1982-06-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, when the Government of Canada cannot sell its bonds even when the yield is set at 16 per cent, we know that there is something wrong, not only with the Canadian economy but also with the government itself. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the government be immediately obliged to lessen pressure on capital markets by reducing its horrendous $16 billion deficit, thereby restoring confidence in Canadian government paper.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, on May 14, 1982, as reported at page 17449 of Hansard, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) stated that he was ready to have discussions with the retail food industry to find out if it was feasible to excuse some small retailers from compulsory metrication. Yesterday I learned from a confidential source that, instead of working with the group on scales, which includes some 50 representatives of the whole industry, he intends to meet next Monday with only six members of the group who represent umbrella associations within the retail food industry under the chairmanship of an employee of the Toledo Scale Manufacturing Company of the United States. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That in view of the quite disastrous effects of the present economic situation on Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses which include the independent food retailers, the industry as a whole, represented by the working group on
scales, some 50 members, should be fully consulted, rather than this apparent doublecross and the stacking of the deck against the small independent retailers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in Winnipeg the president of the Aluminum Company of Canada announced the postponement of construction of a 200,000 tonne aluminum smelter in Balmoral, Manitoba. Whereas this announcement means the loss, for now, of some 700 permanent jobs, to say nothing of jobs in site construction and the needed hydro development, and whereas the company laid the blame for this postponement on weak markets, lower prices, and other ramifications of the continuing recession, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this government abandon its ruinous economic policies which have strangled the Canadian economy, costing tens of thousands of jobs in its vain attempt to save it from inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, this Thirty-Second Parliament is unique in that it patriated the Canadian Constitution from Great Britain. No one man or woman in Parliament has accomplished this. Each and every member of this Thirty-second Parliament has helped to make it possible. Over two years ago on May 9, 1980, this House unanimously passed a motion to initiate the successful process,

June 16, 1982
and on December 2 last this House passed the final resolution. Therefore, in recognition of this momentous event, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and having had favourable discussions with both the House leader and the acting House leader of the NDP:
That this government consider the advisability of erecting, at an early date, a suitable monument on the grounds of Parliament containing engraved plaques which include:
1.	A listing of all significant milestones in the process of patriation of Canada's Constitution.
2.	A full-sized replica of the Proclamation signed by the Queen.
3.	An alphabetical listing of all the Members of the Thirty-Second Parliament, including the names of those who are deceased and those who have gone to other responsibilities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas following public tenders, Bombardier, a Canadian company, was awarded a contract for the manufacture of 825 subway cars for the City of New York, and whereas as a result of pressure brought to bear by the Budd Company, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority might make use of its right to cancel its contract with Bombardier to award the contract to Budd, I move, seconded by the member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Tousignant):
That if the American authorities cancel their contract with Bombardier, the Canadian government reserve the right to cancel its contract with the American aircraft manufacturer responsible for manufacturing the F-18.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED COMPENSATION FOR USERS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, Monday, June 21 will be "Sun Day"-a day of national support for renewable energy and energy conservation in Canada, which has been organized by the Canadian Solar Industries Association, the Solar Energy Society of Canada, Energy Probe, and other energy interest groups across Canada. Recent advances in technology and standards have affirmed the significant role that solar energy can play in Canada's energy mix. In the face of dismal failures by the Minister of Energy in nearly all parts of his energy policy, including compensation paid for high price oil imports, which discriminates unfairly against renewable energy sources, and in fairness and for the sake of energy self-sufficiency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Energy be instructed to compensate solar and other renewable energy users at the same level as he compensates the use of expensive and unsure supplies of foreign oil.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanieh):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That part of the so-called "Laterals Fund" of $500 million, set aside in the "Energy Update" outlined on May 31 last by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to assist in the distribution of gas in the province of Quebec, be made available to the province of British Columbia, so that a natural gas pipeline can be extended from the British Columbia mainland to Vancouver Island.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 16, 1982


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
announcement of extended lay-offs-motion under S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, the CNR announced on Monday that it will be extending its previously announced summer lay-off to a total of ten weeks in addition to the usual summer shutdown. This should make the Progressive Conservative Party very happy. For years they have been advocating that Crown corporations like the CNR act like any other short-sighted, profit-blinded enterprise. They have succeeded only too well-and too easily, I might add-in persuading their Liberal comrades. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the Minister of Transport, and the new president of the CNR who, incidentally, made no mention at the plan to extend the lay-offs in his so-called honest and open presentation to the transport committee last week, be awarded the Progressive Conservative Callous Businessman of the Year Award for their strict adherence to the Progressive Conservative view of how Crown corporations should act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has met with his caucus all morning-I do not see any major bruises on his face-and has given his caucus some understanding of the status of the various announcements he is going to make, would the minister announce to the House today when he proposes to make his economic and financial statement, when he proposes to release draft legislation respecting the income tax measures of the budget, and when he proposes to give to the House some new estimate as to the size of the burgeoning budget deficit?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that, although we in the Liberal caucus have disagreements, we treat each other with respect. That might be an attitude which could be developed in the Conservative caucus.
I have already said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that I would update the financial and economic situation in the House of Commons before the summer recess. I have not established a firm date, but if the expectation is that the House is to close at about the end of June, it will be within that period.
The same answer applies to the question with respect to draft Income Tax Act legislation. In reply to a question asked by an hon. member from Vancouver I indicated that that would be tabled in the House before the summer recess.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas after a meeting of the Parti Quebecois National Executive last weekend, the leader of the party, after ambiguous and controversial discussions on the party's future on the federal scene, stated that he was considering a possible coalition with the Progressive Conservative Party, I move, seconded by the member for Beauce (Mr. Lapointe):
That the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party inform the House how he sees a possible alliance with a party that is in favour of independence, and that he clarify his position for us as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, surely the minister understands that every day of delay leads to record lows in the level of the Canadian dollar. Today it is trading at below 78 cents American. Every drop in the value of the Canadian dollar leads to increases in interest rates in the country. Surely the minister understands this. Does he not realize that every time the level of the dollar reaches a record low, his credibility also reaches a record low? Will the minister give us a more precise understanding of when these announcements will be made so that people can plan and understand what they are dealing with?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is again exhibiting considerable naivete when he relates exchange movements of the Canadian currency to a

June 16, 1982
Oral Questions
possible date of an economic statement. I think that is an extraordinary linkage for the hon. member to make.
I have already indicated that I would be making a statement in the House of Commons, and I said it would be made before the House rises for the summer recess. As soon as I have a date settled upon, I will let the House know. I will come into the House and make the statement, and the hon. member can make his reply on that occasion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have spent my life working in the marketplace. I understand the impact of uncertainty on the marketplace and the Canadian dollar. If there is any naivete in this place, it is across the aisle from me right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister might not care too much about the size of the budget deficit, which is now estimated at between $16 billion and $20 billion, but it matters to Canadians. It matters to small businessmen. It matters to people who are renewing their mortgages. When will the minister come out with some statement that will give the Canadian people some indication of the size of the deficit so that we can understand what impact it will have on interest rates and the level of the Canadian dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked the same question three times, and the same answer has to be given. That statement will be made in the House of Commons before the House rises for the summer recess. That is a pretty definite time period in view of the fact that today is June 16. The hon. member-anyway, I will not make any further comment about his deep understanding of the marketplace.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO BUILD CONFIDENCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that the confidence level in this country is at an all-time low. He will know that his bond issue of yesterday is not selling well, and that the rate is now over 16 per cent on those bonds. The rate is over 16 per cent on his Eurodollar bonds and they are not selling well any more. The confidence level has gone.
When will the minister do something to assist Canada build back the confidence that Canadians need in their business, in their future, in their country? When is he going to do something to give us some hope for the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member
talked about confidence. I agree with him that confidence in the future of Canada and confidence in its prospects is very important in the present circumstance. Maybe he would agree that he has a responsibility at least not to undermine that confidence. I would suggest to him that he has undermined it by suggesting that somehow the way the bond issue went was due to some Canadian policy. It was due basically to a nervousness in the market environment which was largely influenced by changes in U.S. bond prices. I am told that there will be very little difficulty in disposing of the remaining part of the issue. That ought to help the hon. member build his confidence, as I have confidence in the future of the country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister blames the Americans, and now he blames the opposition for our financial policies. I wonder if he would start looking where he should look.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I want to put this question to the Minister of Finance. With a projected cash requirement of $13 billion to perhaps $16 billion this year, a cash requirement that will drive interest rates to unbelievable heights-if that in fact is going to be the cash requirement-what does he propose to assist small business, farmers, even large businesses that we were told last week in the committee inquiring into bank profits, by the association of trust companies, many would likely fail if this level of interest rates continued in Canada? What is the minister's answer to these problems?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has based his question on a speculation. He has projected a certain fiscal and financial situation which has yet to be disclosed in the House. I propose to do that in full detail. When that information is available, as it will be, then it will be possible to deal with the hon. member's question.


REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER TO LIBERAL CAUCUS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, but before that I should like to say to the Minister of Finance that the last person-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he should not be commenting on the answers.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is clear from the heckling that the Liberals think they are still in their caucus meeting.


Mr. Andre:: You are wasting time, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will go right to the Prime Minister. In spite of the continuing decline in the level of the Canadian dollar, in spite of the fact that we now have the deepest recession in Canada since the 1930s, I have been told that the Prime Minister made it clear to the Liberal caucus meeting this morning that there would be no basic change in the economic policy of Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this was or was not the case.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know better than to ask me to comment on what goes on in caucus. I do not ask what goes on in his caucus.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada know better than to ask the Prime Minister to comment on anything, because they get no answers at all.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT POLICIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering the expectations the Prime Minister raised when he was in Versailles, and the deep feelings all over this country that something serious needs to be done to change economic direction, will the Prime Minister give us his assurance that he argued before his colleagues, whether in caucus or not, about the need for a shift in economic policy, and that he will have specific policies to bring before the people of Canada in this Chamber which wiil indicate a significant change to a new economic direction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Tory spokesmen were asking me what was going on in cabinet; now the Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to know what I argued in caucus. Surely the two opposition parties might get together, and maybe between them they could come up with some ideas of their own.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that deep, arid and cynical sense of sarcasm the Prime Minister has-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -is what endears him so much to the hearts and minds of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that the Conservative Party has made some suggestions, and the New Democratic Party has made some suggestions-


Some hon. Members:: What?


John Edward Broadbent: I will put forward suggestions, Madam Speaker, because obviously the backbenchers in the Liberal
Oral Questions
Party have had nothing to say. Will the Prime Minister consider doing something about the fisheries in Canada, the logging industry, the lay-offs in the automotive industry, and do something about all the businesses which are shutting down? Suggestions have been made on this side of the House in all those areas; will the Government of Canada finally act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, just a few days ago the hon. member was making suggestions concerning some of those industries. 1 dealt with them and I suggested, in so far as the representations of the Leader of the New Democratic Party were concerned, I would consider them seriously.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that the Small Business Development Bond program in its original form assisted thousands of small businesses in Canada to cope with the government's high interest rates, and at the same time increased the net revenue to the federal treasury by $77 million in the first year of operation alone, as a study by Infometrica concluded. In light of that, can the minister justify his taking the "development" out of the bond, thereby reducing it to nothing more than a useless empty disguise, at a time when small business needs that assistance the most?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I explained that situation in some detail, I believe it was last week, in the House.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROGRAM
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, we want some definite answers from this minister. He knows there are thousands of bankruptcies taking place every day in the small business sector which add to the record level of unemployment. Is the minister now prepared to reinstate the bond program to its original form, before the end of the month? If not, will he tell us why he is not prepared to do that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question within the last seven sitting days. The same two questions have been put and answered. But I will tell the hon. member that if any decision is made about an alteration to the bond, I will be pleased to advise him when that decision is taken.

June 16, 1982
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


DORVAL AND MIRABEL-FUTURE COSTS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board as the minister primarily responsible for controlling government expenditure. Has the minister's department made an assessment of government expenditure in relation to the proposed transfer of airport facilities from Dorval to Mirabel? Without getting into the detail of that assessment, is the government expenditure going to be higher or lower if such a move is made?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the question is entirely hypothetical because the Minister of Transport has made no announcement with respect to the proposed move at this time. Accordingly, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the cost of a move which has not taken place and which has not yet even been dealt with at the cabinet level.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in view of the answer given by the minister, which does not surprise me, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.


LIBERAL CAUCUS ADVICE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in view of the suggested hypothetical nature of my question about something that has been in the newspapers for months, could the Prime Minister tell the House, to remove uncertainty at least as far as Dorval and Mirabel are concerned, regardless of all the other large economic questions, if this week's Liberal caucus is going to come up with some advice to the ministry so that a decision could be made on this matter, which is solely within the control of the ministry and does not involve the United States or anchovies off Peru?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not honestly know if the matter will come up in caucus. It may; it may not. I know it has come up in previous caucuses. The minister is well informed. The matter will be going to committee next week, as the hon. member knows, and then we will hear views from all sides on it. Maybe we will hear views even from the Tory party.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have had our views, Sir.


UREA FORMALDEHYDE INSULATION ACT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What has happened to Bill C-109, the bill that provides remedial measures for UFFI victims? Would one reason why the government has not brought back the bill for
second reading be that it is under heavy pressure from members on all sides of this House, including the minister's own Liberal caucus, to change the bill to make it much more substantial in terms of compensation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member should talk to his House leader. There is no doubt that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House feel the urgency to pass this measure which would allow victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation to receive help from the Canadian government. We are ready to pay up to $5,000 to each Canadian who has to repair his or her home. Bill C-109 has been before Parliament already on three occasions. I hope the opposition will refrain from giving their speeches because what is at stake exclusively is the principle of paying money to these home owners.


Mr. Clark:: That is untrue.


André Ouellet: Indeed, the bill should be sent to a committee. I hope the Conservative Party which has so far filibustered the bill will stop doing that and allow the bill to go to committee as soon as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is another falsehood.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, on the two occasions when Bill C-109 was brought forward we put up three speakers, both on May 10 and on May 31. We have one speaker left. That is hardly filibustering such an important bill. We want to get it through second reading and into committee as soon as possible.


REPORT OF BOARD OF REVIEW INQUIRING INTO UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs give us a status report on the board of review inquiry into the hazardous nature of UFFI? Is the minister sitting on the report because of some important new evidence about the foam? Will the minister, in any event, make a commitment so that we can get that report before the committee to examine its recommendations before we head into another long hot summer which will further aggravate the concerns of UFFI victims?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am certainly not sitting on the report. I have not received it. I indicated to Parliament that, as soon as this report is received, I will make it public. That is my undertaking. I am anxious to receive this report. One member of the board of review was ill and as a result there has been some delay in the final preparation. I reported this fact to the parliamentary committee which was looking into my estimates. The hon. member knows this.
As far as the discussion of the bill is concerned, on the two occasions involved members of the Conservative Party were
June 16, 1982

speaking at ten o'clock. If they were anxious to have a vote to refer the bill to committee, they only had to sit down and have a vote. I take the word of the hon. member that his party has only one more speaker remaining. I hope my House leader is aware of this, and in the usual discussions between representatives of each party, perhaps the House leaders could agree to have one more speaker per party and then refer the bill to committee.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, a number of Canadian mayors are urging the government to introduce stricter measures in the Criminal Code with respect to prostitution. Could the Minister of Justice inform the House, using his department's statistics, whether any procurers or operators of common bawdy-houses have been convicted under the present strict provisions of the Criminal Code, or whether the legislation is mainly enforced with respect to women who are already being exploited by society, and could he inform us whether he intends to take any action to remedy the situation in the near future?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, as I said yesterday, the matter is before the committee which is considering Bill C-53, and I think the hon. member's question could be answered in committee. I have no statistics right now on the number of arrests, but I am willing to co-operate with the hon. member at the committee's meetings and to give her the information requested, if necessary.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), for a supplementary.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.

Does the government have a position with respect to whether or not it is appropriate to amend the Criminal Code with respect to solicitation for the purposes of prostitution, or does the Minister of Justice have no opinion on the matter at all?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, at the request of hon. members of the House I referred the matter to the committee for study. I want the views of the committee. I have my own views. I am willing to discuss them with the
Oral Questions
committee. At the request of an hon. member from Vancouver Centre and others I decided to refer the matter for study because there is a controversy. There have been decisions made by courts which have made it very difficult in some parts of Canada to prosecute for solicitation. In other parts some provincial municipal by-laws have been accepted by the courts. This is the case in Alberta, and some provincial laws have been accepted by the courts in Nova Scotia. Therefore it is a most difficult and comprehensive problem. That is why I asked the committee to look into it. I am looking for the wisdom of the committee, including that of the hon. member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This year in Saskatchewan alone, 505 houses were allocated to Indian bands. As of today not one housing project has commenced. The on-reserve housing program has been blocked because of circular J-l which was unilaterally imposed on this year's housing program. Will the minister please suspend the J-l circular for this year so that housing projects may begin, and promise that consultation will take place with Indian bands before the reintroduction of the J-l circular?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that consultation is going on with the Indian people with respect to the implications of the J circular. The problem is that the J circular calls for the commitment of all funds from every source in addition to the moneys from the Department of Indian Affairs before a house can go up. This is good in one sense. We know that houses will go up, but the situation causes delays. I am fully aware of that, as are the Indian people. We are seeing what can be done about it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister will take the matter under advisement, act as he said he will, and rectify this very serious problem.


CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL AT DILLON, SASK.
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns a commitment which the minister made to the Buffalo River band at Dillon which, because of its special situation, was to build the school in Dillon according to provincial standards instead of the inferior federal standards in place now. Will the minister have this school built according to the commitment he made? When will the minister meet with the band to sort out this very real problem?

June 16, 1982
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did support the proposition with the Buffalo River band at Dillon that Indian schools should be built in accordance with provincial standards so they will not be inferior to schools in the provinces. I might indicate that there is some fault in the premise of the hon. member's question. There are some provinces where the federal standard, believe it or not, exceeds that of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I just wanted to indicate that that is my information. We are reviewing my opinion on the Dillon Indian band proposal in terms of its implications across the country on Indian schools, but this in no way diminishes my commitment to the Dillon band.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He knows that Argentina has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and that it is considered capable of producing an atomic bomb. The Palme commission is the latest one to confirm that. The Prime Minister will also know that on June 8, in Vienna, the Argentine government said that it reserved the right to develop nuclear energy for military uses. Has his government now changed its policy in connection with delivering nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina? Will the government recall the Canadian technicians who are there and cancel any further work on the Candu nuclear reactor because Argentina has clearly said that it is prepared to use nuclear energy for military purposes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is possible that Argentina may have that intention, but it would not be exercising that intention as regards the Candu or the supplies to the Candu because they are completely safeguarded.
The hon. member will remember that there are other sources of energy supplied by other countries. As the hon. member is aware, Canadian standards are somewhat higher than those of other countries. Therefore, the only effect of accepting the hon. member's suggestion and withdrawing from the contract-in other words, breaking the contract from our point of view-would be to set Argentina free to proceed with whatever is there from Canada without the safeguards which we have negotiated with Argentina and which are being observed.


STATEMENT MADE BY PRIME MINISTER AT NATO MEETING
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. On June 10 the Prime Minister said at the NATO Summit that "no issue, however important, should take precedence over the need to avoid nuclear annihilation". On June 18, in two days' time, he will speak to the United Nations disarmament conference and propose a freeze on the development of new nuclear weapons and a strategy of suffocation. Will the Prime Minister go to the United Nations with clean hands, or will he be branded the greatest hypocrite in the universe because he is not prepared to carry out what he preaches to the rest of the world and to avoid nuclear annihilation, by giving a country the means to make nuclear weapons by reason of a contract entered into in 1974? Will he practise what he preaches?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I suspect the hon. member did not quite understand my previous answer. I said that we had a contract with Argentina-


John Carnell Crosbie: Cancel it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -with safeguards.


John Carnell Crosbie: There are no safeguards.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is not stating the truth when he says that there are no safeguards. He should know, because he was in a government which also tried to sell a Candu-


John Carnell Crosbie: We refused to sell a second one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking me a question. I would appreciate it if he listened to my answer.
I am saying that there is a contract with Argentina to sell a Candu which is safeguarded. If we withdraw from that contract the safeguards will fall, and therefore the material and the technology which have been delivered to Argentina, not only in the period since 1976 but in the period during which the hon. member's party was in government, would be in the hands of the Argentine government without any safeguards. The hypocrisy would really be to say that we are going to withdraw from this and think that it will make the world safer. It will not; it will mean that Argentina will have technology and matarial which are no longer safeguarded. We prefer to keep those safeguards than to set Argentina free.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, I am
June 16, 1982

sure, appreciates that the only glimmer of hope on the economic horizon for many of Canada's citizens is the hope that in the promised economic statement from the Minister of Finance there will be a major reversal of governmental fiscal and monetary policy. Surely the minister has a very firm idea not only of what he will say but of when he will say it. What is the mystery? Can we not learn today what is in the minister's mind in respect of when we will have this much-needed economic statement from him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am surprised, really, at the preamble to the question. The hon. member is advocating a complete reversal of current monetary and fiscal policy. I have never heard the official critic of his party advocate anything but a stiffening of fiscal policy rather than a loosening of it. I am surprised at this new evidence of a policy shift on the part of the Conservatives, but I can only reply to him in the same way as I replied to the former questions, namely, that I will be making a statement before the House rises for the summer recess. When the date is established, I will let the House know, and everyone will have ample opportunity to come and listen to the statement and hopefully approve of it.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT THAT HOUSE MAY DEBATE STATEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister of Finance has indicated that the House of Commons would have the opportunity to listen. What the people of Canada expect is that this House of Commons will act, not simply listen. I want the minister to tell us whether the House of Commons will have the opportunity to consider specific new measures in his statement for several debating days, or for a reasonable number of debating days, after the statement is made in the House and before the summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the statement is made, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will be entitled to ask that question. But I believe, if I answered the question either negatively or affirmatively, 1 would be prejudging what will be in the statement, and that has not yet been finally decided.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am amazed that the Minister of Finance, having presided over this economic disaster, having tried to hide out in Versailles, and having now had the advantage of consultation with his cabinet and his caucus, does not know what in the world he will propose or whenever it is that he will propose it; indeed, he may not even know the date.


CONTENT OF STATEMENT-MINISTER'S INTENTION RESPECTING PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether in fact there will be specific new measures in the economic statement,
Oral Questions
and whether the House of Commons will have the opportunity to discuss those measures, or is the minister intending simply to bring in a statement declaring nothing and then use closure to force Parliament out of here?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the answer to the question is no.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Surely he can tell us whether his economic statement will require legislative changes to be enacted by the House. Could he also tell us whether the statement will be given in the afternoon or in the evening?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will reveal all these gripping details at the appropriate time.


QUERY RESPECTING STATEMENT'S CONTENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to be clear concerning what the Minister of Finance has said in response to me. I asked him whether there would be specific new measures. He said, "The answer is no". Is he telling us that there will be no specific new measures in the economic statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I heard the clinching, final part of the question, it concerned whether I would bring in nothing and close the House by closure, and I replied, "No."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR NEW ECONOMIC MEASURES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1,200 Canadians a day are losing their jobs, businesses are going into bankruptcy day after day because of this government, but the Government of Canada refuses to tell the House of Commons of Canada whether there will be any new measures proposed. Will there be any new economic measures proposed in the economic statement? Will there be specific new proposals to rescue Canadians from the economic disaster into which this government has cast them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think I have already answered that question. The statement will be made available in the House of Commons and the contents will be known then. 1 will not be able to specify, until the statement is made, what will be in it and what will be left out.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You do not know. Good grief!

June 16, 1982
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


STATUS OF NATIVE WOMEN-ATTENDANCE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, two years ago the Prime Minister said that one or two more years should be the limit before the government moved unilaterally to end the discrimination against Indian women under the Indian Act, but in the intervening two years the government has not even consulted with Indian leaders or with the leaders of Indian women about the best way to end this discrimination. Obviously, Indian women will have to speak for themselves on this issue.
Will the Prime Minister invite representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada to attend the coming constitutional conference so that the unique problems of Indian women will not be overlooked when the conference deals with constitutional matters which directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I indicated before that the attendance at the constitutional conference will be a matter to be discussed between the premiers and myself. As a minimum, I intend to invite the principal representatives of the three aboriginal groups in other words, the Inuit, the Indians, and the Metis. That would be the minimum. However, I will see whether the provinces have any suggestions for additions or, indeed, whether the aboriginal groups themselves have any suggestions for additions.


REQUEST THAT NATIVE WOMEN BE REPRESENTED
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister, who knows that the other three groups which have already been invited all have their own legitimate concerns, and that in the pursuit of those concerns the needs of Indian women can very easily be overlooked. There is a fourth national aboriginal group, and I ask the Prime Minister if he will consider inviting that group, the Native Women's Association of Canada, to send representatives to the constitutional conference and to fund them for so doing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 must say that I disagree with the premise of the question. The hon. member is suggesting that the national representative groups of the Indian people are not representative of half of those Indian people. I suggest that that is not a compliment to those representative bodies. He may have representations to make directly to them himself, but I take it that the official spokesmen of the Indian people speak for all the Indian people.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it arises from my concern involving the Donald Marshall case. Donald Marshall is a man who was convicted of murder 11 years ago and his conviction is now being questioned. I wonder whether the minister is prepared today to tell us if he has reached a decision with regard to further disposition of this case.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to inform the hon. member and the House that I referred the question to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and asked the court to make a determination on this case in the light of new evidence brought forward, pursuant to Section 617(b) of the Criminal Code.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why did you not say that yesterday?


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Economic Development recently said in Victoria:
We are going to stop propping up mature industries that will never be competitive in this generation, like textiles, clothing, footwear and a number of others.
And he also said:
We are not going to process every one of our natural resources into the final product. For one thing, we do not have the people.
Does the Prime Minister not consider that Canada's million and a quarter unemployed people very clearly indicate that we do have the people necessary to process a far greater proportion of our natural resources into finished products than we process at the present time? I would ask him if the government is considering the introduction of a generous tax incentive to be applied to new and additional production, which will persuade entrepreneurs in Canada to undertake new, additional production in our factories so that we can provide employment for our very large number of unemployed workers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked two questions. With regard to the first question, stated in the way it was stated, I must say that I agree with the hon. member that we do have the people. With regard to the second question, I understand that he is making a representation as to what our tax policy should be, and I assure him that it will be duly noted.
June 16, 1982


THE PRESS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. In a statement released yesterday, the Ontario Press Council stated that it views with great apprehension the implication of government intervention contained in the proposal to create a state-sponsored national press council. Will the minister agree to the Ontario Press Council's request that "no national council of any kind should be considered until every opportunity has been explored for encouraging full participation by newspapers in forming voluntary regional or provincial councils"?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not refer to other parts of that release which are largely supportive, I believe, of the measures put forward by the government. The Davey Senate Commission in 1970 suggested press councils. It is now 12 years later. The newspapers have had a long time to react. They will have the period of time between now and the introduction of legislation and, indeed, the successful passage of legislation. I have already publicly said that if various newspapers voluntarily join press councils, that would be our press councils.


Charles Joseph Clark: The big stick.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, apparently the minister rejects that proposal by the Ontario Press Council.


FUNDING FOR COUNCIL
Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the
minister aware of the statement by one of the public representatives of the Ontario Council, Reverend Brad Massman, who said that such a body would be "twenty million dollars of the taxpayers' money thrown into the sewer". If so, will the minister tell the House how he can justify this wasteful and dangerous expenditure of tax dollars at a time when the federal deficit has grown to some $16 billion?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I might quote another member of the Press Council who is not always the best friend of the government, Doris Anderson, who encouraged us to proceed with everything we proposed.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and stems from his commitment in this House on May 14 to call together a working group on scales to determine if the government would exempt small businesses
Petitions
from purchasing metric weigh scales. He has called that meeting for Monday. Unfortunately, he has chosen an employee of the Toledo Weigh Scale Company to act as chairman, and six members only of the 50 members of that sector. How does the minister justify calling only six members of the 50-member sector, none of them independent retail grocers, none of them major corporate food chains, and appointing as chairman an employee of the American Toledo Weigh Scale Company?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Holy Toledo!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, my consultations with the industry are continuing. Despite the statements of the hon. member, these consultations are going well. When I am ready, I will make a decision, at the appropriate time.


REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The corporate manager of Loblaws says that 85 per cent of them do not want metric in retail since the United States has moved off it and is back to imperial. Will the minister please answer why he refuses to include in the sector group on Monday, after five years of working with that 50-member group, instead of bringing in the Toledo weigh scale company and only six representatives, two of them federally funded groups, to vote us into metric against the wishes of the food retail sector?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the hon. member repeats his question a little louder, what he is saying does not make any more sense. I listened to his question. I indicated to him that this was one meeting for consultation. Other meetings will take place. We will have extensive consultation, and it will not be only with a few members of the sector group. When the consultation process has been completed to my satisfaction, I will make the appropriate announcement. Until that time I recommend to the hon. member that he cool off, forget about metric for a little while, and concentrate on some other worth-while cause. I am sure he was not elected to Parliament only to think about metric.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the two hundred and seventieth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he examined the petition presented by the hon. member

June 16, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Corbett
for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) on Tuesday, June 15, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-27, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the debate on the borrowing authority bill last evening, I was interrupted by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) who stated, about some remarks I had made in my speech, that:
-this is the greatest accumulation of mendacities I have heard in a long time.
The concise Oxford dictionary gives the interpretation of mendacious as "lying and untruthful". I am perfectly aware that this was probably a new word in the hon. member's vocabulary and he was not aware that the meaning of the word does connote lying and untruthfulness. Therefore, I feel 1 have a prima facie case of privilege. I would ask Madam Speaker to rule on it and perhaps, in view of the fact that that word is unparliamentary, or at least the meaning of it is lying or untruthfulness, request that he be asked to withdraw the term.


Madam Speaker:: To be correct, that was not a question of privilege but a point of order since it deals with unparliamentary language.
I would also like to say that a point of order was raised at the time it took place and was dealt with by the Speaker at that time. The Speaker in the Chair at that time probably referred to the list of unparliamentary words cited in Beau-chesne and did not find the word "mendacity". That is probably why he did not ask the hon. member for Comox-Powell River to withdraw the expression.
Hon. members might recall that very early in my mandate in the Chair, 1 had to deal with a member who had used an unparliamentary word which was a synonym of the word mendacity. It was substituted. I asked the hon. member to withdraw that word.


An hon. Member:: Which hon. member?


Madam Speaker:: For the purposes of this ruling I do not think it is necessary to identify the hon. member. That member substituted the word mendacious for the word he had used.
English not being my first language, I did not quite know what mendacious meant. It was not in Beauchesne. I thought it was quite sophisticated and proper and I accepted the word.
I will let the matter go this time. I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) will bear with me since the matter was dealt with by one of the Deputy Speakers, probably based on what had happened previously in the House, and he let the matter go. I warn hon. members that in my view, any word that is a synonym of a word that is unparliamentary cannot be substituted for the unparliamentary expression. From now on the word mendacity will be considered by me to be unparliamentary as well as mendacator and all other words which mean the same thing. An hon. member cannot accuse another hon. member of not telling the truth by substituting words which mean the same thing.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, it would appear that a new precedent has now been set by the Chair. The words mendacity, mendacious and mendaciousness do not appear in Beauschesne, or indeed in any precedent I know, as being unparliamentary. Indeed, since I have been here, which has been more than a few years, that expression has been used on all sides of the House with frequency. It has never been ruled by the Chair to be unparliamentary.
May I suggest that before coming to this precedent-setting decision the Chair might wish to hear some in-depth submissions on the matter. What would happen if the Chair makes a decision now to add this word to the list of unparliamentary expressions-in my submission it would constitute a new precedent? Members should certainly have the opportunity of (a) examining precedents in an effort to convince the Chair of the propriety of the expression, and (b) of making submissions to the Chair before it comes to a decision setting such a far-reaching precedent.
I suggest that if the Chair wishes to go that route, it advise the House that it intends to seek submsissions on the matter, and that time be set aside for doing that.


Madam Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member, let we say that I have not been here as long as he has. How did words get on the list of Beauchesne? I suppose at some point the Speaker determined that certain words were unparliamentary, and the list was carried on from one Speaker to another. 1 do not really know how they got on the list.
In any event, l accept the hon. member's suggestion. I will look at the procedure by which these words got on the list of unparliamentary language. I will do what has been done in the past.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the hon. House leader of the official opposition had given the hon. member for Fundy Royal the
June 16, 1982

same lecture as he has just given to you, we would not have had this problem in the beginning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. CHRETIEN'S ANSWER RESPECTING CASE OF DONALD MARSHALL
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Very briefly, I would like the assistance of the Chair with respect to a matter that arises from question period today. You heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) announce to the House that he was referring the case of Donald Marshall to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Your Honour will also recall that I directed a question yesterday to the Minister of Justice concerning the same case, asking what action he was going to take, and I received no positive answer. It is difficult for me to know, as a member of the Bar of Nova Scotia for 25 years and also as a member of the Bar of Ontario, how the Minister of Justice could possibly not know 24 hours ago that he was going to take this course of action.
Bearing in mind, Madam Speaker, the difficulties that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had with the same Minister of Justice in the case of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Newfoundland off-shore dispute, I want to reserve my right to check the records and check the facts, to find out if the Minister of Justice was candid with the House yesterday when I addressed the question to him on the case of Donald Marshall.


Madam Speaker:: The only guidance that the Chair can give the hon. member is that the Chair cannot interfere with any of the answers of hon. members. They stand on the statements they make. It is not for me to judge whether the hon. minister did not know one thing one day and happened to know it the next day. This is of no concern to the Chair. It is certainly a matter in which the Chair cannot intervene.


UNPARLIAMENTARY REMARK OF MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)
Madam Speaker:: 1 have checked the "blues" with regard to the expression used by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in the House yesterday. I asked the hon. member whether he thought he had used unparliamentary language, because I had not exactly heard what he said. I checked the "blues". The hon. member yesterday answered me that he had not used exactly those words, and I guess that answer was exactly correct in regard to the exchange we were having. But, having checked the "blues", I find that the hon. member said that an hon. member had lied to the country. I think that I asked the hon. member whether he had said that the hon. member had deliberately misled the House.
I do not want to get into the problem of determining whether one can not say that someone deliberately misled the House, and can say that the hon. member deliberately misled the country. 1 do not want to get into this distinction that one can possibly make. I believe that the idea behind what took place is
Point of Order
that the hon. member for Burnaby cannot say, in any circumstances, that someone deliberately misled either the House or the country.
Therefore, I regret that I have to ask the hon. member, if he understands the sense of my intervention, whether he would volunteer to withdraw that expression.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, if I might just give the context of those remarks, it might assist the House. We were dealing in this particular instance with a report of the Canadian Judicial Council which, pursuant to the provisions of the Judges Act, is sent directly to the Minister of Justice. That report of the Canadian Judicial Council is a document which was then made public by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), Madam Speaker, and the contents of that report were interpreted by the Minister of Justice.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is arguing the matter that was discussed. What we are dealing with now is an unparliamentary expression. That is extremely narrow. I do not believe we need many explanations of the context. It is absolute. If a member says that someone has deliberately misled the House or the country, this is not acceptable in the House, no matter what the context is. In other words, there is no excuse for it. I would ask the hon. member if he would withdraw those words.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, Judge Berger cannot reply to a misrepresentation by the Minister of Justice. In view of that, I would draw your attention as well to Citation 321 of Beauchesne's that all references to judges and courts of justice in the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice stated that the remarks or that the conclusion of the Canadian Judicial Council was that Judge Berger's action was reprehensible. That was not an accurate statement. Judge Berger is not in a position to correct that. Therefore I am quite prepared, Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Justice will set the record straight and stop misrepresenting the position of the Canadian Judicial Council to the public, to withdraw my accusation. But until such time as the Minister of Justice stops taking these cheap shots at Judge Berger, I certainly do not intend to withdraw any such suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: We can deal with another matter at another time, if there is any reason to deal with it. At the time 1 did not see anything in the intervention made by the minister that would reflect on the conduct of the judge. I do not know whether he was citing the report at that time or what he was doing. However, that can be dealt with at another time.
What we are trying to deal with now is the unparliamentary expression used by the hon. member. He knows that he simply has to withdraw this unparliamentary expression, because when an unparliamentary expression is uttered in the House it does damage to the House and to the decorum of the House

June 16, 1982
Point of Order
and it is not helpful in the pursuit of normal debate in the House of Commons. There is all the more reason, if the hon. member wants to have some of these questions further elaborated and elucidated, that he should co-operate with the Chair and remove an obstacle to the debate in the House of Commons by withdrawing that unparliamentary expression. It is not conditional. The hon. member may not impose conditions to withdrawing his own unparliamentary expressions.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I will not be a party to this travesty of justice in which the Minister of Justice is abusing his position, and Judge Berger cannot reply. Madam Speaker, indeed the Minister of Justice did indicate that the Judicial Council found-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to warn the hon. member that he cannot enter into a debate with the Chair on this particular question. It is clear that he has used an unparliamentary expression. It is in Hansard. It is in the record. This is not allowed in the House. These are the rules of the House, of which the hon. member is a part. He too like all other hon. members has determined that these unparliamentary expressions should not be used in the course of debate. It is quite understandable when the debate is somewhat heated, but he knows that he cannot use that unparliamentary expression. Therefore, I have to ask him to withdraw that expression.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have no intention of making a mockery of the truth. The statement I made stands. The Minister of Justice did deliberately mislead the Canadian public on this very important matter.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member not to follow the rules of this House. Therefore, if the hon. member is not disposed-and I will ask him another time-if he is not disposed to withdraw that expression, he knows the consequences of refusing to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Therefore it is with the greatest regret that I must name the hon. member for Burnaby.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Smith:: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, it must be a minister of the Crown who moves the motion.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I understand that at this time it will be necessary to move the motion.
I move:
That the member for Burnaby be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. The motion being carried, the hon. member for Burnaby, Mr. Robinson, should withdraw from the House.
And Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) having withdrawn:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the division which has just taken place, I respectfully request that the record show that although I was here in my seat, I did not vote on the motion.


Madam Speaker:: The record will show that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to what appears to be a bit of an inconsistency which could possibly confuse some Members of Parliament.
On June 8 the question of the use of unparliamentary language was raised in the House when Your Honour called the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to order for using the word "lie" in the House. As recorded at page 18212 of Hansard the hon. member for Burnaby said:
At no time did I suggest that the Minister of Justice abused his position by lying in the House.
Your Honour then said:
As long as the hon. member has not said someone in this House has told a lie, that is fine; no unparliamentary language has been used.
It seems that there might be a double standard as to whether a member can refer to another hon. member who has
Order Paper Questions
misled or lied to the public outside the House and whether an hon. member can accuse another hon. member of actually lying in this House. It seems to me that in Your Honour's ruling of June 8 Your Honour ruled that the hon. member could use this language.


Madam Speaker:: Order. That matter was dealt with at the time according to the circumstances. I do not recall whether there was an exchange between the hon. member and the Chair about what I had heard or not heard. It is quite obvious that words are often uttered in this House which the Speaker does not hear. In that case the Speaker cannot intervene. I remember the exchange to which the hon. member refers. At that time the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) told the Chair he had not used unparliamentary language. I took his word for it. That matter was dealt with at the time. This matter should have been raised at that time. This point of order cannot be entertained several days later.
Today another situation occurred. I think the matter today was quite clear. I asked the hon. member to withdraw. He did not withdraw, and therefore the House has acted accordingly.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, this is not-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Those are rulings and I cannot accept comments on them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,345, 3,485, 3,575 and 4,289.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the purchase of Petrofina by PetroCan, what are the names, titles and job designations of all persons who were involved directly or indirectly in the negotiations between PetroCan and Petrofina for the acquisition of Petrofina?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows: W. H. Hopper, chairman and chief executive officer, Petro-Canada; J. I. Bell, executive vice-president, Petro-Canada; D. O'Brien, senior vice-president, general counsel and corporate secretary, Petro-Canada; M. F. Strong, vice-president and director, Societe Generate pour l'Energie et les Ressources (SOGENER); Leonard Hentsch, chairman, SOGENER; Adolph Demeurs de Lespaul, chairman, Petrofina S.A.; Pierre Nadeau, president, Petrofina Canada Inc.

June 16, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Waddell: 1.	Docs Petro-Canada maintain that none of its employees or agents gave prior knowledge to anyone connected with Petrofina Canada that Petro-Canada was interested in purchasing Petrofina Canada?
2.	On what date did the officers and directors of Petrofina Canada, either collectively or individually, first learn that an approach had been made to Petrofina S.A. to sell all or part of its holdings of Petrofina Canada?
3.	On what date was Petrofina S.A. first approached by Petro-Canada or by an agent acting on its behalf concerning the purchase?
4.	On what date did Sogener, acting on behalf of Petro-Canada, first approach Petrofina S.A. about the sale of Petrofina Canada?
5.	On what dates did Mr. W. Hopper of Petro-Canada contact Petrofina S.A. or its agents about the possible purchase?
6.	On what date did Petro-Canada first offer or suggest $120 a share as the purchase price?
7.	Did the Quebec weekly magazine "Finance" on October 13, 1980 report that Petro-Canada was offering the parent company $120 a share for the purchase and, if so, on what date did Mr. Hopper first become aware of this?
8.	On what date did Petrofina S.A., or any agent on behalf of the parent company, first inform Petrofina Canada that another party was interested in the purchase?
9.	On what date did Petrofina Canada authorize the purchase of additional stock options for officers of the compnay?
10.	Was a recommendation made that the offer to purchase Petrofina stock include the stock held through executive stock options and, if so, by whom and on what date?
11.	Did Mr. Pierre Nadeau, president of Petrofina Canada, exercise his stock purchase options and, if so, in each case, how many shares did he purchase and what was the stock's price?
12.	Did Mr. Nadeau on November 20 and November 28, 1980 or thereabouts contact Mr. Hopper or any other official of Petro-Canada or agent acting on behalf of Petro-Canada about the purchase?
13.	Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources satisfied that neither Petrofina S.A. nor Petro-Canada nor its agent in any way gave information about the possible purchase that would benefit officials of Petrofina Canada through insider trading in stocks?


Marc Lalonde: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
13. Information as to persons who had access to relevant information within or through Petro-Canada has been given to the appropriate federal and provincial authorities to assist in their enquiries as to whether any party to the negotiations made improper use of any information. This information includes the names of the few officers of Petro-Canada, the directors and legal advisers of the corporation involved in the transaction. Also, the names of the small number of government officials, who were informed of the discussions for purposes of their duties, have been communicated to the same authorities. These authorities have found nothing of concern in the matter and have reported such.
Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1. Mr. Pierre Nadeau, president of Petrofina Canada Inc. was in attendance at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, on October 3, 1980 between Mr. W. H. Hopper, chairman and chief executive officer of Petro-Canada and Mr. Adolph Demeurs de Lespaul, chairman of Petrofina S.A. He also took
part in two telephone conversations with Mr. Hopper in November, 1980.
2. Mr. Nadeau was an officer of Petrofina Canada Inc. and his contacts are noted in part 1. Details of when other officers and/or directors of Petrofina Canada Inc. learned of the transaction would not normally be known to Petro-Canada prior to the corporation actually formalizing a deal. However, the board of Petrofina Canada Inc. did convene to consider the offer in early February of 1981.
3 and 4. Petrofina S.A. was first approached by SOGENER in late August, 1980.
5.	Mr. Hopper called Mr. Nadeau on November 28, 1980.
6.	January 29, 1981.
7.	Any speculation as to price by the press prior to January 29, 1981 is unfounded.
8.	It would not be appropriate for Petro-Canada to comment on how Petrofina S.A. dealt with Petrofina Canada Inc. after the first approach in August, 1980.
9.	August 22, 1980.
. 10. Stock options, being a legal obligation of Petrofina Canada Inc., increased the number of shares required to be purchased. This fact was known to Petro-Canada at the time of making the deal and influenced the price.
11.	Yes, Mr. Nadeau exercised his stock purchase options. Details are available from insider trading reports which are publicly available.
12.	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that the FBI and the CIA estimate that approximately 350 of the approximately 1,000 Soviet officials posted in the United States are working as Soviet agents as well?
2.	What is the number of Soviet officials presently in Canada, including diplomats, members of the news media and representatives of the Soviet Airline Aeroflot and how many are estimated to be acting on behalf of the Soviet KGB or GRU in addition to their regular duties?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Solicitor General of Canada as follows:
1.	The Department of External Affairs is only aware of these estimates through press reports.
2.	(a) Seventy, (b) While there are 70 Soviet officials as described in part (a) of this question presently in Canada, it would not be in the public interest to reveal what number, if any at all, are acting on behalf of the KGB or GRU.
EMPLOYEES OF O/A ADAMS COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Mazankowski: Did any employees of O/A Adams Communications of Toronto work for the Department of Communications in providing switchboard attendant services in 1981 and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the number of man-hours involved (c) what were the titles and classifications of those employed (d) were they considered public servants by the department?
June 16, 1982


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
(a) Three employees of O/A Adams Communications of Toronto are former term employees of the Department of Communications, Ontario region who were engaged in supplying attendant services at the Government of Canada consolidated telephone switchboard, Toronto, Ontario in 1981; (b) The total person-days consumed by these former employees during the period January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981 were 621; (c) The title of the positions occupied by these former employees was telephone operator and the classification of the positions was CR-2; (d) During the period of employment as term employees of the Department of Communications, Ontario region they were considered to be public servants.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 101 in the name of the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) is acceptable to the government.

"A STUDY OF SURETY ARRANGEMENTS OF LICENSEES" Motion No. 101-Mr. Mayer:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of a report commissioned by the Canadian Grain Commission entitled "A Study of Surety Arrangements of Licensees" by Clay Blackwell.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David P. Smith: I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its fiscal and economic policies which have led to unacceptably high levels of unemployment, record personal and business bankruptcies and general economic instability, and its failure to address these problems in any meaningful way particularly with reference to job creation and security in communities dependent on forestry, fishing and mining.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is indeed a dark day in the House and in the country. The inappropriate behaviour of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has been uncovered.


Mr. Peterson:: Nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have been somewhat silent, but the hon. member has suggested there has been inappropriate conduct on the part of the Minister of Justice. I could not be in the House on Monday night because I had a cold.
I want these insinuations to be clarified. I received a report-I have said this many times in this House-from the judicial council.


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Do hon. members opposite not want to hear? They allege inappropriate conduct on the part of the Minister of Justice. 1 thought there was a rule in this House that a person can defend himself at times.


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After 19 years in this House I think I am entitled to clarify the situation. If the hon. member does not want that, he should withdraw his comment about inappropriate conduct in this House.


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Mr. Cousineau:: Withdraw, Riis.


Mr. Rose:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


René Cousineau: Have respect for this House and this institution. I would bet the minister's record against yours, man.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair gave the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) the opportunity to rise on this point. I shall quote from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 115, Citation 128, which reads as follows:
A personal attack, by one member upon another, is an offence against the House, in the person of one of its members-

June 16, 1982
Supply
I think it was an attack on the hon. minister when the hon. member talked about the conduct of the minister. I gave the minister an opportunity to introduce his remarks. The hon. member-


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) rises on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the-


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. Order, please. I had recognized the hon. member on a question of privilege. He sat down and now somebody else-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when-


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I did recognize the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody on a point of order and I will hear him.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice, through a question of privilege, is going to open this whole can of worms again, I think the Speaker might be guided by another citation. In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 114, Citation 321 discusses protected persons and has this to say:
All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice called the behaviour of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger reprehensible and no protection was offered by the Chair whatsoever.
All that was said today by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap was that the minister's conduct had been inappropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody on a point of order but now he is entering into debate on something that is not before the House.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Minister of Justice should not be allowed to smuggle in, by way of a question of privilege, something that is properly debatable by the government making the time of the House available for that purpose. There is a private member's motion standing on the Order Paper, motion No. 78 in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West. It would give a complete airing to the conduct of the Minister of Justice if the government would follow normal parliamentary tradition and procedure and make government time available for that debate. That is where the issue of the minister's conduct should be debated, not by a question of privilege that is smuggled in.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like to get back to my question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair wishes to consult with the Table officers for a moment.
I am sure hon. members are still questioning why the Chair allowed the hon. minister to have the floor. I might refer to the Standing Orders. Standing Order 35 reads as follows:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote-
Therefore, I recognized the Minister of Justice on a question of privilege. 1 would now invite the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap to enter the debate but not to use disrespectful language.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to the Minister of Justice in any negative way.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The response to what I intended to be a rather innocent statement is not surprising on such a dark day. The inappropriate behaviour of this government, if I can generalize in that way, Mr. Speaker, has certainly resulted in the need for this special debate today on the economic collapse the country is experiencing.
The term "economic collapse" does not come from the New Democratic Party only or from the Progressive Conservative Party only; it comes from the trust companies of Canada. Just a few days ago their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is a very conservative group of people which is not known to cause undue alarm in the country. Yet when the question was put to those trust company representatives around the table, they said that unless the policies of the government are changed dramatically within six months, the country will face total economic collapse.
That statement was given credibility just a few days ago by the chief executive officer of the firm of MacMillan-Bloedel in British Columbia. Again, this is an individual who chooses in words very carefully when they are of a negative nature and dealing with the economy. He indicated that we are heading toward certain collapse in this country as a result of the monetary and fiscal policies of the government.
Today, in the richest country in the world, many of our elderly citizens are terrified by what they see happening around them. Their life savings of the last 60 or 70 years are evaporating before their eyes. Their security is falling away from them. The youth to whom we would look for the future of the country are disillusioned and have essentially given up hope of what the future holds for them and their friends. The

June 16, 1982

people of Canada per se are in a state of shock. They cannot believe that this government is standing passive while the economy literally falls around them.
The government claims to have a solution. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) came before the House and told us to be patient for a few more days, because he will make a statement. As if that is going to change anything, Mr. Speaker. What we want in this country is some legislation that will result in action which will end this ever accelerating recessionary trend that we see around us.
A few weeks ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visited British Columbia, he slapped the people there in the face by saying that they did not understand what is going on in Canada. He is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, we do not understand what is going on in Canada. We do not understand why our dollar is below 78 American cents, the lowest it has ever been. It is lower today than during the depths of the depression we had in this country. We do not understand that. We do not understand why the government allows this to occur.
We do not understand why our already stratospheric level mortgage rates are still going up. We do not understand why we have the lowest employment opportunities in a postdepression time. We do not understand why our dollar is at its lowest level ever. We do not understand why we have such an increasing volume of idle capacity built into our industrial system. We do not understand why we have record lows in housing construction or in consumer and investor confidence. He is right, Mr. Speaker; we do not understand what is happening in Canada and why the government is content to stand passively by and allow this to occur.
This is a dark day in Canadian history. I can say with total honesty that many people in British Columbia are facing depression conditions today. They are not looking at a recession or thinking that a depression is going to occur some time in the future; a depression is occurring in parts of British Columbia at this very moment. Of course, in any depression situation the problem is jobs. That is the bottom line. When you have this number of people unemployed in one of the richest provinces in Canada, it is nothing short of a catastrophe.
Statistics Canada tells us that 148,000 British Columbians are unemployed. That is not true. That figure does not reflect the reality. They say 148,000 people are unemployed, yet 170,857 are collecting special UIC payments, and 72,000 we consider to be part of the hidden unemployed, those people who long ago gave up hope of ever finding a job and are not actively seeking work because of the hopelessness of the situation. That gives us a real level of unemployment in British Columbia of 272,857, nearly 20 per cent of the work force. That is what happened at the beginning of the depression in British Columbia. We are staring at a depression situation with 20 per cent unemployed, not an ongoing recession.
Supply
What, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of having 272,857 people out of work? It is costing us, every hour of the day, $226,644 in UIC payments. Then, of course, we must add on provincial welfare payments. We recognize that 150,000 people are now depending upon the human resources department for their income. Another 60,000 people are receiving GAIN payments from British Columbia. By the end of this year we will have paid out nearly $2 billion in UIC benefits in the province of British Columbia.
But the real cost is not measured in dollars and cents. The real cost is measured in human suffering and torment, and in the disintegrating social structure on the west coast. That is the real measure of what is going on. Given enough time, courage and real decision-making, the economic problems can be solved. But the social costs reflected in family violence, wife battering, child abuse, increasing drug and alcohol abuse, juvenile delinquency, are the costs we will pay not for one year or ten years, but for a generation or more. It will take a long time to heal those scars.
When it comes to the unemployed, Mr. Speaker, the real crisis has to be in the unemployed youth of Canada. In May of 1981, 11.6 per cent of youth seeking work in British Columbia were unable to find jobs. One year later that figure had increased to nearly 20 per cent. These are young people who want to get out and build a future for themselves, their province and their country but are unable to because of the inaction, bungling and incompetence of the federal government, complemented, of course, by the provincial government.
In the last few days I had the opportunity of delivering graduation addresses to nearly 2,000 students in my riding. The most disappointing and depressing aspect of that was the fact that most of those young people had given up hope of finding a meaningful job this summer or fall. Unemployment in British Columbia is 10.8 per cent, according to official statistics, which of course are very low. On Vancouver Island it is 11.2 per cent. In the Kamloops area it is 13.5 per cent with nearly 10,000 people on lay-off and 1,200 more to come in the next handful of days. There is a two to three-month backlog of cases to be processed in UIC office there.
The human agony and suffering going on in that community, Mr. Speaker, is something to behold. No fewer than ten people on a daily basis come into my office filled with despair and a sense of hopelessness. They are coming in and asking for food; this in one of the richest provinces of one of the richest countries in the world. These people have families to feed and not enough money to buy them food. So we have set up a food hamper system; we are asking our friends and the public generally to come into the constituency office and donate food, and we will pass it along to the different churches for distribution.
That is the situation in this country and it is getting worse by the week. These are people caught between UIC and the welfare system. They do not qualify for UIC or they have been receiving benefits for over a year and are no longer eligible. They might be fortunate enough to own a humble home but they go to the human resources department and they are told if

June 16, 1982
Supply
they have a home they cannot get welfare money; you have to lose your home first. These are people who have worked for perhaps 15 or 25 years and who through no fault of their own are in a situation in which they can only be called destitute.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Salvation Army gave out food vouchers in my community to 151 people. In the first four and a half months of this year, 427 food vouchers have been given out. The Salvation Army hostel for men is virtually filled every day. The number of meals served is up substantially over last year. The United Church of Canada is feeding ten families a week with food hampers. The women's emergency shelter is providing homes for 50 women a month, but of course after 30 days they are thrown out. These are women who have left their own homes because of abuse. After 30 days they are expected to be able to find a job and get started on their own, but that is totally impossible.
That is the kind of situation we have in our country today. It is indicative of the seriousness of the situation when Members of Parliament are forced to consider setting up food banks in their constituency offices to feed a growing number of their constituents. What kind of a statement is that about the Government of Canada? What kind of a state is it, my colleague the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) asks.
The results of this Liberal government's mismanagement and bungling can best be described by an incident involving a 70-year old woman in my constituency. This woman, with her husband, purchased a modest three-bedroom bungalow in 1949. They lived there for 32 years. During that time her husband passed away and she has been widowed now for nearly 23 years. In the last few years, as she approached retirement, she decided to focus all of her savings, all the money she earned, on improving that home. She had a new roof put on her home, new aluminum windows, doors and new aluminum siding. She had new carpets installed in her home. She had the home rewired She had copper piping and a new gas furnace installed. She also had urea formaldehyde foam insulation installed. All of her money and all of her dreams were focused in the modest home that she and her husband had lived in for 32 years.
Immediately after the installation of the foam she became violently ill. She suffered from headaches, sore throats, and she had respiratory problems. As a result, she had to move out and sleep in her garage for a few months. Kamloops gets cold in the winter time so she could not do that for very long. She went to her lawyer and tried to get some action. She could go into the home for only 15 or 20 minutes during the day and each time she would end up visiting the doctor. She had to move out of her home. She had to try to sell it. She was desperate; she did not have any income. The real estate agents tried to sell the home but they could not give it away.
Then along came a developer who said that he would like to buy the lot. He told her that he would bulldoze the house and buy the lot for $13,000. She accepted this and stood watching
while her home in which she had put every conceivable cent building up a nest for her retirement years was bulldozed right before her eyes. You can imagine her standing there with tears welling up in her eyes as she watched her dream literally swept away through no fault of her own.
By the time this lady paid off her lawyer who had worked on her behalf trying to get some action from the federal government, she had to walk away from her dream and her home with only two suitcases. Literally that is all this elderly woman had left. She came to my constituency office and asked what I could do for her. I told her that perhaps we could arrange to get her $5,000. Is that not wonderful, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Benjamin:: There is one Liberal smiling on the other side.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Some Liberals are laughing. They think this is a great joke. They think that this woman's plight, a person who is on the streets with only two suitcases as a result of Liberal promises, is a great joke. 1 tell hon. members opposite that the people of Canada think they are a joke. Anyone who can sit there and laugh about the plight of this particular woman, and many like her, is just a sick joke. The whole group is a sick joke.
We have the spectre of a depression staring us in the face. Nowhere is it more evident than in the province of British Columbia. Our number one industry, which is the forest industry, has one-quarter of its membership out of work. There are 12,837 IWA workers unemployed. In addition, the pulp and paper workers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary, on a point of order.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the hon. member that we are not laughing at this poor woman. We are laughing at the crocodile tears being shed when these people describe a situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member does not have a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for feeling compassion for my constituent. If the hon. member feels that my behaviour is a laughing matter because I feel very strongly about my constituent as a result of the policies of his government, I do not apologize.
I want to describe for a moment or two the economic situation in British Columbia. One-quarter of the IWA workers are out of work. They are soon to be joined both in the next two or three weeks by about 10 per cent of the pulp and paper workers. The mining industry, which is the number two industry in British Columbia, by this summer will have 50 per cent of its total work force affected by lay-offs and shutdowns resulting in 9,000 workers being unemployed. During the month of May business bankruptcies in British Columbia were
June 16, 1982

up 140 per cent. Business receiverships were not up 140 per cent in the first five months of this year, they were up 530 per cent over the corresponding five months of last year.
Then we have the business barometer which shows that what is going on in British Columbia is the same as what is going on across the country. I am referring, of course, to the stock market. We have seen what has happened to BCRIC, the magnificent dream of the Premier of British Columbia. BCRIC had a book value of $11.16 which the Premier devalued by decree to $6. BCRIC is now trading on the Vancouver exchange at $2.95. The Premier wanted to introduce the people of British Columbia to the free enterprise system and to the benefits of the stock market. He wanted to show how the capital system worked. He did it very well.
The cruellest blow of all by the federal government, and now with the co-operation of the provincial government of British Columbia, was the cut in health care. There are 1,200 fewer hospital beds today than there were a few months ago. There are 2,100 fewer hospital workers than there were a few months ago. The situation can only be described as sick when the sick and ailing of the country are no longer able to be cared for as we have grown to accept as the rule in this country. The problem is the Government of Canada and the provincial government. It is rather ironic that we wait day by day with bated breath for answers from the same group who got us into this disastrous situation in the just place.
Look what the Government of Canada has done to cooperative housing opportunities in this country. In British Columbia alone meetings were called to see if people were interested in co-operative housing. The demand was there. The halls were packed. Virtually every single meeting call was a surprise; there was an overwhelming response to the concept of co-operative housing from these communities. The government then came in with a program which for 1982 provided enough money to build 898 units. On the books are already 2,223 units that could be under construction by tomorrow morning. Many, many more could be constructed if the opportunity were there.
Next is mortgage assistance. A lot of folks in British Columbia are having trouble renewing their mortgages. Across the country 640,000 people will have difficulty renewing their mortgages. The government has a plan. The minister responsible for housing stands up and says that he has a plan that is going to assist not 640,000 people but 12,000 people, maybe. Here we have the infamous program to assist those people who are having mortgage renewal difficulties with a clause that says: "Okay, you can have assistance if you have only 5 per cent equity in your home." Not many Canadians have only 5 per cent equity in their homes. In order to get a mortgage, you have to have more equity than that in the first place. It is a rather Catch-22 solution.
Then, of course, there is the small business bond. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) sponsors his infamous small business bond which at this time no banks are supporting. No matter where you go in the country there is virtually no bank that is prepared to
Supply
guarantee that particular program to their customers. For all intents and purposes, the small business bond has disappeared.
What are the solutions? The problems are obvious. The government's solutions have failed. What do we in the New Democratic Party say we are prepared to do when we are the government of this country?
As our first priority we would see full employment in this country and full employment in the province of British Columbia. Then we would identify some short-term and longterm solutions. For the short term, because no economic recovery will begin until the interest rates are lowered, we would lower interest rates right now to one percentage point above the rate of inflation as a starting point in order to provide a signal to consumers and investors in this country that we mean business. We would put $500 million into housing immediately to stimulate that industry and put it back to work, put the manufacturing industry which services the housing industry back to work, and put a good number of forest workers back to work as well by creating a demand for lumber products in this country.
Where would we get $500 million? The government set aside $5.8 billion to help Alsands. We would only ask for 10 per cent of that to be put into housing. If the government can put up that amount of money to help the oil companies, certainly it could use 10 per cent of it to start building 50,000 units in the country immediately.
We would provide in the short term a tax cut to low and middle-income Canadians of $2.2 billion to generate some cash velocity in the system. Unemployed people do not purchase refrigerators and new cars. We must put cash in the hands of low and middle-income Canadians. As a result of the government's policy, we are seeing a decay of the middle classes of the country. A small group of people are doing extremely well today as a result of this monetarist fiscal policy. More and more Canadians are finding themselves squeezed into the category of the have-nots. For five consecutive years we have seen the purchasing power of working Canadians deteriorate. The money from their paycheques buys less and less every year, but the Minister of Finance still has the gall to stand up and say that the cause of inflation in the country is working Canadians.
On July 1 Canadians will be asked to pay more for oil and natural gas. On July 1 the price of oil will be going up $2.25 per barrel, or 7 cents per gallon for those driving vehicles. On August 1 gas will be going up 25 cents per thousand cubic feet. We would cut that immediately. We would not introduce those increases and as a result save Canadian taxpayers this summer $1.8 billion which they could use to purchase goods and commodities.
We would immediately begin a reforestation program, recognizing that the forest industry is the cornerstone of the British Columbia economy. We would begin the process of forest farming as opposed to forest mining and start working toward a perpetual, sustained yield program which makes

June 16, 1982
Supply
sense. This is something which must be done. It would put a good number of unemployed forest workers back to work.
These are the short-term solutions. What about the longterm ones? First we must recognize that the economic structures of the country are inappropriate and that we have ourselves in a real box or corner. It is time to stand up and say to the multinationals that we want some new production agreements negotiated and, if they want access to our domestic markets, that they must create some jobs in the country. The Japanese auto industry could be used as a case in point. We would say to the Japanese auto industry that if it wants to sell
200,000	cars in Canada in 1983, it must source the components and parts of those vehicles from Canadian manufacturers and that the vehicles must be assembled in this country. Of course, there is no more obvious place to assemble cars from Japan in this country than in British Columbia.
Mining plays an important role in British Columbia and in the economy of Canada, yet we continue to import most of the equipment used in mining and in the heavy construction industry. In a resource-oriented economy it is critical, yet we continue to welcome foreign mining equipment from Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, instead of developing and stimulating our own manufacturing industry. Again, there is no place better than British Columbia to start focusing on manufacturing, mining and construction equipment.
One could talk about the need for research and development to open up some new technologies so that we could start competing in a real way in the international marketplace. We should be encouraging Canadian industry in some of the critical sectors where we have a strategic advantage, such as the telecommunications and transportation industries. The important point is that we cannot wait. When we hear people like the chief executive officer of MacMillan Bloedel and some of the chief executive officers of the major banks and trust companies in Canada saying that we are staring an economic collapse in the face, we cannot await economic statements from the Minister of Finance. We are approaching a real depression in the country. Many people in British Columbia are now living in a depression state. Those who got us into this are the Liberals and the Tories. Canadians would welcome a proposal now that, if we are to get out of this economic and financial mess, we ought not to look to those who put us into the situation but look for a New Democratic Party solution.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a bit difficult to know where to begin when faced and confronted with the pot-pourri of rubbish we have just heard from the financial critic of the New Democratic Party. If I were to characterize his speech, I guess I would have to draw upon the term which he used. He said that he does not understand. He certainly proved that to us in spades during the course of his remarks.
In the course of the remarks which I am about to make, perhaps I could help him understand some of the areas that give him particular difficulty. Let me begin with an example. He started by citing the case of a woman who lives in his
riding whose life savings are evaporating. They are evaporating because of inflation, which apparently the New Democratic Party does not understand. All the policies of this government, policies which have been consistently stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and other spokesmen, policies, incidentally, which have been identified clearly by all members of the OECD group including the Mitterrand government as recently as this week, and all economic priorities in these countries have addressed the issue of inflation. This is something which our friends in the New Democratic Party have yet to understand. They do not understand that inflation is the evil which must be attacked with every fiscal, monetary and economic gun which the government has at its disposal. This is what the government has been doing and it is what the government intends to continue to do.
The hon. member does not understand why we suffer from such high unemployment, yet at the same time spokesmen for his party encourage and even exhort unionized labour in the country to seek higher and higher wage demands. Again, the New Democratic Party does not understand the relationship between wage increases and inflation. It has yet to understand the wage-price spiral. I will come back to that point in a minute.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) spent a few moments describing the unfortunate circumstances of a woman in his riding and others. I am sure hon. members on both sides of the House are very sensitive to the difficult problems which are besetting Canadians today. I get tired of the New Democratic Party pretending that it has some kind of monopoly on compassion. We all have compassion; we are all trying to help those people. The policies of the government are intended to help those people, but not in the short term through spending programs and the traditional nonsense which emerges from the New Democratic Party. The policies are intended to put Canada on the road to long-term economic growth so that all Canadians will enjoy the benefits of growth. Our compassion will not only be rhetoric in the House of Commons and statements to the media; our compassion will be translated into hard, firm, sound benefits for all Canadians. That is what these policies are intended to do.
When that woman next walks into the office of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap and asks, "What can you do?", she should be told that there is something he can do and that is to stop preaching increased wages to workers across this country and to begin to preach to his constituents, and to the CLC in particular, for whom he acts as a proxy in this House, that wage restraint must be the beginning of sound economic growth in this country. That is something he can do. I sympathize somewhat with the hon. member and, in fact, with all hon. members of that party, because they must march to the tune played by Dennis McDermott of the Canadian Labour Congress. It is most unfortunate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is that the best you have to say today?
June 16, 1982


Donald James Johnston: We all know the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Bank of Canada pays you guys.


Donald James Johnston: The person with the lyricist's pen, in this case, happens to be Dennis McDermott of the CLC. I can assure Your Honour that hon. members on this side of the House would very much like to hear some time, some day, in this place, the very own ideas of members of the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party benches are crowded with young, bright Canadians and it is a tragedy that we must sit here and listen to them spout the rhetoric which comes out of the CLC instead of some of their own thoughts. Indeed, it is disturbing to listen to the same tired, old bromides, the same old ideas-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Imagine how we feel.


Donald James Johnston: -the same lack of understanding that we have heard today. The NDP-

-is always looking for scapegoats. We must-


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake rises on a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there should be some relevancy in the speech of the hon. member, and I would ask Your Honour to call on that. But Your Honour should actually overlook it, because there will be very few opportunities left for any Liberal to stand up in this House again and speak from a government perspective. Therefore, I ask Your Honour to overlook the irrelevancy in the Liberal benches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The House fails to recognize the point of order.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I thought that the liaison between the New Democratic Party and the CLC was well known. If I am exposing something which is a matter of confidence which will come as a surprise or a shock to constituents, that is another matter.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member says he does not understand. What he clearly does not understand is that Canada's problems are not unique.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right: blame someone else.


Donald James Johnston: We all know that U.S. recovery is needed. Now the hon. member is calling out and saying that we always put the blame on someone else. He speaks with great concern for the forestry industry in the province of British Columbia. Surely an hon. member from British Columbia realizes that the strength and future of the forestry industry in the province
Supply
of British Columbia depends to a very large extent on the health of the U.S. economy and housing starts in the United States.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How about some new markets?


Donald James Johnston: Any high school student of economics in the east knows that, so I am sure that the hon. member must know it too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: New markets are needed.


Donald James Johnston: He knows the impact of U.S. interest rates. Surely I do not have to go back over all that ground and explain what the consequences would be to the ecnomic circumstances of this country if interest rates were to be arbitrarily lowered to one point above the going inflation, as the hon. member suggests. It is ludicrous that at this point the hon. member, after having been lectured constantly on the subject, after having the opportunity to speak to the Governor of the Bank of Canada on this subject, having been made fully aware of the subject from every reputable economic source in this country, would stand up and make that proposition again today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He convinced me that I am right.


Donald James Johnston: All countries are in a slump, we all know that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Japan's interest rate is 6.5 per cent today.


Donald James Johnston: He says that Japan's interest rate is 6.5 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Japan's inflation rate is 3.5 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: I would also invite the hon. member to point to Japan's rate of inflation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The real rate of interest is 3.5 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: That is exactly the point that is pivotal to this debate, namely, the effect of our rate of inflation and the expectations in this country with respect to the rate of inflation. That is what affects the interest rate, and that rate of inflation, I suggest to Your Honour, is a direct consequence of the wage-price spiral, which the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap does not understand either.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He accurately described it.


Donald James Johnston: Let me spend a moment on it so that when he next goes out to his constituents and when he next has the opportunity of exchanging views with Mr. McDermott, he can explain to him the serious dangers which will confront this country unless we are able to get our wage structure under control. We have done a very poor job in this country in limiting increases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: You have.
18534

June 16, 1982
Supply


Donald James Johnston: All we have to do is look at the U.S. performance in autos and in steel. All we have to measure that against is the reaction of the UAW in this country, encouraged and egged on by our friends in the NDP who categorically refuse to recognize the linkage between wages and prices in a period of falling productivity. Again, the financial critic for the New Democratic Party surely knows that in the absence of productivity, wage increases are translated almost immediately and almost completely into increased prices. We are not alone in this situation. All countries have recognized that fact.
I would like to refer the hon. member for Kamloops-Shus-wap to an article appearing in yesterday's Globe and Mail by one of the most respected economic writers in this country, I would say, Ronald Anderson, who draws heavily upon the statement of the Bank of International Settlements. I would like to quote several passages from the article. It states:
Statistical tables indicate that Canada is making the wage adjustment less successfully than any other country among the 11 major industrial nations examined in the report.
It goes on to state:
The BIS report comments that Japan, West Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have a good record in terms of adapting wage behaviour to the broader needs of the economy. Moderation in bargaining attitudes, by both labour and management, has allowed real incomes to adjust smoothly to changing conditions. Concern over job security-
The hon. member is now leaving the House. He said that he does not understand and we are offering him the opportunity to understand some of the problems which we face and some of the solutions we are proposing. I see that he has left his seat. In any event, I will continue and send him a copy of Hansard tomorrow. The article continues:
Moderation in bargaining attitudes, by both labour and management, has allowed real incomes to adjust smoothly to changing conditions. Concern over job security has been a factor in persuading unions in West Germany, for example, to accept wage increases lower than the rate of inflation.
This is fundamental, as I said before, to the problems confronting us in this country. Japan and Germany have kept wage increases down and have done well. 1 say that in answer to the question raised by the hon. member just a few moments ago. But militant unionism in this country is not helping us at the present time. I plead with the hon. member to go forth and preach restraint to the union movement just as we practise restraint in government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: 1 hear some cackling from my friends in the Conservative Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Watch Dome Petroleum.


Donald James Johnston: Your Honour will notice that I have gone rather easy on our friends from the Conservative Party because I have one thing to say for our friends in the New Democratic Party: at least they come forward with proposals. Those proposals are totally unacceptable and will simply exacerbate the very difficult economic conditions in which we find ourselves, but at least they have the courage to come forward and suggest that we should spend, spend, spend. The Conservative Party proposals, on the other hand, whatever
they may be, have remained a deep, dark secret and 1 suspect they will always remain so.


Donald W. Munro: Withdraw the budget.


Donald James Johnston: In any event, I will ignore the cackling from that side of the House and deal lastly with one idea that I must repeat because it is such an important lesson for the hon. member to learn, since he does not understand it.
There are some who believe that if the wage increases are less than the CPI or do not exceed the CPI, they in some way do not have an inflationary impact. As I pointed out a moment ago, any wage increase in the absence of productivity gain is immediately translated into increased prices.
There is also another aspect to this matter. The hon. member clearly has compassion for the unemployed. We all have great compassion for the unemployed. It is a serious problem with which every thinking Canadian must be concerned. Those of us who have jobs, whether as Members of Parliament or members of the press gallery, are in a privileged position. Each time we put demands on the system, whether in the public or the private sector, through seeking increased wages, we are effectively taking that out of the hides of the unemployed. That capital could be used for job creation, capital investment, plant expansion and the kinds of programs the hon. member is putting forward. It cannot go into wage increases on the one hand and at the same time provide employment. When the hon. member asks what he can do, I tell him to preach to the CLC and the labour movement that if they restrain their wage demands, they will bring more of the work force back into the workplace, which is what we want.
The hon. member touched in the traditional way on the problem of high interest rates. 1 do not intend to go over that except to say that for 30 years in this country savers have seen their savings erode. We have seen low interest and a steadily depreciating value of those assets and debt obligations due to inflation. That is why inflation is and remains our number one problem.
What we are witnessing today is a revolt of savers. This is particularly true in the United States where the spread between the rate of interest and inflation is so large. Why is it so large? It is not only because of the tight money policy, but because savers have been burned year over year. The constituent who came into the hon. member's office and said, "I see my life savings being eroded by inflation" was absolutely right. That is one of the problems, and is why we have to focus on inflation.
Is the kind of spending recommended by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap compatible with an anti-inflationary stance? Is it conceivable that further expansion emphasis, further government intervention and further government programs of the kinds he is describing are compatible with tackling inflation, which all responsible economists and all
June 16, 1982

member countries of the OECD have recognized as the major problem? I suggest it is not.
Until recently, I will confess that our friends in the NDP were able to prop themselves up on the policies of the only country of the major industrialized group which had opted for a spending approach, namely the socialist regime in France. We all know what that has come to-a 14 per cent rate of inflation and the realization as of several days ago that the only way to get back to a healthy economy in France is to tackle inflation, and that is going to demand an austerity program.
I would like to quote some comments from the June 14 Wall Street Journal which touch upon the kind of austerity program that the socialist regime in France has seen fit to introduce because of the continuing problem of inflation. First, the Prime Minister said there will be a four-month freeze on prices and wages in an effort to curb the 14 per cent inflation. Also, there has been a devaluation of the French franc, a devaluation in France and an upward evaluation in Germany, so that against the mark there has been a 10 per cent change.
The huge French deficit has to be attacked. How is that to be done? By austerity measures. The French foreign reserves have plunged dramatically in recent weeks in an attempt to defend the franc. We find elements in it such as the minimum wage will be allowed to rise by 3.2 per cent. This is against an inflation rate running currently at 14 per cent.
It is quoted here that in keeping with its socialist priorities, the government said that family allowances, housing allotments and pensions would be allowed to increase by 6 per cent, 8 points below the current rate of inflation of France. Prime Minister Mauroy said the government's immediate objective was to bring inflation below 10 per cent, and next year the government intends to hold inflation to 8.5 per cent.
1 wish that our friends in the New Democratic Party would begin to understand what their cousins in France have Finally understood, namely that inflation is the number one problem and that expansionist policies, rising government deficits and increased intervention by the public sector is not compatible with an anti-inflationary stance. You cannot marry the two; France has learned that. The spending solution is not the way out of the economic difficulties which face us at this time.
I suppose we all belong to a political generation which has grown up, understandably, in very prosperous times. Looking back to the early seventies, we had something like 25 years of continual prosperity and growth in productivity after World War II. This is why many people in our generation, and I take the privilege of including the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap in my generation although I may be somewhat older, have grown up to believe that spending can solve any problem. We know now that it cannot.
There was an old slogan with which I would suspect many members of this House are familiar: spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect. Every proposal and program put forward by our friends in the NDP should be engraved with a modification of that slogan: spend, spend, spend; inflate, inflate, inflate. I further suggest-and God spare us the day which the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap dreams of when his party
Supply
forms the government of this country-that would be a fitting epitaph on our national economic tombstone. In any event, we know that France tried it and failed. We know it has been rejected by all other members of the OECD as not being the way out of the dilemma which faces this country-
[ Translation]
-I believe there is an expression in French that is the equivalent of "two-edged sword", which is to say that there may be positive effects for a time which are then followed by extremely negative ones. There is always the matter of reciprocity. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that our country, Canada, is so dependent on international trade that the protectionism so often urged on the government by our colleagues opposite, even, it seems to me, by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), is an approach that in the present circumstances could have extremely negative results.

We have some real problems, frankly, and perhaps unconsciously because of a lack of understanding of the Canadian economy and the way capital markets work, the way investors think and the reason why free enterprisers are motivated. I think there is a serious lack of understanding. The result is, I suggest, that instead of helping the situation, the recommendations of our colleagues who believe in the socialist option are in fact reinforcing policies which, in the minds of their constituents and in the minds of Canadians, are extremely negative for this country and are not going to solve the problems of the constituents, who are indeed in very serious difficulties and for whom I believe the hon. member has great compassion.
The idea of stimulating a thought that we should have perpetual expectations of rising incomes is one of the cornerstones, it seems to me, of what I hear in terms of New Democratic Party policy. They would seem to suggest that we should have an inflation-conditioned society. What we must do is go in exactly the opposite way. We must make people realize that we cannot live with inflation. This country's prosperity, its future, its potential and its riches that we are so dependent upon cannot be accomplished through inflationary policies of the kind that party recommends. Surely the hon. member does not want to put us on the road to Argentina or to Brazil in terms of inflation. That is where we would be going, Mr. Speaker, with the kinds of policies that that party recommends.
I suppose that it is partly a result of the "me too" generation-help ourselves first; do not think of the greater collectivity, but help ourselves first at the expense of society. We really do, during this terribly difficult period, have to develop a sense of collective responsibility and stop pointing fingers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: You can point the finger at governments, you can point fingers at unions and at business, but that solves

June 16, 1982
Supply
nothing. To help this country, we have to get together and look together in the same direction.
To correct any impression I may have left with the hon. member that the problem rests with the unions, let me say now that the problem does not rest with the unions. The problem rests with the wage demands which all sectors are making. The sacrifice and the belt-tightening that is required to make us productive, to make us efficient as a collective group, must begin at all levels. It must involve executives, parliamentarians, public servants, unionized labour and non-unionized labour. It has to involve all of us.
It disturbs me very much, Mr. Speaker, when I hear spokesmen for the New Democratic Party preaching the gospel of the CLC to workers, encouraging them to put greater wage demands on the system, and arguing through the most convoluted logic one could ever imagine that these wage demands are not inflationary. It is distressing to me and to my colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have this assembled group of bright young men in the New Democratic Party across the way. 1 even include the member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), who I see has left his seat.


An hon. Member:: He is at least bright.


Donald James Johnston: We should hear some constructive, thoughtful ideas, rather than the old, tired bromide of spend, spend, spend. It is very easy for those who are not responsible for government, for the raising of money, to recommend its expenditure.
I would like to add one footnote to my comments, Mr. Speaker. It concerns something I read in the Montreal Gazette. It is an important message that I am asking him to deliver to the labour movement. Yesterday, June 15, it was reported in the Montreal Gazette that:
The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, representing more than 6,000 residential construction firms, has called on Ottawa to allocate $600 million to revive the home building industry.
It has called on Ottawa, on the Canadian government, and that means calling upon the taxpayers, to allocate $600 million to revive the home building industry. Yet, Mr. Speaker, with the housing market desperate for help, as the hon. member himself underlined, my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is responsible for the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, is of course very much concerned on a daily basis.


An hon. Member:: You would never know it.


Donald James Johnston: He is concerned, inside this House and outside this House, as we all are, with this very important sector of the economy. It is not only concern for those people who require housing but concern about the impact that sector has across our whole industrial sector. As I say, with the housing market desperate for help, what do we see? We see
Ontario construction wage settlements increasing at the rate of $2 per hour in each of the next two years, which is something in the neighborhood of 15 per cent.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to indicate to the Chair that I would have liked to participate in this debate, had the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -had the opposition not provoked another discussion and deprived this House of an hour and a half which we could have used for a very interesting debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is commendable that Her Majesty's opposition has been granted five minutes to engage in this debate. I suppose we might thank the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for that pleasure, he having delayed the House for an hour and a half earlier this afternoon.
I listened very carefully to the speeches made by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). I might be moved to say a pox on both their houses, but I would not want to provoke an argument at this late hour. Leave it to be said, Mr. Speaker, that it was interesting that the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for the largest labour union in Canada, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, has not shown the kind of resolve, in terms of confronting the wage expectations of Canadian workers, that he advocated in this House this afternoon.
If we look back to the resolution of the postal strike last summer, where that minister approved a substantial increase, and together with the cabinet approved a 22 per cent increase in the budget of the Government of Canada, as put forward in the November budget, it is just appalling that he should exercise such hypocrisy in this House.
Although the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap spoke with such doom and gloom, with all of the statistics that underscore the tremendously devastating situation that confronts our economy, it was remarkable to note that his closing five minutes dealt with solutions.
Let me list some of those solutions, Mr. Speaker. There was a $500 million mortgage subsidy program, which would bring rates down to 1 per cent above prime. Yet, Mr. Speaker, he is a member of the same party that voted against the mortgage tax credit program in December of 1979. That program would have brought a $2 billion benefit to Canadian home owners this year by way of a 25 per cent subsidy on mortgage interest. That would have gone a long way to resolving that problem. He was part of an opposition which moved that motion and defeated a government which had positive solutions for Canada.
June 16, 1982

He also talked about $5 billion being set aside for Alsands. He knows that that was a bail-out, last gasp attempt by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to salvage that project. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Alsands project would have gone ahead. There would have been 30,000 more jobs in Canada today and a lot greater confidence in the future of our economy. We would be much closer to achieving energy self-sufficiency if he had not voted against the government at that time.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Thomas Edward Siddon: If he wants $2 billion in tax cuts now, he should remember the more than $2 billion in tax credits and incentives, including an energy tax credit for low-income Canadians that he and his party voted against in December of 1979. So, Mr. Speaker, I say a pox on both their houses.
Supply


Jean-Jacques Blais: You never introduced the legislation. We did not vote against it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: They have not addressed the fundamental problems of our economy. We are converting investment and confidence in this country into debt and despair. We have seen over $18 billion of tax revenue leave Canada for the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned till tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 17, 1982