a decade or two. As a matter of fact, it might take a generation or two to erase the social scars resulting from these serious unemployment figures.
As well as the emotional and human scars resulting from these high unemployment statistics, the collapse of hope in the future is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of these figures. The fact is that nearly two million Canadians are now out of work or daily haunted by the spectre of being out of work in the next little while. They see their friends and colleagues around them losing their jobs. The threat of unemployment is growing on a daily basis. Canadians who have been securely employed in factories for 20 or 25 years are now finding themselves on the unemployment rolls. What does that do? What kind of shock waves does that send through the system? The harsh policies that the government has had in place over the last number of years were presumably introduced to fight inflation. We are experiencing a hideous situation in this country. Unemployment is now running at 11.3 per cent. That means that for the last number of years, the purchasing power of the average Canadian has deteriorated. Their disposable income today buys less than it did last year and it bought less last year than the year previous A typical basket of goods which cost $231 in 1981 today, in 1982, costs $257. Wage settlements are not keeping up with the rate of inflation. Most people in this country are becoming relatively poorer each year as a result of inflation.
The government set out on a course to combat inflation. In 1975 it decided the way to fight inflation was to increase interest rates. I want to read a quote from Governor Bouey in 1975. He said:
June 15, 1982

-through a sharp and immediate reduction of the growth rate of the money supply ... inflation would readily come to an end. The trouble with this prescription is not with the medicine but with the dosage, which would be so great that the patient would suffer excessively while it was working. It would sharply curtail the growth of spending on goods and services. . .result in extremely weak markets, widespread bankruptcies and soaring unemployment.
That is exactly what the program did. The problems that we face in this country today to a certain extent are a result of planned government policy. It is no accident. That is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said in 1975 would happen with this policy. He said that bankruptcies would skyrocket, unemployment would skyrocket, markets would weaken and there would be a great deal of suffering among the Canadian people.
The government has been remarkably successful in its efforts at strangling the life of the economy as a result of its monetarist policies. This was planned and it has been successful. There is very little life in the Canadian economy, thanks to the policies of this government and the direction as of late of Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada. The prime rate is 17'/2 per cent. This Thursday we will again go into the interest roulette game and the rate will go up again. Those required to refinance their mortgages will probably be doing so at a rate close to 20 per cent, if not higher.
The devastation that is occurring across the country as a result of these rates is nothing short of a disaster. Two and a half years ago we in the New Democratic Party predicted this exact situation. We said this policy would result in despair in this country, that it would hammer the economy to death. Today we are haunted by the realism of those projections.
I want to quote the comments of a couple of business and financial leaders in this country on the high interest rate policy. Mr. William Mulholland, the chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal, said:
Industry is very vulnerable to high interest rates and an extended period of high interest rates should therefore be a matter of considerable concern. I believe that the cumulative effect is more serious than is generally realized.
William Mackness of Pitfield, MacKay, Ross said:
-the situation is continuing to deteriorate. There is a desperate need for lower interest rates, renewed economic growth and a major increase in the supply of common equity financing.
Calvert Knudsen, the chief executive officer of the giant MacMillan Bloedel corporation, was more emphatic when he said that some direct intervention by the federal government is necessary now in order to avert some economic collapse in every sector of the Canadian economy.
The other day representatives of the trust companies of Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on f inance, Trade and Economic Affairs. They suggested that if major policy changes, both monetary and fiscal, were not made by this government immediately, we would be looking at a total economic collapse within six months in this, the richest country in the world.
The high interest rate policy that continues to be pursued by this government, I suspect with the support of my colleagues to my right, will be the death knell of the Canadian economy unless that policy is changed very quickly. Canada and the United States stand out as leaders in a certain category of western industrialized nations. They are now the only two
Borrowing Authority Act
nations that are experiencing negative growth in their GNP and will likely experience that for the next number of months. Other western industrialized nations have taken action independent of the United States because they cannot afford to have deterioration in their GNP. As a result, there has been renewed growth in those economies, but not in the United States and Canada.
With regard to housing starts, on a seasonally adjusted annual basis there were 116,000 housing starts in this country. If this continues, and it likely will, this will be the worst year for housing since 1966. We will be 100,000 units short in 1982 in terms of meeting the housing demand in this country.
What is going on in the business community? It looks at the government assembled across the aisle and shakes its head in disbelief at the fiscal policies that the government keeps in place as well as the budget and monetary policies. It is perfectly clear even to a blind man that the business climate in this country is at an all-time low.
Let me quote a few statistics. The Dun & Bradstreet report two weeks ago indicated that in 1981, 151 out of 10,000 businesses failed in Canada. In 1932 at the beginning of the depression, the ratio was 161 per 10,000 businesses failed. In other words, we are nearly there now in terms of business failures in Canada. We all recognize that the United States is also experiencing severe economic difficulties. Their rate of failures at the present time is not 151 per 10,000 but 62 per 10,000. Substantially less pain is being experienced by the American business community than by the Canadian business community.
To date in 1982, business bankruptcies number 4,429, up 36 percent over last year. Personal bankruptcies in the first five months of this year number 11,426, up 18 per cent over last year. Farm bankruptcies are even worse, up 60 per cent over the same period last year.
When we talk about business failures or business difficulties, bankruptcies are just the tip of the iceberg. We talk only of the number of businesses in the receivership process. There are countless more which simply closed their doors and their owners walked away in disgust, having had their hopes and dreams dashed as a result of the difficult economic times.
Earlier today we had a discussion about Canada's export performance. This is an area where the government must pay more attention. In the last ten years, from 1973 to 1982-and I use the 1982 figures, Mr. Speaker, based on information from the IMF-after deducting the inflation rate, exports grew in Canada at an average of 3.4 per cent annually.
Canada is one of the world's major trading nations. We depend on exports. As a matter of fact, 25 per cent of what we produce is used for export. That compares to the United States with 8 per cent, and to Japan with about 12.5 per cent. But while we grew over the decade an average of 3.4 per cent annually, the total average for the western industrialized nations was significantly greater; it was 5.3 per cent. For the United Kingdom it was 4.5 per cent; for the United States it

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
was 5.3 per cent; for Germany it was 5.8 per cent; for France 5.9 per cent; and Japan 8.5 per cent. In other words, we are a major trading nation in terms of our growth of exports, but we are growing at a significantly lower rate than all the western industrialized nations.
We have to start opening up new markets. We have to start producing goods and providing services that are marketable internationally. As the member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) indicated, we have to start spending more money on research and development to develop these new product lines that will be available for export.
If I may use the example of France-much to the chagrin of my colleagues to the right, I am sure-the government of France has in recent months placed a great deal of money into research and development in those critical areas in which they deemed they may have a significant advantage in terms of international trade, and in the new technology firms. Of course, one of the vehicles they used was the nationalized banking system.
There is a process occurring today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the difficult economic times in which we find ourselves, with government policies, fiscal policies, monetary policies. It is a process that we must remind ourselves is occurring. That is to say, to put it simply, the rich are getting very rich and the poor are getting relatively poorer.
We are seeing the middle class, so called, in Canada slowly evaporating; the middle class in our society is disappearing. These particular policies are not harmful for everyone. There are sectors of Canadian society that are doing extremely well today. Most people, of course, are being devastated, are being driven to the wall. The big are getting bigger and the small are getting smaller or are disappearing.
Think of any business, Mr. Speaker-carpets, draperies or small manufacturing firms which supply the housing market and so on. As they come under more and more pressure as a result of these economic times, we see small businesses falling by the wayside. The cost of their money is greater, the cost of their services is greater and they fall by the wayside. Who is left? The national chains and the multinationals that are operating within our country. We see the removal of Canadian content within Canadian business. That is why I and my colleagues react with some anxiety when we hear our colleagues to the right seeking to dismantle FIRA, to open the floodgates for more foreign intervention, for more foreign investment, for more foreign capital decision-making within our country. It is that kind of blind answer to these problems that causes me a great deal of concern. My colleagues are equally anxious that the government should not take this particular step in terms of their recovery program.
I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the particular situation in my own riding. I do not want to focus on my own riding for personal reasons but I use it as an example because it is one of the more prosperous parts of Canada generally. Incomes are relatively high. It seldom experiences economic downturns even when other parts of the country are experiencing difficult times. But today the official unemployment rate in
Kamloops-Shuswap is nearly 14 per cent. In real terms it is closer to 25 per cent, Mr. Speaker, because of the vast numbers of people who have long since given up hoping for any meaningful employment opportunities. This figure would be much larger if the actual number were documented. For example, the known unemployment in the forest and logging industry is 600 people; 1,200 in clerical and related activities; 600 in sales occupations; 1,000 in service occupations; 750 in processing; over 200 in the machinery sector; almost 1,700 in the construction sector; more than 600 in the transportation and equipment sectors. That is a total of nearly 10,000 unemployed. That is just one part of British Columbia. There is another 1,200 to come in the next couple of days because of massive mine closures and a major pulp mill closure.
We have a crisis of confidence, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are giving up hope in the government, obviously, in the future and then predict a more dismal future than they would ever have imagined a couple of months ago. A day does not go past, Mr. Speaker, in my riding offices that home owners are not coming in, virtually in tears, because they are going to lose their homes; or then have lost their homes and they come to their Member of Parliament to report what they have experienced. They ask what I can do. When I say there is a government program to assist people having housing difficulties, they stop. The program? If they qualify? I suspect that 99.99 per cent of Canadians do not qualify for the housing support program. And if they do, what it would essentially do would be to put them into greater debt. That is the answer of the government. The governments' solution is to create more debt than we presently have.
Quite frankly, we in the New Democratic Party do not subscribe to that solution at all. Ranchers and small-businessmen are coming into my office about to lose the property that they have worked hard for, many perhaps for two or three generations. It is almost unbelievable when you think of the minimal cash flow that these folks require but are unable to manage during these difficult economic times.
The worst is yet to come, Mr. Speaker. Even with the most optimistic hopes that people have in terms of what the government is about to announce, it will be many months before real recovery can occur; and that is if they come up with an outstanding program, which no one is holding his breath waiting for.
People are losing faith in the future, in the government, in their own abilities, because they see so many of the problems that we face today being the result, not of any fault of their own, not of any error in their judgment, but because the government, for example, follows this extremely high interest rate policy. That is what is causing the devastation. They are failing through no fault of their own.
I could go on today, Mr. Speaker, with a vast array of suggestions that have been put forward by the New Democratic Party in terms of our party's economic recovery program. The Minister of State for Finance knows what they are. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. June 15, 1982

Fisher) knows what they are. We have laid them out time and time again over the last couple of weeks, so that no one today can stand up and say that the New Democratic Party does not have an economic recovery program.
The economic programs that we have suggested that would result in a move to recovery would not cause a significantly increased deficit. We feel that the scope exists for the reallocation of funds, that present expenditures are no longer appropriate. Those existing expenditures must be reallocated into more productive capacity development, into areas that will result in return. In other words, this will move some of the present government spending, which obviously is in the budget, into some investment areas. That would invest in the future, so that even in terms of the recovery program that we propose we are not talking of additional government expenditures to any significant degree. It would include an immediate stimulus to our economic situation. It would put many of the tradesmen in the housing sector back to work immediately. It would provide an incentive to manufacturing firms right across the country that serve that particular industry. It would also provide a market for our timber products and put a large number of our forest workers back to work as well.
That is the kind of immediate program we advocate. Of course, the longer-term program would be to negotiate with multinational companies operating in this country. Multinational companies are a reality and will be for many years to come, but we should negotiate production agreements with those companies. If they are to have a market in this country, they should provide jobs in this country.
The Japanese auto industry is a case in point. If we are to be driving 200,000 additional Japanese vehicles each year, let us negotiate with the Japanese auto industry so that the Japanese source their parts and components in Canada and assemble vehicles in Canada as well. If this is not done at the rate of 100 per cent, then perhaps 85 per cent or 75 per cent would be acceptable; but for goodness sake let us negotiate jobs for profits with multinational companies. It would not be asking for anything particularly different. Most of the countries of the world already do that. We are simply asking that we behave as most progressive nations in the world behave today.
With respect to government procurement, I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) occasionally outlines the government's policies. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) says the government is encouraging small business. That is rhetoric. It sounds great in speeches, but when it comes down to the actual fact, the procurement policies of the federal government are abysmal. They simply do not provide the support and encouragement they could provide.
In closing, I would simply like to say that the people of Canada no longer want statements from the Minister of Finance. We are being asked to support $6.6 billion in additional government expenditures. The people of Canada want to see how it will be invested and how it will be used. They want a
Borrowing Authority Act
realistic statement from the Minister of Finance. They want action. No longer can we afford statements.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has time left, would he permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) accept a question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps I have a moment or two left.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the people the hon. member quoted as saying there is an economic crisis. I believe he referred to William Mackness and to Calvert Knudsen of McMillan Bloedel. Focusing on the president of MacMillan Bloedel, does the hon. member endorse the solutions the president of MacMillan Bloedel put forward, and does he have the same concern that company has about its becoming too weak to withstand the pressures of labour unions? Does he also want the federal government to impose wage and price controls so that corporations will be able to keep wages down?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question. I was anticipating the question, but I was actually expecting it from someone on this side.
The point I made in my presentation this afternoon was that wages and wage settlements have fallen behind the rate of inflation for five consecutive years. In other words, they are not fueling inflation in this country. The purchasing power of Canadians has deteriorated for five consecutive years, and anyone who would suggest that the solution to our economic problems is to impose wage controls is either simple or naive or both. The point of quoting Calvert Knudsen was that he is a man who represents one of the most significant industries in the country. He is a knowledgeable individual in the woods industry. He predicted an economic collapse if the fiscal and monetary policies of this government are not changed. I think this person is worthy of being listened to.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C- 111, to provide supplementary borrowing authority. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport I am privileged to comment on the bill as it affects transportation, and I am very pleased that the official critic for the New Democratic Party understands the importance of investment. I do not think there is any more important sector of the economy than transportation, and it is important that we invest in that sector for the future growth of Canada.
We heard from the official opposition about the importance of stimulating the economy to create jobs. I am taking part in this debate because I think vast investments in transportation would have a stimulative effect on the economy and would create jobs without fueling inflation as such investments in other sectors of the economy would.

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
From the perspective of transportation as a whole, the importance of this bill cannot be overstated. As members of this chamber are very well aware, transportation has played a significant role in the development of this vast country and in keeping it together. The excellent movement of passengers has helped to bring Canadians closer together and has contributed to their high standard of living. An effective system for the transportation of goods has permitted, and contributed to, the development of the Canadian economy.
Responsibility for management of the national transportation system from the federal perspective falls under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, the Canadian Transport Commission and a handful of Crown corporations such as Air Canada, CN, the National Harbours Board, the Northern Transportation Company Limited, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and four pilotage authorities.
Transport Canada is a very complex operating department, as I am beginning to find out in my new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Because it is responsible for air, marine and portions of the surface modes of transport, its activities affect the daily lives of most Canadians in some way. In addition to employing some 22,000 persons Transport Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission expend large sums on the nation's transportation system. Expenditures for 1980-81 by Transport Canada and the CTC totalled $1.8 billion.
I mentioned the number of people Transport Canada employs, and I am very pleased to say that Transport Canada is an equal opportunities employer. It employs many women, many men and many handicapped persons. I want to emphasize that Transport Canada, as well as other departments, is an equal opportunities employer.
The role of Transport Canada is to attend to the development and operation of a safe and efficient national transportation system which contributes to the achievement of government objectives, and to operate specific elements of the system. That is a tall order and it costs a lot of money. Increasing demands are being placed on the federal government in relation to transportation needs. We are all concerned that transportation is developed, as far as is reasonably possible, to meet the needs of Canadians and to improve the economy. At the same time the government must always be prudent in managing its expenditures. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that funds for transportation are invested wisely, to use the words of the official critic of the New Democratic Party. The theme of my remarks today will be investing wisely the funds we are going to get through this borrowing bill.
The significance of transportation in terms of bringing this country together and forming a link between the remote areas of Canada and the more established centres was recognized at a very early stage in this country's history. To illustrate, in 1881 the federal government struck an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a transcontinental rail link. The agreement provided for $25 million in subsidies and 33 million acres in land grants. In contrast to the dollars set aside today even for modest projects the figures are not substantial,
but in terms of what that investment accomplished they are indeed significant.
Later on, in 1897, to complete the link-both psychologically and physically, if I can say so-another agreement was signed with CPR to build the Crowsnest Pass line, a topic about which we have heard much in the last few months. This line, approximately 300 miles long, was constructed to keep American railroads out of that part of southern British Columbia. Again, it was an investment for the future in more ways than simply an investment of dollars. It was the staking of a physical claim on the future wealth and prosperity of British Columbia for the benefit of all Canadians both east and west of the Rockies.
The need to invest dollars in transportation was recognized then and is still considered an absolute necessity in order to stimulate economic growth. Unless major investments by the railways proceed, capacity restraint in the western transportation system will soon be evident. By now all hon. members should be aware of the government's commitment of $3.2 billion over the next four years toward the movement of grain. This money will help overcome the critical shortfall in railway revenues and assist the railways in making the much needed investments.
Out of these funds an order was placed by the federal government in May of this year for the construction of 1,280 hopper cars for grain service in western Canada. This order, worth approximately $80 million, will help alleviate the serious unemployment situation by creating 1,500 jobs in the builders' plants in Trenton, Nova Scotia, Sorel, Quebec, and Hamilton, Ontario, for a period of two or three months and 750 jobs will also be created with suppliers for the same period of time.
In November, 1981, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) signed an agreement with representatives of Canada's two major railways involving expenditures of $255 million for continued branch lines to 1984. The agreement further strengthens the goal of a modernized branch line network. Total expenditures on the rehabilitation program will reach $495 million by 1984, a considerable investment in western Canada which will benefit all Canadians.
Complementary investment is required, of course, to accommodate the anticipated growth in the movement of bulk products, especially in the west. I should like to give a few examples of port projects, sponsored in part or in whole with federal funds.
In August, 1980, an agreement was signed with the government of British Columbia and the Nanaimo Harbour Commission for the development of a two-berth forest products shipping terminal at Duke Point, Nanaimo. The total cost was $20.9 million, including a $6.3 million federal government contribution. The initial phase, including the construction of the two wharves, was completed in September, 1981.
In September, 1980, agreement was reached with the Prince Rupert grain consortium for the development of a three
June 15, 1982

million tonne annual throughput grain terminal at Ridley Island. The federal contribution is more than $30 million.
In November, 1981, agreement was entered into with coal companies and the Government of British Columbia for the development of a 12 million tonne throughput capacity coal terminal at Ridly Island. The project, to be undertaken by the National Harbours Board, will cost approximately $280 million.
In February of this year we reached agreement with the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta for the development of a two million tonne annual throughput liquid petrochemical shipping facility. The National Harbours Board will build the wharf at an estimated cost to the federal government of approximately $70 million. The facility will be ready to receive petrochemicals in early 1985. This is an investment today for the future good of our country.
So that members of the House will not feel that taxpayers' money is just being invested in the west, let me give some examples of the federal government's investment in the east. Investment in port development-investment for the future-is also taking place. In the port of St. John's construction is underway on a potash terminal. The total estimated cost is $22,400,000. Expansion of Long wharf and Rodney terminal and the construction of Lower Core terminal are other projects which were recently completed in 1981. Total cost of these projects was $24.8 million.
Construction and operation of Fairview Cove container terminal in Halifax, Nova Scotia, is due to be completed this month. The cost of the project was shared between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia, with the federal government assuming responsibility for $29,095 million of the $35,595 million price tag.
1 emphasize the concept of investment here, not just spending. Canada's economy will realize a hundredfold or a thousandfold return on this investment.
Turning to passenger transportation, the federal government, in the interests of promoting rail passenger services, has agreed to allocate $1.1 billion in operating subsidies to VIA Rail for 1981-82 to 1983-84. VlA's capital budget was doubled over this period allowing ten more LRC-light, rapid and comfortable-train sets to be ordered, in addition to the ten sets ordered earlier, to enable the LRC service to be extended to western Canada and the maritimes. This latest order, announced by the Minister of Transport in April, will cost over $140 million and represents more than 2,000 person-years of work for the Canadian railway manufacturing industry and its suppliers. I emphasize the job-creation feature of this investment. The first order of ten sets, placed in 1977, was for over $90 million.
From the perspective of air transportation, the growth in demand is expected to continue, although at levels lower than those of the past two decades. New or expanded airport facilities will be required. In 1981, cabinet approved substantial increases in the amount of money allocated for airport capital investment. An additional $20 million has been allotted
Borrowing Authority Act
for 1981-82, $40 million for 1982-83 and $60 million for 198384.
Air terminal projects are planned or in progress at airports all across Canada at the following locations: Gander, St. John's, St. Anthony, Charlottetown, Saint John, Fredericton, Quebec City, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Victoria, Vancouver, and Whitehorse. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.
In Labrador and in northern Quebec, funds have been allocated for air transportation infrastructure. A community airports assistance program has been established to financially assist municipalities and local airport associations to improve facilities at small airports.
One of the recurring themes in transportation today is safety. The House has seen reports from two commissions of inquiry on this subject, the Grange commission on the Mississauga derailment and the Dubin commission on aviation safety. The tragic loss of the Ocean Ranger has reminded us of the dangers at sea. And we sometimes forget that every year over 5,000 people are killed on our roads and highways.
What does this have to do with the borrowing authority bill before us today? Again, money is involved. It costs money to promote safety, to enforce safety standards, to maintain a safe transportation environment, and most of all to compensate for a disregard of safe practices. Let me take these areas one by one and illustrate with examples in different modes of transport.
It costs money to promote safety. This statement is true, but it has a very positive side to it. The cost of promotion is negligible compared to the results that can be achieved. Recently, Transport Canada launched a safety campaign aimed at weather-related aviation accidents. I understand it cost in the vicinity of $100,000. There were complaints from taxpayers that the advertisements were morbid and costly and I suspect that some people would complain of the government's excessive advertising budget.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I guess.


Jesse Philip Flis: The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) says "I guess." I suggest that he listen to what comes next. The results of the campaign have been outstanding. In 1981, there was a 27 per cent drop in weather-related accidents. Ten fewer lives were lost than in 1980. Maybe the hon. member for Mississauga South is not interested in saving lives, but we are. It has been estimated that savings in damages, medical costs and the like were in the order of $7 million. Not bad for a $100,000 investment.
In addition, Transport Canada undertakes seat belt promotion campaigns in conjunction with the provinces, and certainly they cost money. But if the rate of use of seat belts had been 80 per cent last year instead of about 40 per cent, at least

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
1,500 lives could have been saved. That is between one quarter and one-third of last year's road casualties.
That brings me to the topic of enforcement. Four provinces now have seat belt legislation and even with limited enforcement seat belt usage is above that of the other six provinces. With additional enforcement and promotion a tremendous improvement could be achieved, not to mention a reduction in the $3.5 billion lost to the Canadian economy as a result of road accidents.
One of today's most urgent needs is the strengthening of research and development in transportation. Improving productivity, holding the line on energy consumption, and supporting such related energy areas as Arctic transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas are key areas in which R and D should be accelerated. Transportation currently consumes close to 50 per cent of the oil used in Canada. To increase energy efficiency and reduce operating costs, the investment must be made in R and D activities. In June, 1981, the cabinet approved additional funding in the amount of $19 million for a three-year plan of programs for rail freight and Arctic marine transportation. The investment is being made with the intent of future savings. This type of investment is recognized by all, I am sure, as being essential to the future of transportation.
Enforcement is an issue which received considerable attention in the Dubin inquiry. Judge Dubin concluded that enforcement of air safety had not been sufficiently vigorous and he recommended stricter enforcement practices. The recommendation was accepted by the minister and new enforcement procedures are now going into effect. There is no question this requires additional resources but if the result is fewer accidents, surely the cost is worth it.
Moving to the problem of maintaining a safe transportation environment, we find the expenditure requirement can be considerable. The radar modernization program which will contribute to safe air traffic services will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is an ongoing and costly requirement for improved navigational aids, beacons, landing systems and so on across Canada. The magnitude of these expenditures is such that not all demands can be fulfilled. Priorities must be established and decisions made on where to allocate scarce resources. Part of maintaining a safe environment is the promulgation of safe standards, whether it be for automobile design, operating practices of a railway, or for the packaging and marketing of dangerous commodities. Here again administrative costs are not very great in relation to the returns obtained from reducing the number and severity of accidents.
The final area I mentioned was the cost of compensation for disregard of safe practices. Enforcement and development of safe standards and practices, and their promotion, have one thing in common: prevention of accidents. But what happens after an accident occurs? The responsibility of the government in this area covers search and rescue activities and the investigation of accidents.
Search and rescue is extremely costly and some of the most difficult decisions have to be made in this area. It would, of course, be nice to plan for search and rescue coverage which could reach the scene of an accident in minutes no matter
where and when. We could if we had unlimited funds, but we do not. The bill being debated here demonstrates that convincingly, so again priorities must be established, decisions made and expenditures made prudently.
Just last Friday I had the opportunity to have a look at our search and rescue practices on the west coast. I was very impressed with the three hovercraft we have, which cost between $1 million and $3 million each. I was told that they can reach almost any accident within three minutes. Now, wouldn't it be great if we could have 50 such hovercraft covering our coastlines? But can we afford it? At this point 1 guess not.
It is perhaps a bit difficult, Mr. Speaker, to tie this into my theme of transportation investment for the future. Spending on transportation safety does not build an infrastructure which contributes to economic development, such as port facilities, railways or airports. It is, nonetheless, essential and demands for increased spending on transportation safety are at least as strong as demands on spending for economic purposes.
I have only touched on the major investments in transportation. We are all cognizant of the fact that the transportation industry is a major contributor to the economic wellbeing of Canada at all levels. An efficient and effective transportation system makes an even greater contribution to the wellbeing of all Canadians. We have accomplished much but we also recognize that much more has yet to be achieved in order to develop our national transportation system into one of the best in the world. Investment in transportation is an investment in the future of Canadians. In an era of world recession and tough times I think those investments will stimulate the economy and create jobs without overfuelling inflation. We must continue to develop the national transportation system in order to maintain a very crucial link to our economic wellbeing.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the last speaker would entertain a question?


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by all means.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: At the beginning of the hon. member's remarks he referred to Transport Canada as an equal opportunity employer. Would he tell the House what proportion of women there are employed in that department, particularly in non-clerical jobs; and would he also tell us whether he feels that a compulsory affirmative action program is needed in that department in order for women to have equal opportunities and equal pay for work of equal value?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some concern about the relevance, but the parliamentary secretary wishes to answer the question.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is saying: "Don't waste the time of the House". I think a discussion on equal opportunity employment is time well spent in this House.
I do not have the exact percentage breakdown of the 22,000 people employed by Transport Canada, but 1 will get it for the
June 15, 1982

hon. member. I will also send to her the figures on the number of handicapped our department hires. I think it was a very good question and I welcome it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) spoke at length about transportation. It would be fine if the money we were borrowing today was not money to pay the grocery bill, but it is. It would be fine if it were not money to pay interest for debts previously borrowed, but it is. It would be fine if the money we were borrowing today was not money to pay for the VIA Rail deficits or money to pay for the Mirabel deficits. But it is.
The hon. member talked about money for advertising. Imagine borrowing money for advertising. If we were borrowing money to turn the economy around then maybe there would be something in favour of it. If this bill were tagged for the purpose of borrowing money for worthwhile capital improvements for the productivity of Canada, then probably all of us could get together and praise the government for doing that type of thing. But that is not the case.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unfortunately.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is very unfortunate. This bill is only the first of its kind this year but the third in this session of Parliament. When this House was called together after the February, 1980, election, we were presented with a borrowing authority bill for $12 billion. Within less than a year we were presented with another bill for $14 billion. We have before us this bill for $6.6 billion. We now have over $32.6 billion in borrowing authority for this session. Yet we are told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that this will only be a downpayment on what he needs, that he will have to come again before this House with another borrowing authority bill before this calendar year is over and ask for more. We have asked him how much more. He does not know.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Or he will not tell.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What are the Minister of Finance's income anticipations now that his budget is over six months old? He does not know. Where is the Minister of Finance going on corporate tax collection? He does not know. Where is he going on personal income tax collection? He does not know. Where is the Minister of Finance going on sales tax collection? He does not know or he will not disclose it. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as a former leader of this party, the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker often said in this House of Commons when he challenged the other side, where are we going?
Before we ask that question, we must determine where we are and how we got here. We are now in the worst depression this country has had since the 1930s. Indeed, if you were to do a comparative history performance of the Financial concerns of this country, you might compare the period we are in right now with late 1931 or perhaps January, 1932. We have had a bank inquiry. Members of the committee asked senior banking
Borrowing Authority Act
officials and senior economists whether Canada has yet reached the bottom and whether Canada has gone down as far as it can go. The answer given to both questions is no. The officials were asked when we will have a turnaround. They told us that they do not know.
We have a government that blames the world for our troubles. It blames the Americans. The Americans are terrible people, we are told. They lower their income tax. The Americans are terrible people. That is what we hear. On a per capita basis the Americans borrow half as much money as we do. Therefore, the Americans are at fault for our high interest rates.
Maybe it is the Japanese who are at fault. They do not trade fairly with us. The Japanese sell us products and do nothing about keeping our jobs and keeping our people employed in Canada. TThe blame for our troubles is always placed on someone else. Until this year the provinces were the ones at fault. It was the terrible people from Alberta. Now it is the terrible fellow who runs the province of Newfoundland. It is always someone else. What we have is confrontation. Someone else is responsible for Canada, not the government in this House. That is the answer we are given. It is not an answer.
This government fails to recognize the potential of this country. It fails to recognize that we have more people who are literate on a per capita basis than any other country in the world. We have more mineral resources, more oil and gas resources, more fresh water resources. We have more of almost everything than any country in the world.
Canada is closest to the largest market in the world. Give any other country in the world the opportunity to be where Canada sits, with the resources Canada has, with the potential Canada has, and would it have a government that begs and cries for $6.6 billion and at the same time says it is not enough? Of course not. We have a government that is so worried about foreigners and foreign investment that it does everything in its power to throw out investors.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not FIRA again!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says "Not FIRA again". I want to say to the hon. member that we are a capital-short country. We need all the capital we can get. We need savings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have savings.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member says we have savings. Well, 1 want to tell the hon. member right now that while Canadians save more per capita than Americans, Canadians save only half as much per capita as the British and only one third as much per capita as the Japanese.


John Leslie Evans: That is not true.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We do not save nearly enough. We need as much capital in our country as we can get. If we have to get it from the far corners of the world, so be it. But let us have it so that we can develop our nation and put our people to work. Any policy and any government that deliberately discourages

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
investment and opportunity for Canadians cannot be a government that is honest with its people and it cannot be a government that is fair with its people. When they see people lined up in unemployment offices-


Nelson Andrew Riis: In soup kitchens.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says soup kitchens. And he says keep out foreign investment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Right.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is how the hon. member wants to put people to work. We have a National Energy Program designed to discourage people from exploring and developing the country, that deliberately treats one investor and one explorer different from another with PIP grants and all sorts of other gimmicks that try to direct where a driller should drill, where an explorer should explore or where a producer should create, all of which will come from an ivory tower over at Dow's Lake.
We have a budget before us for which not one single amendment to the Income Tax Act has been presented, yet that budget was produced back in November. Even according to the Minister of Finance in the committee hearings on this bill the budget has been declared inappropriate, yet we proceed with the borrowing requirement set out in that budget. We wonder why people are discouraged when they do not know where they stand with their deferred profit-sharing plans, with their life insurance, with capital cost allowances, in terms of corporate tax, with respect to mergers, with respect to expanding their business and with respect to putting money into subsidiaries in foreign countries. People do not know where they stand. They ask their accountants. They do not know. This government does not know. Yet this government has the insufferable gall to come before this House of Commons and say: "In our budget we need $6.6 billion; therefore, give it to us." That is insufferable.
The government wonders why people are unemployed. It wonders why businesses go broke. Yesterday I was not here because I was in my constituency office. Three people came to my office who were involved in businesses in Mississauga. They were telling me of the problems their companies were facing.
In my city there is a company which manufactures grinding machinery for the mining industry. Where is that company headed? I can tell the House that it is the only totally Canadian-owned company involved in the manufacture of heavy mining and grinding machinery for the mining industry. It conducts business all over the world, but it will probably be bankrupt by the end of August.
How did we get into this situation? It is due to a credit society which had been established when the government took power in 1968. At that time it changed tax laws which allowed for the expansion of credit to the point where business and industries today are in a terrible credit position. A wide variety of businesses have outstanding floating demand loans which
they cannot pay off at the current interest costs, which have been brought about by the mismanagement of this country. Since the government took power it became fashionable to borrow rather than to float stock equity issues because the government inflated the money supply so that lenders did not get quite the inflation rate. Consequently, it became profitable to borrow. Many corporate entities are up to their ears in debt. Indeed, Premier Lougheed, when speaking in Toronto, said that approximately 38 per cent of the cash flow of businesses in his province went to pay interest. Mr. Mulholland said at the bank committee hearing that in the last quarter of 1981, 65.7 per cent of before-tax profit income of companies went to pay interest. This applies to companies which have over $10 million in assets.
What will we do about this situation? The answer clearly is that there must be a change made to our tax system to encourage equity investment, risk investment and entrepreneurship. However, that is exactly what the November, 1981, budget and the October, 1980, budget discouraged.
I have already talked about government deficits, but as these deficits grow it can be seen where we will head. My colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) suggested where we are heading. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) indicated where he could see us heading.
It does not take much imagination to realize what is happening when we see manufacturing industries in this country operating at 75 per cent of their capacity in the last quarter of 1981. It becomes evident when you go back to your riding that the statistics of the last quarter of 1981 are ancient history because these industries are probably operating at an average of 62 per cent of capacity at the most. As a Member of Parliament you must realize that the corporate taxes being paid will not be $15 billion as shown in the budget but probably around $9 billion. You must know that on corporate tax alone, the government will come up short by at least $6 billion. If hon. members have studied the unemployment statistics they must realize where we are headed with the Unemployment Insurance Act when payments are paid to 1.250 million Canadians certified as unemployed or 1.8 million in real unemployment, as indicated by my hon. friend. Where are we headed with the welfare or social assistance payments which have been necessitated by the current depression in our economy?
The government has promised to give a statement by the end of the month. Why would they not produce a statement before the introduction of this bill? The government introduces the bill and then tells us it will produce a statement after the House gives it the authority to borrow money. Are we to carry on with the current philosophies which have led us into this dilemma?
Bruce Hutchison, who is certainly not a Conservative, said something in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun on May 22 about the philosophies of the political parties. In that article he said that, "In the popular cliche there is no real difference between the government and the opposition. That is untrue. A
June 15, 1982

profound difference exists, and you can take your choice of alternatives. As oversimplified in this brief space, the Liberal party stands for bold governmental intervention throughout the economy. The Conservatives stand for less intervention. Liberals rely on the wisdom and benevolence of the State, Conservatives on the justice of the market." That is the case.
The Liberal-NDP party, or the Liberal Party and the Liberal party west believe in massive state intervention. They advocate spending more taxes, borrowing more money, spending more money and wasting more money while they refuse to deal with the hard realities that if you are going to spend the money you must first earn it. If you are going to build the country you have to put the money into the ground. The equity investment must exist and entrepreneurship must be encouraged in order to make it grow.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who says that?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: All that the hon. member has to do is to read some of the speeches he and his colleagues have made to see where they stand in terms of state intervention.
I have asked where this country is headed. 1 would like to suggest where we should head. First, we will never progress if we keep the November 12 budget. Even the Minister of Finance has stated that the budget is inappropriate because of changing conditions. The budget is not working because it did not address the problem. The minister admitted that fact during committee hearings. Indeed, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) admitted that in the House this afternoon. Therefore, why does the minister not withdraw the budget? The government should get rid of the budget and the uncertainty it has caused Canadians and return to the drawing board.
The National Energy Program was introduced in November of 1980. It was said by members on this side to be a disaster from the day it was produced. When we first criticized it the government said that we were out to protect the big multinational oil companies. Those companies are doing quite well. It is the average Canadian oil company which is in difficulty. One can find evidence of this by simply looking at the marketplace to see what companies are in trouble. It is the Canadian oil companies. They are in trouble because the National Energy Program prevented them from raising the necessary equity on the world market to build their companies. It has prevented them from issuing shares in New York, Tokyo and London. You could not find enough investors in the world to risk capital for drilling in the Beaufort Sea or off the coast at Hibernia. In Canada alone, who would risk that money? Although many Canadians may risk their money, others are needed to help them take that risk. These are high risk ventures, and the Canadian oil companies require high risk money. However, what did the National Energy Program do? It made it impossible for those companies to acquire the high risk capital and it got them involved deeply in high interest loans instead. That is why they are in trouble. Indeed, the industry is in trouble when one ends up with a situation as discriminatory as the NEP and when there are back-in provisions and the like which affect Canada lands. No one will
Borrowing Authority Act
invest in a situation where the view from the marketplace is that the government is likely to expropriate one's assets virtually without compensation.
We need a program of tax allowances. We need a program of encouragement. We need a program which will give people who will invest a chance to make a real buck. We must encourage the person who is prepared to gamble on Canada. There are such people out there, but one will not encourage that kind of investment as long as there is a capital gains tax, as long as there is a situation with respect to pension funds or RRSPs where there is no way in which the capital gain made behind those funds can be treated as a capital gain in the hands of the investor when he eventually takes the money out of the fund. The whole pension system we have in our country, with the investments behind pension funds, is designed to promote interest for a debt investment as opposed to equity investment. Until we are prepared to change some of our basic tax laws to make equity investment more profitable, we will not get that kind of investment.
I see that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) agrees with me. I am glad to hear that. I hope that when he is speaking with his colleagues he will be able to do something about changing the priorities here to get some equity investment and provide some opportunity for people to build the country and take the risk.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where was he last year?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre asks, where was he last fall? If I recall, he was out defending the budget.
In any event, we need another thing, and that is, a sound money policy. Now, my friends to the left would probably have us print money, or would like to see some control situations; perhaps foreign exchange controls. Their leader spoke about foreign exchange controls. Perhaps they would like to nationalize the banks. What we need is a sound money policy, but one which will ensure that there is enough credit in the system to finance the transactions in the system. I say to Your Honour that it is impossible to control inflation satisfactorily by simply reducing the money supply. One must continue to have enough money in the system; otherwise, the system itself comes to a grinding halt. Over the past year and a half, in order to protect the exchange rates, the operations of a bank have been such as to keep the supply of money unrealistically low. I say that in an effort to protect exchange rates, that was the wrong move. What we need is some sense in our money supply, not to print money crazily but to ensure that there is at least enough money available to satisfy the credit needs of the country.
What we need is a program to assure those who invest in Canada and who consider what is going on in Canada that the federal deficit will be reduced and changed to a surplus position over a five-year period, and that we will not continually borrow against our children's future. We have recc..^d no

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
program from this government; indeed, we received no such program last November that would in any way indicate that this government has a method of getting the country out of the hole.
As long as this country continues to portray to the rest of the world that we will forever finance Canada by going to the marketplace and borrowing larger and larger sums of money, our dollar will forever be weak, we will have inflation forever and we will forever have a sense of lack of confidence in the country. What we must do is demonstrate not only to Canadians but also to the entire world that management means paying one's bills with the money on hand, not the money borrowed from one's neighbour.
What has happened since we came back after the election of 1980? We have run our debt, our net debt, from roughly $65 billion to $92 billion or $93 billion, and that in barely two years. We cannot continue in this way, particularly in view of the interest rates we are paying. This year we will pay probably close to $17 billion in interest, far more money than this government ever spent when it was first elected under the current leader. That cannot continue. We must have a program to ensure that the government finances and pays its bills with the money it takes in taxes, and no more. We must get away from this concept that we can continue forever in deficit. We must have some program to limit government expense.
The other day in the House, on June 10, I suggested to the Minister of Finance during question period that he should consider some of the suggestions which had come from the banks, from the Royal Bank and from the Bank of Commerce. In reply, the Minister of Finance said that cutting government expense was the problem because everyone wants to do it in general but no one wants to bite the bullet. He said:
I advise the hon. member to show his hand by going into committee and indicating where he thinks government expenditures ought to be reduced.
I want to point out to the Minister of Finance, through the Minister of State for Finance that the estimate hearings before committees have been terminated, in accordance with the rules, but if he sincerely wanted the help of the Parliament of Canada in reducing government expense, he would form a special parliamentary committee on government expense to open up those estimates again, to go into detail in depth and to take out of the government expense of this country as much as could be taken out. 1 suggest up to 10 per cent. That might eliminate some services and cut back on some things that we have enjoyed. But when the homes of people in my riding are being foreclosed because they cannot pay their monthly mortgages, I have a hard time saying to them, "Yes, but we increased the budget of the CBC." 1 have a hard time telling them how important the National Film Board is. And I have a really hard time telling them how important it is that Canada use over $1 billion a year in support of foreign-aid programs.
1 think it is about time that Members of Parliament were entrusted by the government to take a look at some of the expenses and go over them with a fine-toothed comb, and then to say, "Yes, we like that program, but in our scale of priorities it does not count as much as something else." We would be
responsible, as the House of Commons ought to be, for controlling the expense of government.
About two weeks ago we had a debate concerning some major projects in Canada, the Alsands and the Cold Lake projects. Those were megaprojects and they fell apart. Surely to goodness it is time that the government went back to the drawing board and looked at its tax laws and the sense of trust people have for this government, and said, "What can we do on a matter of confidence to get people to invest in these projects again?" Projects do not make sense if one has to pay 20 per cent interest on money from day one. But they might make sense to the Japanese who may want to secure a source of oil. They might make sense to the Americans who might want to secure a source of oil. They sure as heck would make sense to people who were working in steel mills in Hamilton, now laid off, at least 20 per cent, and they sure would make sense to unemployed people in St. Catharines and Brantford. We can let them take a portion of the product as payment for the money they put in. The prime rate in Japan is 6.4 per cent. If we had put 6.4 per cent in the mathematics for Alsands and Cold Lake, those projects would be going ahead. How do we make them go ahead? We offer to pay for them in the product we take out of our soil. We build our country with our own resources. We must make our country work again and get things going. There is no need to be foolish or to have unemployment when we have the resources that would make prosperity possible.
Getting back to the borrowing authority bill, where are we going? The government comes to the House of Commons for authority to borrow based on a budget which it says is inappropriate. We have an economy where more and more people are out of work every day. Companies are going broke, whether by bankruptcy, receivership or just walking away. There is no direction, no plan. The people of Canada have no confidence.
Members of the Liberal Party will have to accept the responsibility within the next week or so. We know they meet in caucus and are having other discussions about changes regarding the financial concerns in this country. They have a responsibility to the people of Canada because things can only be changed in the parliamentary sense with a vote.
The responsibility of those opposite is not to sit back and say they will support their party right or wrong. The policies proposed by those who control the levers of power and the party of government are not Liberal policies, policies of free trade, expansion and development of the liberty of the individual. They are policies of government control, statism, waste, direction from the ivory tower.
Members of Parliament must address these policies. If they cannot be addressed by those who hold the levers of power, Members of Parliament collectively have a responsibility to face the problems. If they cannot be faced in caucus, they must be faced on the floor of this House.
June 15, 1982

If we love our country, if we want to know where we are going and want to build this nation instead of letting it go down the drain, in order to pull ourselves out of this depression Members of Parliament must work together. If the government cannot produce answers, we must produce the answers, and there must be a new government.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in Lis remarks this afternoon, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) indicated that the projections of the November, 1981, budget had been undermined by unexpected economic conditions and consequently there is a necessity for additional borrowing to meet the deficiencies.
This is nothing new with this government. Time after time it has made projections and forecasts which have been completely out of whack. This does not seem to affect the government very much as it keeps on going in the same way. Time after time we have seen this happen. The government comes in with no apology. It just announces that it was wrong and states that the demands it will be required to meet will necessitate additional financing.
The purpose of Bill C-l 11 is to authorize the government to borrow a further $6.6 billion to continue the financing of its spending operations. To underscore the government's dependence upon this type of legislation to finance its operations, I would point out that this is the third time during this session that we have been called upon to agree to or vote on such a borrowing bill.
First there was Bill C-30 to borrow $12 billion, then C-59 to borrow $14 billion and now this bill to borrow an additional $6.6 billion. This is in spite of the fact that in 1980 the growth in the Canadian economy was zero, our worst performance in 36 years. Productivity has fallen, employment has reached a disastrously low level, inflation continues to increase, and housing starts are in serious decline.
When we travel across this country or go to our constituencies, we find that conditions are such that concern has deepened into fear, fear has deepened into frustration and we have reached the point where frustration has deepened into intense anger.
There may be those who say that is a pretty dark prediction and there is no basis in fact for such an allegation. However, the other day I spoke with some people from my constituency who told me that in that area the general feeling is that steps must be taken to bring this government to the point where it recognizes the problems facing the country. They want us to do something that will be fully justified, even if it means ringing the bells again and keeping them ringing. When it reaches that point, it is becoming very serious indeed.
The Minister of State for Finance smiles. He probably has not been to British Columbia recently and therefore does not know what is going on there. Possibly he does not even know what is going on in the rest of Canada. The conditions of the country fail to reflect the bright prospects envisaged by the Liberal Party spokesmen who painted pictures for the future if
Borrowing Authority Act
the Liberals were returned to office. On January 12, 1980, the leader of that party said in Toronto that they have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had just completed referring to a statement that was made by the leader of the Liberal Party in January, 1980. He stated this:
We have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I hear the "hear, hear" from the other side, but possibly if we take a look at the record since that time, we will find that it has hardly measured up to the expectations of the speaker at that time, the leader of the Liberal Party.
1 notice the words "will enhance dignity". I looked up the word "dignity" in the dictionary and 1 found it means true worth, self-esteem. I would like to ask the question, does it enhance one's self-esteem when a person's dream of achievement or success in an endeavour-for instance, the ownership of a home or the development of a business or a farm-is crushed and broken by the intolerable burden of taxation, the frightening load of exorbitant interest rates and the nightmare of bankruptcy? I would suggest that this hardly measures up to the expression that was used in the anticipation of the years when the Liberal Party reassumed office.
What were the opportunities? To work for four or five months of the year to finance governments? A government that has absolutely no feeling or sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of those who pay the bills?
As far as security is concerned, 1 say, Mr. Speaker, that this government is leading the country on a disaster course rather than on one that will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security.
While one is inclined to sympathize with the government in its dilemma, we sympathize more with the ordinary taxpayers who are being called upon to hand over an ever-increasing share of their income to cover the increasingly voracious demands of this government and its incompetent handling of the resources that are placed at its disposal by the taxpayer.
Perhaps I should offer sympathy as well to the supporters of the government in this House, as they have been valiantly endeavouring to defend a record that is totally indefensible. I think one needs to review the history of this present session,

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
now spanning a period of over two years, during which the policies of the government have proven to be a national disaster. No sector of our society has escaped the government's assault on practically every principle and institution that Canadians have cherished and benefited by for, generations. In fact, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has described publicly the recent budget as a national disaster.
The enterprise system that resulted in one of the highest standards of living in the world has been thwarted, strangled and penalized, by a calculated plan of government intervention and regulation, until today Canadians occupy about the thirteenth or fourteenth spot in the standard of living scale in this world of ours. The Canadian economy is on the skids and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated that there is little that he can do-which is a terrible confession- because of the "bad" Americans.
When the Minister of Finance introduced his infamous budget, it was met with universal anger and rejection. The underlying principles stated by the minister were restraint, equity, and economic renewal. But the contents of that budget constituted a cynical and coldly calculated attack on the very principles they were allegedly designed to advance. The business community was shocked. The agricultural sector was irate. The economically disadvantaged were further dispirited. The home owners were disillusioned. And those proud citizens who were struggling to maintain their independence and also assist in helping those who, for unavoidable reasons, cannot provide for themselves, found that an unconscionable government was about to deprive them of the ability to provide for themselves, let alone contribute to the general good of the country.
Responding to the impassioned appeal on behalf of Canadians made by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in a recent debate, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) berated him for his evangelical fervour in presenting his case. Mr. Speaker, perhaps more of such fervour might result in a greater sensitivity to the needs of our people. Some of the objectives of evangelism are conviction, repentance, restitution and reformation. If the Minister of Finance would follow this pathway, it would be of incalculable benefit to the people of Canada.
My leader, speaking to the Ontario Real Estate Board in Toronto on March 2, 1982, stated:
Ottawa today is governing against the traditions of Canada, governing against the nature of Canada, governing against the interests of Canada and governing against the wishes of Canadians.
I believe that is a very stern indictment, but I believe it is very close to the truth. So, perhaps repentance and reformation would be a very appropriate path for the Minister of Finance to follow.
The bill we have before us is a bill to authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow an additional $6.6 billion.


Mr. Paproski:: That is only this week.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We remember that not too long ago a bill was before the House authorizing the borrowing of $12 billion. There was another shortly thereafter authorizing the borrowing of $14 billion, and now we have this one to authorize the further borrowing of $6.6 billion. On what basis does the government feel it is warranted in coming and asking the taxpayers of Canada to hand over another $6.6 billion? After all, the taxpayers are paying the shot. The taxpayers elected this government to look after their business and the business of the country, and so if the government comes along and says it wants us to authorize the borrowing of $12 billion, then $14 billion and then $6.6 billion, the taxpayers have a right to say, "What are you doing with it, and how can you justify it?" The government says it does this and that and the other thing, but no matter what it does, the country is worse off at every turn of the road. If there was an improvement in the economic conditions of Canada, if there was a greater prospect for Canadians, and if there was some hope that we will emerge from this chaotic mess we are in now and move ahead on a program of renewal, development and progress, then the people might feel, "Well, perhaps we will let them go ahead with it." However, when we look at the situation, we wonder if there is any logical reason why Canadian taxpayers should respond to this request and authorize the government to borrow this amount of money.
The unemployment situation in the country is deplorable. The economic conditions which surround us are drastic. The performance of the Canadian economy in recent years has been far below potential, and it is likely to remain so over the next few years. In 1980, the Canadian economy experienced zero economic growth and, after some growth in the first half of 1981, the economy fell into a severe recession in the last half of the year.
The short-term outlook for the Canadian economy was best summed up by the April 22 Conference Board forecast. The Conference Board sees a significantly slowed pace of economic activity this year. Real GNP is expected to show negligible growth. The unemployment rate is expected to remain at or near its current high level for the remainder of the year. Consumer expenditures are forecast to show virtually no growth this year. Nineteen eighty-two will be the third consecutive year that automobile purchases will have declined. Business investment is also forecast to perform poorly.
Even though that report is rather gloomy, there are further reports that indicate we are not in the darkness yet; it will get darker as we go along. What right has the government to come and say, "Give us another $6.6 billion"? What is the governent going to do with it? Will it take us farther down the road to ruin? Will it plunge us deeper into recession? I suppose the people have a right to look at the record and to ask the government what it has done. What this government has done has not been too good. There is unemployment in our forest industry. Figures are on the record which show the deplorable condition in which our forest industry is languishing. We see the same
June 15, 1982

thing in the mining industry. I have a copy of an announcement by C. A. Borne to the Vancouver staff of Placer Development Limited talking about the closure of that company's mines, the laying off of its employees and the closing up of operations. That is the situation in the mining industry.
The automobile industry is facing very serious problems. There are lay-offs and shutdowns. The industry finds itself in a critical situation today. In British Columbia the government is trying to teach the Japanese a lesson, so it is delaying the customs clearance of automobiles which have been shipped to Canada. What a miserable little effort the government is making! That effort is an example of the government's ineptitude in dealing with current problems, and when the government uses these amateurish tactics it just raises the hackles of a great many people. And its action certainly will be an insult to the Japanese industry. The auto industry in Canada is facing serious problems, but 1 do not believe this action is in any way a suitable method of trying to minimize these difficulties. It is in fact exacerbating Canadian problems through its detrimental effects on business enterprises and through the unemployment resulting from this exercise. Automobile companies are in danger of bankruptcy. Employees are being laid off, and communities are suffering from the effects of these conditions. Such a confrontation stance is not in our best interests and just underscores the failure of this government to obtain reasonable results through co-operation and compromise in its dealings with an area of the world which is of incalculable importance to British Columbia.
There is a real need for an over-all Canada-Japan trade agreement which would provide for offsetting industrial opportunities in western Canada in exchange for our coal, minerals, lumber and other commodities. Canadian content agreements would result in small business contracts and, consequently, job opportunities. It is imperative that counterproductive exercises such as the one being carried out in Vancouver are replaced by an invitation to investment and cooperation in developing a manufacturing capacity here in Canada. The fault lies not with the Japanese but with this government's ineptitude in dealing with national and international challenges.
Not only must we look at the unemployment picture but we must also look at the inflation picture. A number of years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was going to wrestle inflation to the ground. Just the other day I read an article which reported that he had changed that idea somewhat and now says that we have wrestled the economy into the ground. I think that is really true when you consider what the situation is in Canada today.
Who is to blame for this, Mr. Speaker? Apparently everybody but the Canadian government.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is nonsense but that is what the government is doing, blaming everyone, the Americans, the Japanese,
Borrowing Authority Act
other governments and other organizations when all the time its own policies are dragging the economy down. Indeed, if it gets much lower we are going to be in the black hole.


An hon. Member:: Balderdash!


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) knows something about that, no doubt, but that is the situation. It has been recognized that government spending is one of the major factors contributing to the situation.
What a deficit we are going to hand over to our children, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it takes about $1 out of every $4 or $5 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Plow can we expect succeeding generations to carry the burden of our indebtedness as well as their own? Yet the government wants to pile on another $6.6 billion. At present we have to work about five months of the year just to pay for governments. It is no wonder that people think they have to get a pretty high remuneration if they have to spend almost half of it in taxes.


Mr. Lapierre:: You must be very rich.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I do not think hon. members opposite know what is going on in the world.


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is no use telling them, because they cannot hear. Even if they listen they do not hear.
I want to put on the record some figures relating to bankruptcies of small businesses, Mr. Speaker. They are going down the drain every day. Employees are being put on the labour market and on the unemployment rolls. Agriculture is facing the same situation. Personal bankruptcies are occurring because of an interest rate that is crushing the life out of our economy and crushing the heart out of our people.
I have heard the minister say that there is no high interest rate in Canada. Who does he expect to believe that? There is a high interest rate policy and it affects every segment of our economy-small business, agriculture, housing and everything.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Tell us about your program. What would you do? We would like to hear that.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I did not hear that interjection but I do not expect it was very important anyway.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be very happy to respond to the questions posed by the hon. member. I should like to ask him exactly what he suggests we should do to reduce the number of bankruptcies and reduce interest rates in Canada?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Resign!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Withdraw the budget!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Get rid of MacEachen!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. parliamentary secretary will realize that that is not a point of order.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, that just confirms what I say, that hon. members opposite cannot hear. They cannot hear

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
and they cannot understand. They cannot grasp the significance of this and they cannot understand the feeling of despair that is gripping the country.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We would like to know what your policies are.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Elon. members opposite have heard the policies enunciated by my leader and our economic spokesman.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: They said they did not have any alternatives.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have gone beyond any possibility of redemption.
I was going to speak about the disastrous energy policy which the government introduced. The minister backtracked on that because he knew it was a disaster. It was driving investment out of Canada and undermining confidence in the nation, so he had to backtrack. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will also backtrack, although I do not think he will go very far back. He will try to convince the people of Canada that after all, the Government of Canada is doing something.
I come now to the tax burden, Mr. Speaker and in this regard I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on March 27, 1982. It is headed "'Hidden' taxes take huge bite", and starts out as follows:
The average Canadian family with a cash income of $22,500 paid income taxes of $3,345 in 1980, but other taxes, ranging from oil and motor vehicle taxes to amusement and property taxes accounted for an astounding 70 per cent of the average family's total tax bill.
The people are asked for more money to help the government finance some more of its disastrous programs when all the time, they are just staggering under the burden of taxation. It promises that we will have equity and programs that will create hope and optimism and job opportunities and that will help the people realize their dreams. With our natural resources, our people, our skills and our technical know-how we are one of the richest nations in the world. We have everything that is required to build a tremendously important and viable and satisfying economy.
The government says we on this side talk about doom and gloom but why should we not, Mr. Speaker? The possibilities for prosperity are there but dreams are being shattered, homes are being lost, businesses are going to the wall, farmers are suffering, and still the government expects people to come along and bail it out, giving it more money to squander.
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, as others have said, that there has to be a change in our philosophical approach to the problems we face. The Prime Minister said the market system has failed and co-operative federalism is dead. He predicted a greater involvement of government in the nation's business. The record of the government under this Prime Minister is one of the shattering of enterprise, the penalizing of industry and of the spirit of entrepreneurship, the imposition of regulations and a crushing burden of taxation, and the blatant assumption of
more and more control over the lives of business and individuals.
I would like to close by posing this question again: why should the people authorize this government to borrow another $6.5 billion? And there will be more. As long as this government is in office we will be faced with a deteriorating situation until this country has lost its hope and vision of the future. The government is insensitive to the needs and aspirations of the people, and incapable of conducting a program which will help in the economic renewal of this nation of ours. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House certainly share the hon. member's concern about the present state of our economy. We recognize there are a lot of difficulties facing us and we would appreciate his sharing with us his advice as to what specifically he feels we might be able to do in order to get rid of high interest rates, control inflation and to get the economy rolling?


Mr. Kempling:: We have been telling you for years.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Withdraw the budget.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I simply point out that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) has indicated that he would not deviate from our present high interest rate policies.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Who said that?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would appreciate any advice and direction he can give us so that we can work constructively to solve these problems.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to rise on this point but the hon. member did attribute a comment to me which is totally without foundation, and I want to disassociate myself from it. Never have I said that I supported the interest rate policy of this government. It is totally wrong, it can be changed, we can have lower interest rates, and I pointed out how to do so in my remarks. If the hon. member's ears are not serving him well today, I suggest he read Hansard tomorrow.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I certainly retract my remarks if they were not true. I did understand last year that, with U.S. interest rates very high, he felt we had very little alternative but to act in accordance with international realities.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will take you aside and explain it all to you.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify the issue. I believe it was actually the former finance critic, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who indicated his support for the high interest rate policy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Liberal gossip, NDP gossip.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the indication from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. June 15, 1982

Patterson) that he would be prepared to respond to my question and share with us the solutions he has in mind so that we can deal with these problems which we are very concerned about as well.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like during this debate on the borrowing authority-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 made a mistake, I do not know whether the hon. member is rising on a point of order or wants to take part in the debate.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I want to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) is entitled to reply to the point of order.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) certainly did outline some very important proposals. In addition I spoke about the change in attitude and philosophy which is necessary in order that the private sector have an opportunity to function and fulfil its role. It is not the government's business to get into business, it is rather to create a climate in which the private sector can develop and fulfil its role. If we can do that, then we will find that the sector which provides over 60 per cent of the jobs in this country, the small and medium-size business community, will have the opportunity to fulfil its role. That is one of the major ways in which we can get our economy rolling. If we could create an expectation of hope and anticipation, in other words create a feeling of confidence as far as the investment community is concerned, then we will find we are getting somewhere as far as solving our economic problems is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, this evening, as part of the debate on borrowing authority, I would like to deal with a subject which is of great interest to all Canadians. It is, in fact, a subject that is seldom discussed in this House by our friends opposite. I can remember only once that they discussed this topic, and that was the day before the vote on their party's leadership. The subject was youth. I find it a fascinating subject, and I am sure some of our distinguished members opposite will remember the show they put on at the time for their delegations of young Conservatives. During question period, one of the younger members would rise, ask questions about subjects of interest to young people, sit down, and so forth, and this went on like a game of musical chairs throughout question period. This was last year, and we have not heard any debate on the subject since. Originally, all this helped to more or less consolidate the
Borrowing Authority Act
position of their leader, but since that time, they have forgotten these young people to whom the Leader of the Opposition owes his leadership.
I think people are beginning to realize that from time to time, a change occurs in society's values with respect to education, work and recreation. Consequently, the government must also adjust its policies and update its activities and programs. In the course of this debate, I should like to review some of the major problems facing young Canadians today.
First of all, I think the subject people are most interested in is employment, because it is truly a key area and a priority for all young Canadians who are expected to leave school and enter the labour market at such a difficult time. Students, parents, educators and governments are all giving very serious thought to the manner in which young people are being prepared for life and the work place. During the last twenty years, the average level of education has increased considerably in Canada. In 1961 for instance, about 75 per cent of young people had completed secondary school, compared to more than 90 per cent in 1981. However, easier access to education does not mean that we have solved all the problems facing young people.
In a recent report, the OECD noted that there was a time when the vast majority of young people left school at about the same age, and that at that time, those who came from disadvantaged groups in society were not socially and economically handicapped to the extent that they are today, when there is so much emphasis on certificates and diplomas. The OECD noted that the less educated still belonged to the disadvantaged groups in society, and it concluded that in some cases, the education system may even be aggravating the handicap these people start out with.
The OECD study covers a number of countries besides Canada, but we must still bear in mind its conclusion. Society in general and governments in particular must be careful that young people are not solely assessed in terms of the number of diplomas they have been awarded or the number of years of education they have received. They must also be evaluated on their contribution to society. In fact, young Canadians are giving society their idealism, their enthusiasm and their spirit of initiative-virtues that are sadly lacking opposite-a blend of characteristics that gave us a Terry Fox, for instance. Do we need a better example? I feel that we were able to produce a hero of this calibre because of the idealism, enthusiasm and spirit of initiative that young people seem to have in greater supply than any other group. Therefore, since youth has enthusiasm and idealism to spare, what can we do and what are we doing to put these characteristics to work and to develop them? Obviously, everything starts with education. More specifically, we must see to it that everyone has access to higher education, and that students are able to transfer from

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
one province to another without too much administrative red tape.
Access to education and mobility are some of the national objectives for education which the government has already mentioned and which should be given special attention. When the time comes to renegotiate its arrangements for established programs financing, I hope the federal government's considerations will go beyond the funds it intends to grant and the use that will be made of such funds, and will seek ways to implement its national objectives on education and above all, to meet the vital needs of Canadian youth. I think young Canadians are sick and tired of hearing about federal-provincial discussions on education, and that they really have the impression they are going to get the short end of the stick, that our overriding concern is not necessarily their future development and that we are far more interested in sparring with statistics. 1 feel we should never forget the initial objective of these programs, which is to meet the future needs of young Canadians and Canadian society.
It is appropriate to consider education and employment together, because this matter is important to both young people and society in general. The House is well aware of this, having established a committee whose work culminated in a report on employment opportunities for the eighties. The report provides a wealth of information, but unfortunately, some readers have concluded that the authors were in favour of a choice of courses that would be basically determined by labour market requirements. I earnestly hope this was not the intention of the members of the committee, because 1 feel that the aim of education should be to develop the person and not merely to turn out competent workers.
Several years ago, when France and Sweden started to reform their education system in order to make it better suited to labour market requirements, the students protested, and rightly so. They did not want a curriculum of courses that concentrated on certain specific occupations, because they were afraid they would then be obliged, come what may, to accept a job that would subsequently be very difficult to leave, thus restricting their mobility. They preferred a general education which would develop their minds and skills in various areas and not just turn out workers. I think this is also what young Canadians want, so that they can live their own lives instead of merely earning a living. Today, that is a possibility, because the system has changed and education is now considered to be a process that can and should go on throughout our lives and not only during our youth. Anyone who has seen the ever-expanding number of adult education programs and evening courses in every possible field, will have realized that education has become everyone's concern. That is why I want to make this reservation so that people will not think the Government of Canada is only interested in manpower planning for specific requirements and has forgotten the more general aspects of education. Before going on to another
subject, I would like to give a few Canadian statistics on young people and employment, which, unfortunately, may make this group lose some of its motivation, enthusiasm and idealism, because the economic reality is very harsh for this group in society. In 1981, more than two thirds of those in the 15 to 24 years age group were in the labour market, 87 per cent had jobs and 13 per cent were unemployed.
Among those who are employed, who are in fact lucky to be able to get work, about 25 per cent have strictly part-time jobs and 21 per cent are obliged to make do with such jobs because they are unable to find full-time work. This gives some impression of the underemployment problem among young people, who are more severely affected in this respect than their elders, while females are even worse off than males. According to OECD statistics, part-time work is becoming increasingly popular in Finland, Ireland and Italy, and less than 10 per cent of jobs are part-time. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, however, this percentage is over 40 per cent. We know that groups where labour market representation has increased faster than in any other group over the past decades, namely, women and young people, that these are the groups that have been most severely affected by unemployment. It is, however, encouraging to know that here in Canada at least, education still opens many doors. The unemployment rate among university graduates is 7 per cent, which is three times less than among young people with eight years of schooling or less.
In other words, the unemployment rate among young people with eight years of schooling or less is now 21 per cent, which is completely unacceptable for a new entrant on the labour market who must often leave his family and finds himself dependent upon society, because of which he loses all his illusions and all his enthusiasm. In view of all these figures, I believe that the government will use the funds it will borrow under the terms of this legislation to develop programs for young Canadians, and it is in this spirit-I know that the hon. member may not like this subject and that it may not be important to him, but in that case, I want to tell him that I intend to defend these groups in our society and that if he is not interested, he can turn off his earphones.
It is interesting to note what graduates think of the education they have received. A survey conducted in 1978 among 1976 graduates shows that two years after they had completed their post-secondary education, the number of unemployed and underemployed college graduates was not as high as that of university graduates since 42 per cent of the latter compared to 66 per cent of college graduates had a job directly related to their training. A quarter of all graduates admitted that they had chosen the wrong career, which is a very high percentage, and about 45 per cent of them planned on taking other courses.
June 15, 1982

These statistics may raise as many questions as they provide answers. One wonders, for instance, how important young people consider self-fulfilment, security and rewarding recreational activities. The whole question of the life style and the balance necessary between work and other activities has become more important as more and more women are now working outside the home. Young women in particular need to know that they can now pursue their education or have a career and still look after their family. A woman no longer has to choose between a career and a family, and yet, young women still believe that this is so. It is up to the government to make sure that women are no longer typecast as homemakers or in a secondary role.
However, as important as education and employment are, young Canadians have many other interests. Among the many programs developed by the federal government for young Canadians, there is one which has been so successful that I would like to deal with it at greater length because, unfortunately, not enough young Canadians and perhaps not enough members of the House are aware of it. I am referring to the Katimavik program. As everyone should know, this word means "meeting place". Since it was established in 1977, this program has not only provided jobs for many young people, but it has also promoted community action. It reflects accurately the make-up of our society since the young people involved in it come from every cultural, social and linguistic group in the country. In a word, this program is an asset for the economic and social development of Canada. After a dark period when the Progressive Conservative government wanted to cancel this program, the Liberal government has just announced its extension, and I wanted to mention it because of its success and the enthusiastic response prompted among young people. Such programs give us a better understanding of a country and make it easier to tolerate the differences in other people and to share with them. It is indeed an outstanding success, but it should not be the only one and remain as modest. That is why I hope that in the coming months the government will seek to achieve a greater participation on the part of young people in both community action and decisionmaking.
Some time ago, my colleague from Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) spoke in the House about a very challenging project concerning voluntary public services. I suggest that the government and Parliament ought to study the impact that such a measure might have on young Canadians and take it under serious consideration because that component of our society is experiencing a real problem which we cannot dismiss outright and which above all should draw our attention and lead to positive action on our part. My colleague from Manicouagan is fully aware of that reality and that is why, in a nonpartisan spirit, but especially in the interest of young Canadians, I urge all members to become familiar with that project.
Borrowing Authority Act
The young Liberals of Quebec held a convention last week where they endorsed that program and acknowledged that the Canadian government must meet the needs of that segment of our population which may be dwindling but whose importance is growing because of the challenges the future has in store for us. Unfortunately, societies have a tendency to think that a man ought to accumulate wealth during his early years and spend it away once he has grown old. But we know it is a mistake to bar younger people from our institutions. Hardly 20 years ago the universities began to realize how important it was to have student spokesmen on the board of directors. And we know that young people are both anxious and able to take part in the decision-making process when they are involved. But that requires an extra effort. In fact, the value system has to be changed. Young people need resources and autonomy to fashion their own model inside as well as outside the existing structures. It is imperative that once and for all the government realize that they can play a very useful role in the evolution of our society. The year 1985 will be the International Youth Year. Hopefully, that international year will differ from what we have come to expect from such events when we hear pious wishes, reports are published to gather dust, and finally the year is over. That is the trap we may fall into if we fail to remain vigilant, and that is why between now and the International Youth Year we must give young people more opportunities to express themselves.
I was somewhat upset by the fact that, when we were studying the constitutional resolutions and talking at length about the Canada of tomorrow that we were trying to incorporate in the Constitution, not a single group of young Canadians made representations before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. It is something to be concerned about, because it may be that the governments now give generous grants to official languages minority groups and to minority groups in every sense of the words, but not to other groups of young people which lack the wherewithal and often the technical resources to present briefs and make representations to committees as imposing as those of the Commons and the Senate. I think that group has been left far behind and we ought to help them. The International Youth Year will have different implications in the various countries.
In Canada, needless to say our young people live in a developed environment. In countries where the death rate is high, for instance, young people very soon are called upon to contribute to almost every aspect of life. In those countries, the gap between the young and their elders is narrower since people grow old prematurely because of adverse conditions. In Canada, things are different of course and there is as much difference between the young people and the mature adults than between summer and winter. It is important in my view to stress at this point that youth is not a group of persons but a
18502

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
stage in life. And the International Youth Year will in many respects be a North-South challenge. In southern countries we know the vast majority of the people are below 25 and that group is increasing in number faster and faster. For that reason, when referring to the young people's involvement in those countries, we mean involvement by the majority of the people. In Canada as in a number of other northern nations, the ratio of young people to the total population is far smaller. In 1981, only 19 per cent of the total population were in the 15-24 age group, and 10 years from now, they will account for only 14 per cent.
Despite wide social differences, both northern and southern countries are experiencing unemployment and underemployment problems, and must meet the challenges of technological changes. We want to ensure that the International Youth Year does not go unnoticed in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity, as we should, to correct false perceptions and give the young an opportunity to do something for their country and the world. I would now like to turn to the matter of young people's involvement. A 1980 survey on volunteer work indicates that from February, 1979, to February 1980, some
218,000	young people aged 15 to 19 and some 210,000 young people aged 20 to 24 were doing volunteer work. Overall, although young people account for 25 per cent of the work force, only 15 per cent do volunteer work. There are some implications in those statistics, more particularly in the area of government relations with the volunteer sector. That sector of course is one of the key components in our democracy. It is through volunteer work that a number of people develop their leadership abilities and value system. The abilities so acquired are highly valuable to the country.
As volunteer work is done at the grass roots, it is a most precious indicator of social conditions and the needs of people. Furthermore, volunteer groups play a major role in policy development and formulation. Often, they are at the source of innovations and point to emerging concerns. In view of the importance of that sector in our nation's life, it is essential that young people play a role that is commensurate with their place in society. This certainly is not now. Both the government and the leaders of the volunteer sector should therefore look for ways to stimulate their involvement in that most formative kind of activity. What is needed is action initiated by the young rather than designed for the young. Although useful, the latter cannot be compared with those where young people have a chance to take initiatives and in so doing to develop their leadership abilities.
Then there is the matter of youth and leisure which should also require our full attention. I am referring especially to the participation of young people in cultural events. In this respect, it will be most interesting to read what the Appiebaum-Hebert committee will have to say in its report which, I am told, should be tabled within the next few months. Mention is often made about the culture of young Canadians which, admittedly, is an important component of our cultural life. Young people
are more involved in sports and physical education, and their artistic and musical tastes are altogether different. We should help young people develop their creativity, which means assisting young authors and artists financially and devising ways and means of scouting for new and promising talents. An effort should be made to establish the reputation of our promising young authors and artists as well as help them establish closer ties with their elders. As I said, youth is but a period in life, but our young people should not be isolated from the rest of our population. Any youth-oriented policy should take into account their creative impulse and the fact that for a great many young people, the transition between adolescence and adult life is very difficult.
While the death rate for our people as a whole has been decreasing over the past 20 years, it has slightly increased among teenagers and remains somewhat constant among young girls. Accidents and suicides which account for approximately 80 per cent of the deaths among young boys and nearly 60 per cent among young girls are the two main causes of death among young Canadians. Suicide ranks as the third main cause of death and is responsible for 16 per cent of all losses of lives in the 20-24 age group. According to these same statistical data, most losses of lives among young people result from their life style and surrounding related causes, as opposed to natural causes. Which makes us realize the necessity for developing a policy which truly meets the needs of all our young people, whether they are disadvantaged or well-off, disturbed or well-balanced.
There exist now various government programs which meet the needs of young Canadians, including Open House Canada, Katimavik and many others developed by the Fitness and Amateur Sports branch. One way or another, a number of departments are offering programs which are of utmost importance, including the Department of National Defence, the Armed Forces, the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission-with all its initiatives-also the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, together with its programs for young Indians, so young Canadians are receiving indeed a lot of attention. The only problem is that the left hand often does not know what the right hand is doing. And only young people who are well-off are made aware of these programs. The information is not easily available, and no booklets have been distributed by the Government of Canada to inform young Canadians of the programs being offered to them. They simply don't exist, and there is no over-all philosophy. I am thinking for instance of Open House Canada where hundreds of applications from young Canadians anxious to discover their country are turned down each year; and yet, in view of the problems we are now faced with in the areas of national unity and regional inequalities, this program should be generously funded. Expenses on advertising, should be cut and young Canadians should instead be encouraged to discover the reality of their country, Canada.
June 15, 1982

Mr. Speaker, considering the social and economic changes that this country is now experiencing, I think it is essential to thoroughly examine those various programs and to determine to what extent they encourage young Canadians into sharing our community life and finding the formula which will enable them to fully develop their abilities and potential and serve the country. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to state some of my views. For the last three years, I have noted how the government has been dealing with young people and I am rather shocked to see that it has a policy for senior citizens, a policy for women, a policy for the handicapped, a policy for the Indians or the native people, but unfortunately no policy for our young people. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada must now as a result of social pressures and economic problems consider that matter at length and it is a challenge which I hope it will hasten to take up. I hope that in the next throne speech, the government will refer to that segment of our society, look to the future and take advantage of the best of opportunities.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, in this bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is asking Parliament to approve S6.6 billion in borrowing authority for public works and general purposes. This is the minister's third request for additional borrowing authority in the same parliamentary session over a period of two years. If granted this evening, it would total $32.6 billion over that two-year period.
When or if parliament does approve this request of the minister, he will have a total borrowing capacity of $9.6 billion as he has $3 billion of borrowing authority that did not expire at the end of the last fiscal year. These continuous requests for additional borrowing authority make a mockery of the budget's goals of equity, restraint and renewal, all of which have already been blown very nicely out of the water. We know the government has not done anything toward economic renewal. Their attempts at equity have been disastrous. Now it is indicating it is going to abandon economic restraint.
How is the government going to do that? Restraint entails coping within the financial limitations, not putting Canadians in debt for another $6.6 billion. Restraint generally requires careful management of the economy, not throwing good money after bad to pay for government excesses or mismanagement. Speaking of mismanagement and government excesses, let us look at some of the things this government under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done over a number of years. Let us look at what these fiscal giants have done. Some of these things would be rather amusing if they did not tell such a sad tale.
In February, 1981, the Crown corporation CNR spent $64,244 to purchase advertising space in a newspaper to wish Canadian Pacific Railways, its chief competitor, a happy birthday. That is the sort of thing we are faced with. The list goes on and on.
Borrowing Authority Act
Let us look at some other things these people have done over that period of time. In the 1978-79 annual report, the Auditor General pointed out that since 1974 the Department of the Environment has been paying an annual rent of $241,00 under a long-term lease due to expire in the year 2045 for a British Columbia property it is not even occupying. In addition, the government paid municipal taxes on the property of $56,000 in 1978 and 1979.
Let us look at something a little more current and a little more meaningful to Canadians. This government has spent in excess of $65 million on the metric conversion program. Last year alone the Metric Commission spent $12.4 million on a program that Canadians do not even want. They have been forced to pay the bill for something they do not want. It is rather like swinging your own noose over the limb of a tree and setting yourself up on the horse. In that same vein, they hired two chefs for a total of $110,000 for a six-week television contract to promote metric cooking. Imagine that!
Let us look at the great giant of the oil industry, Petrofina. In 1981 the federal government purchased Petrofina for approximately $1.46 billion, or $120 per share. At the time of the purchase, the shares were trading for $90 a share and were estimated by various brokerage houses to have a true value of about $80. In other words, the federal government paid between $365 million and $486 million more than was necessary in order to obtain a series of gasoline outlets in eastern Canada. This is what we are now being asked to appropriate, or expropriate from the Canadian taxpayers to help pay for it.
Right here in the National Capital Region the four phases of the Place du Portage were estimated in the early seventies to cost $124.5 million. By the time of completion in 1979, costs had risen to $217.5 million, $93 million over the original budget.
In 1973 an untendered contract was awarded to business associates of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to supply liquor and food for Place du Portage for a period of 20 years. They were evicted by the Department of Public Works in 1980 for failing to make rental payments of $490,000 for their three commercial outlets in the building.
Canadian taxpayers will shell out $4,000 a month over the next five years on rent for a Vancouver apartment of a senior government bureaucrat. The apartment has been rented by the Department of Public Works for his use. The justification for the expense is that the apartment is being used for entertaining. In trying to justify the expenditure of that $4,000 per month, an aide to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) referred to the amount as chicken feed. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that they look at $6.6 billion as mere chicken feed.


Donald W. Munro: Turkey feed.


Robert Alfred Corbett: It goes on and on. Advertising is one of the most blatant misuses of taxpayers' dollars that this govern-

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
ment can possibly come up with. In 1982-83 the advertising budget of the federal government is $70 million, compared to $63 million in 1981-82 and $54 million in 1980-81.
Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the sort of advertising this government has been promoting, what it has been doing? Have you noticed that it actually says very little about the programs that in essence they are supposed to be trying to promote? If you believe that they do say very little, you are absolutely correct; and if you think it is expensive, you are absolutely correct as well.
The number two advertiser in this country is General Foods. The number one advertiser, in terms of dollars spent, is this government, our very own Liberal Government of Canada. Just how much more do they spend than General Foods? They spend about twice as much. General Foods spends about $35 million a year. The Government of Canada, not to come close, wants to make sure it is out there in front, and it is spending $70 million, at ieast, this year.
The traditional role of government advertising is to provide information on services or to advertise changes to regulations. This government has deviated substantially from this sort of traditional program. Little of this year's $70 million will actually be used to advertise or make the public aware of regulation amendments or to provide service information. The bulk of the advertising will be to relay the general purposes of many departments and flogging the Liberal's own messages, in an attempt to prop up the sinking ship.
In this past year alone the federal government has launched four massive media campaigns directed toward promoting government policy, to making Liberal actions popular with Canadians.
Last summer Ottawa launched a $3.25 million advertising campaign, promoting the National Energy Program. A second campaign launched last summer promoted the Constitution, in an effort to counteract the bad publicity they had been receiving and the bitter sentiments that were arising from the federal-provincial negotiations and to bring Canadians alongside the Liberal stance.
A second constitutional advertising campaign was launched this spring, to herald in the new constitution and charter. It was a two-week campaign and cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million. It was organized by the Canadian Unity Information Office. It was designed to convince Canadians that "the future belongs to us."
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is very sad commentary on the new Constitution. The opponents, rightly so, contended that it was not so much a measure to inform the public about the Constitution as to divert their attention away from the disastrous economic problems that face the nation.
Last fall, Mr. Speaker, the federal government took out some $130,000 worth of full-page advertisements in 100 newspapers on budget day to advise Canadians about its plans for "sound economic development". This is perhaps the boldest and most blatant misuse of public funds spent on promoting government policies. To this date we do not have a budget.
Currently the government is spending $5 million on an advertising campaign "Helping Canada Work". Employment and Immigration officials contend that the advertisements promote job creating and skill development and suggest that despite economic problems the Canadian economy is working as a whole. What a laugh! I think that Canada's 1.2 million unemployed and our struggling businessmen could well find a better use for that money.
Let us take another look at the difficulties that this government is encountering and trying to prop up with these slick advertising campaigns. They have taken out a series of full colour newspaper advertisements promoting the federal contribution to agricultural research. It does little except to promote the federal image. It does not help the countless farmers in this nation who faced bankruptcy or who are currently facing bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it is this type of advertisement that is offered by almost every government department. It is doing no good and brings little or no benefit to the general public.
Let us put aside the blatant political aspect of government advertising. Let us take a look at the business side of the problem. Competitive bidding is the hard and fast rule when it comes to awarding contracts for construction or for government purchases. However, political patronage is the golden rule of this government when it comes to advertising. To manage the government's advertising needs, this Liberal government has hired a firm called Canadian Media Corporation. This corporation is a consortium of Liberal advertising agencies, which is assembled for the sole purpose of servicing the government's advertising needs. The patronage system is no longer used in the United States. It is not used in Great Britain or in most other developed countries. In a legitimate government, advertising for good purposes is indeed laudable, but not for this government. The firms involved in looking after this government's needs are receiving patronage dollars.
Another aspect of government advertising to be considered is the federal government's exemption from the advertising code of ethics. This government does not have to adhere to the code of ethics that every other advertiser in the nation must live up to. What is more important is what the government has got out of it and what the Liberal Party has got out of it. It is a device which the Liberal Party is mounting, it is a device by which this party in power is attempting to mould and to manipulate public opinion. We fear that the increasing use of this sort of advertising will lead to government by propaganda, and that is exactly what the government is trying to develop. The government is using our tax dollars, tax dollars which the public would no doubt far rather see being used in other areas. It is highly irregular in a free country, in a democratic country, in a country that has a so-called democratically-elected government, that it would become involved in an advertising campaign and an advertising scheme of this nature. It is particularly appalling when those same advertising dollars, $70 million this year, could address a multitude of genuine fiscal problems. It is, in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, political abuse at its very worst.
June 15, 1982

Why does the government need additional borrowing authority? The finance minister says he needs it for public works and for general purposes. These vague and unspecified purposes lead one to wonder if it is to enable the government to continue its wasteful and irresponsible spending. Certainly it is not to encourage restraint. This government is infamous, Mr. Speaker, for its wasteful spending and certainly it is infamous for its accounting habits. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation sold off a significant amount of its property at a loss of $100 million to Canadians. Those lost dollars would have gone a long way to aiding industrial development. The CN Tower cost $40.5 million more than was originally estimated. That money could have been better used to help farmers. The government juggled its books to make it appear as though it had reduced spending by $2.7 billion, when actually it definitely had not done so.
The government spent between $365 million and $486 million more than was necessary to purchase, as I mentioned, Petrofina, I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, as responsible Members of Parliament, whether the government intends to continue this sort of mismanagement, with an additional $6.6 billion.
Since it is inevitable in our system that the government will receive this borrowing authority, we should at least ensure that the money borrowed will be earmarked for constructive purposes and that it will not again be wasted. I know of several excellent uses to which this money could be put. The government has deemed it necessary, for instance, to close CFB Chatham in New Brunswick. That will deprive the communities of Chatham and Newcastle of approximately $25 million to $30 million annually in lost payroll and spin-off effects. This will cost the area about 3,500 jobs. Chatham will need a new and stable economic base after this happens-the entire Miramichi area will-and I daresay it will happen, despite the hollow assurances of the government. Some of these dollars could well be spent in that area.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has set up two task forces to study the problems the closure of the Chatham base will create. The first task force was to report last January or February. That seems to have gone by the boards. It would be very interesting to know what that task force recommended. Obviously it was not favourable to the government because we have not heard about it. Neither have we heard from the second task force, and it has been in existence for some time as well.
One does not have to be an economic giant to recognize that Chatham and Newcastle and the Miramichi region need some support. That support should come from responsible Members of Parliament. Where is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), who is supposed to be responsible for New Brunswick? Where has his voice been on this vital, critical and crucial issue to the Miramichi region? It has been strangely silent.
Borrowing Authority Act
There are billions of barrels of oil trapped in the oil shales in Alberta County, New Brunswick, which is in my constituency. It is conservatively estimated that there are probably 15 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil trapped in those shales. The New Brunswick government has been trying to convince the federal government to join with the provincial government in a program to cost-share an exploration program which would enable New Brunswickers to gain some benefit from that oil. It would enable Canadians to gain some benefit from that oil. This government has been very quick to spend dollars in other areas of the country where there would be little or no return, especially for political uses and purposes. What do we get from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when this query is put to him? We get nothing but blank stares and meaningless looks. Some of the $6.6 billion we are talking about now could be used in the development of that shale, and it could be used to generate revenue for that region. New Brunswick and eastern Canada would be self-sufficient through the development of the shales along with Hibernia and the reserves off Sable Island. The shales would contribute handsomely toward energy self-sufficiency in the maritimes.
Millions of dollars are now lost annually to the poorer provinces because of federal government modifications to federal-provincial agreements. These cutbacks have already caused tax increases in receiving provinces which are attempting to maintain adequate health care services and postsecondary educational services. These dollars could well be put to supplementing these services and relieving taxpayers and hard-pressed students from having to make the extra payments they will now have to make in order to attain very necessary education. But what is this government's attitude when it comes to students who are hard pressed and when it comes to elderly people who are in need of health care services? The attitude of this government is somewhere up in the sky-pie in the sky.
The splitting of DREE will also have negative consequences for areas dependent on development assistance to promote strong and vibrant economic bases. Some of this money would be well spent in these endeavours. The attitude adopted by the Liberals seems to be that deficit spending is good for economic growth and there is nothing wrong with having a large national debt. However, we are seeing the results. Hon. members opposite are the perpetuators of that particular theory. We owe the money only to ourselves, and there are not enough assets to offset our debts. 1 suppose hon. members opposite keep their philosophy in order to appease their little red friends to my left, who must take the ultimate responsibility for this whole economic mess because they ensured that the group opposite got back into power when we had a responsible government in place.
Government spending is out of control. The Liberals will spend $26 billion more between 1980 and 1984 than had been planned by the responsible Crosbie budget. That is $1,100 per capita. The Liberal government promised to hold spending below the rate of growth of the gross national product, but we know how much promises mean to this government when we

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
see what has happened with respect to DREE and what has happened in the maritimes. The government promised to extend the natural gas pipeline. The National Energy Program would better have been entitled the "national disaster program" as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. It just happens that the first letters of those words coincide with the first letters of the name of the party to my left, the NDP. Members of the NDP might very well be called the "national disaster party".
The deficit has to be paid off, and it can be paid off in only two ways. The first way is to print more money, and the other is to borrow more money. If we borrow money to pay off the debt, a second debt is incurred. The debt has to be serviced, and today one of every five tax dollars is used to pay interest on the public debt. Interest on the public debt will cost taxpayers in this nation S16.6 billion in the fiscal year 1982-83. That $16.6 billion amounts to $680 from every Canadian man, woman and child, including babies. That is money lost. It is money which could well be used in other areas. It is money which could be used to shore up the economy and get Canadians back to work.
The Canadian government is in a very serious financial situation. It would not be so bad if it were just the Canadian government. It would not be so bad if hon. members opposite had to atone for their mismanagement of the Canadian economy and if in the end they were held accountable for every penny and had to pay every penny themselves somehow. But no. Alas, every Canadian citizen will be responsible. When meaningful questions are asked in question period by hon. members on this side of the House as to what the government intends to do, we hear guffaws and laughter, and we see incessant smiles.


Howard Edward Crosby: No answers.


Robert Alfred Corbett: My hon. colleague says we hear no answers, and that is painfully true. Yes, the Canadian government is indeed in a very serious financial situation. Our national debt is triple our national assets. Can hon. members imagine a private business attempting to operate when its debt exceeds its assets by three times? It would not even begin to get that far. It would be forced into receivership and, worse, into bankruptcy. However, according to our government, that is one of the beautiful things about our deal. Hon. members opposite feel governments cannot go bankrupt. Perhaps they cannot, but the party responsible can be turfed out of power. Indeed, had Canadians any indication as to what would happen to them when the NDP allowed and, indeed, ushered in this group of has-beens, the situation in the country would be different today.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Robert Alfred Corbett: It would be a different sort of situation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a point of order.


Robert Alfred Corbett: in this country today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest accumulation of mendacities I have heard in a long time. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the people of Canada threw that government out and that the electoral process resulted in the election of the present government.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, it is-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has no choice but to recognize any hon. member who seeks the floor on a point of order. I want to make it clear, however, that the hon. member for Comox-Powell River sought the floor on a point of order but there was no appeal to the regulations, "un rappel aux reglements." There was no question of a point of order in that regard. That was debate.
I see that other hon. members are rising and want to seek the floor on points of order. I think it would be my responsibility to judge very quickly that if an hon. member rises on a point of order and cannot make a reference to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in very short order, I will have to cut that member off. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Powell River indicated that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was a "mendicator". In my books, "mendicator" is a liar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am going to give the hon. member for Prince Albert an opportunity to raise a point of order. The way I will do that is to encourage him to make a reference to the Standing Orders or to the precedents of the House of Commons.
If he is going to enter into debate I will have to cut him off again, and that will be the last time I will do so.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I was just bringing out a point which I think is part of the rules of the House and that is that it is improper for the hon. member for Comox-Powell River to use that particular indication with regard to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). Possibly Your Honour could rule on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must say that the Chair is at a loss on how to proceed with that request. One thing the Chair will not do is to proceed to rule on the issue that the hon. member refers to.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to think for a moment that those sorts of trivia bother me. I am a much
June 15, 1982

bigger person than that. I can tell you that if this group to my left wants to take a page out of the notebook of their leader, then apparently that is how much influence he has with them. He got up today and accused us of obstructing the business of the House. We are attempting to set Canadians straight and to solve problems of mismanagement, and members of that party raise an issue-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It was my understanding that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was addressing himself to the borrowing authority bill.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Indeed I was before I was so rudely interrupted by these "has-beens" on my left.
I tell you there is a solution for Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and it is very, very simple. I doubt that hon. members opposite will hear it because they have not heard anything yet that has not been told to them time and time again. It will be told to them one more time, perhaps, after I finish telling them now.
Quite simply, it is time for Canadians to get this government off their backs and out of their pocketbooks. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when the citizens of this country next have an opportunity, not only will they turf this bunch of fellows-I was going to say felons but I will say fellows-out of office and their little red turkey friends with them but they will elect a responsible Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that is available to me I think it should be very clearly pointed out-and it has to be emphasized time and time again-that the Conservative government in the Thirty-first Parliament was ejected from power by the Canadian people. There is no doubt that the democratic process was fulfilled and ultimately it was the will of the people to get rid of a government whose policies were not acceptable. Unfortunately, the bill before us tonight-


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You so rightly brought me back to the point that we were dealing with the borrowing authority bill. Now, all of a sudden the hon. member is dealing with the previous government. Is it not right and just that he be asked to address his remarks to the bill? He probably does not know anything about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, certainly you would allow me the latitude to develop the context in which the present borrowing authority bill is before the House today. The thrust of debate tonight has not been of a constructive nature. The official opposition has torn the proposed legislation to pieces without making a single constructive suggestion. That is unfortunate. If we look at the proposal before us tonight for a $6.5-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is rising on a point of order.
Borrowing Authority Act


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member continues with his remarks I think he ought to read Hansard to see what was said earlier in the day. He has not been in the House. Many alternative proposals have been put forward.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, certainly the presentation by the finance critic for the Conservative Party was a timely intervention, particularly as he is a supporter of the high interest rate policy and many of the policies that have brought about the present problems in the Canadian economy. Certainly it was the Conservative government that initiated the high interest rates and high energy prices.
The borrowing authority bill deals with the question of priorities in this country. I would be willing to admit that bad as the government was in the Thirty-first Parliament and bad as was the direction in which they were taking us, the present situation is worse. One of the reasons for that is that there is no sense of direction today.
To pass the bill before us tonight would be like taking money and throwing it into a bottomless hole. That situation will continue as long as we do not have a plan to bail us out of the situation.
There are basically three priorities, and when the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party address those priorities, perhaps a sense of direction will be established. Maybe the borrowing will become constructive and a concrete plan will be formulated. The basic priorities are unemployment, high interest rates and the high inflation rate.
The first priority is unemployment. We got onto the subject of mendacities tonight. The second largest mendacity in this country, other than the ones being put forward on a regular basis about the sanctity of the Conservative Party in the last Parliament, is unemployment. We are dealing with about 1.9 million people unemployed in this country, not 1.2 million and not the seasonally adjusted figure or the labour surplus rate. There are approximately 1.9 million people who do not have access to employment, who do not have an opportunity to share in the wealth of the country to which they are entitled. It is time we heard from the party on the right, the "do nothing but criticize" party and the party that is currently governing the country which is the "do nothing at all" party. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there has to be an employment strategy.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member entertain a question if time permits at the end of his remarks?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly entertain a question from the minister, but it would be preferable if he could work with his colleague on a short wrap-up because there is a very limited amount of time.
The three priorities are clear: jobs, interest rates and inflation. The question is: what are we going to do about it? There have been many suggestions, and the New Democratic Party

June 15, 1982
Borrowing Authority Act
has put forward five constructive suggestions. First, there should be a full-employment strategy. No one would disagree that Canadians should have the right to employment. 1 defy any sane member of this Flouse to oppose the suggestion that everyone should have an opportunity to share in the wealth of the country. But in addition, they should also have an opportunity to contribute to this country, its basic strength, and its future. What commitment could you have to a nation if you are blocked from sharing in its wealth, if you cannot live in dignity? Basically we need a full employment strategy, and we need it desperately.
We in this country have been very roughly handled by industry. I simply point to that $2 billion windfall which the energy industry received last week from the government, no strings attached. We have seen many other cash grants and windfalls in which there was the hope for a trickle-down effect, that somehow the benefits would trickle down to those who have nothing. It has not worked in the past and it will not work today. Our suggestion, and I challenge other to criticize it, is that of production agreements in key sectors. If you receive government benefits, if you are a multinational corporation, you do not take the jobs from this country, rather, you create jobs and guarantee employment.
There is a tremendous need for housing in this country, and it is unfortunate that we did not have a little more opportunity for some dialogue with the minister. A tremendous investment at this time in housing would create an enormous number of jobs and meet a tremendous number of social needs. Certainly the minister did something, but it was far short of what was needed. Another point is assistance to exporters. I wish I had time to talk about the tremendous chaos in the forest industry, one of the greatest producers of wealth in this country. This chaos has developed because the government failed to give adequate support to Canadian producers in markets abroad. This should be an extremely high priority because it would create jobs. We produce more than we can consume and it must be exported. With those brief suggestions, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of making this presentation.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a limited amount of time and I would like to start by taking some time as a relatively new parliamentarian to comment on some of the suggestions made by members of the opposition here this evening. Mr. Speaker, we on this side are quite willing to listen to positive suggestions made by members, regardless of political party. I think we as a government are quite concerned about some of the people who are victims, I suppose, of the present economic situation. Quite frankly, I assumed there would be a much more positive debate here this afternoon on the part of the opposition than what I have actually heard. I refer specifically, I suppose, to the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon when he quoted a speech given by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in Montreal where that gentleman said, in terms of the macroeconomic policies of this government, that the Conservative Party did not much differ with those policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Royce Herbert Frith: I heard the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) mention roughly three things. He felt if we were to change some of the NEP, that would solve all the economic ills facing the country today. I would like to remind that hon. member that the NEP does not apply in the U.S., yet we find the oil and gas industry down there finds itself in the same difficulties as the industry in western Canada.
I listened with some interest to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) who talked about government advertising. I want to point out to that hon. member that I am sure the responsible minister listened with some interest to some of the cost-saving measures the hon. member suggested. But I also want to point out that the government's budget for this year is $67 billion, and the hon. member chose to spend about 35 minutes to focus in on that program. He said any money spent on advertising federal government programs is wasted. I would also point out to the hon. member that the alienation in western Canada is not anti-Liberal, it is anti-central government. I would suggest a large part of that has been caused by the inability of the federal government to advertise properly its programs which affect all Canadians across the country.
Admittedly our party has difficulties at the present time because we do not have the representation in Western Canada we would wish, and will have after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Royce Herbert Frith: But I point out that if one looked at some of the material sent to constituents by Members of Parliament representing the Conservative Party in western Canada, one would question whether or not they believe in a federal government or federal state in this nation.
Let me focus on where we are spending part of this $67 million. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare anticipates a net increase of $1.7 billion in expenditures for this budget year. Of that money, $1,264 billion will go directly to people covered under the Old Age Security Act. That is partially due to an increase in the number of people over 65, and also due to the Liberal government's having a cost of living allowance attached to those benefits. Is the opposition suggesting that we cut out that kind of benefit to the elderly? There will be $397 million in the form of statutory payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, which we have no control over. Are you suggesting that we cut statutory payments to the provinces? We have an increase of $249 million in payments to individuals under the Family Allowances Act, which is also indexed. Do I hear from the opposition that that is an area they want to cut?
So what I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that much more could have been done in terms of constructive criticism of this government. I think we are smart enough at least to listen to them if they would only take the time to give us constructive criticism.
June 15, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, pursuant to order made Friday, May 7, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Borrowing Authority Act
Messrs.
Dawson	Guilbault	McCauleyde Corneille	Harquail	NicholsonDemers	Henderson	(Miss)Deniger	Herbert	OlivierDesmarais	Hervieux-Payette	OstiguyDingwall	(Mrs.)	OuelletDion	Hopkins	ParentDionne	Irwin	Pelletier(Chicoutimi)	Isabelle	PennerDionne	Johnston	Pepin(Northumberland-	Kaplan	PetersonMiramichi)	Kelly	PinardDubois	Killens (Mrs.)	PortelanceDuclos	Lachance	ReganDupont	Lajoie	ReidDupras	Lamontagne	(Kenora-Duquet	Landers	RobertsErola (Mrs.)	Lang	RobinsonEthier	Laniel	(EtobicolEvans	Lapierre	RompkeyFerguson	Lapointe	RooneyFisher	(Charlevoix)	RossiFleming	Lapointe	RoyFlis	(Beauce)	SavardFoster	Leduc	SchroderFox	Lefebvre	SimmonsFrancis	Loiselle	SmithFrith	Lumley	TessierGauthier	MacBain	TobinGimaiel	MacEachen	TousignantGingras	Mackasey	TrudeauGourd	MacLaren	Turner(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacLellan	VeilletteGourde	Maltais	Watson(Levis)	Masse	WeatherheGray	Masters	Whelan-1


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Wednesday, June 16, 1982