1982-10-29

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   MEDICAL CARE PREMIUM INCREASES UNDER GROUP SURGICAL-MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN

['No.']
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, whereas the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has authorized large increases in the monthly premiums payable under the federal Group Surgical-Medical Insurance Plan, increases of between 30 per cent and 100 per cent, effective August 1, 1982, and whereas these increases are clearly a violation of the Government's own six and five per cent limits, and wreak an intolerable hardship on many war veterans, widows, and other pensioners, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That Cabinet order the President of Treasury Board to roll back immediately GSMIP premium increases of more than 30 per cent, which were announced several weeks ago, to a maximum 6 per cent effective August 1, 1982.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, whereas, in a memo circulated on Monday, October 25, Canada Post smugly announced its intention to follow the requirements of the six and five program by limiting its latest increase to only two cents, or 6.6 per cent, forgetting that the resentment has barely subsided over the incredible 13-cent or 76 per cent jump in rates last year, and whereas that rate increase was conveniently implemented just before the six and five program was tabled, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That, in fairness to the Canadian people, postal rates be maintained at their present level for the foreseeable future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the NDP in Alberta is promising to protect property rights, and whereas the NDP and the Liberals in Ottawa took property rights out of the Charter, after the Progressive Conservative Party put property rights into the Charter; therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the people of Canada beware of a party that speaks with a forked tongue.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I am sure will be supported by all members of this House. In view of the adverse economic effects of the strike/lockout on the West Coast, and the fact that agriculture is one of the only sectors that has been operating at nearly full capacity, and in view of the hardships thereby caused to farmers and railway workers, I move a motion that is based on a precedent set by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mack-asey), when he was Minister of Labour. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That this House urges the Minister of Labour to go to Vancouver and make himself available to act as a mediator in this dispute, and to stay in Vancouver until a satisfactory resolution is achieved.

October 29, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR RESOLUTION OF WEST COAST PORTS DISPUTE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The shutdown of shipping at the Port of Vancouver is costing farmers $8 million per day in lost grain sales. Canada's reputation as a major exporting nation is challenged. In addition, western farmers have produced the largest grain crop on record and the economic impact is great to this country. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Government give more than lip service to solving the very serious situation that exists and take some affirmative action and order the dispute resolved.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

O)


FISHERIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, there are serious rumours circulating on the West Coast to the effect that the West Coast Fisheries Act will be enacted by this Government in December by Order in Council which will include major recommendations of the Pearse Report, including those for ground fish species. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the Minister of Fisheries make a statement on motions elaborating on the Government's intentions so that the fishermen so deeply affected by this Report will not be taken by surprise.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Finance, in his "this-is-not-a-budget" budget, stated that interest rates are now at levels comparable to those of two years ago, and whereas the five-year conventional mortgage rate in October, 1980, was 14.5 per cent compared to the latest figure of 16 per cent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister look once again and more carefully into the differences between the mortgage market of two years ago and today's mortgage market and offer some concrete assistance to those home owners in difficulty with mortgage renewal at rates that are still far too high.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, 1 also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas 70 per cent of the voters who marked their ballots in municipal referenda this Wednesday in Saskatchewan voted "yes" for disarmament, and whereas people in the town of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, which is next to the bombing range where the Cruise missile will be tested, voted 70 per cent in favour of stopping the testing, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That the Canadian Government introduce at the United Nations a motion calling for a world referendum on disarmament, and put into practice the Prime Minister's proposal of suffocation by cutting short negotiations on the testing of the Cruise missile, testing which will be opposed by thousands of Canadians at rallies across the country tomorrow.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, two years ago the Governemnt said it would take no action against owners of satellite dish receivers but that their use was illegal. Six weeks ago the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) announced that some owners of dishes would be prosecuted,
October 29, 1982

contrary to the rule of law. Last week the Minister opened a dish manufacturing plant in southern Ontario. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That the Minister of Communications be requested to clarify what Government policy in this area truly is so that Canadians, who are investing hard cash in the manufacture and purchase of these products, will know whether their investment is safe or whether and when they may expect the dish police to come calling.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, over the past few months hundreds of unemployed forestry workers and others in B.C. alone have been cut off regular UIC payments as they entered into the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, and have been forced to wait without incomes for up to six to eight weeks and more while the employment bureaucracy and the Minister just fiddle around. These victims are the latest to be added to the thousands who have to go on welfare or rely on charity while waiting week upon week for the UIC benefits to which they are entitled. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House present the Emperor Nero Award with dead maple leaf cluster to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in recognition of his continuing foul-ups and fiddling while unemployed Canadians burn, and urge him to stop feeding unemployed Canadians to the lions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, the major theme of the Prime Minister's three messages was trust. Trust is an essential element in democracy. Recently in my area three separate instances have been brought to my attention in which contracts with the Government of Canada have been awarded in circumstances which abuse normal
Oral Questions
tendering practices. In consideration of this I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House enjoin the Government of Canada to guarantee that, when inviting tenders for government construction projects, all conditions of tender be scrupulously observed to avoid the inference of political or other unworthy consideration which destroys the spirit of trust of which the Prime Minister spoke and the trust upon which the future unity of our nation is so dependent.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has announced the New Employment Expansion and Development Program. He said in his budget speech, and I quote, "It is expected to provide jobs for 60,000 individuals over a period of 18 months". Will those 60,000 jobs be full-time jobs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that this is a direct job-creation program and these jobs would be of a temporary nature, at least 20 weeks. But that will depend, obviously, also on the co-operation of industry in many instances. Many of these jobs will be of a permanent nature and will be extended; other jobs that may be created, also in co-operation with the provinces, may be of a permanent nature. That will have to be assessed as the Program develops. The 60,000 jobs I have announced are going to be directly created by that Program. I have not included the indirect job creation that results from any such activity.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister missed the question but he did tell the House that what was announced by him a couple of days ago, as 60,000 full-time jobs, will in fact be 60,000 20-week jobs; or perhaps there might be something more depending on somebody else doing something. This is a "maybe" program.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM DETAILS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister about the details of this Program. He said in his budget speech that his colleague, the minister on unemployment, "will announce shortly the details of the new Program". Let me ask the Minister if those details are ready. Does the Government know what it is proposing?
20190

October 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we know very well what we are proposing, but the Leader of the Opposition has to make up his mind. He cannot on the one hand accuse the Government of refusing to consult and having everything ready and at the same time, while I was speaking the other day, I heard him shout that that was no consultation, because we were proceeding with the Program without really consulting with the provinces. Now he is asking that we announce all the details before we have completed the discussions. I would say to him, make up your mind if you want consultation or if you do not.
We are consulting with the Provinces at the present time. We are adopting a flexible attitude on this and we will release details once the consultations have taken place. There will then be a full opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to make up his mind whether he likes them or not.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the translation of that answer is that the Government does not know what it is proposing. It has no details to announce.


TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration told the Minister of Finance for Ontario that this program would not be available at least until January-that no one would start working at least until January. It may be later; it may be April. Will the Minister of Finance tell the House of Commons how long it will be before this Program provides its first job for one Canadian?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I am pleased to inform the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that we have already $ 1.4 billion at work in terms of job creation in the country and that there is a $300 million program of community development activities starting in November. It will create jobs in November, December, January and February. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is trying to get this additional Program into effect as fast as possible, and we expect that this will be in January. If we can get it going even faster, this is what we will do. But I remind the Leader of the Opposition that we already have more than $ 1.4 billion of help for the workers and the unemployed of the country to fight unemployment, and that money is at work now.


Charles Joseph Clark: The translation of that, Madam Speaker, is that the Government does not know when this Program will begin to deliver the first job to one Canadian in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PLIGHT OF PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that his Government's own figures indicate that over the next nine months there will be a further 540,000 Canadians who will become ineligible for unemployment insurance. This means that over the next 18 months, if that trend continues, more than a million Canadians will become ineligible for unemployment insurance. He is promising as an answer for these more than a million Canadians who are going off unemployment 60,000 20-week jobs. What will he do to help the million other Canadians whom this Program does nothing at all to aid?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition seems to need translation this morning, I will answer this one in French.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Do you want it in English?


Mr. Crosbie:: Let's have it in Japanese.


Marc Lalonde: The program I announced will provide $500 million, while another $600 million will be provided to assist the residential construction industry in Canada and the expansion of rail capacity in the West. The program involves expenditures of $1.1 billion, in addition to, as I said earlier, the $1.4 billion already approved in the supplementary estimates. This year, the Canadian government has allocated additional funds of $2.5 billion for job creation and programs to fight unemployment. The Government of Canada is quite aware that these programs and the government's efforts alone will not be enough to wipe out unemployment in this country. Bringing down the unemployment rate will depend on how successful we are in putting a stop to the present recession and stimulating the private sector. That was the message I gave in my statement to the House earlier this week. That was the message I gave when I announced tax cuts for workers and tax cuts as well as tax exemptions for business. I am very pleased with the reception given these measures throughout Canada, and especially in business circles, and I hope that the private sector will be able to play a substantial part in achieving the economic recovery this country needs. The Government of Canada will be there to provide leadership and the necessary support in the coming months.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour my question
October 29, 1982

is directed to the Prime Minister. One in ten jobs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia are directly dependent upon the Port of Vancouver-56,000 workers and a weekly payroll of $16 million; 3,500 longshoremen and warehousemen are out; 1,336 CN employees are out; 490 CP employees are out and there are more to come; 300 grain handlers are about to be laid off; commodity handlers have laid off 200 and there are more to come; and English Bay is filled with ships on demurrage charges of $2,500 up to $20,000 a day. This strike cannot be allowed to continue.
Is it the Prime Minister's intention to allow this interruption in the Canadian economy to continue as long as "meaningful bargaining takes place" or, as the Minister of Finance suggested this week, regardless of bargaining, if the Port is not opened on Monday morning, will emergency legislation be brought to this House to open the Port immediately?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance made it quite clear in his statement to the House on Wednesday that if the parties had not settled their dispute through the process of free collective bargaining by Monday night this Government would ensure in some way that the strike would be ended, and that is still our intention.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The Prime Minister's answer is satisfactory, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I believe from what he has had to say that we can anticipate the Port of Vancouver being opened at the latest on Tuesday, regardless of what happens with bargaining.


CUSTOMS CLEARANCE FOR CARGO LANDED AT SEATTLE
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that much of the commerce of the Port of Vancouver is now unloaded in Seattle which amount so far is 60,000 tonnes, an amount increasing hour by hour, what special arrangements have been made by the customs service to expedite border crossing by the new flood of trucks heading north?


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the Hon. Member that I will take notice of his question and bring it to the attention of the Minister when he returns.


Charles Joseph Clark: Which minister?
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


EFFECT OF PROPOSED SURTAX
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Wednesday, in the House, the Minister said that the New Democratic Party proposal for levying a surtax on all those Canadians earning over $40,000 a year, namely, the richest 7 per cent of Canadians, would not obtain for job-creating purposes the $1.3 billion we said that it would. Will the Minister now admit that he was wrong? Further, will the Minister acknowledge that the same group of rich Canadians, as a result of the government's tax changes last fall, will get an additional $1 billion in tax benefits in the coming year?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to admit I was wrong, if I were. But I invited the Hon. Member to have his research assistants come to my office or to my department to compare notes and figures. I told him, and I repeat to him, that the estimates of my Department and those made by officials who know about the fiscal system and about national revenue, are to the effect that the revenue resulting from the tax proposed by the NDP would barely come to half the amount mentioned in the speech made by the Hon. Member, if he speaks about the revenues that would be generated in one year. I do not know whether he has added a few years in order to arrive at his figures, but if the Hon. Member tells me that his figures relate to revenues that could be generated in a single year, our estimation is that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is wrong again, by about 100 per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to send a letter to the Minister. I want to say to him at this point, however, that the average tax increase of 5 per cent on this group that we have proposed, will obtain 15 per cent additional revenue from the same category of rich Canadians, and we in this Party believe that the rich in Canada should start to pay their fair share at least, especially in terms of job creation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE SURTAX
John Edward Broadbent: I have another question for the Minister of Finance in that context. Since, on Wednesday, the Minister announced an increase in the UI premiums paid by the ordinary worker, which is an indirect tax of over $800 million, and since the Government continues to tax pensioners and continues to tax those living at the poverty level, why does the Government not bring in a surtax on upper-income Canadians to generate money for badly needed jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, if we had applied the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, what would have been

October 29, 1982
Oral Questions
required would have been an increase of something like 125 per cent in the premiums under the Unemployment Insurance Program. The Unemployment Insurance Program is what it is, an insurance program to which employees and employers are contributing for their own security. Due to the current economic situation and difficulties, the Government decided that we would not apply the normal rule, but that in effect, the Government would assume 70 per cent of the deficit that was being incurred by the fund and only 30 per cent would be assumed by the employers and employees. This is the contribution of the Government of Canada in the current situation.
Our decision was made after consultations with labour and management and in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, it recommended exactly what we have implemented. In our consultations with most labour unions and management, they agreed that they should be contributing a share of that increased premium.
With respect to the question raised by the Hon. Member, I have already told him, and I repeat, that I have set up a nice "budget box" in my office. I have heard his representations on this proposal and, as I prepare my budget for 1983, I will give his proposal and suggestion careful consideration.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CHANGE TAX BENEFITS FOR WEALTHY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister smilingly is quite prepared to increase the tax burden on every ordinary Canadian but is totally unprepared to make wealthy Canadians pay their share at this time. We in this party find that totally unacceptable.
I want to return to another part of the first question that the Minister did not answer. Will he admit that, as a result of closing a couple of loopholes that benefit upper-income Canadians which he announced on Wednesday, in addition to the tax changes brought in by his predecessor last fall, the upper 7 per cent of Canadian income earners will get over a billion dollars in tax benefits in the coming year, while we overtax the average Canadian? If he will admit that, will he bring in a change now, and not six months down the road, that will make upper-income Canadians pay their share at this time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in my statement earlier this week I estimated that the total tax benefits granted were $300 million over a full year. The largest single element in that tax break is going to the Canadian men and women who are working in this country, through abandoning the proposal to tax their health and dental plans. The Leader of the New Democratic Party should recognize that.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Minister has indicated, he will be seeking parliamentary approval for a further $400 million equity injection for Canadair and de Havilland. Would the Minister indicate and assure the House that none of those funds have been advanced or borrowed to date, nor will such funds be advanced or borrowed directly or indirectly by those two companies prior to Parliament having an opportunity to take action on his request?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge none of those funds have been advanced to Canadair and de Havilland. However, it would seem inappropriate to me not to advance those funds to Canadair and de Havilland, because one of the things that they want to do is reduce some of their high interest rate loans and then take advantage of lower interest rate loans when the money is required. To me, it would impede the progress of Canadair and de Havilland if that money were not advanced.


VIABILITY OF CANADAIR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again I question the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has just indicated that parliamentary approval will be virtually just a rubber stamp if it is given. In view of the fact that Canadair alone will have a total exposure now of $1.5 billion backed by the Government and the people of Canada, would he indicate if he can assure the House that Canadair is in fact viable, bearing in mind that that will mean that it has triple the indebtedness of its main competitor, Gulf Stream America? It will in fact have an indebteness equal to $300,000 for every employee in that company. Is it viable?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, many companies which rely on export markets are experiencing financial difficulty today. Canadair does not control the international marketplace. It does not make decisions as to who buys corporate aircraft. If we did not think that Canadair was viable, if we did not think that jobs were important in the aerospace industry, we would not be coming to Parliament and requesting another $200 million in equity infusion to the company.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Many employees
October 29, 1982

of Nordair have been on strike since June 24. It has been the longest and most disruptive strike in that company's history. Will the Minister give the House a progress report on the strike, and can he explain why the Government of Canada through its Crown corporation, Air Canada, which owns about 86 per cent of the shares of Nordair, has not acted to bring an end to this strike to get Nordair's planes back in the skies to service the many communities across three provinces in this country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I inquire regularly as to the happenings in that particular strike. 1 regret that the strike is being extended. Occasionally, when I do inquire, I am told that progress is being made. I hope that progress will materialize one of these days.
The reason why the Government does not take action in this strike as strongly as it does on the west coast strike, is simply that the Nordair one does not have the same national dimension as the west coast one.


DELAY IN REACHING SETTLEMENT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, perhaps we can illustrate one example of why progress has not been made. Would the Minister find out from his colleague, the Minister of Labour, why he has repeatedly turned down Nordair's request and has not even acknowledged several requests from the union to appoint a mediator to resolve the clerical workers' grievances? Why does the Government, in effect, appear not to be in too great a rush to settle this strike?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will do that this afternoon and report to the Hon. Member as soon as I can.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has claimed that 60,000 new jobs will be created with $1 billion of the taxpayers' money. How many jobs will not be created? How many jobs will be lost because the Royal Bank, other major chartered banks and the federal Government are withdrawing $1 billion in credit possibilities from the money market in order to bail out Dome Petroleum, $34 million for Maislin, $130 million for Consolidated Computers, $400 million for Canadair, and millions more for Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler?
What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that millions of individual Canadians and small businesses are guaranteed access to credit markets commensurate with their assets so
Oral Questions
that they can invest in Canada, and spend in the Canadian economy in order to create real, new and lasting permanent jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that yesterday, for the eleventh week in a row, the bank rate in this country went down. There has been significant progress on the interest rate side since last June.
Second, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the rate of savings in this country has never been as high. At the present time it is running at about 13 per cent, and this is more than twice the savings rate in the United States. The Hon. Member also knows, or should know, that there is not a great demand from the private sector for borrowing at the present time. There are a lot of savings presently. There is a lot of money which can be borrowed and, thank God, it can be borrowed at much cheaper rates than used to be available in the past few months.
There has been significant progress on the interest rate side. 1 hope this progress will be maintained and continued over the next while. Frankly, I do not expect difficulties in terms of the money being available on the market for people who want to borrow for valid purposes.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He may know, but then again he may not, that Canadians everywhere, including B.C. Liberals and the residents of Meadow Lake who voted yesterday, are overwhelmingly opposed to the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and the fuelling of the nuclear arms race. They are opposed to the secrecy with which all of these negotiations have been kept. Can the Minister now tell the House the stage of the negotiations, both for the umbrella agreement and the Cruise missile testing agreement? Is it too late for the negotiations to be stopped? Have the agreements already been signed?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to inform the Hon. Member that negotiations are still under way with respect to the umbrella agreement. It is not certain when the negotiations will be completed, but until the umbrella agreement is completed and signed, it will not be possible to enter into any particular project for the testing of any weapons system.

October 29, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT TERMS BE REFERRED TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, in a letter to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, dated October 18, the Minister of National Defence indicated that the umbrella agreement would be signed within a few weeks. I would like the Minister to comment on that. Furthermore, will the Minister honour the promise made by his predecessor, sitting nearby in disguise, at the meeting of the Standing Committte on External Affairs and National Defence on March 24, 1982? As reported at page 22 of the Minutes, the Minister stated:
- there is no reason why we cannot reveal not only the fact of the agreement but all of the terms of the agreement as soon as the negotiations are completed-
Before any other agreements with regard to Cruise missile testing or anything else are entered into, will the Minister give a reference to the Standing Committee outlining all of the terms of the framework agreement, the letter from President Reagan to the Prime Minister asking for it in the first place, and the Prime Minister's reply, and all of the terms before any negotiations for Cruise testing are undertaken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first answer, Madam Speaker, is that it may be possible that the negotiations for the umbrella agreement will be completed within a few weeks. I am not certain because new items have been raised within the last short time which must be dealt with before any agreement can be signed.


Pauline Jewett: Like public opinion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the second question, I will look at the commitment made by my predecessor. If the Hon. Member has quoted him correctly, it seems to be a reasonable commitment and I would be happy to follow his wise leadership on this point.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In recent months, travelling salesmen have been going from door to door in the Gaspe and in a number of other areas throughout Canada, selling insulation at $20 a bag, while the same material is available from local dealers at $9. They are selling weather-stripping for $100, while the same product can be purchased for $30. The customer's bill is always for $350 and is charged to the grants provided by the Canadian Home Insulation Program. Many homeowners buy these products without really knowing what to do with them. They pass them on to their neighbours, use them to insulate cottages or
garages or leave them lying around in their backyards. My question is: can the Minister inform the House whether his government is going to stand any longer for this fraudulent use of CHIP grants, especially since the money involved would be far better spent on creating jobs in the riding of Gaspe, where the unemployment rate is 50 per cent?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, yesterday when I was answering questions in the House, I said that I was going to review this program. I agree there are people who are misusing the system and taxpayers' money. I am going to try to combine some of these programs to ensure that we get the desired results; in other words, conserve energy and at the same time prevent fraud, while the people taking advantage of these programs will pay part of the cost instead of receiving the full amount from the government.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister explain to the House the application of the $400 million, to which reference was made in the Finance Minister's statement this week, with respect to the expansion and modernization of rail capacity? Is this sum of $400 million to be used a grant, an advance, part of the Crow solution process or part of the Western Development Fund, or both?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I cannot be very explicit this morning. By the way, I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for having made this amount available, on top of previously announced amounts of money in order to bring about the resolution of the Crowsnest Pass rate and to bring about tremendous expansion of western rail transportation capacity. In due course I will state where each one of these dollars will be going, but I am not in a position to do so at this moment. However, the decision certainly indicates the dedication of the Government to the resolution of the problem and to the expansion of railway service in the West.


REQUEST FOR JOB-CREATION ESTIMATE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the Minister in a position to clarify to the House whether this sum of $400 million is part of the grant or subsidy package, or is it simply an advance to the railways to accelerate the development of rail capacity? I think that is a very important question. If so, what will it mean in terms of jobs and when will these jobs come on stream?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly what I cannot answer this morning. I just said that.
October 29, 1982

However, it is not part of the Western Development Fund. It is part of the western railway transportation project. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the number of jobs it will bring about amount to 400,000 person-years, if I recall well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Forty thousand.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister responsible for housing. I have written to the Minister and met with him last week with regard to the outrageous rent increases at Vista Courts Apartments in Calgary. Is the Minister in a position to defer this horrendous 250 per cent rent increase until the question is resolved, since no consultation took place between the management and tenants, especially in these hard times when we are preaching six and five?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in the area of housing, which is under the control of CMHC, the six and five policy is certainly very strictly adhered to, and this was announced by my predecessor some months ago. In the area of concern to the Hon. Member, I can tell him that these are units which were offered for purchase to the builders. They had received subsidized rents. However, I have considered the matter and asked CMHC to review that decision and hope to be able to give information to the Hon. Member in the next few days.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOW-COST HOUSING
John Kushner: Madam Speaker, has the Minister had any communications or carried out negotiations with regard to divesting responsibility for low-cost housing to the municipalities or the provinces? If the Minister has, will Parliament or the community have any input at all before a firm commitment is made by the Government?


Roméo LeBlanc: 
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This week the Public Accounts of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1982, were released. The Auditor General has levelled a most serious and, I believe, unprecedented qualification in his certificate on pages 2.15 and 2.16 of the Public Accounts. The Auditor General told the Minister of Finance that, in his opinion, the accumulated deficit, which makes up the national debt over the years, could be as much as $17 billion more than what in fact the Government is reporting because of its shabby and unapproved bookkeeping methods. I am sure the Minister is very concerned about this. What is the Minister willing to do to expose this understatement of the Accounts of Canada to the people of the country? Also, what is he willing to do to rectify this very serious situation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member has not been a Member of this House for many years. If he had been, he would realize that this debate has been going on for many years with the Auditor General and in the accounting profession. There has been debate on this subject in the Public Accounts Committee. There is an honest division of opinion as to the best way of presenting the accounts of the Government. Some accountants argue on one side, and some accountants argue on the other side. That debate has been published and is well known. It is on the record in the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, it has been demonstrated in the statement to which the Hon. Member has referred. It is not new. It is a question of honest division of opinion.


Douglas Keith Anguish: With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, I may be a young Member of Parliament, but I am certainly not stupid.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is an officer of this Parliament. He has told us that the Accounts of Canada are in shabby shape. We have not honoured his request over the years to do the proper accounting that is necessary. He has told us this many times. I am not surprised that the Deputy Minister resigned-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now arguing. There is a time to argue and a time to ask questions. I would ask that he get to his question.

October 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Douglas Keith Anguish: What steps is the Minister of Finance willing to take to honour the requests of the Auditor General to, in fact, put the books of this country in good order?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member not to argue the point too much in the way he has done because he will raise questions as to his own statement about himself. I will just repeat what I told him, that for years there has been an honest division of opinion. We can list a number of accountants who will argue one side of this issue and a number who will argue the other side. That debate is well known. It is public. The facts are available for everyone to see. I do not personally intend to pursue the matter in this regard. I am sure this matter will again be examined. If there is a change of view in this regard, I will let the Hon. Member know without delay.


WELFARE
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Earlier this week the Chief Executive Officer of Metropolitan Toronto announced that he had the largest number of people on welfare in Metro's history. Mr. John Kruger said "the number is at an all-time high and will grow as more of Metro's
170,000	jobless exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits." He went on to say that we are going to have 50,000 more on welfare by Christmas alone. I would ask the Minister, since she has a responsibility under the Canada Assistance Plan, what she intends to do about this situation.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the CAP Agreement under which we reimburse 50 per cent of all welfare costs to the Provinces is an agreement between the federal Government and the Provinces and, unfortunately or not, not with the municipalities. The Province of Ontario has its own agreement by which it redistributes our funds and theirs to the municipalities. I have no control over that nor, to my knowledge, do I have any reports and factual information. Therefore, as far as the federal Government is concerned, we will continue under this agreement to reimburse as quickly as possible all welfare bills presented by the various Provinces in order to assure Canadians of the cushion needed in these very difficult times.


REQUEST MINISTER ACT TO CHANGE COST-SHARING AGREEMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, welfare costs in Metropolitan Toronto for next year, in response to this problem, will go up by 53 per cent. In response to that problem, Mr. David Dodge, an Assistant Deputy Minister in the Employment Department, said "the problem is that the municipalities don't have the money to pay for these people and, that, deary is a federal responsibility". This is not a problem only for Metropolitan Toronto. It is a problem that is
going to affect all municipalities right across the country. Surely the Minister can take some initiative and offer some leadership to change the CAP Agreement so that the municipalities will not be, as Ron Anderson said last week, bled dry by the fact that all of these people are now coming on to welfare rolls.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I do not think we should enter into a constitutional debate on something that has to be provided to those on welfare. Ontario is a province which has decided to use the municipalities as agents for distributing welfare. I do not know what the Province of Ontario gives to the municipalities. Neither do I know, nor is it my responsibility under the Constitution, to check whether the Province gives proper moneys to the municipalities. This is a constitutional problem the Hon. Member wants to open that does not even exist. We pay 50 per cent of every welfare bill in this country. We pay it to the Provinces. It is their responsibility to match that by 50 per cent and no less. Past that point, I suggest the Hon. Member write a letter to the Province of Ontario and to continue to inquire about the municipal onus.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which I put to the Prime Minister the other day. Will the Government accept the unanimous recommendation of the all-party task force that the federal Government's share of contributions under CAP be increased to those Provinces where unemployment is higher than the average and the number on the welfare rolls is higher than the average? Will the Government, in the spirit of leadership, move on that all-party unanimous recommendation of a committee of this House, supported by individual Liberal Members of this House of Commons?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I do not know the text of the recommendation, but the spirit is surely met by the nature of the Program. The Program is such that the Provinces decide on their own initiative what amount they pay for the various allowances, etc., provided basic human rights are respected. We automatically reimburse 50 per cent. Therefore, any Province in a deeper situation of hardship automatically receives far more. An additional part is distributed to these provinces, and that should not be forgotten, through the general transfer payments of the Government of Canada, the equalization payments.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Surely the Minister knows what the all-party task force recommended. It recommended that in the case of Provinces that are
October 29, 1982

unusually hard hit by economic circumstances, and thus are not able to find money quickly, or as easily as other Provinces, there should be a federal contribution higher than 50 per cent for those provinces. That was the recommendation of Liberal Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, the unanimous recommendation of a committee of this House. In the spirit of leadership, in solving the problems this Government created, will the Minister of Health and Welfare accept that unanimous recommendation?


Monique Bégin: I think that to play games like that is very easy for someone who is not in Government. Does the Hon. Member want me to cut into my other programs or increase the deficit? He does not tell us. There is one thing that he keeps forgetting. The Program exists and functions very well, and, of course, there is an increase in times of hardship. There is a very important part of the transfer payments to, for example, the Atlantic Provinces, which covers exactly the problem identified by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely, that they have less front-end money to advance.
I have just completed a study of the request from these provinces for more money for medicare. I have news for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. They have done better under medicare, with all our transfer payments, than the other Provinces.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday October 28, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I feel severely affects the rights and privileges of every Member of this House, and certainly my rights and privileges. I raise this matter as a question of privilege because I think the rules of the House have been breached in such a manner as to reflect on the reputation, character and good name of the House itself.
Privilege-Mr. Yurko
The incident I am referring to occurred yesterday when 1 rose after the question period to deny unanimous consent to allow further questioning of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on his Wednesday statement. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the House Leader for the Official Opposition, quickly jumped up and said as reported at page 20120 of Hansard:
-when the Government House Leader made his submission with respect to the results of the meetings between House Leaders at the opening of the House, he disclosed the fact that there was unanimous consent.
I want to repeat that last phrase, Madam Speaker, so that everyone in this House understands it very clearly. The Hon. Member for Yukon said the House Leader disclosed the fact that there was unanimous consent. He then changed his story slightly. He said:
Madam Speaker will recall that I rose afterwards and I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did likewise. I submit that it was at that point that unanimous consent was sought and achieved, and it is too late now for the Hon. Member to rise in an attempt to refuse unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Rather than reading these quotations, I would like the Hon. Member to tell me forthwith what his question of privilege is. 1 do caution him that he may not comment on my ruling of yesterday, which 1 maintain. 1 would like to know immediately what his question of privilege is, and he can elaborate on it once he has enunciated what it is.


William J. Yurko: I do not intend to be too long, Madam Speaker, but I must take a few minutes to set the scene. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the House Leader for the NDP, took quite a different tack in responding to my objections. He said that based on the previous consultations that had taken place, perhaps unanimous consent was not required.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid I have to be very strict with the Hon. Member because he is probably referring to a ruling, and he has to make it quite clear to me now that he is not. I therefore ask him to state what his question of privilege is and he may then remind me of the statements made in the House by other Hon. Members. I want him to tell me, please, what is the basis of his question of privilege.


William J. Yurko: I have never seen, Madam Speaker, anyone have as much difficulty with the Chair as I have in terms of trying to put forth a matter of privilege. This is my basic point. As far as my understanding of the rules of the House are concerned, any changes in the routine daily order of business have to be sanctioned each day the Routine Proceedings are superseded, and unanimous consent of the House must be sought and obtained. In this particular case it was not.
I would like now to refer to your statement yesterday, when you said, as reported at page 20120 of Hansard:
Statements by Ministers. I understand that by unanimous consent we will continue for a period of 20 minutes with questioning which follows the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
Your statement indicated that we had unanimous consent for a period of 20 minutes to question the Minister, and I find nowhere in Hansard that such a question was even put to the

October 29, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Friesen
House, much less agreed to. That was the reason I took objection, because that question was never posed to the House.
I want to say that 1 objected to the additional questioning of the Minister because I did not think-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The House is quite aware that the Hon. Member is objecting to the additional 20-minute question period after the statement made by the Minister. He did that yesterday. Having received the guidance of the House and having confirmed that there was unanimous consent of the House at that time, I ruled that the question period would continue for a further 20 minutes. I had some discretion about allowing a 20-minute discussion after the statement from the Minister of Finance and I used that discretion.
On the particular point which the Hon. Member is now raising under a question of privilege, but which should be a point of order, I must repeat to him that that particular incident is closed and I cannot allow him to comment further on a ruling which I made yesterday.


MR. FRIESEN-PRODUCTION OF PAPERS ALLEGED INCOMPLETE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, you will recall that yesterday I sought permission to look into the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) so as to be able today to complete briefly my argument and add a few remarks. I did read the lengthy comments which you had the patience to listen to yesterday and I did not see anything in the facts-


Mr. Nielsen:: On a point of order, I hope the Government House Leader will forgive me for interrupting, but 1 notice that the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is not in his seat.


Madam Speaker:: He is here now.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was about to say that I have examined the Hon. Member's allegations, and realized that, to bolster his case, he based his arguments on two documents of which he was allegedly made aware subsequently, that is after the documents were tabled in the House. The first point I want to make is that the documents to which he referred have nothing to do with the order of the House. The order of the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister would be doing me a great service were he to give me the additional information he promised yesterday and confine his remarks to giving me that additional information; otherwise, I will again have to hear other Members for a second time on a question of privilege. Yesterday the Hon. Member asked whether he would be allowed to seek futher information and provide that information to the House a little later. That 1 can allow, I
mean he may provide additional information because yesterday he sought permission to do just that, but I cannot let him embark upon a new argument because the practice of the House is that I can hear Hon. Members only once on a question of privilege.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was about to do just that. I would refer you to Beauchesne's Citation 390 and point out that the documents mentioned by the Hon. Member have nothing to do with the order of the House, that his case does not rest solidly on facts and that there are no grounds for a question of privilege. If he wants another address to be presented to Her Majesty for the tabling of documents, he ought to introduce another motion. All that is provided for by parliamentary practices, and if you do not want to hear further arguments, that sums up the facts, as far as I can see. All you need to do is to read carefully Citation 390 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and go by those references rather than those submitted yesterday by the Hon. Member, which relate to incidents dating back to 1820, 1834, 1835, 1841 and 1876 and which have nothing to do with the evolution of parliamentary practices. Citation 390 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition refers to cabinet directive No. 45 since 1973. Quite obviously, we never did have an opportunity to ask for exemptions. We were waiting to see whether the Hon. Member wanted other documents in addition to those he had asked for, and that is why we are exercising our exemption right. Therefore, I am doing that now because we had no opportunity to do so and I reserved my right to that effect yesterday. Be that as it may, the documents to which he referred have nothing to do with the order of the House and, since the facts are contradictory, there simply cannot be a question of privilege.
In essence, Madam Speaker, that is the new fact I wanted to bring to light by referring you to Citation 390 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. It spells out the exemption which is provided for and the rules which govern the tabling of documents by the government. In light of the facts related by the Hon. Member, once again he has no justification to say that we did not abide by the order of the House. Finally, you know that the documents were tabled on July 29 and that the House sat until August 4 inclusive. The Hon. Member is definitely late in raising his question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that does not dispose of the very serious question that was raised by the Hon. Member yesterday. What is before the Chair is hard evidence, read into the record, of some documents which were not produced pursuant to the unanimous order of this House that all documents be produced. Not all relevant documents, not all documents subject to any condition or qualification, but all documents.
October 29, 1982

The production by the Government was deficient, as revealed clearly by hard evidence placed on the record yesterday by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). So that his suggestion to the Chair that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections I think is the only solution-certainly in my submission it is the only solution-to determine whether or not the Government has complied with the adoption unanimously of an order of the House that all documents be produced. I submit, as I did yesterday, Madam Speaker, that if there is any doubt on that question, the House should decide it by your putting the question.


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but am I to assume the Chair is further reserving her decision?


Madam Speaker:: Yes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: 1 will facilitate your work, Madam Speaker. 1 got unanimous consent for the motion I am going to present.

Madam Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) but since the Hon. Member for St. John's West is temporarily absent-

I would ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), to second the motion. Therefore, I move that the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which I presented yesterday be now adopted.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the Hon. Member is not really presenting a report. He can come back on motions for this particular one.


Marcel Prud'homme: That is exactly what I was asking.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to be recognized and I recognized him. I thought he was presenting a report. We will come back to that later.


Madam Speaker:: Motions. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
Order Paper Questions


Marcel Prud'homme: May I say, Madam Speaker, that I knew I was supposed to do this on motions, but I thought you wanted to accelerate it so I could leave for Montreal.

Madam Speaker, with the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) that the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence presented in the House on Thursday October 28, 1982 be concurred in. I have also obtained the unanimous consent of the House including that of the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,306, 3,307, 3,551, 4,105, and 4,230.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. James A. Windsor of Prescott, Ontario a term Immigration Officer at Prescott, Ontario from May 25 to August 24, 1981 and did he file for a competition to become a permanent employee?
2.	Was Mr. Windsor advised that he would be interviewed on October 13, 1981 and was he telephoned on October 9, 1981 from Cornwall, Ontario to confirm whether he would still be able to make the interview?
3.	Did he receive a letter dated October 2, 1981 and signed by Mr. Fern LeBrun, Manager of the Department of Employment and Immigration Centre in Cornwall, Ontario setting up an interview on October 13, 1981 at 2 p.m. and was this interview cancelled minutes before it was to take place and, if so, for what reason was Mr. Windsor treated in this fashion?
4.	Was he discriminated against in any way whatsoever?
5.	What were the names and job designations of all persons involved in any attempt to stop him from being interviewed?
6.	Did (a) Mrs. Bonnie Trotman (b) Mr. J.R. Gaudet of the Department of Employment and Immigration in Prescott, Ontario play any part in this matter and, if so, what part?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. to 6. Mr. James A. Windsor was a term CR-5 employee at the Prescott Canada Immigration Centre (Immigration Examining Officer Assistant) from May 25, 1981 until August 24, 1981. All other parts of the question request information of a personal nature concerning Mr. James A. Windsor, the disclosure of which is governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.

October 29, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mrs. Bonnie Trotman, an employee of the Department of Employment and Immigration in Prescott, Ontario, go to the home of Mr. James A. Windsor, formerly a term employee of the Department in Prescott, Ontario and did she intrude on his premises, challenge his right to apply for permanent employment and request data that she was told was none of her business?
2.	Was she acting on behalf of the government and, if so (a) under whose authority (b) under what authority did she enter onto the property of another staff member?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 and 2. No report has been filed with the Commis-sion/Department concerning this matter, therefore, all information would be of a personal nature to Mrs. Trotman.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to question No. 3,307 which asked in part why a Department of Employment and Immigration employee, Mrs. Bonnie Trotman, entered the premises of former temporary immigration officer, Mr. James Windsor, asking questions, did Mrs. Trotman recently file a report with the Department that she entered such premises because she was a personal friend of the family?
2.	Is the Government aware that Mr. and Mrs. Windsor deny that she was ever a personal friend of the family?
3.	Is the Government further aware that Mr. and Mrs. Windsor are requesting a full report from the Government concerning this immigration employee entering their home and asking personal questions?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 3,307 answered this day.
3. No.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Department of Employment and Immigration hold a competition No. 81-EIC-CC-0-499 for a CR 5 position and, if so (a) what were the names of those who applied under this competition and what were the names of those actually interviewed (b) was the position filled and, if not, will immediate consideration be given to one of the applicants, Mr. James A. Windsor of 366 James Street East, Prescott, Ontario?


Lloyd Axworthy: Competition 81-EIC-CC-0-499 was a closed competition for PM-1 Immigration Examining Officers, not for a CR-5 position.
(a)	Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Subsection 52(2) precludes release of information on these applicants.
(b)	This competition was run to select persons for anticipated vacancies only as part of a pro-active approach to staffing. By doing this, the Commission/Department is prepared in advance to make appointments as vacancies occur, rather than being caught short-staffed and having to wait for three to four months to staff a vacancy on an indeterminate or acting basis.
This particular competition was also conducted at this time to enable the Commission/Department to make an acting appointment to a PM-1 position, since one of the indeterminate Immigration Examining Officers is acting at the PM-2 level in the Cornwall Canada Immigration Centre to replace
an indeterminate employee who is absent on full-time language training.
All eligible applicants were considered.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	In the fiscal year 1980-81 in British Columbia (a) how many loan guarantees were authorized under the Small Business Loans Act (b) how many grants and how many loan guarantees were approved under the Business Expansion Program (c) how many loans were authorized and how many risk capital ventures were underwritten under the Federal Business Development Bank (d) how many grants were authorized under the Program for Export Market Development (e) how many Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants were approved (f) what amount was loaned to British Columbia companies by the Export Development Corporation?
2.	From April 1981 to January 1982, how many small and medium-size businesses received loans under the federal bond program and what was the total amount of the loans?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Finance, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Regional Economic Expansion and the Export Development Corporation as follows:
1. (a) Small Business Loans Act (SBLA)
Number of insured loans Amount authorized
Amount claimed on insured loans (losses)
(b)	Enterprise Development Program (EDP)
(Business Expansion Program)
Contributions
Number of projects approved Amounts approved Expenditures
Insured Loans
Number of projects approved Amounts approved
Amount claimed on insured loans (losses)
(c)	Federal Business Development Bank (FBDB)
Loans Undertaken
Number of projects approved Amounts approved
Capital Ventures Underwritten
Number of projects approved Amounts approved
(d)	Program for Export Market Development (PEMD)
Number of projects approved Amounts approved Expenditures
4,257 $107,642,000 $	914,000


[Stage Direction]
$	1,485,000
$	124,000
1,829 $ 98,646,000
[Stage Direction]
$	1,971,000
$	790,000
October 29, 1982
[Stage Direction]
	Approved	Accepted
RDIA	12	10IDS A (ASEP)	117	114ARDSA Part IV	16	16TIDSA Part III	11	11Special ARDA Commercial undertakings	46	45Primary producing	26	26Remote rural community	1	1
(f) EDC does not lend to Canadian companies. In 1980-81, however, EDC has made disbursements amounting to Cdn. $118.134 million to Canadian exporters of record resident in British Columbia under various loan agreements between EDC and foreign buyers and/or borrowers.
2. By the end of January, 1982 over 13,000 firms had received loans under the Small Business Development Bond (SBDB) program. The total amount of these loans was approximately $2.1 billion.
David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-128, to provide supplementary borrowing authority (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, in the brief period that was available to me last evening I referred to Bill C-128 presently before the House, as well as the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on the economic outlook for Canada, and the TV spectacular of the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) in which he tried to lay the blame for our $24 billion deficit on the mistrust which exists between Canadians rather than on the inefficient management of his own Government. The fact that we are falling behind by $2 billion a month in a nation of 24 million people has to be some kind of record, of which none of us can be proud. The United States, with its 240 million people, would have to show a deficit of $240 billion to equal our record. Their deficit, at $110.7 billion, is less than half of Canada's deficit on a per capita basis, yet they are worried sick about all this red ink. However, all will be well, says the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal, if we only trust him.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
I ask in all seriousness, along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians, on what can we base that trust? He is the man who campaigned bitterly against wage and price controls in 1974 and then imposed them in 1975. Along with his entire party he campaigned against our program to raise the gasoline tax by 18 cents in 1980. Since that time he has imposed a much more expensive tax, not only on gasoline but also on home heating oil, which we believe should be completely exempt. Every time the administered price of gasoline goes up, the credibility of the Liberal Party and the Liberal administration erodes in the same ratio.
I wonder how much the contemplated purchase by Petro-Canada of BP assets will further increase the cost of our gasoline in Canada. Some have estimated that the BP purchase would take some $500 million more out of Canada. I believe this money could be spent more wisely if it were directed toward job creation rather than the further nationalization of existing industries.
The whole range of Canada's economic policies needs to be rigorously examined and the spending priorities need to be carefully reviewed. This is not my view alone; it was expressed on many occasions, and most forcefully, by a former Auditor General, James Macdonell, in his report to the Commons in 1975 and he repeated it again in 1976. He said, and I am quoting him:
I am deeply concerned that Parliament and indeed the Government has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse. The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
This was the warning, the signal, given to this Government seven years ago-a warning to caulk the ship of state for leaks, to lighten the crew so that she would be more manageable, and to trim the sails. Obviously this simply was not done. That is why Canadians today look with suspicion and mistrust at every new move made by this administration, a Government in which Canadian people no longer have any confidence.
How can we have confidence in a Government which, of necessity, had to change its Finance Ministers? Yet the new Finance Minister is as fuzzy in his concept of FIRA and its effect on Canadians as was his predecessor. Perhaps we should look at the Foreign Investment Review Act and apply to it the same sweeping criteria its administrators apply to the proposed investments of those who come before it.
Is FIRA of significant benefit to Canada? Well, when you look at the curtailment of foreign investment in Canada, there is no positive evidence that would decide that question in FIRA's favour. We must ask ourselves how the blocking of any investment in an economy which is in deep depression, with an unemployment rate in excess of 1,343,000 Canadians, provides Canadians with a benefit? Indeed, how much higher is unemployment in Canada today than it might have been without this yoke around our necks, this throttling of possible job-producing investment?

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
The question of benefits to Canada should be the primary issue in the FIRA debate. When our new Minister of Finance says he will not make any changes in FIRA to please the Americans, I submit that he is missing the point. He should be revamping FIRA to benefit Canadians. Any unemployed Canadian put back to work tomorrow by American capital, by German marks, French francs, the yen, the pound or the kwacha, will have no trouble telling the Minister of Finance how to define what is of significant benefit to the Canadian economy.
The mismanagement of our economy is taking its toll, not only on our Canadian corporations but also on the individual social fabric of the nation. Our people are hurting and they are hurting badly. In its excessive demand for taxes, the Government is destroying not only our individual ambition and initiative but also the very homes of our people, the rock on which our nation has been built.
In Nova Scotia many citizens, our farmers and our fishermen, are in arrears in their payment of income taxes, many of them through no fault of their own. Despite their pleas for an extension of time in which to pay back taxes, the Government has cracked down hard on our fishermen. For example, it is demanding 20 per cent for 1982 taxes and 40 per cent for back taxes of all fishermen's shares in a year when fishing is at an economically low ebb. It is demanding immediate payment for back taxes from Nova Scotia farmers as well.
I wish to place on the record one letter out of many letters and telephone calls I have received which adequately describes the economic situation of many of my constituents. It is dated May 25, 1982 and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Crouse,
I don't know if you can help us do anything about our situation or not but it won't hurt me to find out.
My husband and I bought a new house about three years ago, with every intention of paying for it. Starting last fall there was so much income tax taken off John's pay that we lost our car. We did without oil all last winter because we couldn't afford to buy it. Now the government is taking two years income tax off John's pay. They are taking off for the present and the past year.
On April 24 his pay was $1965.35 and he came home with $510.22 and on May 12 his pay was $1965.39 and he came home with $598.76. The scallop draggers are only making one trip a month.
Our house payments are over four hundred dollars a month. How can we make our house payments. I am looking for a job since before Christmas but there isn't much available. In fact I can't find anything. 1 don't know what to do or where to turn but I sure hate the thoughts of losing our home.
I know the income tax must be paid but why so much at a time. We should be able to have enough of my husband's hard earned pay to live on. I guess the lucky (people)? are the ones selling dope and living income tax free. I have no dreams left, just nightmares.
That letter is on file, of course, in the Minister's office. I will not reveal the writer's name because I do not want to cause her any embarrassment. It is typical of hundreds of letters that I have received and all of them have been forwarded to the Minister's office with a plea to review the situation.
I submit that this situation has reached epidemic proportions in Atlantic Canada, so much so that I am informed it became absolutely necessary for the Right Hon. Prime Minister to move the portfolio of National Revenue out of Newfoundland. Before leaving the portfolio, I understand that the former Minister appointed a Mr. Bill Rowe as a special
investigator to look into the tax problems of the Newfoundland fishermen. As a result of this investigation, third party demand was reduced from 50 per cent to 25 per cent, except for cases in which this would result in a level of payments too small to keep up with the interest owing.
In addition, no homes, no property, boats or other assets used in the fisheries will be seized. Any future taxable income paid to the fishermen by Government will be followed up by T4 slips. This will clear up the confusion among the fishermen that resulted from the payment of a federal groundfish grant, or subsidy, during the late 1970s. Many fishermen did not realize that this grant or subsidy was taxable, since no T4 slips were issued by the Government, and then suddenly found, several years later, that they had to report how much was paid to them.
To the best of my knowledge the steps I have outlined have been applicable only to Newfoundland, even though I have written to the Minister on numerous occasions about similar problems among Nova Scotia fishermen. This leads me to ask the Government why there is a double standard and why the fishermen of Nova Scotia have been harangued, bullied and threatened when faced with income tax problems similar to those that occur in Newfoundland. These people are not trying to avoid the payment of their income tax; they know that they owe it. What they are pleading for is a little more time in which to meet the payments since the very resource industry upon which their livelihood is based has declined in this particular year.
The Government is guilty of complete insensitivity to the situation that is faced by Nova Scotia fishermen as well as by Nova Scotia farmers, whose plight I have documented in letters to the Minister as well.
We now have a new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), who is the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg. I would enter a plea to him to give the same consideration to the farmers and fishermen in Nova Scotia who are in arrears with his Department as has been recently given to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
The new Minister of Finance is concerned with job creation, and for justifiable reasons. In his budget address the Minister stated that $1.4 billion was allocated this year for employment programs and to help those who are recently unemployed; a new Employment Expansion and Development Program is being put in place. This leads me to ask why the Government requires such a large and expensive bureaucracy to inform it about the proper job-creation programs it should establish. What hyprocrisy! There is not a Member of Parliament in this House who could not, if requested, provide the Government with a number of worth-while projects which, if implemented, would provide jobs and assist in providing more jobs when completed.
October 29, 1982

If the Minister wants a comprehensive list of genuine make-work projects which will really help build up the infrastructure of the nation, I would be pleased to submit it on behalf of my riding as it applies to Nova Scotia, and I am sure my colleagues would also be pleased to do likewise.
Sometimes I am asked, "What would you do if you were in Government to help solve our present economic problems?" The answer to that question can partially be found in the Minister's statement to the House wherein he pointed out that Canada's budgetary revenues stood at $54.1 billion this year, some 19.1 per cent higher than in 1980-81. This is the figure to aim at when calculating budgetary expenditures, and in times of restraint all expenditures for projects that are not urgently required should be curtailed. For example, we must all ask ourselves whether it is urgently necessary for a Crown corporation to propose the construction of two new museums in Ottawa, an area which has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada at this time.
We need sunset laws to eliminate unnecessary programs. We need strict control of the spending and activities of Crown corporations, as indicated by the Auditor General. We must re-establish parliamentary control over public spending, and I believe we should seriously consider letting private industry purchase and operate some of our Crown corporations.
There is a desperate need to eliminate some of the present duplication of Government services. We must ask ourselves whether we really need a federal Minister of Agriculture-and I am not picking on him but he is as good an example as any- and Ministers of Agriculture in each and every Province of Canada. The same question could be asked about other ministerial duplications throughout the nation for, after all, it is the individual Canadian taxpayer who pays for all governments whether they be federal, provincial or municipal. None of the recommendations I have made is a cure-all for our economic ills, but I submit that if they were implemented we would go a long way toward the goal which leads to a balanced budget in Canada.
Finally, this Government does not need to stand alone in its attempts to solve our economic problems. It has been offered much help and assistance by all of Canada's provincial Premiers-help, I might add, which unfortunately has been refused. In late August the annual Premiers' Conference was hosted in Halifax by Nova Scotia's capable Premier, the Hon. John Buchanan. At the conclusion of that Conference an invitation was extended to the Right Hon. Prime Minister to meet with all provincial Premiers in early September. The invitation was declined. They called upon Ottawa to join with the Provinces in developing the appropriate conditions and policies to restore investor and consumer confidence in Canada. They drafted an economic recovery program which called for a change in monetary policy to ensure that Canadian interest rates follow any drop in United States interest rates, for substantial changes in the National Energy Program and FIRA to restore investor confidence, and for a commitment by both the federal and provincial Governments to reduce deficits and to work toward a manageable public debt or freeze on any further federal reductions in Established Programs Financing
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
to Provinces for education and hospital care. The latter one is causing untold misery throughout Canada, especially in Atlantic Canada where hospitals have been forced to seal off some of their wings and let beds sit idle, while the sick and needy are unable to get treatment because there is no money to finance the required nurses to look after them.
A request was also made for provincial participation in the GATT meetings on trade and tariffs, plus many other worthwhile proposals. These are all before the Prime Minister. I cannot understand for the life of me why he did not accept the offer. I understand the offer still stands. I urge the Right Hon. Prime Minister to reconsider his stand and to meet with all the Premiers of Canada in a joint effort to resolve our immediate problems.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. This is the first time I have had occasion to address the House in my new responsibilities as Minister responsible for Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
On Wednesday my colleague said that he had been Minister of Finance for some 48 days and that he would not be rushed into action simply for the sake of appearing to act. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that he intended to arrive at decisions which were sensible, constructive and durable. I have been Minister responsible for CMHC for some 30 days, and I know exactly what the Minister of Finance meant.
I should like to say that the economic statement presented by the Minister was in fact sensible, constructive and durable. It addressed in a straightforward way the problems faced by the victims of the recession. It gave the assurance that they will not be abandoned and that the social security system which the Government has put in place will not be dismantled at the very time when it is most needed.
It contained fiscally responsible measures and recognized the private sector as the engine for economic growth, and this is surely true in the field of housing. Also it reaffirmed the need for continued efforts to reduce inflation. These are the critical elements of an effective strategy for national recovery.
In particular I should like to refer to the measures relating to housing and to say that they too are sensible, constructive and durable. On taking on my new responsibilities, my first concern is with the availability of good housing. I am worried about the rate of housing starts. I am concerned about the state of the construction industry. I am also concerned about the ability of Canadians to become home owners and that rental accommodation be made available. Most importantly, I am concerned that low-income families should have good accommodation without having to pay unreasonable proportions of their income. I am deeply concerned about the housing conditions of native Canadians and of low-income families in rural areas as well as those in cities and towns.
In facing up to these challenges I will be building upon a foundation established by my predecessor, the now Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove). He held this portfolio at a

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
most difficult time, and the programs he brought forward showed his deep concern for the housing problems faced by many Canadian families. During the past year the Government has put close to $1 billion into the housing sector, the direct result of my predecessor's efforts to ensure Canadians continue to be among the best housed people in the world.
The Government has acted through the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan to assist home owners who are facing hardship in renewing their mortgages. Some $75 million has been set aside for this purpose. The Government has acted to support rental production through the Canada Rental Supply Plan under which the production of some 30,000 rental units will be supported during the remainder of this year and next. Close to
9.000	units have already been committed and an additional
5.000	are expected before the end of the year. An amount of $350 million was provided for this plan.
The Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan has now been extended. People buying newly constructed homes will be eligible to receive the $3,000 grant if their house was built before the end of April, 1983 and they purchase it before the end of December, 1983. In the case of people who have never owned a home before and are buying an existing house rather than one just newly built, they can get a grant as long as they make the purchase before the end of this year. For this program $400 million has been set aside. To date, some 65,000 householders have benefited from the program, and many of them were assisted in moving out of rented accommodation into homes of their own. This helped to relieve the scarcity of rental units.
[ Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced that $50 million more will be allocated to the Canadian Home Renovation Plan, therby increasing total funds for this program to $115 million, it is estimated that some 34,000 households have already benefited from this program. The average cost of renovations has been about $6,700, of which $1,675 or 25 per cent was contributed by the government. Homeowners had to pay the remaining 75 per cent, so that this program has not only been an incentive for Canadians to improve their homes but has also stimulated private investment of up to $240 million in direct job creation. I should also mention that the average income of households benefiting from the program is between $24,000 and $25,000, considerably less than the national average of $30,000.
As I said before, up to now the present government has provided nearly $1 billion to improve accommodation for Canadians during the current year. It is estimated that in terms of jobs, these measures have created between 120,000 to
125.000	person-years of work. The Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan will help create 40,000 jobs, in other words, one job for every $10,000 invested by the government. The Home Renovation Program Renovation Program will provide
28.000	jobs a little more than $4,000 per job

and the Canada
Rental Supply Plan 54,000 jobs or one job per $6,500. Since all these programs attract investment by the private sector, they have proved to be very effective as a source of job creation. In addition to this very substantial contribution by the Government of Canada in stimulating the housing industry, other factors have come into play. Mortgage rates have dropped 5 per cent since June, and following the initiative taken by the federal government, seven provinces have introduced measures to stimulate housing construction. The economic outlook is becoming more encouraging. Inflation is going down. And as the Minister of Finance said Wednesday, support for the 6 and 5 program will help bring the inflation rate down to about 7.5 per cent in 1983. This kind of development will probably help reduce interest rates even further next year. As the economy recovers and continues to do so in 1983, I expect to see a net increase in housing starts during the last month of 1982 and throughout 1983.

Despite these positive and encouraging signs, the potential growth in the housing industry continues to be constrained by consumer attitudes. Householders, perhaps understandably, are cautious in making the important decision to purchase a home. As the economic recovery gains momentum and inflation abates, this uncertainty should be significantly reduced. In the meantime, I will be examining the feasibility of measures which could provide purchasers, as well as investors, with some measure of protection against the hazard of very volatile mortgage interest rates.
In all of these deliberations I welcome the participation and advice of industry associations as well as consumer groups and other interested organizations. 1 have already had an opportunity to meet with representatives of national builders and real estate organizations. I see these meetings as very useful and I will continue the tradition of consultations set by my predecessor.
In enumerating my concerns about the housing problems of Canadians, Madam Speaker, I do not want to leave the House with a distorted view of our present circumstances. For that reason, I would like to remind Hon. Members that, by the most reasonable standard of comparison, Canadians are very well housed.
The most recent international statistics indicate that Canada stands well ahead of most countries in terms of its investment in housing and the rate of construction related to population. We outrank the United States in both our construction rate and in housing investment as a proportion of gross national product. We stand second only to the United States in the proportion of homes occupied by the owners. It is interesting to note that, despite all of our recent difficulties, well over half of all homes in Canada, some 60 per cent, are owner-occupied.
The fact that we are generally well housed, however, serves only to emphasize the problem of the relative few who are not. There is an important minority, many of them native peoples, who are still inadequately housed or who are paying a very
October 29, 1982

high proportion of their income for housing. The problems faced by these people are likely to grow in the years immediately ahead as the population becomes older and as energy costs rise.
The principal programs designed to help poorly housed people who have inadequate incomes are the co-operative and non-profit housing programs which provide federal contributions to reduce the mortgage interest paid by sponsoring groups to an effective rate as low as 2 per cent. These programs have been extremely popular and there is no lack of public-spirited organizations, such as churches, service clubs, unions and the like, who are anxious to sponsor a project.
This method of assisting people who for whatever reason cannot provide for themselves has certain obvious advantages over the conventional public housing system which tended to isolate tenants from the rest of the community. I am not satisfied, however, that the co-operative and non-profit programs over the next few years will be able to make significant inroads on the backlog of nearly three-quarters of a million Canadians whose housing is less than satisfactory.
My predecessor had begun to seek more effective and less costly ways of dealing with that problem and I intend to continue and encourage those efforts. In the same vein, I intend to pursue the work already well under way to improve the Rural and Native Housing Program, the principal instrument in our hands for alleviating the housing conditions of our native people and other people of low-income living in rural and remote parts of the country.
Another important and very successful program with a social orientation has been the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, known as RRAP. This program provides forgivable loans of up to $10,000 to help with repairs and improvements designed to restore deteriorating housing to acceptable standards of health and safety and to prolong its useful life.
The maximum income of home owners eligible for RRAP assistance was recently increased from $16,500 to $23,000 a year. At the same time the forgivable part of the loan was increased from $3,750 to $5,000 for home owners and from $2,500 to $3,000 for landlords. In addition, a maximum loan of $13,000 was offered to home owners who intend to make their housing more accessible to disabled people. In that case, $5,250 of the loan is forgivable.
The objectives of RRAP, unlike the Canadian Home Renovation Plan, are essentially social. There are limits of income on eligibility. Nevertheless, it too has its economic side effects and it is estimated that the $170 million allocated for RRAP in 1982 will generate over 11,000 jobs.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am looking forward to my new responsibilities with a great deal of interest and enthusiasm. I am still finding my way about this new portfolio but I already have some idea of the broad direction I wish to pursue.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
1 am very conscious of the current and urgent economic priority. I appreciate that some of the most effective levers for employment generation lie within my hands as the Minister responsible for housing. The recent announcement by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, makes substantial new resources available to intensify and prolong these job creating efforts. I am very much aware of the difficult decisions that had to be taken to free up those funds. I can assure the House that I, and my officials at CMHC, will see they are put to the best possible use.
At the same time, I do not propose to lose sight of the fact that good housing is a basic social need and as long as there are families and individuals anywhere in Canada whose shelter is inadequate or unaffordable, the Federal Government has an obligation, in the name of equity and justice on behalf of fellow Canadians, to offer them help.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Gentleman permit a question if there is time?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 will certainly permit a question. I hope I have the answer.


Walter David Baker: At one time I had asked his predecessor, given the difficult situation with respect to tenants and renters in terms of rents as part of the family cost, whether or not he would be prepared to convene a meeting of provincial housing Ministers and the federal housing Minister with respect to the problem of rent review generally and other problems facing tenants. Unfortunately, his predecessor said no.
So that the Minister is clear, rather than meeting with them individually, I am talking about a federal-provincial conference. He may not be able to answer me directly today, but would he undertake to consider the convening of such a conference with respect to this problem, given the final statements in the Minister's speech this morning?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I would have to assess whether that approach would be the most useful one. I certainly detect a spirit of co-operation on some of the present problems and economic issues in the country. I must confess to the House that that aspect of the portfolio is not one with which I have become completely familiar. I hope to give a fuller answer to the Hon. Member in the days and weeks to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a courtesy to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), I can indicate to him that if Hon. Members find the intervention of the lunch hour discomforting to their address to the House, they sometimes seek unanimous consent of the House to call it one o'clock and begin at two o'clock. Obviously, that is the choice of the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, we are lean and hungry over here. Looking over there, they look like a hungry bunch also, so may I call it one o'clock?

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it agreed to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12:56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock for the lunch break, the Hon. Member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) had been recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that warm welcome.
In beginning my remarks today, I would welcome my two new colleagues to the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), as well, of course, as the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I am sure they will enjoy their time here in the House of Commons, as I have, and I pledge them my help, support and encouragement in welcoming them here now.
Today we are taking part in a debate on Bill C-128. It is not one of the mammoth bills when it comes to voluminous paragraphs commencing with such words as "Whereas", "Wherefore" and "Thereto". It is a one-page, simple little bill asking that the Government be allowed to borrow $4 billion. If one says it fast, $4 billion does not hurt. I recall that last spring the Government wanted to borrow $11 billion on top of what it had already borrowed. The Opposition asked, "Do you need it all?" The Government said "Oh, no, we do not need it all; we want a contingency fund". The agreement was that if the Government did not need it, it would not get it. We said, "We will approve the portion of $6.6 billion; if you want to borrow more, come back". Well, the Government has come back very quickly.
It was kind of interesting to hear the Government House Leader say on "Canada AM" earlier this week that the first order of business in the House would be a major debate on the economy. He did not say one word about borrowing another $4 billion; he said it would be a major debate on the economy. When I consider the borrowing authority of $21.2 billion that this Government has already had approved by the House of Commons, I am sure it just warms the very cockles of Canadian taxpayers' hearts to hear that this Government has gone out all over the place borrowing $21.2 billion to cover its wild spending, and wild it is. This year it will be spending 17 per cent more than last year. Not many people in this country can afford to spend 17 per cent more this year than last year,
because they just do not have it and they cannot afford to borrow it.
Canadians will be pleased to know that our total debt is about $150 billion. Before this fiscal year is finished on. March 31, 1983, I am sure this excuse for a Government will be back to borrow more money. I am positive that we will debate another borrowing bill before the end of this fiscal year; I do not think we have seen the end of it.
If the Government decided to start paying back the debt it owes-and I will leave aside the interest for a moment- paying back $1 billion a year, it would be paid off 150 years from now. Who will be paying it? Those young people in the gallery will be paying for it. They will be paying for the mistakes we make today. Their children and their children's children will be forever paying it. This Government is not serious about that, not one bit.
Where is this Government cutting expenditures? We hear that next year $245 million will be cut from defence spending. When we asked the Minister about this, he said that by limiting salaries to 5 and 6 per cent, $245 million to $250 million will not have to be spent, even though this is not now being spent. What kind of saving is that? Smokescreens and mirrors, as my leader said the other day, and he is absolutely right.
Let us talk about interest payments. The figures the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) spoke about show that interest payments on the public debt are now $16,715 million. That is more money than the transfer payments which this Government makes to the Provinces, while at the same time saying these payments are tying them down. It is almost $1.5 billion more for interest payments than transfer payments to the Provinces. It is absolutely shocking.
What is this doing to the taxpayer? Let us take a look. Interest on the debt has increased 1,058 per cent since the right hon. gentleman took over 14 or 15 years ago. It seems like a century; in fact, it seems like forever. I am sure Canadians will do something about that the next time they have an opportunity to go to the polls.
With interest having gone up 1,058 per cent, every taxpayer in this country now owes $14,116. If we take it off the taxpayer and put it on every single individual in Canada, including those bright young Canadians in the gallery today, they each owe $5,473. Every one of them now owes that amount. Is this Government really serious about cutting spending?
Over the last five months I have lost some weight, Mr. Speaker, about 30 pounds, and I will tell you how I did it. I did without some of those things it is nice to have and I would like to have-I inherited my father's sweet tooth-but didn't. I sacrificed that. I trimmed down and I slimmed down. I cut the fat off. That is what this Government should be doing. It is nice for them to have their little toys, their four Canadair jets to flit around the country and all the other little perks such as drivers to transport Ministers to the Hill. Those gas guzzlers
October 29, 1982

sit there for hours, keeping the car warm in winter or cool in summer so that the Minister will be in absolute comfort and not have a bead of sweat on his forehead when he arrives at the House of Commons. You can go chapter and verse through this Government and each Minister and trim off a lot of fat, but it is not being done. I repeat, spending is up over 17 per cent this year.
Unemployment figures in Canada are a national disgrace, especially among young people. Statistics Canada tells us that
1,458,000	people are out of work. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) sits there grinning, laughing, thinking this is a great joke. I say to him that the people of Mississauga North do not think it is a big joke. A lot of people there are out of work. He can sit and laugh if he wants, but it is not funny to the 1,458,000 people out of work. An unemployment rate of 12.2 per cent is not funny.
Let me put on the record what is happening in this country. In Newfoundland there is 18.6 per cent unemployment, 14.8 per cent in New Brunswick, 11.1 per cent in Ontario, 9 per cent in that Province that is supposed to be doing so well, 13.4 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 15 per cent in la belle province de Quebec, 9.2 per cent in Manitoba, 13.4 per cent in British Columbia and 6.7 per cent in Saskatchewan. That was the September unemployment record in Canada and it is shocking.
What does the Minister do? The Minister of Finance introduced a mini-budget or un-budget. All kinds of nicknames have been dropped on it. The Minister said it was just a financial statement but it was a lot more than that.
The Minister talked about the great program he will introduce that is going to produce 60,000 jobs. He says there are programs now in place, which there are. Some money has been sent to the riding of Brampton-Georgetown. It will provide about 50 jobs. They will not be full-time or permanent. I hope some training will be involved.
As of September 30, in Brampton there were 8,005 registered for unemployment insurance and 1,485 in Georgetown. That means over 9,500 people are now registered for unemployment insurance. A year ago there were 3,700 people and the year before that 1,500 people. This Government with its great give-away programs is going to provide 50 jobs. The people who get those 50 jobs will be thankful. However, the other 9,500 will not be happy. The Minister tells us we should be thankful for small mercies.
I had a small company in the town of Georgetown, a publishing company by the name of Irwin Dorsey, which employed about 30 people. Actually it was a distributorship in Canada for a publishing company in the United States. When that company was sold the only Canadian asset was Irwin-Dorsey, which employed 30 people in Georgetown. When the company applied to FIRA, FIRA said no, sell that little part off to a Canadian. If anybody did buy it they would get it at a very low price because they knew they were being blackmailed. FIRA did not let that deal go through. Thirty people became unemployed. The company is still shipping books into Canada from the United States. Last week one of the senior employees from
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
that company came to see me and asked where he could get a job. They are still unemployed. They are still on unemployment insurance, with a couple of months to go. That is the type of thing this Government is doing. It is destroying companies which want to provide jobs through some of its asinine policies.
Another example: the boss of a company in a neighbouring riding came to me. He naturally had to come to me because his own Member would not see him. He said he had bid on a job for the Federal Government, had answered every spec to the nth degree, but the contract was awarded to an American firm whose bid was $200,000 more. After three weeks of trying to find out what the problem was, they finally said it had something to do with the mechanical aspects, but they never called him once to question his specs or proposals or anything else. He lost the job to an American firm yet the Canadian bid was $200,000 less. That is one example of the type of thing the Government does.
Another example was a program to clean out a reactor in Montreal, which happened to be owned by PetroCan. Two Canadian companies bid on the program and it was awarded to one of them, which then turned around and subcontracted it to an American firm from Houston, Texas, while Canadian equipment and expertise sat idly by. The Government allowed workers to come in from Texas and work on that job. Knowing that PetroCan is ours, 1 thought 1 had better call them up and find out what their purchasing policy is. Do they favour Canadians or do they just have no policy at all? I found out, Mr. Speaker, they have no preferential purchasing policy at all. They have no preference for Canadians, yet PetroCan is ours.
Petro-Canada had their logo designed in Bermuda. Their real estate firm is from New York. The first thing they did that was Canadian was buy a Canadair jet so the president could fly back and forth from his home in Ottawa to his office in Calgary.
We heard from the Minister of Finance the other day-and I guess I am a little suspicious when a Liberal stands up and says we are not going to do this now, we might do it later- who backtracked on that infamous budget of November 12. There have been 42 changes from November 12. Then the Deputy Minister disappeared. The Finance Minister who introduced that budget and who stuck by it for a few months is still sitting in the House. He is sitting a little lower in his seat now, kind of peering over the top of the desk; he is not sitting proudly as he did a year ago, and well he should sit that way. I might add that he should not be in the House. If he honoured parliamentary democracy and tradition, he would have left a long time ago.
The Minister of Finance said yesterday the Government is looking at some other changes to the budget. It has not made up its mind yet. Does it know what that is doing to the business community who are sitting there asking what they should do, whether they should invest or should not. We still have

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
employees asking if they are going to be taxed and we cannot answer. We do not know. There is no plan. There is no confidence.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his fireside chats said that we have to trust him, trust each other, trust Canadians. I trust Canadians. I trust them to get us out of the problems we are in, but they have to be encouraged. They have to be shown leadership. This has to be done but it is not being done.
The Prime Minister was the man who stood up and said "Zap, you are frozen" when he talked about wage and price controls. Then he brought them in. "Trust me", is what he said, "I will manage the economy so interest rates will come down". They went up to 20 per cent. "Trust me", he said, "and I will keep your gas prices down". Do Hon. Members remember that promise? How can this man ask for trust? He is the wrong man to be asking for trust. There are a few members over there, very few, I would accept that from, but not him. He has no credibility. He has no right to ask that of the Canadian people after what he has done to them.
I would like to talk now about housing. I was very interested in the speech of the new Minister responsible for CMHC today and his brief 15-minute chat on housing. He also acknowledges that there are problems in the country. Actually, they are making some headway over there. They are finally realizing there is a problem. Whether they will do something about it is another matter. I can remember very vividly the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove), while participating in a debate on estimates, saying: "I have the solution, we are going to move up our 15,000-unit program for apartments to 30,000 this year". That was last March. Today, 7,814 units in the Canada Rental Supply Plan have been taken up according to figures from CMHC. I remember asking at that time if that was enough money to make it economically feasible to build apartment units. "Oh, yes", he replied, "they will be gobbled up in no time flat". To date three or four Provinces have not taken any up at all. New Brunswick has taken up eight, Nova Scotia, 107. Ontario leads the way, as it should. These are dismal figures and a long way from the 30,000 rental units which we need in this country.
Then there is the Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan, which has been adjusted and somewhat extended; 63,862 grants have been taken up from the Federal Government,
41,000	for existing housing and 22,495 grants of $3,000 have been taken up in new housing. We asked CMHC how many of those 22,000 were existing new homes already in stock and just sitting there. They did not know. They do not keep those figures.
[DOT] (M30)
How many new starts, Mr. Speaker, do you think this generates? Well, we do not know, yet the Minister responsible for housing said today this program created 100,000 jobs. He does not know if it did or not. The idea is to stimulate the construction industry. Housing starts are at the lowest point in years. 1 can still see my friend standing up there and talking
about the starts that are going to take place because of all his wonderful programs, but it just has not happened.
I was interested to hear the Minister responsible for housing say that consumer attitude is causing the uncertainty. I say to the Minister-I am sorry he is not in the House but 1 am sure someone will pass the word along to him-that the problem is not the downpayment; the problem is the carrying charges. Young people are concerned about whether or not they can afford to carry the house. The carrying charges are just too high. Interest rates are too high. Today we heard the Minister of Finance bragging that interest rates have come down recently, for ten straight weeks or something, and he has taken credit for it. Yet it was not two months ago that the other Minister of Finance was saying that the reason we have high interest rates is because the United States has them. So when they go up, it is the Americans' fault; when they come down, it is all the wonderful work this Government is doing. I really find that kind of amazing.
The Minister responsible for housing also mentioned that the average of home ownership is highest in Canada. That is true, and I want it to stay up there. One of the problems, though, is that it is beginning to fall. We have come down from a high of 65 per cent home ownership to about 60 per cent. I happen to think, Mr. Speaker, that home ownership is probably the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. The right to own property and do with it as you please, within certain guidelines, is probably one of the most important things we have to ensure the protection of democracy. When the system is kicking people out of their homes, people turn on the system. I do not want them to turn on the system. I want them to be well housed, and I am suggesting now that the Minister take a look at his program for rental units, which is not working and not doing the proper thing, and possibly divert some of those funds into co-op housing which we need so desperately today.
In winding up, I do not want to let my friends to the left go unscathed because I heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) say Maggie Thatcher is doing the wrong thing over there. Watch what Maggie Thatcher is doing and it is all wrong. Well, Maggie Thatcher has reduced inflation in Britain, and that was her number one goal. If you talk to the British people, they are very happy and very pleased about that. They are going to get Britain back on its feet. They inherited one heck of a mess from those socialists, the Labour Party, when they took over. And we are going to have the same problem when we take over in Canada in trying to clean up this mess that that gang over there has left us with, with the co-operation of the NDP.
I listened to the Leader of the NDP espousing the theme of the Marxist-Leninists in the last federal election: let the rich pay. The whole theme then was let the rich pay, and he was espousing that theme again today. Where did he get that from? Did he get it from the Marxist-Leninists? Probably. Original thinking. It is just terrible.
I want to say to the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is now acknowledging for the first time that there
October 29, 1982

are some problems out there. We happen to think that the approach it is taking to solving some of these problems is not correct. My colleague the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) I think laid out very clearly and succinctly what we would do as a party to turn it around. All I can say is the sooner the better; just give us the chance.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago ... I see my colleague from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is in the House and I am glad to see him. We are both members of a committee which, I hope, will soon be able to table a report and reform this institution. But to get back to today's subject, I think we can say, and various commentators are indeed saying it, that in his statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) gave us a clear picture of an economic situation that is far from rosy and of the very real financial and budgetary constraints the government must reckon with. It is of course very tempting when discussing economics to get up there with all the other instant experts. I do not think there is another subject on which so many contradictory opinions, theories and schools exist, namely the causes and effects that form the basis of the science of economics. To some people, the market is basically a concept that cannot operate by itself. Its workings are erratic, and it should be up to the State to regulate the market's functions. This theory was fashionable during the thirties, and it was this concept that Keynes used to develop his famous theory on the regulatory role of the State vis-a-vis the market.
During the last fifteen years or so, our western economies have been experiencing a number of hitherto unknown phenomena such as, for instance, stagflation. Now we have a new theory, namely that the State is basically flawed, that the market must be allowed to find its own equilibrium among the various forces that affect it, and that the State must stop interfering with normal market effects. To my knowledge, neither theory has ever been proven because it is impossible to do so. These are working assumptions, and as such, they help economics develop models and thus acquire a better understanding of what is happening, so that they can advise governments on the directions they should take. In the United States and Great Britain, for instance, this new concept that the State should let the market sort out its own contradictions, has given rise to various theories such as supply side economics, a revival of strict monetarism and other economic theories which all have their followers and foes. Going back to the minister's financial statement, I think that he deserves a word of praise for having called a spade a spade and telling Canadians as objectively as possible what the situation is today in Canada, no matter how painful that may be, and letting them know at the same time what the government has decided to do. Of course, some people would prefer a different approach or different solutions, and that is not surprising, since economics is by definition not an exact science. And it is true that the
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
resulting exchange of view produces a better understanding of economic phenomena.
Regarding the budget, the press release issued by the minister the same day mentioned six elements underlying the budget process: continued restraint on government spending, maintenance of social security programs for those Canadians needing most help, primary reliance on the private sector as the engine of economic growth, support for outward-looking trade policies, promotion of broad consultation in developing economic policies, development of an effective strategy for national recovery and economic development, building on the cooperative spirit of the six and five program.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the press release tells us. Today,
I would like to consider with my colleagues whether the alternatives suggested by our commentators, politicians and economists would, in fact, be valid alternate choices for the government. I shall start with a fact of our economic life which will eliminate some of these alternatives, and here I am about to pay a debt, Mr. Speaker, because a few months before the House adjourned for the summer, I asked the then Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) during question period whether he was considering the possibility of devaluing the Canadian dollar, the purpose being to help bring down interest rates which had reached exorbitant levels at that time. Remember, we were then talking about 18, 19, 20, and 21 per cent. Now the problem has eased somewhat, but there is still some concern.
So, if we accept the fact that Canada is by definition a trading country, where more than 30 per cent of the gross national product-a substantial figure compared with the percentages of our main economic partners-30 per cent of our GNP is derived from our foreign trade, no one can deny that it is extremely difficult for us to isolate ourselves from what is happening elsewhere, to ignore the international economic situation, to act as though the world's economies do not concern us, to expect to go on selling our products anywhere in the world although demand has become generally slack, in short, to act as though we could live off the land.
We are not Japan! It is often said, and it is true, that Japan is a trading nation par excellence, but Japan is far less dependent on its foreign trade for its economic well-being. In Canada, foreign trade represents 30 per cent, while in Japan, it is 11 or 12 per cent of GNP. Our domestic market is not big enough for our economy to grow and prosper without the benefit of foreign trade, no matter what we do to stimulate the economy. It is going to be affected by considerations that are external to our country. So if that is the case and it is if we, for instance, devalue the Canadian dollar, in the short term it is likely that interest rates will be subjected to downward pressures, which might help Canadian businesses that wish to expand, since

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
despite the considerable drop in interest rates we have been experiencing for several months the fact remains that as a result of the present recession and our stagnating economy, these businesses have still been reluctant to consider expanding their facilities.
That being said, since our national economy is dependent on imports as well as exports, devaluating the Canadian dollar would have the immediate and obvious effect of increasing costs for business and for the economy in general, the rate of inflation depending on the extent of the devaluation. If our Canadian dollar is worth 3 or 4 or 5 per cent less than its American counterpart, our imports are going to cost 3 or 4 or 5 per cent more, and that 3 or 4 or 5 per cent will have to be absorbed by the economy, there are no two ways about it. We would thus be fanning inflation and the short-term advantage which our industries might have be being able to sell their products abroad at lower prices would certainly vanish rapidly as a result of the additional costs they would have to pay for their raw materials since the higher value of imports after devaluation would have to be included in those costs. And, of course, I am not saying anything about consumers having to pay more for their oranges, their grapefruits, their citrus fruits, their vegetables and everything else, not to mention petroleum products and all the goods which Canada has to import. Devaluation therefore is not the obvious solution it appears to be and, although it might in the short run relieve some of the upward pressure on interest rates, I am not at all certain that in the long term-and even in the medium term for the economy as a whole-it would be the appropriate solution. Another possible solution, in a different sector this time since it has to do with the very acute unemployment problems we are now experiencing in Canada, would be to overstimulate the Canadian economy, on the one hand, and, on the other, to offer considerably more assistance to unemployed Canadians either through direct job creation programs or through more generous social benefits to help them survive the current economic crisis.
I will get back to the social issues in a moment, but to those who at the same time advocate overstimulation and a higher budget deficit-because that is what it amounts to set up huge job creation programs, I would ask how they could possibly justify an even higher budget deficit for the Canadian government; our deficit is huge enough as it is-and it has been the target of severe criticisms in quite a number of circles, first of all by members opposite-so much so that it inevitably undermines the capacity of money markets to finance investments. We all know why we have such a huge deficit today; first and foremost, the economic stabilizers have pushed it upwards as the recession has worsened. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a very good thing that we have these stabilizers since they allow the economy generally and Canadians individually to spread out the consequences of difficult times on the one hand, and the benefits of more prosperous times on the other, without being subject to the ups and downs of successive years depending on
the inevitable and normal cycles which effect all western economies because of the very nature of supply and demand.
I do not think therefore that these stabilizers are being questioned by anyone, and if not, I do not see how one can bitterly complain about the present deficit. By definition, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) pointed out, a very large part of this deficit is caused by the effect of the stabilizers, and if some want to talk about the deficit, I would tell them to speak mainly about the stabilizers. If they are against these stabilizers, let them say so and we can discuss them. On the other hand, we have to recognize that, according to conventional wisdom, in times of hardship, the government must inject money into the economy. That is the dilemma. How substantially can we increase the deficit if we are to inject money into the economy to overstimulate or stimulate it?
This could lead to a lengthy debate and I noted with interest that the New Democrats settled this question in their own way at their last convention. They believe that we have reached the point of no return. From now on, in order to stimulate the economy, we must no longer increase the deficit even more, but cut back on some programs. I congratulate them because this is what I also believe. However, others believe that the point of no return has not yet been reached and that we must spend even more. I was reading some of the comments made by those who have been complaining, and to show what I mean, Mr. Speaker, I shall disregard the comments of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), who complained for instance that we were asking Canadians to increase their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, in view of the fact that we shall ourselves put up $1 billion to make up part of the fund's deficit, and who complained that we were thrusting this real burden on Canadians in these hard times, but who did not offer any alternative, which leads me to believe that he would have wanted the Canadian government to finance the unemployment insurance fund next year. Where would he have taken the money? Would he be willing to make the deficit even larger-and then we could draw certain conclusions-or would he have taken the money somewhere else, and in that case, where? I am simply asking the question and explaining the dilemma. I say all this, Mr. Speaker, to point out that, in my opinion, there is now a virtual consensus to the effect that it would be difficult for the government to make the deficit much larger than the suggested figure of about $23 billion. Of course, this is because of the effect of the economic stabilizers which come into play so that the Canadian people do not have to suffer from a rather serious recession.
Therefore, if the deficit is not to grow, the money has to be found somewhere else, and I shall not take up again the point made by the Minister of Finance to show that the government has very little room to manoeuvre. Of course, I am the first to admit it and I shall be the first to ask the Minister of Finance
October 29, 1982

to take any possible action. There may still exist redundant, useless or overly costly programs. If such programs exist, and they do, I hope that we shall have the courage and the will to eliminate them as quickly as possible, before the next budget, I hope. However, those who suggest that these programs represent billions of dollars are wrong. Most often, it is a case of a few million dollars wasted here and there, of some forgotten agency in some government building, with a few employees who keep on doing some work which is perhaps less important today that it was originally.
A few million dollars, you might say, is a lot of money, which it is indeed, and that is the reason why I urge again the Minister of Finance to scrutinize all government programs from every angle and eliminate those we can do without. But the amount we hope to recuperate will likely look insignificant compare to our huge deficit, and those tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that he might save would not make a big difference in the job creating effort, if he decided to use the money in this area. I, for one, am sorry that we cannot do more for jobless Canadians, especially those who have run out of UI benefits, and I wish we could have allocated more money to this program, but this would have meant a sharp increase in the current deficit.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would respond to a question dealing with the matter about which he is speaking.


Claude-André Lachance: I would be very glad to accommodate the Hon. Member at the end of my remarks.

Therefore, we would have had to increase the current deficit considerably, and under the present circumstances, I think that the minister's modest but significant proposal will enable the most severely affected people to seek government assistance until such time, when the economy is back in full swing and we may be in a position to do more for them.
Canada is a trading nation, something we must not overlook, and in this regard Canadian firms are doing fine. They are holding their own in spite of adverse international circumstances. As of August 31, 1982, Canada had a favourable trade balance to the tune of $11.1 billion. That is $4.4 billion more than at the same time last year. Which is proof that the Canadian economy is broyant and that the Minister of Finance is right in stating that as soon as the world economy starts to recover, signs of which are already being felt in the United States, if Canada is in a position to act and benefit from it, it should be able to solve its current problems fairly quickly. Eventually unemployment would decrease and even if it did not decrease as quickly as we would wish, at least the Government coulld provide better and greater than at present through direct job creation programs. I would now like to refer to social programs, Mr. Speaker, and point out that if there is an area where Canada may be proud of what it has accomplished in
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
recent decades it is in the social area. This is the reason why with some others I was very much concerned by rumours which have been going around during the past weeks while the Minister of Finance was drafting his economic statement, rumours based on statements or excerpts of statements sometimes quoted out of context. However those rumours have disturbed many Canadians and Parliamentarians. Finally, they were put to rest when some ten days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the end of a meeting held at Meach Lake stated unequivocally that the issue, though important and relevant to the reassessment implied in the drafting of a budgetary paper, would be left as such, that it would not be dealt with, but for the moment cuts would perhaps be made elsewhere, while social programs would remain a security net allowing Canadians to hope and anticipate that in case of any hardships, they could rely on the required help to tide them over.
Also Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased when the minister himself said the following in his statement:
Second, we must not abandon the victims of the recession in the mistaken belief that such callous action might speed our recovery. This Government has worked consistenly over several decades to develop a social security system that effectively supports Canadians in need of help. We will not put the axe to that system at the very time when Canadians need it most. More constructively, we will continue to look for ways to improve our social programs and to make them more effective for those who need help.
Some people thought that that matter had been settled. Unfortunately I am again disturbed as a result of some recent statements suggesting that social programs are still under discussion in spite of the Prime Minister's assurance and the statement made by the Minister of Finances and that in these difficult times the Government would consider re-arranging some of its programs. This has led an editor for the newspaper Le Devoir to write this morning that it was urgent to clarify the matter because Canadians cannot remain in such a state of uncertainty. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to believe that we should review our social programs and try to give those in dire straits more than they get at present. However that appraisal should not be made piecemeal and accompanied by sensational headlines. This study, an analysis, an assessment must be undertaken in a sensible, reasonable and informed manner, and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those who are making statements are concerned about the destabilizing factor that those statements may have on the people who are already very worried about general economic conditions and even more so when they hear about the re-organization of programs which they hang on to as safety net just in case of need.
I must therefore thank the Minister of Finance for having put an end as clearly as possible to these discussions and rumors that were circulating, and plead with those who feel obliged to make statements and I beg them to try to keep

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
within the limits of an informed discussion on the various parts of these programs. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I am happy to see that the Minister of Finance has left our social programs unchanged and has not re-allocated monies towards job creation and other programs but that instead he has resorted to other methods making cuts in other departments, for instance. For I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believe that when it comes to discussing and improving a system we should first have in hand all relevant data and not proceed via piecemeal fashion. I therefore totally agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he says that these programs are a sort of safety net for the Canadian people and that they should not be changed now in view of the difficult times we living. However, if we are to discuss them it should be by means of a substantive debate with the participation of all interested parties and not by issuing staggering statements.
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that next winter will be a hard one and I must tell Canadians who listening to our debates, in particular my own costituents in Rosemont, that indeed times will really be harsh and to pretend the opposite would be deceiving them; on the other hand, due to the inherent strength and the resilience of our economy we can expect within a few months, when the world economy is back on its feet, that Canadians will be able to take advantage of this recovery and to see to it that our country once again is as flourishing as it should and will be.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has indicated that he would entertain a question.


Claude-André Lachance: Agreed!


Cyril Keeper: Thank you. During his remarks, the hon. member stated that he had looked for waste in the federal budget. Here is a case. Some $180 million in the federal budget are earmarked for advertising. Is the hon. member willing to advise the Minister of Finance to cut this portion off the federal budget? Yes or no?


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate wholeheartedly the Hon. Member for speaking such fine French, as well as the members of the NDP caucus who, I know, are trying very hard to learn French.
Let me put it this way: in my opinion, it is the responsibility of all Hon. Members to see to it that the taxpayers' money is spent where it will do the most good. Unfortunately, the means presently at their disposal are woefully inadequate. I have the privilege to sit on a very special committee of the House, namely, the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, which is trying among other things to provide opportunities for Hon. Members' input and direct contribution whenever some items of government estimates do not receive the priority treatment they feel they deserve. And my colleagues on this committee are aware that I am one of those who feel that financial accountability is one of the most important issues, although it has unfortunately been too often overlooked in the past. I could answer his question and raise a
whole series of others. I will simply remind him that before the Summer recess, when the House was called upon to vote on government items, I abstained from voting on the Information Centre on Canadian Unity.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the giving of permission to the Government to borrow some $4 billion to help finance its economic policy. I want to take this opportunity to comment on the Government's economic policy and say why I think it is so wrong and say why it will not be the answer to the problems facing the country.
The day before yesterday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in an economic statement which was really a budget speech, whether or not he called it that, went considerably further in the forced retreat march of the Liberal Party away from the battle for social justice. He confirmed even more what I have always believed to be true about the Liberal Party, that it is a fair weather camper when it comes to the cause of equality. It does not have the guts or the inclination to stand up for social justice against the self-interests of the powerful and the big financial and big business sectors of the Canadian society when times become tough and when real sharing and caring, to use a phrase that has been systematically cheapened by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in recent weeks, would require the rich and powerful to sacrifice, to care and to share.
Instead of progress toward greater equality among Canadians, we have seen a series of attacks on the average Canadian. The six and five program, which makes no distinction whatsoever between 6 per cent of $100,000 and 6 per cent of $10,000, is the clearest example of the moral failure of the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives. They don't even bother to pretend that they are interested in equality or in equal sharing of our economic problems? Fortunately for the Government and for the Conservatives who support them, what support there is for the six and five program in the country comes from the willingness of many average Canadians to co-operate and attempt to play their role if it will help the country. They are willing to do their part to help Canada. Wisely, they know by instinct that there is a moral problem at the root of our economic dilemma and not purely a technical or economic problem. That is why they are vulnerable-admirably vulnerable-to arguments about sacrifice and co-operation. They are vulnerable because they, unlike the Liberal Government and the Progressive Conservative Party, have not lost the ability to think in ethical terms, when considering economic matters. Their willingness to consider the common good is to be admired all the more because they also know deep down that the Liberals and the Conservatives who encourage them to sacrifice and co-operate in the interests of the common good
October 29, 1982

really could not care less about the common good, as shown when those Parties' policies are examined.
There is an ethical dimension to our economic problems. And it can best be approached by examining the moral poverty of recent budgets. In November, 1981, certain tax loopholes for the rich were closed. In order to compensate for this, the marginal tax rate for the rich was dropped by 10 per cent, to ensure that closing those loopholes would not really hurt anyone but would look good on paper nevertheless. At the same time the federal Government announced in the same budget a cut of $5.7 billion from its funding of medicare and post-secondary education, programs which benefit all Canadians from coast to coast, regardless of their income.
In the spring of 1982 the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, arranged to give $6.5 billion to the oil companies through the Petroleum Incentives Program in order to get these so-called free enterprisers off their "derrieres" to look for more oil. Despite all the rhetoric about risk and free enterprise, the oil companies have both nostrils in the public trough all the way up to their eyebrows. The Conservatives never object to this. It is public spending for the poor and powerless that they enjoy actively discrediting. Elypocrites that they are, they pretend to be outraged when social programs are cut when it is they who systematically over the years have undermined the credibility of social programs in this country. Yet, they have the nerve to feign outrage when these programs are threatened. The real policy of the Progressive Conservatives, as has been said before, is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
In June of 1982 the Government proceeded with its six and five program. Included in this 6 per cent and 5 per cent limit on future increases is a limit on the increases for old age security payments, family allowances and civil service pensions. The Government is therefore asking once again for average Canadians-pensioned average Canadians and mothers in this case-to carry the burden.
Now, in October of 1982, we must witness the spectacle of the Liberals opening the tax loopholes that they closed in November of 1981. These tax loopholes for the rich have been re-opened yet they have not increased the tax rate for these same people which was lowered in November of 1981. Therefore, this group of Canadians who fall into that higher income bracket will now have the benefit of both loopholes and a lower marginal tax rate. No doubt, this will have its intended effect on the donations to the Liberal Party coffers prior to the next election, for "he who pays the piper has just called the tune" it seems to me.
What about the average working Canadians who are already carrying more of the tax burden while corporations and individual wealthy Canadians pay less and less of their fair share in Canada? What news was there in the Minister's statement on Wednesday for the average working Canadians who, are paying their fair share and, do not mind doing it? The good news was for the wealthy and powerful. The bad news was saved for the lower and middle-income Canadians who
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
will be hit with a 40 per cent-not 6 per cent or 5 per cent- increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
When unemployment insurance was last significantly reformed, I am told that the Minister indicated that the cost incurred by UIC as a result of unemployment higher than 4 per cent should be borne by the public and not by the contributors. The Liberals have clearly abandoned this policy. While they are shamelessly giving in to the blackmail of the corporate community in this country, they have no hesitation in becoming tough with the majority of Canadians by asking them to pay for Liberal mistakes. Perhaps it is time for them to pick on someone their own size.
We also saw in the Minister's statement on Wednesday a renewed reliance on the private sector. This is most interesting. The prodigal son, the Minister of Finance, has retreated from his interventionist binge, mild as it was, a chastened and broken man. No more for him; of the dangers and pitfalls of even talking about Canadian control of the economy or even one sector of the economy. He and the Prime Minister, the prodigal twins, with their tails between their legs can be seen running back into the safe enveloping arms of the private corporate establishment asking forgiveness and trying to show by their latest actions that they will be good boys in the future. The Prime Minister, for his part, has recanted all that he had said in the last election campaign about the need to build an independent Canadian economy and to strenghten the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He was either lying to the publlic then or he is the biggest coward we have seen in a long time. But then to watch the Prime Minister back down when it comes to putting his often noble sentiments into action has become the expected rather than the unusual in this Parliament or, indeed, in other Parliaments.
But who is the angry brother in this story about the prodigal twin? The angry brother is and will be the Progressive Conservative Party in this Parliament for, you see, the Progressive Conservatives never ventured out of the front yard. They were the good sons, the loyal sons of the corporate elite, always obedient, always faithful, never questioning the values and the dictates of Old Man Profit and his buddies Power and Privilege.


Mr. Wilson:: You would think we were the Government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Conservatives might as well be the Government. They would be doing exactly the same thing.


Mr. Fennell:: No way.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Conservatives are the loyal sons of the corporate elite and were critical of the prodigal son, the prodigal twins all along. They knew they were wrong. They said so even as far back as the early seventies.
I listened to the Progressive Conservative finance critic the other day. He went as far back as the Benson tax reforms, at the time when we went ever so slightly in the direction of a fair taxation policy. That was the beginning of the end, in the

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Conservative view, when we moved slightly toward fairness. That was the root of all evil, as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned, when we tried to have a progressive tax policy in this country. They knew then that the Liberals were straying far from the corporate home. The Carter Commission recommended that for tax purposes all income be treated equally, that the rule for tax policy, as was said at the time, should be "a buck is a buck is a buck". The Benson proposals were only a pale imitation of the Carter proposals. Incidentally, he was not appointed by some leftwing conspiracy, but, rather, was appointed by John George Diefenbaker. Yet yesterday the current Conservative finance critic cited the Benson reforms as a beginning of the policies he and his Progressive Conservative colleagues warned against, leaving one to wonder why they just do not drop the word "Progressive" from their title and be honest about themselves.
The Conservative Party is the faithful brother in the story about the prodigal twin. I predict that the Conservatives will be increasingly unhappy with the way in which the Liberal Party will be welcomed back into the fold which, as I have said, it only strayed away from in the mildest of ways. But such is the pettiness of the corporate elite in this country that it should retaliate for even the least transgression.
Who is the fatted calf? The fatted calf is the Canadian public, and the celebration will no doubt be great in the coming days when Liberals and Conservatives sit down in private, with the blessing and in the company of their corporate father figures, to dine on the lives and expectations of pensioners, mothers, workers, the sick, the unemployed and everyone who, unlike the powerful friends of the Liberals and Conservatives, pay his or her fair share in this country.
We are caught, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of an economic recession which has dimensions going beyond our borders to the very nature of the international economic order which has been in place since World War II. This global recession and the concurrent restructuring of western capitalism, which is both cause and result of the global recession, is difficult enough for all countries, but it has been doubly difficult for those countries like Canada where there have not been governments committed to national economic planning in the public interest. Instead, we have governments and official oppositions, the Conservatives in this case, who would persistently rely on privately made, unaccountable and unco-ordinated corporate investment decisions as the central dynamic of our economy. This, as I have argued, is exactly what the Liberals and Conservatives would have us do. Nothing could be clearer.
Of course, Canada is being triply hurt by the fact that we are not really masters of our own economic house but are an economic colony of the United States, thanks to the Liberal and Conservative sell-out over the years. Therefore, we are not just at the mercy of corporate self-centred decision making, per se; we are also at the mercy of foreign-owned corporate decision making. In this sense, any government which is not actively pursuing real Canadian control, both public and
private, over our economy is only fooling itself and the Canadian people when it speaks of having an economic strategy for the country, for without this commitment, the only strategy left is the one which the Liberals have just admitted. They have had it for a while. It is the one which the Conservatives have been asking for, pleading for, all along. It is the strategy of total capitulation to the needs and interests of the investment community, both domestic and international, in the hope that if we are nice enough to them, businesses will still invest in Canada and not go elsewhere. Money, you see Mr. Speaker, knows no borders nor loyalty to community. It is amoral at best and immoral at worst. Those who worship it enough to think of moving out of this country in order to get more of it when they already have lots, whether it be businessmen thinking of relocating in the United States, in New Jersey or wherever, or doctors moving to Texas, are not, in my view, true members of the community, and all I can say is: good riddance. They have cut their ties with home and hearth and made themselves part of that meaningless and morally impoverished pursuit which is the disease of our age.
Yet these are just the values that the Liberals and Conservatives would have us cater to.
The Liberals and Conservatives together regard the investment decisions of the private sector as morally neutral and above criticism, as simply a fact, like the weather, which has to be contended with by the public and by government, who can influence the behaviour of these decisions but must never judge these decisions. Thus, we will hear from the Liberals and the Conservatives criticisms of labour productivity, criticisms of social programs, for instance, but we will never hear them criticize the corporations for investing precious capital, which could have been used to create jobs, in takeovers which promise no new jobs and which only further concentrate power in the hands of a few. We never hear criticism or a judgment of those who took vast amounts of money out of productivity and put it to unproductive rest, collecting high interest rates during the recent extremely high interest rate period. We never heard criticism of that. All we heard and all we still hear is criticism of workers, civil servants, unions, peace activists and environmentalists, but we never even hear a word of criticism about investment decisions and their social usefulness or their productivity.


Mr. Cosgrove:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Hon. Member would permit a question at the conclusion of his remarks on the opinions he just expressed concerning investment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: At the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to entertain a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Thank you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Investors are free to do whatever they want, in the name of freedom, whether to invest in transportation or in trivia, thus corrupting the name of freedom and damaging the future of this country and of the human community. As far as I am concerned, that is not freedom, it is just plain licence.
October 29, 1982

This Liberal-Conservative view of the world which holds corporate economic decision-making to be sacrosanct, is one which we in the New Democratic Party do tally reject. We call on all hard-working Canadians to reject it as well for the benefit of the country and those who will come after us so that some day Canadians will be able to stand up with appropriate pride and dignity as a society which does not depend for its stability on decisions taken in secret in corporate boardrooms in other countries, but rather as a society which is self-reliant and in control of a national economic destiny that is in harmony with the need for global justice and environmental responsibility for the future and for the planet.
You see, the Conservatives are right in a way. That is often the case with the Conservatives. They have a little pinch of the truth. They argue that if you redistribute wealth without paying any attention to how you generate that wealth, at some point you may have no wealth to distribute, if I understand their argument correctly, and I think 1 do.
They argue that we have reached that point in Canada. I argue the contrary, that this is only true in the sense that those who own the productive capacity in this country and in other countries are now refusing to share what they have. They have in a sense gone on strike against the welfare state and the kind of society that we have built up in Canada over the last 30 years.
The fact that all studies indicate that the gap between the rich and the poor has not been closed by the welfare state but indeed may have been widened does not bother them. They do not like the truth to interfere with their theories. They maintain we have reached a point where people will no longer have incentives to generate the wealth which then can be redistributed.
During a recession in particular they seem to be of the opinion that the standard of living of the affluent must be preserved at all costs and that the affluent cannot and indeed will not pay more taxes in order to make sure that the less well off are not hurt.
This is called, in the parlance of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, a good investment climate. I call it nothing but sheer, unadulterated selfishness and greed. That is what good investment climate means to me. Providing a good investment climate also means catering to the profit margins of the multinationals and other corporations when it comes to environmental protection, occupational health and safety, and other areas as well.
Thus, it is not only for reasons of social justice, both during a recession and indeed after a recession, that investment decisions affecting our economy must be brought before the bar of the public interest, but also for the reason that we must make economic and technological decisions accountable for the impact that such decisions have on employment, on the environment, on human relations, on the community and on the prospect for global justice. All investment decisions must be brought before the bar of this kind of criteria. At present they are not. They are operating in a moral vacuum where they do whatever the hell they please. That kind of thing has to
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
end. Yet, this is the conceptual and moral leap which neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are prepared, willing or able to make.
In terms of redistribution of wealth, the Liberals are in an increasingly untenable position. All those many well-intentioned Canadians who supported the Liberals over the years because they believed that the Liberal Party really wanted to redistribute wealth will soon have to choose. They will have to accept the Conservative argument that we have reached the limit of our ability to share while generating, wealth in the traditional way and must, therefore, retreat from the welfare state, or, they have to accept the NDP argument. We argue that because what the Conservatives say is true in a sense, we must go beyond the welfare state and its many inadequacies by using a combination of various forms of public ownership, public control of investment dollars and fair taxation to make our economy serve the common good and to generate the kind of wealth that would be to the benefit of all Canadians, not just materially but socially as well.
That is the choice that will be faced in the eighties, and I am sincere when I say that well-intentioned Canadians who supported the Liberal Party thought we could have it both ways in Canada, that somehow the Liberal Party could go on forever being a party of social reform and at the same time a party that was loyal to the traditional economic system.
That could happen as long as there was lots of money to throw around. Now there is not the money to throw around and the Liberal Party has had to choose which way to go. I say the Liberal Party has already chosen. There are plenty of Members opposite who will not admit that. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to know they have died the moral death which they have died over the last few years. Those with something still left in them will realize that. Plenty of voters will realize that. They will realize that, even if the Liberal Party is not willing to realize it. For, as I have said, the Liberals chose to abandon social justice when it came to the crunch.
Now, Mr. Speaker, more than ever is the time for a cooperative Commonwealth that the founders of CCF and NDP dreamed of, in which true human community and real individual freedom would grow together as the competitive self-seeking of individuals, corporations, governments and nations, characteristic of the present order, is replaced with the structures and not just the rhetoric of equality, co-operation, justice and peace.
It will not be easy. We realize that a future in which a just social and economic order that meets the needs of all, within the limits of our responsibility for a healthy environment and to future generations, will be difficult to achieve. Minds and hearts will have to be changed as well as economic structures and material conditions, but there is no other choice. Otherwise, both domestically and internationally we will descend into the slime that the Prime Minister wallowed in on television in his three addresses last week when he was talking about

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
the survival of the fittest, abandoning all pretence of the search for justice and international peace.
Whatever happened to the North-South dialogue? Whatever happened to those noble statements of the Prime Minister? They are gone like the wind. Instead we see him wallowing in the philosophical slime of social and economic Darwinism. Canadians have a destiny to do better than that. Canadians have a destiny to do better than adopt the politics of despair which the Prime Minister practises, despite all the rhetoric about trust. Canadians have a choice, and that choice is to accept the invitation of the New Democratic Party to imagine with us and to work with us for the better world which I believe is still within our grasp, if we reach out for it together. This kind of idealism, Mr. Speaker, is the only realistic option left to us-it is not idealism anymore-it is the only option. The realists and the cynics in the Liberal and Conservative Parties like to scoff at the naivete and idealism of the NDP. They have given up on the human condition and they have given up on Canada. They have given up the vision of a country which could have been an example to other nations. And in the name of being competitive, they would have us slide down the hill which so many Canadians have struggled to climb over the years toward a decent and just society.
We in the NDP intend to make sure that those who went before us did not struggle in vain, Mr. Speaker, and the Government will dismantle their accomplishments over the last 30 years over our dead bodies. Canadians now must go beyond the welfare state and Keynesian economics to the politics and economics of democratic socialism. They must not fall prey to the seductive vision of returning to the days of raw capitalism and the law of the jungle, which is the alternative offered to them by the Conservatives and now, quite clearly, by the Liberal Party of Canada. The choice belongs to the people, Mr. Speaker, and we welcome the debate that must ensue over the quality of our future.
I would like to make a few remarks now about the deficit because you hear a lot of ranting and raving about it. I would just like to make a simple suggestion: when politicians talk about the deficit, they should make the same intelligent distinction that average working Canadians make when they talk about their debts. That is to say that they know there is a difference between what they owe on their monthly grocery bill and what is the outstanding debt on their house amortized over 25 years. If they owe $45,000 on their house, for instance, they do not say at the end of January, my God, our debt for January is $45,000, because they make a distinction between current operating debts and long-term capital debts. Yet, all the discussions about deficits in this country take place without that distinction being made, so that the people are never able to get a handle on what is long-term investment, what may come back to the Canadian people in terms of having laid the groundwork for a more productive future, and what might rightfully be regarded as waste and over-spending.
It seems to me that we do the Canadian people a disservice when we talk about the deficit, whatever our position is on it, without making these kinds of distinctions. We create needless confusion about a topic that needs much more intelligent attention than it often receives in this Chamber, or, for that matter, elsewhere across the country.
I just want to put that concern on the record because it relates to what I was saying earlier about investment and how we need to have the right kinds of investment made in this country by Government and by the private sector in cooperation with Government and with the direction of Government, so we can invest in the kinds of things that will lead to a better Canada. We need to invest in our transportation system, housing, alternative energy, and all the things that need to be invested in in this country, and not have it regarded as needless Government spending.
We need to make a distinction between those two kinds of expenditures, which we do not do now, so we can have the political and conceptual freedom for Governments to spend where they ought to spend in building the needed economic infrastructure.
I mentioned transportation, Mr. Speaker, and in this respect I would like to speak just briefly about the policy of this Government toward railways. I was amused to listen to the Prime Minister during his television address. He said we have to prepare for the recovery. We have to have faith in Canada. We have to show that we trust that we will come out of this. While the recession is on we can do preparatory work, he said. Perhaps it can be explained to me, Mr. Speaker, how in the name of God you can call laying off 1,100 people at the CPR shops in Winnipeg, preparatory, when there is rolling stock galore to be repaired which, if there is going to be a recovery, will be needed?
It seems the CPR does not believe there is going to be a recovery, but if the Prime Minister does, he should call his friends at the CPR and tell them to put those men back to work instead of paying them 80 per cent of their wages to do nothing. If that is the kind of economic policy we get from this Government, then we might as well pack it in. We hear a lot of talk about the piddling job-creation programs which were brought in in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance when for another 20 per cent of their wages he could have all the CPR shops back to work preparing for the recovery which the Prime Minister says is coming.
If the Minister of Finance wants to have any credibility at all, that is the first thing he should do, get those men back to work and guarantee there will be no more lay-offs on either the CPR or CNR, because there is absolutely no excuse for layoffs, in the railway sector. There is rolling stock all over this country which will be needed when the recovery comes. It is unrepaired now. Three years from now the railways will be whining and snivelling that they do not have the equipment, if, hopefully, there is a recovery. And they will want some money. How much more money do they have to get? They are saving millions of dollars because of the six and five program. Workers had their wages limited to six and five. That was not good
October 29, 1982

enough, they had to have lay-offs as well. In addition, as far as Winnipeg is concerned, we have a transfer of the VIA repair work from Transcona shops to Montreal. This is a repeat of the Air Canada overhaul transfer from Winnipeg to Montreal, about which I will be having more to say in the future, Mr. Speaker, but for now I wanted to highlight the contradictory, nonsensical, insane economic policies of this Government, as they relate to the railway industry in particular. There we find the kind of contradictions that, if we had the time to look, we would find throughout this country as a result of the economic policies of this Government supported by my Progressive Conservative friends, because no one has done more over the years to put the Liberals in that position than the Conservatives.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I had obtained the permission of the last speaker for a short question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I would advise the Hon. Minister that the previous speaker's time has been exhausted and a question can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, the question was motivated by the emphasis that the Hon. Member placed upon investment and economic nationalism aspects, and my question is, would he, thus, with such emphasis, support the objectives of the two principles of the Government, that of the Foreign Investment Review Agency to promote Canadian jobs, and of course the objective of the national energy policy to obtain Canadianiza-tion and control of that sector of investment in Canada?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was gearing up for a really hard question. Of course we support the general goal of Canadiani-zation and of what the Foreign Investment Review Agency was touted to be at its inception, but the fact of the matter is that the Foreign Investment Review Agency approves almost everything that comes before it, I think something in the neighbourhood of 95 per cent. The National Energy Program was a sort of milquetoast Canadianization, 50 per cent by 1990, and even that was mostly private. So we were not terribly impressed with it.
It seems the government is backing down on even those goals. Indeed, the Prime Minister is known to have asked for the support of the provincial Premiers in wanting to further weaken FIRA, so I am not quite sure why the Hon. Minister gave me this opportunity to say more about the way in which his Party has backed down recently on these kinds of issues.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the words of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), because I think he put the socialist position as clearly and as forcefully as anyone in this House could put it. I think it is now clear on the record what the left wing of the left wing Party thinks, and it should be very interesting to see what is going to happen when that Party has its convention and people such as the Hon. Member have to stand up and discuss the economic ideas, concepts and
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
programs that his leader put forward the other day. I will speak to that in a moment, but they include some notions and some incentive programs which would fly directly in the face of the socialistic notions that the Hon. Member seems to hold so strongly to his bosom because, Mr. Speaker, the program put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party certainly is a long way from the kind of socialist rhetoric we have heard from the Hon. Member here this afternoon. Indeed, it is a 180 degree turn from the kind of socialist rhetoric we have heard from the Hon. Member here this afternoon. It flies right in the fact of the things the NDP has been professing for so long. Hon. Members, if they do not believe it, should read it more closely, and perhaps if they understood what they were talking about they would see that in fact I am correct.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we are in the middle of a process which will lead us to a recovery. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has come forward with his financial statement early on in the resumed session, very admirably so in that he put forward the position of the country economically with regard to the figures and information that Canadians need to understand the specific facts facing us. He put those forward on the very first day the House resumed. I heard a lot about the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau's) statement prior to the resumption of the House, and there was concern by the media and journalists and others that he had not put forward specific recommendations or program policy announcements. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is an over-all plan. I have not been told this by the Prime Minister or others, but it seems to me there is a plan which fits into the following kind of framework: the Prime Minister's message was to lay out, to put forward in the three evenings, to set the stage and provide the framework for the kinds of policies and programs and adjustments to existing programs which were going to be made by the Government during this session and the next session of Parliament. This is to provide us with a clear understanding of the general state of our economic affairs, the need to pull together, if we are going to come out of this in a recovery, and take advantage of the world economic recovery as it certainly will occur.
The fact is that governments cannot pull us out of this situation on their own. It is going to take a co-operative effort from all Canadians with the help of government, which is quite contrary to what we have heard earlier from the socialist member who would tell us that Government alone can do it all and Canadians can just stand aside and watch the Government do it for them. I do not think that can happen, and I would suggest that Canadians do not want that to happen. They certainly do not want the Government in Ottawa, led by whoever, to be completely and totally running their lives and saying: stand aside, we will do it for you.
We have seen the kind of society that has emerged in Sweden, especially the young people there, which is put forward as the great model by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.

October 29, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I never mentioned Sweden.


John Leslie Evans: Then I could take any other socialist country he wants and see what the attitude and morale-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You go to Sweden; I want to build a Canadian socialism.


John Leslie Evans: -of the youth is in those socialist countries where Government has said: you take your responsibility some place else because Government knows best. That hon. gentleman down there is so far to the left, Mr. Speaker, that I think he has come almost full circle to the fascist right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: The second part of the over-all program, it seems to me, was after the Prime Minister had set the stage. As soon as we got back to the House, the Minister of Finance put forward his financial statement giving the financial and economic facts of life which we face in this country, in which he proposed to reallocate as much as possible funds from lower priority programs to higher priority programs. Certainly, dealing with the unemployment problem and trying to create new jobs through stimulation of the private sector has to be given the absolute highest priority in these times. What his statement did was to clear the decks, so to speak, with regard to the uncertainty surrounding many other issues outstanding and, in so doing, to alter policies which had been in place or proposed in light of consultation which both the previous and current Ministers of Finance have had with all sectors of the economy. It was necessary to take into consideration the very fine work that was done by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs during the month of September in examining the income tax bills. The Minister of Finance took some very bold decisions to clear the decks and eliminate the uncertainty surrounding those outstanding issues so as to facilitate the resumption of policymaking in a very positive vein.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I see the process continuing with our own party convention next week, continuing consultation with labour unions, with the private sector, with individual Canadians. Hopefully there will be positive input from all Members of this House in debates such as we are having now, all of which will culminate in a Speech from the Throne which will put forward the kinds of policies and broad policy thrusts and the future direction which the Government intends to propose for the country. All of that, Mr. Speaker, is to be put into practice at the time of the Minister's next budget, which he says will be brought down early in the spring. So I see the process in four stages. The Prime Minister led the way with a broad outline, the Minister of Finance with his financial statements, the Speech from the Throne will give new directions, and the budget will implement those new directions. I suggest that is the process we are in now.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks on Monday and call it four o'clock now.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order please! It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Is there unanimous consent that all items preceding No. 411 be allowed to stand?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


GUNDERSON SLOUGH HARBOUR ACT
Benno Friesen: that Bill C-611, to transfer control over certain lands commonly referred to as Gunderson Slough from the Fraser River Harbour Commission to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that passage of this Bill would not alter the course of the country. I do not see the galleries filling with interested spectators waiting in anticipation to see this Bill passed. I do not see the Chamber filled with expectant Members waiting for the outcome for the country if we pass this Bill.
The Bill may not have national importance but it certainly has a great deal of local importance. It is very important to several hundred fishermen who live in the area of the Gunderson Slough, which is a winter harbour. Not only is it a winter harbour but there is a lot of service work for the fishing industry going on in that harbour.
This Bill is not a radical proposal. It is not trying to strip away from the Government any kind of powers. It is not trying to denounce the Government in any kind of way, or change the course of Government in any kind of way. It is simply asking that the administration of one small industry in Canada be transferred from one Government Department to another Government Department. It is a transfer of responsibility from the Fraser River Harbour Commission, which presently
October 29, 1982

controls and so-called administers the port, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the Fraser River Harbour Commission or Mr. Rick Pearce. I think it is operating a good business. It was commissioned to get into transportation and to operate a good port. It is doing that, and each year its balance sheet proves it. Over the period of years it makes millions of dollars. In fact, it is like a breath of fresh air to find a Government operation turning a very tidy profit, and I compliment it for that. That does not mean that in doing what it was established to do, it is performing a valuable service to the people who are an adjunct, at the present time, to that particular port.
As I said, the Commission port was established to carry on commerce; it was not established to carry on a service for fishermen. Therein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker. While it does not want to obstruct the fishing industry, that is not the first concern of the Fraser River Harbour Commission and therefore, because it is not its first concern and it spends 99.99 per cent of its interest on commerce, it really means it is in a conflict of interest. It cannot serve commerce full time and still service the fishing industry at the same time; at least if it can, it certainly is not doing it.
Right now, that fishing harbour is being treated like a fourth-class stepchild by the Fraser River Harbour Commission. I understand why that is so. It is interested in a balance sheet, not in service. It does not work for the fishermen unless it is absolutely cajoled into doing so and then, instead of working for the fishermen, all it does is co-operate with other Government Departments so that some of the mandatory work gets done.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, a fisherman called me and told me that as he took his boat into the harbour it bottomed out on one of the sand bars. It got stuck. It had been years since that harbour had been dredged. After several months of negotiation and prodding by me and because of the genuine efforts made by the Department of Public Works, that harbour was dredged, and properly dredged. Everybody is happy with it now. The point is, however, that it was not done until the Commission was absolutely cajoled into doing it.
The fact is that in addition to that, it is making no improvements at all to the wharf. It is doing nothing it is not absolutely required to do. That harbour could probably service four times the moorage it has at the present time, but because there is nothing in it for the Fraser River Harbour Commission, because there is no profit to be made, it has no interest in it.
I understand the Commission-I think I understand it. As I have said several times in the course of these short remarks, I understand that its job is to make money. I do not fault it for that. My concern is that through this Bill we could get rid of a very obvious conflict of interest and let the Fraser River Harbour Commission do what it does best and let the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) take care of the
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
fishermen, because that is his interest. The small craft harbours and the fisheries harbours could look after the interests of the fishermen. That would be no skin off the nose of the Commission. It would do nothing to it, except take from it a small piece of control that is now within its venue.
I do not know if the Commission has any long-range plans to obliterate that harbour. There was a time when the Commission port did not exist. It is made up of a lot of landfill. At one time the harbour was the show piece of the Fraser River; now it is a backwater. The Fraser River Harbour Commission port is built on fill. There is actually an artificial work base for that port facility. I do not know if the Commission at some time would deem that harbour to be an unnecessary nuisance to its operation and would at some time want to fill in that small harbour in order to make it a little bit more convenient to the Commission itself. The fact is that it is responsible for the fishermen; but it is not looking after the fishermen and therefore should divest itself of that responsibility.
There is a secondary problem and that is that in the area surrounding the harbour those vehicles that are used to service the Commission port keep on infringing on the foreshore property that should rightfully belong to the fishermen.
My Bill gives a description of the area that should be removed from the Fraser River Harbour Commission and assigned to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On the back page of the Bill, Members will find a description of the land that should be taken out of the control of the Fraser River Harbour Commission and assigned to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Let me say in closing that I am not asking for any removal of Government authority or Government power. In fact, I am complimenting the Harbour Commission for doing good work in the area for which it was created. All I am asking is that that piece of property, which should no longer be under the control or so-called management of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, be taken out of its authority and jurisdiction and given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the rightful manager of that particular industry. Presumably the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would consider as his first priority the provision of best service possible to fishermen. Right now the Fraser River Harbour Commission is giving the meagrest, poorest and scantiest possible attention to fishermen. Therefore I hope the Government will agree with me. I see only two Government Members here now, one of whom would be prepared to speak on the Bill. Perhaps there is a slight glimmer of hope that the Government might agree in principle with me that this should be done and referred to the relevant Standing Committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I compliment the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for taking advantage of every parliamentary vehicle at his

October 29, 1982
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
disposal to bring the concerns of his constituents to the attention of the House.
The Bill under discussion concerns the transfer of the title of a certain portion of upland and water lots from the Fraser River Harbour Commission to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Before discussing the specifics of this Bill, I think it is important that we have an appreciation of the important port known as the Fraser River Harbour Commission. Therefore I should like to take a few minutes in my introduction briefly to place the Fraser River Harbour Commission in perspective by beginning with a review of the historical development of west coast ports.
The earliest activity in foreign commerce on the Canadian west coast was in the trading of otter and other furs with markets overseas. As the influx of settlers to the west coast increased, other products such as coal and lumber began to move to export markets. However, it was not until the 1860s that the first real growth in international seaborne shipments began.
By 1900 the principal commodities were coal and lumber, which accounted for 900,000 tons and 175,000 tons respectively. The decade to 1910 experienced a decline in international shipping activity. However, this was followed by a revival in shipping activity as a result of the opening of the Panama Canal. A phase of vigorous expansion followed to about 1930, caused by two major developments-the transcontinental railway had become a valuable transportation route for the westward movement of bulk commodities, and shipping technology had replaced sailing clippers by the more businesslike steamships. By 1930 exports had increased to eight million tons.
The export movement required an efficient transportation system for realiable delivery and, consequently, the development of ports was of paramount importance. The development of west coast ports began in the middle of the eighteenth century, and their location was affected by the distribution and accessibility of natural resources such as lumber and minerals. These ports, including the one which became known as the Fraser River Harbour Commission, was situated along the south and east coasts of Vancouver Island and the coast of the lower mainland.
In 1929 Vancouver emerged as the premier port on the west coast. Vancouver was followed by New Westminster, as the Commission was known in those days, which handled 0.3 million tons, and its emergence was attributed to the growth of the Fraser River as one of the most important centres of the sawmill industry.
The period of depression in the 1930s greatly influenced world commodity markets and created a highly unfavourable trading environment. The foreign trade of west coast ports dropped sharply until the end of the Second World War. Port development on the West Coast was affected markedly during this period. Vancouver suffered most, mainly because of the loss of the grain trade. The effect on the other ports was less pronounced as they depended upon the relatively stable lumber trade for their commercial prosperity. The Port of New
Westminster continued to be the second largest, and in fact narrowed its gap with Vancouver.
After the Second World War the international trade through west coast ports entered a phase of expansion similar to the 1920s. By 1962 ports on the west coast reached a peak of 16.6 million tons. The grain trade was revived and the trade in forest products also increased. An important development was the dramatic post-war economic growth of Japan. As we will see later, trade with the Japanese is a very important part of the present day business conducted by the port we now know as the Fraser River Harbour Commission.
In general, post-war economic growth brought new prosperity to all west coast ports. Several ports, including New Westminster, benefited from expansion in forest product traffic. By 1962 New Westminster was handling over 1.1 million tons of cargo. The foregoing certainly does not do justice to the development of our great system of west coast ports in general, nor to the Fraser River Harbour Commission in particular, but it docs-adequately set out the scene for a more explicit description of the port with which we are concerned here today, the Fraser River Harbour Commission.
The jurisdictional boundaries of that Commission extend from the mouth of the main arm of the Fraser River at Steves-ton upstream, along the shores of Delta and Richmond, past New Westminster and Surrey to a boundary where Kanaka Creek enters the Fraser. Also included within the harbour limits are a small section of the north arm of the Fraser near New Westminster and another body of water, the Pitt River, which extends to Pitt Lake. The Commission lies immediately adjacent to two other lower mainland ports-Vancouver and the North Fraser Harbour Commission.
Most terminals of the Fraser River Harbour Commission area are located five to 20 kilometres upstream of the entrance to the Fraser River. Under certain circumstances vessels up to
60,000	deadweight tons have been accommodated on the Fraser River.
The relative importance of coastal traffic is greater for the Commission than it is for the Port of Vancouver. In 1978, coastal cargo tons accounted for 57 per cent of the total tonnage handled by the port. The Commission is served by a combination of multi-purpose and single purpose facilities, and a wide range of services is offered. The principal terminal types fall into seven categories-dry bulk terminals, grain terminals, multi-purpose, general cargo, forest products, rail roll-on/roll-off, auto roll-on/roll-off, and liquid bulk.
In addition there are a number of small operators primarily involved in coastal trade-fish packing companies located at the mouth of the river, forest product operators, and a variety of small industries located primarily on Annacis Island. With the exception of wood chips and sawdust, the Commission is not used in the movement of significant quantities of dry bulk materials. Two terminals on the Fraser are involved in the handling of automobiles, the second most important import on the river. These facilities include large storage areas for the storage and sorting of vehicles and are the largest of their kind in western Canada.
October 29, 1982

The Bill at hand pertains to certain property now under the administration of the Commission. Therefore, it would be useful at this juncture to delve briefly into the matter of port jurisdiction and administration. The provision of port facilities and services in Canada involves a number of Federal and provincial Government agencies and Crown corporations. The present obligations and responsibilities of these agencies are a product of the evolution and changing functions of port administration since pre-Confederation times. To understand the nature of these obligations and responsibilities requires an understanding of port legislation and administration.
Since their earliest days, Canadian ports have been administered under a wide variety of structures. The earliest port areas were owned and operated by private concerns or municipalities. In 1867 the British North America Act placed navigation and shipping under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal authority.
It was not until 1936 that the first important step in the vital port policy was made. The foundation of that policy was the Gibb Report which investigated three important areas of port development: the efficiency of existing facilities; requirements for new facilities for the next three decades; and the best method of port administration.
When Sir Alexander Gibb began his study, the Port of New Westminster was administered by a municipal commission, operating under the control of municipal representatives.
Several of the recommendations made by Gibb in his report were incorporated into the National Harbours Board Act passed in 1936. The basic purpose of that Act was to bring the existing federal commission ports under the administration of the National Harbours Board.
Although the federal harbour Commissions were disbanded after 1936, the municipal Commissions continued to operate, each one under its own special Act of Parliament. Due largely to the confusing nature of commission structures, which varied from one location to the next, the Harbour Commissions Act was passed in 1964. The Act allowed for the establishment of commission harbours by order in council, and gave commissions equal autonomy with respect to jurisdiction, powers, and authorities. The New Westminster Municipal Commission was reconstituted as the Fraser River Harbour Commission in 1965.
Although Harbour Commissions may not be strictly defined as federal agencies, they play a vital role in the administration of major Canadian ports. Today there are nine Harbour Commissions in Canada, including four on the west coast: the Fraser River, the North Fraser, Port Alberni and Nanaimo.
Under the 1964 Harbour Commissions Act, a majority of the Commissioners are appointed at the federal level, the rest being nominated first at the municipal level. Each commission has the power to pass bylaws dealing which such matters as harbour rates and charges, the movement of traffic, and the security of the harbour. By laws are thus developed on a local
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
level instead of in Ottawa. In order to finance capital expenditures for transportation, infrastructure and other port development, the Commission has the power to ensure its own debentures or borrow funds from commercial sources. Financial assistance by the federal Government is limited to certain capital expenditures decided on a case by case basis.
Harbour Commissions are established where local municipalities bordering on the harbour wish to share in its administration and development. Prior to establishment of this type of harbour there must be evidence of good growth potential for commercial shipping, municipal willingness to contribute its own waterfront property, and sufficient revenue to support the operation without federal subsidy.
Harbour Commissions historically have represented an autonomous form of administration. Representation from local community members and the power of developing bylaws in accordance with regional needs are examples of this autonomy.
This bill proposes that property be transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be managed under the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. This act was passed in 1978, at which time many harbours in British Columbia which were previously under the control of the Ministry of Transport, were transferred to the Small Craft Harbours Branch. This agency is responsible for the collection of wharfage and berthage from vessels making use of the facilities. Facilities administered by the Small Craft Harbours Branch are used primarily for commercial and fishing recreational boat purposes. The commercial fish boat harbour at Steveston in Richmond, which falls within the boundaries of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, is a Small Craft Harbours Branch facility.
I think you will agree that the foregoing very usefully sets the stage for a discussion of the specifics of this particular Bill. You will note that included as a schedule to this bill is a legal description, normally referred to, I believe, as meets and bounds of the area currently under the administration of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, and which is proposed to be transferred to the Small Craft Harbours Branch. You will recall from the foregoing that the Small Craft Harbours Branch administers facilities which are essentially of a commercial fishing or recreational nature. Hon. Members will therefore be very interested to know that the area as described in the schedule to this Bill encompasses approximately the following properties. I think it is a little more extensive than the property defined by the Hon. Member. For example, five acres of a large area leased to Gregory Manufacturing; a ramp and facilities for the Delta and Alaska Trainship valued at more than half a million dollars; the Fraser Surrey docks; ten acres of cargo handling area; five acres occupied by Titan Steel; and certain private lands not under Harbour Commission control, including the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way.
I should also add that within the boundaries of the property scheduled to this bill, there is an area used by fishermen comprising approximately 14 leases and 37 permits. I am further pleased to report that according to my information the fishermen are quite happy with the manner in which the
20222

October 29, 1982
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
Fraser River Harbour Commission is administering their particular property, and prefer the situation as it is at the present time. This agrees with the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member.
I therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Fraser River Harbour Commission has done an adequate job of administering all the property under consideration in this bill. It is the Government's view at this time that the status quo should be preserved and that this bill should not be given second reading.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I initially thought was a fairly innocuous bill, one which was straightforward and one for which I had a tremendous amount of sympathy. Coming from a riding that has two Harbour Commissions, I understand the work of those Harbour Commissions. By and large, the comments made by the mover of this motion under whose name the bill stands are quite accurate when he stated that the real emphasis of Harbour Commissions is commerce, which covers the exports of lumber products in B.C. in particular and the shipping terminals. Harbour commissioners have done an admirable job and, as the previous speaker mentioned, most Harbour Commissions can show a profit. That is what they attempt to do.
When I looked at the bill, I considered the response of the fishermen in my riding of Nanaimo-Port Alberni to the facilities which those Harbour Commissions were providing for fishing enterprises. By and large fishermen in Port Alberni are quite happy with the provision of facilities in Port Alberni. There has been some increase in dock space there administered by the Harbour Commission but funded by the small crafts and harbours branch. There is a sense of co-operation between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Harbour Commission in Port Alberni which has put much emphasis on attracting fishermen to that community because they can appreciate the increase in commerce that brings to Port Alberni.
In Nanaimo we have a Harbour Commission that is quite involved in a major new port facility at Duke Point, and the eventual transfer, we hope, some time in the future from the assembly wharf in the downtown core. Emphasis there has been to commerce in the export industry of lumber products. There is some controversy in Nanaimo among the fishermen as to whether that Harbour Commission is really looking after their interests in the manner which the fishermen would like to see.
I think there is some merit in having some properties transferred over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Nanaimo to generate some type of facilities for fishermen and possibly increase the availability of repair facilities in that community for the fishermen who are dependent upon those facilities. Because the mandates are different between the harbour commissions, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, certainly I see a need on the Fraser River for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take over some properties. Wether it is Gunderson Slough or other areas, there is a need for both fisheries facilities as well as recreational boating facilities. There obviously is a growing need for recreational
facilities and moorage in the Lower Mainland. The Fraser River offers tremendous opportunities along those lines.
However, I question the Bill in two areas. First, some Members will be familiar with the recently published Pearse Report on the west coast fishing industry called "Turning the Tide into the Pacific West Coast Fisheries Industry". Dr. Pearse's Report advocates a transition over a period of the next ten years when approximately 4,500 fishing vessels in the industry will be reduced by 50 per cent. I wonder what the Fishermen in the Gunderson Slough, Port Alberni, Alert Bay, Tofino, Bamfield and Ucluelet will thing when they realize that half of their fleet will cease to exist within two decades. I wonder if the people in Gunderson Slough will need a fishing boat facility if the Government moves on the Pearce Report. Certainly, this Party is hoping that cooler heads will prevail and that the impact of reducing the fishing fleet will be considered both from the point of view of employment of fishermen and of the communities dependent upon the Fishing industry in boat building and repairs. This includes communities such as New Westminster, Victoria and, more important, those coastal communities which have a greater reliance on the Fishing industry than the metropolitan and urban areas.
If the Government follows through with the Pearse recommendations, I am somewhat doubtful whether it will make any difference for Gunderson Slough, which is a facility leased from the Harbour Commission and provided by the Harbour Commission, to be in the hands of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I can offer my basic support for that facility becoming more public, because under the Harbour Commission it really becomes a private reserve to those lease holders of the docking facility, whether it be British Columbia packers or individual fishermen. Under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the Government would still receive rent from that facility in terms of moorage fees. It could upgrade the facility to include repair of vessels and nets as well as possibly installing facilities which could even provide the manufacture of fishing equipment which is so sadly lacking in British Columbia.
The implication to the fishermen is that it will continue to be a Harbour Commission facility with a type of exclusive placement of fishermen to that facility, or it will be a public facility which will perhaps meet the needs of fishermen more adequately. Certainly, fishermen who are not in that lease position now have indicated to me that they are in support of having that facility turned over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which, they feel, would respond more positively to any request they have for increased consideration of their industry.
The second area which makes this bill somewhat less innocuous than I had initially believed is the boundary description. On short notice it is difFicult to determine how large an area is involved but the previous speaker from the Government side indicated that a fairly large piece of property is involved, some of which may be privately owned. That has been my
October 29, 1982

information as well. After talking to the members of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, who were apparently notified yesterday that this Bill was coming before the House today-they had not done any preparatory work until yesterday, 1 found that they had indicated that this Bill will include land that is privately owned. When drawing the boundaries prescribed by the Bill on seven different maps, it can be found that each indicates that some private property is included in the boundary description.
I am quite surprised that the Hon. Member who moved this Bill, as well as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who seconded the reference to the committee today, both of them strong advocates of property rights, may in fact be proposing to expropriate private property, take it away from some innocent individuals who are probably themselves not aware of the implications of this Bill.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member who spoke just now is a teacher. His teaching capacity lacks credibility because he has not read the Bill very well. It specifically speaks to those lands that are now controlled by the Harbour Commission. It does not deal at all with private property.


Edward Allan Miller: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for that interjection. I am not sure that the Hon. Member himself has studied the boundary descriptions. I must admit that my information comes only from the Harbour Commission and I obtained it only today. As I understand it, they do have access to seven different maps of their harbour. In each case they indicate that there is some private property included in this jurisdiction.. The previous speaker from the Government side had also indicated that the lands in question take in far more than simply the boat basin and that property.
I am not objecting to the use of any property that is now in the hands of the Harbour Commission being transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps there is some validity to that. However, if there is private property involved, I think we must look at these property descriptions first to determine if they conform with what is presently under the Fraser River Harbour Commission and if, in fact, there may be some possibility that the Harbour Commission has land in that description that is privately owned and should be excluded from the Harbour Commission.
With the consideration of the long-term aspect of the fishing industry and the question of whether private property rights are affected by this bill, we are quite prepared to consider the possibility of transferring that property to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because realistically it should be under that Department. If it is serving the fishing community, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the responsibility to provide the facilities to make that industry an efficient one and to meet the demands of individual fishermen. There is support from the fishing community for this transfer of land. We would be prepared to see a more thorough study of this Bill when it reaches the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. We hope that it will be possible to clarify any misunderstanding
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
about those boundaries and to work out an agreement which would be satisfactory to the fishing community.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would begin by asking the Hon. Member who introduced this Bill to refrain from interjecting about Members' former occupations before coming to the House because I must warn him that I will also be referring to the matter of private property. It could be that in his great wisdom the Hon. Member did make a mistake. If I may quote Robert Burns:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' menand Tory Members.
Gang aft a-gley;
However, I am opposed to the substance of Bill C-611, an Act to transfer control over certain lands commonly referred to as Gunderson Slough from the Fraser River Harbour Commission to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. If passed, this Bill would split almost in half the area presently administered by the Fraser River Harbour Commission. This Commission is one of the most successful of all ports, with an economic impact of $5 billion in the Fraser River area. The figure represents one of the major findings of a port study conducted in the summer of 1981. The results were determined from the 1980 fiscal year information provided by 208 of the potential 327 port and port dependent industries. The direct businesses surveyed in the Fraser port study represented 23 different industries, but the final results were aggregated into ten industry sectors which describe the major components of the port impact.
Direct industries dependent on the Fraser Port contributed 13,487 full-time equivalent employment positions to the regional economy. Secondary employment added a further 19,724 jobs, to yield a total impact of 13,211 employment positions. The total payroll impact was estimated at more than three-quarters of a billion dollars. Three hundred million dollars was derived from a direct component, with the remaining $450 million attributed to the secondary component. The two major generators of payroll in the Fraser port study were the wood products industry, which paid out $220 million in payroll, and the transportation industry, which provided approximately half that amount. The $5 billion is the total sum of goods and services of the users of the port at the time this study was completed.
The area to be transferred, if the limits in Schedule 1 attached to the Bill are to be interpreted, includes ten acres of the Fraser-Surrey Dock, which is situated on the south bank of the Fraser River opposite the autoport. This area also includes five acres occupied by Titan Steel, one of the successful developments of the Fraser River Harbour Commission. Private lands are also included in this transfer, which also includes a road owned by the municipality of Delta and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The Harbour Commission has 12 to 14 leases covering that area as well as

October 29, 1982
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
37 permits of occupation. The Fraser-Surrey Dock was founded in 1928 and its first berth was converted to handle lumber in 1964. The Fraser-Surrey Dock now has six berths plus scow facilities, and handles a heavy volume of steel, wood chips and sawdust among other commodities.
Training walls in the New Westminster area provide self-scouring for the debris which would normally accumulate on the river bottom. This project commenced in 1966, and construction took three years at a cost of $4.5 million. This project resulted in a saving of $1 million annually for dredging. This saving obviously more than justified the original capital outlay.
Today the Fraser River plays a crucial role in the social and economic wellbeing of British Columbia and, indeed, of all Canada. For some 1.25 million people in British Columbia's lower mainland, the river is a major source of employment and recreation. Virtually every type of industry which could be developed in a metropolis has found a place on or around the Lower Fraser River. Economic environmental demands on the river are growing as Canada increases its trade with Pacific Rim countries so that any decision affecting the future of the Fraser River and the Fraser River Harbour Commission would have far-reaching implications.
The waters of the Fraser are used for transporting, storing and sorting logs used by waterfront sawmills. The harbours at its mouth are receiving points for foreign cars and other commodities. They are shipping points for lumber, for steel, sand and gravel, fish products and other Canadian goods. More than 20,000 people are directly involved in the Fraser's shipping industry, and an additional 84,000 are indirectly dependent on port activities. Approximately 13 million tons of cargo are handled annually by Fraser River ports.
The river's mainstream and numerous tributaries accommodate the largest natural salmon runs in the world and produce more than one quarter of all fish caught commercially and recreationally off Canada's west coast. Commercial catches of Fraser River salmon average ten million fish a year, with a value of some $90 million to the industry. There are 14,000 commercial fishermen in British Columbia and 3,000 workers employed in processing and tendering on the Lower Fraser. As many as 300 million young salmon migrate out of the estuary some years and more than ten million spawners return. The transfer of Gunderson Slough together with the upland, included in the annex to the Bill, would encompass ten acres of the Fraser-Surrey Dock and other lands under the administration of the Fraser River Harbour Commission as well as privately-owned properties. The Fraser River has most of these properties under long-term lease and the fishermen in that area are quite content with the administration, to my understanding. The Fraser River Harbour Commission is opposed to this transfer, and I support it in its decision. To split this successful semi-autonomous administration and put the area under a Government Department simply does not make any sense.
For the following reasons it is desirable that the Fraser River Harbour Commission continue to have full control of the area at present under its administration. Hon. Members are all
too well aware of the negative impact of splitting the responsibility for administration of any facility or of any organization. As was pointed out earlier, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is primarily concerned with smaller scale facilities. The Fraser River Harbour Commission cannot really be considered as a small scale facility based on the traffic volumes and the diversity of industry in the port which are not related to fishing or recreation, not to mention the size of its holdings. The argument that it would be more advantageous to the fishermen simply does not hold water, if Hon. Members would excuse a play on words, because the fishermen have not expressed any real dissatisfaction with the current arrangements. The division of responsibility would certainly not be sorted out neatly, certainly not overnight, and during the transition period there would be a deterioration in the efficiency and effectiveness of port operations. Fortunately, the Fraser River Harbour Commission is in a fairly solvent financial position. However, given the present economic situation, I do not think that even the Fraser River could afford any loss of revenue.
Another point I would like to raise in defence of retaining the status quo deals directly with port facilities. The Fraser River is a successful port. The land holdings have allowed for diversity of investment and employment opportunities. Transfer of the land to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would certainly interfere with any considerations of further industrial development and, of course, additional employment and revenue opportunities.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) mentioned the issue of dredging. It is my understanding that program responsibility for dredging will be transferred from the Department of Public Works to Transport Canada. Because of the obvious closer relationship between Transport Canada and the Fraser River Harbour Commission, a more co-ordinated approach will be taken on the issue of dredging.
I believe the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) wishes to speak. I have provided what I consider to be valid reasons for retention of this status quo.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I argued in my remarks that this Bill should not receive second reading. But in order to give credibility to the Private Members' Hour, after hearing the arguments of the mover of the motion, the NDP and the two Hon. Members from our side, I would like to suggest that the subject matter of the Bill be moved to the appropriate committee, if this is in agreement with the wishes of the mover of the motion.


Benno Friesen: I would certainly agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It has been moved by Mr. Flis, seconded by Mrs. Appolloni:
That Bill C-611 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
October 29, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the bill is withdrawn and the subject matter
Gunderson Slough Harbour Act
thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having now expired, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 1, 1982