1982-07-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The "B" stream engineering students at the University of Waterloo last week voted to establish a quality of education maintenance fund. Eighty one per cent of these students, all faced with increased tuition and living costs, voted to contribute $50 each to address the problems caused by inadequate funding of university education. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House applaud the constructive initiative taken by these students, who are faced with higher fees and underfunded staff and facilities resulting from government cuts in post-secondary education support; and, urge the government to indicate its commitment to maintain the quality of post-secondary education in Canada, protecting our most important national resource.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government's wage control plan has already disrupted negotiations on a new contract for river pilots on the Seaway and will unravel industry-wide bargaining on the rail system which took 94 years to develop, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House agrees with the Minister of Transport's statement that the wage control plan will not work and calls on the government to withdraw its plan before it disrupts transportation all over Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. NorthwesTel, the federal Crown corporation which has a monopoly on telephone services in the western Northwest Territories, Yukon, and northern British Columbia, has recently proposed rate increases of 30 per cent. In that this proposal is repugnant to the 6 per cent guidelines laid down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) which will be imposed on the salaries of many of NorthwesTel's subscribers, including its own employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That NorthwesTel's rate increases be restricted to a maximum of 6 per cent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOBILE EXPORT SALES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, at a time when the viability of the Canadian motor vehicle industry is threatened, attention should be drawn to the efforts of Wood Motors of Halifax and its president, John Gwynne-Timothy, who personally arranged a sale of 95 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks, direct with a customer in Europe for export to Sweden, notwithstanding the alleged superiority and fuel economy of European-made vehicles. Accordingly, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Minister for Trade be instructed to provide whatever assistance and co-operation is required to encourage and expedite sales of Canadian-made motor vehicles by local and regional dealers to foreign buyers, and to investigate

July 21, 1982
the potential market for further export sales for the benefit of the Canadian motor vehicle industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The commercial and angling salmon season is open in New Brunswick and once again the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is forcing New Brunswickers to bear the brunt of his incapability in that portfolio by unfairly and unjustifiably imposing sanctions and restrictions on them that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to place more realistically on others in the region. As time and time again the House has witnessed the floundering of this minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House give the minister the hook and he be unceremoniously filleted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. One is truly amazed and astounded at the deadly silence in the House in regard to the Lebanon crisis. The opposition questioning upon this issue has been virtually non-existent, and opposition leaders have posed no questions at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William J. Yurko: I have the entire record here.
Surely there should be no reluctance for this House to stake out a humanitarian position in response to dealing with the devastation of communities and homes, leaving harmless children destitute and sobbing in the streets amid rubble, filth and squalor. We must find the compassion and the will to do something. Therefore I move:
That this House immediately establish a three-person all-party task force to travel to Lebanon, to examine first-hand the situation, and then promptly to report to this House so that appropriate humanitarian action can be initiated.
Hopefully someone in the House would be prepared to second this motion.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canadians will lose 17,000 jobs because Dome Petroleum will likely build five LNG carriers in Japan, and because Federal Commerce and Navigation has already contracted to build two coal carriers in Korea and another two in Belgium; whereas Canadians will lose 1,500 jobs as long as CP Ships of Bermuda continues to staff its entire fleet of 40 ships with British officers and foreign crews and fails to repatriate those ships to Canada; and whereas tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in contracts will continue to go offshore unless we immediately implement a marine industrial strategy, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House recognizes the fact that the Liberal government is no longer losing shipbuilding contracts by studied neglect but is deliberately sandbagging attempts to create a Canadian marine industrial strategy. Therefore, attempts will be made to recruit local governments and private industry officials to cooperate with organized labour in an attempt to establish a common front to lobby federal and provincial government to implement the long overdue marine industrial strategy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND FOR HOLDING OF GENERAL ELECTION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, thousands of constituents in three federal ridings are not served by a Member of Parliament, and these vacancies have existed for months. With the present Liberal economic chaos in the country, all constituents should have access to a Member of Parliament to assist them with unemployment insurance
July 21, 1982

claims, pensions, and the host of other services a member's office renders. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the Prime Minister set aside his reluctance to call these three byelections, take action immediately, and give Canadians some long-needed hope by calling these elections in the three vacant seats along with the other 279, by calling a general election.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The 1981 census figures recently revealed dramatic social changes in Canada which will have powerful repercussions on Canada's economy and social fabric. For example, children under 15 years have decreased by 7 per cent, while persons over 65 years have increased by 17.9 per cent. Divorced persons have increased by 65 per cent, affecting half a million children. This means a tremendous increase in single parent families, a much larger pensioner group to be supported by fewer workers, and a huge increase in unemployed workers because of technological change. Inasmuch as the government develops long-range plans for energy resource development and for defence, but does no planning for human needs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the government establish a parliamentary task force to assess the impact of these social changes and recommend long-range social policy directives to meet the future needs of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. After analysing the draft legislation on the proposed shift of the federal sales tax to the wholesale level, the Retail Council of Canada has calculated that prices on commodities that are
Oral Questions
affected will increase from 2 per cent to 6 per cent in addition to the normal inflationary increase. This is just simply as a result of the shift of the tax.
In face of the widespread concern about inflation as expressed in the record low level of consumer confidence that was announced this morning, why is the minister persisting in his pursuit of this shift in federal sales tax to the wholesale level?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the subject matter has been put forward for discussion. All the details of the proposal have been made public, and the intention is to receive the comments of interested bodies so that we can benefit from their views on this change.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These comments are coming in now.


USE OF MANAGEMENT RESOURCES TO EFFECT CHANGE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if I might quote one other comment, the Retail Council predicts, "a great wave of inflation will spread through the economy at this most damaging time imaginable." The Canadian Manufacturers' Association holds similar views. Its members are also very disturbed that officials of the minister's department are telling them to gear up for this change in legislation even before the legislation and its regulations are known in the final form.
Again, would the minister explain why he and his officials are trying to accelerate this process, because the diversion of management time and the diversion of the resources of companies will compound not just the inflation problem but the unemployment problem? There will be more lay-offs as a result of this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has engaged in the same old game of raising fears and raising possibilities that are not in the offing whatsoever. The hon. member has stated that we have accelerated this process, that we are attempting to accelerate it. The fact of the matter is that, in response to the representations that we received from the business community, we have delayed the implementation date so that it would be possible to have the fullest possible input from the business community. We are listening very carefully to their views. The subject matter has been studied for a great many years. As the hon. member knows, one of the basic and important purposes of this change is to put Canadian manufacturers in a position as equally favourable as those imported goods with which they must compete.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not raising the fears. I am repeating what the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Retail Council of Canada have said, two national organizations with a very strong interest on two sides of this particular subject.

July 21, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT CHANGE BE POSTPONED
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, most organizations which have made representations to the minister are very concerned about the shift causing severe inflationary pressures. 1 repeat again the 2 per cent to 6 per cent increase that the Retail Council has mentioned. Since this shift is directly caused by government action, and because the government is so concerned about the impact of government actions on the inflationary process, would the minister agree at this time to defer the implementation of the shift in the sales tax indefinitely? Would he authorize hearings in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to hear these organizations which are so concerned about the inflationary impact, so that we can get to the bottom of the problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think Parliament got to the bottom of this problem years ago. I do not know of any subject that has been more thoroughly examined than this particular one. It is on the basis of very extensive and deep consideration that the government has proposed this change.
The hon. member talks about a shift. It is a proposed shift. There is a discussion paper upon which we are now receiving views, and then we will introduce legislation into the House of Commons.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister will know, as a result of a letter I sent to him on June 9, that some of the 1982 National Harbours Board water lot leases in the port of Vancouver have increased by close to 100 per cent. Many of the commercial and recreational leaseholders are facing increases this year of a substantial amount. This substantial increase, plus the increase of municipal property assessments in Vancouver's lower mainland, is threatening the financial viability of independent businessmen in the port of Vancouver. Some may be forced out of business.
In view of the disastrous effects these increases will have on the financial solvency of leaseholders, and the government's June 28 objective of a 6 per cent world, can the minister give this House the assurance that these 1982 increases will now be reviewed and that any increases after June 28 will be a maximum of 6 per cent?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the policy is indeed that, as Minister of Transport, in three capacities, in the department, in the regulatory agencies,
and in the Crown companies for which I am responsible, my duty is to implement the six and five rule. So, I will look into that particular situation with that in mind.


Mr. Trudeau:: That's right.


LEASES RENEWED FOLLOWING JUNE BUDGET
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Will he please assure the House that, when reviewing the rates, he will consider the fact that those leases increased by more than 100 per cent which were implemented in the last three months would hardly be fair, when leases renewed after June 28 may be increased by only 6 per cent? Can he reassure me once more that any lease renewed after June 28 will be increased by no more than 6 per cent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say "bis" to what I said in my first answer.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Banks are paying 13.75 per cent interest to people who have savings accounts with them. At the same time they are charging 22.5 per cent to customers who want loans. That is a spread of 8.75 per cent, an all-time high spread. Would the minister discuss with the banks the very serious effects on individuals, on farmers and on small-business men, which these exorbitant interest rates are causing, and urge the banks to reduce these high interest rates on loans, which will make the minister's objective of a 6 per cent inflation rate in the next year impossible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question really surprises me. It surprises me because the House of Commons provided an opportunity to the standing committee of the House of Commons to examine the whole question of bank profits, which would obviously lead directly, inevitably, into the very question which the hon. member raises today. His question surprises me because, rather than staying on the committee and examining the problem, he withdrew from the committee and made no contribution to its conclusions.


David Orlikow: It is precisely because the committee did not deal with these questions that I am asking them here.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TALK TO BANKS' REPRESENTATIVES
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, at the same time as the small-business men are being pressed with regard to their loans, when their collateral needs are
July 21, 1982

being very substantially increased, when they are being forced into bankruptcies, the banks have loaned billions of dollars for take-overs to a few large corporations which are not even paying the interest charges. I would ask the minister to talk to the banks so that the banks will deal with these small-business men, farmers and individuals in the same equitable way as they have dealt with the companies which are not even paying their interest on take-overs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will consider the hon. member's representations. He has asked me to consider talking to the banks. May I ask the hon. member to return to the committee and do the job which Parliament asked him to do as a member of that committee?


EFFECT OF PROPOSED PRICE INCREASES ON INFLATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Treasury Board secretary or chairman announced that the government intends to hang tough on rate increases for government-regulated industries but will not attempt to alter any oil pricing agreements to bring them in line with this wonderful and mythical world of 6 per cent. Statistics Canada today released its latest consumer price figures which show that commodities with high energy components, such as food products, continue to lead the way up the inflationary spiral. 1 wonder if I can have the attention of the Minister of Finance. He probably missed my preamble. I will do it again.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: Only the question matters.


Mark Willson Rose: How does the Minister of Finance think that the wonderful world of 6 per cent can be achieved if such an important cost component as energy, petroleum if you like, in food, transportation and home heating, will jump 10 per cent in September and 30 per cent next year? Will he explain to the House how he will achieve 6 per cent through an inflationary levelling off while he allows these massive energy increases to continue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should reflect a little bit on his question and understand that there are countries in the world which have totally absorbed the international price of energy and are running inflation rates presently much lower than in Canada. Therefore, to single out that component as a determinant of the inflation rate is going much too far. I can give the example of West Germany which, according to the OECD, will have an inflation rate next year of 3 per cent. They have already absorbed
Oral Questions
the total international energy price. We have not yet absorbed that. We still have, and will continue to have, prices lower than the international price. Surely with that rate of entry for energy price increases into the economy, it should be possible for us to achieve a 6 per cent world next year that will provide the basis for recovery in the country.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Three or four hours ago the minister announced the intention of the federal government to buy a position in the European aircraft manufacturing Airbus industry, particularly the A320 program. What does the minister expect to obtain by way of percentage for the $500 million he is talking about in this program? What will be the total cost of the program, including the new buildings that will have to be built in Quebec? Is there to be another Crown corporation to manage this? What portion of the whole company will he get? Will it be a significant portion for that kind of money? Finally, why would he do it at all, given the economy of Canada today?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to confirm to the House that 1 announced today that the federal government has decided to begin formal negotiations to see if there is a basis for participation by the Canadian aerospace manufacturing sector in the Airbus industry A320 aircraft program. We have not entered into any final decisions beyond the decision which could well be in Canada's interest to see if a good deal for Canada could be developed through negotiations in participating in this new project of the very successful Airbus industry.
I do not think it is correct to assume any financial commitment will be as high as $500 million. This certainly depends on the results of the negotiations. We are not talking about buying positions. We are talking about seeing if we can work out a good deal which can mean thousands of jobs for Canadian workers all across Canada and a very successful strengthening of our already successful aerospace industry.
My hon. friend asks what we expect to get out of this for Canada. We expect thousands of high technology jobs and a further strengthening of the Canadian aircraft sector. I am sorry my hon. friend is not ready to see this and support it.


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I hope we have an opportunity to get into debate on this, because I am not sure when this minister has done something for Canada in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
19550__________________________________
Oral Questions


EFFECT ON AIR CANADA
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In light of this announcement, will the minister guarantee that there will be no interference in the long-range purchase programs of Air Canada, given the fact that we understand that Air Canada, its management, its pilots and, indeed, some officials of the minister's own department, are opposed to this project and that the GATT agreement prohibits governments from interfering in the purchases of their Crown aircraft?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the persons who will negotiate this potential agreement with Airbus are quite aware of the realities my hon. friend raises, particularly the GATT one, so they will negotiate with that in mind and try for the best possible agreement.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and it has to do with the news conference the Prime Minister held in Belgrade. I regret I have not asked him this question previously, but the Prime Minister spoke in French, and we have just had his remarks translated into English.
The Prime Minister stated that he discourages, as a matter of policy, all Canadian citizens from holding meetings which are unfriendly to other countries. Is it the policy of the national government to discourage Canadians from availing themselves of their freedom to express concerns on such matters as man's inhumanity to man, terror, and violations of human rights perpetrated by other countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, phrased in that way, the answer is no.


FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, is it the policy of the Prime Minister or of the government to say that Canadians should be discouraged from availing themselves of such fundamental political rights as freedom of association and freedom of expression, now guaranteed by the Charter of Rights which, of course, the Prime Minister himself championed-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -and does this constitute bringing old country rivalries to Canada, as the Prime Minister suggests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is somewhat confused. I will tell the hon. member that there is no intention and, indeed, no power on the part of the government to abridge any of these fundamental
July 21, 1982
freedoms which are in the Bill of Rights which my party brought before Parliament and which was belatedly supported by the hon. member's party. There is no intention to do that.


Mr. Dick:: The Bill of Rights was brought in by Diefen-baker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am just repeating what the hon. member for Edinborough-


Mr. Epp:: Edinborough?


Mr. Nowlan:: That place in the west.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was the hon. member for Edmonton North who gave my party and me credit for the Bill of Rights. He did not choose to give it to Diefenbaker. However, that is a matter hon. members opposite can quarrel about between themselves.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why did you say it?


Mr. Hees:: You are stumbling, Pierre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In a letter to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates of this House last year on the topic of government contracts with individual consultants, the minister admitted that the average daily head count for the time indicated was 4,017 persons, for an average annual cost per consultant of $33,600. This costs the people of Canada $130 million per year. Since these figures do not include the amounts paid to firms for professional and consulting services, how can the minister exclude these large numbers of people from the 6 per cent and 5 per cent ceilings imposed by Bill C-124?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take the hon. member's question as a representation to the effect that we should look very carefully at the increase in fees in consultant contracts and, of course, negotiate the best deal possible in every instance for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer. I take that representation. 1 appreciate the representation, as do my colleagues. I might add, however, that this is not something to which we have been at all oblivious. We have taken steps to ensure that there are no abuses in this area and, if any come to the attention of the hon. member, I would very much appreciate his bringing them to my personal attention.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I wish the government would also negotiate with government workers for their compensation.

July 21, 1982


COST OF PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIAL SERVICES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, since professional and special services account for over $2 billion in this year's estimates, and since a large proportion of that money is going to individual consultants and to consulting firms, how can the minister claim that his legislation is fair and equitable to all those who earn their living or part of their living working for the federal government? I remind the minister that many of the firms which are doing consulting work are set up for the sole purpose of doing work for the government. They are mostly Liberals, by the way.


Mr. Smith:: Rubbish.


Mr. Lalonde:: You don't deserve an answer.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not accept that representation from the hon. member for Churchill.
In so far as the issue of fair compensation is concerned, I remind the hon. member that Bill C-124, which is presently in committee, provides for increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the wage rates payable to public servants. I think the hon. member will know from representations made to him by constituents and others-they are certainly made to me and, I am sure, to hon. members on all sides of the House-that there are many people in this country who are getting no increases and accepting rollbacks. According to last week's Gallup poll, 80 per cent of the people of Canada are prepared to take a 10 per cent decrease in order to retain their jobs. I really do not agree with the hon. member when he says that the provision in our bill for 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases is in any way unfair or inequitable.


MANPOWER
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the minister's parliamentary secretary.
Madam Speaker, as one of the members from Montreal Centre-East, I have had occasion to meet with members of the "Action Travail des femmes" movement, who came to see me with a complaint that the Canada Employment Commission was discriminating against women where training in nontraditional jobs is concerned. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether any corrective action is being contemplated or what the situation is with respect to these women who are claiming they have been discriminated against with respect to their choice of training.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I wish to
Oral Questions
thank the hon. member for her question and I can only applaud her involvement in women's rights. I must say that I fail to understand the charge of discrimination against women in non-traditional trades. As far as specific courses are concerned, I can inform the House that out of six women who applied for a course in April, five were admitted to the interview, and two agreed to take the course. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Department of Employment and Immigration reserves three places for 62 training subjects in non-traditional courses. Finally, to answer the member's question, there is the training-in-industry program under which we pay 75 per cent of the trainee's salary to companies willing to provide training for women.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jeiinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade regarding his announcement this morning about easing restrictions on Japanese cars held up by customs in Vancouver. Notwithstanding the pros and cons of this little game, which in itself is quite questionable, the fact is that the minister has caved in to Japanese demands once again. I just want to ask him very simply what he got in return.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, on the basis of this and previous questions asked by the hon. member, I know that he is looking forward to the failure of the Government of Canada's negotiations to help the Canadian automobile industry. We had positive discussions during this last weekend with the Japanese and we felt that in order to show good faith and our sincere desire to resolve this problem, we would start to expedite the inspection and entry of the cars in the port of Vancouver to the car dealers across the country.


REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF CANADIAN CONTENT REGULATIONS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the minister did not, of course, answer my question about what he received in return. This is the same rhetoric that we have been hearing from this minister for two years. His inability to come to any concrete agreements with the Japanese has not only had disastrous effects in the auto industry but has had side effects, such as lay-offs at Algoma Steel and other companies.
Will the minister at long last stop fiddling around-he has been negotiating for over two years without success, as there have been no agreements-and will he at last impose Canadian

July 21, 1982
Oral Questions
content regulations forthwith in order that jobs may be created in Canada? This fiddling around in Vancouver, and the other restrictions, will not create any jobs. Canadian content regulations are the only answer. When is the minister going to take specific action? We have had enough of this fiddling around.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, negotiations only started four months ago. 1 am very confident, as I have said on several occasions in this House, that negotiations will result in a very positive solution for Japan and Canada. The hon. member will just have to wait and see if he has to wipe the egg off his face.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. A short time ago the minister indicated that the official response of the government to the Gilson report would be handed down some time later this month. Can he advise when he intends to make the official government response? Will it be done in this House, or will it be done by way of a news conference?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, cabinet is looking at that matter now. I hope to be able to fulfil the suggestion 1 had made, which is that cabinet would react to the report before the end of the month.


PORT OF CHURCHILL-FUTURE UTILIZATION
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the compensatory rate is ultimately paid to the railways, the port of Churchill, because of its proximity to the grains producing areas, will become quite attractive. Has the minister discussed the possibility of greater utilization of the port of Churchill with the railways and with the Wheat Board? Is he considering having a study made in order to determine what the savings would be if Churchill were utilized much more than is the case now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have not considered this in the particular context of the Gilson report. The Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has stated on many, many occasions what his position and the position of the government is with respect to the use of the port of Churchill. In a nutshell, he has said that the Canadian Wheat Board and western farmers in general are willing to spend money in order to use the port of Churchill, but that there are limitations to what we can do.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister knows that there is an exodus from the work force of the St. Catharines-Niagara area, with some 2,000 persons having left that area in the last month alone and over 29,000 persons having left that same area to look for work elsewhere in the last year. In turn, that leaves 15,000 people still on the unemployment rolls looking for work, with little hope.
How many people will have to pack up and leave the St. Catharines-Niagara area, or how long will they have to wait for the Canadian content value added program which was outlined by the Minister of State (International Trade) and to which he has just referred? Also, what will he do for the shipbuilding industry, and how will our area qualify for the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program which Windsor now has?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, decisions on designation under the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program are made by the cabinet. The situation is being very actively reviewed, including the situation in St. Catharines. We hope to be in a position before too long to announce the conclusions of our review of shipbuilding policy. Our discussions with the Japanese in the whole area of our relations with them are proceeding, as the Minister of State for International Trade pointed out, on a basis which will demonstrate how much egg there is already on the faces of the opposition in light of some of their previous comments.
Generally speaking, we are certainly working through the measures and general approach of the budget of June 28 to provide a basis for the return to work of the workers in this area. 1 hope that the hon. member will give us his active support for that approach which will speed up the return to work of the people to whom he refers.


ALLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. He well knows that his department has requested that the regional municipality of Niagara submit an application. This has been done. I would suggest that when the minister introduced the program the city of Windsor did not make an application because, at the same time as the program was announced, a grant was announced for that city.
Since last November the words "equity and fairness" have been used rather loosely but rather frequently. What is fair and what is equitable when the automobile community of Windsor gets $17 million and the community of St. Catharines-Niagara gets nothing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: July 21, 1982

Madam Speaker, the criteria for designation by cabinet are public. The criteria involve a review of the rate of unemployment in an area connected with a downturn in a substantial industry. After the initial creation of the program and when communities have expressed interest in it, I have invited them to submit their concerns to the government so that their situation can be actively monitored by the inter-ministerial committee and so that, in timely fashion and on the basis of the application of the criteria, decisions can be taken by cabinet. 1 am very glad that the city of St. Catharines has taken that step.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the breakdown of the $9.1 billion increase in the deficit which shows that $4 out of every $5 of that increased deficit comes from a decline in revenue and not government spending, as the opposition would state, and that we find the same thing in the United States, with a real decline in April and May, according to The New York Times, how will the 6 and 5 program stimulate the economy in such a way that some of that revenue may be returned and the deficit lowered?


Mr. Nielsen:: Figure that one out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, since budget night 1 have been making the point that the substantial increase in the deficit is accounted for by the recession or, as the hon. member put it, a decline in revenues. Obviously, when the economy begins to recover, revenues will grow and the deficit will automatically decline.
The hon. member has asked how I propose to bring about recovery. The strategy of the budget is to bring about a 6 per cent economy as soon as possible, and to reduce the rate of inflation. I am satisfied that, as we reduce our rate of inflation, our rates of interest will decline and recovery will recommence.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. At a time when the Commissioner of Official Languages continues to find that the bilingual situation in the Public Service of Canada is far from ideal, can he explain why the Public Service Commission recently sent the director general of its language training branch to Chile, on full salary, to facilitate the teaching of English to the professional and military elites of the dictatorial
Oral Questions
Pinochet regime, and is planning to send further branch employees to Chile for the same purpose, and again at the taxpayer's expense?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that, while the Public Service Commission reports through me to the House, it is not a department of government but has that independence necessary to the proper operation of the public service. I will take notice of the hon. member's question and make inquiries through the Commission.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who sent out this month, along with the family allowance cheques, a pamphlet concerning hospital insurance and medicare programs in Canada. In it she makes the claim "every province must provide coverage for all medically required services of medical doctors". If the minister was really interested in informing Canadians, why did she not take the opportunity to provide Canadians with a concise and honest synopsis of the problem of extra billing and the important debate surrounding it, instead of confining herself to raising false expectations among Canadians who live in provinces or communities where extra billing is a problem?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I disagree with the interpretation of the hon. member, and it is not the first time. The inserts are meant to tell people of their rights. If the people are not the guardians of medicare in this country, I do not know who will be. 1 do not think I should throw at citizens the problems we are paid to solve. We are in the process of negotiations, and I hope to have good results without having to throw problems instead of solutions at people.


TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO JAPAN
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade, and arises out of the difficulties we currently seem to be having in developing the right-no other word is immediately at hand-to build those ships which will transport our natural resources. Just last Friday the Minister of Energy, in response to a question, indicated that this matter had been raised with Japanese officials. Can the minister enlighten us on the Japanese response to the request, presumably, to transport

July 21, 1982
Oral Questions
not only natural gas but coal and other minerals to that country?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I was not a party to those discussions so I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. member.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, it surprises me that the minister was not a party to those discussions. 1 can only presume he has never bothered to raise the question.


REPRESENTATIONS TO JAPANESE OFFICIALS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who indicated to this House the other day that he in fact had raised with Janapese officials the question of the transportation of liquefied natural gas from Canada. Can the Minister be a bit more precise in his answer and indicate to this House the response of Japanese trade officials to any request for that right which he might have put forward?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the representation 1 made was on the occasion of a visit to my office by a group of Japanese private businessmen who were interested in that particular project. At that time we had no indication from the Government of British Columbia of which project they were sponsoring or favouring. I indicated at that time that our view, as the Government of Canada, is that all those projects should have a significant Canadian content and a significant degree of benefit for the Canadian people. 1 indicated they should bear that in mind in their plans for whatever they wanted to do.
As 1 indicated to the House before, this proposal is going to be put before the National Energy Board, there will be the normal hearing, and the government will consider the recommendations of the NEB when it makes its report. In the meantime, the views of the Government of Canada are well known; I have indicated them privately to those private parties interested, but they are also part of the National Energy Program and they have been indicated quite clearly in the past.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, in his responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. On July 8 1 asked the minister if he had given consideration to any increase or change in the two-price system for wheat which expires July 31, ten days from now. Can he inform the House and the producers whether the 6 per cent rule will apply to the two-price system as it applies to domestic grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot do that at this time.


ANNOUNCEMENT IN SENATE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I find it strange that the minister cannot give me an answer today since his assistant in the Senate gave an answer to Senator Roblin on July 7, when he stated that the 6 per cent rule would apply because the mechanism was already in place. Was the assistant to the minister wrong, or has there been a change in the decision since July 7?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the rule is that the 6 per cent applies in all circumstances, except when ministers can demonstrate to the cabinet group that it should not because of special circumstances.


COMMUNICATIONS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. NorthwesTel, a Crown agency under his jurisdiction, has an application before the CRTC for an increase of over 30 per cent in telephone rates. Is it going to be instructed by the minister to amend that application to limit the requested increase to 6 per cent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if it is still only an application maybe they will not get more than 6 per cent in the first place. In the second place, if they get more than 6 per cent the regulatory agency will have to explain why to the government. If it can be justified, presumably the government will accept that. If not, the government can use the power it has to change the decision of the regulatory agency.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister and follows up on a series of questions earlier this week regarding the rather casual approach of the Minister of Indian Affairs to the discharge of his special trust responsibilities to Indian people and the discharge of his statutory obligations to the House. Having been informed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who had similar questions posed to him earlier this week, has the Prime Minister read the testimony before the committee which led the committee to table a report, and later on a petition signed by all members of the committee, insisting that the minister implement an independent inquiry into the
July 21, 1982

affairs of the Department of Indian Affairs in British Columbia? Also, does he know that the minister's own officials have insisted that an independent inquiry would be necessary? If he has read the testimony, has he advised the minister to review his decision to implement only a cover-up inquiry which is now under way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the question is no, Madam Speaker.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister this specific question. Why is it that the Minister of Indian Affairs can get away with totally ignoring his statutory obligations to this House and the orders it has made? One example is the requirement to report annually on the implementation of the James Bay Agreement. When is this minister going to live up to his responsibilities to this House and his special responsibilities on behalf of the native people of this country? How long can he get away with that? Madam Speaker, you will recall that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I heard the minister answer similar questions in the House earlier this week. The minister is a frequent attendant at question period, and he will be happy to deal with those questions again.


PRODUCTION OF WESTERN SHUT-IN OIL
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Very strong representations have been made by the oil industry of Canada concerning shut-in oil in the western sedementary basin and the adverse effect this has had on their cash flow. In light of that, can the minister say what progress is being made on this problem and whether he plans any further actions?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, we have announced a number of steps in the past couple of months in this regard. Those steps have already produced very, very significant results. Thanks to our efforts we have been able to increase our sales of heavy crude to the United States and also the sale of light sour crude oil from Saskatchewan.
As far as conventional light crude oil is concerned, we have been able to increase significantly the take up of that oil in eastern Canada, particularly in the maritimes, thanks to the subsidy we are providing for the transportation of that oil in
Petitions
order to encourage the consumption of Canadian oil rather than imported oil. As the National Energy Board announced yesterday, the demand in August for western crude oil appears to exceed the available and transportable supply. I think this is a clear demonstration that we have taken our responsibilities and done everything that could be done to reduce, if not eliminate, the situation with regard to shut-in oil.
There may be some difficulties at various times of the year, some fluctuations, but following our discussions with the Government of Alberta, in particular, and the Government of Saskatchewan, I think we are going to be able to have a much more orderly situation than we have had in the past, and I thank the hon. member for his interest in this matter.


RESIGNATION OF MR. ETHIER, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Denis Ethier, member for the riding of Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell, has resigned as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, effective July 8, 1982.
I shall not elaborate on the reasons for the hon. member's decision, but 1 am certain that all members of this House are deeply grateful to him for the services he has rendered. Personally, I am sorry to see him go, and I wish to thank him publicly for his eminently responsible attitude and for the manner in which he collaborated with the members representing the Chair in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians appealing to the government to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to have a meeting this weekend with the home owners advisory council on urea formaldehyde foam insulation. It is apparent from the petition that the co-ordinator of the UFFI program has chosen this time to go on holidays as has the chairman of the advisory committee, and the minister has refused to meet with them to discuss vital and important orders. It is also clearly apparent that the Conservative Party is blowing hot and cold on this issue and refuses to take a petition.
19556

July 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Rubbish.


Raymond John Skelly: Therefore, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Members of Parliament asking for that meeting to take place.

[ Translation)


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
7.	Which of the helicopters were involved in each individual search and rescue mission?
8.	In which cases were the helicopters the (a) primary (b) secondary crafts involved in the air search and rescue missions?
9.	What was the approximate response time for the crafts in the cases where they were involved in air search and rescue and mercy flights?
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. One Sikorsky S61, one Bell 212, three Alouette III, one Bell 206B (temporary assignment). Twelve pilots, eleven helicopter engineers, one helicopter electrician.


TIME ALLOCATION FOR SECOND READING OF BILL C-125
[Stage Direction]
2. Prince Rupert:
Victoria:
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among representatives of the parties and that it has not been possible to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of the proceedings on second reading of Bill C-125, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.
I wish to give notice that, at a future sitting of the House, I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75c, to allocate two additional sitting days to the said stage of Bill C-125.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,234, 4,330, 4,362 and 4,376.


Mr. Cook: 1.	What is the inventory of Department of Transport helicopters and personnel on British Columbia's west coast?
2.	At what locations in British Columbia are the crafts and crew based?
3.	On how many occasions in the last year were the helicopters involved in air search and rescue expeditions and mercy flights on the west coast?
4.	What was the approximate location of the calls responded to by the helicopters?
5.	What air search and rescue equipment do the crafts carry?
6.	What search and rescue training programs were administered to the crews of the helicopters?
CG 22-Sikorsky S61
Five pilots Four engineers One electrician
CG 23-Bell 212 CG 24-Alouette 111 CG 25-Alouette 111 CG 26-Alouette 111 CG 79-Bell 206B
Seven pilots Seven engineers
3.	According to official records kept at RCC Victoria, CG helicopters were involved in 12 search and rescue missions in 1981.
5.	Coast Guard helicopters are mainly used in support to its aids to navigation program and for ice reconnaissance duties when stationed on board icebreakers during winter months or while engaged in Arctic resupply missions. These aircraft are occasionally tasked in a secondary role to search and rescue but their participation is limited to coastal searches and mercy flights. Coast Guard helicopters are generally not large enough to provide a primary search and rescue capability and consequently, specialized equipment such as rescue hoists, survival packages, life rafts and extensive radio communication equipment cannot be carried on board for that purpose.
6.	The Department of National Defence is charged with the responsibility for providing primary air resources in support of marine search and rescue. On the west coast this responsibility is discharged by 442 Squadron based at Comox on the east coast of Vancouver Island, whose resources consist of three Buffalo fixed-wing search aircraft and four Labrador/Voya-geur rescue helicopters. The helicopters carry five crew members, two of which are qualified search and rescue specialists.
Because the Department of Transport's responsibility is to provide marine resources for search and rescue, as opposed to air resources, and because Coast Guard helicopters are not capable of carrying out primary search and rescue operations, helicopter crews do not receive any formal training in search and rescue.
4,	7, 8 and 9. The table below shows CG helicopters involvement in SAR missions during 1981.
1981	Response	Total	OtherIncident	Date	Helicopter	Time	Time	Location	Type	A/C Inv.H0004	Jan. 1	CG 22	10 min.	54 min.	Prince Rupert	Medical evacuation	B.C. ambulanceH0419	Mar. 8	CG 22	10 min.	48 min.	Prince Rupert	Medical evacuation	Commercial
July 21, 1982

M0719	Mar. 15	CG 25	10 min.	lH06m.A0830	Apr. 23	CG 22	3 min.	2H30m.Ml 177	May 20	CG 22	2 min.	1 hourMl 338	Jun. 3	CG 22	Airborne	lH30m.A1755	Jun. 29	CG 22	15 min.	2H 12m.Ml 767	Jun. 30	CG 22	Airborne	2H54m.A3984	Nov. 5	CG 24	Airborne	1 hourM4129	Nov. 28	CG 22	10 min.	lH36m.M4160	Dec. 4	CG 79	Airborne	lH30m.M4183	Dec. 8	CG 26	Airborne	18 min.Definition:	H-Humanitarian incident
M-Marine A-Aircraft
Order Paper Questions
Clo-oose, Van. Island	Broken down P/C	-Graham Is. (Qu. Charlottes)	Lost aircraft	USCGBanks Is. (50 mi. S. Pr.	Vessel fire	-Rupert) Oswald Bay (Hecate Strait)	Vessel aground	-Moore Lake (S. Pr. Rupert)	Overdue aircraft	DNDCoho Point (Dixon Entrance)	Man overboard	-Crawfish Lake (w. side Van. Is.)	Overdue aircraft	-Kitson Is. (N. Pr. Rupert)	Overdue vessel	-Lasqueti Is. (Georgia St.)	Flare sighting	-Woody's Lagoon (Victoria)	Overturned boat	-


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	What was the total cost to the Canadian National Railways to erect the CN Tower in Toronto?
2.	How much land, expressed in square feet, is used by the CN Tower?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. $59.0 million, 2. 417,958 square feet.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the approximate number of applications received in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 to date for ATC in Training positions, including RO's, CR Assistants, and Tech Mets under the SAAP?
2.	Of those who apply for ATC in Training, what number successfully pass the "entrance" exams and, of those, what number proceed to successfully pass the interview process and what number, on an annual average, then successfully complete (i) regional training, where applicable (ii) TCTI (iii) OJT check out?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1.	(a) Approximately	12,100(b)	Approximately	9,0002.	Of those who applied for ATC training (based on 1981)(a)	Approximate number who	successfully	passed	"entrance"exams (Aptitude Tests)	1,300(b)	Approximate number	who	successfully	passed	interviewprocess	600(c)	Approximate number who	started regional	training	220(i)	Approximately	160(ii)	Approximately	125(iii)	Approximately	90


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Who is responsible for deciding how unemployment figures are reported by Statistics Canada?
2.	Is the lowest reported category the metropolitan area and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Who provides local municipalities and towns with statistics for their municipalities?
4.	Can Statistics Canada provide these statistics on a regular basis?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	Under the Statistics Act, Statistics Canada must collect, compile, analyse, abstract, and publish statistical information, pertaining to, inter alia, labour and employment. Matters relating to content, format, timing and other considerations relating to the reporting of unemployment data by Statistics Canada are determined by the staff assigned to the labour force survey, which is the vehicle used to measure unemployment in Canada on a monthly basis.
2.	The lowest geographic categories for which monthly labour force survey data are reported are for 23 metropolitan areas and 52 sub-provincial economic regions (or groups of regions). Labour force survey data are derived from a sample survey of households throughout Canada, and, with very few exceptions, the survey sample size is not large enough to produce meaningful estimates for areas smaller than these metropolitan areas or economic regions.
3.	Unemployment estimates for local municipalities and towns comparable to the monthly labour force survey data are not available.

July 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions
4.	Statistics Canada provides labour force data for local municipalities and towns on a regular basis from the census of population, but cannot presently provide such data more frequently from existing surveys or other sources.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,772 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have question No. 3,772 made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	How many young people signed up for the Katimavik project in 1981?
2.	What was the cost to the taxpayer, including the costs of administration and advertising?
3.	Were follow-up studies done to establish the number (a) completing the program who are now usefully employed (b) enrolled in post-secondary courses (c) on welfare and (i) if so, what were the results of the study (ii) if not, for what reason was no such study made so that the usefulness of the program to the taxpayers could be meaningfully evaluated?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stevens:: Madam Speaker, once again I ask the parliamentary secretary why he has affronted the House by not answering question No. 2,042 which was put on the Order Paper on January 29, 1981. The question is, simply, what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's world tour in December, 1980, January, 1981. Is there any possible excuse for affronting Parliament in this way?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am shocked the hear the suggestion that Parliament has been affronted by this government, which has answered 3,492 questions on the Order Paper as of today. That is an excellent record and a good batting average. I have made inquiries as to that particular matter and I am advised that the answer to the hon. member's question is in preparation. I will again pass on the concern of the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will that take another year?


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, July 20, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-125, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Clark (p. 19456).
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was discussing the fact that those on the opposite side of the House are noticeably quiet when it comes to condemning publicly the financial policies of the government. At that time I provided a long and detailed list of the many instances when shocking and wasteful spending on the part of this government and its agencies has resulted in taxpayers' dollars literally being thrown away. I mentioned how rare it was for anyone on the other side to object to the burden this was placing on all Canadians. The silence from the other side of the House has been deafening.
I mentioned, in particular, the Liberals' closed-mouth approach in their delay to call three byelections in Timiskam-ing, Broadview-Greenwood and Leeds-Grenville so that Canadians in those three ridings could have a voice in the House. I suggested that everyone, including those on the opposite side, knew that members of the government could not even bear to think of the humiliation they would receive at the polls if those byelections were called. Better to let thousands and thousands of Canadians remain unrepresented than to
July 21, 1982

embarrass the 145 opposite. If the thought of defeat in only three ridings is enough to cause those opposite to shudder, small wonder the government is absolutely refusing even to consider calling a general election. They certainly do not want to let voters in every riding have the opportunity to defeat the entire bunch, which is what would happen if Canadians were given the chance.
People across the nation know that the only 6 per cent solution to save this country is the one which results in the government being reduced to 6 per cent or less representation in Parliament. The government is asking Canadians to help it solve our problems. I can assure the House that they are trying to. Many Members of Parliament on all sides of the House, but especially those of us on this side of the House, are receiving letters, telephone calls and representations as to how we on this side, or Canadians in general, can get rid of the government. There is talk of petitions being presented across the country, in Liberal ridings as well. There are letters to the editors as to how the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can be impeached. These letters come from people who consider that there is legislation in Canada similar to that in the United States where a president under certain circumstances can be impeached. Canadians would love to do something to change the government. They know that the government is the problem and only an election will provide us with a solution. Yet the government, clinging to power for the sake of power, has other ideas. It denies any and all responsibility. According to the government, the guilty culprits are Canadians.
The government says that Canadians expect too much. I suggest to those on the opposite side of the House that since Canadians are footing the bill and paying the shot, they have a right to their expectations. Canadians have a right to expect that the billions of dollars they pay in taxes each year will be spent wisely in their behalf.
Recently the Fraser Institute reported that the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by 619 per cent between 1961 and 1980. We can imagine how much it has increased and will increase by the end of 1982. The government simply legislates increases to its coffers, adding greed to arrogance and the quest to remain in power. Canadians have the right to expect that this extra money taken from them is being spent wisely in their behalf.
How wisely was it spent and in whose behalf when Petro-Canada gave $480,000 to 16 Norwegian and French oil drillers not to work? Each of these drillers was given $30,000 and sent home because officials at Petro-Canada neglected to read the relevant immigration regulation, or were totally unaware of its existence, the regulation which bars foreign workers from the jobs involved.
How wise was it when the CBC flew 74 people to Versailles to cover the summit conference when the Global and CTV networks sent over four people each? If the two privately-owned networks could provide excellent coverage of the event with four people each, why in heaven's name were 70 extra
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
people needed by the CBC? The trip to Versailles contained other vivid illustrations of the problems the government is causing.
Prior to Versailles the Prime Minister promised that he would return home with solutions to the economic morass his government had created in the country. He did not admit that his government had created the problems, just the opposite. He said that Canada's economic woes were the direct result of the policies of other nations, most notably the United States, so he would go to Versailles and tell the leaders of the other nations just how things should be done. As we all know, things did not quite work out that way. The leaders of the other nations were far too busy working out their own plans for economic growth to be bothered listening to the whines and complaints of a finger-pointer, so the Prime Minister returned home petulant and emptyhanded. Rather than making the trip to Versailles, the Prime Minister would have been well advised to travel along the road to Damascus.
A conversion is clearly in order. The Prime Minister must be converted from his thinking that the problems he has created are the fault of others. He must be converted from thinking that only he knows best what shape and form the nation should assume, and that the opposite opinions of others are to be dismissed out of hand. He must be converted from thinking that the power of his office is absolute and that he is not accountable to the people. He must be converted from thinking that the plight of the people is their own fault, and he must realize that it is the fault of his government. If the Prime Minister does not walk along the road to Damascus, the nation will continue on the road to ruin.
There is little hope the government will abandon its irresponsible spending. Right now it is before the House asking for authority to borrow $11 billion more. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the government should give this matter second thoughts. They know that when it is totalled it is more than they require. If they reduced this amount to $7 billion, it would probably be more in line with their actual needs. There is little hope the government will try to do much along this line or try to reduce the massive debt.
I feel very strongly that we in the House should not and must not approve this supplementary borrowing authority in its full amount. I would never approve throwing good money after bad, especially good money in the direction of a bad government. The hole in which the government has put the country is too massive and too costly to be overlooked. We may not be able to stop passage of the bill, but come the next election, Canadians will dig another hole and bury the government in it.
Columnists across the country have been writing scathing articles on the performance of the government. One appeared in the Tuesday, July 20 edition of The Toronto Sun entitled, "6 Per Cent Snake Oil". It contains many truths. In part it reads:
That beehive of mediocrity, the CBC, cost us $792.2 million this past year, a 10 per cent increase over the previous year.

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Also it talked about Petro-Canada and what has gone on in that corporation. I should like to refer to another quotation of this very astute columnist, Laura Sabia, which reads:
Multiculturalism, bilingualism and metrication cost us billions of dollars we couldn't afford, taxpayers money poured into a bottomless pit.
The Fraser Institute recently published a report on taxes by all three levels of government.
As 1 mentioned before, this report showed astronomical increases in the tax bill placed upon the shoulders of average Canadian families which can ill afford them. It continued:
While jobs are lost everywhere, the economy is in shambles, the government increases its bureaucracy by 8,000-
I could go on and on with horror stories. I hope hon. members on all sides of the House will see that the $11 billion is asking for far too much and that it should be reduced. If not, of course we will be voting against Bill C-125 which will almost give the government a blank cheque to spend and spend and spend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise and comment on this legislation today. I might add that I am looking forward to hearing the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) later this afternoon who will be reflecting upon this bill in more detail than I am about to do.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You are filibustering the bill.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: At this point I intend simply to pass along a few reactions I have had from listening to some of my colleagues and friends from all sides during the course of this debate when they talked about the economy and the government's management of it. I would also like to discuss how members opposite would offer alternatives to the Canadian people.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why do we not vote on it then?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: On Monday, I listened with great interest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who, I believe, made some unwarranted personal attacks which were basically attempts to demean the performance of the government rather than present alternatives. We have listened to this hollow discussion of government policies for some time during this debate. We have not heard from the other side the alternatives to current policies.
I believe all Canadians would welcome-I certainly would- the very refreshing insights into wasteful expenditures or expenditures which have not been agreed to. I believe that all Canadians would agree with any member who would rise in his place to suggest that an expenditure on one item would have been put to better use if it had been given to an ordinary person in need. I welcome those concerns.
I have listened to concerned members opposite talk about unemployment. For example, I believe that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has given us a lucid and sincere description of unemployment in his riding. He has often
brought home to us the meaning of the slowdown in his riding owing to the energy policy. At the time it is not enough to raise small issues such as that of the brief cases and claim that unemployment in Athabasca will be solved by that issue. Instead, we on this side of the House are attempting to emphasize exactly what the hon. member for Athabasca has reminded us of, that government spending must go to people. I urge hon. members opposite to focus on government spending on services when they begin to present their alternatives.
I recall the debate on federal-provincial spending which took place in the House a few months ago. At that time we were discussing some $105 billion that the government is giving to the provinces in the form of transfer payments over the next five years. That money, which is gathered from Canadians all across the country, is being used to redistribute our resources to those people in need. Those expenditures are being used for universities, health care, and medicare. I felt that we had an excellent debate in the House because it focused on the qualities of those services and on the need for additional spending in those areas.
My hon. friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), whom I see across the way, while very often chastising us for our spending, shone in that debate because he was constantly urging that we spend more money for services rather than blindly cut back. It was that reasoned compassion that made his speeches so enlightening at that time. That same compassion expressed by the hon. member for Athabasca has often made his speeches compelling to those of us listening to them. That compassion and dedication which was so prevalent during that debate has made the Conservative speeches during this debate so hollow in its absence.
In this debate I would like to focus on some of the issues that are involved in our spending. With respect to unemployment, there are many members here who represent constituencies where unemployment is tragically high. Fortunately, unemployment levels are quite low in my riding and I, as well as the people in my riding, welcome the opportunity to share our strength and wealth with Canadians who are in greater need. This morning, I spoke on a radio talk show in Regina where numerous callers made the same point. The point they made was that the people in Regina, where unemployment is severe but not as great as in other parts of Canada, were prepared to share their wealth with those places which are in greater need. That is the purpose of our spending in Ottawa. Our role is to help Canadians overcome tragic economic periods like this and to benefit from our common prosperity. That sense of sharing is the motivation behind the spending which we have undertaken in so many of our programs.
I would refer hon. members to the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). He had very little time for that type of concern in his speech. Instead, he spent most of his time delivering attacks, hollow rhetoric and vague discussions of government waste while throwing in one or two examples about taxis and briefcases, issues which he thought
July 21, 1982

significant. He did not tell us in any way how he would use this great nation's wealth to help those most in need.
He would not come to a riding such as mine where there is relative comfort and prosperity to tell my constituents how their great wealth could be used in less fortunate areas. It is hollow arguments such as these which I believe have cost the party opposite dearly.
I listened with equal interest to some of the speeches made by members of the New Democratic Party. I was disappointed, however, by those speeches because I often look to them to give us some motivation beyond the rhetoric which we hear in the House. I believe that those members usually remind us of the lives of ordinary Canadians. But we did not hear that during this debate. I challenge some of them to rise to the occasion and give us a decent speech dealing with how the government should use its resources in the future.
The speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was a grand old piece of rhetoric about the sins of capitalism, and the two old line parties which he called Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. We heard this rhetoric years ago and it has been worn out and tired for decades.


An hon. Member:: It is still true.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The hon. member says that it is still true. It is not true. It has not stood the test of history. What has stood the test of history in his party has been an open concern for the ordinary Canadian. His party has often presented that concern very well but they have failed in this debate.
Why am I constantly coming back to this question? Why am 1 suggesting a discussion that we have a discussion about the people instead of a debate on hollow rhetoric?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To waste time.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I am doing it because the deficit today is a result of the government's expenditures on people and its response to a severe recession. This is not a hollow issue. This deficit is not to serve new programs, new expenditures or untried ideas. It is rather, a result of an attempt to solve difficulties and suffering caused by the recession. I suggest it would be a betrayal of our fellow Canadians to ignore that suffering by resorting to hollow political rhetoric-


Mr. Taylor:: Is that why you introduced closure?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -which we heard from the Leader of the Conservative Party and the first speaker from the New Democratic Party. We have a very severe problem which is clearly typified by the size of the government's deficit and our borrowing requirements.
We on this side take that very, very seriously. The minister has indicated that his budget has been brought down in response to the recession. He has indicated that the new demands caused by the severity, the depth and the speed of the recession were his motivation in preparing his June budget. In that budget he has given us an answer to the human problems
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
and the suffering reflected in the recession, answers that did not come forward from either the Official Opposition or its leader, or from the New Democratic Party. I refer specifically to the 6 per cent world that the government is proposing to all Canadians. The 6 per cent world is a manageable target which will bring all of us personal relief from the great ravages of inflation and the great demands and pressures of our recession. The 6 per cent world is our strength. The 12 per cent world is a continued world of weakness. I look forward to the time when the Conservative Party will be able to react to people instead of advancing hollow rhetoric, when it will be able to react to the specific problems of the economy rather than play phony games in this House. I think our fellow Canadians are asking us for that kind of sincerity and reflection on all sides.
When we hear about the 6 per cent world as presented in the budget, we are also hearing about the minister's great concern for the debt burden being carried by the government. We do not want to add to that at all. When we look we can see a marvellous compromise between the demands of the economy today, the great needs of ordinary people, and the need for prudent government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Is that why you increased the rent in Banff?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We see aid for housing going out to the tune of $400 million, aid to small businesses amounting to another $400 million, several hundred millions of dollars for job creation and $100 million for the Farm Credit Corporation. All this money is being aimed at Canadians in great need.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Raising taxes.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is not being aimed at wasteful ideas or new, untried schemes, it is certainly stemming from a much greater consciousness and awareness of the economy and of the people than was reflected by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being sent to people in great need, all coming as a result of our ability to find those savings inside our budget, to reorder our priorities and to put that money into much more needy areas, taking it from areas where there can be genuine savings without creating suffering. That is a response to the great problems that our economy faces and it has been reflected, since the budget, in much more hopeful attitudes among the Canadian people. We can look through sector after sector, area after area, towns and cities across this country, where people have said that the budget is offering them hope to get out of our current trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: For example, the budget has been very well received in the housing sector. The housing sector has seen the hundreds of millions of dollars that we are offering this year alone, and they also see the great hope contained in the new tax proposals currently under study. Those proposals will bring permanent relief to that industry. That industry has responded from coast to coast by telling us that we have indeed given it the help it wants in order to build the homes needed by young

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Canadians. That is money that we found in response to specific human problems, and money that we found without adding a new burden to the deficit. That is a reasonable response to a great problem and an alternative that we unfortunately did not hear from the hon. member speaking for the New Democratic Party when he talked about tweedledum and tweedledee or the ills of capitalism or whatever other hollow argument he put forward for 40 minutes, which had nothing to do with the way ordinary Canadians live.


Some hon. Members:: Not true.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That hollow approach was very sadly put forward by our good friends in the New Democratic Party whose ideas we usually deeply respect, and an equally hollow approach was put forward by a man held in great esteem by his fellow Canadians, the Leader of the Opposition. Those hollow arguments are great failures in the middle of a debate and an emergency like this. Let our fellow Canadians know that sly phrases about briefcases, or silly little references to funny money, or some kind of personal attack against the minister are not answers to serious economic issues. Those will stand as hollow arguments in the eyes of our fellow Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: How about $120 million on advertising?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let me just close by pointing out a couple of small points that I hope we will be able to take away with us. Here we have seen attempts to divide our fellow Canadians by telling them that a 6 per cent world is not possible and will create suffering among groups and individuals across the country. Let me turn the world over on that argument. Let me point out that a 6 per cent world, as proposed in the budget, will bring us economic health and real growth. It will bring us an answer to high interest rates. It will bring businessmen hope for their future investments and will give workers some stability in their jobs.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Talk, talk, talk.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Just this morning I received a telephone call from a civil servant in Regina. He wanted to know why I was putting the lid on his salary. 1 asked him, "When you go to work tomorrow morning, will you have a job?" I asked him whether every other Canadian can give the same answer to the question, "When you go to work tomorrow morning, will you have to account for your job the way one must in the private sector?" I give the man full credit for answering, "No". I asked him, "Is it not time for us to join together to make some kind of sacrifice by contributing in some way to the health and strength of our economy?" Again, to give the man full credit, he agreed that it was time and that his job was secure and he could make a small sacrifice which would benefit someone else. He said he was ready to do it. I think most Canadians are like that today. Most Canadians are ready to join in the national effort to restore some hope and health. Those Canadians are ready to take on a great challenge to get rid of the 12 per cent weakness and restore some strength by taking slightly less. I think all Canadians instinctively know that they, too,
will have an opportunity to provide some economic hope and health by taking slightly less now. That is the great message of the budget.


Mr. Deans:: Are you prepared to take less than you are borrowing?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The hon. member asks me if I am prepared to take less in my borrowing, and I want to tell him that, yes, we are. Let the hon. member come to us with something more than the tweedledum and tweedledee statement of the hon. member for Skeena. Let him come with some concrete suggestions, and they will be seriously considered indeed. This minister and this government have a track record for taking those things seriously.


Ian Deans: Is that why you are moving closure?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are indeed prepared to recycle our money, make better use of it, to rearrange our priorities or to cut back, and we have shown that. But what we have not shown, and this kind of argument is recognized by the other side, and what we are not prepared to do, is to present arguments which will make people poorer or allow us to make our savings on the backs of poor people.
That is why I say to the hon. member that if he can come up with some suggestions within that limit, we will be more than happy to listen to them. The minister and the government have shown repeatedly that they do not want to add unnecessarily to the burdens the government places on the economy. However, we will not solve that equation by adding more burdens to ordinary people.
I think 1 can close with that point and say that as a taxpayer, a businessman and a person coming from a well to do part of the country, I do not like the deficit. I do not think any Canadian wants to see the deficit particularly high. I do not think any Canadian wants to see a government embark on wasteful spending. I do not think any Canadian wants to believe that the government is borrowing unnecessarily. At the same time, as I said to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), no Canadian wants to see us solve that problem by crippling the poor, robbing the provinces or taking money away from a vital program which adds to our great national wealth or to the hope of our citizens.
It has been a real pleasure for me to rise so unexpectedly in this debate. I see the hon. member for Lincoln is here. I know that he is prepared to add much more eloquently to the debate than I have. I hope that members opposite are prepared to present, some day, solid arguments instead of personal attacks or hollow rhetoric that offers no answers in our situation today. Given those challenges, we look forward to what they will have to say later in the day.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.
July 21, 1982


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1 have not said a word yet and "The Anvil Chorus" has begun. Those hon. members should watch their blood pressure.
I listened with a great degree of satisfaction and interest to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher). I think hon. members opposite agree that he is one of the more knowledgeable members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Lewis:: Compared to whom?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The reaction of the opposition indicates exactly that. If he is able to raise such a storm in the 15 or 20 minutes in which he contributed to the House, it is a tribute to his intelligence, eloquence and knowledge of the subject.
I want to speak to the subject of supplementary borrowing authority. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. Members opposite have fulfilled their role in bringing that fact to the attention of the public, those who watch it over television, those who read about it in the newspapers and those who grace us with their presence in the gallery.
It is unfortunate that, in the few minutes I had to review the arguments of members opposite, I did not find one who addressed himself to the issue. I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in discussing the deficit, would use per capita figures as a basis of comparison with the United States. Any youngster, any first-year economic student will tell you that the accepted criterion or standard of measuring deficits anywhere in the industrialized world is in relation to the GNP. That is fundamental. It is first-year economics.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We say that too.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Obviously the gentleman speaking from his seat should learn his economics. When you talk about our deficit in relation to our population, of course our per capita ratio is much higher than that of the United States, 22 million people versus 220 million people. It is a bit of trivia. What is the key to our deficit, as the very eloquent-


Mr. Kempling:: What business were you ever in?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The minister indicated in his speech the other day-and I suggest members opposite read it-that our ratio of GNP to our deficit runs about 5.4 per cent. Some economists say it is 5.2 per cent, and some say it is as low as 4.4 per cent, but on a national basis it is probably around 5.2 per cent. In the United States it is around 5.4 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That's wrong.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Members opposite are in the happy situation of agreeing with what they want to agree with and disagreeing when they do not like the truth. That is why they, not us, have very little credibility in the country today.
In the forties the deficit in relation to our GNP was 23 per cent. What is significant about the deficit is its composition. What does it reflect? Does it reflect spending? Does it reflect waste? What does it reflect apart from our ability one day to finance it and one day to repay it? That is the significant difference in our deficit as opposed to that of the Americans.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
The American deficit is clearly related to military spending. The concern in the business community in the United States is what will happen when their economy recovers. What proportion of their GNP will be directed to reducing their deficit, or will it continue to be the policy in the United States to carry on massive spending on the military? That is the real problem bothering the Americans. It is a legitimate concern. It is probably the greatest defender of democracy in the world, but the role they have to play today as opposed to the eastern bloc, the role Great Britain used to play, is the need to arm, to spend on the military, to be vigilant. It is not an easy role. I do not envy it. However, it reflects its spending.
What makes the business community in the United States apprehensive about their deficit is that they perpetually ask themselves, "If we borrow to spend and borrow for this reason or that reason, how do we know that our government, the American government, will work assiduously to bring down the deficit, which is costly, which theoretically competes with private enterprise for the pool of capital, which is not all that large?"
Our deficit is entirely different. It reflects the nature of Canada. It reflects our conviction that the have provinces must help the have-not provinces. It reflects our commitment in the Constitution to the concept of transfer payments. It reflects the obligation of the central government to help the less fortunate, less wealthy provinces, through the system of transfers.
Then we have the massive unemployment problem in this country. There are automatic regulators built into our economic system. That increases the outflow of transfers to the provinces, if only to look after the outflow of welfare payments in those provinces as represented by the Canada Assistance Plan.
The other addition to our deficit, which is automatic, and thank God it is, is the payment of the unemployment insurance benefits to those less fortunate than ourselves who, for no reason of their own, are out of work and very dependent on unemployment insurance benefits. It is no mystery to anyone in the House of Commons that when you have 1.5 million people out of work, the cash flow problems of unemployment insurance are real and must be met by the government. They are reflected in the deficit.
By the same token, when the economy starts to recover in Canada, unlike the United States, when unemployment is reduced, employment begins to increase again and the numbers of unemployed start to decrease, immediately and automatically the transfers of money through the Canada Assistance Plan will be substantially less. The pay-outs under unemployment insurance will be substantially less. Automatically the deficit shrinks at an amazingly rapid rate. It is significant, when you look at the figures for 1978 and 1979, that our deficit in those days was about 5.2, as opposed to 5.4 today.

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
I am not suggesting that the deficit is a good thing or that we would not be better without it, but I am suggesting that opposition members as well as hon. members on my side of the House have an obligation to assure Canadians that our deficit is something with which we can cope, something we can well finance and something which should not be the cause of panic or the gloom or doom for which members of the opposition have been famous in the last few months. I would prefer that hon. members opposite who are interested in this subject free themselves of partisanship. One of my favourites is grinning at the back; he loves to listen and learn. I refer him to an article entitled "Inflation and the Budget Balance" which I found in the library. It was produced by the Canadian Public Policy group in the summer of 1977.


Mr. Thacker:: It is 1982 now, Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The article entitled "Deficit Financing and Inflation: A Review of the Evidence" was written not by a labour leader and not by a Liberal but by a very outstanding economist named Robert B. Crozier of the Conference Board in 1977. After reviewing all the evidence and after much debate with other economists in conferences set up by the Canadian Public Policy group, Mr. Crozier reached the conclusion that the deficit is not the cause of inflation but the result of inflation. He proved that very easily with graphs and tables showing that the deficit during the high-inflation seventies was relatively low. Our deficit is the result of unemployment. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) pointed out that $4 of every $5 of the deficit represents payments to the provinces to finance welfare and payments to Canadians through unemployment insurance. Hon. members opposite can scream and yap from their seats if they like, but their time would be better used if they spent it in the library learning the basics of economics. I cannot cope with their arguments and catcalls; I suggest-gently and as a friend-that they spend 15 or 20 minutes of their day-as I like to do-in the Parliamentary Library, which is the finest in the world, and learn the basic facts which any university student who has been through economics understands.
Recently in my riding I spoke with a group of people in the agricultural sector who were concerned and worried about the deficit. I asked who in that group did not have a deficit and who did not owe money on his farm. I asked who had bought a farm without borrowing. Those are deficits. One gentleman said, "Of course I have a deficit, but I have no problem meeting my commitments." He told me he would have no problem repaying his deficit. He said he is a thousand times wealthier now than 20 years ago. Of course he is right, and so is this country. If we were to total up the assets of our country on a balance sheet, including our bridges, our roads, our airlines and our airports, we would see that we have an extremely wealthy country. The gloomsters and doomsters of socialism in the corner do not appreciate the wealth and the possibilities for the future this country offers young people who are prepared to understand that the free-enterprise system,
which two parties in this House represent, has resulted in this country's being the most affluent, advanced, civilized, educated and healthiest in the world. Hon. members in the far corner do not understand that, and I hope they never do. If they do not, they will never get out of that corner.


Mr. Siddon:: You guys are the biggest socialists of all.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I love the question period and never interfere or heckle because I learn every day. I was almost convinced over the last few months, strictly by the repetition of hon. members opposite. One gets a little confused, and sometimes common sense disappears. It seems to me that what we heard for weeks from the opposition side was that if the dollar dropped below 80 cents U.S., this country would be doomed and that there would be such a massive outflow of capital from Canada to the United States that we would have to impose controls. We were told that if we did not impose controls, the value of our dollar would drop to 50 cents or less. Was that not the message we heard from the opposition for months on end? Every day in question period the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was bombarded by questions about the dollar's dropping below 80 cents. Gloom and doom; people were terrified. They had a right to be terrified when they saw their elected members acting so irresponsibly. However, what has happened to the dollar? If the dollar was the barometer of people's lack of confidence in the government two weeks ago when its value was 77 cents, are hon. members opposite now prepared to say that Canadians have regained confidence because the dollar is valued at 80 cents today?


Mr. Huntington:: What happened to the U.S. dollar?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Or will hon. members opposite find another reason for the fact that the dollar's value is now between 79 cents and 80 cents? What is the reason? If it dropped because of lack of confidence, is it unfair to suggest it is going up because of confidence?


William James Kempling: Talk to some Stoney Creek businessmen. They will tell you.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The opposition whip is a good whip, and as long as he stays within the confines of his responsibilities and does not try to be another frontbencher talking economics, 1 will retain my respect for him.
When the value of the dollar is 77 cents hon. members opposite say that reflects no confidence in the government, but then they deny me the right to say that an 80 cent dollar reflects confidence in the government. What has happened in the interval is that a budget was brought forward by the Minister of Finance. The budget brought forward by the minister is being very well accepted by the business community. It is being well accepted by Bay Street, James Street and the market. It is being well accepted by the oil industry and by HUDAC, the voice of the home construction industry in this country. The budget is well accepted by Canadians, or the value of the dollar would not be back to 80 cents. The budget is well accepted by foreign investors, or the value of the dollar
July 21, 1982

would not be 80 cents. The only people who have no confidence in this government and the future of this country are hon. members opposite. Their gloom and doom is dangerous because it can be contagious, but it is significant that in this debate they have not zeroed in on economics. They have not zeroed in on the true measurement of the deficit. They have not tried to analyse the deficit. They have tried to distort its relationship by putting it on a per capita basis, hoping to leave the impression with Canadians that somehow all of us are poor, that Canada is on the edge of bankruptcy and that we cannot meet our deficit. Imagine what would have happened if that had been the attitude in this country in 1944 when the deficit represented 23 per cent of our gross national product instead of 5.4 per cent. The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they panic-the Liberals do not-and that is reflected in their speeches. What are they screaming about? They are screaming about valises, air travel and taxi cabs. No one is in favour of waste.


William James Kempling: Airline passes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Waste is not an acceptable component of spending at any time, whether we have a surplus or a deficit. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) understands that and is very assiduous in his efforts to reduce waste. In addition, we have the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor General and other watchdogs. I think most Canadians today are sophisticated enough to know that with the size of the public service some things will happen, just as they happen with a six-man operation at the corner grocery store. I do not think hon. members opposite will make many yards by preaching gloom and doom when they sense, finally, that there is leadership, the proper budget is in place, the deficit is under control, the dollar is strengthening, inflation is on its way down and, perhaps more importantly, the government's policy of restraint is being well accepted by the Canadian work force.
I took the trouble yesterday, along with hon. members from all parties, to sit in a committee. I have forgotten the name of the committee. After a while all committees look alike. It may have been the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. However, there we met with articulate, intelligent union leaders representing, for the most part, members of the civil service. Another group was representing railway unions. The press was there. Some newer members of the House were apprehensive about the approach of the union leaders. They were apprehensive that there would be harsh and heavy words, acrimony, screaming, shouting and philosophical differences. That is not what happened. What happened was that the unions representing railway workers and those speaking for public servants last night showed an appreciation that a 6 per cent-5 per cent policy would work; that if we all accept restraint, inflation will come down; and that for every 1 per cent drop in inflation there will be an equivalent 1 per cent increase in real wages. We are not running into any opposition from the labour movement, organized labour, the public service or railway workers toward those of us fortunate enough to have a full-time job and those of us who are paid wages from the taxes of the average Canadian citizen-as the hon.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) reminded us a week or so ago. The unions are saying that they are quite prepared to accept the concept of restraint. They would like to see some restoration of free collective bargaining in non-monetary areas and they want to make certain that the bill does not go beyond what it should or what it has to in order to make the six and five a reality. Basically, Canadians from coast to coast are saying that they are prepared to show some restraint if that will bring down inflation and put an end to unemployment and let industry grow and assume its usual competitive place in the world.
Last night the union representatives said, in effect, that they are prepared to be part of the fight against inflation because they want to be competitive when the markets of this country's customers improve. When the United States economy improves they want to be competitive. They realize that Canada is not competitive when the rate of inflation is 12 per cent while that of other countries with raw materials is two, three or four per cent.
Canadians today are sophisticated. The average worker is a highly educated, well-read person who understands economics. He understands that inflation is devastating. He understands the impact of inflation on fixed incomes and its negative impact on jobs. He understands that somehow we have to bring it to an end, but what he wants from the government, and what he is getting, is leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The government has asked members of the House and the Senate-other than the poor little boys in the corner who have no cause but themselves to bleed over-to accept Bill C-124. The NDP will find that labour accepts Bill C-124. The only group in Canada that does not is that tired little group in the corner. They will find that labour will not support them. What the NDP does not understand is that if there is one thing that the unionized worker in this country values it is his citizenship, his independence, his integrity and the fact that every four years he can vote according to his conscience.
That is why there are three Liberal members in this House from Windsor, the heart of the United Auto Workers union and the labour movement. The union leaders have never been able to dictate to their membership how they should vote at the polls-that they should defeat the Liberal members and elect NDP. Why are they so unsuccessful in this? It is because they misunderstand and they fail to appreciate the independence, the integrity and the intelligence of the worker. They do not want to be dictated to by the union, any more than they want to be dictated to by any member of this House. Until the NDP understands that, it will always be what it is, a tired little group sitting in the corner.
The opposition should understand that it has a responsibility to do more than support Bill C-124 in the House. Indeed, they

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
will support Bill C-124; they will support the concept of restraint because common sense dictates it and probably because political instincts would make them understand why the Gallup poll shows that 80 per cent of Canadians expect the political parties in this House to endorse the policy of restraint which the government has embarked upon.
They have an obligation to do more than just vote for Bill C-124, however; they have a moral obligation to support it. They have an obligation to laud the direction taken by the government and the leadership shown by the Minister of Finance. They should support the concept of restraint and help the government sell a policy which is non-partisan and is in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of political background. Hon. members should understand that.
Knowing some hon. members opposite, I suspect that when the chips are down they will support Bill C-124. No matter how partisan they are in this arena they care about the country and want to see inflation brought down. They know that properly understood and properly supported, the six and five proposal will work.


Erik Nielsen: We are dealing with Bill C-125.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What bill are you speaking on?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Virtually every economist will say that voluntary restraints will work.


Erik Nielsen: We are on Bill C-125, not Bill C-124.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The NDP do not quite appreciate that, even though the trade unions do. That is why last night and yesterday afternoon I was particularly pleased-


Erik Nielsen: He is speaking on the wrong bill.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -when union leaders said-


Erik Nielsen: Tell him we are on Bill C-125.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am talking about Bill C-125, Mr. Speaker. It is a simple bill-a borrowing bill. Maybe I am naive about it. Maybe I have been around for too many sessions-


An hon. Member:: Right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is traditional at the end of every session to obtain the authority to borrow the money that is needed. If hon. members want to make a case that we are borrowing for a deficit of $19 billion when we predicted $10 billion, we could discuss that. But I am surprised that hon. members opposite would want to prevent the government from borrowing the money it needs to meet its deficit. That is hardly responsible opposition. I am surprised that they would try to make something of the fact that what the minister requests is a little more than he may need at the moment. He has enough intelligence to ask for a little more in case an event beyond his control, which he cannot anticipate, may mean that he needs that extra billion or two. If he needs it, the process is such that it will be spent publicly and the opposition will know how it is spent.
No matter how the opposition tries to distort the issue or to create the impression that the deficit is forcing us into bankruptcy, Canadians understand the matter. The fact is that our
ability to repay is as great as that of the Americans. That is indicated by the only meaningful statistic, which is the relationship between the GNP and the deficit. As is usual, hon. members opposite have used the debate on Bill C-125 to range all over the place.
I should like to read into the record something given to me by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, one of the more intelligent members of the House. This newspaper article reads in part:
After two years of high interest rates, the economy is virtually stagnant. Caught in a squeeze between high interest rates, falling inflation and weak sales, business is taking a beating. Bankruptcy figures are approaching the record highs of the Depression, investment plans are being shelved, millions of workers have been laid off with scant prospect of a quick return to the payroll.
Is that from the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star or the Ottawa Citizen? No, it is from an article in The New York Times on July 4, 1982, describing the economy of the United States.
I could quote on and on. My close friend, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) might like to know that he is not alone in his concern about the drilling rigs. I would like to see that part of the country vigorous and prosperous too. An article in Newsweek of July 19 reads in part as follows:
The most dramatic sign of the oil bust came last week with the failure of the Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma City. The institution has invested some 80 per cent of its loan portfolio in energy-related ventures.
Similar problems are confronting Arizona and New Mexico, where sharp declines in the prices of copper and uranium have left the vital mining industries close to collapse.
Last April the Texas Department of Human Resources issued a pamphlet entitled "Dead Broke in Texas?" warning newcomers not to expect much in the way of public assistance. It points out that the average welfare and food stamp recipient in the state gets only $34 a month under each program and declares that qualification requirements are much "stiffer" than in other states.
I get no satisfaction from knowing that the U.S. economy is as depressed as that of Canada. After all, our two economies are too closely entwined, our cultures are too similar and our fates too close. We share the same continent. But equally important, our country is prosperous when the Americans are prosperous. But if the price of copper is down to 60 cents in the U.S., they are hardly going to come up here and buy the copper we have lying in dormant mines waiting for an upsurge in the U.S. economy.
The point I am getting at is that the problems in Canada are not unique to Canada. They are common to the industrialized world, whatever country you want to name, whether it is the U.S., France, West Germany, or Italy. It is only the opposition which tries to create the false impression that somehow this government has stumbled into an economic recession unique to Canada, when in fact the evidence is to the contrary. It indicates the barrenness of their ideas, their inability to debate and their unwillingness to put the facts on the record. They turn around and try to create the impression to Canadians that
July 21, 1982

this recession is unique to Canada. Canadians are sophisticated, they have access to television, radio and newspapers from the United States and can make up their own minds, and every Canadian knows that the depression and recession we are suffering from is also going on at exactly the same time in the United States of America. The only difference is the level of inflation, and we are saying to Canadians in the interim: please bring down the level of inflation so that when the economy of the U.S. starts to recover and we can take advantage of it, we will be in a position to sell our raw materials and our finished goods in competition with Australia and other countries.
It is so simple, Mr. Speaker, and that is why in the last week or two we have seen a resurgence of confidence in this country. Canadians are saying that the government is in control of events, it is practising restraint, the dollar is recovering, everything is on the way up except the doom and gloom of the opposition, which traditional drops as the fortunes of this country improve.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House for their enthusiastic reception this afternoon. It must be the first time since I became a member of the House that I have had such a warm welcome from the other side, and on this side I see my colleague from Charlesbourg (Mr. Bussieres), originally from Roberval or more exactly from Normandin-he also happens to have a cottage at Saint-Thomas Didyme-who is quite agreeable to my speaking this afternoon, and my colleague from Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) who is probably delighted with the prospect that I might mention her riding as well.
This afternoon, the debate is on the bill to provide borrowing authority for the government, and I have listened to the criticism levelled by members on the other side of the House. They are saying that the government's deficit is horrendous and outrageous and that this country is going down the drain, but if we look at the budget speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) it says to what extent the government's revenues have been cut, and that the recession, as mentioned on page 3 of the budget speech, has caused a serious worsening of the government's fiscal position, and that the sharp fall in federal revenues is the inevitable consequence of a decline in production, employment and income. According to the minister's speech, the revenue loss attributable to the recession is estimated to be about $4.5 billion in 1982-83.
If we compare what the budget speech tells us about the government's loss of revenue with what members opposite have been demanding, namely, that the government intervene in several economic activity sectors including agriculture, small-and medium-sized businesses and housing, we get the following picture. We have a worldwide economic recession, although many Canadians may prefer to forget this and seem to be
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
saying that it may be happening in the United States but here in Canada we are not being affected. Well, I think that since the June 28 budget was brought down, and with the figures submitted by the Minister of Finance, people can see for themselves what effect this worldwide recession is having on Canada. So, on the one, hand we have the recession and the government's loss of revenue, and on the other hand, we have popular pressure being brought to bear on the government to spend money on certain economic activity sectors, and Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, there is a lot of money involved, and during the debate on this bill, it is up to all members of this House, members from Quebec and Ontario and all the other provinces, it is up to all members on the government side to clarify the situation for the Canadian people.
In any case, it is agreed that there is an economic recession, and the Canadian economy is unfortunately being affected by U.S. and world events, but on the other hand, to meet the many requests for assistance from various industrial sectors, we must find the necessary financial resources and act responsibly as a government in helping those activity sectors that have been severely affected by the recession, and we must explain to the Canadian people that nevertheless, because of our wealth of resources and borrowing opportunities, we can and must borrow in order to help these activity sectors. That is why the Minister of Finance said on June 28 in his budget speech: The result is that the projected budgetary deficit is very much higher than that forecast in the November budget.
I do not think that it in any way diminishes the government to admit that the situation did not develop as it was expected to, and that unfortunately, it has deteriorated as a result of the world situation, and we therefore have to act responsibly as Canadians. So what do we do? Do we raise taxes, to have more funds in the government treasury or are we going to cut expenditures and then borrow money to show certain sectors that we are willing to help them? In this kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, the government had to make a choice and it did. During the next two years, by setting a ceiling on wage increases in the public sector and sectors directly related to it, including government agencies, the government intends to reduce wage increases in order to save so many million dollars, money which will then be available for job-creation programs, assistance to farmers and to small and medium-sized businesses. This is how the Canadian government, the Liberal Party now in power, has faced up to its responsibilities, and then we hear the members opposite saying that the deficit is outrageous and that something must be done to bring the deficit back to more reasonable levels. However, they do not tell us what they mean by a reasonable deficit. They do not tell us what are the serious alternatives. Of course, they will tell me that this is according to parliamentary practice. The

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
government is in place and the opposition criticizes, whether solutions exist or not. So when the government suggested after the budget that wage increases be capped at 6 and 5 per cent for the next two years, it planned to use this money and the amounts saved by reducing the expenditures of various agencies to give assistance to farmers.
When we look at page 25 of the budget papers and see the special programs developed to provide financial assistance for the farmers, either directly, or else indirectly if the members opposite prefer, we must realize that if these programs are to be funded, we must have the necessary tax revenues. That is how I analyse the situation when considering those programs, the housing programs and those intended for small businesses. But how can the borrowing power bill now before the House be important indirectly when it comes to funding the farm assistance program and the financial commitments of the various departments? We need money and that is what we were asked by the farmers, those of Quebec, for instance. If I remember what happened in my own constituency, it is probably because the same thing happened in several others. 1 see next to me my colleague, the hon. member for Lac St-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) who also received representations as well as my colleague, the hon member for Roberval. My colleague, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) and my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup (Mr. Gendron) also received representations from farmers. The Minister of State for Finance, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, does not have as many farmers in his constituency as I have in mine, in fact I do not think he has many, but in any case, we received many representations from farmers who told us: We need money because the international financial situation has brought about a recession that is affecting Canadian farmers, and they need money from the Canadian government under the loan programs of the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. What was the answer of the Canadian government? This is what I find on page 25 of the budget papers:
Over the next two years loans totalling $200 million will be made under the program to farmers in financial distress. The loans will be made at the regular FCC interest rate (currently 16'/>
per cent) but a rebate of 4 percentage points will be provided for the first two years of the loan. The government is allocating $100 million to the program ($84 million as a special contribution to the FCC for lending to farmers and $16 million to pay for the interest rebates) and the FCC will divert $116 million to the program from its regular lending fund.
What is important is that this program came into force immediately. Moreover, the usual conditions offered by the corporation will still apply. For instance, the ceilings of $300,000 for individuals and $500,000 for associations will still apply, but the loans will not be restricted to the usual customers of the Farm Credit Corporation, namely young farmers, small operators and new farmers. Many people told us about the situation of farmers. Of course, there are farmers over 45 and 50 who have been in farming for many years and are in a
good financial position or at least have the financial backing to face the situation. However, the fact is that young farmers will be in difficulty if the Canadian government fails to develop programs and provide access to additional funds.
In response to those representations we have introduced a special farm financial assistance program. Another significant aspect is that the small business development program referred to on page 23 of the budget papers is available to farmers as well and there is no requirement that they be incorporated. That is indeed an important consideration for young farmers who want to invest or expand. As I said, if a young farmer is not financially as well off as his father or the people from whom he is buying the farm-or even with the case of people who have been in the business for only a few years-it can be readily understood that he is not quite prepared to come to grips with the situation created by the economic recession and high interest rates. That is why under the small business development program a farmer will also be eligible for interest rates 4 per cent below the prevailing rates. I think that is very important for our young farmers and for other young people who want to become farmers and who, in the present economic context, have certain obligations to meet. Another significant aspect is that we met with APU spokesmen who referred to the current situation and mentioned the funds earmarked for the agricultural sector in the November 1981 budget; they felt that the program was commendable but that perhaps more money ought to be made available. They were making representations, of course, and as a result we responded by introducing a special assistance program for farmers. I may be repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot say that we are going to launch various assistance programs and then find out that the recession has been cutting into our revenues. That explains why we have to borrow, hence the bill we have before us.
I have just referred to something which farmers find very important, the question of the great number of small businesses in the riding of Lotbiniere, particularly in the Bois-Francs area and in the rest of the riding. I could mention the various ridings of members who are here today, particularly those of the province of Quebec who come from such regions as Montreal or Quebec City, Beauce, Bois-Francs and Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean where there are many small- and mediumsized businesses. It has been said that Quebec is their paradise, which immediately brings to mind certain regions such as Beauce, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean or Bois-Francs.


Mr. Tousignant:: And Temiscamingue!


Jean-Guy Dubois: Temiscamingue as well. My colleague from Temiscamingue did not want me to forget his region which is also developing rapidly. I can tell the House that since the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) has been here in Ottawa, since his election in 1979, he has done a lot of work to promote the development of his region. Many representations were made to members on behalf of small businesses and
July 21, 1982

their spokesmen mentioned the small business bond which was first called the small business development bond, and they said that this program had been extremely useful to small business until December 1981. After the November budget it was called the small business bond and at the time people were talking about businesses in financial difficulties. When they heard about those two programs, a great many people said to us: Listen, as in any other sector of economic activity, now that we have this program concerning the small business development bond and the small business bond, the banks will have to lower their rates.
In view of the fact that some banks had to limit their granting of credit unfortunately they were unable to accept the applications filed by a number of people in connection with that program. This explains why we received representations to the effect that although the program was satisfactory its mechanism was defective. Then the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) came up with some suggestions which have been passed on to him by the member for Temiscamingue the member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, the member for Roberval, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and other members on this side of the House. In their view the program was adequate, the people found it satisfactory, but its mechanism in dealing with our banking institutions was faulty. Without passing judgement on those institutions, we are told that such a mechanism should be improved to provide greater flexibility. Then we can see on page 23 of the budget papers tabled on the evening of June 28, that the federal government is allocating $400 million in order to reduce interest costs by up to 4 percentage points for two years on borrowing by small businesses to finance new investment and research and development. Today, this makes a difference ... I can see that the Minister of State for Finance is leaving but he will surely be back to congratulate me at the end of my speech. Businesses now applying to financial institutions will be in a position to borrow at the rate set by the bank and afterwards, whatever their financial circumstances as far as the Department of Revenue is concerned, the Canadian government will directly reimburse 4 per cent to the bank. That makes a considerable difference which is why we needed $400 million to provide some financial assistance to farmers. It does not necessarily mean that as a result of all those programs implemented under the budget, the Canadian government needed the borrowing power requested in Bill C-125 before us but part of those funds were necessary to improve Canada's financial position and to maintain its competitiveness on foreign markets; in the case of my own province this level has decreased. Very few comments were made about the Quebec government, but while we are told that we should promote our Canadian and Quebec tourist industry, the Quebec Premier is not showing leadership in this field since he chose to go to the United States. Anyway, funds had to be allocated to that
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
program in response to the demand expressed throughout Canadan and mainly in my province. Some financial assistance was requested for small businesses.
The reaction mentioned by my colleague Louis Duclos in his speech was this: should we at this time in answer to the expectations of our businesses increase taxes? Are the present economic conditions normal and can we increase taxes or should we instead divert funds obtained by reducing government expenditures and with our borrowing power provide financial assistance to businesses and to farmers?
As I was saying, before digressing on the province of Quebec and the leader of its government, the Premier of Quebec, those are things people have been clamouring for. To my mind, as a responsible government it was our duty to help major industries in every one of the provinces whichever they may be; some provinces do have economic activities that are more important than others. We just had to respond to the expectations of Canadians in that regard. Since the budget was brought down on June 28th, many of our constituents have told us: We heard the Minister of Finance and the comments of journalists; we have examined the main thrust of your budget; we think it's okay. How is it, then, that there has been so much carping, at least during the first few days following its tabling; how come, when it only aims at helping the industries that have asked for assistance?
Little by little, Mr. Speaker-and I see my colleague from Charlesbourg smile with delight-it is true, many people are beginning to comment favourably on the budget, on its impact, on the meetings between the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and representatives of industry, business and labour and on the rate of inflation being reduced to 6 and 5 per cent. Of course, there may be some groups who feel uneasy about the 6 per cent ceiling or reduction in private enterprise, and I mean the unions. But as the latest polls have demonstrated that 80 per cent of workers would rather accept a cut in salary than lose their jobs, I feel that the introduction of our budget and public awareness of the situation only confirm the soundness of the Minister of Finance's decision to reduce expenses through the 6 and 5 per cent caps, not to increase taxes and to borrow wherever we can so that we may respond to the expectations of Canadians.
We now hear more and more people say: Listen: let governments set the example, starting with MPs. Well, Mr. Speaker, that has now been done. From this month onwards-although we have not heard much about it in the media-all Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, senators and ministers, will accept a cut in salary. There has been much ado about the civil servants and things like that, but we were the first ones to admit that we feel we have decent salaries and are willing to take a cut to prove to Quebecers and other Canadians that we, too, want to do our part to aid our ailing Canadian economy, that we want that money invested in various

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
programs; and tell the civil service: look, we took a cut ourselves. This has not been made known sufficiently, I think. That is why 1 wanted to emphasize this point this afternoon, and remind people that we always practise what we preach.
In this instance, MPs have paved the way, extending it right across the public service. As a result, people come to us and say: We agree with the 6 per cent ceiling and objective. Several days ago, I read articles saying the strategy would not work, that is was not serious. Then, suddenly, a few days later, we see the opposite. The Canadian government wants to reduce expenditures and, through the bill which is now before the House, channel those funds toward sectors of the economy that need them most.
One industry has always been a major one throughout Canada, and especially in my own province, namely the housing industry. In Quebec, people tend to say that if the construction industry is okay, everything is okay. I could mention again a number of ridings and areas where this is especially true, but I know their members are here in the House to discuss various problems, so let us say that the expression is a popular one throughout the province. This particular sector needs financial help and there have been a number of meetings and representations and conversations with various members on the subject.
I remember a few months ago when we discussed the mortgage renewal program, people said we did not go far enough. This time, we have gone further, Mr. Speaker, but now they are complaining that the deficit is too high and we should not have gone about it in this way. Well, if that is not a double standard, what is? Either we help the sectors that are asking for help or we do not help them, and considering the drop in government revenues, what are we supposed to do? We have to borrow. So I mean, it is no use shilly-shallying. This is a time for action, and that is why I wish the members opposite would realize what they are saying. They want us to help certain industrial sectors and then, they wonder, when the recession causes a sharp drop in government revenues, why we want to introduce a borrowing authority bill. Mr. Speaker, I say they should wake up. It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face what the government's choice must be. I think the situation is such that money must be injected into the housing industry and we must help first-time home buyers.
Mr. Speaker, I have received any number of telephone calls from contractors and real estate agents asking about the program, who wanted me to send them some literature to explain how the program works, and I am doing just that, Mr. Speaker. In addition, housing co-operatives and rental housing will also benefit from the budget measures. Here we have an economic sector that is of major importance to Canada and to my province, and in the present situation, the Canadian
government has decided to provide incentives for home builders to start building by a certain date and for Canadians to buy their first home, either a new home or an existing one-in the case of an existing home, the $3000 grant also applies, provided the person is a first-time home buyer. Just think how many jobs will be generated! 1 was told that those programs may provide homes for 100,000 prospective home owners across Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is probably true that when the construction industry is okay, everything is okay.
These incentives are still extremely beneficial to the economy of Quebec, Canada, Ontario, and all the provinces. Of course, the members opposite have not dwelt on those $3,000 and that program developed by the government. They talk about the deficit and tell us: "Of course, those things are important." Another program was also developed, and 1 see that my colleague for Charlesbourg, the Minister of State for Finance is smiling because he knows how hard he and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, had to work on those various programs to help Canadians face the present situation. For the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, the amount of $30 million was mentioned at one time. Everyone of us received information on that program, which is the counterpart of the rural program underwhich many residents of rural municipalities in Canada, and especially in Quebec, since 1 am speaking about my own province, were eligible for assistance in the form of a $3,750 grant and loans of up to $10,000. Many people in Quebec, in my constituency, were asking: "Why is it that people in rural areas can benefit from this program and we cannot if our municipality has a population of over 2,500?" Mr. Speaker, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, under which $30 million were allocated originally, was developed to meet these expectations of Quebecers and Canadians, and following certain representations, the funding was increased to $60 million. While we are providing incentives, the members opposite and many people who do not agree with our political philosophy tell us that what we need are incentives.
Money has to be allocated to various programs so that the economy may grow in spite of the economic problems, in spite of the recession. But what are we to do? Once again, are we to increase taxes or, if we have to inject some money into the economy in spite of our deficit, should we still fund such programs? I say yes, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we did on June 28. I can hear a member of the New Democratic Party say: "Sure!" He therefore agrees with me. Even though we are injecting money into the economy, we must still be able to say to the Canadian people: "We are not increasing your taxes, but due to the economic situation, we are taking action to urge the Canadian people to work, and housing is an extremely important sector."
Mr. Speaker, another program that is important for many members of Parliament and many Quebecers and Canadians is the job-creation program, particularly the Community
July 21, 1982

Development Program and various other related programs. In many, if not all ridings, many people took part in what used to be called the Canada Works Program, now the Community Development Program. They have gained experience, they have done very significant things for the economy of their ridings or their regions and were able to obtain grants because of the unemployment rate in their community. I could repeat the names of all the constituencies and all the hon. members who have benefited from various programs, but I shall name only one, Roberval, with which I am somewhat familiar. In the Lac Saint-Jean region, we have the Dolbeau Western Village which many people from Quebec and the rest of Canada visit each year during the western festival.
Huge sums of money were allocated for a community development program and we were able to provide jobs for the people of Dolbeau. As my colleague said, 40 jobs were created and money was earmarked for promoting the tourist industry in that riding, more precisely in Dolbeau, and it is through Canada Works projects that construction and infrastructures were made possible in the Western Village of Dolbeau and in other cases that involved summer employment. So that was money well spent, rightfully spent and, by dint of reviewing and reshaping that type of program and the administrative regulations, a great number of people are able to get things done. Granted, one could say those jobs last a limited period of time, but our attitude is certainly different from that of our colleagues opposite who tried to govern-I say "tried"-and seeked to put an end to those programs.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Jean-Guy Dubois: When the Liberal government was re-elected in February 1980, that program was resumed and many citizens took advantage of it and will continue to do so; and thanks to the budget there will be money available for projects such as those in Dolbeau, Abitibi, Alma, Victoriaville, Lotbiniere, for instance the construction of a marina which requires a $25,000 investment and for doing similar work costing $30,000 that put people to work, gave them experience and allowed them to create things that can be seen and which have a lasting value. I think of municipalities that were able to develop the infrastructure their tourist industry or other sectors of their economy through Canada Works programs. I am also thinking of the representations made to us at various times of the year: Will programs such as Canada Works, Young Canada Works remain in effect? If money is diverted from that department, there would not be any funds available this summer for students in the province of Quebec under Young Canada Works. The only government with the money is the Canadian government represented in Ottawa by 74 Liberal members of Parliament. It is that government, the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that carried on programs like Canada Works and Young Canada Works. They were the only programs in effect this summer for young people in Quebec. I see my colleague across the way gesturing to me-
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


An hon. Member:: They do not care about young people. A real senior citizen club!


Jean-Guy Dubois: At any rate, whether or not they care about young people, they must be very happy when they get the funds allocated to their riding because they can promote Canadian programs and teach students to work under various projects. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say in view of those jobs creating and economy-boosting programs, when we consider the representations that were made and the fact that people now talk openly about the budget, that the Canadian government has carried out its responsibilities without raising taxes. Funds were allocated to programs designed to assist Canadians despite a worldwide recession, and economic hardships that affect every country in the world including our own. If we are asked today to give the government the borrowing authority they request it is to allow Canadians to live in this country and support their families. It was the responsibility of the Canadian government to introduce a budget and to allocate funds to various programs and that is why we directly need this borrowing authority and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I will support the bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) said that we were here to oppose. We have now heard three hon. members in a row speaking for the government. If the government wants the bill so badly, we suggest that it stop the filibuster and call the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has not made a point of order. He has made his point, however.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-29, an act to amend the Railway Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-125, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Clark (p. 19456).
[Stage Direction]
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand on the government side and speak with regard to Bill C-125.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


John Leslie Evans: It is time to discuss the issues involved in trying to clarify-if I could be heard above the din on the other side, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.


Philip Derek Lewis: But he has cleared the gallery.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that it will do any good to try to calm down the rabbling hordes on the other side and I appreciate your attempt to do so.
I would like to discuss this matter and try to clarify some of the issues and points which have been raised by hon. members opposite with regard to the borrowing authority bill, how it relates to the over-all economic policy of the government and what has caused the need for this increase in borrowing authority. I would like to discuss the deficit in the context of showing that, in fact, the increase in the deficit that we have seen is substantially and structurally different from the deficit being faced, for example, in the United States. I would like to discuss my belief that the Canadian financial system can indeed support the kind of deficit which was forecast in the financial statements of the government as of June 28. 1 would like to discuss some of the recent activities and words of the opposition with regard to their ideas as to how the deficit might be dealt with. It has been saying that it is a terrible deficit and that initial programs of restraint should be brought in immediately. The opposition has put forward ideas of how restraint could be applied to resolve our problems, such as the suggestion not to buy briefcases.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has clearly indicated that we on this side of the Elouse will certainly support the members of the oppostion if they can show that there is waste in any area of government. If that can be shown, we on this side of the House will certainly do everything in our power to eradicate that waste from government. It is easy to pick up areas of spending which can be blown out of proportion and put in such a context that it appears that there is waste. But when one looks down underneath the surface of the problem and considers the actual expenditure, more times than not-and the Auditor General's report will back me up time and time again-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Spending is out of control, is what he said.


John Leslie Evans: -those expenditures turn out to be for good, valid reasons.
Let us take the example cited by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) the other day. He suggested that it would resolve our deficit problem if brief cases were not purchased by the government for use by public servants. We are talking about a deficit that is substantial; there can be no doubt about
July 21, 1982
that. That deficit has to be reduced in an orderly way that will not trip the heart out of the Canadian economy or the Canadian social system.
Let us look at the question. When I was in the public service working with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a great many demands were placed on public servants to travel about this country and to interact with provincial counterparts and the business community. Day after day members opposite demand that we consult with the business community, other levels of government, private interest groups and individual Canadians. They demand that we get the message of what the federal government is all about to Canadians. In that process, public servants travel.
1 am not going to stand here and say there are not occasions, just as there are in private business, where there may be an abuse of travel requirements. Long before this issue was raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the President of the Treasury Board commissioned a report into travel. That report should be available shortly. We will then see how much substance there is with regard to the question of government travel.
If the NDP feels we should cut out travel by public servants, eliminate all of it, that would effectively shut down the federal government. We could forget about consulting business communities in various corners of the country, forget about making the federal presence felt in various corners of this country and forget about consulting with provincial governments. If there is waste, we will eradicate that, but 1 do not have any delusions that there will be a vast reduction in travel because of waste. There may be a reduction of travel-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. The hon. member is mistaken. We were not talking about travel in the country. We were talking about travel overseas.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member is wrong. He should listen to the members of his own party. The hon. member for Skeena was talking about travel inside the country and travel outside the country. He was talking about travel by public servants both inside and outside Canada.
I am telling the hon. member that if there is an abuse of travelling being done by public servants, it will be eradicated. I predict the report will confirm that there is very little abuse with regard to travel. In the federal system such as we have with the opposition demanding day after day that we not introduce policies without consulting, the requirement of travel is very real.
There very well could be introduced a restraint program where the government will only permit one half the travelling, that it will only pay the cost of that number. However, there would be more difficulty in communicating and formulating policy at the federal level. That will be a fact of life that has to
July 21, 1982

be considered. That is what the report of the President of the Treasury Board will indicate. If there is a need for restraint, we will thank hon. members for having brought it to our attention, although it had already received the attention of the President of the Treasury Board who commissioned a study into it long before it was raised by the hon. member for Skeena.
We hear condemnations of the public service. The official opposition is schizophrenic on this issue. From time to time it stands up as the defender of the Public Service of Canada, stating that the government is a harsh employer, that it is terrible and the opposition would be much better. Let us look at the facts.
We hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about the public service squandering money all over the place. Let us look back to the last election and, in fact, the 1979 election. What was the promise then by today's righteous defenders of the public service? They would eliminate one in five. Obviously they feel there is so much waste in the public service that 60,000 of them could disappear overnight with no effect on the efficiency of the delivery systems or the way government services are provided to Canadians. That is clearly the message underneath the fog cover the opposition puts forward in this House of Commons. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
The program of restraint to try and limit government spending for these direct expenditures included, as members well know, a program of restraint of wages and salaries and a program of restraint of expenditures by the government apart from wages and salaries. As I have said, that program is fair and equitable. It puts forward a program of restraint that says we will limit our demands on the system, but we will not go after expenditures in the system with a meat axe the way the official opposition not only threatened but promised to do, and started to do once it was elected as the government in 1979.
We hear the official opposition talking about their approach to expenditure restraint. One of the approaches they would take would be to go after public servants with a meat axe. That would badly damage the ability of the Government of Canada to deliver essential services to the people of this country.
We ask the official opposition where they would cut. In what sectors of the public service would they cut? Would they cut services being delivered to the public? What services are not essential? What services should we do away with? Which Canadians should be asked to give up essential services that are being delivered?
When we ask those questions, the fog rolls in. It rolls in across the benches on the other side and they scream about the briefcases. If we are going to resolve the deficit situation we are now facing and bring in programs to deal with the problems, we will not do that by talking about briefcases. Maybe there are some briefcases being purchased that should not be. If so, by gosh, the President of the Treasury Board said he would step in and make sure it would not happen.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
When I was in the public service and involved in consultations with the provincial governments, I had to transport volumes of documents in order to facilitate discussions. The normal type briefcase a person carries around simply would not hold that large amount. Therefore, the government purchased large briefcases, and Members of Parliament have seen them, to carry documents. They are document cases. When a public servant leaves the public employ, the document case remains with the government. It is passed on to the next public servant.
It is well known that things wear out and have to be replaced. We should not ask an employee to provide some of the tools of the workplace, such as document briefcases. Therefore, briefcases are purchased. If there are extra briefcases hidden away under the desks of public servants being used for footstools, which is highly unlikely, we should look into that. In the public service operation I was employed in, there were four document briefcases.
The public service is a big operation. The government has a very large operation in the public service. There are around 310,000 employees. We are talking about a large operation. I am surprised that the official opposition has not said we ought to eliminate half the desks so that public servants can share desks to save money. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will come up with that idea next. I wonder if he would be willing to share his desk with Mr. Broadbent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, references should be by constituencies or functions and not by names.


John Leslie Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should have said the Leader of the New Democratic Party or the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).
Let me talk about the nature of our deficit. With the best information available at that time, the November budget put forward forecasts of what would be our financial requirements, our deficit and the expenditure levels of the federal government. On June 28 very substantial revisions had to be made. The official opposition and the New Democratic Party have said that the government was obviously totally inept and that it should have been able to forecast the situation. I ask members of the official opposition, if they can, to produce forecasts which were put forward by any private sector or public sector group in this country or any other country, by the OECD, by the Conference Board, by the C.D. Howe Institute, by Infor-metrica or any group on or around November 12 last, which forecast the situation in which we now find ourselves. There was not one. The forecasts of the Department of Finance were an average of other forecasts. Some were better and some were worse, but our forecast was about the average of all the forecasts in relation to all the variables including unemployment, inflation, interest rates and all those things. The facts are documented and can be read. The fact is that the world economic situation went into a severe downturn which was

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
beyond the prediction of any of the private or public sector groups.
What is the nature of projections of the deficit over this fiscal year? It seems that the opposition is trying to say that the government has gone on a wild spending spree since the November budget and that it is out of control. They seem to say that spending is out of control. Has there been a major increase in program spending by the federal government?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Twenty per cent.


John Leslie Evans: No, there has not been a major increase. The hon. member says 20 per cent, but he knows he is wrong.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Twenty per cent.


John Leslie Evans: I defy him to produce a document which shows that program spending has increased 20 per cent. If interest payments are taken out, I defy the hon. member to show me a document which says that program spending is up 20 per cent. No document will. However, I can show the hon. member more than one document which says that program expenditures will increase by 10.7 per cent this year. We are talking about the last three or four years of expenditures undertaken by departments. Program expenditures have gone up year over year in the last three to four years by less than the growth of the economy. If government spending in the sense most Canadians think of government spending-program expenditures-has not increased, what has happened? It is quite obvious, and the financial critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), understands and clearly knows what the answer is; but he has not put it forward in the House, nor has his leader or anyone else on his side. Hon. members opposite have tried to obfuscate, make innuendoes and cast aspersions that government spending is terribly out of control, but the fact is that the deficit has increased because of two factors.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The National Energy Program is one, and the November 12 budget is the other.


John Leslie Evans: The deficit has increased because the world economic situation has deteriorated dramatically.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is the world's fault.


John Leslie Evans: As a result, export sales of our raw materials-a substantial part of our gross national product-have fallen off. As a result of that corporate profits are down, corporate tax revenues are down and personal tax revenues are down. Unemployment has risen as a result of the decline in markets. Government revenue has dropped off. Over the next year government revenues are forecast to drop by $6.5 billion more than forecast in November. That is one factor. Loss of revenue is the main reason the deficit has increased. The reason is not an increase in spending.
What about the spending side? What are the factors? There are two factors on the spending side. One is the increase in unemployment insurance payments. If they wish, members of
the official opposition can put forward the proposition that perhaps the government should tell everyone who is unemployed that from this day forward they cannot have unemployment insurance benefits. Perhaps hon. members opposite will suggest we cut unemployment insurance payments to any individual by 20 per cent, 25 per cent or perhaps 30 per cent. Perhaps we should do what the official opposition wanted to do with the federal public service. Perhaps we should say that one in five who are unemployed cannot have unemployment insurance. That would cut unemployment insurance payments by 20 per cent just like that. It would also be stupid.
The factor in addition to the increase in social transfer payments was that interest rates stayed higher here and everywhere else in the world than forecast in November. As a result, interest payments on the public debt are higher. If we take those factors together, we find that there is an increase in automatic stabilizer payments. There is an increase in interest payments on the debt. There is a decline in tax revenues, and that explains the increase in the deficit. That is not to say that the deficit of $19.6 billion or that financial requirements of $17.7 billion are not very high and of great concern. However, I think it is only fair, if we are to talk about solving the problems we face, that we do that from an honest base. We should put forward the facts and debate the facts and not some myth perpetuated by members of the official opposition and members of the New Democratic Party. Over and over again we hear the cry that the government has totally lost control of the situation, but that is not true.
We cannot just talk about the need for the country to have confidence while members of the opposition put forward every ounce of effort they can to undermine the confidence of the country. That just does not make sense. If we are talking about rebuilding the confidence of the country, for goodness sake, let us as parliamentarians try to join together to help rebuild confidence.


Philip Derek Lewis: Forget it. We don't trust you.


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members opposite say, "Forget it; we don't want to rebuild confidence." All they want to do is destroy confidence, which will mean that the opposition will have a better chance of being elected in the next election. To them partisan political gain is more important than the interests of the country. That is the message of the opposition.


Philip Derek Lewis: We don't trust you. Nobody does.


John Leslie Evans: I believe the June 28 budget took a major step toward restoring the confidence of Canadians in the future and in the system.
Let us look at the major variables opposition members have put forward as indicators of lack of confidence. What has happened to them? The dollar was one indicator of the "terrible" decline in confidence of Canadians in their own country. What has happened since the budget? The value of the dollar has gone up.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why?
July 21, 1982


John Leslie Evans: That must mean Canadians have increased confidence. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Eluntington) asks why. He thinks it must have something to do with U.S. interest rates. What has happened to Canadian interest rates?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What happened to the U.S. dollar?


John Leslie Evans: Canadian interest rates have gone down. The stock market is another indicator of confidence. Equity ownership is a good indicator of people's confidence in the economy in the long run. In the last couple of weeks prices on the stock market have gone up. We are seeing positive indications that the confidence level is improving, and I suggest that is a direct result of the measures taken in the budget and the promise made with regard to the indexation of certain investment income vehicles. Those are very major steps forward.
The question of unemployment has to be dealt with in the context of borrowing authority. I have read the speech made by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) very carefully, and it is rather surprising that he has indicated he disapproves of this borrowing authority. He thinks that the government should not ask for this borrowing authority but other members of his party say that the government must stimulate the economy. How do we stimulate the economy without increasing taxes or incurring a much larger deficit?


Mr. Heap:: Stop giving to the oil companies.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) tells us to tax the oil companies. At a time when the oil companies are on the verge of collapse, the hon. member for Spadina wants us to tax them some more. Last fall the complaints of the New Democratic Party gave rise to the study that is being conducted at the moment into the banks. The NDP have a standard answer to everything.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Get rid of the Liberals.


John Leslie Evans: That there is a scapegoat and that somebody is ripping somebody off is their answer to everything.
In 1973 food prices were definitely an issue. Along came the white knights in the New Democratic Party claiming they had the answer, that the supermarkets were ripping Canadians off. The Food Prices Review Board was formed under Mrs. Beryl Plumptre, an outstanding Canadian who has made great contributions to this country. After a couple of years of study and the expenditure of substantial sums of money it was found that no one in the system was ripping off the Canadian consumer. That meant that it was not the farmer, the supermarket or the middle man. In response to that well-documented, objective, factual study all we heard from the NDP was "whitewash". They start out by calling "witch, witch" and when the facts do not substantiate their contention then they call "whitewash, whitewash".
Their next cry was "corporate welfare bums". There was another problem in the economy and the NDP came along on their white charger, crying "corporate welfare bums". They were supported in this by some less rational members of the
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
Conservative Party. The result was a royal commission that looked into corporate concentration for two years. Again, the objective evaluation of the facts did not support the NDP, so they again called "whitewash". They have a standard approach to problem solving-find a scapegoat and beat him over the head. When the facts do not support their contention they yell "whitewash". That is irresponsible political behaviour and it rips apart the fabric of confidence that Canadians have in one another. It is the behaviour that is practised by the NDP year after year and day in and day out. They are always looking for a witch or lightning rod.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question relating to his remarks?


John Leslie Evans: I would be happy to at the termination of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
We are now investigating the matter of bank profits, Mr. Speaker. The New Democratic Party complained about bank profits and wanted a study, so a committee was formed several months ago. It has been gathering the facts and putting together an analysis of the situation. The New Democratic Party was supposedly participating in this study, but last week it pulled out claiming "whitewash". They have not even seen the report yet but they are already crying "whitewash". Their strategy in all areas is to divide and conquer, to pick a scapegoat. They know that strategy is basically dishonest, so they pull out before they have to face the fact that they did not know what they were talking about.
That kind of behaviour is not conducive to the rational solution of our problems nor to confidence building. It is certainly not suitable to a chamber such as the House of Commons.
We have heard from hon. members opposite about the deficit and about the effect of the present downturn on the Canadian economy. We have heard about the need for stimulus and for job creation. Like so many of my colleagues and no doubt some on the other side, I have travelled back and forth across the country in an attempt to understand the unemployment problem so that we can put forward programs and initiatives to cushion the problem or alleviate it.
When I was in Vancouver recently I talked to people in the mining industry and the forest products industry. 1 found that much misinformation had been placed before the people involved. We hear hon. members from British Columbia saying that it is the fault of the federal government that there is so much unemployment in that province. We hear hon. members from the west-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is misleading.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Capilano corrects me. Indeed, it is not so in his case and perhaps a couple of others, but I think the hon. member has heard it happen. He has been present in question period and has heard it.

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Not in the sense you are putting it.


John Leslie Evans: The discussions that I have had with those people indicate precisely the cause of the unemployment problem in the mining industry, forest products industry and, I would go so far as to say, the oil industry. The hon. member for Capilano correctly points out that he said so in the House, but I cannot say the same for some of his colleagues. World markets for these products-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Don't blame the Americans.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) has asked me not to blame the Americans. 1 am not blaming them. I am simply saying that if we sell a big proportion of our products in other countries and they stop buying, then we are going to have an excess supply. The logical reaction of a sound business is to try to cut costs. One way to do that is to reduce employment or to shut down plants, and that is precisely what has happened. The people of British Columbia understand that. The people in the mining industry understand it. They do not understand how someone like the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta can stand in this House and say things that are not in accord with the facts as the people of British Columbia know them.
It does not help build confidence to tell people that things are possible that are not possible. We cannot turn around the demand for lumber, forest products or plywood. We cannot turn around the demand for pulp, which is affecting my area here. Pulp and paper mills have shut down because of reduced demand for newsprint. But where is that newsprint sold, Mr. Speaker? It is sold in other parts of the world, in the U.S., Europe and Japan. But the demand is down and the pulp and paper workers in ridings surrounding mine, especially those in Hull, the Gatineau and further on down the river, have been laid off. But is that the result of what is happening in Canada, or is it the result of the fact that paper is not selling, that newsprint is not being sold in other parts of the world? That is what is happening.
We hear about the Inco shutdowns, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because the products of the mines, which have always been a major export industry, have lost markets in all parts of the world. That does not make the problem any less real, Mr. Speaker. The problem of unemployment is very real, very crucial and very pressing. But it will help in the public debate about realistic solutions if all members of this House couch their criticism, certainly their comments, within the context of basic, fundamental and factual honesty. That does not happen with the opposition very often because they would rather stand up and say the whole thing is the fault of the Government of Canada. They say that if it were doing something differently, there would not be unemployment in the lumber, paper or mining industries.
The executives and workers of those industries know exactly who they sell their products to and what has happened to the demand for those products. They know what has happened to
housing starts in the U.S. and how much Canadian lumber and plywood is shipped there for the construction of houses. They know those facts, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the people who watch what goes on in this House scratch their heads at times and say: "Gee, what those members of the opposition are saying does not jibe with the facts". We know that if the government pumped billions of dollars into programs to increase the production of forest products or other raw materials, we would not be able to sell them. What do we do with them, stockpile them at today's interest rates? That does not make a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker.
World market conditions have to change if we are going to come out of this. But in the meantime we have to try and maintain some semblance of humanity in this country, and that is where our automatic stabilizers come into play. Those stabilizers have contributed to the increase in the deficit, but I defy any member of the opposition to stand up and say that they believe what we should do to reduce or control the deficit or expenditures is to slash away at the automatic stabilizers.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is not true.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Capilano says it is not true. I did not say it was true; I said 1 defy you to stand up and say it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to ask a question. Will he accept one?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member being a friend of mine, I will accept one now.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I thank the hon. member very much for his courtesy, but I noticed in his speech that he has not addressed the very strong and powerful suggestion of the former Auditor General of Canada that if you examine the statutory transfer payments between the provinces and studied the duplication of programs among the 11 different governments, it would take 90 days to remove $5 billion from those transfer payments in the first year and another $5 billion in the second year.
I ask the hon. member if the government has taken this initiative and if it has this study under way.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent suggestion. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board is in the process of examining it right now once the Auditor General put it forward. The former Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, is an acquaintance of mine and my question is: If this was possible, why was it not in his report when he was Auditor General? I am not saying he is wrong, but if it was possible, why was it not in the last report? The Comptroller-General of Canada is putting forward new ideas for program evaluation, but he is not talking about cutting $10 billion out of government spending in a period of 18 months.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is possible.
July 21, 1982


John Leslie Evans: Sure it is possible. Anything is possible. You can shut down the government and save 16 per cent of expenditures right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: The heirs of Genghis Khan over there clap at that, Mr. Speaker, but of course they do not understand the impact that would have on the services that Canadians depend on, such as education, medicare and all these kinds of things. Canadians do not really need such trivial things!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It would not affect them one bit, John.


John Leslie Evans: So I think yes, there has to be an examination of expenditure restraint to bring the deficit down, but I think the main way we are going to get out of the deficit situation is to grow out of it. The way to do that is to help restore confidence and put incentives in place. There are incentives which were brought down in the June 28 budget, and I still stand here today and say that in the November budget there were incentives. Tax rates were cut and the base was broadened. Hon. members argued about that, but I tell them right now, watch for the next six months and President Reagan is going to follow an approach which makes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent).


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster, filibuster!


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect it is sometimes amusing to me when I sit in this House and hear the debate from the other side. Whatever they have to say always has a great deal of thought behind it, yet when we on this side stand up we keep hearing the word "filibuster". I cannot understand that because here we are trying to share with our colleagues on the other side some of our findings. I think it is only fair that we who were elected to the House should also have a chance to speak on this very important matter. I for one will not just be shut up by these people because they yell out "filibuster". I have a few things which I would like to add to this debate, but it is so difficult to say anything here with everyone yelling.


Philip Derek Lewis: You cleared out the galleries.


Gilbert Parent: We had the courtesy to listen to members opposite-I believe they put up a speaker a couple of days ago-but they are not too much interested in the debate we have here right now. Right now we are talking about what I will call proposition six and five, which very simply is that we hope by restraining ourselves to a 6 per cent increase in salaries-and when 1 say "ourselves", I include members of this House, senators and also civil servants-that all the people of Canada will follow our lead and restrain their salary demands. It is very important that we show leadership because we have heard many times in this House people saying that we should indeed take the lead. We are happy to do that at this time.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
What does this mean to federal civil servants? Like many of my colleagues, I have had letters and telegrams from people who say this is not enough; it should not be 5 per cent or 6 per cent, it should be left at zero.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might remind the hon. member that the bill relates to borrowing authority.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am setting out my case to deal with that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: We have a number of members here who would have us say the exact things they want to say, but when they are sitting in this House they have every opportunity to speak so that we know what they are thinking.
Now to the borrowing bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: I thank hon. members on the other side for their encouragement. We are looking at a deficit which is very high, but there are ways this can be explained. As my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), said before, the expenditures that we have had to incur have contributed in great part to the deficit. We have not taken in as much money as we had thought we would in taxes and we have been paying out much more on such things as unemployment insurance benefits.
We hear hon. members on the other side say that we should be cutting. Is this the time to cut the unemployment insurance benefits? Is this the time, when the workers of Canada, the great majority, who have been paying into this fund now find themselves in need of it, to cut it back? These are the people who have been carrying Canada for all these years. Now that they are in need of this particular service, all we hear from the other side is that we should cut back.
I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree that we should be having these great deficits. But there are some things which are out of the control of the government. Yes, there are some things for which we do not have all the answers. Nevertheless, we do put forward suggestions to be tried. Here we believe we have something in which the people of Canada can take part, namely, restraint by all of us.
We have some difficult problems. For example, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway historically have bargained together. We must see to it that as much as possible this historic relationship is kept intact. By the same token, it might be also that the workers in the union which would be getting 9 per cent will be willing to take 6 per cent if they could see this was in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that Bill C-124, the so-called '"six and five" bill, is one that

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
has been dealt with on second reading and is being dealt with now in committee. Could the hon. member enlighten us as to how the $20 billion deficit could be reduced?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to address that question when I get to the end of my pertinent remarks.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If the hon. member continues to occupy his full time, as he is entitled to do under the rules, it will mean that the question will not be put tonight. We have been sitting very patiently while the debate has been carried fully by the government, waiting for the question to be put. Why are the Liberals filibustering their own legislation?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), he is not making a point of order.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) just mentioned something which surprises me very much. He opened the door for me to say that he has asked us to consider reducing the amount in the bill. He knows very well that if we were to vote down the amendment that is on the floor of the House, then we would close the door to his own proposal.
What we are doing is allowing his own proposal to stay alive until tomorrow morning, when we are to have a meeting. He knows about the meeting tomorrow morning. We want to be consistent and respect-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, the last two interventions have hardly been points of order. The hon. member for Welland has the floor.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I have had so many interruptions that I have to reorganize my thoughts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: There have been two interruptions by members on the other side. I appreciate the fact that our beloved House leader has jumped into the fray to help straighten these things out. More times than not, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware having sat in the chair, we have been ready to vote on many things and other members have not showed up. As a matter of fact, they took 16 days off just a little while ago. But that is water under the bridge.
With regard to the borrowing authority, the Government of Canada, in order to carry out the various programs it has in place, needs this borrowing requirement. Members on the other side say that we should be cutting government waste. Yet when we ask where we should be making these cuts, they fly off in all different directions. There are those who say that we could cut government waste by doing away with the famous brief cases. That matter was brought up by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We heard that this would save perhaps $400,000, that it is a lot of money for most people in Canada. I would not call the hon. leader Mr. Joe Briefcase. I reject that being said by anyone in this House. He
is not Mr. Joe Briefcase. He is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and I ask all members here to respect that fact, because it is important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. King:: Be gentle.


Gilbert Parent: I hear the hon. member on the other side saying be gentle. I will be gentle with hon. members. The hon. member is just back from Strasbourg. I welcome him back in the House; we missed him very much. We should be gentle with one another in this House. We should indeed be gentle with our civil servants.
Many people have said that civil servants are the ones who will be carrying all of the burden for the people of Canada by having their increases reduced to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are speaking on Bill C-124 again.


Gilbert Parent: I am bringing this in along with the borrowing bill. We know that the civil servants, by and large, are very strong contributors to the strength of this country. It would be wrong for them solely to bear this burden of taking 6 per cent in one year and 5 per cent in another unless we asked this of all the people of Canada. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if all of the people of Canada do get together and restrain themselves-and I am talking here about Members of Parliament and the Government of Canada-then I am sure we can face this problem that is now weighing so heavily on all of our shoulders. I am sure we can get the solutions that we are going to need.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre who spoke just before me talked about newsprint. Newsprint is of great importance in my riding because we have four paper mills there. I am happy to say that one of the paper mills, Ontario Paper, received a grant from the federal government of $12 million to help it renew its newsprint factory to make it more competitive.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That's more paper for the government.


Gilbert Parent: In my opinion, this is the right direction because it helps to protect our jobs. It helps us in those areas which need help the most.
I would like to address myself to what the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) said today. In the Niagara peninsula, we have many automotive workers; some 8,000 of them work for General Motors and related industries. Today, the decision to let up a little on Japanese cars coming into the country was one which possibly will be well taken by people in other parts of the country. But I can tell hon. members that for us it will mean more hardship until we do have these content rules put in. I would urge hon. members in this House to stick together and see if we can get the answers to lead us out of the morass that we seem to be in. This applies not only to Canada but to many of the western industrialized countries of the world. It will not be done by heckling one another-
July 21, 1982



-shouting insults from one side of the House to the other that we shall find answers to our problems. It is most important that we be able to share solutions to the problems now facing us. It is most important for us as members of Parliament to listen to what each of us has to say, and as one of my colleagues noted, it must also be realized that all the problems cannot be solved by a single group of Canadians, namely public servants.

I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to carry the burden as much as we can. These were the few comments I wanted to interject into this debate. As hon. members were saying earlier, we are always amenable to discussions and to a happy resolution of the problems. We look forward to the vote whenever it comes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!
[ Translation]


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-125 and the amendment moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) to reduce the government's borrowing power. I am going to deal particularly with the amendment because it is the crux of the present debate. In my view, this is just an exercise in futility because it will get us nowhere, and is only a scheme to thwart the financial and borrowing plans of the government, and make this House of Commons lose more time in the fall. In fact, Bill C-125 does not allocate funds or decide whether or not a certain amount can be spent on such and such a program. It only empowers the government to borrow $11 billion. Government expenditure will be studied through the appropriation bill, first in Parliament and then in the Standing Committee that will report to the House for the final vote. So, if the House of Commons does not agree with government expenditures it will not appropriate them. The claim that Bill C-125 will result in huge government expenditures and the attempt to lead us into a debate on government spending, may be politically wise but I think it is important to emphasize that this bill does not appropriate funds. The appropriation of funds is a different process and this bill only gives the government the authority to borrow to cover its deficit. Now, why is the deficit higher or why do we expect it to be higher in the present fiscal year than was expected in November? The answer is simple. Early last winter, depression set in all over the world, particularly the United States and that put pressures on the federal budget in two ways. First, federal revenues decreased significantly. The June 28th budget
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
forecast a reduction of about $6.4 billion. That is because companies and businesses will be making less profit, but also because there will be a lot more unemployed people who will earn less money and, therefore, will pay less income tax.
The second pressure brought to bear on the budget of the federal government has to do with the fact that over the years we have introduced in our system what we call stabilizers, social programs such as unemployment insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan which pays for 50 per cent of ail social assistance in the country. When the economy is in recession, business slows down, unemployment goes up and there are fewer economic activities, with the result that expenditures under those programs automatically increase. That is why they are called stabilizers. So the impact of a recession is that the federal government deficit is bound to grow because revenues are down and some expenditures automatically increase.
Now then, is it sound financial, fiscal and economic management when the government opts for deficit financing during a recession? I for one think so, Mr. Speaker, quite so. First of all, it has been noted that in times of economic doldrums, the savings rate of Canadians rises dramatically. It increases sharply. This year Canadians are setting aside 14 per cent of their income precisely because the economic situation has them worried. When Canadian savings are so high during a period of economic slowdown and all that money is left on deposit with banks, credit unions and trust companies, we cannot expect the private sector to be anxious to use it to spur the economy, if only because in the private sector right now the manufacturing industry, for instance, is operating at barely 55 or 60 per cent of its capacity. Therefore, should we decide to leave these funds in Canadian banks or in the Caisses Populaires, and should the government not borrow any money, no one is assured that this money will really be used to stimulate the economy in order to meet the needs of those groups in our society or in the economy who need attention the most. I think it is wise for the government, as a matter of economic policy, to get involved in the marketplace in times such as those, to grow a deficit and to borrow, because this will stimulate the economy.
In the June 28 budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) proposed to allocate funds to specific areas: housing, through a $3,000 grant to people who will build or buy their first home, direct job-creation programs, on which more than $400 million will be spent, economic development projects for which $300 million will be earmarked; in addition, the government will consider setting up a permanent and structural change within our interest rates policies in order to ensure that small businesses, home owners with mortgage payments, farmers and fishermen will get loans at an interest rate from 3 to 6 percent lower than usual. This will enable the government to redistribute the wealth of our country. By not adopting a high deficit policy in times of recession, I think we would delay

July 21, 1982
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
economic recovery because we must ensure that helpless people are not the only ones to bear the brunt of an economic recession. The federal and provincial governments have the responsibility to find means of stabilizing and reducing the social costs of economic slowdowns.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should not be reluctant to resort to what is called deficit financing, even in times of economic recovery, because a government debt is like an individual debt. We should consider that over the past and present years the government has built up funds that will be made available for public services for years to come. Why then should the wage-earners of 1982 be the only ones to pay for those services through their taxes? I think it is reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to expect the people who will be using those services
later to pay their share and this is why I feel we are entitled to borrow.
Therefore Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition's amendment to restrain the government's borrowing power is absolutely useless and would merely result in our having to introduce another bill in the fall. It is only intended to hinder the financial planning of the government, and accordingly I will vote against the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) I do now adjourn the House until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 22, 1982