1982-05-07

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which would cure an omission last night. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I move:
That this House extends its most grateful thanks to all members of the House of Commons staff, officers at the Table, particularly the Hansard reporters, protective staff and all other staff who performed so unselfishly and willingly during the extended hours of the emergency debate which has been concluded.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure they all feel that is their duty, but I am sure the House will want to show its appreciation by its applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed in April was 1,135,000. Unadjusted, the number would be well over 1.25 million, an increase of 0.6 per cent from March. The new rate is 9.6 per cent, the highest since the depression. Employment in manufacturing reached its lowest level since 1978. There has been a decrease of 23,000. There were 17,000 fewer jobs in transportation, communications and utilities. The number of jobs in primary industries other than agriculture is down 16,000. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance take constructive and drastic measures to get Canadians back to work and to reverse the staggering upward trend in unemployment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR STAFF WHO WORKED DURING EXTENDED EMERGENCY DEBATE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, 1 also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the House of Commons remained in session through the night of May 4, 1982, requiring many of the employees of the House to stay well beyond normal hours of work, whereas the House was in session until 2 a.m. today, May 7, and whereas on December 19, 1980, the House unanimously passed a motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to pay extra financial compensation to the House of Commons staff who remained on duty through the night of December 18, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this House directs the House of Commons administration to pay extra compensation to all those employees of Parliament who worked through the night of May 4 and who worked extra hours yesterday and that the members express their appreciation to the staff of the House for their dedication.


Madam Speaker:: I must tell hon. members that the pay structure of the House of Commons provides for that, but perhaps the House wants to vote that motion. Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, while the performance of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) is still not quite as impressive as that of her boss, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who in one week destroyed $60 billion worth of new investment and 100,000 jobs, she has, however, run up quite a record with lay-offs in the mineral industry being at an all-time high and with three quarters of all mining companies losing money. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the Minister of State for Mines emulate even more the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if she ever wants to win the Liberal-NDP prize for industrial destruction.


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

May 7, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, this week is National Forest Week. In recognition of the 60 years that Simcoe County has been diligently involved in good forestry management, the Canadian Forestry Association has designated the County of Simcoe as the forestry capital of Canada for 1982. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the House recognize the importance of ongoing forestry management and the excellent example set by the people and officials of Simcoe County in the area of good forestry planning and practice.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMOKING IN COMMITTEE ROOMS ON PARLIAMENT HILL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the recent report of the Surgeon General of the United States indicating that cigarette smoking is clearly identified as the chief preventable cause of death in our society, that non-smokers may suffer ill effects from smoke, and that non-smokers should "avoid being in smoke-filled rooms", I move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That steps be taken by appropriate authorities to provide a clean air environment in the small committee rooms of Parliament Hill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, this morning the Governor General departed for a State visit to Roumania with a delegation including Canadian journalists. One journalist, Mr. Tom Kennedy of the Calgary Sun, was originally scheduled to be part of that delegation, but was denied a visa by the Romanian authorities. Indeed, the Roumanian embassy has not returned his passport, thus preventing him from joining the Governor General in West Germany. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs protest to the Roumanian ambassador against this discriminatory treatment of a Canadian citizen and demand that they return Mr. Kennedy's passport forthwith, and further, that this House expresses its displeasure at the fact that the Roumanian government has, in essence, decided which journalists are fit to report on the Governor General's State visit to Roumania.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, since the Republic of Argentina still has not signed international nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and whereas it was revealed that the International Atomic Energy Agency warned the Canadian government as long ago as the mid-seventies that there exists no way to guarantee that countries like Argentina will live up to our bilateral nuclear safeguards, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That Canada immediately suspend any shipments of Canadian uranium to Argentina and cease work on the nearly completed Candu reactor in that country until such time as acceptable monitoring devices are developed to ensure that a Canadian reactor is not used to make an Argentinian nuclear bomb.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 7, 1982


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House notes with anger that Australia has beaten Canada as the first commonwealth country to have a freedom of information bill put through Parliament and that now the separatist government of Quebec appears more committed to openness in government than the federalists in Ottawa, and that this House urges the government to expedite consideration and completion of Bill C-43.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the federal government has not even begun to meet its obligations to the Indians of Newfoundland by registering them and making programs available to them. Instead, it gives a grant to the province of Newfoundland which is meant to be used for the benefit of native people. Due to a stand-off between the two governments over administration costs and a refusal by the Newfoundland government to permit Indian participation in discussions about the fund, the Newfoundland government is withholding all funds from the Conne River Indian band. As a result, all band staff are being laid off as of today. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
[DOT] (ins)
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development honour his obligations and correct this deplorable situation by, first, finding ways to make money directly available to the Conne River Indians as he has promised and, second, immediately registering the Indian people of Newfoundland, as four different Ministers of Indian Affairs have promised.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister must have been shocked this morning by the stunning increase in the unemployment levels. They have increased a full 40 per cent since April last year. That demonstrates in very real human terms the need for changed policies on the part of the government. People losing their jobs today are being excommunicated from our economic system because very few other people are hiring.
Because so many of the causes for unemployment can be attributed directly to government policies, and since one of the government policies is the minister's budget, would the minister tell this House why he persists in refusing to withdraw that budget when that budget increased taxes and destroyed job-creating investment incentives? It is obvious that government policies are contributing to the very high level of unemployment today.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first, the hon. member has suggested that we are shocked at the unemployment figures. I must say that I am greatly disturbed at the new statistics that have been released today. I believe the statistics indicate how deep the recession has become. Last August, if the hon. member recalls, Canada had the lowest unemployment it had experienced in five years. Since August, because of the recession, we have had increasing unemployment.
The hon. member then goes on to say that the reason for all of this is the November budget and that the solution is the withdrawal of the budget.


Mr. Stevens:: That would help.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is, of course, an utterly simplistic approach to the nature of the economic problem that we are facing, not only in Canada but throughout the world, because as unemployment rates in Canada are accelerating they are, at the same time, accelerating in every developed country in the world.


Mr. Kempling:: That is not true.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With the exception of Japan.


Harvie Andre: Germany and the United Kingdom.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This indicates a very deep-seated recession that is gripping not only Canada but every developed country. Therefore, if I thought that withdrawing the budget-and that is the suggestion of the hon. member-would solve the unemployment problem in Canada, West Germany, the United Kingdom and France, I would be the first person to do it, but I

May 7, 1982
Oral Questions
believe the hon. member has a very simplistic approach to the economic problems of the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am going to show to the minister, Madam Speaker, that there are three policy areas that can be changed. I am not saying that one is the sole cause of it, that is the minister's simplistic way of evading the answer. But he knows two studies were released just in the past week which show that the Canadian economy is still going straight down, whereas other economies in the world have turned. That is the fundamental difference between Canada and other countries.
I did have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope he will soon be in the House so that I can ask it.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I will address my second supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He knows that many lives are being disrupted by the high level of unemployment today. One of the reasons-again, one of the reasons-is the record outflow of capital from this country. Part of that record outflow of capital is caused by his administration of the Foreign Investment Review Agency which is creating an obstruction to foreign capital coming into Canada. Why is the minister trying to continue to make the Foreign Investment Review Agency an obstruction to investment when that investment can create jobs which are badly needed in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely wrong. The agency does not create obstruction to investment which brings jobs to Canada. Its purpose is to achieve a good deal for the investor and the Canadian economy. I am surprised the hon. member is objecting to this when that type of activity is what we need to create jobs. He opposes that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The continued bluster of the minister does not fool anyone in the country. People know that capital is not coming into Canada and that capital would create jobs here.


PROVISION OF DRILLING INCENTIVES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the third area of government policy I wish to deal with is energy. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources' energy
policy has resulted in rigs leaving the country, a sharp drop in investment activity by the oil industry, the cancellation of the Alsands project, Judy Creek and the Cold Lake project, and a reduction, in a broad way, in an industry which had been extremely healthy prior to his coming into office. Would the minister make some concessions in his policy to encourage drilling activity in the conventional areas of western Canada, and will he be changing the 25 per cent back-in to avoid Hibernia and other frontier projects experiencing the same fate which has just happened to Alsands?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have indicated before that the government is carefully monitoring the state of the oil and gas industry. We have taken note of the substantial reduction in royalties which the government of Alberta granted last month under the agreement of last September, and that the government was analysing the situation to determine whether any further steps were required.
We have made changes since last fall. Indeed, we have indicated a great deal of flexibility. Obviously, we have made some changes in the past and we will make some in the future to take into account the reality.
I want to draw to the attention of the hon. member, however, that drilling activity in 1982 in Alberta, in other western provinces and in the Canada lands will be up significantly compared to last year. Even last year, drilling for oil in Alberta was higher than it was in 1980, which was a record year. Therefore I draw to the attention of the hon. member that what we need is more oil, and activity does take place in that regard. Announcements have already been made of exploration worth several hundreds of millions of dollars in the Canada lands. I expect more will be announced very shortly, indeed.


Mr. Epp:: Do you really believe that?


COMMUNICATIONS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. One of the reasons why we have unemployment in Canada is that the government cannot get its act together between the various departments. While the minister is trying to promote cultural industries, the Minister of Finance is removing incentives in his budget. While the minister and the CRTC are trying to promote pay television in Canada, Telesat, which is an agency half owned by the government, is actively selling satellite capacity to the Americans. We now have a situation under Telesat current planning where Canadian Pay-TV users would be forced to wait six to eight months for a second satellite in order to supply American contracts. What assurance does the minister propose to make to ensure that Canadian Pay-TV
May 7, 1982

users will have priority on the Canadian satellite system over the Americans?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I think I am on record as indicating my very strong support for having the Canadian Pay-TV system as soon as possible. As far as the Telesat question is concerned if there is indeed excess capacity it is in the best interests of Telesat and Canada that this excess capacity be sold to enable Telesat to earn revenues from that excess capacity.
Before a final decision is made as to who will have access to those satellite channels, there is a two-step process. First, there must be an indication by the CRTC that it is indeed satisfied that there are sufficient satellite channels available for Canadian purposes; second, that matter must be ratified by the cabinet which, of course, is most interested in seeing that a sufficient number of satellite channels are available for Canadian purposes.


USE OF ANIK C-3 SATELLITE
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Communication, who did not give the assurance I sought that Canadian Pay-TV users would have priority access to the satellite system. I would like to refer him to the letter sent by Telesat to some of the Canadian Pay-TV licensees in which Telesat refers to firm, committed contracts to sell Anik-C services to American users.
As I mentioned to the minister in committee, I am particularly concerned about the fact that Anik C-3, which will be launched on the first commercial operation of the shuttle next November, was originally designed and tilted to bring service to northern Canada and parts of mid-Canada, but Telesat is currently planning to tilt the satellite south so that it will service American users, not Canadian users. Since the minister's own senior deputy, his assistant deputy minister, is a member and director of Telesat, how could he allow this state of affairs, and why does he not correct it?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think that what is of prime interest to us is ensuring that Canadians have access to a wide range of TV programming no matter where they live in the country. I think the hon. member would agree with me that the CanCom satellite signals which have been made available to every part of the country, now bringing four additional television signals and very soon six to seven new radio signals, have meant a great deal of progress.
On the subject of my not answering the first part of the hon. member's question relating to Pay-TV entrepreneurs, who are not presently guaranteed access, I should like to say that Telesat would like to have formal guarantees from those Pay-TV companies that they will indeed pick up these signals. However, as I indicated, there is a two-step process to ensure
Oral Questions
that primary and preferential use is given to Canadian companies. The first step is via the CRTC, which has a mandate to examine the over-all requirements of Canadians, and the second step is a final decision by cabinet. So, these contracts between Telesat and U.S. entrepreneurs will not become definitive until this two-part process has been completed.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelsen A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This morning he will know that, by official figures, we have one and a quarter million unemployed people. At this time of year, springtime, when more jobs should be available than at other times of the year, when it should be a time of growth, it is a time of decay. Over the last month 75,000 jobs have been lost. When will the minister stop being a cheer leader of Reaganomics, have the courage to ask for Mr. Bouey's resignation, and take steps to reduce these interest rates which are causing inflation in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in my view the hon. member is quite correct in stating that recovery is unlikely to take place-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Here!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -until there is a reduction in interest rates. The obstacle to recovery at the moment, not only in Canada but also in other countries, is the very high interest rate structure which exists, mainly fuelled or powered by the monetary policy of the United States. I believe that until progress is made in reducing those interest rates, recovery will not take place. The first step, of course, is an easing in the monetary restraint in the United States where currently, despite a very weak economy, despite the fact that this morning statistics in the United States indicate an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent, totalling 10.3 million people, despite a weak economy-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us about their inflation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -despite its very high unemployment
levels-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us about their inflation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -real interest rates are at an historically high level. The key to world recovery at the present time, for the United States and for other countries, is a change in the monetary policy that is being pursued in the United States.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying we can do nothing here in Canada, that

May 7, 1982
Oral Questions
it is impossible for us to take independent action, unlike a number of other western nations?
I want to remind the minister of this. He refers to the figures in the United States. By reading StatsCanada Information this morning we find that 754,000 Canadians have given up looking for work and do not appear in today's statistics of the officially unemployed. That boosts the figure virtually up to two million unemployed. On the boards across Canada there is only one job available for every 357 unemployed. What advice does the minister have for the nearly two million people who presently are seeking work? What advice does he have for them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member stated that other countries apart from the United States have responsibilities as well. I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member, and within our own possibilities we are doing everything possible to ease the burden of unemployment. But with the existence of the current monetary policy in the United States and the very high real interest rates, despite great slack in the economy, despite 10.3 million unemployed, there are limits to what other countries can do.
I believe that France is an example in this case. They attempted to ease their monetary policy, they attempted to ease their fiscal policy, but they had, in my opinion, to backtrack, with the result that the Minister of Finance in France, in the face of the monetary policy existing in the United States, had to raise short-term interest rates over 20 per cent, in order to protect the value of the French franc. So the hon. member is right in saying there are some things we can do. But the key solution at the present time does not rest with France or Canada. The key solution rests with the main economic partner we all have, and that is the United States of America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENTRY OF YOUTH TO LABOUR MARKET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister asked what advice did he have for the jobless in this country, the two million people seeking work. He did not answer that question.
I want to add another group which has been overlooked today, that is, the hundreds of thousands of young people who, in the next number of weeks, are coming on the job market. They will be seeking employment challenges for the first time in their lives, coming from the universities and colleges and high schools across the country. They will not have to face the challenge of employment, they will have to face the challenge of unemployment. Their dreams and hopes are being dashed.
I would ask the minister very precisely what advice does he give these hundreds of thousands of young people who will be seeking meaningful work for the first time, who want to contribute to the economy of Canada, but who will be unable
to do so because of the particular monetary policy and fiscal policy of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I disagree totally with the hon. member's diagnosis of the problem. He has failed to understand the source of our difficulties. He has failed to understand the way out of our difficulties. Every proposal that has been put forward by the New Democratic Party in this session of Parliament, if implemented, would make the problem worse for Canada and for the young people to whom he suggest that I give advice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the job of the Minister of Finance is to administer an economic policy.


Erik Nielsen: When are you going to start?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And to explain that policy to the people of Canada as well as he can. My advice, if the hon. member wants me to give advice, and this will be the first and last time I will take him up on that kind of question, my advice to the young people of Canada would be to ignore the nostrums that are being proposed by the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Liberal times are tough times.


THE ARTS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Last night, in a speech before the Canadian Conference of the Arts, he attempted to lay at rest the fears that some have, that the minister intends to be the architect of cultural policy and not the Applebaum-Hebert Commission. He suggested, Madam Speaker, that one should not be concerned about the fact that there are study groups already working in advance of the recommendations because there would be time at the end of the consultation and input provided one responded quickly.
Would the minister now tell the House and those who want to respond to Applebaum-Hebert, who want to believe in this process, how much time will be allowed after publication of the recommendations? What forum will be available for comment, will it be the parliamentary committee, will it be briefs to the minister, how long, and what method is open to those people who believe deeply that the Applebaum-Hebert process is essential? What forum will they have and how long will they have to make their presentations?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, in my speech last night I indicated that, from my

May 7, 1982

point of view, the main role of government in general in the field of arts and culture was to try to establish a climate for creativity. That indeed is the proper role of government in that area, not one of trying to direct or to be involved in the creative arts themselves. I also indicated that we will be looking forward to the report which will be forthcoming shortly, within the next few months, from the Applebaum-Hebert committee. Out of this report, of course, will flow a number of actions on the part of the government. For instance, I think that the report in some cases will give rise to legislation. Obviously, there will be a good deal of time available for debate and to make representations in front of parliamentary committees.
Other matters, 1 suspect, will call upon the government for immediate action in certain areas. Actually, we have taken that immediate action in some areas of immediate concern, like the clarification of the National Gallery position.
What I did indicate to the group last night was that I was not interested in going from one review committee, that is, the Applebaum-Hebert committee, to another forum which would repeat the Applebaum-Hebert process. I encouraged all people interested in the arts in the country to be ready to respond to the report of the Applebaum-Hebert committee as soon as possible after that document is published. I expect that there will be a month or two available to them to respond.


DRAFTING OF BROADCASTING POLICY
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, if they want to respond they would feel better about responding if they can believe that the decisions as to what the policy will be have not already been taken. Therefore, let me ask this supplementary, Madam Speaker.
With regard to that essential concept of our culture policy, which is the broadcasting policy, last night the minister said that the development of the broadcasting policy will wait on the publication of the Applebaum-Hebert report; and yet to the committee on his estimates, Madam Speaker, he indicated that a broadcasting policy was effectively already finished. Could the minister tell the House, and those who are worried about this issue, and who want to make submissions, which is true?
Will broadcasting policy wait on the Applebaum-Hebert process so that those who want to comment can, or is it a fact, as the minister already suggested in committee, that the policy is already drafted, already ready to go, and that the minister now is simply saying that we are waiting for the Applebaum-Hebert report simply for form's sake?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I have never suggested in any forum that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted on the broadcasting policy. I indicated that the department has indeed set up a number of working groups in order to be able to respond to Applebaum-Hebert as quickly as possible. The whole question of copyright is one example. The whole question of copyright
Oral Questions
is, to my mind, an extremely important area. We are hoping we can indeed establish that kind of climate for creativity.
Broadcasting is another area of primary importance for this country because of its effect on the culture of Canadians and the perception by Canadians of themselves. We have done a good deal of work on that. Obviously I have given a great deal of thought to this over the past few months. However, I have also indicated that I do not want to come out with a definitive broadcasting policy until the Applebaum-Hebert committee has made its report. On the other hand-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: The lights are out.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Revenue. Over a year ago, as the minister will be aware, the Coast Mountain Air Rescue Society of British Columbia, which is a volunteer group, at its own expense brought in a helicopter for rescue purposes. Since that time they have been trying to get the minister's department to find some way to give an exemption on the tax, or else to change the law so that an exemption can be given. I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to change the law so an exemption can be given and so that this ridiculous situation does not continue any longer.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows it is not within my responsibility to change the law. We have looked at that particular case. I have examined it a number of times and found we have gone as far as we can with regard to responding to the needs of that particular organization. 1 recognize that it does a valuable job, but I am afraid under the present circumstances we have gone as far as we can in responding to it.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the answer the minister has given is the reason Canadians are so fed up with this government. The minister says he cannot change the law. Who in blazes can? His government has a majority.


POSITION OF MINISTER
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the minister can recommend to cabinet that the law be changed; does he have the guts to do that, or will he just go down in history as a timid and useless minister who did nothing until somebody else came along and pushed him?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, at one time the hon. member was part of a government which had every opportunity to change the law

May 7, 1982
Ora! Questions
while it was in power. The hon. member did not take that opportunity in relation to this matter either.
I have corresponded and had communication with the society in question and with Members of Parliament, and we are trying to respond as well as we can to that particular circumstance, but we are bound by the laws which presently exist.


John Allen Fraser: You are not responding at all.


LOSS OF FISHING VESSEL OFF WEST COAST-REASONS FOR ABANDONING SEARCH
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Transport, and it is also on the search and rescue theme. Some time ago a fishing vessel by the name of the Ramsay Isle disappeared off the west coast of British Columbia. On February 28 a search was mounted by the combined forces of the Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence. The search was eventually abandoned on about March 6. Eight weeks later four bodies were found in a lifeboat, and indications were those people may have died of starvation off the north end of Port Hardy. Is the minister able to cast any light on the situation as to why a search was abandoned when people were in fact still in the water in lifeboats?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I did indeed look into that case with the same question in mind, and the answer I got was that the search and rescue operation proceeded in the normal way. Six days were spent at it. Debris was found in the water. After a while, not finding any bodies or survivors, the operation ended, as these operations usually do, in due course. A few months later, two or three bodies were found in a raft a good number of miles-I cannot remember how many, but a surprisingly long distance away-from the place where the accident had taken place. This apparently surprised everybody. The coroner is having an inquest into the matter, and I presume we will learn more about what happened.


&quot;MAYDAY&quot; SIGNAL
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the situation which seems to be developing with respect to search and rescue facilities is incredible, when we consider cases like the Hudson Transport, the Ocean Ranger, and numerous others. An interesting part of search and rescue is the element of communications. The indication from officials of the minister's department is that there was no Mayday sent out in this case. Now other sources indicate that in fact there were two Mayday broadcasts from that vessel. Is it possible for the minister to indicate whether that is the fact, and why is there a discrepancy in terms of the information we have?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the Mayday aspect of this rescue operation, but I will find out and report.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As the minister knows, November 15, 1981 was the cut-off date for CN and CP employees to sign the special agreement for those affected by the VIA Rail reductions. Within this agreement it says that from November 15, when an employee reaches age 55, he is eligible for a lump-sum payment. Many employees are eligible for this payment. However, there have been delays in CN's and CP's paying out this money. In those cases where payment has been delayed no accrued interest has gone to the employees. CN and CP are saying they refuse to pay this interest because of government policy.
I wonder if the minister would explain to the House and, more particularly, to those employees who have been so adversely affected because of losing this money, what exactly is the rationale in CN's and CP's not paying this interest to their former workers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will try. I thank my hon. friend for reminding the House of the fair way in which the government is treating employees affected by VIA cuts. He is aware that $30 million has been assigned to that purpose, and lump-sum payments are but one of the methods which are being used.
The way it goes is this: an employee receives his lump-sum payment from the railways: if there is a delay in establishing the amount to which he is entitled, it could be at that stage. The railways then make a claim to the Department of Transport, and the Department of Transport pays the sum claimed by the railways. My surveillance of the system has not been such that I know how many days it takes for my department to pay the railways after a claim has been made, but I will find out and, if it is abnormal, I will try to remedy the situation.


Mr. Blaikie:: It is about three and a half months.


BANKRUPTCIES
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I am sure the minister knows that a number of general insurance companies operating in Canada have recently faced liquidation and gone into receivership. This has left those who were insured without protection. What steps is the minister going to take to ensure that those who purchase insurance will be protected and not exposed to large liability claims in the event their insurance companies should go into bankruptcy?
May 7, 1982


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about the situation created by the fact that some general insurance companies had difficulties during the last few months which led some of them to bankruptcy.
Because of that situation, I have asked the Superintendent of Insurance to review closely the present legislation and, taking into account the reasons for these bankruptcies and these financial difficulties, to make recommendations to me for amendments to the legislation. As the Superintendent told the standing committee last week, he is about to present such recommendations to me in order to ensure the best possible situation for this type of institution.
[English)


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the minister is concerned, but I am sure he is aware that there must be many Canadians who live under a false sense of security, because there is the potential of their insurance companies going bankrupt.


REQUEST THAT PURCHASERS BE TREATED AS PREFERRED CREDITORS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, when the minister is contemplating any changes in legislation or regulations, will he ensure that steps will be taken so that claimants will have first priority in relation to settlements in the event insurance companies are liquidated?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as I have just said, I have not yet received the Superintendent's recommendations. Obviously I share the hon. member's concern. The basis of the legislation as it relates to insurance companies is to protect policy holders and to ensure the financial soundness of the institutions for that purpose. Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member as well as all members of the House that the Superintendent will be recommending some changes to the legislation in the light of that very objective.

Oral Questions
provinces in a further effort to stimulate industry and help reduce unemployment?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, at present we are formulating plans for a federal-provincial conference of trade ministers scheduled, if I am not mistaken, for June 21. As you know, I am in constant communication with my provincial counterparts, and I think that this meeting will provide for constructive discussions on our joint pursuit of export opportunities around the world.


MINISTERIAL DIRECTIVE
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain to the House why, on March 4, 1982, his department issued an instruction to our trade offices in the U.S. entitled "Provincial Ministerial Involvement in Trade Promotion Events", which reads:
Minister Lumley has directed that under no circumstances should any provincial minister be invited to or directly informed about trade promotion events carried out at our posts without his prior approval. The minister attaches considerable importance to this directive-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. member contacted some of his colleagues who were ministers of the Crown, they would verify the fact that a responsible minister likes to be notified of any tentative federal promotions prior to a provincial minister, just in case the promotion did proceed or was not in the best interest of Canada as a whole as opposed to one particular province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he tell the House why Air Canada is the largest Canadian importer of German wine?
[DOT] (M50)


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JOINT INITIATIVES
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. Is the minister planning any joint-trade initiatives with the


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. friend is aware that ministers do not run Crown corporations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who does?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought Air Canada was using Canadian wines; I do, and I do not see why it should not. I will gently bring my view to the attention of the president of Air Canada.

May 7, 1982
Oral Questions TRADE


SALE OF CANADIAN WINE ON FOREIGN AIRLINES
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. People who travel abroad tell me it is very difficult to obtain Canadian wine on foreign airlines. Can the minister tell me why this is so?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have an excellent wine industry in British Columbia, Ontario and other parts of Canada. We are working actively to promote acceptance of Canadian wines, both in Canada and foreign markets. In conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, I will be very happy to increase our efforts to have more Canadian wine served on all airlines flying in and out of Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, in his earlier answer the Minister of Finance mentioned that Japan was the only country which had a better rate of employment. Small wonder when the Minister of Transport keeps giving them jobs.
My question is to the Minister of Transport. Last May the federal government arbitrarily increased the price of fuel used by air carriers on international flights. The increase was reversed earlier this year when it was proven that the government, as usual, blew it by contravening bilateral agreements. The government is now once again insisting on penalizing Canadian carriers by increasing fuel costs in a manner which may also be illegal. Why does the government continue to penalize the air travel industry, Canadian carriers in particular, and when will it show some support for Canadian industry any Canadian industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the question is really so broad that I do not know where the emphasis is. If the hon. member is again emphasizing procurement abroad, as is his right, I compliment him on the fact that he has stayed on my back for a number of months on that subject. I mean that very sincerely, because it helps me to ensure every effort is made to procure in Canada.
The two instances he refers to, the purchase of two stacker-reclaimers and the purchase of pipe for the Port of Prince Rupert, are really an exception to the rule. The hon. Member has heard the chairman of the National Harbours Board, I understand, explaining at length in committee why the decisions were made. Again, the policy of this government is to procure in Canada wherever possible, and in the two instances referred to that attempt was made.


INCREASED COSTS
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, this time the emphasis was on why the government insists on increasing the cost of fuel, particularly to Canadian carriers, and asking them to pay falsely high prices when other carriers are getting off scotfree?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously it will take too long to enumerate the advantages that carriers have in Canada, but in this particular instance they can procure fuel in Canada at a lower price.


John Raymond Ellis: No, they cannot.


Erik Nielsen: It is the other way around.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The reference is to the fact that because of international agreements foreign carriers coming into Canada were compensated for the money they had paid, and Canadian carriers were not. I regret that very much. I wish everyone had been compensated.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and has to do with the dying Canadian footwear industry, the total demise of which the Canadian government is making every effort to bring about. In view of the fact that three of his colleagues, all from Quebec where most of that industry is located, are prepared to demonstrate along with the union on Parliament Hill on June 8, to force the government to bring back the quota system, and in view of the fact the minister refuses to listen to any advice from this side of the House as to rejuvenating that industry, will the minister reinstate those quotas so that the 6,200 workers out of 20,000 now on lay-off can go back to work and the 20,000 will not be laid off permanently?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the premise of my hon. friend's question, that we are trying to bring about the demise of the Canadian footwear industry, is completely incorrect. We are working to modernize and upgrade the industry, for which purpose we have created a special $ 17-million fund to be administered by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. We have continued the quota on imports of non-leather footwear and added to it with respect to canvas footwear, which was not the case before. We have received the views of the industry and members on our side of the House with respect to the way the industry is faring under current economic conditions. We are actively reviewing those representations at the cabinet level.


Erik Nielsen: This is a recorded announcement.

May 7, 1982


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The industry is of significance not only in Quebec, but also in Ontario, and I hope to be able to announce the results of the cabinet review before too long.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that in this respect he does not have a foot to stand on, because he refuses to reinstate the quota system. In view of the fact that unless it 'is reinstated there will not be enough time to modernize the industry before the Canadian market is flooded with temporarily cheaper imported footwear, will the minister reinstate the quota and when will he reannounce that reinstatement?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, our policy on the footwear industry was a matter of cabinet decision after a detailed study of the situation, on the basis of the anti-dumping tribunal report. The cabinet is currently reviewing the present state of the industry in the light of most recent information, and any decision will be that of cabinet and announced as soon as our review is completed.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give a categorical assurance that the Petroleum Incentives Program does not violate any aspect of the Canadian Charter of Rights?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice that drafted the regulations has examined these issues as is done with every bill to make sure that it does not conflict with the Charter of Rights. It came to the conclusion that that is not the case.


CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce give us a categorical assurance that the Foreign Investment Review Agency Act does not violate any aspect of the Canadian Charter of Rights?
Petitions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are seeking the advice of the Department of Justice on this matter. Certainly as far as any information or advice that I have received so far is concerned, there is no conflict, but we are looking into the matter further.


CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL COURT ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Justice give us a categorical assurance that Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act does not violate any aspect of the Canadian Charter of Rights?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we have a Charter of Rights and we are passing laws. Everyone knows that when we pass laws they have to be measured against the Charter of Rights. If the House does not agree about the meaning, then the courts will have to render a decision. But the Charter is there and we pass legislation. The Charter of Rights precedes the legislation. I am not here to give legal advice. The hon. member should know that the Charter of Rights is now part of the Constitution and is the number one law in Canada.


STUDY OF STATUTES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Justice tell us whether he has established a task force to see which of the laws of Canada are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights? If he has established such a task force, will he give us a commitment now that all the results of that task force will be made public in the House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have asked my department to look at all the laws of Canada to make sure that the laws that have been passed in this House of Commons reflect the Charter of Rights that we passed and entrenched in the Constitution. The work is not over yet. When it is over, I will act accordingly.


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 thirty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) on Thursday, May 6, 1982,

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions
and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition, prepared on their own initiative and on their own time and signed by some 900 citizens of Canada, who are plant employees of General Motors of Canada Limited at Oshawa, Ontario.
They are gravely concerned about the loss of employment in the automotive industry resulting from the importation of foreign manufactured vehicles, and they desperately request Parliament to rectify this either by an import quota on foreign vehicles or a Canadian content law.
This is especially pertinent today with the announcement that 1.25 million Canadians are out of work.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,809, 2,811, 2,814, 2,815, 2,820, 2,824, 2,831, 2,837, 2,845, 2,846, 2,853, 2,859, 2,860, 2,866, 2,876, 2,877, 2,878, 2,886, 2,904, 2,905, 2,906, 2,917, 2,920, 2,921, 2,927, 2,931,2,940, 2,970, 2,972, 2,980 and 2,984.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Agriculture at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $458,856 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a) and (b)
Treasury Board Policy: Chapter 110 subchapter 5 of the Personnel Management	Manual-Conditions	governing
education, training and development, including subsidization.
2.	It is 0.2 per cent.
3.	(a) to (c) None.
4.	Four per cent.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Communications for the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission at page 13.6, Volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $23,697 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission as follows:
1.	The basic guideline used to determine CRTC policy for education leave is the Personnel Management Manual, Chapter 110, subchapter 5, with some variations being covered in some collective agreements:
(a)	(i)(ii)(iii) Education leave with pay, travel expenses and tuition are authorized under P.M.M. 110-5, section 11, 12; with the rationale being that, "payment of expenses for ... " "Education of employees is to be proportional to the benefit the Department expects to derive from the expenditure of public funds."
(b)	The rationale utilized by the CRTC for skills acquisition is to meet departmental needs. Employees may be encouraged to participate in education activities that will contribute to the improvement of their performance and organizational productivity.
2,	3 and 4. Nil.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $63,927 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Decisions concerning education leave are made by senior departmental managers and are based on Treasury Board policy: chapter 110 subchapter 5 of
May 7, 1982

the Personnel Management Manual-conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization.
2.	Approximately 25 per cent of educational leave requests result from acquisition of new equipment; about 50 per cent from changing technology and new program requirements; and about 25 per cent from the need for professional growth.
3.	(a) to (c). None.
4.	Only one employee who has taken educational leave in the past three years has left the public service; one other has died.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the National Energy Board at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Marc Lalonde: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Treasury Board Policy: Chapter 110 subchapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual-conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization.
2,	3 and 4. Nil.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $454,946 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	(a): The guidelines used to determine which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted: (i) leave with pay; (ii) travel expenses; (iii) payment for tuition, are set out by Treasury Board and are quoted in the Personnel Management Manual, section 110-5.
The departmental norm has been to grant educational leave without pay but with allowances in lieu of half pay, except in the following cases: hydrographers who are covered by a special Treasury Board minute; employees completing a doctorate degree in specialization directly related to fisheries
Order Paper Questions
and/or oceans; and ships' officers for obtaining technical certification or professional upgrading.
Fisheries and Oceans have set up a departmental training and development committee composed of the deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers, director of personnel and manager of training and development to ensure that the purpose of the leave and financial assistance are in line with the department's needs, objectives and goals, and to approve educational leave requests for periods of three months or more. Educational leave requests for periods of less than three months are either approved by a regional training and development committee or by a regional director general. These requests would normally be related ,o technical certification or professional upgrading as in the case of ships personnel.
(b): The above type of screening also ensures that the skills and knowledge acquired through educational leave are to the benefit of the department and used on a permanent basis. It is important to note that the majority of employees granted educational leave belong to occupational groups of which the department is a prime user or unique employer in the public service (e.g. hydrographers, ships' officers).
2.	Nil.
3.	(a), (b) and (c): Nil.
4.	Approximately 8 per cent of the employees (all ships' officers) granted leave in the past three years (1978-79, 197980, 1980-81) have subsequently left the public service.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Justice at page 13.6, Volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $136,613 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Please refer to Treasury Board Policy, Personnel Management Manual, Chapter 110-5, "Conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization".
2.	Nil.
3.	(a), (b), (c) Nil.
4.	One employee out of ten granted leave left the public service in the past three years, therefore 10 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of Public Works at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions
educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $65,230 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
(i)	(ii) (iii) and (b). The Guidelines are Treasury Board Personnel Management Manual 110-5, sections 11-14; Education Leave Policy; Public Works Canada Departmental Directive 7/79.
2.	Nil.
3.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) 100 per cent.
4.	Nil.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General for Correctional Services at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition
(b)	whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $191,186 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the Public Service?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: 1. The guidelines that were used are contained in the following two documents: "Developmental Leave Policy" for the Correctional Service of Canada and Treasury Board's Personnel Management Manual, chapter 110-5-conditions governing education, training and subsidization.
2, 3 and 4. Nil.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Communications at page 32.4, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) how does the department account for the 21 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $54,576 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) members of provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General
(ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows: (a) The increase in hospitality expenses from 1978-79 to 1979-80 is due to increased national and international marketing efforts on several major technological projects as well as general price increases.
(b)	The department did not enter into contracts over $2,000 for the purpose of extending hospitality.
(c)	The department follows the hospitality policy as set out in chapter 360 of Treasury Board Canada's Administrative Policy Manual.
(d)	The department accounting system was not designed to summarize the recipients of hospitality into the 12 mentioned categories.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the Atomic Energy Control Board at page 32.8, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) how does the department account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $532 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Marc Lalonde: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows:
(a)	There was a decrease of $1,328 in hospitality services from 1978-79 to 1979-80 rather than an increase in expenditure. The apparent discrepancy in reporting occurred when the task of preparing public accounts was transferred from the Department of Supply and Services at AECB and AECB categorized this item separately from other miscellaneous services.
(b)	No contract was valued at more than $2,000.
(c)	Yes, guidelines are used to determine when AECB will pay for hospitality. These guidelines are as follows:
(i)	when discussions on official matters are held with persons who are not government employees. (In exceptional circumstances, this may include interviews with persons who are being considered for recruitment by the board);
(ii)	on the occasion of visits by persons who are members of national or international organizations which are involved in activities related to those of the board;
(iii)	when a service is rendered without remuneration by a person who is not a government employee;
May 7, 1982

(iv)	on the occasion of a major or prestigious ceremony attended by foreign dignitaries or distinguished persons from the private sector; and
(v)	on occasion, for employees who are participating in planning or technical meetings involving non-public servants to which hospitality is extended.
(d)	(i) 83 per cent, (ii) 4 per cent, (iii) 0 per cent, (iv) 0 per cent, (v) 0 per cent, (vi) 0 per cent, (vii) 0 per cent, (viii) 0 per cent, (ix) 0 per cent, (x) 0 per cent, (xi) 0 per cent, (xii) 13 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the taxation program at page 32.24, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $7,815 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Bill Rompkey: (a)	Amount includes hospitality extended to special guests and the general public at the official ceremonies for new taxation centre; to the members of an advisory committee to the department on tax administration; to visiting officials from other tax administrations; to representatives of industry and business; and to participants at departmental conferences.
(b)	Nil.
(c)	Yes; Treasury Board directive on hospitality (ch. 360 Administrative Policy Manual).
(d)	Departmental records are not maintained in a way that would make it possible to provide this information.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the correctional services program at page 32.35, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what is a list of each contract of a value of more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $51,677 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a)	Hospitality cost over $2,000 was incurred at only one function in the fiscal year 1979/80, which was the American Correctional Association Canada Night reception in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. on August 22, 1979. Cost: $5,950.85.
(b)	Hospitality claims are settled in accordance with the Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, chapter 360.
Order Paper Questions
(c)	Information is not readily available.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the departmental program at page 32.34, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what is a list of each contract of a value of more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $26,783 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants
(v)	ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) Hotel Nova Scotian ("Canadian Congress on the Prevention of Crime" conference), $3,481.51. Justice Canada ("Ministers Responsible for Criminal Justice" conference)-shared 50 per cent with Justice Canada, $3,047.53.
(b) Yes-Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual (chapter 360).
(c)	(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the trade and industrial program at page 32.16, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality, including posts abroad (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $2,265,855 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories (d) what percentage of the $2,265,855 was used for hospitality (i) outside (ii) inside Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a)	Individual payments made of a value more than $2,000 which related to single events were as follows: Caracas Hilton,
%
8.8
1.7
19.2
.1
.1
70.1
17174

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Caracas, Venezuela, $2,305.30, Plaza Club, Houston, Texas, $2,644.24, Hotel Intercontinental, Paris, France, $2,988.11, Andre Canonica Restaurant, Geneva, Switzerland, $6,036.72, DM Restaurant Corp, New York, N.Y., $8,234.35, Buenos Aires Sheraton Hotel, Buenos Aires, Argentina, $4,036.32, Red Carpet Catering Service Inc., Portland, Oregon, $3,059.54, the Engineering Society of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, $2,219.21, Laval University, Quebec, P.Q., $2,449.05, Hotel Beau Rivage, Geneva, Switzerland, $4,025.28, Interhotel Am Ring, Leipzig, German Democratic Republic, $2,103.37, Winnipeg Convention Centre, Winnipeg, Man. $3,303.25, Parliamentary Restaurant, Ottawa, Ont., $4,182.42, L'auberge de la Chaudiere, Hull, P.Q., $5,026.95, Le Cercle Universitaire, Ottawa, Ont., $2,045.94, The Toronto Hilton, Toronto, Ontario, $14,845.24.
(b)	Treasury Board Hospitality Directive March 1, 1977. Treasury Board Circular No. 1977-3. Foreign Service Hospitality Directive TB No. 694890 dated February 12, 1970. Heads of Posts Directive TB No. 692275 dated October 2, 1969.
(c)	This information is not readily available from our accounting records.
(d)	(i) Eighty-six per cent. This percentage reflects only the costs incurred under the Foreign Service Hospitality Directive by the various posts abroad.
(ii)	Fourteen per cent. This percentage reflects all other hospitality expenditures authorized by headquarters. Our accounting records do not readily allow a breakdown of hospitality costs incurred inside or outside Canada, except as described in (d) (i).


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Justice under the Administration of Federal Judicial Affairs Program for the Canadian Judicial Council at page 32.18, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) how does the department explain the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (d) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (e) of the $8,064 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) Aside from inflationary factors, the increase in hospitality was due to a change in reporting requirements. Previously hospitality was included in standard object 12, miscellaneous services.
(c) Amount Paid for
(b) Type of Hospitality	each Service
(i)	Coffee (Appeal Court Seminar)
(ii)	Lunch (Appellate Court Seminar)
(iii)	Dinner (Superior Court Seminar) Coffee
Lunch
$	53


[Stage Direction]
(iv)	Reception (County Court Seminar)
(v)	Dinner and reception
(New Federally Judges
Seminar)
Total
[Stage Direction]
No contracts were signed for any of the hospitality services.
(d)	Treasury Board hospitality guidelines are followed and minister's approval given for hospitality over $1,000.
(e)	No such statistics are available.
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the Northern Affairs Program at page 32.16, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photo service except motion pictures (a) how does the department explain the 738 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) The increase in expenditure for the Northern Affairs Program is mainly due to the realignment of the chart of accounts in 1979-80. Some items which were coded separately under their own classification are now grouped with photo services except motion pictures.
(b)	The services involved are purchase of photos including aerial and satellite photos, purchase and rental of film, micro filming services, development and reproduction of film, photographer's services.
(c)	The recipients involved are Foto Blohm Associates $3,488; Campbell Reproduction $9,641; Canadian Government Photo Centre $26,325; Energy Mines and Resources $18,074; Film Service Alberta $2,828; Pat Morrow $3,000; National Film Board $4,070; Public Archives $11,752; Terra Surveys $13,305. The balance is miscellaneous items all under $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Justice for the Commission for Federal Judicial Affairs at page 32.17 of Volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada 1979-80, with particular reference to miscellaneous services (a) how does the commission explain the 23 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) With particular reference to miscellaneous services, there was no increase for this item over that for 1978-79.
(b) and (c) (i) To provide this information would require an inordinate amount of time and manpower.
May 7, 1982

(c)	(ii) Miscellaneous Services-Contracts over $2,000: Federal Court of Canada-court attendants O. Brochu $2,802, J. Cavers $2,028, J. Cocker $2,773, L. Charron $2,340, R. Lauzon $2,109, A. Parker $2,340, J. Renaud $2,430.
Other Services; Newfoundland Exchequer Court $5,088, Ministere des Finances du Quebec $4,016, Treasurer of Ontario $23,117, C. Sterling $4,427.
Canadian Judicial Council: Elon. Gerald Fauteux $10,000, Dr. George Curtis $4,000, S. Sadinsky $2,000, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice $7,920.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the accommodation program-operations and maintenance at page 32.28, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the 1,990 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Paul James Cosgrove: (a) and
(b) The increase in other types of services in 1979-80 is a result of not reporting expenditures in as great a detail as in 1978-79.
Reported in Public Accounts	1978-79	1979-80Other types of services	$ 2,083	$54,762Exhibits design consulting services	12,259	9,881*Protographic services	22,854	14,728*Technical services	30,142	20,983*Registration fees	11,705	8,379*Sundries	2,083*	791*$79,043	$54,762
Included above in other types of services.
The comparable figure for 1978-79 is $79,043 as compared to $54,762 which
represents a decrease of $24,281 in 1979-80.
(c) Payments over $2,000 included the following:
Ken Desson Photographs, Ottawa, Ontario photographical	$3,000
services
Canadian National, Ottawa, Ontario, technical services	$2,562
Fairhall & Moffett Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, technical services	$4,944
Gibson & Sury Ltd., Arnprior, Ontario, technical services	$2,500
Gregoire, Courchesne & Bussieres, Hull, Quebec, technical	$5,000
services
A.E. Lepage Investment & Professional Services Company,	$3,022
Vancouver, B.C., technical services
Order Paper Questions CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF CANADA


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the correctional services program at page 32.35, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other services-contracted personnel services (a) how does the department explain the 138 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a) The 138 per cent increase in expenditure for the item other services-contracted personnel services over fiscal year 1978/79 as recorded in Volume II of the 1979/80 Public Accounts of Canada is explained by the following factors:
(1)	The CSC reduced its person-years in fiscal year 1979/80 by 255 over fiscal year 1978/79. Pending decisions on which services were to be reduced or eliminated, temporary help agencies were used when positions became vacant.
(2)	On June 8, 1979, a temporary restraint program and staffing moratorium was announced by the government. The general objective of the staffing moratorium according to Treasury Board guidelines was: "Departments and agencies cease staffing actions for the time being, and attempt to cover off the duties of any vacant positions by internal secondments or rearrangements of duties, or other temporary measures, such as the use of acting pay or contracting with temporary help agencies."
(3)	There were a number of organizational changes. At national headquarters the Offenders Program Branch was formed in October, 1978. There were numerous staffing processes for secretarial positions necessitating the usage of temporary help agencies. Furthermore the Offenders Program Branch was completing the Case Management Manual. (This provides for the co-ordinated management and administration of the inmate's sentence from the commencement date of his sentence to the date of expiry of the sentence imposed by the court.)
The executive secretary's branch was also newly created in 1979/80 and required a relatively high number of staffing actions thus calling for the use of temporary help agencies.
(4)	In the Pacific region the employee turnover for 1979/80 averaged 16 per cent, pending the relocation of the regional headquarters offices in Vancouver to Abbotsford, approximately 12 employees sought and secured employment elsewhere. The region also faced an increase in administrative work because of the closure of British Columbia Penitentiary on May 10, 1980. The prairie region also experienced an increase in turnover rates of support staff particularly in the province of Alberta.

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions (b) See list below.
Payments over $2,000 for Contracted Office Personnel Services Note: Those listed in the Public Accounts of Canada 1979/80 are also included.
Name of Contractee
Payment
Action Personnel Of Ottawa, Ont.
B.C. Personnel, Vancouver, B.C.
Barbara's Office Personnel, Ottawa, Ont.
*Bradson Personnel Pool, Ottawa, Ont.
*Bradson Personnel Pool, Ottawa, Ont.
Burns Joyce Personnel, London, Ont.
H.V. Chapman, Ottawa, Ont.
Contempro Service Inc. Ottawa, Ont.
Dennis Sandy Personnel, Toronto, Ont.
Dot Personnel Services, Islington, Ont.
Drake Personnel, Ottawa, Ont.
Drake Personnel, Toronto, Ont.
Harrington Personnel, Ottawa, Ont.
Kelly Girl Service of Canada Ltd. Toronto, Ont. Leading Edge, Kingston, Ont.
MacDonald & Brisson Personnel Services Ltd. Ottawa, Ont.
Manpower Services Ltd. Ottawa, Ont.
Manpower Temporary Help, Kingston, Ont.
Manpower Temporary Services, Saskatoon, Sask. Manpower Temporary Services, Vancouver, B.C.
Miss Hall's Personnel Service, Ottawa, Ont.
Miss Stacey Temporary Office Services, Ottawa, Ont. Office Assistance (Canada) Ltd. Edmonton, Alta. Office Assistance (Canada) Ltd. Vancouver. B.C. Office Overload, Calgary, Alta.
Office Overload, Moncton, N.B.
Office Overload, Montreal, P.Q.
Office Overload, Ottawa, Ont.
Office Overload, Toronto, Ont.
Office Overload, Vancouver. B.C.
Pollack Personnel, Ottawa, Ont.
Professional Personnel Consultants, Edmonton, Alta. Prologic Systems Ltd. Ottawa, Ont.
Right Hand Employment Services, Edmonton, Alta. Select Personnel, Langley, B.C.
Selective Placements (Ottawa) Ltd. Ottawa, Ont. Service Secretariat Metro Enrg.
The 500 Selection Services, Edmonton, Alta.
The 500 Selection Services, Ottawa, Ont.
The Job Farm, Ottawa, Ont.
Total Employment Services, Ottawa, Ont.
Total Employment Services, Toronto, Ont.
Univers de la Femme, Montreal, P.Q.
Valley Steno Ltd. Abbotsford, B.C.
Victor (Canada) Ltd. Cambridge, Ont.
Xtra Personnel Ltd. Fredericton, N.B.


[Stage Direction]
* In Public Accounts of Canada 1979/80, Brandon Personnel Service Ottawa, Ont. should read Bradson Personnel Pool, Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the correctional services program at page 32.36, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
(a)	There are no increases in expenditures. The apparent increase over the previous year is due to a change in the layout in the public accounts reporting system through directive from the Receiver General of Canada. The items, as described in CSC's answer to parts (b) and (c), were listed under separate categories of their own in the 1978/79 Public Accounts of Canada. They have been consolidated under the new category "Other Types of Services" in the 1979/80 report.
(b)	and (c): See list below.
For comparative purposes we have included the names and the amount of money paid for each type of service for fiscal years 1978/79 and 1979/80. These are as follows:
	1978/79	1979/80
Tuition-Educational Leave Program-78/79 figures may be found in Public Accounts of Canada report page 32.111 under Educational Services-Tuition Educational Leave Program	$ 7,031	$ 7,011
Health Care-Gynaecology and Obstetrics. There were no expenditures under this category in 78/79.		$ 4,070
Legal Services-CSC Employees- 78/79 figures may be found in Public Accounts of Canada report page 32.113 under Legal Services-Employees	$44,395	$ 6,213Veterinary Services-78/79 figures may be found in Public Accounts of Canada report page 32.113 under the category-Veterinary Services	$ 2,396	$ 2,764Membership Fees-78/79 figures may be found in Public Accounts of Canada report page 32.114 under the category-Membership Fees	$18,857	$22,492$72,679	$42,550
In 1979/80 payments over $2,000 were made to the following: Cassel Brock in trust-$5,219.78 (legal services), St. Lawrence Veterinary-$2,237.50.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the departmental program at page 32.34, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other services (a) how does the department explain the 73 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) The bulk of the increase was for: (i) summer and year round employment programs (youth) co-ordination; (ii) agreements with the provinces and municipalities for the temporary secondment of personnel.
May 7, 1982

(c)	(i) $160,216
(ii)	$219,239
(iii)	$ 78,762
(iv)	$129,623
Payments over $2,000
T. Palys	$ 5,000
E. Osborne	7,916
P. Smith	3,750
M. Schuh	2,813
L.	Scanlon	8,900G.	Surprenant	13,019J.	Marton	13,028National Council on Crime and Delinquency	13,980D. Farrington	18,438S. Witherden	4,444H.	Sim	3,105D. Mead	3,960S.	Dunn	3,675Company Consultants Ltd.	9,749L.	Berzins	2,950T.	Lajeunesse	10,700P. Rolfe	5,230K.	Stringer	2,100A. Teleban	5,500C.	Lavalee	11,760D.	Fischer	3,000J. Auger	7,200City of Vancouver	15,814City of Calgary	10,601Province of Saskatchewan	50,760Province of Ontario	81,226City of Ottawa	32,814Centre de services sociaux de Montreal	28,025P. Simon	12,075M.	Clarkson	7,895M. D'Eer	4,725D. Thornton	18,145A. O'Neill	6,600S. Lee	17,550M.	O'Kane	5,772N.	Chartrand	6,000Vrlak Robinson Advertising	5,662Secretary of State	2,009York Mailings	2,229Service de controle des nouvelles Radio-TV	6,486D.	Amyot	3,471MacDonald and Brisson	9,405J. Harvey	4,800L.	Lurette	3,975E.	A.C. Amy and Sons Limited	50,920M.	Laplante	3,000M. Albrecht	4,620P. Brousseau	4,512Quality Language Service	3,000S. Piccinin	2,100International Simultaneous Translation Services	2,221Supply and Services Canada	8,919C. Dymond	10,044E. Stoll	2,250


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Revenue under the taxation program at page 32.24, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photo service (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?
Order Paper Questions


Bill Rompkey: (a) Developing, enlarging and reducing photos for real estate appraisals, (b) $17,859; Canadian Government Photo Centre, $3,143.19; Polaroid (Toronto), $2,216.10.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the Atomic Energy Control Board at page 32.8, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and educational services (a) how does the Department account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Marc Lalonde: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows:
(a)	There was a decrease of $23,883 in training and educational services from 1978-79 to 1979-80 rather than an increase in expenditure. This decrease is not apparent when examining the public accounts for the same reason given in part (a) of question No. 2,846.
(b)	The decrease is attributable to a special management training course in public relations conducted by TSAR Inc. at Lac Ste. Marie, Quebec in 1978-79.
(c)	No contract was valued at more than $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the Energy Program at page 32.7, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and educational services (a) how does the department account for the 14.4 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
(a)	Expenditures for training and educational services in the energy program were $95,974.00 for 1978-79 and $102,798.00 for 1979-80. Therefore, there was an increase of only 7 per cent.
(b)	These services include: the provision of instruction and facilities for the training of public servants by various public and private institutions; teachers and instructors' fees; reimbursement of tuition to employees for authorized training.
Harvard University tuition	$ 3,375.60 $ 3.404.70
National Research Council of Canada	$31,649.54
Language Instrustors:	
Elizabeth Bianchi	$ 4,511.35
Linda Dupuis	$ 2,208.32
Richard Ouellet	$ 4,188.00
Andre Plourde	$ 3,560.00

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 32.15, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photography services except motion pictures (a) how does the department explain the 270 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 197879 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


John Carr Munro: (a) The increase in expenditures for Indian and Inuit affairs is mainly due to amounts expended on photo displays and exhibits on tour; for example the Indian pavilion at Man and His World and Tradition & Change exhibits;
(b)	The services involved are the purchase of photos, graphic art services, photographer services, development and reproduction of film;
(c)	The recipients involved are Canadian Government Photo Centre, $38,058; Energy Mines and Resources, $4,200; and Via le Monde Canada Inc., $6,976. The balance is for miscellaneous items under $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the correctional services program at page 32.34, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to educational services (a) how does the Department explain the 83 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (d) what services did the Scott Paper Company, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia provide?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) In so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned, the increase of 83 per cent for the category educational services-outside staff training resources over fiscal years 1978/79 is actually an increase of 4.72 per cent and is explained by the following:
(i)	Because of misinterpretation in line objects, certain payments in 1979/80 were coded in error under educational services-outside staff training resources as opposed to educational services-inmate and parolee training.
These were; Provincial Government-Finance, Halifax, N.S. $156,150; Scott Paper Company, New Glasgow, N.S. $69,073; Prince Albert Council on Alcohol & Drug Abuse $19,000; Saskatchewan Technical Institute $5,842.
(ii)	The public accounts indicate an expenditure of $71,133 for Memramcook College in 1979/80 when in fact $28,188 of that amount was for the lease of the facility used for staff training and should not have been coded under outside staff training resources;
(iii)	A contract with North American Guard Dog Ltd., Coquitlam, B.C., for $9,913 was coded incorrectly in 1979/80 against outside staff training resources. It should have been coded under staff training contracts as it was in the fiscal year 1978/79.
Therefore the actual expenditures for educational services- outside staff training resources, for the fiscal year 1979/80, is $222,818.
It must also be noted that in fiscal year 1978/79 payments to the Department of Education, Halifax for $20,608 and $48,966 for Scott Paper Co., Nova Scotia should have been attributed to inmate and parolee training as opposed to outside staff training resources, the actual expenditures for fiscal year 1978/79 being $212,769. Therefore the increase between fiscal years 1978/79 and 1979/80 for educational services is 4.72 per cent as opposed to 83 per cent. Steps have been taken to ensure that misinterpretation of line objects does not recur.
(b)	The increase entailed services with the University of Winnipeg and St. Lawrence College in Kingston. The University of Winnipeg provided the following courses: two courses on "Inter-Personal Communications" were conducted November 6-8, 1979, and January 8-10, 1980; two courses on "Financial Management in the Correctional Service of Canada" were conducted; and one course on "Interviewing and Counselling Skills" for employees of Stony Mountain was conducted.
Whereas St. Lawrence College provided the following: two courses in business skills; twenty-five weeks of french language skill courses; six weeks of report writing; four telephone answering courses; and six weeks of oral communications training.
(c)	List of payments over $2,000 made in 1979/80 for educational services-outside staff training resources:
<


College Ahuntsic-Montreal, Quebec	$ 2,400
Communicon Inc.-Montreal, Quebec	21,200
Le Centre d'organisation scientifique dc I'Entreprise, Montreal, P.Q.	4,285
B. Dillon-Halifax, N.S.	2,216
Loyalist College-Belleville, Ontario	2,800
Management Training Centre-Halifax, N.S.	2,655
Memramcook College-St. Joseph, N.B.	42,945
N.S. Firefighters School-Waverley, N.S.	2,925
Public Service Commission-Ottawa, Ontario	4,662
St. Lawrence College-Kingston, Ontario	20,500
University of Manitoba-Winnipeg, Manitoba	2,311
University of Winnipeg-Winnipeg, Manitoba	26,825
fs
(d)	Scott Paper Co. provides instructional and training services for inmates in Shulie Lake Institution in the vocation of forest harvesting, machine operation and related trades and studies.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Solicitor General under the correctional services program at page 32.35, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other services-contracted inmate maintenance (a) how does the department account for the 82 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) The apparent increase of 82 per cent in payments to the provinces from

May 7, 1982

1978/79 to 1979/80 is caused by retroactive payments in both years resulting from billings not having been previously submitted by the province or retroactive rate adjustments.
The following are totals of payments made during 1978/79, 1979/80 and 1980/81 for services provided in 1978/79 and 1979/80:
Province	Year service provided	
	1978/79	1979/80
	$	$
Newfoundland	311,861	366,735Nova Scotia	125,072	138,207New Brunswick	10,335	8,903Quebec	2,439,724	3,104,262Ontario	307,916	279,276Manitoba	123,043	127,535Saskatchewan	83,365	77,872Alberta	81,719	219,710British Columbia	671,391	577,109Northwest Territories	161,590	155,650Yukon Territory	28,078	19,166Total	4,344,094	5,074,425
The actual increase in total payments is thus 17 per cent. Changes from one year to the next are the result of increases in per diem rates and changes in the number of days paid.
(b) Payments to the provinces listed in the public accounts as "inmate maintenance contracted" are not made under a contract but are paid in accordance with two federal-provincial agreements, one for transfer of custody of federal and provincial inmates and the other for maintenance of parolees held in provincial institutions on suspension of parole.
In each case the Government of Canada agrees to reimburse the province for each day the federal inmate or parolee is confined in a provincial institution at a rate based on the operating cost of that institution. Payments for 1978/79 and 1979/80 to each province are listed in part (a) above.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in footnote No. 9 at page 13.4, Volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the equipment lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the transit?
3.	How does the department account for the balance in the amount of $661,895?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1.	Between 5 p.m. November 2, 1978, and 7 a.m. November 3, 1978, at the construction site for the Puntledge River Hatchery, a break-in occurred. The trailer owned by Cana Construction and four-shed type buildings were entered by prying the locks off and breaking the door windows. The transit, owned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as power
Order Paper Questions
tools and miscellaneous items belonging to Cana Construction were stolen, (a) Unknown; (b) No; (c) No; (d) No; (e) Yes. As Cana Construction was providing office space for the department, they were responsible for security at the site. They did change all of the locks and board up the windows with plywood to stop further entry. Cana did not feel it warranted hiring a full-time watchman due to the cost and time involved.
2.	The transit was used for surveying sites and checking construction contracts.
3.	(i) Grounding of M.V. Keta. On March 19, 1980 at 1645 hours, the fisheries research vessel, M.V. Keta, ran aground inside the entrance to Nitinat Lake. Ship division personnel had to fly to the site. The vessel was subsequently towed to the New Westminster repair depot for docking and hull inspection plus inspection of machinery and electrical systems.
Towing charges	SI 7,550.00
Air fare to site	277.60
Wire rope used in towing by Coast Guard	456.00
Electrical Repairs	444.00 $18,727.60
(ii) Loss of equipment as a result of a fire at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. Dart-	
mouth. Nova Scotia	257.683.00
(iii) Equipment lost at sea e.g. samplers, pingers.	
nets, acoustic releases, current meters	385,484.40


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of National Revenue in footnote number 11 at page 13.4, Volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the furniture lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the furniture?
3.	How does the department account for the balance in the amount of $9,081?


Bill Rompkey: 1.
Due to the lack of storage space, some old unserviceable surplus office furniture stored on the warehouse loading docks at the bridge and tunnel in Windsor, Ontario awaiting pick-up by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation disappeared, (a) Unknown; (b) No; (c) No; (d) No; (e) Yes, an investigation was carried out, and tighter reporting controls, and ensurance of availability of secure storage space was implemented.
2.	See reply to part 1 above.
3.	The following is an accounting for the balance in the amount of $9,081: $2,761, loss of unserviceable furniture at Sarnia, Ontario in circumstances similar to the loss wich occurred at Windsor, Ontario; $2,237, loss of unserviceable drafting stools of negligible salvage value, awaiting pickup by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, inadvertently destroyed when picked up by garbage disposal company; $4,083, a

May 7, 1982
Order Paper Questions
physical inventory check, taken at time of move of Customs and Excise College from temporary accommodation in Ottawa to permanent college facility at Rigaud, Quebec, revealed furniture shortages to this value.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the National Museums of Canada at page 32.33, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photo services-motion pictures (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: (a) In the fiscal year 1979-80 one film was co-produced by the National Gallery of Canada with the National Film Board entitled "A Quebecois Rediscovered- Joseph Legare-1795-1855". The total cost of co-producing this film was $45,115. (b) The film was aimed at a variety of audiences interested in Canadian art. (c) There is no cost recovery expected in so far as the National Museums of Canada is concerned as the co-production of this film is an extension of the National Gallery's regular public programming activities.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at page 32.12, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) at what audience were the motion pictures aimed (d) what was the total cost and title of each motion picture completed in the fiscal year 1979-80 (e) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the motion pictures?


Roméo LeBlanc: (a)	The types of services purchased were: (i) film processing and developing; (ii) purchase of satellite imagery; (iii) vertical serial photography; (iv) production and distribution of feature films; (v) production and distribution of filmstrips or film clips.
(b)	(i) film processing and developing-$240,544.97 (Contracts over $2,000.00)
Mortifee Munshaw Ltd.
Customcolor Ltd.
Canadian Government Photo Centre National Film Board Central Graphic Reproductions Winnipeg Photo Ltd.
Reid Sweet Ltd.
Atlantic Photo Supply Wambolt Waterfield Steve Zeverling Photo
(ii)	purchase of satellite imagery
(iii)	vertical serial photography


[Stage Direction]
(iv) production and distribution of feature films-	59,541.69 (Contracts over $2,000)
National Film Board	57,249
Atcom Communications	2,153
(v)	production and distribution or filmstrips of film clips 31,399.62 (Contracts over $2,000)
National Film Board	23,823
Audio Visual East	4,245
(c)	The films were aimed at fishermen, the fishing industry and the general public.
(d)	Atlantic Salmon Film	$28,079Handling & Transportation	Systems	24,000Proper Sealing Procedures	23,000(e)	None.
David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise once again to ask the parliamentary secretary why the government is refusing to answer question No. 2,042 which was asked in this House on on January 29, 1981. It simply asks for the total cost of the Prime Minister's December-January world tour of 1980-81. What is the total cost to the taxpayers of Canada of that tour?
We have repeatedly requested this information and the minister repeatedly says that he will look into it. Every time I ask where the answer is we hear that he is looking into it. I feel that if we do not get a satisfactory answer today this question should be dealt with as a matter of privilege in this House.


David P. Smith: I am pleased that the hon. member has drawn this to my attention. I will be delighted to look into the preparation of this answer on his behalf.
[ Translation]


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-UNEMPLOYMENT Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved:
That this House, caring for the 1,200,000 Canadians now unemployed and the millions more worried about their jobs, recognizes that the National Energy Program and the budgets of October, 1980, and November, 1981, are largely responsible for this massive unemployment, and demands the resignations of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance, and the introduction of a new energy policy and a new budget to create jobs, lower interest rates and restore hope and confidence to Canadians.
May 7, 1982
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we commence this debate on this important motion which is a part of our supply procedure and part of the traditional way that Parliament has of holding the government accountable, I note that there is not a single minister present in the House. Not one minister.
["Order, please. Before I call it five o'clock it has been brought to my attention that comments made by the Chair earlier with respect to a point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) may have been out of order in that they constituted an opinion. Just so that members will understand, the hon. member for St. John's East rose on a point of order in reference to the quorum call the other evening. I refused to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) for the simple reason that sometimes it does appear to be the duty of the Chair to assist the House in avoiding friction. So it would hardly be consistent if in fact by my intervention I were to add to the friction.\nI want to indicate that were it indeed a statement of opinion by the Chair, it was completely inadvertent, and I apologize particularly to the hon. member for St. John's East and to members generally. Obviously it was not my intention to fuel any fires but rather to try and calm them down or put them out.\nIt being 5 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, May 10, 1982']
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just like last night.


Mr. Wright:: Not even the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) is here.


Mr. McGrath:: One would expect that there would be at least one or two ministers who would have some responsibility in the area of economic affairs. But nobody is here. I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) entering the chamber now.


Erik Nielsen: He is the minister of unemployment, the great job creator.


James Aloysius McGrath: At least now we have one minister here. Whether or not he will get the message remains to be seen. You know, Mr. Speaker, that is really consistent with the attitude of this government. We all listened a few days ago to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who spoke in this House giving us the Liberal philosophy of government. I will paraphrase what he said: "The challenge of government is to rise above events." Another way of putting that is: "We do not have time to pay any attention to what is going on around us." The Liberals have other things to do. 1 would remind the government and I would remind the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he were here, that the people of Canada want a government that is attentive to events and to what is going on around them and one that will do something about the situation.
Today we meet in a Parliament that is nasty and angry. Certainly I have not experienced anything like this Parliament in my 22 years in this House. I notice you are nodding your head as well, Mr. Speaker. There is a mood of nastiness and a mood of anger in this place. That is as it should be because that is a reflection of the mood of anger that is out there in the country. The country is frenzied; the country is angry, and well it should be.
We listened today to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) replying to questions in response to the disastrous unemployment figures released today. He said to blame the problem on everything but his own budget and disastrous policies. This situation today is unprecedented since the great depression. Today in this country one in ten people are officially out of work. Today in this country the percentage of unemployed is in double digits. We have a rate of inflation that is hovering around 12 per cent, almost twice as much as the rate of inflation in the United States. We have an energy policy that is shattered, which will mean increased energy costs for
Supply
this country. I will exacerbate the already serious inflationary situation. It will mean increased gasoline prices. It will mean increased home heating oil prices. These increases come from a government that committed itself two years ago to keeping energy prices down.


Erik Nielsen: Below 14 cents.


James Aloysius McGrath: A commitment was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to keep the excise tax on gasoline below 14 cents. Now we have increases in gasoline amounting to 75 cents. Most of that amount is directly attributable to increases in taxes by this government. The cost of home heating oil has gone up by 50 cents a gallon.


Erik Nielsen: We did not even tax that.


James Aloysius McGrath: What do hon. members think of this statement?
Your high interest rate policy would slow down the economy: it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs; it will mean increases in the cost of living. It will probably bring the housing and construction industry to a halt, with thousands of jobs being lost in those sectors.
It will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians. It will hurt small business, which depends on bank borrowing to operate. It will hurt farmers, who have the same dependency on bank borrowing and will add, therefore, to the cost of food.
How profound! I wish I had said that. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) uttered those words on October 30, 1979 when he was finance critic and was speaking before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That is the same Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who made a commitment that if interest rates rose he would resign. He is still sitting in his place and uttering the empty rhetoric to which we have grown accustomed day after day after day.
The situation is desperate, Mr. Speaker. Directly as a consequence of the last two budgets of the Minister of Finance probably the biggest tragedy in this country today, in my opinion, is the plight of the young people of Canada who have no jobs and nowhere to turn.
Today we have a 9.6 per cent unemployment rate which translates itself into one in ten people out of work. Between April and July of this year we will have 650,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 looking for jobs. Many of them are students who face the prospect in September of higher tuition fees as a result of the scrapping of the established programs financing fund. They face higher tuition fees and no jobs, which means, of course, that many of them will not be able to go back to school. Many of them will continue to be on our unemployment rolls well into the winter. That is a tragedy of mammoth proportions, Mr. Speaker.
Why can we not do something for these young people? The bad news today is only one of a series that we have had in the last seven days. A couple of days ago the Conference Board of Canada released its findings and its forecast. It reported the following:
17182

May 7, 1982
Supply
The decline in economic activity, which began mid-way through 1981 and is forecast to continue well into this year, represents the most severe setback suffered by Canada's economy since the early 1950s.
In other words, the situation is going to get worse. Can you imagine the situation getting worse? Today we have had an increase representing a 40 per cent rise in unemployment over this time last year.
If that were not enough, just a couple of days ago the housing start figures came out. What did we find there? We found a 40 per cent decline in housing starts over this time last year. That situation will get worse. The seasonally adjusted rate arising from these figures amounts to 142,000 starts. Yet CMHC indicates that from 1981 to 1986 we will need to maintain annual housing starts of 210,000 a year. That was providing the activity for the previous five years was at average norms, but it was well below average norms. Therefore, we will need more than 210,000 housing starts a year for the next five years just to catch up.
I cite these figures because you can directly relate the housing crisis to the problems facing young people. Not only do they not have jobs but if they get married they will have no place to live. What a tragedy for this country.
I mention housing because hon. members know, and the government should know, that it is probably the most labour intensive industry in the country. But no doubt we will hear the government say: "We have just made provision by way of the budget to provide interest free loans of up to $7,500 to build
30.000	rental units in the country." That is not enough. That is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the industry. They urgently need loans over $10,000 in metropolitan Toronto right now and they also need that much in metropolitan Vancouver. The
30.000	can be taken up in the two largest metropolitan areas of the country right now.
We also know that as a result of a decrease in supply and a concomitant increase in demand there will be further increases in the price of housing. The situation is going to get worse. It will get worse before it gets better. Yet the Minister of Finance stands behind that disastrous budget which he brought down in the House last fall.
Let us consider the consumer price index which is the measurement of the cost of living in this country. At this very moment in 1982, the cost of living in this country stands at 11.6 per cent. In the United States the consumer price index stands at 6.8 per cent, which is a substantial decline. How do you measure that performance in the United States against ours? When you talk about the consumer price index, you are talking about bread and butter, food for the table, a roof over your head.
Home heating oil is another commodity which Canadians basically need just to live. When measuring these basic necessities we must compare them to their performance in the United States. Not only is it fair to measure the government's performance against the performance of the United States, but we can also compare it to the performance of the previous government which we hear so much about these days.
Let us consider home heating oil. Under our budget, the annual tax on home heating oil would represent 19 cents a gallon, or $155 a year average. The annual tax on gasoline was equal to 39 cents a gallon, or $228 a year. We provided for an energy tax credit to protect home owners, fishermen and low-income earners. The total tax before that credit was $483. The total after the tax credit was $263.
Let us compare that to the budget of the Minister of Finance. Under his budget, the average annual tax on heating oil is $441 per year as opposed to $155 a year. The average annual tax on gasoline is $349 a year as opposed to $228 a year. The total tax before the energy tax credit is $790 per year. However, since there is no energy tax credit the total increase stays at $790 a year as opposed to $263 a year. Is there any wonder why the rate of inflation in Canada should be at the double digit rate and hovering around 12 per cent? These increases come from a government which campaigned on keeping price increases on gas and oil down. What total, complete and utter misrepresentation.
Where is the minister of energy? He was absent for most of the emergency debate and we obviously will not have the honour of his company today. The Minister of Finance is not in the House, nor is the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). There is one minister present in the House who presumably will be replying on behalf of the government. We see by the economic forecast that the unemployment situation will get worse. As a result of the third piece of bad news which hit our country a week ago today, we now know that the energy situation will get considerably worse because of the government's energy policy. That energy policy, like the government's economic and fiscal policies, is in shatters. There is nothing left of them.
The government's energy policy was based entirely on the so-called megaprojects. Let us examine the collapse of the Alsands project, which God knows has been examined enough in the House during the past 35 hours of emergency debate- save for one unexpected interruption. The collapse of the Alsands project will mean the loss of 35,000 directly related jobs. Since these figures have to be added to the job loss represented in today's unemployment figures, it means, of course, that the unemployment statistics will be worse next month. The collapse of Alsands means a loss in direct investment of $13 billion. It means an addition of close to $12 billion in crude oil imports from the offshore. The spin-off effects from now until the end of the century would have amounted to over $400 billion.
I stated those figures for the record because we must relate what they mean to the average Canadian. To the average person in this country they mean further increases in the cost of gasoline at the pump. Paradoxically, this occurs at a time when world prices are decreasing. It will mean further increases in the cost of home heating oil-with no shelter of an energy tax credit-at a time when home heating oil prices in other parts of the world, including the United States, are going down. This will be the effect on the average Canadian.
Of course, these costs will filter all the way through the economy. Ultimately, it will mean higher food prices, added transportation costs and added production costs. If that is
May 7, 1982

added to the number of farm bankruptcies and the decline in our capacity to produce food, the result is an economic tragedy in this country of unprecedented proportions. We have seen nothing like it since the great depression. Indeed, there are areas of the country where the world recession is not relevant because those areas are, in fact, in a full scale depression.
There are one and a quarter million people officially unemployed in this country. What is not included in the number, however, is hidden unemployment or what I call the "hopeless unemployed." These are people who live in areas like Cape Breton and Newfoundland who have no prospects for employment in certain areas of that province and region. They are the hidden unemployed. If they are added to the official unemployment figures of today there are over one and a half million people in Canada looking for work but who have no job prospects.
As I have already indicated, the real tragedy is the dilemma faced by the our young people. Their prospects are very depressing. Students have no hope for summer employment and even if they are able to continue their education they face the prospect in September of increased tuition fees as a result of the budget of the Minister of Finance.
Young people who wish to get married must face the likelihood, in most major centres of the country, of zero vacancy rates. They will not even have an apartment to move into and will have to double up with their parents. Young couples who look to the future to achieve the traditional dream of Canadians to own a small part of Canada face the prospect of never owning a home in this country. The chance to own a home for the average Canadian is practically nil right now. What a mess, Mr. Speaker. To paraphrase an old election slogan, "Grit times are hard times".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is about time the people of Canada had some say in this matter, because if they were given the opportunity of having some say, my prediction is that the last vestige of dishonest Liberalism, the last Liberal government extant in this country today, would be wiped off the map of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The great Liberal Party of this country would be on the verge of extinction and would have to look to the game laws of this country for protection, to quote the late Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.
They have three options open to them, as I see it.


Erik Nielsen: Go now, next week, or later.


James Aloysius McGrath: They have three options open to them, if they were to be honest-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Or tonight, or tomorrow.
Supply


James Aloysius McGrath: -with this House and with the people of Canada. First of all, the Minister of Finance could-


An hon. Member:: Quit, resign and leave.


James Aloysius McGrath: -be honest with himself and admit that the budget was in shatters, was a disaster, and bring in a new budget. I suspect-indeed, we are told-that that will not happen, thus eliminating that option. But I throw it out again as a serious suggestion because we are all anxious to get this economy of ours back on the rails. That is the role of Parliament.
I have a second suggestion, and I throw this one out sincerely. It has been repeated time and again during the last 24 to 48 hours, during the 35 hours of emergency debate. The second suggestion would be for the Minister of Finance to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Go, go!


James Aloysius McGrath: His resignation should be joined by that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because if both hon. gentlemen were true to the traditions of the British parliamentary practice, one with a failed budget and one with a failed energy policy, they would have no other choice but to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It should have happened long ago!


Mr. Fretz:: Resign!


James Aloysius McGrath: The third option facing the government would be for all of its members to go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is probably the best option, and I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) nodding. At least he should learn to count beyond 20 before he says another word in this House. But I throw that suggestion out as a serious option because the people of this country have shown, in poll after poll, that they have lost confidence in this government. They have no confidence in the leadership of the Prime Minister. All one has to do is to go to western Canada, to Saskatchewan or anywhere in this country, and one will find that the people have no confidence in the policies, these dishonest policies, I am sad to say, of the Minister of Finance.
One would expect the minister to have some social conscience, given his Saint Francis Xavier University background in the Coady tradition. Of course, the people have also lost confidence as a result of the disastrous, collapsed policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given all of that, the people of Canada have no confidence in the energy policies, in the monetary and fiscal policies or in the leadership of the Prime Minister and they have said so in poll after poll.

May 7, 1982
Supply
If I can paraphrase one other historic figure, "In the name of God, go" and give the people of Canada a chance to react to what they have done. They cannot continue as a government- to paraphrase the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources- to rise above events, because if they do, events will pass them by and they will be, as a party, forgotten in the process!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: The "minister of unemployment"!


Lloyd Axworthy: -I think we are all aware that this debate is being conducted at a very serious time in the fortunes of this country. There is no doubt that all of us on both sides of this House are deeply sorrowed by the grief which has been caused to those who are jobless. There is no doubt people on both sides of this House are searching in their minds and in their hearts to find some answers to those problems. The hon. member who just spoke has shown a tinge of self-righteousness in his attempt to portray that he is the only one who can speak for the people of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Let the people speak for themselves.


Lloyd Axworthy: He showed a certain degree of pomposity when he said that he will represent their points of view.


Erik Nielsen: You are the expert on pomposity.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are many people on this side of the House who also feel very deeply about what has happened in the country. They set forth their ideas and points of view, but they do so in a different manner. I ask hon. members of the House to stop and reflect for a moment on what we have just heard. Did we hear one constructive idea?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Dinsdale:: Yes-resignation of the government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did we hear one proposal which would add one person to the job market?


An hon. Member:: Absolutely none!


Erik Nielsen: Yes, yes-resign!


Lloyd Axworthy: Did we hear any suggestions with any positive direction or thrust? Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, resign!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: A new budget!


Lloyd Axworthy: All we hear from the apostles of doom and gloom on the other side are policies of negativism. Oh, do they like trouble. They wallow in the pool of chaos. They stir the pot and they know that Canadians are mad and fighting. One reason is because the cause is clearly there. There is a group of
people in this House who have a vested interest in doing nothing but churning up a sense of pessimism and fear, rather than looking at what is possible and considering the kind of direction and policy which Canadians as a whole should be following. They have nothing to offer, nothing to say; no solutions, no proposals.


An hon. Member:: You are not listening!


Lloyd Axworthy: Nothing they say is constructive. All they say is why does this minister or that minister not resign? That is not what the people of Canada are asking for.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Oh yes, they are!


Lloyd Axworthy: They are asking for answers which can be put into effect. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. That is the reason we are always over here and they are always over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Over the years, the people of Canada have ultimately seen that they can have confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada, which is prepared to look for answers-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But you have blown it this time.


Lloyd Axworthy: -tough as they may be, and does not simply churn the pot of trouble in order to conjure up frightened fantasies.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Nonsense!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the difference between us. That is why the people of Canada expect far more than they are receiving from hon. members in the opposition. I frankly think the people are getting tired of this constant tirade, the bell ringings and the debates being held. All right, that is fair enough, that is what Parliament is for; but when do we hear from the opposition what it would do instead?
We hear of a budget which is three and a half years old. As Tories always do, they dwell in the past to find their answers. But when Canadians ask them where they stand, what do they get? They get a cacophony of different answers. Hon. members opposite make the Tower of Babel look like the Mormon Tabernacle choir. One hon. member says spend more money while another says spend less money. One says restrain while another says don't restrain. We do not know where they stand on anything. The reason is because they do not know either. They have never known. They do not have a policy or a program. They have nothing to offer this House.


An hon. Member:: Hot air.


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) had the audacity to berate this government for the initiatives we were taking. But when we ask where the hon.


May 7, 1982

member and his leader stand on the issues, what do we hear? We do not hear one word or a single proposition.


An hon. Member:: They do not know.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are engaging in the debate here because we want to find answers and because we do care. Because the hon. member has obviously ignored the kind of initiatives we are taking, I would like to show him how we care. Through the programs of my own department alone, and it is not the only one, we are presently servicing close to half a million Canadians through programs involving an expenditure of over $1.6 billion. We are servicing over 100,000 Canadians in direct job creation. Concerning new programs we signed our eleven hundredth work-sharing agreement affecting over 50,000 workers in this country.
Rather than having the enlisted co-operation of hon. members opposite to work with industries and workers in their communities to develop those kinds of programs, we get nothing but the apostles of negativism coming back. There is an answer that is of great effect and that in fact is being used in the hon. member's own province. But he walks oblivious to the reality; he is simply going to his witches' brew, trying to conjure up his particular potion of pessimism. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is necessary any more.
We have put in place a number of programs to try to help the unemployed. Just recently we added some major restrictions on foreign workers coming in, to make sure that Canadians have first chance. We have introduced new programs under the unemployment insurance program, Section 38, which are providing opportunities to join, in co-operation with the provinces, in developing new job initiatives in forestry, mining and tourism. These proposals are coming from his own provincial government, but the hon. member is totally ignorant of and oblivious to it. Because they are not prepared to get down to work and share in it. There are job programs in fisheries in his own province that will provide hundreds of jobs for fishermen who are out of work. Again the hon. member is oblivious to and ignorant of that fact and reality. Mr. Speaker, we are not saying that that will solve the whole problem. Time and time again in this House we have said that it is a problem affecting every country in the world. And that is not passing the buck; it is trying to describe how we must be careful and deliberate in the policies that we put together, along with other countries, to try to find some way out of these very difficult times.
Instead, we have a resolution in front of us that says that all will be well if one minister would resign and if we throw the budget out and all the rest of it. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) resigned, would that help the unemployment rate in the United States which is now 9.4, or would it bring down interest rates set by the Federal Reserve Board? Will they say: "Oh well, the Canadian government has taken an initial major step, because the Tory opposition told them to
Supply
do so, so we will bring our interest rates down"? What foolishness, Mr. Speaker! What nonsense, what silliness, we are receiving from the members of the opposition.
If we have to discuss our economic problems in real terms, then let us discuss them. Let us not have this infantile child's play that we hear continually from the members of the opposition, that somehow if only the Minister of Finance would resign, if we would throw out his budget, all would be right in the world. All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the sun would shine.
In the United Kingdom there is an unemployment rate of 12 per cent. There is a government there which the member opposite has extolled time and time again, saying that the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, is the epitome of economic widsom. They have an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, yet hon. members opposite say it somehow would solve all our problems here and abroad if our Minister of Finance would resign.
When is the opposition going to be serious, Mr. Speaker? When are they going to treat these problems with the kind of serious thought they deserve and quit playing their game of sandbox politics? It is about time this Parliament got down to a serious discussion of unemployment, because it is a serious issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is time they faced up to the kind of policy that we have put forward and which we are prepared to change and alter if we receive any kind of reasonable suggestion from members opposite.


An hon. Member:: We never do, we never do.


Lloyd Axworthy: What have we got so far, Mr. Speaker? Nothing of a serious or rational or intelligent nature. All we see is that banging of the shoe on the table and that wild rhetoric. The hon. member for St. John's East should read some economic papers and forget some of the rhetorical outbursts of evangelism. That is not what these times require.
Let us put forward the kind of strategy that we are dealing with; let us have a serious debate. Let us erase the kind of childishness we have been receiving from the first speaker and get down to serious debate. Let us talk about the real issues. Let us talk about the trinity of evil called inflation, interest rates and unemployment. They are interconnected and interdependent; they all affect one another.
We have said time and time again that if this country is to stabilize its economy, if it is to bring about the stimulus of growth, we must deal with the issue of inflation. We cannot deal with one problem in isolation from another. We must come to grips with the fact that as long as we have a high inflation rate we cannot bring our interest rates down, and if we cannot bring our interest rates down we cannot allow the private sector to stimulate the economy. That was the whole thrust of the Minister of Finance's budget. It was to provide fiscal and monetary restraint in this country, to try to get that inflation under control, on a decreasing scale, so that we can bring interest rates down.

May 7, 1982
Supply
We are as deeply concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the impact of high interest rates as anyone in this country, perhaps more, because we deal with it every day, not under the sort of poppycock opposition pressure that we hear three times a week-and then they go off and do the same sort of dance somewhere else. We are deeply concerned about the position. We have a strategy in place to try to bring the inflation rate down. Contrary to the NDP, we have not adopted the so-called Reaganomics to do it, because we have one thing that is different; we have maintained the full range of social programs, of unemployment insurance, to ensure that there is proper support and cushioning for those who are affected by these policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: The member opposite from St. John's East tried to reach out and paint as black a picture as he possibly can, saying we are down in the depths of the great depression. He forgets that the great depression did not have a thing called the Unemployment Insurance Act, which provides up to $210 a week for people who are unemployed. It has provided the best, most effective and most reliable income support of any country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: He totally ignores that. The Unemployment Insurance Act is doing what it was designed to do-provide a basic foundation for workers who are unemployed until the economy turns. It is a credit to this country that we have been able to maintain that system and use it effectively.
Not only are we providing income support, but we are also using the unemployment system in a developmental way to provide opportunities for workers who are unemployed to get new training during that period of time, to go back to work in forest management projects, something which is desperately needed in order to improve the productivity of our forest industry. So this government has tried to bring in not just a basic income support, but tried to use it in a creative way.


An hon. Member:: It is sheer misery!


Lloyd Axworthy: Ah, now we are hearing the classic shout, that there is sheer misery. I have an interesting proposition to make to the NDP members. Let them ask their own membership, their own workers, if they would like to follow the NDP proposal, which is to let people really become unemployed and not make any money and not go back to work. 1 do not believe in that kind of idea. I believe that Canadians want to work, that they want to be given the opportunity, that they want to be given the chance to work and to make more income. The NDP do not believe in that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is rising on a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Would the minister entertain one short question?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would prefer to hear the question after a short while.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, seeing the member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) rise to his feet, I would only point out to him, when he is looking for answers, that his own community is a major beneficiary of a new program of this government called the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program. It has provided major industrial incentives for new industries to come into his community. It has provided additional subsidies for workers, new training, new mobility. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have in my office a letter from the mayor of Brantford thanking me and this government for bringing in the ILAP program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We need that kind of moral support at this time, rather than what we hear from the opposition that there is no strategy, that nothing has been done. I suggest to the member for St. John's East that he go and talk to the member for Brant and find out what has been done in his community to provide that alternative for workers in his constituency. Mr. Speaker, we have those programs in place.
We have also brought into place under the budget, Mr. Speaker, an economic development strategy which appears as a direction to develop the economy now and in the future and to provide jobs. We have heard time and time again about the failure of the megaprojects. Mr. Speaker, yes, the pipeline is postponed and the Alsands project is stopped. Did that really have something to do with the National Energy Program, or was it the international oil economy? If the hon. member for St. John's East used any logic at all, he would realize that the United States did not stop all its oil-shale projects because of the Canadian National Energy Program. The Americans stopped them for the same reason the major multinationals stopped Alsands. The reason was they could not get the price for oil they thought was necessary to develop the projects. That is why many alternative energy projects are being stopped around the world.
However, at the same time there are all kinds of other projects going on. We have the northeast coal project providing jobs for over 5,000 people and the expenditure of $1 billion. How did that project get started? It was started through an investment by this government. The Trans Quebec and Maritime Pipeline project employs close to 11,000 people at an expenditure of $800 million. Why are 11,000 people going to work? They are going to work because of an investment by this government.
In the major projects task force report there are 440 megaprojects which were measured by business, labour and government as being prospective during the next two decades. There have been two failures. All of a sudden hon. members opposite say the megaprojects are no more. There are tens of dozens of projects continuing.
Let me talk about the role the opposition plays in job creation in this country. Let me talk about the position taken
May 7, 1982

by the Conservative Party and the NDP on perhaps the single most critical investment in Canada in terms of its future growth, the modernization of our transportation system. It was quite clear that the growth in western Canada in terms of new export markets for potash, grain, sulphur and coal could not go ahead unless we had a new railway system. We had reached full capacity. The railways said they were not prepared to invest the tens of billions of dollars necessary to bring that project about when they were losing $600 million a year because they were not getting anywhere near a fair price for their service. It was quite clear that that project was the key which would unlock a number of new projects in processing, manufacturing and refining in western Canada and also create jobs in connection with new locomotives in London, steel rails in Sydney and railways cars in Montreal. These have an effect right across Canada. However, someone had to take a tough decision to bring the parties to the table and get them negotiating and showing good faith so that a $13 billion investment could be made to create tens of thousands of jobs across Canada. What was the position of the opposition? What has been the position of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, those great prophets of "What can we do?" They are totally against it.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Who pays the bill?


Lloyd Axworthy: Since we are talking about who is for this and who is against it and about who is interested in creating growth and jobs in the country, 1 ask hon. members opposite to declare in this debate today their commitment to supporting the policy put forward by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), to supporting those negotiations and to ending the kind of foolish nonsense the allies of the NDP-the NFU and the Manitoba farm and labour federations-get into because they oppose progress, development and growth. They are living in the past. We ask hon. members to renounce that today and agree this is an important investment in the future of Canada which will create jobs for tens of thousands of Canadians.
Let Parliament today in a unified form-both sides of the House-support a policy which will provide major expansion across Canada. Do hon. members opposite have the courage to do that? Does the hon. member for St. John's East? Is he prepared to get his caucus to support a major megaproject so that we can bring that kind of growth on? The hon. member pleaded. He wanted something to happen. The Minister of Transport has put something on the table, but the biggest obstacle to that is the kind of political opposition we get from the Tories and the NDP, who are simply paying off their old debts by living in the past. We want to know when they are prepared to get behind major expansion projects and major growth projects. We want to know when they are prepared to begin co-operating during these difficult times and start creating jobs in this country, rather than simply coming forward on a platform of pessimism.
The hon. member for St. John's East says the Liberals are dishonest. I suggest there may be some reason not to trust his comments as well. There may be some reason to suggest there was a tinge of hypocrisy in the remarks of the hon. member for
Supply
St. John's East, because if he really believed in what he said, rather than standing here berating us he would be working in his own caucus to get agreement and co-operation from his colleagues for something which will provide tens of thousands of jobs in the next year. There will not just be direct jobs in construction and manufacturing; there will also be an opportunity to open up a whole new export market. The hon. member for St. John's East wants a response. That is fair. Should he resign if he is not prepared to co-operate? Should we ask for his resignation because he is dishonest and hypocritical in not being prepared to take the kind of initiative on behalf of the people of Canada that is necessary?
In addition to that, in terms of an economic development strategy we have also put forward a number of initiatives in the area of science and technology in manufacturing. There has been a 20 per cent increase in funding for the National Science and Energy Research Councils for new manufacturing development. Seventy million dollars is going into new centres for microelectronics to aid and assist that fast-growing industry. Millions of dollars are going into the Telidon project, which is providing jobs in the high tech area. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is working on an agri-food strategy, which will provide major support for research in agricultural processing and development. A major study is going on in the fisheries industry to provide for realignment and rationalization with respect to production.
In talking about the economy, let us talk about the statistics which came out yesterday. The hon. member for St. John's East was very anxious to pick and cull from the newspapers all the bad news he could find. Why did he not refer to the good news, which is that we have made the biggest sale of wheat to China in the history of Canada? It was announced yesterday that we have the largest trade surplus ever recorded in this country. That trade surplus is because of a major increase in the export of finished goods. Thirteen billion dollars in the first three months of 1982 is not a bad record. It is exports that will get this country into a better economic position, as long as we can take care of the other problems and as long as we can stay competitive economically and internationally. That means we have to be talking about wages, prices and investment. We have to get the inflation rate down if we are going to maintain our economic advantage.
My contention is that we have a strategy. It was put forward in the budget, both in terms of fiscal and monetary instruments. We have a strategy which relates to a major retraining of Canadians. Hon. members want to talk about productivity and future progress. We increased the training budget of this government by 15 per cent, to over a billion dollars. This will provide training for close to 275,000 Canadians. Hon. members talk about yong people. The best opportunity for a young person is to get the skills he or she will need for the jobs of the future. That is what this government is investing in, with absolutely no help from hon. members opposite.
1 will put another proposition to the hon. member for St. John's East, who is so anxious to get things going. Let him go

May 7, 1982
Supply
back to his caucus and ask if they will agree to a one-day debate on our national training policy so that we can get it through and get the job of training hundreds of thousands of Canadians done. The problem is that the opposition holds up measures like the new national training program which we have not been able to bring forward. If the hon. member wants to be constructive and helpful, let him go to his caucus and ask them to give us the opportunity to bring that training bill forward. Then we will help 250,000 young people. We will help them get work and get the skills they need.
That is what we want in this difficult time. We do not want the wall of conflict which has been thrown up. What we need is willingness to co-operate, to develop constructive solutions and to come forward with ideas. We are prepared to listen to hon. members opposite because we do not pretend we have all the answers. However, at the same time we do not think we are faced with the panorama of destruction we hear about constantly. We hear no solutions and no constructive ideas or alternatives.
It is time for Members of Parliament on both sides to work together with the private sector to come up with solutions. Then the people of Canada would not be angry. They would be able to believe again not just in government but in the entire Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.
["It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.\nAt one o'clock the House took recess."]
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to lead off for my party this afternoon in the debate on the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Before I begin I should like to say that even though I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member in whose name the motion appears, as I sat listening for 30 minutes this morning trying to find a Conservative alternative in his speech regarding an energy strategy or an employment strategy or an industrial strategy, I was disappointed.
I am afraid this is the story of the Conservatives in opposition these days. They want to bash the government, as we do, and they want to be extremely critical. Unfortunately, however, they are critical in a negative way day after day. They do not offer any positive, alternative proposal. That is the major problem with that party. We are not getting a positive response from the Conservatives. I strongly suspect the reason for this is that their leader and their spokesperson on finance have agreed that high interest rates are the only way to bring down
inflation. And that is the government's policy. The critic of the Progressive Conservative Party on finance has stated openly outside this House that he agrees with supply side monetarist Reaganomics. In that way they have preempted themselves from any positive alternatives to any Liberal program or nonprogram at this time.
I was also shocked when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) intervened before lunchtime and said at the beginning of his speech, and I wrote his words down, "We are all saddened by the grief that is caused to those who are jobless."
I honestly do not understand how the minister who is chiefly responsible for employment, and indeed unemployment in this country, can be so callous in his opening remarks on such serious matters as employment, an industrial strategy and an energy strategy.
In the past few days we have seen the almost total collapse of the major economic thrust of the government, that is, the resource-based capital intensive megaprojects. They have not all gone but certainly the cornerstone has gone. We anticipate that many other megaprojects are not only in jeopardy but may fail as well.
The main reason for this is high interest rates and lower world prices for oil caused by a world glut which the government should have seen and addressed well over a year ago. There is no excuse for putting all the economic eggs in one basket which all of a sudden has a huge hole in it. This has only added to the misery of the 1.2 million Canadians, 9.6 per cent of the work force, who today find themselves jobless. It is a very sad state of affairs.
What makes it tragic is that this recession is a planned recession. It has not come about as a result of normal market forces. The marketplace has not caused this recession. It has come about, first of all, because government has deliberately planned and executed a policy of high interest rates, cuts in public services, cuts for wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals, which in turn have led to massive lay-offs, plant shutdowns and demands for wage rollbacks.
I think it is absolutely unforgivable that government policy today should pit one worker against another; they are bidding each other down to get the lowest paying job in order to keep their heads above water. That is what their fathers had to do during the great depression of the 1930s. Today in many communities across the country we find workers bidding against each other and losing many of the benefits of collective agreements arrived at through negotiation in the sixties and seventies, only to end up competing with each other in a job that pays them less at the end of every week.
As far as I am concerned, that is totally inexcusable. Canada and this government is on a crusade against inflation where jobs are mere cannon fodder. Workers' economic security is the number one casualty. Workers are blamed for inflation- the worker's belt must be tightened, the Prime Minister (Mr. May 7, 1982

Trudeau) has said. In the last five and a half years the wages of workers have fallen behind and today the average worker is $39.19 per week behind where he was in 1976. Yet the Prime Minister says public sector employees, and by implication private sector employees, must tighten their belts for his errors and the errors of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). That is the way it has always been with the Liberals, and it is absolutely despicable as far as I am concerned.
Wages do not cause industrial lay-offs. Just two weeks ago about 4,000 chief executive officers across Canada were polled, and 75 per cent of them said it was not labour unit costs which were causing lay-offs or shutdowns, it was high interest rates and the cost of borrowing money. So it is a planned recession, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to present our option; unlike the Conservatives, we have one. We are not saying it is perfect or will put Canadians back to work in a few days, but at least we have given it thought for several months, analysed it, and we think in the long term it will work. But, like all long-term policies, we have to begin yesterday.
We just cannot afford to drift any further into economic chaos and social distress. The NDP economic strategy is based on a number of key elements, including a historic commitment to Canadianization of our economy through the use of all the tools at our disposal-public enterprise, joint public-private ventures, co-operative ownership and private ownership. Second, the widening of public ownership in the resource sectors; and third, a commitment to require multinational corporations in Canada to provide jobs here which match the level of their access to our markets.
The first two elements are well-known and need no specific elaboration here. The third requires some expansion because it has received attention in recent discussions of our new employment option.
The insistence that multinationals not have free access to our market is of crucial importance in a period of deep recession. This is especially true in the hard-hit manufacturing sector where 308,000 jobs have been lost in the last six months. The weakness of employment in the manufacturing sector is far more severe than it has to be in relation to the size of our market. In 1981 our trade and manufacturing deficit reached a record $21 billion. That deficit cost us 200,000 production jobs and tens of thousands more in the service sector. Even though Statistics Canada has, to date, failed to produce figures on exactly how much of the manufacturing deficit has been caused by multinationals, other studies tell us it is a very high proportion. Foreign-owned corporations account for 57 per cent of Canadian manufacturing. Those firms are concerned first and foremost with their global balance sheets, not with their contribution to Canadian economic wellbeing. Such firms have a marked tendency to import technology, production machinery, parts and components from their head offices. Especially since the recent GATT agreement has lowered
Supply
tariff protection to very low levels, multinational manufacturing firms have had a tendency to shift their production out of Canada to plants in their country of origin.
Without fully understanding it we are now involved in a life or death war of non-tariff barriers to protect our manufacturing employment. Our competitors in the United States, Japan and western Europe are using government policies to maximize their domestic employment. Alone among the major industrialized nations of the world Canada has failed to take serious steps to do this. It is disgusting, embarrassing, and it is Liberal policy. The result is de-industrialization. That does not refer to the temporary loss of jobs in manufacturing as a result of recession; it refers to the shifting of jobs out of Canada by multinationals to their country of origin while the multinational retains or even increases its market share in Canada. Deindustrialization reduces our industries to warehouse-assembly operations. It threatens our very survival as an individual and independent industrial nation. Let me cite the results of two of the studies which confirm this analysis.
A study of U.S. multinational corporations produced by the U.S. Senate in February, 1973, detailed the behaviour of U.S. firms abroad. The study examined the trends in employment and manufacturing in U.S.-owned multinational corporations in seven countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, West Germany, Mexico and Brazil. Between 1966 and 1970 U.S. multinationals increased their share of manufacturing employment in those seven countries by an average of 25 per cent. The only country in which there was a decrease in the proportion of manufacturing workers employed by U.S. multinationals was Canada. This decrease was not an indication of lessening U.S. control of our economy; it occurred at the same time as they increased their share of manufactured goods sold in the Canadian market.
Evaluating the evidence, Mr. Speaker, the Senate study concluded that U.S. multinationals had a marked negative impact on Canadian manufacturing employment between 1966 and 1970, the reverse of the pattern in every other country. U.S. firms, while increasing their dominance of the market, were cutting back their relative share of employment. This can best be explained by the growing tendency of U.S. firms to import parts and components manufactured by their U.S. operations into Canadian branch plants for final assembly and sale.
The fact that U.S. manufacturing firms displace jobs in the long run was acknowledged in the study, which concluded that a key role of U.S. multinationals has been to foster the sale of parts and components manufactured in the U.S. to branch plants abroad. We are reaping the whirlwind of that U.S. policy which has resulted in massive lay-offs in many foreign-owned or U.S. branch plants across Canada.
The study estimated, Mr. Speaker, that this role far outweighed the importance of imports to the U.S. from foreign operations of U.S. multinationals. The net gain to the U.S. was placed at 500,000 jobs. Although the study did not break down this job figure in terms of the countries negatively affected, Canada most certainly topped the list. This is so because

May 7, 1982
Supply
Canada is the site of about 25 per cent of all direct U.S. investment abroad. It is further evidenced in light of this study's conclusion that Canada was the only country in which relative employment in U.S. multinational manufacturing firms was dropping.
The second study examined the behaviour of U.S. and Canadian-owned firms in manufacturing in Ontario for the period 1966 to 1972. It concluded that over that period U.S. establishments created only one-third as many new jobs as Canadian-owned firms relative to their size. It was again clear that the reason for the difference in performance was not a shift in market control to Canadian firms; rather it was the tendency of American firms to pass on the bulk of their increased activity in Canada to their American plants. The phenomenal growth in our trade deficit in manufactured products from S2.5 billion to $21 billion in just over a decade is the result.
Our long-term answer to this problem must be to Canadian-ize the manufacturing sector. In the middle range, however, we must recognize that multinationals will play a key role in our manufacturing for years to come. At a time when the bottom has fallen out of our manufacturing economy it would be economic nonsense to advocate a sudden shift from foreign to Canadian ownership of manufacturing.
If, then, the multinationals will be with us for some time to come, we have to get tough with them. We cannot allow them to dominate our market without paying for it by providing us with our fair share of jobs. In the NDP's new employment option, we have argued that Canada must insist that foreign manufacturing firms in the transportation equipment and machinery sectors, both massively foreign owned, must produce in Canada as much in value as Canadians consume of their products. They can do this by producing for both our domestic market and our export market, and by purchasing parts and components from Canadian suppliers. But they can no longer cause a huge trade deficit and cost Canadians tens of thousands of jobs as they are presently doing.
There are three possible situations with respect to manufacturing and multinationals in Canada. First, a situation in which foreign firms dominate the market and supply it from production facilities in their countries of origin. This is the situation in the Third World. It is characterized by massive trade deficits and high unemployment. Second, a situation in which foreign firms are required to produce as much in value in the host country as citizens in that country consume of their products. Third, a situation in which industry is owned and controlled by the citizens of the country in which it is located.
Clearly situation three is preferable to situations one and two. This option must be the long-term goal. In the present circumstances, however, Canada is located-and this is a shameful situation-somewhere between situation one and situation two for 60 per cent of our manufacturing, and we are sliding in the wrong direction.
While advocating growth in the share of our market that is satisfied through domestically-owned firms, we must also hold the multinationals to the provision of our fair share of jobs for the proportion of the market which they enjoy. I would like to say that in our judgment this is a workable option and alternative. In this debate today we have put forward a positive alternative to the government. I hope that some day the Conservatives will put their brains together and also come up with some kind of positive alternative.


Mr. McKenzie:: At least we have some brains.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by my colleague and good friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). His motion is a very timely one. It brings attention to the unemployment situation in this country, the massive lay-offs and the high interest rate problems. The unemployment statistics shattered everyone when we received news of them upon waking up this morning, having left the House at around 2.30 a.m.
I hope my friend, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), will stay in the House to hear what I have to say because I, too, have some proposals to put before the House to help the conditions Canada is facing today.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) for his courtesy in allowing me to speak out of turn because I have another commitment.
Before I get into the positive end of things, I want to take a look at what is happening in Canada today and speak about the problems as I see them. Two of the major problems we have can be summed up very simply. Canada has a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who are stubborn and have an unbending attitude toward the business community and the energy industry.
Let me put an example before the House. The Minister of Finance likes to say that he has been discussing his budget with the business community and that the business community is in favour of what he is doing. However, let me read from an article in the latest edition of Maclean's magazine dated May 10, 1982:
To add to the Liberals' dilemma, the November budget is still sending shock waves through an edgy business community. Although MacEachen crisscrossed the nation last month to hold private talks with business leaders, participants report that he still refused to admit that his tax change proposals are riddled with major flaws. Businessmen were forced to devote the major portion of most meetings to arguments about the budget. MacEachen, in turn, reacted to the criticism with obstinate fury, apparently convinced that businessmen are deliberately plotting against him.
I met with representatives of the business community as recently as yesterday at noon. They reported that they are not supporting the actions of the Minister of Finance. I see the minister's parliamentary secretary shaking his head, negatively as usual. The business leaders reported that the Minister of Finance is not doing the right thing. They have made concrete proposals to the government, but instead of accepting them, co-operating and sitting down with Canada's business leaders,
May 7, 1982

the minister is fighting them. He is fighting the labour movement as well. In effect he is saying: "I am right; I am not going to co-operate with you". That is what is happening.
Business leaders in Canada are depressed. They are trying to make things work. They are trying to provide jobs. They are trying to create wealth for the people of Canada. But every time they turn around, they are slapped in the face by the Minister of Finance.
There are some startling statistics before us which this government cannot deny. For instance, 12 out of every 100 small businesses went bankrupt in the last four months. That is a terrible situation. Sixty-two per cent of businesses surveyed who are members of the Chamber of Commerce are putting their venture capital outside the country because they do not trust this government. They do not know what next will be changed. They cannot plan from one month to the next, let alone from one year to the next. These are the problems causing this massive unemployment that we see today. It is the uncertainty that people see and because of that the business community just cannot invest.
Next we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What a classic! He has great political power in Quebec. No one gets a nomination and no one can run for the Liberal Party unless he says so. Once I knew about that, I understood why all the members from the province of Quebec who sit in the back rows sit there and bow to him every time he comes into the House. They do not dare stand up and speak against him. I am surprised the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) does not stand up and blast the minister of energy.


Walter David Baker: He is one of the mufflers.


John Horton McDermid: Think about the number of jobs that have been lost at Stelco as a result of the minister's bumbling in the energy field in Canada. The hon. member for Hamilton West should be up on his feet condemning the minister because jobs have been lost in Hamilton as a result of what the minister of energy has been doing.


Walter David Baker: What about SYSCO?


John Horton McDermid: On television the other night we saw the minister of energy visiting Texas. He was striding along the streets of Houston looking at the tall buildings. He had meetings with oilmen. Do you know what he said to them, Mr. Speaker? He was saying "Come up to Canada and invest. We want your money. We want you to invest your money in the energy field in Canada." But do you know what he says in the House to Canadians watching him on national television? He says "We are going to Canadianize the industry". I say to the minister that he cannot have it both ways. This is a typical double standard.


Mr. Fisher:: Give us an alternative.


John Horton McDermid: Just hang in there and I will.
I come next to a speech given by William P. Wilder to the Harvard Business School Canadian Conference. His topic was
Supply
politics, oil and economics in the early 1980s. In part his address reads:
The incredible fact is that Canada has faithfully promised the other members of the International Energy Agency that it will put its energy house in order and move to reduce its demand for imported crude oil.


Mr. Cullen:: We have done that-7 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: You have done that? But the numbers are increasing, Mr. Speaker. The numbers of imported barrels will continue to increase. I see the former minister of employment and immigration across the way. He is over there saying, "Thank goodness the Prime Minister booted me out of cabinet; I would not want to be in that hot seat now."


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: He did not boot me out; he did not take me in.


John Horton McDermid: I made a statement the other day in committee that I wish he were back in that particular portfolio.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member would not intentionally, or in any other way, mislead the House. I was not booted out of cabinet; I was not asked back in.


John Horton McDermid: That is a point well taken. 1 thank the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) for drawing that to my attention.
We could talk about the negatives for a very long period of time. I do not think there is any question that the ragtag bunch who are running the country has given us enough ammunition that an individual member could speak for hours in the House on the damage they have done to Canada. But let us talk about some positive things. The very first thing we would do if we were in government would be to withdraw the budget of the Minister of Finance. That would be the very first and the most positive thing which could be done in the country.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What perks did you lose?


John Horton McDermid: I did not lose any. I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) what perks I lost. I did not lose any perks; I did not have any perks to lose. The parliamentary secretary should know better; I have absolutely no perks at all which the budget affects.
If we were in government there would be at least four major changes in economic direction. First, we would reward the rist-takers and encourage investment. That would be the minimum first step, because awarding risk-taking and encouraging investment is the only way to create permanent jobs in Canada. Most of the tax incentives in the system should remain, because if they go the investors go. We have seen it happen. The statistics show the outpouring of capital from the country and jobs are lost to Canadians; we have seen that as well. I am not saying that there is not abuse in the system because there

May 7, 1982
Supply
is abuse in any system. That must be eliminated. But incentive must remain as a central part of the Canadian tax system and it is not provided in the budget.
Second, we would help the worst victims of high interest rates. The government took the Small Business Development Bond, which was for farmers and small businessmen, and gutted and destroyed it. They said, "If you are going bankrupt, if you are in financial difficulties, or if you are going down the tube, we will lend you money." They do not bother to help the productive small businessman who is hanging in there, creating jobs and trying to get ahead. He cannot obtain any help at all.
Our mortgage property tax credit would have been helping people to the tune of $125 per month right now, which would have effectively reduced interest rates by about 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent. Our energy tax credit program would have been helping those people who are not making much more than the average family income overcome the high energy costs which exist. Such programs are possible if the national government cares about keeping alive Canadians who want to work and build a stake in Canada.
Third, we would apply restraint with the same vigour we did when we were in government. Heaven knows this must happen; it just has to happen. We cannot have three cabinet ministers flying in formation to Winnipeg in their jets. We cannot have a courier bringing a newspaper from Quebec to the tune of $40 when we can walk down to the Chateau Laurier to pick it up. These kinds of abuse must stop.
I could give example after example. Advocacy advertising must stop. They should quit blowing their own horn. I do not mind them informing Canadians of their programs, not at all, but they should quit blowing their own horn with fancy billboards which do not say a thing. They do not contain any information; they do not inform the public whatsoever.
We would give highest priority to getting on with energy projects which guarantee self-sufficiency. I worry when I see the government and the private sector, because the Minister of Finance does not give any kind of encouragement to the business community, backing off these projects. We have an oil glut; everyone talks about the great glut and the fact that we can obtain cheaper oil and everything else. With the way things are in the Middle East, and with the way the government before us made a commitment to the major trading partners that it would develop our resources and let those who did not have them use resources available elsewhere-and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made that commitment in 1978 to the world; of course he has been known to break commitments now and then-I am fearful when we do not develop what we have in the country. One day we could be right back in the same position we were in in 1975, that is, buying imported oil while ours is sitting here. When we do that, we fool the people in the gallery and young people who need jobs when they finish school. We are fooling them if we say that we will go to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico to purchase oil because it is cheap. This creates jobs only in those countries, and that is what is being done today.
Also our party would ensure that the automobile industry, both assemblers and autoparts manufacturers, becomes healthy again. We must encourage those who wish to sell in Canada to have Canadian content in those projects, and we must encourage investment in the automobile industry. I am sure the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton would not object to a Toyota or Honda plant in Sarnia. I would not object to one in Brampton as long as it provided Canadians jobs and improved Canadian productivity.
Another thing which should happen is that tax system changes should be announced and public input should be allowed before the changes are implemented. This must happen in the country, and we are committed to doing it. If we were in government, a commitment on economic initiatives would be made with business for a set period of time so that uncertainties will not exist as they do today. The Minister of Finance changes the rules of the game almost monthly. How in heaven's name can business operate without knowing what is coming down the road? The country was built by people who took risks. It was helped to grow by national governments which encouraged individuals that to build was the way to make the nation grow. We must return to that system, and the sooner the better.
Our party is committed to a national recovery program. We are not only committed, we will do it, and we challenge the government to listen to the people of Canada calling for an election. They want one and they want one desperately. 1 challenge the government to give it to them and allow Canadians to make up their minds who they want to govern them.
The present government does not have a mandate to do what it is doing. I have never heard a Liberal opponent stand on a platform and say, "I will raise the price of gas 80 cents per gallon." I refer to the advertisement of the Minister of Finance which appeared in the January 23, 1980 edition of The Scotia Sun. It was during the election campaign and read:
Because Allan J. MacEachen and the Liberal Party spoke up for you, gas prices came down in December. Vote Liberal and the price will stay down.
That is what the ad said. The Minister of Finance did not even have enough nerve to put in a picture of a Petro-Canada station; he had a picture of a Texaco station. The ad says, "Vote Liberal and the price will stay down". How does he expect the Canadian people to believe him when he campaigned in that manner? After he said that to these people they were alarmed and did not want to be faced with an 18cent increase. They said they would vote for the Minister of Finance because he would keep the price down. That is nonsense.
I will close with this thought, Mr. Speaker. Ottawa today is governing against the traditions of Canada and against the nature of Canada, the interests of Canada and the wishes of Canada. My colleagues are committed to work and build this country and allow the private sector to create permanent jobs
May 7, 1982

so young people will have a future in Canada. I want to tell you right now Mr. Speaker, that all we need is a chance.
It is time for this government to step aside because of its dismal failure over the last two years. This government has broken all of its election promises with the exception of one. That exception is the $35 a month extra it gave to the old age pensioners. That is the only promise it has kept since the last campaign.
It is time the Prime Minister went to see the Governor General across the road from 24 Sussex to say; "Your Honour, I have been here for 14 years, my crew is tired and they are burnt out. The Minister of Transport"-who I see sitting over there-"is tired and wants a rest. 1 would like you to dissolve Parliament and give the people of Canada an opportunity to elect a government that will set us back on the track of economic and social recovery in this world."


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) rather interesting. Unlike his colleagues, he at least made some suggestions as to how the situation might be improved.
I think the debate during the last couple of weeks has been very negative. Very few positive suggestions have been made. I will try not to be negative when commenting on his suggestions because some were very good. However, one element to his proposals is missing and without it we will have the same basic situation in Canada as exists in the United States. In other words, his recipe sounds very much like Reaganomics.
The hon. member began by accusing the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) of not listening to the business community. He suggested that if he listened to the business community he would find out what he should do. What I find confusing about that suggestion is that the Minister of Finance has listened to the business community. It has told him for the last two years that high interest rates are the prescription for eliminating inflation. That is what the business community and the Chamber of Commerce said to the minister last June. They said, "We must have high interest rates to defeat inflation."
I suggest that the hon. member was not listening to the business community during the last two weeks when the president of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Mulholland, said that high interest rates are ruining the economy and we must get down to a 12 per cent interest rate. These are the concerns which the business community is talking about and this is what the cabinet and the Minister of Finance are beginning to examine.
Another suggestion was that the budget should be removed as a first step. I admit that the budget does create some problems for the business community, but I have talked to many businessmen during the last six months and they have told me that if it were not for high interest rates the budget would not concern them. They said that the key problem is the cost of money in Canada.
The Minister of Finance is in a very difficult position when he listens to the business community and other groups who say the only way to solve inflation, which they believe to be the
Supply
number one problem, is to reduce the supply of money, which would increase interest rates, slow down the economy and result in a deflationary effect. This may very well be happening to some extent. In fact, the chairman of the Canadian Bankers' Association, for instance, is saying today that inflation rates are probably only 8 per cent rather than lO'/i per cent because we are using the wrong index. In any event, the point I want to make is that the suggestion by the hon. member that the budget is the key issue I do not believe is correct.
In the United States, President Reagan has talked about risk-takers. He has cut taxes in the United States to encourage risk-takers. But the United States is in a real recession and it is bringing the rest of the world down with it. The hon. member discussed relief to those who need it most. The American tax system has been revised many times in the last year in order to give relief to certain areas, but it has still not solved the problem.
The hon. member talked about cutting government spending. There are methods for cutting government spending, but not to any substantial degree. President Reagan has done this but what has happened to the American economy? High interest rates are making it almost impossible for the American economy to move ahead. We are in the same position since the Canadian economy is so dependent on the American economy.
I suggest to the hon. member that if the Tory party does not understand the principle that this is a basic problem which must be faced, then they have no business suggesting that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should ask the Governor General to call an election. They have no alternative to offer. They have exactly the same to offer as Mr. Reagan proposed for the United States. We see what effect that has had on the world economy.
I would like to discuss in a more analytical way how our country can proceed. It is time we examined our situation seriously. First, I think we must understand some of the problems that are inherent in a high interest rate policy. One detrimental effect of high interest rates is that they are indiscriminate. I think we learn to live with inflation to some extent-although we should not take it for granted-and have come to accept and deal with perhaps a 1 per cent per month increase in inflation. We wither receive more pay or we cut back somewhat on our expenses.
As 1 said, one of the difficulties with inflation is that it does not creep up at 1 per cent or 2 per cent for everyone. For some people inflation increases by 40 per cent or 50 per cent per month while others are not affected for another five years, depending on their financial situation. This situation relates to the business community, the public as well as home owners. It is what I refer to as the indiscriminate effect.
Another aspect of high interest rates is that they tend to be very inflationary. Governor Bouey may deny that by saying that interest rates are only marginally inflationary. While it is difficult to produce figures to prove him wrong, I can produce one set of figures which would give me some reason to believe

May 7, 1982
Supply
that he may very well be wrong. If one takes the base year 1975 and compares it to 1981, it cost Canadians something in the order of $12 billion more than it would have if the currency had remained at the same value as it was in 1975. Our currency having been devalued by approximately 19 per cent, it cost Canadians $12 billion more last year for imports. Also, the difference in interest rates in 1981 as compared to 1975 has cost Canadians $23 billion, which is almost double. In other words, the inflationary effect has been double the effect of the devaluation in the currency. This is a very serious inflationary effect.
Another adverse effect concerns the slowing down of the economy which creates future supply problems. For example, apartment buildings are not being built at a sufficient rate and when interest rates come down we will have some added inflationary effects. Farmers, for instance, who have difficulty maintaining their stock and selling them off at this particular point will cause extreme inflationary effects later on. I have to weigh these problems against the effects of high interest rates.
There is no question but that high inflation is a very serious problem. The argument is not whether we should go after high inflation, but how we should go after it. The government is faced with two possibilities. I think the minister is very seriously looking at these possibilities, as is the government as a whole. The first one deals with the impact which can be made when the Prime Minister goes to the summit along with the Minister of Finance and so on. There can be an impact because it does seem that in this interconnected world, particularly in a country which is as close to the United States as we are, it is very important that our economic policies and American economic policies be roughly on course, since we import perhaps a quarter of everything we use in this country and we export to the same extent and perhaps more than that. So there is a relationship which must be held. Therefore, what happens to the American economy is tremendously important to what is happening to the Canadian economy.
In my own community of Thunder Bay, where we ship 85 per cent or 90 per cent of all of the pulp and paper from our mills to the United States, what the Canadian government does is not really that terribly important. It is what the American economy does that makes Thunder Bay a prosperous community or an unprosperous community. We are not a prosperous community at this particular time simply because the American economy is in a very serious state of affairs.
Let us look at the American economy for a minute because I want to keep referring to our interest rates and American interest rates. The American economy is in a fairly good position in terms of inflation. I do not quite know its present rate, but it looks as though it might have been anywhere around 3 per cent in the last quarter. It may be lower than that. There are some seasonal considerations, but I think we can refer to a 3 per cent or 4 per cent inflation rate.
We have been told by economists from all over that there is a very close relationship between the inflation rate and the interest rate, that the two are parallel. Basically speaking, the
bank prime rate tends to be one, two or three percentage points above the inflation rate over a long period of time. I do not deny this. I have done some work myself and I am sure that is the situation. However, in the United States there is a situation in which the bank prime rate is 16.5 per cent to 17 per cent with an inflation rate of 3 per cent to 4 per cent. So, one is referring to a real interest rate-that is, the prime minus the inflation rate-of 12 per cent. That is four times the norm, the historic norm being 3 per cent.
One can look back to the early fifties and the pattern was there, anywhere from zero per cent to 3 per cent. All of a sudden, the rate is 12 per cent, an increase of four times. In Canada it is probably only about 6 per cent because I would say our inflation rate is 10 per cent or 11 per cent. However, I think an argument can be made that it is only about 8 per cent at this particular point. Therefore, the real rate of interest is six or seven points above, or about double what it should be, historically speaking. If our interest rates are at 8 per cent, then they are nearly triple what they should be.
Therefore, we have this problem and we are beginning to wonder why, if inflation rates start coming down, the interest rates do not come down. The answer must be found in some kind of an analysis of this situation, and there are a number of factors to be considered. One of the major factors in the United States is that the American government will have a deficit of $120 billion, $130 billion or $140 billion. Now, one could say that is no larger, on a ten-to-one ratio, than our deficit, and that is true. It is not any larger on a ten-to-one ratio than our deficit, but it has about double the impact on the United States that it has on Canada simply because the U.S. savings rate is about half the Canadian savings rate. So as a percentage of savings, a $120 billion, a $130 billion or a $140 billion deficit has double the impact it would have on Canada, where we have double the savings. So it is very important to understand that. That deficit will be caused mainly by cutting taxes and introducing the kind of tax incentives to which the hon. members across the aisle are referring, and also by tremendous increases in defence spending. This is one major factor.
Another factor which we as Canadians should be looking at very carefully is the very large demand on the capital market by corporations, many of them large corporations, which are having a great deal of financial difficulty because of the slowness of the economy. They have had to put some real stress on capital markets in order to survive. The amount of borrowing is very large. This is borrowing which would not have occurred if interest rates were lower and the economy were moving faster. These are two very major factors which relate to the capital markets in the United States and in Canada. I do not think that we as Canadians can possibly move in a very substantial way unless we take the factors which are affecting the American economy into consideration.
1 mentioned earlier that we had to deal with two points: one, we must go to the summit and present a very united front against Reaganomics, along with the other six countries. There
May 7, 1982

is a lot of support coming from many elements in the United States, including large segments of the Republican party which feel exactly the same way as we do about this problem. So pressure has been brought to bear on the United States government to get interest rates down and to implement some of the proposals, including cutting the budget, removing some of the defence costs and so on, so that the budget deficit can be brought considerably lower than $100 billion. That is a very important step.
I am sure that our government will take that step but, failing to receive the kind of reaction we want from the American government, then I think we as a government must start winging it alone very soon, this summer or early in the fall. I do not advocate this as a good direction but one which may be necessary if we are to achieve some kind of growth and stimulus in our economy and remove some of the very serious problems that the present economic situation is causing.
I suggest the government take a look at one piece of literature which has come out in the last week, an article in the Financial Times of April 15. The Financial Times commissioned Data Resources, Informetrica Ltd. and the Conference Board of Canada, all three, to see what could happen if the Canadian dollar were allowed to fall to 75 cents. The results from all three were quite remarkable. Roughly speaking, what these three sources have told us is that, in one form or another, we can expect bank prime rates to drop four or five percentage points. We can expect 100,000 new jobs to be created. We can expect some added inflation, perhaps 2 per cent or 3 per cent. This would occur over a fairly short period of time, particularly if this step were taken quickly rather than slowly. These are some of the things that these very informed sources have considered.
I have asked the government to allow, and I know the Minister of Finance is taking a very close look at the possibility of allowing, the dollar to sink to the level of 75 cents U.S., with the idea that we could end up with a 12 per cent interest rate. If hon. members do not believe me, I would ask them to go back and take a good look at this article, because it was a well done study by three reliable economic groups, with good economic models, and they have come up with results which are pretty well parallel. They took different approaches but this is basically what they found.


Walter David Baker: Does the minister agree with that?


Paul Edmund McRae: The minister and everyone has seen it and we are very carefully considering it.


Walter David Baker: Oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: I think it is time that everyone in the House started to look at it instead of doing things based on the way Reagan is doing things.


Walter David Baker: Does he agree with you on the Cruise missile?
Supply


Paul Edmund McRae: I would close by saying that a sound policy for this government, which has not been suggested by the opposite side, is to work very hard at the summit to get the American government to do something seriously about the real interest rate which is 12 per cent in the United States, to move in this direction and give some relief for the rest of the world, first of all. And, second, we should take a look at an independent course if that does not work.
If we do not get the response that we and other countries and all kinds of American economists and businessmen and Republicans and Democrats have suggested-if we do not get that response, then we ourselves have to move independently, and I suggest we take a really good look and lower the dollar to about 75 cents, letting it float at this level, increasing the money supply to some extent. I would hope the effect of that would be to lower interest rates as these three studies seem to indicate, to get the rate down to about the 12 per cent level. That would be a tremendous stimulus to the economy and do far more for us than anything which has been suggested from the other side.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on an opposition motion this afternoon. I think the motion reflects the incoherent and inconsistent stance of the Conservative Opposition in the House and the Progressive Conservative Party in general. At the beginning of this week, they requested an emergency debate on the abandonment of the Alsands project. It took them four days to realize that it was an urgent matter. The decision on the Alsands project was announced last Friday, and it was not until Tuesday that they decided to present a request in the House for an emergency debate. And after they asked for this urgent and important debate, they showed once more that they do not know how to count, because they managed to get themselves into a situation where they did not have a quorum in the House Wednesday evening. The next day the government had to present a motion to allow continuation of a debate which the Progressive Conservatives had stopped through their absence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) should be allowed to mislead the House. Votes and Proceedings clearly shows that there were 21 members present in the House when the quorum was called.


Walter David Baker: The minister shouldn't question it; it is on the record.

May 7, 1982
Supply


James Aloysius McGrath: Those who cannot count sit on that side of the House, specifically the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader (Mr. Smith).


Walter David Baker: Here we go again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is in effect, as I understand it, disputing the count of those hon. members who were present the other evening when the quorum was called. I know that there is some sensitivity on the subject. Before we hear other hon. members, I will, from the position of the Chair, simply indicate that the number of signatures in the book is not necessarily related to the number of individual members who were in the House at the time. I was here, and I think the hon. member would be wise indeed to accept the decision of the occupant of the Chair at that time. Otherwise, it is going to be extremely difficult to do business.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear! Get on with your speech.


An hon. Member:: What about Votes and Proceedings?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I hear an hon. member asking about the Votes and Proceedings. I indicate to the hon. member that I was present at the time. 1 know the number of members who were in the House and it was less than 20, and there was not a quorum. I now recognize the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in the statement he made just now, the hon. Progressive Conservative member has shown once again the inconsistence and incoherence of the Progressive Conservatives. I was saying that they showed they did not know how to count when they failed to make sure there were enough members in the House to have a quorum during the emergency debate. Today, the House is considering an opposition motion requesting the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and clearly this is a question that should be important to the Progressive Conservative Party. However, it is strange, Mr. Speaker, that this Opposition motion is so important that the Progressive Conservatives are not even asking for a vote.
They want the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to resign, but they do not want to get into a situation where they would have to vote on the question. They are prepared to have a debate today on this bit of wishful thinking, but they are not prepared to ask the House to vote on the question. Earlier this week I said that the cow that moos the most gives the least milk. Well, 1 just heard one mooing on the opposite side, and it probably is one of the best specimens of this kind of animal we know so well.
If we look at our economic and energy policies, it is easy to understand why the Progressive Conservative party is not asking for a vote on this motion today. The reason is quite simple: they have no alternative solutions, either for energy or for economic problem. Should my hon. colleagues opposite be reluctant to take my word for it, and before my hon. colleague for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) loses his temper, claiming I have no proof, I would refer him to an article published this week on May 4 in La Presse, in which the Leader of the Opposition had given an interview. The article was signed by Alain Dubuc and a partial quote from page 3 reads as follows:
In an interview he gave yesterday to a group of reporters from La Presse, the Leader of the Opposition, Joe Clark, made the most astounding and disarming statement ever made by an opposition leader, when he acknowledged that his party had found no alternative to the Bank of Canada's economic policy.
And here we have a quote from what was said by the Leader of the Opposition.
We have looked for alternatives to the government's policies, but we have found none, he acknowledged.
Another quote.
Today, I have no better solution.
That is the Progressive Conservative record on economic policy and on energy policy. We know, Mr. Speaker, and it is even worse, because we know what they did and what they tried to do when they were in power for a few months. This week, we listened for hours to their complaints, their criticisms, their insults and their interruptions during the debate; but solutions? Not a sign. The other side is capable only of creating obstruction and criticizing, but it can never come up with positive and constructive proposals. Conversely, I should like to point out that in the energy sector, this government has implemented some very important measures during the past two years it has been in power.
With respect to energy security, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to mention that despite the abandonment of the Alsands project, Canada today is in a far more comfortable situation as far as energy security is concerned than it was when the present government came to power in 1980. I wish to emphasize that on the Alsands project we had the best possible cooperation from the government of Alberta, and both governments made a joint offer to the private sector companies involved which even the companies had to admit was very generous. However, for reasons of their own, the companies decided they could not take a chance on such a large-scale project at this time. Incidentally, during the same week, in the United States where there is no program similar to the Canadian one, during that same week, Exxon, the biggest multinational in the world, abandoned a project in which the company had already invested $1 billion, and also at the same time, the promoters of the Alaska pipeline project decided to postpone the project for two years. Throughout our negotiations, the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have said that there was a limit to the demands that
May 7, 1982

could be made on Canadian consumers and taxpayers for the purpose of operating or building a project. If we exceeded those limits, we would be acting irresponsibly in spending the Canadian taxpayers' money. In fact, both the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have acted responsibly in this regard, and once again, the long-drawn-out complaints of the official opposition are no substitute for the responsible policies required in these circumstances.
I said we would succeed, and that our energy security, particularly as far as oil is concerned, is in better shape today than it was when the Progressive Conservatives were defeated, thank God and thank the voters in February 1980. When the Leader of the Official Opposition attended the summit meeting in Tokyo as Prime Minister, he promised to maintain crude oil imports at 600,000 barrels per day or less. Actually, we are going to do a lot better. In 1981, we imported only 509,000 barrels of oil per day, which is well under the maximum set by the Leader of the Official Opposition at the time. In 1985, we shall be importing less than 300,000 barrels per day. How are we going to do this? Well, by increasing production of Canadian oil. It is interesting to note that this year, for the first time in almost a decade, the Canadian Petroleum Association was able to announce an increase in Canada's oil reserves over the previous years. Before, every year, Canada's oil reserves had been diminishing. This year, for the first time, our reserves have increased, according to the figures of the Canadian Petroleum Association.
Other ways of achieving energy security, in addition to increasing reserves and production, are to reduce oil consumption through conservation and replacement of oil by other forms of energy. In fact, our off-oil program implemented not quite a year ago to encourage Canadians to substitute other forms of energy for oil, especially for home-heating, has already produced remarkable results. This is in addition to our insulation program. Our off-oil program provides grants of $800 per household to change heating systems. Our home insulation program is paying up to $500 per household. And what are the results of all this? Well, in 1981, consumption of crude oil in Canada dropped by 7 per cent. Consumption of heating oil has dropped by 17 per cent and that of heavy fuel oil by 13 per cent over the same period.
These results are facts, and between 1980 and the end of 1982, oil consumption in Canada is expected to drop by almost 15 per cent. These figures are authentic and well-known, and they demonstrate the success of our policy to reduce oil consumption while at the same time increasing reserves for the future. In fact, a few weeks ago we announced an extension of the home insulation program, so that now, all homes built before 1971 will be eligible for the insulation program and thus for the $500 grant provided by law. This will add more than one million homes to the list of those eligible for these grants, and, directly or indirectly, we will create about 20,000
Supply
jobs this year, if consumers are willing to make use of the program and benefit from energy savings. That is, consumers who are willing to make use of the program, as more than a million have already done during the last two years, will save on their energy bills or at least these bills will increase very little, even if the price of energy continues to rise substantially over the next four or five years. Conservation is still the best way to ensure self-sufficiency for Canada in coming years.
And if the members opposite doubt the effectiveness of our policy in this regard, I would ask them to refer to a report of the International Energy Agency, which includes all the industrialized countries except France. This agency stated the following:
Until now, only a few countries have developed specific policies to promote oil replacement. With its oil replacement program launched in October 1980, Canada is the only OECD country to have set up a full and comprehensive conversion policy aimed at all the sectors which use oil products, by setting oil consumption reduction objectives and providing financial assistance.
This statement was made by the International Energy Agency. As I have already stated, we also have some good news concerning supplies. The reserves forecast by the Canadian Petroleum Association in 1981 have increased, practically for the first time in ten years. The news is extremely encouraging with regard to the potential production offshore, in the Beaufort Sea and in the Arctic. Of course, our critics opposite will not want to recognize this reality. As I mentioned earlier, they are simply obsessed by the idea that the government should give even more money to the companies and that the National Energy Program is supposedly stifling these companies. Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at what has happened to a number of companies, for instance the major multinationals and their Canadian subsidiaries, in 1980 and 1981. In seven out of eight cases, the Canadian subsidiaries had higher earnings in 1980 and 1981 than the foreign-owned multinational parent company.
In 1980, for instance, the first four on the list were as follows: Texaco-I am speaking about the parent company- had an increase of 27 per cent while its Canadian subsidiary had an increase of 41 per cent. Gulf had an increase of 6 per cent while its Canadian subsidiary had an increase of 33 per cent. Royal Dutch Shell showed an international decrease of 27 per cent while its Canadian subsidiary showed an increase of 37 per cent. Exxon had an increase of 31 per cent while the Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil, had an increase of 38 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister would identify the source of his figures respecting increases in Canadian profits. 1 think he will find that the profits do not come from the producing end. Those profits are down distinctly. That is what we are concerned about. Profits on the retail side are up significantly, and that is because of the huge amounts of taxes the government is taking.

May 7, 1982
Supply


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will reduce from my time all the irrelevant points of order we have heard during my speech. If the House so wishes, I would be very happy to answer questions later. I will have no problem answering any question the hon. member wants to raise.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member, 1 point out to him that whether the money comes from upstream or downstream, if a company has more profits it has more money to do whatever it wants to do. That is the point we are discussing.
[ Translation]
I will continue, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives do not like to hear those figures because they are so used to go to bed with multinational and big oil companies that they are totally blind to reality and that every time an attempt is made to put the facts straight, they take it personal.
This is what happened in 1981. Texaco International increased its revenues by 7 per cent; its Canadian subsidiary by nearly 9 per cent; exactly 8.9 per cent. Gulf showed a profit loss of 17 per cent; its Canadian subsidiary indicated a profit loss of 11.8 per cent. Royal Dutch had a loss in its international operations of under 70 per cent, its Canadian subsidiary registered a loss of less than 15 per cent. The only international company, in 1981, according to the list I have mentioned, where the parent company did better than its Canadian subsidiary, is EXXON which showed an increase of more than 11 percent, and Imperial with a loss of less than 10 per cent. However, I would remind you that the year before the situation was reversed and the Canadian subsidiary had done better than the parent company. Of course, the Conservative opposition is not interested in hearing those figures but perhaps they might like to recognize at least that a large number of Canadian companies have tremendous investment projects in Canada this year. I should simply like to mention Canterra, a Canadian company which expects to spend $500 million in 1982 in exploration alone, and Gulf which over the next five years expects to invest $7 billion in Canada and Petro-Canada which has set aside a budget of $450 million for exploration and development alone in western Canada. These data are known to everyone except, it seems, to the opposition.
And, to assist them, I can already indicate that next week we will be in a position to announce new developments involving multinational companies and Canadian companies which, over the next years, will announce huge investments in the field of research and additional oil resources in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a few minutes left, I will conclude simply by suggesting that over that period we succeeded in increasing Canadian oil ownership to a significant degree. Foreign ownership over the last 18 months declined from 72 per cent to 65.4 per cent, or more than 6 per cent, with an increase in Canadian ownership of more than 6 per cent. Foreign control in that area declined from 77 per cent to 67 per cent, a 10 per cent decrease in favour of Canadians. Such measures were successful and will continue to be so over the coming years.
The last aspect is the matter of price. We implemented a pricing system that is fair to the consumer and that any way will be lower over that period than that provided for by the Progressive Conservatives in their famous budget. Some say that currently we pay more for gas in Canada than in the United States. It is important to remember, in the first place that as far as home-heating oil is concerned, it sells much cheaper here than in the United States, up to 7 cents less per litre. As far as natural gas is concerned, our costs are tremendously lower than in the United States. As for gas, this varies from province to province. In Alberta, the price of a litre of gas is less than in Chicago, but in Montreal it is more expensive than in New York. The reason is quite simple, there is no provincial tax in Alberta, while Quebec levies up to 13 cents per litre, the highest in Canada. So there is no mystery there. The barrel of oil coming to a refinery in Canada currently costs only 71 per cent of the oil price, or to practical purposes 71 per cent of the American price. When the price of a gallon or litre of gas sold at the pump is higher than in United States, the answer is in the provincial tax that each provincial government decides to levy. Again, for proof one has only to take the province levying no provincial tax, where the litre of gas is cheaper than in United States. These are facts that my Conservative colleagues will not recognize, because as I said, rather than listen, analyse, read and study, they would rather moo in this House and elsewhere, like the cow I was referring to.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to hear the minister defend an energy policy which is a disaster and is destroying the economic fibre of our country. He boasts about it.
At this critical juncture in the political and economic life of the country I am proud that it is this party's action that has afforded Canadians the opportunity today to learn more fully about the criminal ineptitude of the government.
Not only have Canadians been sent reeling by record interest rates, rampant inflation, and the highest unemployment since the 1930s-the latest figures that I have seen for the Niagara Peninsula show 15.6 per cent unemployment-but now they have to suffer the death of the one bright hope that we had in the country, the Alsands project. Energy megaprojects have been touted to guarantee energy self-sufficiency, to provide employment for up to 100,000 Canadians, and to stimulate the economies not only of the producing provinces but of the manufacturing and industrial sectors of central Canada.
The Liberal government pointed with pride to the megaprojects as an engine that would pull Canada from its economic doldrums. The government's political skin is at risk as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) tries to twist and turn the truth, and as the Minister of Finance
May 7, 1982

(Mr. MacEachen) clouds the issue with his customary obfuscation in an attempt to muddy the waters and throw the blame for the collapse of the Alsands project elsewhere.
The Liberals have built their economic policies on sand, and that sand has turned into quicksand. Now those policies have been exposed for the sham and illusion they are. What a shame that is-it is a shameful sham! The Grits really needed some cheery news to save their cookies but this was not to be. It is all their own fault. Their inflexible attitude, their intransigence, their misbegotten and woebegone, ill conceived National Energy Program, that the minister spoke of in the House today, is to blame for the mess. In fact one journalist called it a "megamess". That is the mess in which they now find themselves. Liberal members of the House know that. Unfortunately, Canada suffers as a result of Liberal misjudgment, Liberal mismanagement, and Liberal mistakes.
Liberal mismanagement of the economy has resulted in corporate profits being 44 per cent lower in the fourth quarter of 1981 than in the fourth quarter of 1982. I suppose I should be careful when mentioning profit because members of the NDP do not like the word. But I will mention the word profit; it is what is needed in the economy as an incentive to get things going again.
Manufacturing is at 75 per cent capacity, the lowest level capacity utilization in 20 years. The primary metals industry is operating at 65 per cent of capacity. The transportation equipment industry is operating at 54 per cent capacity. The wood industry upon which the province of British Columbia is so dependent is operating at 57 per cent. This underutilization has led to a net loss of 127,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector of the economy, since August. Many of those jobs have been lost in my own province of Ontario, many of them in my own riding and the Niagara Peninsula. In March of this year a record 1.2 million Canadians were without work. In the same month the inflation rate was 11.6 per cent.
The outrage with which the budget was greeted, Mr. Speaker, led the Minister of Finance to retreat in some areas, and temper his policies in others, but the over-all thrust of the government remains the same: massive restructuring of tax laws without consultation with the private sector and, apparently, without thought for the consequences. The outrage continues. This budget is distinguished only by the fact that it has drawn together so many diverse groups. They are now united in opposition to the government's draconian measures. Yet, in spite of the anger and resentment directed against the government, the minister is stubborn in his determination to make no further changes. Even Walter Gordon, renowned for his facility in the preparation of budgets, has said:
No government, no Minister of Finance, should be reluctant to consider and revise proposals if public discussion shows it to be desirable.
Interest rates are in the stratosphere. The U.S. sends men to the moon; we send interest rates into the stratosphere, this from a government which promised to "manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would in fact come down .. .
Supply
because the economy would be administered in a sounder way". They have yet to prove that.
These worries are compounded, Mr. Speaker, by the collapse of the $13.5 billion Alsands project which could have delivered 137,000 barrels a day of Canadian oil, bringing us much closer to self-sufficiency and oil security. It would have reduced unemployment, increased manufacturing, and meant an input of $450 billion into our economy. Yet Alsands died and the question is: why? Why? That is the question which Canadians need to be asking and are asking today. That is the question hon. members opposite need to be asking. The answer is simple. The National Energy Program is the culprit and its perpetrators, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have yet another disaster on their consciences. I am of course, giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they have consciences.
The NEP was a revenue grab. It thrust the government into private enterprise where it has no business being. It discriminates against foreign petroleum rights, it breaks all the ground rules and sets new ones without the benefit of consultation. The result of this massive interference in the marketplace was industry mistrust of the federal government typified in a statement by John Stoik, president of Gulf Canada, who said:
Over the years the government has so strained its credibility with retroactive rule changes that those of us in the industry must ask ourselves, how can we undertake to make huge investments in long-term megaprojects when we have good reason to fear that the government will come along again and pull the rug on us?
The NEP has so restricted cash flow that oil and gas companies are simply unable to make large-scale equity investments. Under the present circumstances of inflation and high interest rates it is utterly impossible for oil and gas companies to go to the market for debt capital.
The NEP is destroying our energy potential. It will mean the loss of billions of dollars which are simply drifting across the border into the U.S., the northern part of South America, and the Middle East. It will literally cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. The two tar sands plants will not continue development because the minister was not able to negotiate a pricing arrangement on oil. This means a loss to Ontario of $108 billion over the 25-year life of just one tar sands plant. One plant! Hon. members will bear in mind that we require nine plants if we are to reach energy self-sufficiency.
To start development on one plant would mean an infusion of $800 million into the economy of Ontario through the iron and steel industry, but this government said no. Such a development would create $370 million in the metal fabrication and machinery industries of Ontario. Many of my constituents work in the city of Welland. Pipe is manufactured there, and these projects would have been a great stimulus to that industry. Once again the government has denied my province, that city, and other areas this opportunity. This development would create an additional $325 million in sales for the transportation equipment industry. This development would mean $750 million for Ontario in trades and services.

May 7, 1982
Supply
The most effective way for Alsands to have remained a viable component of the Canadian economy would have been to allow, indeed restore, a system in which private industry could earn adequate profits and generate its own risk capital. Without the NEP and a more flexible and helpful attitude on the part of the federal government, Alsands would now be well under way. In fact, under a Tory government it would have been well under way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is that no matter how great a death blow the collapse of the Alsands project is, the NEP has claimed other victims, thereby compounding its effect. Cold Lake is dead; the Esso Resources Judy Creek recovery project has been cancelled; Syncrude expansion plans have been terminated. There were three occasions when the Liberal government fumbled and lost the good will of the consortium. In March, 1980, the government declared the world price for oil would no longer be paid for oil sands production. The industry interpretation of this announcement was that the government was not interested in oil sands.
In October, 1980, the inception of the NEP again caused industry to believe the government was not serious. The energy pricing agreement of September, 1981, did little to allay those fears. What are the results of the demise of the Alsands project, aside from those already mentioned? For one thing the Canadian dollar fell by half a cent. The loss in investment will mean that the gross national expenditure will be lower by 1.8 per cent. Employment in 1990 will be lower by 153,000 Canadians. At the same time the current account deficit will have deteriorated by $9.7 billion. Furthermore, Canadian selfsufficiency in energy is doomed. The death of the megaprojects means there will be a total loss of 350,000 barrels of oil a day, oil which could have been produced in Canada.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that not only the maritimes will have to continue to rely on imported oil; by 1990, Toronto will be in the same position. The upshot of this is that the federal government is subsidizing the importation of a very large volume of foreign crude oil while an equivalent volume is available but is not being produced in western Canada. Instead that oil has been shut-in. The government has been importing foreign crude on an increasing scale for some time, and the volume involved is inevitably going to grow rather than decline.
There is a heavy cost in public funds through the subsidies being paid on the foreign oil. This heavy cost would disappear if the foreign oil were replaced by domestic supplies that are available. There is an economic cost in addition. Large amounts of money are leaving the country, where they can have no further effect on the Canadian economy, while that same money, if it were spent on western oil, would naturally recirculate and produce economic activity, activity that we so desperately need.
The lesson to be learned from state intervention in the oil industry is simple we think. Not even someone as self confident as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is able to foresee all of the complexities of an industry and the shifting market forces that affect it. The elaborate control mechanisms of the National Energy Program are, of necessity, rigid. The process of adaptation to unforeseen circumstances is slow and creaking. The larger question behind all of this revolves around the real purpose of the Prime Minister's championing of the National Energy Program. We all remember his interview in which he discussed his efforts to change the course of the ship of state. This is a part of it:
One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know that we have spun the wheel and I know that the rudder is beginning to press against the waves and the sea. But perhaps the observer, who is on the deck and smoking his pipe, or drinking his tea, sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn't realize it, but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different island than the one he thought he was sailing for.
What do these musings mean when seen in the context of the National Energy Program and the havoc it has wrought on the oil and gas industry and on megaprojects, such as Alsands and Cold Lake? Speculation is one thing, but the facts speak for themselves. After the NEP was introduced in October, 1980, and up to January, 1982, a total of 272 drilling rigs left Canada. The replacement value of these rigs is $1.1 billion. The other damage caused by the NEP 1 have already discussed-yes, and the NDP as well. Surely these negative results were readily foreseeable.
Why then was the NEP forced on an unwilling industry and on reluctant provinces? Does the Prime Minister have some darker, ulterior motive than the one so simple, so-called Canadianization. And if so, what is that purpose? Could it be that he desires total state intervention in the oil and gas business? If that be the case, where do his ambitions end, and down what rocky road is he leading Canada?
Speaking about entrepreneurship, Professor Raymond Kao of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, said:
Entrepreneurs are not ones who like to face reality. They create reality. Since they create reality, they want to create it at an early age-high school age. We should be encouraging them even then.
Entrepreneurship is being destroyed by a government that is foisting socialism and the other policies it has upon our nation. This government is taking away the entrepreneurial attitude and spirit that have built this country, that have caused our young people to go out and invest, that have caused our older people to go out and invest and build businesses. In a country like Canada where the population is small and the land is vast, government has an important role to play. No one denies that, but massive unthinking government intervention has eroded Canadians' confidence and it will be a long, slow, tortuous job to rekindle that confidence. Quite frankly, I cannot see the present government even making an attempt. What we have to get back and what we need to get back is that essential trust and good will which the present government has frittered away.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the speech of the hon. member for Erie (Mr. May 7, 1982

Fretz). Last year at about exactly this time he was with me on the "Metres for Millions" march. We made it half way. The "Metres for Millions" march is on tomorrow, and I would encourage all hon. members to be out walking through my riding of Ottawa Centre, through Nepean-Carleton, and through Ottawa-Vanier.
I was very interested in the speech which my friend from Erie made. It was a pretty reasonable speech. The hon. member did put forward some suggestions. The basic thrust was at the end of his speech. He stressed the importance of the confidence factor in this country, the importance of investor confidence and the importance of worker confidence. I do not want to get into the partisan issues that are normally thrown around in this House, but yesterday was an example of a situation where hon. members threw mud back and forth at each other in this House, so I hope there can be some positive suggestions and dialogue in this debate today.
I hope in our debates in the future that we can build on a spirit of trying to do something constructive in this House as opposed to what, unfortunately, has characterized many of the debates in the last few months. It does not do any of us any good. It certainly does no good for the people of the country.
In this debate we should be trying to examine as carefully as possible the exact nature of the economic situation which faces us. We should be trying to look for positive solutions to help Canada position herself more effectively to participate in the recovery that is going to come in the world economy. Then we would be in a better position to move ahead with growth, job creation and wealth creation, when that happens here. I for one am confident that if we are not at the bottom of the recession we are very near to it. I believe that we are about to see the break in the inflation rate that we have all been waiting for, and that we are about to see the beginnings of job creation rather than job destruction. I think we have come very close to the bottom of this terrible situation that we have been facing these past many months.
All of us in this House of Commons have decried the situation. We have all wished that we did not have to go through it. We have all wished that the world market for our minerals, timber, oil, automobiles and other products had not fallen apart the way it did. All of us agree that if the Alsands project could have gone ahead it would have been a great thing for Canada. But I want to say one thing about Alsands. I think there is a myopia taking place in this House that does not necessarily have to be the case.
The investment dollars that were going to be put into the Alsands plant have not evaporated. They have not disappeared. Shell, Gulf, and the other private sector companies in the consortium did not take that money and burn it.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It has been taxed away.


John Leslie Evans: That money has not gone. There was to be $14 billion of investment. What happened? The private sector companies looked at the economics and concluded that the economics did not make sense. Therefore, they decided not to invest that money. The money is still there, the borrowing
Supply
potential is still there, and the investment funds are still there. These companies and the government will be able to employ those funds in other areas of the economy. If Alsands is not built, certainly other projects will be built which would not have otherwise had access to capital. The money did not evaporate; it is not as though it were burned. The potential is still there and the projects are still there. Canada still has the potential it had yesterday. It has not gone away. That investment will take place, perhaps in other sectors, but it will take place.
I should like to look at the situation as I see it, and to put forward my assessment of what we should do to position ourselves properly to take advantage of the growth and development of job creation, wealth creation, and rising standards of living which we have every right to expect in Canada. We must come to grips with issues revolving around three major sets of alternatives.
First, we should look at the question of what is the proper balance for government between distribution and creation. Those are the alternatives. We can focus all our attention on the redistribution of wealth, or we can refocus our attention more toward the creation of wealth, which gives us more to redistribute at a later date. The second factor is the balance between savings and consumption. We should rebalance some of our priority away from current consumption expenditures and toward savings and investment. After all, this will be the engine by which we generate economic growth and rising standards of living in the future. The third and most important factor I want to discuss today is the attitude or the confidence factor, which is the balance between the preservation of the status quo and the orientation toward the future.
It is natural during times of economic decline, recession, high inflation and high unemployment, for people, countries, parliaments, and especially politicians, to begin to look inward, to focus their attention upon how they can protect what they now have and to forget about the kinds of activities which they must undertake if they are to realize the potential of the future. The time is now for us to begin to turn our attention away from the preservation and protection of the status quo toward the generation and creation of the great future which Canada can have. But it will require a shifting of priorities in the country and that we all sacrifice a bit on consumption to put a bit more toward savings which will generate investment. Also it will require that we think more in terms of the creation of wealth as opposed to the distribution of wealth. These are terribly important concepts. Canada is at the spot where decisions such as these must be made.


Donald W. Munro: You cannot distribute what you do not create.


John Leslie Evans: 1 hear the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). That is precisely the message I am trying to put across to the opposition today. We must refocus our attention-

Supply


Donald W. Munro: But you are not.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member complains that we are not doing it. I try to remove myself, whenever I can, from the partisan haranguing in the House. I try not to fight about what they are saying, and 1 prefer if they do not fight about what I am saying. That is not the point of Parliament. We are in Parliament together. We are expected by the people of the country to work together in Parliament, and we had better start working together.


Donald W. Munro: You had better start listening.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member is suggesting that I should listen to him. Perhaps he will listen to me. I will listen to him if he listens to me. As a government we sit here day after day, listening to members of the opposition saying that we must create wealth before we can distribute it. But in the same breath they say, "Oh, by the way, we want quotas on footwear and on automotive products." They indicate that they want this for this industry and that for that industry; that they want protection for this and that group. I think the hon. member and I agree that governments basically distribute. Apart from Crown corporations which have creative functions, such as Petro-Canada and Canadair, governments are basically redistributive mechanisms. They do not create anything, they distribute.


Donald W. Munro: Good. We have you on the record on that.


John Leslie Evans: We agree on that. The opposition benches continually harangue day after day by telling the government, on the one hand, that we need less government expenditures and more room for the private sector-and I agree with that- and on the other hand by saying that we must protect various groups and give more money here and there. We cannot do that. We cannot do both things at the same time. If we agree-and I think we do-that governments are basically a redistributive mechanism, then if governments do not create wealth and the money that is distributed, it must come from somewhere. From where does it come? It comes from taxpayers, or from people in some other way. We obtain the money we spend by generating higher levels of inflation, by generating higher interest rates because we must borrow the money in capital markets, or by taxing it. This is done in the government sector.
Other activities which are undertaken by government are equally as redistributive. Hon. members opposite keep demanding these kinds of policies. They are saying that we should have protection, quotas and tariffs. Hon. members opposite are the party of protectionism. It is not this party, but that party. Protectionism is just as much a form of tax on Canadians as a direct tax levy by government. If I put a tariff on an item and force consumers to pay a higher price than otherwise, is it not a redistribution? Certainly it is. Therefore I
May 7, 1982
say all the actions of governments-whether they are Conservative ones in Manitoba, now NDP, NDP ones in Saskatchewan, now Conservative, or whatever-involve redistribution.
All of us in the House have not paid enough attention to the following questions: from whom are we distributing, and to whom are we distributing? Wealth is not destroyed or created; it is just redistributed. We must look at these questions extremely carefully. If we are to have investment, growth, higher productivity and lower inflation in the country, we must undertake some very positive redistributive policies of a certain nature and in a certain direction. It would be very useful and helpful to government if the opposition would indicate consistently which direction it would like to see that redistribution take. As I said, oftentimes the opposition is inconsistent. First it says that the wealth should be distributed this way; then it says it should be redistributed another way. This is not helpful at all.
Opposition members ask why I do not listen to what they are saying. It is because they say one thing on one day and another thing another day. One does not make long-term economic policy on the basis of daily shifts of view.


John William Bosley: Thank you, Kenneth Galbraith.


John Leslie Evans: 1 am afraid my hon. friend has the wrong economist. Hon. members opposite are having some fun with me; I am glad to see the Acting Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, is now in a position where he cannot.
I have to bring to the attention of the hon. members opposite a very lucid point which was raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. (Mr. Clark). In a recent interview with La Presse in Montreal, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, with candour and honesty, "I do not know what the answer is either. We do not have an alternative solution to what the government is doing." That is precisely what he said and it is in the press and on the record. He was being honest. He said, "We do not have an alternative economic policy to the government's policy."


John William Bosley: That is not what he said.


John Leslie Evans: The article is in my briefcase in case the hon. member wants me to pull it out. It went on the record the other day when I quoted it on a Standing Order 43.


Mr. Keeper:: Pull it out.


Mr. Kilgour:: Tell us about the budget.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is back.


Frederick William Wright: Tell us about the budget.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) is here also. Tweedledee and Tweedledum are both here and that is good.
May 7, 1982

Let me give some thoughts on specific policies which I think must be examined very carefully and on which we must move forward. We must implement these policies if we are to put ourselves in a position for the economic recovery which is coming. There is no doubt that we have to bring down the rate of inflation and 1 do not think there is any disagreement that without a reduction in inflation we will have great difficulty in participating in investment for the future. High inflation tends to shorten your time and you do not make long-term investment decisions in that environment.
I believe we must also be concerned about restraining the growth in the cost of production in our society. As well, we must be concerned about the rise in wages and prices in our economy. Apart from the inflationary price increases, the rise in the cost structure in our society is terribly perplexing at the moment. It could put us in non-competitive situation with the rest of the world.
I think it is clear-and the budget attempted to move in this direction-that we have to reduce the budget deficit of the government and bring down the exposure of the government in the capital markets in order to leave more room for the private sector at more reasonable rates of interest than we face now. I also think that we have to find policies which will stimulate savings and thereby stimulate investment in our economy and increase productivity as well. We have to alter the reward structure and put policies in place which will create those favourable conditions.
I think the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) was absolutely correct when he said in his speech that we have to restore investor and worker confidence. That is essential. Those are five suggestions.
We must examine our policies and the mix of federal and provincial policies to consider whether we have policies in place which act as a disincentive to productive activity by individuals or corporations.
Finally, I put forward the call that we should be looking, at this point in time, at the whole question of the impact of our tax system on economic activity and individual behaviour. I think it is time for another commission to review the performance of the tax system. Our tax system is serving many purposes at the present time. At one time it was a revenue-raising device. It then became a wealth redistribution device and subsequently it became an economic activity-generating device. Right now, the tax system is being used to perform so many functions that it is not clear what or how well it is doing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the kind of simplification measures which were put forward in the budget were a step in the direction of clarifying the tax system and lowering tax rates.


David Kilgour: What are you going to do about this budget?


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is at it again, Mr. Speaker. The howling monkey from Edmonton-Strathcona.
I believe that these are important steps which all members should be working at achieving as a Parliament. I think they
Business of the House
are in the best interests of the Canadian people. These steps will put the system in a position to develop and grow at its optimal and not lag behind the rest of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright), I believe there have been some conversations between House leaders and that the President of the Privy Council wishes to make a statement.



Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend but I will not be too long. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) should be here momentarily, I understand.
However, I can guarantee that what I will be reading is the agreement that we just made in my office. I had consultations with the House leaders on both sides of the House and if unanimous consent is sought by you, it seems the following motion will be granted. It is technical, but essentially it is dividing a bill into two parts and limits the debate on the two bills.
Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin):
That the order of the day for consideration of Bill C-93, to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds, be discharged and the said bill be withdrawn;
That the government introduce as soon as possible two bills, one of which shall be based upon the notices of Ways and Means concurred in on February 9, 1982 and one of which shall be based upon Part I of the said Bill C-93;
That debate at the second reading stage of the bills to be introduced shall be limited to one sitting day each and, at the end of the time allotted to government business on each of the said days, all of the questions necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment;
That the bill based upon the said notices of Ways and Means, after being read a second time, shall be referred to a committee of the whole, which shall consider the said bill for not more than one sitting day and, at the end of time allotted to government business on that day, all of the questions necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of that bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment;
That the bill based upon Part I of Bill C-93 shall, after being read a second time, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which shall hold no more than three meetings to consider that bill, and, at the end of the third such meeting, all questions necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of that bill shall be put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, debate at the report stage and the third reading stage of the said bills shall be considered on one day for each bill and, at the end of the time allotted for government business on each of the said days, all of the questions necessary for the disposal of each of the aforementioned stages of each of the said bills shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if I could do so without discourtesy and insult to the French language, I would

May 7, 1982
Supply
read it in that language but the English was impeccable and we consent.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, essentially I and my party concur with the House order. We agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the motion put forward by the hon. President of the Privy Council and approved by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seize this opportunity to designate next Friday as an allotted day. Therefore, next week there will be two allotted days, Tuesday and Friday.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McGrath:
That this House, caring for the 1,200,000 Canadians now unemployed and the millions more worried about their jobs, recognizes that the National Energy Program and the budgets of October, 1980, and November, 1981, are largely responsible for this massive unemployment, and demands the resignations of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance and the introduction of a new energy policy and a new budget to create jobs, lower interest rates and restore hope and confidence to Canadians.
Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the discussion, I would like to say I was rather interested in what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) had to say, because if I correctly understand him, he has split Bill C-93, which is what we have been requesting for some time. This bill is very similar to the energy bill which caused the problem and the ringing of the bells some weeks back.


Walter David Baker: It is marvellous how lessons are learned.


Frederick William Wright: I am very pleased at what the President of the Privy Council has done. He showed good sense for a change and we hope that will continue into the future.
The topic today is the motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The topic basically deals with unemployment, the budget, interest rates, energy and the confidence of this government. I shall go into all those topics as 1 go along.
The economy of Canada is in a tough way. These are hard times for the people of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Liberal times are hard times.


Frederick William Wright: They are rapidly being known as Grit times. Hard times will be known for years afterward as Grit times.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) stood in this House and said he had a strategy. He is a leading spokesman for the government today. Where is his strategy? It is not in the budget and it is not in the energy policy. It is certainly not in the housing policy and it is certainly not in the employment policy.


Walter David Baker: It was not in his speech, either.


Frederick William Wright: This government has no policy except to make it difficult for all Canadians. This is a time of high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. The people of Canada will remember for many years the way in which the government did them in.


An hon. Member:: Strategy tragedy.


Frederick William Wright: This government, instead of having an over-all strategy, intends only to band-aid this economy back to health, providing little help, not much; but every once in a while it will help in a very small way. If we think back to 1974, the government said it had inflation under control. In 1976 it changed monetary policies, and inflation has become worse ever since. In 1974 it said we would reach energy self-sufficiency by 1980, but we obviously have not reached energy self-sufficiency and many people say we will not have it by 1990.
In 1974 the government told us there would be no wage and price controls. The Liberals were elected under that promise and we had wage and price controls one year hence. This government does not live up to its promises.
If we look at the expenditures of the government at the present time, we find that the government spends 25 per cent more than it takes in. That is why we have inflation in Canada; there is no other reason. We find the government spends 20 cents out of every dollar on servicing the national debt. That is why we have inflation, not for any other reason. It is not because of interest rates in the United States or because of anything else the Canadian people are doing. It is because of government policies.
These are hard times. We should consider the unemployment figures in Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration stood in the House and said things are not that bad in many areas, but as we look across Canada we can see the unemployment. Ontario has an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent in the manufacturing industry, compared to 6.4 per cent a year ago. It is getting worse all the time. If we look at the fishing industry on the east and west coast, we find that in Atlantic Canada the unemployment rate is 14 per cent compared to 11.8 per cent last year, and in B.C. the unemployment rate is 17.8 per cent compared to 10.5 per cent last year. This is all due to this government's policies, there is no other reason. If we look at the forestry industry, we find 46.7 per cent unemployment in Atlantic Canada. Standing in this House within the last week, I said that the unemployment rate in forestry in Atlantic Canada was approximately 50 per cent
May 7, 1982

and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) said that was not so. I am now presenting statistics.
In B.C. the unemployment rate in the forestry industry is 30.6 per cent compared to 29 per cent one year ago. In Quebec the unemployment rate in mining today is 28.7 per cent compared 12.6 per cent. That is another point which, of course, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre denied.
The unemployment rate across Canada in various segments of the economy is a disaster. We look at the unemployment figures across Canada for all industries and find that it is 9 per cent and rising. There are 1.2 million unemployed people. It is said that there are an additional 300,000 or 400,000 people who are not even registered; they cannot find jobs and have given up. That is the type of government we have. That is the type of planning we get from this government. That is the government's strategy.
Where is the housing policy in Canada? What kind of housing policy do we have? We have a Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) who stands in this House and says, "We have a solution: Bill C-89 will be the solution for the housing problems of Canada." That measure was introduced in the budget on November 12, but we still have not seen any solution to the housing problems.
Let us look at some of those problems. At the present time, the adjusted annual rate of starts is 142,000 units in Canada. If we break that down, we find that urban housing starts in April of this year, compared to last year, were down 40 per cent. Single detached dwelling starts were down 61 per cent and multi-unit starts were down 19 per cent. Where is the housing policy which was promised us? It is not doing any good. Statistics Canada indicates we need starts of 200,000 units each year. What does CMHC say we will have? There will be 146,000 units built this year. That is the estimate. So 54,000 more units should be built, representing almost 100,000 jobs.
The Minister of Public Works stands in this House and says he will help create employment. He will increase employment in the housing industry. He is not doing anything. Why is he not doing anything? If we look at the estimates we find, for example, that foreign aid has gone up by 19 per cent this year to over $1 billion, at a time when people are losing their homes, when people cannot renew their mortgages, when rents are going up. Why are we increasing foreign aid at this time? Why are we spending S70 million a year on advertising so Canadians will know what the government wants to do? Why is that money not put into housing, which will have a direct effect on employment? No, the government does not want to do those things because, in reality, it does not have a strategy or a plan. If does not really want to help. By having this grand design of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-whatever it is- he will help someone, but he does not provide the help where it is needed at the right time. Those statistics show that the budget strategy of this government is non-existent.
If we look at the recent Conference Board report we find that the statistics get even worse. We should look specifically
Supply
at Ontario, the province which is suffering more this year. The Conference Board of Canada states that Ontario has been given one of its worst economic report cards in a decade. This is the board which warned last week that Canadians can expect no relief from the recession until at least next year. It has added an even more sombre footnote in that it says in its report that in the last year the economy has changed so much that it will represent the most severe setback in decades. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stands in this House and says that is not true. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board goes on to say that the decline in the economy is not only steep but widespread. That is another point that the Minister of Finance denies in this House.
The conference board goes on to say that while the 1980 decline in Ontario production was due to the automotive industry, in 1981, it was more widespread and affected all segments of the Ontario economy. This is the type of thing the government presents to us and tells us how well they are doing. These certainly are hard times and they will get worse as long as we have this government in power.
If we look back at that budget presented on November 12, 1981, we find the Minister of Finance saying that tax incentives offered to Canadians are now tax loopholes. Obviously they left some tax incentives but the average Canadian has to ask himself or herself: "When is the government going to strike against me; when is it going to take away my tax incentives?"
The question of imputed rent has been brought to the attention of the government. The government attempted to back off from that. Why do they attempt to back off? The reason is that 50 per cent of the people in Canada own their own homes. What would happen if only 25 per cent of the people owned their own homes? Then they would not have to worry about imputed rent; that would be the time to bring it in. We are bringing to the attention of the Canadian public what the government was getting ready for, what they were planning. They have already brought the housing industry to a halt. We are not building enough homes for the people who need them and they will have to switch to rentals. If we gradually switch enough people to a position where the minority own their own homes and the majority rent, then the imputed rent becomes a feasible prospect for the federal government. That is when they intend to bring it in.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Surely you are not serious. You don't believe that.


Walter David Baker: Yes, he believes it.


Frederick William Wright: The budget was a disaster. The economic strategy of this government is a disaster. If one can believe Maclean's magazine and some of the things said in it about this government, some of the cabinet ministers do not believe this budget will help the economy.


Walter David Baker: That is right.

May 7, 1982
Supply


Frederick William Wright: So why are they not prepared to stand up? It is very easy, if one looks at what happened here a couple of months ago. A number of Liberal members stood up in the House and said we should not have to cut back VIA Rail.


Walter David Baker: That's right.


Frederick William Wright: They stood in the House and implored the minister not to cut back VIA Rail-and that evening they voted for it. They voted for the cutbacks. That is why you will not see the cabinet ministers voting against the budget or speaking out against the budget, because they do not dare. And why do they not dare? Mr. Speaker, it is because $1 billion per year is spent by this government on political favours, on Liberal Party workers. I said that three times in this House, Mr. Speaker, over the last six months and it has not been refuted yet. No one can refute it.
Inflation in Canada is running at 11.6 per cent, unemployment at 9 per cent. The Conference Board said last week that business executives are slashing inventory, because of cripplingly high interest rates. They go on to report on the Chamber of Commerce that 62 per cent of the chamber's members' venture capital is being invested outside Canada. Why? Because they do not have confidence in Canada; they cannot make a decent return in Canada and they cannot get any support from this government.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Frederick William Wright: This government is anti-investment. It is a socialistic government and its policies have been going on for 10 years. It became very clear, when I went to Saskatchewan during the election, that the socialistic policies of this government were not accepted by the people of Saskatchewan. That is why they turfed out the NDP and that is why at the next election they will turf out the Liberals.


Walter David Baker: It is the divine right of the people.


Frederick William Wright: I hear comments from both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, from the Liberals and the NDP. They have an unholy alliance where the NDP will support the Liberals as long as the Liberals are promoting socialistic policies. But the NDP is the party that put them back in power. The NDP is the party that supports them. The NDP is the party that is for state ownership.


Walter David Baker: It is a common-law marriage.


Frederick William Wright: The NDP is the party that tears down, that levels, that makes everybody equal. It is the termite party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick William Wright: If we look further at the budget, Mr. Speaker, we find a very interesting point. In the budget, the minister of Finance mentioned what he called a typical life insurance policy in Canada, and he used his figures to justify taxing life insurance policies, accrued income every three years. Suddenly
we find out that his figures are wrong. He will not admit it publicly, but they are wrong. He admits privately to the life insurance industry that he was using the wrong figures, but you will not hear him say it publicly. It is an actual fact that the figures he used to calculate the gains on life insurance were based on a wrong policy. He used a non-participating policy. He said he was using figures from the average, typical life insurance policy across Canada. We discovered, and he admits it, that he was using a non-participating policy which only 5 per cent of the people actually buy in Canada. Some 95 per cent of the policies are participating policies. His figures are all wrong but he is not prepared to admit that publicly.


Walter David Baker: A non-participatory democracy.


Frederick William Wright: We must ask the question, Mr. Speaker, what else is wrong with that budget? What else is wrong with the economic strategy of this government? I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I may have just coined a new phrase, a new word.


Walter David Baker: The word termites is okay.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, looking at the budget we find the government has abandoned the Small Business Development Bond. The banks are not lending money to small business any more under the auspices of the small business development bond. It does not exist. Why would a bank lend money to a business that is failing? That is the only type of business they can lend money to now. Why would they lend any money to it? It is quite obvious that they cannot and they will not, but the Minister of Finance will not admit it in the House. More and more small businesses are going bankrupt each day. They tell me they are spending 20 per cent of their time filling out government forms. They say that the most serious problems facing them in small business are lack of finance, inflation, shortage of skilled help, government regulation and taxation. This government will not rest until all the small business people of the country go bankrupt.
It was very unusual to find the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House today. I have to ask the question, why was he here today when he was in the House talking about the same subject yesterday? It is because he is backtracking on his policies. He was down in Houston telling the American oil industry to come up to Canada to invest. Suddenly he has changed his mind. He knows there is not self-sufficiency in Canada and is therefore trying to bring capital back into Canada. It will not come back. Investors would have to be crazy to come back here. The minister has been discouraging them. That is a major problem.
I see my time is drawing nigh, so I will conclude right now. This government has no direction. The economy is on hold until the next budget in October or November. It is on hold because the government will not backtrack. It is afraid to
May 7, 1982

backtrack because that would harm the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. These are hard times. They are Grit times. Hard times will stay with us until the next election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright). 1 would like to comment on one small portion of his speech just to set the record straight. He referred to who supports whom. This is always interesting because words are rather empty. I know it is quite easy to say where relationships exist and so forth, but the bottom line is voting patterns. The bottom line is who votes with whom. The record shows that over the last number of months the Progressive Conservative Party have voted with the Liberals 29 times. That is all right. As opposition parties we have to vote with the government sometimes when we feel legislation is appropriate, and against the government at other times. However, I want to emphasize the point that the Progressive Conservatives voted with the Liberals 29 times. How many times did the NDP vote with the Liberals? It was not 29 times but just 14 times. I am not a mathematician, but that tells me that the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals vote together twice as often as the NDP votes with the Liberal Party.
I just put that on the record for clarification. I know the hon. member for Calgary North did not intend to confuse the public, but the record is 29 versus 14. That is enough of that.
I want to thank the Progressive Conservative Party for this opportunity to rise this afternoon and discuss what have been some very critical issues in this country. Those issues are unemployment, the national energy policy, inflation and high interest rates. It is interesting to note that whenever a day is set aside to discuss the most critical issues facing Canadians, the day is never set aside by hon. members opposite. Such debates are never initiated by government members. They are the culprits. It is interesting that the opposition parties take the initiative to initiate debates on isssues which are really important to Canadians.
This morning we received the latest unemployment statistics. I am certain there were many Canadians who were thoroughly disgusted with the response which followed later on in the day. We must all agree that ours is the most prosperous nation in the entire world. Out of 167 sovereign nations, there is no question that Canada is the most prosperous of them all, yet today 1,987,000 Canadians are out of work.
What makes that even worse is that this is the time of year when people generally feel hopeful and optimistic. It is springtime when jobs and opportunities are created. This is the growth period of the year, biologically and chemically, but not in 1982. Over the last month not only were no more jobs created and no more job opportunities opened up, but we also lost 75,000 jobs over the last 31 days. For every 371 people unemployed in Canada there is one job on the board at the employment office.
This is the time when growth should be occurring, but growth is not occurring. There is decay in this country. Opportunities are minimal. What makes that even worse is the
Supply
recognition that hundreds of thousands of young people cannot find work. These are young Canadians graduating from high schools across the country in large and small communities and in rural areas. Tens of thousands of college graduates have skills they have trained for months and, in some cases, years to acquire. University graduates with three to seven years of education behind them are now entering the job market for the first time to meet the challenges of employment opportunities. For most of those people the challenges will not be the challenges of new employment but the challenges of unemployment. Over the next couple of months we will see the dreams, hopes and aspirations of young Canadians dashed, and that is sad. That is why this morning people were disgusted when they viewed the activities of the government. At this time of crisis there is inaction, and the government is not able to come up with new, refreshing and innovative ideas.
What do the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) say? They say there will be more of the same. They say we have to wait and that we cannot do anything. Other countries are doing something. Other countries are taking action independent from action taken in the United States.
There is no question that the relationship between Canada and the United States is very strong indeed and that what happens in the United States will have profound influences on what happens in Canada, but there are independent actions which could be taken. We could be assisting in municipal infrastructure development. We could stimulate the construction and housing industry of Canada. That would instantly put tens of thousands of people back to work.
Of course, we could take a number of other major steps. We could have an industrial strategy which would make sense for the 1980s and would not be dependent totally upon megaprojects, especially megaprojects in the energy field such as those we have seen collapse in the last little while.
What the Progressive Conservative leader said in Montreal the other day was interesting. He was asked for his alternative policy to the present high interest monetary policy. He said he had no alternative. In fact, I think it is well known that the Progressive Conservative Party is looking south of the line and hoping Mr. Reagan is successful with his monetary policy. His policy is the trickle-down policy: give a dollar to the rich, and perhaps a penny or two will eventually trickle down to the regular folks in society. The price Americans are paying today is ten million unemployed. However, I think it was a very honest and respectable gesture when the leader of the Progressive Conservatives said he did not at this point have a policy to offer as an alternative and that he would indeed support Governor Bouey and his monetary policy. I give the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) credit for being honest.


David Kilgour: That is not what he said.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have listened with interest to the speeches of the last number of days. Countless Tories have risen and told of how discouraged they are regarding the role of government in

May 7, 1982
Supply
the economy. They say the real problem is government intervention in the economy and the role government plays in the economy. What do the Progressive Conservatives think about hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, roads, airports, medicare and pensions? They are against government intervention. They say we should let free enterprise do everything. 1 say that is a simplistic approach, but I am not criticizing the Tories; I do not think they mean what they say.
I give them credit, in spite of some of the verbiage and rhetoric we have heard here over the last few days, because I suspect my Tory colleagues would in fact support the Farm Credit Corporation and government intervention in support of agriculture. I know my Progressive Conservative colleagues would support the prairie farm rehabilitation program. I know they would support the land commission act of British Columbia and the farm income insurance program of British Columbia. Why do the Tories say what they say? Why do they react so negatively to the idea that there is some role for the government to play in society?
1 remember my history. I remember the government that introduced the CNR. I remember the government that introduced the CBC. I know what government took over Pacific Western Airlines in the west. They were all Progressive Conservative governments. Why, then, have the Tories reacted so negatively to the role government played in society and in the economy? I suspect it is because of the demonstration of government involvement by the Liberal government and the fact that it has made such an abysmal effort at involving itself in the economy. That intervention is really another form of political expediency.
The hon. member for Calgary North said that $1 billion is spent by the Liberal Party on pork-barreling and patronage. I do not know if that figure is correct but I would not be surprised.
1 have read books that criticized the DREE program because it has provided so much money to support economic activities in areas of the country where there has been no hope of recovery or of economic development following in any realistic way. Why is the money spent in a hopeless area in a hopeless way? If one were cynical one would say it is spent because it buys electoral support, but I would not want to accuse the government of that.
Government support has failed in so many ways. I identify the Candu system and the millions of dollars that have gone into the program but have not brought about any significant return and never will. Yet we see the same program being shored up today. We know the record in Consolidated Computer. There was support for Chrysler Corporation which everyone in this room knew, if they were honest, was a dying corporation. It needed to make dramatic changes but did not respond so the government rushed in with support for an ailing industry. Of course, the support was a guarantee given to an ailing corporation and that is why government intervention has such a bad name.
I do not think anyone is against the idea of supporting ports, railways, airports, medicare and the like. I think of Mr. Lougheed's involvement with Pacific Western Airlines for the benefit of western Canadians. That was probably a good move. I think of the Tory support of Canadian National. That was probably a good move. In Saskatchewan there was support for the potash industry, the telecommunications industry and Saskoil. These were positive moves.


David Kilgour: What is the point of your speech?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point of my speech, for the hon. member who wails at me, is to indicate that there is a role for government in the economy, as is demonstrated by the premier of the province from which he hails.
One of the areas of the world that has often been held up during these difficult economic times as providing the necessary leadership to enable it to carry on with economic growth while others cannot is Japan. There are a variety of aspects of the Canadian economy that one could applaud but I want to focus on total job security for the workers. The Japanese worker has lifetime employment with his employer. This is not the case in Canada where there are nearly two million people unemployed and there is the threat of unemployment for so many more. What does that situation do to create confidence and hope in the future for Canadian workers and investors?
The fundamental problem of our economy is structural. This is the area where the Conservative Party policy puzzles me. I don't think there is anyone who would suggest it is a good idea to have major economic decisions about our future made in foreign countries. Why do we not have more research and development in this country, Mr. Speaker? That is because it is a branch plant economy. Why are more important decisions regarding our domestic future not made in this country? It is because of the branch plant economy. Why is a vigorous effort not made to open up new trading opportunities? That, too, is because we have a branch plant economy.
Statistics Canada estimates that in 1974 the mining and manufacturing industries accounted for 42 per cent of employment and 49 per cent of production. Since then their share of production has been rising constantly but their share of employment has dropped. Of course, it drops in the branch plants. Do the lay-offs that occur in this country occur in the branch plants first or in the parent company? They occur in the branch plant.
This is where my colleagues to my right puzzle me because every day they are asking that FIRA be opened up to make foreign intervention easier, to make it easier for foreign companies to come here as sort of saviours. We have seen what that has done to us in the past and we see what it will do in the future. They want to open up the flood gates and let the foreign entrepreneurs come in. I say that is wrong and it is part of the problem we have today.
I realize that my colleague across the aisle would like to wrap up this opposition day debate and I shall finish early in that case.
May 7, 1982


Mr. Forrestall:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which will be brief. This morning members of local 1064 of the United Steelworkers of America ratified their contract with the Sydney Steel Corporation, thus theoretically putting back to work or saving the employment of some 2,400 Canadians. About an hour later the management of SYSCO advised the Nova Scotia government that the lay-offs would be total in terms of production effective Monday morning, meaning that 1,500 or 1,700 of those men will not go to work. Talks have been going on today.
I wanted to express to the chamber that by Monday or Tuesday both the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will be in a position to respond favourably to the early extention of a rail order from Canadian National for some 88,000 tonnes of steel. I wish the chamber would join the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and the government of Nova Scotia in bringing that about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) that I shall make sure that his comments are brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). I think all of us are concerned about this situation and he has offered a practical solution. I am not in a position to say whether such an alternative could be brought about but I shall see that the minister hears the hon. member's comments.
It seems to me that the news we have had today about unemployment is tragic indeed. As a relatively new Member of Parliament I am convinced that any issue involving unemployment is one of the most difficult that any member faces.
We constantly hear from people asking us whether there is some magic spot where the Minister of Finance or the cabinet would draw a line and say: "That is enough unemployment; we will not tolerate it any more and we are going to change our policies". I would have to answer that by saying for most of us, certainly on this side, that the first unemployed person is one too many. I know, whether it be in our constituency offices or through an announcement like the one we just heard from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, that it is a horrible feeling for all of us when we cannot respond with immediate help for a man's family and home. But the real issue, the real answer to that concern, comes when we ask ourselves if we can find a genuine and permanent way for our country to grow. The answer is yes, simply because we have the tools to work with. We have the resources, the people, the money and the ideas.
We should not lose sight of the fact that this country has every reason to be optimistic and stop worrying, as one of my constituents did today, over whether we will ever recover. That kind of doom and gloom becomes a self-defeating psychology.
Supply
We have to remember that with the right foundation we can begin our recovery and make it a permanent one. We need to let our markets, our business and our labour force regain their strength. We have to make sure we have a bigger pie, a more productive economy, so that we can take bigger rewards from it. That is the simple message the world and our own circumstances are giving us today.
Let me give just one example. I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has taken the right course by asking for ways to change the Crow rate. By doing this he has attacked an age-old sickness in our railroads and he is making them stronger, more productive, and more likely to produce jobs and rewards for Canadians in the future.


David Kilgour: And more bankruptcies.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are going to see, as many people from the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona's own province told me a week ago, that decision produce jobs not only for grain farmers and the related industries, but also for people involved with iron ore, coal, potash and all the other resources which have to be shipped from the west to Canadian and foreign markets.


David Kilgour: What about the grain markets?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: When we talk about rebuilding our economy we have to address those kinds of tough questions. Just as it is terrible to address the problems of unemployment, so too we must address the problems of structural weakness in our system.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) keeps challenging us to do that on one very good issue, that of foreign ownership. I personally welcome the pressure he puts on in that direction, but he also has to recognize there are other structural weaknesses in our economy. That is the kind of thing we are trying to attack. I do believe we will be ready when our foreign customers are ready as well.
We have heard this afternoon about the terrible unemployment and the slowdown in the B.C. lumber industry. Well, when the American economy rebuilds, that industry will be in a position to respond. But it will do us no good to try and stimulate that industry before the American housing industry is ready to take those products.


David Kilgour: Why? Explain that one, Doug.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Because they have no customers for those products.


David Kilgour: In Canada?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Instead we need to look at how we can soften the short-term tragedies which occur because of unemployment in the industry. The ministers have been trying to do that through specific targeted programs.
We cannot try to press an industry to grow before foreign customers are ready to accept its products. In my riding, for example, McDonnell Douglas builds passenger aircraft. We

May 7, 1982
Supply
have a marvellous facility and we have seen tragic slowdowns in employment there. In the last two years there has been a reduction in employment from 5,500 to about 2,500 in that one plant. We could solve that problem right away if we placed orders for 20 or 30 DC-10s; but what would we do with them? Equally so, what would we do in many of these other industries where there is some heavy reliance on a weaker external market? Instead we have to take the resources we would use in that fashion and aim them more intelligently to help industry rebuild and guarantee that in the short term the unemployed worker is given full support.


Cyril Keeper: Stimulate the Canadian economy.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is why we have stressed inflation as a major problem. It saps our economy's strength and productivity. It pushes up prices and pushes down our ability to compete. It eats up the savings we would otherwise use for investment and makes us uncompetitive. We must improve our position if we expect to keep up with our foreign competitors.


David Kilgour: Your policies are worsening inflation.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We cannot abandon vulnerable people or ignore the information we received today from SYSCO or the information we receive from our ridings. That is why we have a series of specific targeted programs, like ILAP in my own riding. The Canadian Admiral Corporation folded, but with the help of ILAP there has been a restoration of over half the jobs immediately, with the promise that several hundred more will be brought back in. In the meantime, the same workers have been given an opportunity for retraining under that program. The UIC moved right in and opened up an office right at the plant to help the workers get their benefits right away. That is how government can respond in a humane and productive fashion.
We see the same thing with the program just announced for Control Data, which is being given a $17 million federal grant to help develop a microcomputer line and software program. Why? Because we are trying to attack the $1.5 billion deficit in computers in our balance of trade. That is targeted program which picks a specific problem and tries to solve it in the short run.
That kind of thinking is reflected in the housing program which the minister responsible for CMHC has developed with
his social housing program. Twenty-five thousand units will be built this year.


James Aloysius McGrath: Five thousand less than last year.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: There are 30,000 more units being built under the Canada rental supply program. There is $169 million being spent under the residential rehabilitation assistance program. The Canada home renovation plan is worth another $30 million.


David Kilgour: Why are housing starts down?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We cannot build 200,000 units across the country, but we can stimulate through a targeted program to get as many of those units started as the private sector can afford. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of help we can develop in order to attack the short-run problems while the long-term structural problems are sorting themselves out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I call it five o'clock it has been brought to my attention that comments made by the Chair earlier with respect to a point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) may have been out of order in that they constituted an opinion. Just so that members will understand, the hon. member for St. John's East rose on a point of order in reference to the quorum call the other evening. I refused to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) for the simple reason that sometimes it does appear to be the duty of the Chair to assist the House in avoiding friction. So it would hardly be consistent if in fact by my intervention I were to add to the friction.
I want to indicate that were it indeed a statement of opinion by the Chair, it was completely inadvertent, and I apologize particularly to the hon. member for St. John's East and to members generally. Obviously it was not my intention to fuel any fires but rather to try and calm them down or put them out.
It being 5 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 10, 1982